    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

             DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2017

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                      HEARINGS

                                     BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                  SECOND SESSION

                        ___________________________________

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

                         JOHN R. CARTER, Texas, Chairman

      JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas			LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
      RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey		DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
      CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee		HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      ANDY HARRIS, Maryland				MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      CHRIS STEWART, Utah
      DAVID YOUNG, Iowa

    NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
    Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
    Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

                   Valerie Baldwin, Kris Mallard, Laura Cylke,
                        Christopher Romig, and Anne Wake,
                                 Staff Assistants

                          ___________________________________

                                      PART 2

                            DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                                                                       Page
      U.S. Department of Homeland Security..
                                                                          1
      U.S. Customs and Border Protection....
                                                                        113
      Transportation Security Administration
                                                                        173
      U.S. Coast Guard......................
                                                                        219
      U.S. Secret Service...................
                                                                        257
      U.S. Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement.............................
                                                                        303

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        ___________________________________

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

        PART 2--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2017

             DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2017

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                     HEARINGS

                                     BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                  SECOND SESSION

                        ___________________________________

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

                         JOHN R. CARTER, Texas, Chairman

      JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas			LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
      RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey		DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
      CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee		HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      ANDY HARRIS, Maryland				MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      CHRIS STEWART, Utah
      DAVID YOUNG, Iowa

    NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
    Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
    Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

                   Valerie Baldwin, Kris Mallard, Laura Cylke,
                        Christopher Romig, and Anne Wake,
                                 Staff Assistants

                        ___________________________________

                                      PART 2

                         DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                                                                       Page
      U.S. Department of Homeland Security..
                                                                          1
      U.S. Customs and Border Protection....
                                                                        113
      Transportation Security Administration
                                                                        173
      U.S. Coast Guard......................
                                                                        219
      U.S. Secret Service...................
                                                                        257
      U.S. Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement.............................
                                                                        303

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               ___________________________________

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                              ___________________________________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    20-679                      WASHINGTON : 2016

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                    ----------
                       HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman

      RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey		NITA M. LOWEY, New York
      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama			MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      KAY GRANGER, Texas				PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
      MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho			JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
      JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas			ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
      ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida			DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
      JOHN R. CARTER, Texas				LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
      KEN CALVERT, California			SAM FARR, California
      TOM COLE, Oklahoma				CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
      MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida		        SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania			BARBARA LEE, California
      TOM GRAVES, Georgia				MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
      KEVIN YODER, Kansas				BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas			STEVE ISRAEL, New York
      JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska			TIM RYAN, Ohio
      THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida			C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
      CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee	        DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
      JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington		HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio				CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
      DAVID G. VALADAO, California			MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
      ANDY HARRIS, Maryland				DEREK KILMER, Washington
      MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
      CHRIS STEWART, Utah
      E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
      DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
      DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
      EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
      STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi

                      William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director

                                       (ii)

            DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2017

                                  ----------

                                          Wednesday, February 24, 2016.

                 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                                    WITNESS

    HON. JEH C. JOHNSON, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
        SECURITY
        Mr. Carter. Good morning. We are going to maybe have others
    coming in a few minutes later, but we are going to begin this
    hearing right now, and we may be joined by others of our
    colleagues in a few minutes. As this hearing is called to
    order, I would like to welcome everyone to this first hearing
    of the Department of Homeland Security fiscal year 2017
    President's budget request.
        Mr. Secretary, it is good to have you here. We are going to
    have an interesting conversation. By the way, I understand we
    have several members of the Tunisian Parliament who are
    observing the proceedings today as guests of Mr. Price and the
    State Department. Welcome to each of you. We are glad you are
    here. I have visited your country, and I enjoyed it very much.
    I was given good hospitality, and I hope we give good
    hospitality to you while you are here.
        Mr. Secretary, because we enjoy a relationship that is
    candid and built on mutual respect, I am going to get right to
    the point and tell you that I am pretty disappointed in the
    budget submission. As you know, the budget of $40.6 billion, a
    decrease of $381.3 million from last year, it is not the amount
    of the request that worries me; it is the intellectually
    dishonest and politically insensitive gimmicks included in the
    request.
        Right off the bat, the request creates a $908.8 million
    hole by assuming offsets from new, unauthorized TSA fees. I
    mean, this is not the first time we have talked about these
    fees. They are like a bad penny, they keep turning up, turning
    up, turning up. It shortchanges the statutory minimum of 34,000
    detention beds by more than 3,087, a gap of roughly $142
    million. It slashes FEMA's State Homeland Security and UASI
    grant program by $537 million, a reckless cut given ISIS'
    pledge to launch and inspire more attacks on the U.S.
        It reduces the Border Patrol staffing by 300 agents on the
    grounds that attrition rates exceed new agent hires. While this
    is a fact, DHS has yet to present any analysis that supports
    the assertion that a staff cut will not increase risks to the
    CBP mission to secure the border. At Secret Service, the budget
    fails to include $10 million in change-of-station costs, which
    assures the agents get a respite from the grind of VIP
    protection, something we all agree is necessary to improve
    morale.
        I have other questions about your budget priorities, for
    example, the request to buy back hundreds of millions of
    dollars of cuts made last year for staff positions that are not
    filled today. It includes $150 million for a lengthy design
    process for a new Coast Guard heavy icebreaker, of which only
    $25 million can be obligated in fiscal year 2017. While I
    believe that we need a new heavy icebreaker, this funding
    request precedes a sound procurement funding strategy.
        More than $225 million is requested for a new FEMA
    headquarters at St. Elizabeths. Does this building really
    outweigh the need to secure the border and provide Homeland
    Security antiterrorism programs?
        I am somewhat comfortable with the $250 million increase
    proposed for cybersecurity enhancements, but not if the
    majority of the funds are for increases to personnel.
        So, Mr. Secretary, I hope I have been clear that this
    request is a major disappointment after last year. To be fair,
    I do appreciate your continued emphasis on management reform,
    better requirements analysis, improved budget justification,
    and a commitment to institutionalizing joint operations across
    DHS components. I look forward to hearing what you learned from
    the new common appropriation structure you adopted this year,
    and I appreciate the level of effort made to undertake changes.
    For that, I would like to recognize Mrs. Roybal-Allard, our
    distinguished ranking member, for any opening remarks she may
    wish to make.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
    morning, Mr. Secretary, and welcome. I also would like to
    extend my welcome to the delegation from Tunisia. Let me begin
    by noting your leadership in helping the Department mature as
    an institution. It is clear to me that today, under your
    stewardship, the Department is more integrated and better
    focused than ever on the critical areas of planning, budgeting,
    joint requirements and acquisition best practices.
        As you know, for the fiscal year 2017 appropriations
    process and beyond, we will be working within a very tight
    fiscal constraint, so that kind of institutional rigor from the
    Department is definitely needed.
        The fiscal year 2017 net discretionary budget request for
    the Department of Homeland Security is $40.57 billion. This
    does not include an additional $6.7 billion in disaster relief
    funding, which is an adjustment to the discretionary cap. The
    total is nearly $400 million below the current year funding
    level. This is obtained, in large part, by proposing
    significant cuts to preparedness grants, and I am deeply
    concerned about these proposed cuts and the signal it sends to
    State and local jurisdictions, which need the Federal
    Government to be consistent in its level of support in order to
    plan and budget for the future.
        Mr. Secretary, some areas in which we have disagreed deal
    with the appropriate enforcement of immigration law. I will
    discuss some of those issues this morning, but I have certainly
    appreciated your willingness to listen to my concern and that
    of other members and take steps to address some of them. For
    nearly every other mission area of the Department, Mr.
    Secretary, I think you are providing excellent leadership.
    There is still a lot of work to do, but it seems clear to me
    that good progress is being made. I look forward to your
    testimony and our discussion today, and I look forward to
    continuing to work with you this year in support of the
    Department's important missions. I yield back.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Ms. Roybal-Allard. I guess now, Mr.
    Secretary, we will hear what you have got to say.

                      Opening Statement: Secretary Johnson

        Secretary Johnson. Chairman Judge Carter, Ranking Member
    Roybal-Allard, and distinguished members of this committee, and
    our distinguished visitors from the Tunisian legislature, I,
    too, want to give you a special welcome. I visited Tunisia in
    2012 with the Secretary of Defense. It was very hot that day.
        The President's fiscal year 2017 budget request for the
    Department of Homeland Security reflects hard choices to fit
    within the caps established by the bipartisan budget agreement
    of 2015, but at the end of the day, it funds all of our vital
    Homeland Security missions in these challenging times. The
    President's budget request calls for, as the chairman noted,
    $40.6 billion in appropriated funds, compared to $41 billion
    currently in fiscal year 2016, but an increase in total
    spending authority to $66.8 billion, compared to $64.8 billion
    last year. And to be clear, that increase depends in part on
    the funding from fee increases, as the chairman has noted. We
    have submitted language to our authorizers to bring that about.
        Total workforce requested is 229,626, compared to 226,157
    in the current fiscal year, accompanied by an overall workforce
    pay increase of 1.6 percent. Like this year, the President's
    budget request calls for $6.7 billion, to finance the cost of
    major disasters in FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, and the ability
    to collect fees of $19.5 billion, compared to $17.1 billion
    this year.
        The budget request funds all of our vital home security
    missions. It includes $5.1 billion for transportation screening
    operations; $1.6 billion, an increase of more than $200 million
    to fund our vital cybersecurity mission, including increased
    investments in the continuous diagnostic mitigation program;
    $1.9 billion for the Secret Service; $319 million to cover the
    costs associated with unaccompanied children and families who
    cross the border illegally; $1.1 billion for a recapitalization
    of the U.S. Coast Guard's assets, including a sizeable
    investment in the Nation's future arctic capability; and $226
    million for continued investment in the construction of a
    future DHS headquarters at St. Elizabeths.
        Like last year, reforming the way in which the Department
    of Homeland Security functions and conducts its business to
    more effectively and efficiently deliver our services to the
    American people is my top overarching objective for 2016. We
    have done a lot in the last 2 years, as the ranking member
    noted, but there is still much more to do, which I intend to do
    this year. There are still too many stovepipes and
    inefficiencies in the Department of Homeland Security.
        The centerpiece of our management reform efforts has been
    the unity of effort initiative I launched in April 2014, which
    focuses on getting away from stovepipes in favor of a more
    centralized programming process when it comes to budgets and
    acquisition. My overarching goal as Secretary is to continue to
    protect the homeland, and leave the Department of Homeland
    Security a better place than I found it. I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              BUDGETARY PRIORITIES

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Before we start, we
    are really crammed on time up here on this dais. Almost every
    one of us have two or three hearings that are going on almost
    simultaneously with this hearing, so we are going to ask,
    please, that let's try to limit ourselves to the 5-minute rule
    so that maybe we can get more rounds, and some of us can go
    other places where we need to be. We are all challenged,
    including me, the chairman.
        Secretary Johnson, your fiscal year 2017 budget request
    reflects a reduction of $381 million from the enacted level of
    fiscal year 2016. When you factor in the adjustments for
    increased salary and benefits, some dramatic reductions to
    priority programs, and the unauthorized fee proposal of over
    $900 million, the reduction is really over $3 billion. Given
    the limits on nondefense discretionary spending imposed by the
    budget agreement, the proposed increases will have to be
    scrutinized and most probably cut. Based on the top line number
    provided by the budget resolution, the Appropriations Committee
    will have to find almost $2 billion within your budget to
    address the gaps your request has created. Of the requested
    included in the budget, what are your priorities: buying back
    operational staff cuts, St. Elizabeths, the icebreaker? Give us
    some indication.
        Secretary Johnson. Chairman, you note correctly that we
    have to live within the agreed-upon budget caps for
    nondiscretionary, nondefense spending. We have proposed a fee
    increase, which requires authorization from Congress, and we
    have submitted that language, so that we get to the overall
    spending authorization of $66.8 billion, all of which I believe
    is necessary.
        Chairman, my immediate priorities are aviation security,
    border security, cybersecurity, and taking care of the Secret
    Service and making sure that they are adequately staffed, they
    are adequately funded, and they are implementing the reforms
    recommended for the Secret Service in December 2014. I also
    believe it is critical that we continue our efforts to
    recapitalize the Coast Guard. It is the oldest fleet of vessels
    that I know of any navy in the world. With the good support of
    Congress, we are well on the way to do that.
        My overall every day immediate priority is protection of
    the homeland. We want to build a headquarters. We need to build
    a headquarters. That is a long-term investment. So in any
    budget discussion like this, inevitably, the discussion turns
    to shouldn't we trade off your longer-term investment strategy
    for your immediate investment strategy. I don't think that is
    the way to look at it. I think that with the money that was
    appropriated for St. Elizabeths this year, and the money we
    have asked for for next year, we are actually going to get
    there faster. It is going to cost the taxpayer less to build us
    a new headquarters, and we need a new headquarters.
        I will tell you that the place we have been for 13 years
    now was always intended to be temporary, and there are real
    shortfalls and curbs on our ability at the headquarters to do
    our jobs, to manage a 225,000-person workforce, in the place we
    are housed right now. I say that after having spent 4 years
    working in the Pentagon and, you know, just finding SCIF
    [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility] space, for
    example, or dealing with our communications and the like. It is
    very, very hard to work up on Nebraska Avenue for me. I say
    that on my own behalf and the future Secretary.
        So I am hopeful, and I urge Congress to make that long-term
    investment in St. Elizabeths, but I very clearly do have my
    immediate Homeland Security needs that we have asked for. So
    that is how I see it, sir.
        Mr. Carter. You know, Mr. Secretary, on this fee situation,
    you know as well as I do, you have been around here long enough
    to know that--and I understand budget gimmicks. We see them
    every day. But the reality is, the chances of getting an
    authorization through Congress and signed by the President for
    these fees this year are between slim and none, and it doesn't
    take anybody that has been around here very long to know that
    our authorizers on the homeland side have real challenges in
    what they can and can't get done, and I praise them for the
    good work that they do within the major jurisdictional bounds
    that they have got issues with.
        And the practical sense is that this year, and even more so
    a presidential year, there is not going to be any chance that
    those fees are going to be authorized. So we have got a hole,
    and we have either got to plug that hole, and we are going to
    do what we are going to do, and you know that because we have
    worked with you before.
        But let me shift gears and ask one more question. Have I
    overused my time? Yep. I will come back. I will stick to the 5-
    minute rule. Hit me with an elbow.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.

             U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE: HIGH-RISK LIST

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Secretary, the Department of
    Homeland Security has been on GAO's high-risk list since 2003,
    which was shortly after the Department was established, and
    this is an acknowledgment of just how difficult it is to
    establish a new department. Particularly in the last few years
    under your leadership, DHS has made progress in addressing the
    weaknesses identified by GAO, some of which you noted in your
    opening statement. Would you care to elaborate on where you
    have addressed these weaknesses and what more you are doing,
    and do you expect to be off the high-risk list by the next 2017
    high-risk report?
        Secretary Johnson. Congresswoman, as you have noted, we
    have made good progress to get off the high-risk list. Just in
    the last 26 months that I have been Secretary, this has been a
    top priority of mine. One of the charges of our new Under
    Secretary--he is not so new anymore. It has been almost a
    year--but one of the charges to the Under Secretary for
    Management is to get us off the high-risk list. Every year we
    make progress. In fact, GAO has noted that DHS is a model for
    how to get off the high-risk list. There are a lot of
    departments and agencies on the high-risk list. We got on it
    simply by virtue of our creation in 2003, and my goal is to
    have all of those deficiencies resolved by the time I leave
    office, which I expect is in 332 days. I am not counting.
        But every day I ask about this. For example, one of the
    issues we have had or are having is resolving all the different
    financial systems we had within DHS, getting them synchronized,
    getting them to function better so that my CFO [Chief Financial
    Officer] over here knows how to count the dollars. We have made
    a lot of progress in that regard. I am also very proud of the
    fact that for the second year in a row, our outside auditors
    have given us a clean, unqualified opinion. That is something
    that other very, very large departments of our government have
    not achieved yet in their multidecade history, not naming any
    names, but I am very proud of that fact. And so we continue on
    this road, and I think we are going to end up in a very, very
    good place by the time I leave office.

             U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE: EINSTEIN REPORT

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. The GAO recently issued a report on the
    national cybersecurity protection system, also known as
    EINSTEIN, and the report was somewhat critical, and I know that
    you took issue with some of its conclusions. What do you think
    the GAO report got right and what did it get wrong?
        Secretary Johnson. I hope the members of this committee saw
    the statement that I issued after the GAO report came out. I
    agree with much of what GAO says, but, GAO, in my view, did not
    adequately note all the progress we have made to cover the
    entire Federal civilian system over the last 12 months or so.
    Last May, only about 20 percent of the Federal civilian.gov
    system was covered by EINSTEIN 3A, which has the ability to
    block intrusions. I gave a charge to my staff that I want at
    least one aspect of EINSTEIN 3A available to every department
    and agency across the civilian and Federal Government by the
    end of last year, and then we met that deadline. And it is my
    goal, before I leave office this year, that all Federal
    departments and agencies across the civilian.gov system will
    have the EINSTEIN 3A system online. We are on target to do
    that. That is a mandate in the new cybersecurity law as well.
        The other thing I will note is that EINSTEIN 3A has the
    ability to block known, unwanted intrusions, known intrusions,
    known bad actors, known bad signatures. It provides a platform
    for a future technology to block suspicious or suspected bad
    signatures. So that is a virtue of Einstein 3A. Currently it
    can block known signatures that are bad, but in the future we
    want technology to block suspected as well. That was something
    GAO noted, and it has the potential to do that.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I have a few more seconds, so I just
    want to ask one follow-up question. It has to do with the
    Department's cybersecurity mission through NPPD. It is focused
    not only on Federal Departments and agencies, but also on State
    and local governments and the private sector, and the recently
    enacted Cybersecurity Act included liability protections for
    private sector companies when they share information with the
    Federal Government about cybersecurity threats. How has this
    new liability protection been received by the private sector,
    and are you seeing a greater willingness to partner with DHS on
    information sharing?
        Secretary Johnson. We are in the implementation phase right
    now. Congress gave us firm deadlines for implementing this,
    which we are meeting. I would say that, given that the law was
    passed in late December, it is a little too early to tell, but
    I do know that liability protection was something we heard over
    and over again that the private sector wanted, and we have met
    that need, so it is a little too early to tell at this point,
    ma'am.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

                         URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE

        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to
    welcome a fellow New Jersey resident, the Secretary here this
    morning, and thank you for the leadership you have provided
    that Department and the tens and thousands or hundreds of
    thousands of employees who do some pretty remarkable things.
        You and I come from a region, although you have a
    responsibility for the entire Nation, which experienced
    September 11, 2001. And may I say to our Tunisian guests, we
    know that you suffered a similar tragedy, and when your country
    is attacked, that there has to be a response. Part of our
    American response for our region was what we call UASI, the
    Urban Area Security Initiative. Many of us feel, and I am sure
    you have felt the heat from both the House and Senate, that
    some of those reductions would have some consequences. Could
    you briefly describe how you reached those decisions and
    whether there is a possibility of some reconsideration? Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Johnson. Congressman, the UASI grants and the
    State-level grants are, in my judgment, very important to our
    vital Homeland Security mission. I have seen firsthand at
    active shooter training exercises, like the one I visited in
    New York City in November and the one I visited a couple weeks
    ago in Miami, the importance of our funding. It goes for
    communications equipment, police overtime, surveillance
    equipment, and active shooter training. The current budget
    request again reflects hard choices to live within the budget
    caps agreed to between the executive branch and the legislative
    branch. I support this. I support this request. Ultimately, it
    is up to appropriators to, in your wisdom, make a determination
    about what you think are the appropriate levels, but we had to
    make some hard choices and those are reflected in the current
    request.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Indeed, I am sure with the chairman's
    leadership, we will make some of those choices. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Price. And Mr. Price, thank you for
    including our friends from Tunisia in this hearing today.

                        IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: POLICY

        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to welcome
    our friends from the Tunisian parliament, and we will look
    forward to meeting with them later today under the auspices of
    the House Democracy Partnership. We are very, very glad to have
    you here.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome to you. It's good to see you again,
    and I commend you, again, for the leadership you have shown at
    the Department. I want to give you a chance, in fact, to talk
    about one of the most difficult and contentious areas that we
    know you are dealing with, and that is, immigration
    enforcement. You have made a hallmark of your leadership
    focusing enforcement, focusing deportation on criminal elements
    and the people who most pose a threat to this country. That is
    something that I stressed as chairman and ranking member of
    this subcommittee, and we all have a stake in seeing that focus
    effectively implemented.
        That was the idea, of course, originally of Secure
    Communities, but as you well know, the implementation of secure
    communities was not as focused as it might have been and gave
    way, I think appropriately, to the Priority Enforcement Program
    which you have led in implementing.
        I know in your full statement here, you have a discussion
    of this, and I want to give you a chance to articulate that
    here in open session. You say that now you are to the point
    where the percentage of those in detention is about 85 percent
    of the people who are the top priority for removal, and I want
    to know exactly what that means. I do think there is an
    ambiguity here, and I want to get you to talk about it, because
    we do have these recent arrivals from Central America, many of
    them children, women, people who are fleeing terrible
    conditions, and there has been some question, as you know,
    about the access of these people to a full hearing that will
    let them make the case for refugee status.
        And there have also been questions, including a very high-
    profile case in my own district, of these individuals being
    targeted for deportation. These anecdotes are not
    representative probably of the overall picture. At the same
    time, they are real cases. They are real people, and they
    often, it doesn't take too many of these cases to have a real
    contagion effect I think in the immigrant community. This
    particular case was a young man, a recent arrival, who was
    eligible for apprehension and detention, eventual deportation,
    picked up on his way to school. Raises questions about--and, of
    course, he is not in that criminal element or anywhere near it.
    Yet it does raise questions about who is in this category of
    priorities for deportation and how are these cases handled.
        So I would appreciate your addressing that sort of
    situation, but more than that, I want you to talk about your
    assessment of how successful you have been in getting this
    focus implemented on people who really should be deported and
    who do pose a danger?
        Secretary Johnson. Congressman, thank you for that
    question. I tell audiences, Democrats and Republicans, that
    immigration and enforcement policy has to be two sides of the
    same coin. On the one hand, those who have been in this country
    for years, who have committed no serious crimes, who have
    children who are U.S. citizens, or who are lawfully present
    here, are not priorities for removal, and we don't have the
    resources to remove them. On the other hand, there are those,
    as you noted, who are threats to public safety, convicted
    criminals, and our new policy that we announced in November
    2014 makes a sharper, more concerted effort to focus on that
    population of undocumented, removable individuals.
        At the same time, we are also focused on border security,
    and that same policy that I wrote in November 2014 says those
    apprehended at the border are in Priority 1 for removal, and
    Priority 2 are those who, while not apprehended at the border,
    came into this country illegally after January 1, 2014.
        So there is the public safety aspect of our new policy, but
    there is also the border security aspect. We have to keep our
    borders under control, in my view. And that will mean interior
    enforcement against those who have been ordered removed by an
    immigration court; their appeal time has run; and they have no
    pending asylum claim. Those people are priorities for removal,
    and we have to enforce the law consistent with our removal
    priorities.
        In terms of the convicted criminals, you noted secure
    communities. We saw an increasing level of resistance among
    State and local law enforcement to cooperating with our
    immigration enforcement personnel with respect to secure
    communities. Something like 14,000 detainers were not acted
    upon by sheriffs and local law enforcement around the country
    in, I think, fiscal 2014, and that was creating a real public
    safety problem for us, releasing dangerous removable criminals
    to the streets so that our immigration enforcement people have
    to round them up all over again.
        So we put in place, as you know, the Priority Enforcement
    Program to replace Secure Communities, which I believe resolves
    the legal and political controversy. We have seen, so far,
    pretty good acceptance of the program.
        Of the 25 largest jurisdictions that were not working with
    us on Secure Communities, 16 have now come online to work with
    us with the new program. That is good for public safety.
        In terms of the anecdotes you referred to, sir, I hear them
    too. Very often, our enforcement personnel, they run them down,
    and they find that the facts were not quite as the rumors
    suggested. But one of the reasons for the statement that I
    issued in early February was to note, first of all, that the
    numbers of those apprehended on the southern border have gone
    down significantly since the beginning of the year, but also to
    make clear to the public, again, who are not priorities for
    removal. And our folks in ICE and at headquarters are working
    on reiterating also our sensitive location guidance for the
    public, to reiterate the places where our people will not go to
    apprehend undocumented immigrants, and it is in the works right
    now, sir.
        Mr. Price. I know my time is expired. I want to return to
    this, but thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Price.
        Mr. Fleischmann.

                          COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM

        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
    good morning, sir. Mr. Secretary, as you know, I represent the
    Third District of Tennessee. My hometown is Chattanooga. Before
    I ask some questions, I wanted to personally thank you and the
    Department. Our community went through a terrible terrorist
    attack, a homegrown terrorist attack last year. We lost five
    valiant service members, four Marines, one sailor. The sense of
    personal loss was horrible. The community suffered a great
    sadness. But your call that day and the Department's response
    to my requests in the days and weeks afterwards were much
    appreciated, and I want to report to you that Chattanooga is a
    strong, resilient city. We are Chattanooga strong, but, again,
    thank you for your concern and outreach to us, sir.
        It is in that response that I am going to ask some
    questions. It has been made abundantly clear by that attack
    that we live in a very dangerous world, that there are real
    threats out there, and that we are all in this together. I
    think it is so important that we work together to thwart any of
    these threats. I hope we never have to see anything like that
    again.
        In fiscal year 2016, Mr. Secretary, Congress provided $50
    million above the request from DHS to help States and local
    communities prepare for, prevent, and respond to emerging
    threats from violent extremism and from complex coordinated
    attacks. The fiscal year 2017 request includes $49 million to
    create a grant program for CVE.
        I have a three-part question, and in the interest of time,
    I will go in order. What is the Department's overall strategy
    for countering violent extremism like that which led to the
    attack in Chattanooga? My second question is how does DHS plan
    to use the $50 million provided in fiscal year 2016, and the
    new grant program proposed in fiscal year 2017 to support these
    initiatives? And my third question, Mr. Secretary, is what
    goals and metrics will DHS use to determine the effectiveness
    of these programs, sir?
        Secretary Johnson. Congressman, those are all good
    questions. And what happened in July in Chattanooga is a
    reflection of the new type of terrorist threat we face where
    lone actors, or actors in pairs, could strike at any moment in
    almost any community around the country. I believe, therefore,
    that our engaging communities across the country, and, in
    particular, Muslim communities across the country, in cities
    like Chattanooga or San Bernardino or Minneapolis or Boston or
    Houston, or wherever, are critical, and I want to take it to a
    new level. We have been visiting a lot of these communities as
    much as we can.
        I have personally gone to about a dozen cities for our CVE
    purposes to engage communities, build bridges, hear what they
    have to say, and encourage them to cooperate with State and
    local law enforcement, but we want to take it to a new level.
    This is the overall strategy. We want to take it to a new level
    where we encourage the tech sector to help Muslim leaders, in
    particular, with the counter message, the message to counter
    the message of recruitment of the Islamic State.
        We also want to help a lot of these communities with
    resources, support their local activities. This can't all occur
    at the Federal level. That was the reason that I requested the
    $50 million in 2016, and we are requesting the $49 million in
    2017. It is for use at the local level with resources and
    programs, to engage youth, to help them steer their energies in
    a different direction. I think this is a vital Homeland
    Security mission given the current global terrorist threat that
    we face.
        In terms of the goals for success, the metrics for success,
    that is a little difficult to measure because we are not always
    in a position to know who was deterred from going on the wrong
    path. My metrics for success are how many different potentially
    affected communities can we touch across the country? My
    personal goal is to visit every major metropolitan area in this
    country that has a significant Muslim population, which I think
    I am on the way to doing. But building bridges to these
    communities and seeing that countermessage amplified locally
    and nationally and internationally are my basic metrics for
    success. I do appreciate that we are seeing, on a bipartisan
    basis, Republicans and Democrats in Congress supportive of our
    CVE efforts through appropriations and through authorizations.
    I do appreciate that.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar.

                   IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: OPERATION PHALANX

        Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and ranking member
    also. Mr. Secretary, thank you for the job that you do. I know
    it is a difficult job. On one side, my colleagues, the
    Republicans, say that you are deporting too many people, and on
    my side, the Democrats are saying you are deporting too many
    people, not enough, maybe too much.
        So I understand your job is very difficult, and I
    appreciate the good job that you are doing. I also appreciate
    you were down there in Laredo this weekend. Mr. Chairman, he
    was there. He did the Washington Birthday celebration, walked
    the whole parade on the streets of Laredo. We just didn't have
    the music behind us, but he walked the streets of Laredo, and
    thank you. You were there to open the first preclearance of
    Mexican Customs being in the U.S. territory to preclear cargo,
    so we actually have Mexican Customs in our territory, first
    one. We started this 4\1/2\ years ago under President
    Calderone, and I am glad that you were able to finish this
    program, and we want to thank you so much for doing that.
        The other part that I want to say is I do support the work
    that you are doing on deportation. It is hard. I support full
    immigration reform. But, again, if we don't enforce an
    immigration order after all the appeals have gone through, and
    they have had their day in court, then why do we need Border
    Patrol? Why do we need immigration judges and members? As you
    know we added moneys, 55 new immigration judges this last year.
    Why do we have detention centers? As you know, I added some
    language to have transparency to make sure that whoever is
    there is treated with respect and dignity and provided the care
    once they are in our hands. I just wanted to say that I know
    that is a very difficult issue. Some people attack you on one
    side, and the other side they will attack you. But, again, I
    appreciate your measured approach to this very difficult time.
        I do have two questions: One has to do with the Cubans
    coming in, but I will save those for the next--I assume we are
    going to have another question on that. I will save that
    because, as you know, in the last 2 years out of the 67,000
    Cubans that have come in, 47,000 have come through the Port of
    Laredo, but I will save that for the next one.
        I want to talk to you about the letter that Governor Abbott
    and myself sent. I thank you for your response. I do want to
    follow up on this, but I know that on your statement, you put
    there that the unaccompanied kids and the families have gone
    down 65 percent from December of 2015 to January of 2016, a 1-
    month difference.
        Again, that is always good news. The numbers I was actually
    looking at, Mr. Secretary, were 4 months, from 2015, October 1,
    2015 to the end of January; and then compare it to the same 4
    months of fiscal year 2016. Actually, the numbers are an
    increase of 171 percent for family units, and for unaccompanied
    kids, it is 102 percent. Pure numbers, in fiscal year 2015, we
    had 9,000 families, and fiscal year 2016 it went up to 24,000.
    This is only those 4 months. And for unaccompanied kids for
    those 4 months, from 10,015 to 20,000-plus.
        So, again, I appreciate the numbers you are using for 1-
    month difference, but I would like to look more at a trend,
    and, again, the trend that you pointed out it is important.
        The question I have is the letter that Governor Abbott and
    I sent, and, again, we will follow-up at a different time, but
    we thought it was a 50 percent cut in National Guard aerial
    support. You're saying it is a 5 percent. I want to sit down
    and work this out with you and get this cleared up. But I do
    want to thank you, but do you have any thoughts on Operation
    Phalanx? And again, I appreciate your good work.
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir. A couple of things. First, as
    Congressman Cuellar noted, I was at the 119-year-old
    International Bridge Ceremony in Laredo, Texas, last Saturday.
    It is a quite remarkable ceremony where two kids from the U.S.
    side and two children from the Mexican side walk across the
    bridge, meet midway at the bridge, and hug each other, followed
    by us grownups. And afterward, there is a huge parade in
    Laredo, Texas, and the Congressman and I participated in it. I
    said, Henry, why don't we walk? He said I haven't done that
    since I was 12 years old. We walked. We must have encountered
    probably 10,000 people that day. He said something to me that I
    still remember, which is ``These people want immigration
    reform, but they also want the border kept under control.'' And
    I said, ``Well, I am with them.'' So it was a great day. I can
    attest that Congressman Cuellar is extremely popular in Laredo,
    Texas. I was basking in his glow during that parade.
        The numbers of migrants apprehended on our southern border,
    I look at every single day. First thing, along with my daily
    intelligence report, I get this report right here. And you are
    correct, Congressman, that compared to the fall of 2014, the
    fall of 2015 was much higher. That is absolutely correct. I
    drew the contrast between December 2015 and January 2016
    because the numbers in the fall of 2015 were rising, and they
    fell off sharply at the beginning of the year as reflected in
    this chart right here, the blue line. That trend has continued
    in February 2016 on a daily basis. I look at this every single
    day, and I look at it 12 different ways. The numbers for
    January and February 2016 are almost exactly like they were in
    January and February 2015. That is a good thing.
        But there is always the seasonal uptick. We can count on
    the seasonal increase in the spring, which we have to watch and
    we have to be prepared for. I am just glad that the numbers
    fell off sharply at the beginning of the year. No one wants to
    see, for humanitarian reasons and for resource reasons, another
    crisis like we had in the summer of 2014.
        In terms of the flight hours, I do believe it is important
    to look at the big picture. Over the last 5, 10 years, CBP
    itself has added much to its own capability in terms of flight
    hours, in terms of other resources at the border, such that we
    were able to give back to DOD [the Department of Defense] about
    half of what they had been giving to us over the last 6 years
    in flight hours. The overall decrease in flight hours was about
    5 or 4 percent, but that is alongside a lot of other additions
    we have made to border security since Operation Phalanx
    started.
        So I hope I have answered your question. I am happy to have
    a further discussion with you on that. I have more detailed
    numbers right here.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
        Mr. Carter. Dr. Harris.

                               H-2B VISA PROCESS

        Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Your plate is obviously full. Your Department has a
    tremendously important mission. And I am just going to focus on
    one of those little areas that is forgotten about. It is a
    follow-up actually, I think, to what we talked about last year,
    and that is the H-2B visa process. In my district, as I am sure
    in areas of New Jersey where you have a lot of seasonal
    employees, our businesses depend on these workers. I mean, they
    depend on them. They depend on the government working smoothly
    with them to enforce the law, and to provide those workers so
    critical to them. And as we know, each H-2B visa that is issued
    actually improves our economy. Now on page No. 1 of your budget
    submission, it says that the goal of the Department has wide-
    ranging operations that keep our Nation safe and prosperous. I
    am sure you agree with that?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Harris. But part of the prosperity is try to get our
    GDP growth above 2 percent, and if our Federal bureaucracy is
    impeding that growth, making our employers, as they are in my
    district, suffer--look, part of the problem is not yours. It is
    that you are one of the three silos that affect H-2B visas. You
    have got the Department of Labor. You have got your Department.
    You have got State Department. And, you know, I criticized your
    Department last year when the Department of Labor decided on
    that court case that eventually was stayed. When they decided
    to stop taking applications, I criticized your Department for
    stopping to take applications, too, because I understand that
    silo isn't doing its job, but I criticized it.
        Now this year--and you know what happened last year;
    inadequate number of first half-year visas were issued. Those
    are the people who are going to work in my district, whether it
    is processing seafood, whether it is a seasonal employment,
    tourism industry, whatever, and they were upset, and they were
    justifiably upset.
        So let's fast forward. Omnibus bill gets passed. Clear
    language in the Omnibus bill. It can't get clearer. I mean, I
    am quoting from it: Workers who worked in the last 3 years
    shall not, again, be counted toward such limitation during
    fiscal year 2016. It doesn't say following enactment of this
    bill. It says during fiscal year 2016. And yet, the Department
    has issued the guidance that this only counts for applications
    pending after December 18, the signature of the bill.
        Wow. You can't get clearer language of intent of Congress
    that this was going back to the policy back in the early 2000s.
    This is a clear parallel, and the Department decided that they
    were going to--pardon my expression--screw the employers who
    applied before December 18 or those people in the first half of
    the year, by disregarding any recurring applicant during that
    time from counting toward--removing them from counting toward
    the cap.
        So I have got to ask you, does the Department intend on not
    counting those applicants who are returning workers with
    pending applications for December 18 toward the cap? What is
    the deal? I mean, the intent of Congress seems clear.
        Secretary Johnson. Congressman, you asked me a very
    precise, specific question that sitting here right now, I can't
    give you an informed answer to.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, and I appreciate your honesty. Look,
    we are talking about all the immigration things and Homeland
    Security. I don't expect you honestly, Mr. Secretary, to know
    that, but could you get back to me about that?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes. You are asking a very legitimate,
    informed, intelligent question, so I do want to give you, or
    try to give you a legitimate answer.
        [The information follows:]

        Representative Harris. Thank you, and I appreciate your honesty.
    Look, we are talking about all the immigration things and Homeland
    Security. I don't expect you honestly, Mr. Secretary, to know that, but
    could you get back to me about that?
        Secretary Johnson. Yeah. You are asking a very legitimate,
    informed, intelligent question, so I do want to give you, or try to
    give you a legitimate answer.
        RESPONSE: Changes to the law generally are applied to cases pending
    on or after the date of enactment, unless Congress expressly provides a
    retroactive or a delayed effective date. The previously enacted
    returning worker provisions expressly made them retroactive to the
    start of the fiscal year, although they were enacted after that date,
    and were implemented accordingly. See sec. 402(b) of Div. B, Title IV
    of P.L. 109-13 and sec. 1074(c) of Div. A, Title X of P.L. 109-364.
    There is no such effective date language, however, in the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113). Therefore, the returning
    worker provision is not applied retroactively to H-2B petitions
    adjudicated before the December 18, 2015, date of enactment.
        Further, 402(a) of Div. B, Title IV of P.L. 109-13 provided a
    waiver of the certification requirement in INA 214(g)(9)(B)(iii). The
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, did not contain any provision
    that would allow petitioners seeking returning workers to forego the
    statutorily mandated certification requirement.
        United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has
    created a process to assist employers who had petitions pending or
    approved on or after December 18, 2015, but did not certify H-2B
    beneficiaries as returning workers. This process allows H-2B employers
    to redesignate certain H-2B beneficiaries as returning workers until
    March 4, 2016, and enables USCIS to deduct numbers that had already
    been ``charged'' against the H-2B cap.

        Mr. Harris. Thank you. I would appreciate it if you would
    get back to me because on page 71 in the U.S. CIS section of
    your budget, it says that the service to the public of this is
    to provide accurate and useful information to its customers. I
    am going to ask you in your perception, who is the customer of
    the H2B program?
        Secretary Johnson. The users of the visas, but I suspect
    also probably their employers.
        Mr. Harris. Their employers. So I would ask you because if
    you go to your Web site right now, it seems to indicate that
    the cap has been reached by numbers this first half of the
    year, and yet, you don't have the data about returning workers
    yet. That is not useful and accurate information to your
    customers, and I understand how it is hard because you have got
    to depend upon State to get back to you and all the rest.
        But, Mr. Secretary, I just beg you, please, respect the
    intent of Congress here. Reverse the devastation to these
    industries that occurred last year because of this. And
    Congress is clear. We think that the returning workers should
    not count toward these. I will just ask you to get back to me
    on whether or not this December 18 guideline is true, that you
    are not going to count returning workers if their applications
    were pending then, and whether or not when the employers submit
    their certifications about returning workers on March 4,
    whether you are going to just allow all those returning worker
    certifications for the whole fiscal year to do that, to not
    count.
        And then finally, has the management of the cap
    estimation--and, again, I understand we are working three
    silos. You depend upon something downstream to give you
    feedback. You have got to improve that process somehow. Tell us
    if there is anything we can do to improve it so that we just
    follow the letter of the law. I mean, it is just that simple.
    My employers, they are willing to do whatever it takes to
    follow the letter of the law, but they are incredibly
    frustrated by a moving target.
        And what we are providing, as you can understand when you
    estimate that, for instance, your estimate of caps appears for
    this first--not to have taken into account any returning. And
    the estimates on returning is it could be up to 70, 80 percent
    of these applications are from people who are returning. This
    is a significant problem if you stop accepting applications or
    discourage applications because you haven't discounted the
    returning workers. So please work with us. Again, I understand
    safety is big, but prosperity should be big, too. And I yield
    back.
        Secretary Johnson. Thank you for that. I am going to look
    into this, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        Representative Harris: . . . And what we are providing, as you can
    understand when you estimate that, for instance, your estimate of caps
    appears for this first--not to have taken into account any returning.
    And the estimates on returning is it could be up to 70, 80 percent of
    these applications are from the people who are returning. This is a
    significant problem if you stop accepting applications or discourage
    applications because you haven't discounted the returning workers. So
    please work with us. Again, I understand safety is big, but prosperity
    should be big, too. And I yield back.
        Secretary Johnson. Thank you for that. I am going to look into this
    sir.
        RESPONSE: 8 C.F.R. 214.2(h)(8)(ii)(B) provides that USCIS will make
    projections of the number of petitions necessary to achieve the H-2B
    cap, taking into account historical data related to approvals, denials,
    revocations, and other relevant factors. These other relevant factors
    include:
               The number of H-2B petitions received;
               The number of H-2B beneficiaries covered on each
            petition;
               The number of H-2B petitions pending adjudication,
            and
               Department of State (DOS) visa refusal and visa
            issuance rates for H-2B visa applicants.
        In order to fulfill the statutory responsibility for managing the
    H-2B cap, USCIS monitors this information and refines its projections
    based on changes in the program and the factors listed above. Relevant
    factors, such as yearly data on the visa issuance rates, may change
    according to the number of petitioners seeking H-2B workers, among
    other things.
        Through continued collaboration with DOS, USCIS receives more
    detailed and more current visa issuance data than in previous years.
    This additional information has been a new and valuable improvement to
    the H-2B cap analysis. We wish to emphasize, however, that it is not
    possible, at the time that USCIS approves a petition, to know whether a
    given beneficiary or beneficiaries - who are in most cases unnamed
    persons outside of the United States--ultimately will be determined
    eligible for H-2B visa issuance and/or admitted to the United States.
        Note that, effective December 18, 2015, H-2B workers identified as
    returning workers are exempted from the Fiscal Year 2016 annual H-2B
    cap of 66,000 visas. As another example of the ongoing refinement of
    USCIS projections, we recently have incorporated this exemption into
    our H-2B cap analysis.
        To provide H-2B petitioners with current information regarding cap
    numbers, USCIS maintains the H-2B cap count Web page with regular
    updates.

        Mr. Carter. Ms. Kaptur.

                     COUNTERDRUG INTERDICTION: COAST GUARD

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Welcome.
    Thank you for the very constructive efforts you are putting
    forward at one of the largest departments in our Federal
    Government. Congressman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and I
    were just singing your praises yesterday, so thank you for all
    your effort.
        In your budget request, you are asking for an additional
    $381,250,000 this year. That is a lot of money. That is more
    money than some smaller agencies operate on. Meanwhile, in the
    region that I represent, which is exactly the other end of the
    country from Congressman Cuellar, my neighbor here, at the
    Canadian border, Lake Erie, from Cleveland to Toledo, with the
    8th largest amount of road miles, paved roadways in the
    country, we have a massive heroin and opioid epidemic. It is
    crippling. I just left earlier in the week a meeting with the
    Cleveland region, the Cuyahoga County Northeastern Ohio Heroin
    and Opioid Task Force. We have a similar one on the western
    side of the State. The failures to deal with the Sinaloa cartel
    have crept far, far north from the border. 10 percent of the
    deaths in the region are now responsible, are due to opioid and
    heroin addiction.
        In your budget, you state, beginning in the fall of this
    year, the Coast Guard will convert eight of its Great Lakes
    boat stations to seasonal summertime units, and these stations
    will suspend operations prior to winter and resume in the
    spring when boaters return. What I would really like to request
    of you, if possible, would be to send some brilliant person
    from your Department to our northern border. On page 3 of the
    submission, we have gotten for your testimony, you have a
    section called Secure and Manage Our Borders, but it focuses on
    the southern border, and in that region, you have set up, you
    say, for the first time, joint task forces involving the Border
    Patrol, ICE, Citizenship and Immigration Service, Coast Guard.
    I would like to add to that all of our local sheriffs in our
    region, our U.S. attorney, our U.S. marshals.
        We really need to meet with you. I have made a request 1
    year ago during your budget, during your submission to this
    subcommittee, to have someone visit. No one ever has, and the
    situation has gotten worse. To have cuts in our region in any
    part of your Department is troubling to me. I would like to
    help you focus those activities to where they would do some
    greater good for the people of our region.
        So it appears as though the Coast Guard, in your request,
    will spend $2 billion on counterdrug interdiction operations. I
    would hope that some of that could be targeted to our area, but
    not just through the Coast Guard. I think we need a more
    streamlined task force for our region. Can you help me with
    that?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, ma'am, and I know that in addition
    to the Coast Guard interdictions at sea, a large part of
    Homeland Security investigations is part of our interagency
    task force to deal with the heroin epidemic, but there is
    always more we can do with adequate funding from Congress. We
    are very aware of the heroin epidemics that are stretching
    across multiple regions of this country, and so HSI [Homeland
    Security Investigations], and the Coast Guard have been working
    with DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] and Department of
    Justice, in a very focused way, to try to address this problem.
    I have been very pleased by the Coast Guard's interdiction
    efforts at sea just over the last year, but there is always
    more we can do.
        Ms. Kaptur. I guess I would say, you know, I have the
    largest coast line in the southern Great Lakes, and it is
    important to deal with the water, but to cut Coast Guard in
    this region right now without having a broader discussion about
    stopping the contraband trade, which, by the way, blends into
    labor trafficking and human trafficking, in a region like ours
    where we have turnpikes and major interstates, it is a big
    problem, and I would really beg you to send some top-level
    person from your Department. I have waited over a year now, and
    I know it is a big country, and there are 435 congressional
    districts, but if you look at the maps of the heroin and opioid
    trade, our region lights up bright red. And, so, I think there
    is a priority here, and I am just asking if you could help me?
        Secretary Johnson. I am actually planning to visit
    Cleveland this year.
        Ms. Kaptur. That it really good news. We will work with you
    on every level, but I would ask you to involve all of the
    counties in the north. And, quite frankly, I see Border Patrol
    sitting out there on our roadways looking for those who are
    here, the undocumented, but we need an emphasis on this drug
    trade.
        So, I think I have made my point, and I really would
    appreciate either you, or if you could send a deputy before
    your arrival, so we could meet with all of our sheriffs and so
    forth. The connection between the sheriffs and the Federal
    departments is not so perfect.

          TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS: EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS, GUATEMALA

        Ms. Kaptur. And we need to work at that. So if there is an
    individual, with your budget, you have a gigantic budget,
    surely there is someone in your Department you can send to our
    region. And I hope someone from your staff will get back to me
    after this hearing on that.
        The other question I wanted to ask very briefly is, we have
    gotten, Mr. Chairman, this will be really short, we have gotten
    academic studies showing, local news reports from El Salvador,
    Guatemala, and Honduras, that 83 people were killed in 2014
    after being deported by our Government to those three
    countries. A human rights request has been made to provide
    temporary protected status for people who are arriving from El
    Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Can you provide any insight
    on the acceptance of this request and what our Government is
    doing to provide safe havens, perhaps with other countries, so
    that these people are not killed when they return back home?
        Secretary Johnson. Well, there is currently TPS for
    Honduras and El Salvador based upon events years ago. There is
    a pending request for TPS from Guatemala. I saw the same report
    you referred to about the 83 individuals. I don't know the
    accuracy of it. I don't know when those individuals were
    deported. But, as you know, Congress last year, for this year,
    appropriated $750 million for aid to Central America, which we
    have been urging and advocating. So that is very much going to,
    I think, contribute to the overall improvement of the region.
        The president of Guatemala is going to visit here in a
    couple of days. We will continue the conversation that we began
    with him on his inauguration day about working together to
    address the poverty and violence in Guatemala, Honduras, and El
    Salvador. That is a push factor that results in the illegal
    migration that we see on our southern border. And it is a
    powerful push factor that motivates young children to want to
    come here all by themselves.
        So as long as those conditions and push factors exist in
    Central America, we are going to continue to deal with this
    problem irrespective of the number of Border Patrol agents we
    authorize and appropriate every year.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Carter. Once again, we are trying to stick to the 5-
    minute rule so that we can give everybody a chance. I will now
    recognize Mr. Young last in this round. And we will have
    another round.

           CYBER ATTACKS: INFORMATION-SHARING WITH STATE GOVERNMENTS

        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank my
    colleagues. Here we go again, right? Ranking Member Roybal-
    Allard, good to see you.
        Secretary Johnson, welcome. Thanks for what you do. Thank
    you for your service. You got a big job. And I respect you
    deeply for what you do. I know you get a lot of requests from
    Congress. I and my colleagues, we sent a letter to you on
    December 4, haven't received a response yet. I am hoping that
    is in the works. If you need a copy of that letter, we will get
    it to you. If the reply is sensitive information, we request a
    brief on that. So just a point of note there.
        Secretary Johnson. I don't recall the nature of the letter.
        Mr. Young. We'll share it with you before we leave here
    today to make sure you have it. It regards refugees. Iowa
    Homeland Security Emergency Management recently expressed
    concerns, and maybe you have heard from some other State
    emergency management agencies as well, just about information
    sharing, should there be a cyber attack, and when there are
    cyber attacks. What information is shared with State officials
    regarding national cyber threats? And in the event of a
    national cyber attack, what role would the States play in
    countering or recovering from such an attack?
        And when States are attacked, cyber attacked, what kind of
    information and role do they play in sharing that information
    with you?
        Secretary Johnson. Congressman, thank you for that
    question. First of all, the cyber threat directed at State
    governments is very real. And it is not just a threat. It is an
    ongoing problem. I just had this exact conversation with a
    number of Governors, about 10 Governors. With regard to greater
    information sharing between the Department of Homeland Security
    and State governments, we have a subcommittee of our Homeland
    Security Advisory Committee, tasked to develop a comprehensive
    plan right now. There is already a dialogue that exists.
        There is a dialogue that exists through a not-for-profit
    agency, the name of which I have forgotten at the moment. And
    there is technology available, something called the Albert
    system available, to pass information from the Federal
    Government to the State government; 39 of 50 States, as I
    recall, are online. And I am encouraging all 50 States to be
    online in that. I do believe that State governments have a role
    and have a need for cyber threat and cybersecurity information,
    particularly as it regards critical infrastructure in your
    State.
        So this is a conversation I had just, I think, Monday with
    Governors. And I think it is an important topic. And we are
    continuing to make efforts to improve the information sharing.

                                 BIOWATCH GEN-2

        Mr. Young. Thank you very much, Secretary. A final point,
    in November, there was an article in the Washington Post and it
    regarded the BioWatch Gen-2. It detailed a GAO report which
    stated the Government lacks reliable information about whether
    the current generation, Gen-2 of the BioWatch program, is
    capable of detecting a biological attack.
        Following the GAO report on the BioWatch program, what
    steps is DHS taking to implement the GAO's recommendations, and
    is there any need, does Congress need to do something as well
    on this to put something into law? What can we do to help?
        Secretary Johnson. I know that we have taken very seriously
    that GAO report. I know our Science and Technology Directorate
    is focused on addressing the concerns by GAO. With regard to
    potential help from Congress, I would like to consult my staff
    and get back to you in an informed way.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     CYBER ATTACKS: ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES

        Mr. Young. Great. Thank you. And then one final thought,
    science fiction can become reality sometimes. And we hear about
    electromagnetic pulses. Is this a serious threat? And what are
    we doing about it, if it is? Electromagnetic pulses taking out
    grids, it is somewhat of a cyber attack in a way. I just wanted
    your thoughts on it.
        Secretary Johnson. Well, actually I haven't, I am not sure
    I am prepared to give you an informed answer at the moment. We
    are concerned about cybersecurity threats to critical
    infrastructure and the grid. Let me think about that one and
    get back to you, sir.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Young. Okay. Is my time up, sir? Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Carter. Pretty much. You got about 30 seconds.
        Mr. Young. What keeps you up at night?
        Secretary Johnson. A lot of things. Preparing for
    congressional testimony, how is that?
        Mr. Young. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Johnson. A lot of things, sir.
        Mr. Young. Good answer.
        Mr. Carter. All right. We are going to start a second
    round. And then after I ask my question, I am going to have to
    be excused because I have got the Attorney General at CJS that
    I need to go ask a few questions.
        Secretary Johnson. I have heard that you prefer the
    Attorney General over me.

     IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS, DETENTION BEDS

        Mr. Carter. You know that is not right. Okay. You know that
    is not right. But I haven't been able to ask her a question
    yet. I have had a chance to ask you a few.
        Okay. A question that we have talked about before: Why is
    DHS proposing to reduce the detention capacity so dramatically
    when the current trend for adult detention remains above
    33,000, will likely increase significantly with potential court
    decisions, and increase in ICE's fugitive operations and
    Criminal Alien program? Please explain the assumptions used to
    develop this number and are they still valid today?
        In addition, are you concerned that all related recent
    border crossings, priority one, for detention are being
    detained? Are they or aren't they? Will the cut in beds support
    detaining this population?
        Finally, the targeted enforcement operation that you have
    just done contributed, I think, to the downward trend in the
    numbers that you gave us, as you discussed what has happened in
    the last month. Looking at a grid shown to me by my staff, it
    is a significant drop. And I believe you returned about 121
    people as a part of your program. I commend you for it. It is a
    start. Will you do more to keep these numbers down? Those are
    all together on detention.
        Secretary Johnson. Well, let me start with the last
    question. Our interior enforcement efforts have been ongoing.
    Our focused interior enforcement efforts have been ongoing
    since the beginning of the year. I made a point of publicly
    referring to the enforcement actions we took on January 2 and
    3, but the enforcement actions have been ongoing against those
    who have been ordered removed by an immigration court, have no
    pending asylum claim, and their appeal time has run. I may have
    more to say about that at the beginning of next month with the
    February numbers. That is number one.
        Number two, with regard to detention beds, we asked you for
    what we think we need. And I would note that the family
    detention beds and the adult single beds, they can be
    transferred back and forth depending on what we see on the
    border. At the time we submitted the request, we took note of
    the fact that on average in fiscal year 2015, we were at about
    28,000 and change. Right now, I would have to say we are around
    31,000 as we speak because of the increase in the fall. So we
    are asking for what we think we need. That includes family
    detention.
        And you are correct, the case, Flores, involving family
    detention is in the 9th Circuit right now. They agreed to an
    expedited appeal. I think that they will hear the case shortly.
    I think we need added flexibility to deal with the crisis
    situation, which we don't have right now.
        Ultimately, the appropriators in Congress will do what you
    think is appropriate. I do think that immigration detention is
    important. I do think that the ability to detain those who
    bring their kids with them is important. We are making
    improvements as you know, Judge, to the conditions in those
    centers. We have had some issues with the one in Pennsylvania.
    But I think that that is an important component of our border
    security. And our interior actions will continue, and they are
    continuing.
        Mr. Carter. When you really get down to it, though, 121 is
    a start. But, in reality, the numbers are astronomical as you
    compare that to the recent border crossings in the last, what,
    4 months as raised by Mr. Cuellar. My wife is from Holland. And
    she says this is not really a Dutch story. But the little boy
    that stuck his finger in the dike is a story we tell our kids
    over here, you know, rescued the country by it. My wife says
    that is not a story in Holland. But, basically, that is what we
    have done is stuck our finger in the dike. But the dam is about
    to break. And continues about to break.
        I commend you for doing it. I know you caught some heat
    above you for doing it. And I think heat is what sometimes
    people who take positions of importance have to carry. And I
    know you caught some. You handled it well. There is a different
    philosophy between groups up here about this whole issue. But
    the reality is you have to make consequences, acts deserve
    certain consequences. Without consequences, there is no clear
    pathway for people to understand what their acts really are.
        So I am going to turn now over to Mr. Fleischmann and let
    him take over this hearing.
        Secretary, I want to tell you that since I have been on
    this committee, which is over 10 years, I have worked with
    multiple secretaries. I want to thank you for the relationship
    you and I have developed, your willingness to always be there.
    I have called you at home almost in the middle of the night,
    and you have always been there to respond. And I thank you very
    much for our relationship. And we will be seeing you before you
    leave office. But I want to commend you. And I know you do the
    same with all of our members of our committee. And we are very
    grateful.
        Secretary Johnson. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Fleischmann, will you take the chair?
        Mr. Fleischmann [presiding]. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. At this time, I would like to recognize the ranking
    member, Ms. Roybal-Allard.

             IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: PRIORITY ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Secretary, I would like to go back
    to two of the issues that were raised by Congressman Price. As
    we noted, you have had some success in convincing communities
    to participate in the PEP program. And one of the selling
    points of PEP is that, in most cases, ICE will issue
    notification requests in lieu of detainers. Is this borne out
    in practice? And can you characterize the percentage of time
    that ICE requests notifications in lieu of issuing a detainer?
        Secretary Johnson. I am not sure I can quantify the answer
    to the question. It is my anticipation and expectation that in
    the overwhelming majority of cases in which there is a
    transfer, it will be by request for notification.
        The new policy leaves open the possibility of detainers
    when there is probable cause. I think that, I have not seen any
    quantification of the distinction between the two. But under
    the prior program, detainers were leading to litigation in
    which sheriffs and local governments were losing because they
    were detaining people beyond the point at which they had the
    authority to detain them. So we replaced that, as you know,
    with requests for notification.
        And I think in the jurisdictions where they have accepted
    the new program, it seems to be working well. I would like to
    see our people respond a little more promptly to requests for
    notification. That is a work in progress. But I am pleased that
    we have had additional counties that were not working with us
    before, working with us now on this.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. The November 2014 Secure Communities
    Memo established enforcement priorities for PEP. And these
    include some, but not all, of ICE's general enforcement
    priorities. For some jurisdictions, this too has been the
    selling point for the program. Given that ICE still has
    discretion to go beyond the more limited PEP enforcement
    priorities, is the agency tracking how frequently that happens
    and documenting the rationale for it?
        Secretary Johnson. I believe the answer is yes.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. It is?
        Secretary Johnson. I believe the answer is yes. If we don't
    know, it is something that we are developing so that we can
    track it.

       IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
                                     AGENTS

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. That would be great. Mr. Price
    also mentioned allegations of misconduct by ICE agents. What
    are the limits on ICE? For example, can agents enter someone's
    home without permission? And can they lie about their intent to
    gain entrance?
        Secretary Johnson. Well, I can't comment and know about
    every encounter across the country. With interior enforcement,
    our folks knock at the door. Very often, they can tell somebody
    is home. But if nobody answers, they don't enter the home. The
    only time a law enforcement agent would enter a home is with an
    arrest warrant or a search warrant.
        Our civil immigration enforcement people don't have that.
    So they knock at the door. I have heard allegations that in
    making an arrest, our people will mislead or, you know, create
    a ruse situation. I simply don't know about that. And I really
    can't comment on it. But they don't forcibly enter a home. I
    want to make that clear.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. What about lying about their intent? Is
    that acceptable? Or is that also something that is not
    acceptable that may or may not be happening that you may not
    know about?
        Secretary Johnson. Frankly, I think it depends on the
    circumstances. When I was a Federal prosecutor, I know that to
    enforce the law, sometimes law enforcement agents would in some
    way create a ruse for reasons of public safety. I simply, I
    can't make a broad categorical statement in this regard.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. So it is possible, then, that agents are
    allowed to enter without permission and it is acceptable to lie
    about their intent? In other words, there is nothing that says
    no, you can't do this?
        Secretary Johnson. Well, as I said, ICE agents don't have
    arrest warrants. So they cannot enter someone's home against
    their will without consent. And, in fact, there are a lot of
    instances where we knock on the door, and we can hear somebody
    home, but they don't answer, so we go away. I can tell you
    that. I cannot categorically tell you yes or no with regard to
    all these different situations out there under which somebody
    is apprehended.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. No, I understand. I wasn't asking about
    whether or not those allegations were true or not. I was just
    trying to get clarification as to what was acceptable ICE
    behavior and what was not acceptable so that there would be a
    clear understanding in the public as to what ICE----
        Secretary Johnson. Well, they are not supposed to, and they
    don't enter a home without consent. And there are sensitive
    locations where we don't go to make apprehensions except in
    emergency, exigent circumstances. In terms of what we tell
    people in order to gain access, or to apprehend somebody, I
    would have to give you a more defined statement of what the
    policy is. Sitting here right now, I can't give you a
    categorical red line, green line.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Well, I understand--my time is up?
    Okay.

                             ICEBREAKER ACQUISITION

        Mr. Fleischmann. I want to thank the ranking member for her
    questions. Mr. Secretary, last September, sir, the President
    announced plans to accelerate the acquisition of a heavy
    icebreaker by 2 years to ensure that the United States can
    operate year round in the Arctic Ocean. The budget request
    includes $150 million to initiate the lengthy detailed design
    process that would lead to production in 2020. My first
    question is, can all $150 million be obligated in 2017? And my
    follow-up is why is a 2-year acceleration necessary, sir?
        Secretary Johnson. I will give you the note that my CFO
    handed me after I heard Chairman Carter say that in his opening
    remarks. It is an aggressive acquisition schedule. We disagree
    and believe we can spend it in fiscal year 2017. It will be
    tough, but we believe we can do it. And I think the reason for
    that is the urgent need for another heavy icebreaker in the
    Arctic.
        We have one heavy icebreaker right now that is operational.
    And given the national security and increasing commercial needs
    in the Arctic, we think it is important that we get a second
    one and get a second one very soon. And we think we can--we
    have asked for $150 million for design, for the preliminary
    phase of this thing. And we believe that we can utilize those
    funds in fiscal year 2017.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. The cost of a new heavy
    icebreaker is projected to be in excess of $1 billion. And a
    heavy icebreaker is truly a national asset since it is, and
    will be, a multi-missioned vessel supporting the missions of
    several agency, including the Department of Defense and the
    National Science Foundation. Given the Coast Guard's top line,
    can they afford the burden of acquiring this ship? If not, what
    is the plan?
        And then my follow-up would be does the administration
    intend to announce a funding strategy for the vessel? And do
    you expect it will incorporate other governmental budgets? If
    not, why not limit the budget request to an amount that can be
    obligated this year rather than banking future funds for the
    future?
        Secretary Johnson. I am sure there will be a funding
    strategy for the heavy icebreaker. And my answer to your first
    question is yes, with the support of Congress and the support
    of the appropriators, we do believe that a heavy icebreaker is
    affordable. And it is also necessary. We are also, as you know,
    recapitalizing the Coast Guard with regard to the off-shore
    patrol cutter and the fast response cutters. All these moving
    parts can be funded provided we have the funds from Congress to
    do so.
        But we also believe that it is critical to have a second
    heavy icebreaker that is operational.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. At this time, I
    would like to recognize Mr. Price.

                       IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: DETENTION

        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I hope
    to get to a question about your research operations and the
    thrust of those operations as anticipated in the budget and,
    particularly, the treatment given to university work. So I hope
    we can get to that. I may have to ask you to respond for the
    record. Because I do think it is important to revisit a couple
    of points on this immigration enforcement issue.
        It strikes me, in listening to your answer to a number of
    questions, that at issue here may be the criterion you defined
    in your executive action, of course, quite a while ago, of
    people who have been in this country for years. That is an
    important component of who we are attempting to remove from
    under the threat of deportation. And I know that that
    definition is important to the executive action and to the
    legal action surrounding the executive action.
        It does raise the issue, though, with respect to these more
    recent migrants. And, you know, the priorities for removal are
    people convicted of serious crimes or who have recently been
    apprehended at the border. And those categories are, of course,
    disparate categories in terms of the threat they pose to the
    country. I wonder if, for the record, you could provide
    actually a breakdown of that 85 percent figure you cited, 85
    percent of those at immigration detention are in top priority
    for removal, what percent of those are in that criminal
    category, what percent are simply recent arrivals?
        But I realize that poses an issue. This deferred action
    category can't be too porous. On the other hand, as I think you
    have implied, it is very, very important that people who have
    arrived under the circumstances they have, are mostly from
    Central America, that these people have access to a full
    hearing, full adjudication of their claims for asylum, and that
    rules be followed about where they might be apprehended,
    sensitive locations, and so forth.
        So the treatment of this category of migrant is a vexing
    issue. It seems to me it is raising the possibility that the
    kind of re-prioritization you undertook with respect to Secure
    Communities, it is almost leading to a situation where that
    kind of reprioritization might be again, there may be calls for
    that. But whatever it takes to get this effective focus on
    people who do pose a danger to the country, and making sure
    that that is a singular focus of our immigration enforcement
    efforts, strikes me that that is a continuing challenge.
        By the way, the case that I mentioned is in adjacent
    community, not literally in my congressional district. But that
    and other cases, of course, do raise questions about what the
    overall policy is.
        Secretary Johnson. With regard to your question about who
    is in detention right now, those data do exist. And I can get
    you that. The breakdown of those who are convicted criminals in
    detention, versus those apprehended at the border, and so
    forth, those data do exist. The one thing I will say about it
    is I believe it is a trending number.
        When you have a border surge, the percentage of those who
    are Priority 1s in detention goes up. Ultimately, I would like
    to see an increased percentage of those in immigration
    detention who are Priority 1s be those who are the criminals.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Price. That is, of course, what I am getting at.
        Secretary Johnson. That is where I want to see us make more
    progress on PEP. And with that, I believe we will have an
    increasing percentage of those in immigration detention. And we
    have seen that increase in percentage over the last year or 2.
    We have already seen that in place.
        If you look at the numbers today, though, a lot of people
    in immigration detention are those apprehended at the border
    because of the numbers in the fall. That is the reality. It
    will trend one way or another depending upon the surges at the
    border.

                  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE'S BUDGET

        Mr. Price. Well, I would appreciate those numbers together
    with any interpretation you want to offer of this. But you see
    my point as someone long focused on making sure we are
    deporting the highest priority individuals. Not wanting to get
    back into a situation where we have to recalibrate once again
    in terms of where the focus of enforcement lies.
        If I have another minute, I would like to just comment on
    the S&T budget. And you can give whatever response you can
    here. And maybe you want to offer this for the record. But
    there is a substantial decrease from the fiscal year 2015
    enacted level of over $1.1 billion. The request this year is a
    couple hundred million less than that. And then within the S&T
    budget, the university research and development funds would
    lose nearly a quarter of last year's enacted level.
        So it raises a couple of questions. First of all, what is
    the philosophy, the thrust of the S&T program as defined in
    this budget particularly given these substantial changes? And
    then what is going on with the university research and
    development, in particular, that would lead to this kind of
    proposed decrease?
        Secretary Johnson. The overall thrust of it is, I think,
    reflective of the overall budget request, hard choices given
    the budget caps we have to live with. I will tell you that
    within S&T, I have directed we take a more integrated,
    centralized approach. So we have put together a team run by Dr.
    Brothers, of operational component leadership, to develop for
    us what we think our S&T R&D priorities should be in the near
    future in a consolidated, strategic way--not stovepiped
    component by component, not something that exists at
    headquarters at S&T.
        So we have a component-level working group that is focused
    on where we think the priorities should be. I do agree with you
    that funding for colleges and universities in this area is
    particularly important. And we have programs right now in North
    Carolina that I know are working very well in this regard. So I
    regard this as an important area that we need to continue to
    support. We have also got to live within our funding caps.
        Mr. Price. Thank you. I assume the subcommittee will look
    at this particular aspect of the request very carefully.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                           NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTERS

        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Price. Mr. Secretary,
    Secretary Johnson, Congress has appropriated almost $5 billion
    to acquire nine national security cutters, one more than the
    program of records. While the capabilities in performance of
    the NSC has exceeded expectations, there is a significant cost
    beyond production to man, equip, and operate each NSC.
        My first question, sir, is does the Coast Guard need any
    additional NSCs to accomplish any of their 11 statutory
    missions?
        Secretary Johnson. No.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. What trade-offs have been made
    in the Coast Guard's cutter modernization program due to the
    unnecessary inclusion of a ninth NSC? And what will happen to
    the program should Congress add a tenth cutter, sir?
        Secretary Johnson. No trade-offs that I know of at this
    point. We appreciate that Congress has also in 2016 provided
    funding for the off-shore patrol cutter, which is our medium-
    range cutter, and continues to fund the fast response cutter.
    We have also asked for remodeled, rebuilt aircraft for the
    Coast Guard in 2017, and the continuation of the OPC and FRC
    program.
        So we haven't seen trade-offs. There will be a cost in the
    outyears to maintaining and all the things you would normally
    have for pay for when you build a new cutter, not just the cost
    of building the cutter. And we are hoping that if we have a
    ninth security cutter, as it looks we will, Congress will
    continue to support all the things you need to do after the
    thing is constructed. But we haven't seen, so far as I know,
    any trade-offs we have needed to make so far because we have
    the good support of Congress in this regard.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you for your response, Mr.
    Secretary. What would happen, though, if there was a tenth
    cutter added, sir, in your opinion?
        Secretary Johnson. Well, it all depends on how much you
    give me to pay for it. So you are right, the program of record
    called for eight. We were not expecting a ninth. We will
    support and build a ninth because that is what Congress has
    appropriated for us and asked us to do. But there are costs
    associated with maintaining a ninth, where do you dock it and
    so forth, that we will need that continued support from
    Congress to help us so that we don't have to make any trade-
    offs.
        And recapitalizing the whole fleet is particularly
    important, along with building that new icebreaker. So we need
    that continued support from Congress right now. I have seen
    firsthand how old some of our cutters are getting. The medium
    endurance cutter, which the OPC is supposed to replace, is 50
    years old.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. At this time, I
    would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar.

                     IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT : DEPORTATIONS

        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, when
    you were in Laredo, as you know, Laredo, percentage-wise,
    according to the U.S. Census, is the most Hispanic city in the
    country, 96 percent Hispanic. As you and I talked, you know,
    we, including myself, we support immigration reform. But we do
    want to have order and not have chaos at the border. And that
    is why your measured approach is well appreciated there at the
    border.
        My question is, and one of the questions folks keep asking
    me is, how many people have been deported, let's say, you know,
    from the unaccompanied kids or the families or other folks, and
    I know ICE had some numbers per, how many have been deported in
    the last year. And Mexico is always number one. But do you have
    any, in the last couple years, the folks we have been talking
    about, how many have been deported?
        Secretary Johnson. There are actual numbers that are
    available. It depends on from what point you count. And it
    depends on exactly what class of people you are referring to.
    The numbers are available. We can get you that. But, as you
    know, we have made a renewed push with regard to those who have
    been ordered deported and have reached the end of the appeal
    process and their asylum claim----
        Mr. Cuellar. And the media made it sound like there was a
    mass deportation. I think that was the words that they used.
    How many people are we actually talking about? And these were
    the ones that finished their----
        Secretary Johnson. That particular weekend, January 23, the
    number was 121 taken into custody. Those actually removed were
    a subset of that. Because once they were taken into custody,
    they got stays from removals. And so, presumably, those people
    are still here. But, again, I want to emphasize we didn't just
    do the one weekend and stop. Enforcement actions are
    continuing.
        Mr. Cuellar. And you are enforcing the Federal immigration
    judge, after they have had their day in court, and their appeal
    is over, that is what you are focusing on?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cuellar. Let me ask you about Cubans.
        Secretary Johnson. There you go.

                 IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: CUBAN ADJUSTMENT ACT

        Mr. Cuellar. I need a copy of that. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary. By the way, you had a great story last night, of the
    TV station, when you went up to them. Nobody has ever done that
    before right in the middle of the parade. So great story last
    night.
        Let me ask you about Cubans. As you know, in my southern
    part of my district, I have unaccompanied kids from Central
    America coming in. My northern part of my district, in Laredo,
    I am talking about just the border area, we have Cubans, 67,000
    in the last year, couple years, I said 2 years, 45,000 of them
    have come through the port of Laredo. And, as you know, because
    of the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, and that was during the cold
    war era, very different, Cubans, as you know, the moment they
    touch, they are in. It used to be or it is still called the wet
    foot/dry foot policy.
        But now they have decided to go, instead of going through
    the waters and have Coast Guard try to push them back, they are
    coming in through Ecuador, they are coming in through
    Guatemala, Colombia, they go all the way up here until
    Nicaragua said hold on.
        Now what they are doing is, at least the ones in Costa
    Rica, are flying in directly from Liberia, Costa Rica, straight
    to Nuevo Laredo, which is the city right across from Laredo.
    They take a bus, 45 minutes, I have been told 45 minutes, 1
    hour they cross in. The moment they cross, they cross the
    street, the bridge, they cross the bridge, they go into a money
    exchange house, casa de cambio, they start filling out their
    paperwork for the immediate benefits. And, as you know, they
    get immediate benefits the moment they come in.
        In about 1 year, they become a legal resident. And then
    they are fast tracked to a naturalized citizen. My
    understanding is the moment they come across, if they commit a
    felony, they cannot be deported. Am I correct on that? And I
    don't know if you know that. My understanding is they cannot be
    deported the moment they are coming in.
        Do you or the administration, it has been very quiet on
    this. And I have been talking about this issue because I know
    this has to be a law that we need to change. And I am talking
    to one of my colleagues in this committee, in the
    appropriations, about this issue to come in with some solution.
    But there is two parts of the law, the 1966 Cuban Adjustment
    Act, which allows them to touch and they are in, and then the
    other one is a 1980 law that deals with Cuban, I mean, with the
    refugee assistance.
        So I say that because I am going to ask the committee to
    consider making some adjustments. But does the administration,
    I guess, until we change the law, do you all have any thoughts
    on that.
        Secretary Johnson. Well, first of all, you are correct that
    the overwhelming majority of Cuban migrants who come to this
    country arrive at land ports of entry. Most Americans probably
    think that they come by sea on boats. The overwhelming majority
    have been coming to ports of entry and simply presenting
    themselves because of the Cuban Adjustment Act and because of
    our policies, our wet foot/dry foot policy.
        The policy is reflected in, I think, a 1999 memorandum. It
    basically says that those who arrive here, we will--there is
    not, there is no absolute rule in support of parole, but it
    says something like--will be favorably inclined toward parole
    or something like that. So not everyone is automatically
    paroled. There are circumstances under which someone might not
    be paroled. Being convicted of a serious crime at the time, I
    would imagine, would be one of those circumstances. I don't
    have the policy in front of me. But those are the words along
    those lines.
        We are in the process of normalizing relations with Cuba,
    as you know, sir. At some point, the topic of migration will
    have to be addressed.
        Mr. Cuellar. Yes sir. I'm sorry can I just ask, is that
    1999 memorandum a Homeland----
        Secretary Johnson. It was issued out of, I believe, it was
    issued out of INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service].
        Mr. Cuellar. INS?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes.
        Mr. Cuellar. All right. Thank you so much. And, again, I
    appreciate your good work.

                               AIRPORT WAIT TIMES

        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Secretary, we
    are rapidly approaching the busy spring break and summer travel
    season. As anyone who travels frequently by air knows,
    increased volumes of passengers correspond with increases in
    wait times at airports. It is my understanding that over the
    December holiday travel season, there was a noticeable,
    quantifiable, and significant staffing breakdown which led to
    unnecessary delays for many travelers.
        I have a two-part question. Since the busiest travel
    periods are easily predicted, and it is known when the largest
    volumes of flights are banked at large hub airports, why do we
    continue to see staffing levels at checkpoints based more on
    averages, sir, instead of volume spikes? And then my follow-up
    would be, does DHS or TSA have a plan to address this issue,
    sir?
        Secretary Johnson. Both on the front end with TSA, and on
    the arrival end with CBP, we do try to anticipate travel
    surges. We do try to anticipate whether those are daily; you
    know, there are certain times of the day at airports when
    international flights will come and go. And we do try to
    anticipate holiday travel, spring break travel, and the like.
        You are correct that there has been an increase in wait
    times at a lot of airports. That is due, in part, to increased
    travel volume. But it is also due, frankly, to the renewed
    focus on screening at airports by Administrator Neffenger and
    myself. Since he took office in July, his charge from me was to
    take a hard look at aviation security in light of the IG's
    [Inspector General's] test results, which were leaked to the
    press; less managed inclusion, as we call it, where you take
    somebody out of the longer line and put them into the shorter
    TSA line; more secondary screening; more thorough screening; a
    hard look at the technology; back-to-basics training for our
    TSOs [transportation security officers]; and a rewrite of the
    standard operating procedure.
        The increased wait times, frankly, were anticipated. But I
    think that the American public understands that because it is
    for their own safety. And we have heard issues and concerns
    about increased wait times. I think it is necessary. Can it be
    administered in a more efficient way around holiday seasons?
    Probably. And so our efforts to do that are, you know, a work
    in progress. We continue at that.
        But increased wait times are just something that are the
    result of increased volume and our efforts at increased
    security.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. At this time, I would like
    to recognize the ranking member, Ms. Roybal-Allard for
    questions.

               IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: FAMILY DETENTION CENTERS

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I have two more issues that I would like
    to cover. I would like to go back to the detention of families
    by ICE. And I have three questions with regard to that. Under a
    district court ruling, the Department is now required to
    minimize the amount of time families spend in detention. And I
    understand that the current average detention time for families
    is around 17 days.
        For fiscal year 2017, the Department is requesting funding
    for 960 family detention beds, which is well below the capacity
    funded for the current year. Does this lower funding request
    mean that ICE is planning to consolidate its family detention
    operations into one or two facilities instead of the current
    three?
        Do you know what percentage of families would spend at
    least some time in detention given the shorter-length stays?
    And also it is my understanding of the district court ruling
    that any prolonged detention of families can only occur in
    State-licensed facilities with a non secure setting. The State
    of Texas recently granted operational licenses to the two
    family detention centers located in that State, but both are
    secure facilities.
        Does the Department have any plans to acquire the use of
    facilities in the future that would meet the district court
    standard for family detention.
        Secretary Johnson. The answer to the last question is no.
    We are seeking a license for both Dilley and Karnes to be
    licensed as nonsecure licensed facilities as they exist. So the
    licensing authorities are looking at those facilities and will
    license them as such.
        You are correct that the average wait time is around 17
    days. Flores, the ruling, gives us some flexibility in times of
    an influx. We are in an influx right now. The judge referred to
    20 days. We have tried to reduce it. We have reduced it. The
    average wait time now is about 17 days. But you are also
    correct that the way that court order reads, and it is on
    appeal, we can keep people longer in a licensed nonsecure
    facility. We are seeking a license for both places to be
    licensed nonsecure facilities.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Just changing the name, I mean, what is
    going to change in those facilities to make it truly meet what
    the intent of the court is? Just changing the name from secure
    to non-secure----
        Secretary Johnson. Well, it is up to the State of Texas to
    determine that the facilities are as they are licensed to be.
    That is a matter for the State of Texas. That is what they are
    doing right now. In terms of the bed request, we are requesting
    what we believe we need. We can transfer beds back and forth
    depending on the circumstances.
        So the total request is 31,000. The specific request for
    families is 960. But we need the flexibility to add more or
    less depending on the circumstances and the surges that we see.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. So basically we are just asking for a
    change in classification. Because nothing is really going to
    change in the facilities----
        Secretary Johnson. We are always seeking to improve the
    conditions, to improve access to counsel. We are continually
    doing that. There is now a FACA [Federal Advisory Committee
    Act], a committee appointed to review and take a hard look at
    the conditions at these facilities. They are doing that. We are
    always seeking to improve them, ma'am.

                               JOINT TASK FORCES

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I would like to follow up with you on
    that. And my final question has to do with your joint task
    forces. I think that by most measures, the Department is making
    progress in securing the southern border. And I feel certain
    that the Unity of Effort initiative that you have led played a
    really important role, in particular the establishment of the
    joint task forces and the Southern Border and Approaches
    campaign.
        Can you just discuss how you think the three task forces
    have contributed and how they have changed the Department's
    approach to the border security mission?
        Secretary Johnson. We are seeking through the joint task
    forces to bring a more strategic, combined, consolidated
    approach, to border security that brings to bear the Border
    Patrol, Customs agents, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
    NCIS [Naval Criminal Investigative Services], and the Coast
    Guard, and, where necessary, FEMA [Federal Emergency Management
    Agency]. It would be like trying to run a war by talking to
    only the Army at once, and only the Navy, and only the Air
    Force. You need a strategic, consolidated approach. The same is
    true of border security.
        I have already seen that in a crisis, for example, I need
    to be able to have a strategic approach from a task force when
    it comes to all of our immigration components. I think this is
    the way of the future. I want to do more of this. At some
    point, we will get to the Northern border. We will get to the
    same thing when it comes to other missions. We are making
    strides in this regard with our counterterrorism mission and
    our cybersecurity mission.
        So I think as part of Unity of Effort, this kind of
    approach is very much necessary.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I have heard some positive feedback
    about it. That is why I wanted you to comment on it. Thank you.
        Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. It is my understanding that
    that concludes the questions that anyone would have.
        Mr. Secretary, on behalf of the subcommittee, I want to
    thank you again today for appearing before our subcommittee. We
    all have an arduous task. You do. It is a very difficult
    mission. And I wish us all the best in our endeavors. And I
    thank you for answering the questions and being before us
    today, sir. I wish you well.
        Secretary Johnson. I appreciate it. Thank you.
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                Tuesday, March 1, 2016.

                  UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

                                    WITNESS

    R. GIL KERLIKOWSKE, COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER
        PROTECTION
        Mr. Carter [presiding]. Today we welcome Gil Kerlikowske in
    his third appearance before the subcommittee.
        Commissioner, welcome.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Thank you.

                       Opening Statement: Chairman Carter

        Mr. Carter. We appreciate you being here and your service
    to DHS and the nation. We thank you for that.
        The fiscal year 2017 budget for Customs and Border
    Protection is $13.9 billion, an increase of $686 million above
    fiscal year 2016. Unfortunately, gimmicks in the department-
    wide budget have created a $2 billion gap that requires this
    subcommittee to make hard choices. Therefore, the increase to
    CBP may not be affordable as it is evaluated by the totality of
    this budget. And we discussed this between the two of us
    yesterday or the other day.
        Commissioner, as you know, I discussed this with you. We
    are really concerned about CBP's hiring problems that have to
    be fixed. To secure and expedite trade, the budget requests
    funds for 23,861 CBP officers, which includes 2,000 officers
    funded in 2014.
        Commissioner, taking 4 years to hire 2,000 CBP officers is
    way too long. I know you plan to send the request to the
    authorizers, asking them to pass legislation increasing the
    number of CBP officers. But why would they increase passenger
    costs knowing that wait times won't decrease because CBP isn't
    likely to have these officers onboard for years, 2014 and look
    where we are now.
        Likewise, the Border Patrol is losing more agents than it
    can hire. Currently, CBP is 1,268 agents below the mandated
    floor. The budget takes advantage of this by decreasing the
    mandate for agents by 300. Unfortunately, the reduction isn't
    supported by any analysis proving that border security won't be
    compromised as a result.
        Commissioner, you understand the important national
    security role these agents play, but we are concerned that CBP
    isn't able to sustain the existing workforce, let alone the
    mandated floor levels of the agents.
        These are urgent problems which must be fixed. Now, we will
    have to discuss how you plan to correct this spiral.
        This request also includes a contingency fund for potential
    surge in unaccompanied children. We look forward to an update
    on the current estimates of the UACs.
        Other increases include $55 million for tactical
    communications, $47 million for vehicles, $26 million for
    aerostats and relocatable towers, and many other smaller
    increases.
        I look forward to working with you over the next few weeks
    to determine the priority of these programs.
        The request proposes a realignment for appropriation
    structures to be more mission-focused. While I know it was
    challenging, it is an effort that I have supported for several
    years. I want to commend you and your team for making the
    effort.
        Lastly, Commissioner, sovereign nations control and manage
    their borders and sustain the integrity of their immigration
    systems. These objectives are your duty and I expect nothing
    less from you and the men and women of CBP.
        Now let me turn to my distinguished member, Ms. Roybal-
    Allard, for remarks she may wish to make.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                Opening Statement: Ranking Member Roybal-Allard

        And good morning, Commissioner. And welcome.
        The discretionary budget request for U.S. Customs and
    Border Protection in fiscal year 2017 is $11.3 billion which is
    an increase of $609 million above the fiscal year 2016 level.
        About half of that increase, however, is attributable to
    the proposed transfer of the Office of Biometric Identity
    Management from NPPD to CBP.
        You have served as commissioner now for nearly 2 years and
    CBP has made good progress in a number of areas under your
    leadership. And I would like to highlight some of those. This
    includes the establishment of a Task Force West to support the
    Southern Border and Approaches Campaign; the assumption of
    criminal investigative authority for allegations of misconduct
    and use-of-force incidents involving CBP personnel; the
    expansion of the preclearance program which helps address
    threats before they reach our borders; a new use-of-force
    policy and the establishment of a use-of-force center of
    excellence; business transformation efforts that are reducing
    wait times for passengers and expediting the flow of commerce;
    good progress toward a more rigorous, technologically based
    methodology for determining situational awareness at the
    border; a more risk-based approach to border security; and
    enhanced capacity to target high-risk individuals and cargo,
    including a new counter-network program focused on disrupting
    transnational criminal organizations.
        So I think there is a lot that you can be proud of, even if
    there are still significant challenges that still remain.
        One of those challenges has been the struggle to hire new
    agents and officers and manage attrition, particularly for
    Border Patrol agents. As a result, the number of Border Patrol
    agents and CBP officers are significantly below the target
    levels, as the chairman mentioned.
        Other ongoing challenges include humanely managing the
    influx of unaccompanied children and families fleeing violence
    in the Northern Triangle.
        So I look forward to a productive conversation on these and
    other issues. And once again, I appreciate your joining us.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Carter. All right. Commissioner, we will hear from you
    and what your comments are. We all have copies of what you
    submitted to us and, of course, they are entered for the
    record.
        You may proceed.

                  Opening Statement: Commissioner Kerlikowske

        Mr. Kerlikowske. Good. Well, Chairman Carter, Ranking
    Member Roybal-Allard and members of the subcommittee, good
    morning. During this past year I have certainly had the
    firsthand opportunity to travel not only throughout the country
    and visit with thousands of our personnel, but also to meet
    with our international partners in customs and border
    protection, particularly in South America, Mexico and Canada,
    and these are countries we share common goals with, and
    strengthening both our countries' security, but also our
    economic growth.
        I highlight this because with all of our responsibilities
    to protect the United States from the entry of dangerous people
    and materials, we also have to facilitate the flow of lawful
    international travel and commerce.
        And these goals are the same for many other countries while
    I am reminded of the diversity of our operational environments,
    the complexity of our mission and the commitment of our
    dedicated personnel.
        And thanks to the critical resources that this committee
    has given to CBP, we have not only enhanced border operations,
    we have also laid the foundation for the changes that will
    increase CBP to be more operationally agile, effective and
    efficient.
        Many of these changes are focused on--the budget request of
    $13.9 billion reflects some of the progress that we have made
    and supports our continued investments in personnel and
    technology and in initiatives that are going to strengthen our
    security and streamline our business process.
        Detecting and preventing travel to the United States by a
    foreign terrorist fighter is our highest priority. We recently
    made additional enhancements to the Electronic System for
    Travel Authorization. We started immediately enforcing the
    restrictions in accordance with the Visa Waiver Improvement and
    Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, and we canceled 17,000
    travel approvals immediately.
        We are expanding preclearance operations. I would like to
    express my thanks to the subcommittee for the statutory changes
    that significantly improve the reimbursement mechanism to fund
    CBP's preclearance operations. It is a critical capability for
    detecting and addressing threats long before they ever arrive
    at our borders.
        Furthermore, with the funding provided by the committee and
    the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, we are initiating
    counter-network operations in our National Targeting Center.
        This capability enhances our comprehensive understanding of
    emerging threats, not only for foreign fighters, but also for
    drugs and human trafficking, and it advances our ability to
    disrupt the networks from that Targeting Center many of you
    have visited.
        Along the Southwest border, we monitor and respond to the
    flow of unaccompanied children and families. The numbers in
    fiscal year 2015 declined from their spike in 2014, but we did
    see an increase in the numbers this past fall and we remain
    concerned about seasonal increases later this year and in
    fiscal year 2017.
        The budget requests a $12.5 million increase in resources
    for CBP to provide for the safety and security of children and
    families who are temporarily in our custody, in addition to a
    contingency fund of up to $23 million to support up to 75,000
    children to ensure that we can respond to that potential surge.
        Along with all of the border environments, our land, air
    and sea, continued investments in technology, surveillance
    technology, other operational assets really increase our
    situational awareness.
        And the cornerstone of our approach to identify, disrupt
    and interdict illegal activities is key.
        And recapitalizing some of the most essential equipment
    that was mentioned, radios and vehicles, increases our ability
    to respond quickly and to keep our front line officers and
    agents safe.
        And we continue to improve the secure and efficient lawful
    movement of people and goods through the ports of entry. And
    that is a function critical to our economic competitiveness.
        The budget request enables us to continue front line hiring
    efforts, incorporate new technologies into our travel and trade
    processes, including biometric exit, and expand our public/
    private partnerships, key components of our efforts to optimize
    resources, ease the flow of low-risk, lawful trade and travel
    and free agents and officers to focus on high-risk cargo and
    high-risk people.
        In all our operations across the nation and the globe, we
    continue to instill the highest levels of transparency and
    accountability. In this past year, we implemented new use-of-
    force policies, we continued to test camera technologies to
    find solutions that can meet the wide variety of operational
    terrains and climates where our agents and officers work.
        Well, thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you
    for your support. And I am happy to answer your questions.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Commissioner.
        Before we begin with the questioning, I want to recognize
    Hal Rogers, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for any
    statement he wishes to make.
        Chairman Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner Kerlikowske, Gil, good to see you again. Thank
    you for being here to discuss your budget for CBP.
        I have greatly enjoyed our association and working together
    in your earlier chapter of your life when you were director of
    the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the drug czar, and
    of course your experience back home in the police of that
    wonderful city.
        But in the drug czar role, you graciously took time away
    from your busy schedule to visit my Appalachian district to
    learn more about our challenges facing prescription drug abuse.
        So you bring a unique perspective, I think, to your job at
    the CBP.
        As the prescription drug epidemic has exploded onto the
    national scene, now giving way to heroin, controlling the
    influx of this dangerous drug and the violence that it fuels in
    our border communities and elsewhere around the country is a
    top priority for you and for us.
        So I look forward to hearing about your efforts to reduce
    the supply of opioids in the country.
        Over 60,000 employees, CBP is one of the world's largest
    law enforcement agencies, if not the largest. You are tasked
    with protecting the United States through a number of critical
    missions, including preventing the illegal entry of terrorists,
    weapons, narcotics from the air, sea and land.
        On a typical day, I am told, CBP welcomes nearly 1 million
    visitors, screens more than 67,000 cargo containers, arrests
    more than 1,100 individuals and seizes nearly 6 tons of illegal
    drugs. That is a day's work. You are busy, to say the least.
        And before going into the merits of your budget request, I
    would like to express my sincere gratitude to the men and women
    under your charge, including yourself, who serve our great
    nation, many of whom put themselves in harm's way on a daily
    basis to keep the homeland safe and secure.
        Your fiscal 2017 budget request, $13.9 billion, which
    constitutes an increase of $687 million above the current
    level, I want to commend you on the improvements you have made
    to the visa security program, although I do have some concerns
    with the gaps that still remain. And I also look forward to the
    expansion of the preclearance program which will push our
    borders further and further out.
        Your appearance here today and our testimony on this issue
    reminds me of this subcommittee in 2003 when we ushered it into
    existence and I became the first chairman of this subcommittee
    and have followed fairly closely since the activities of the
    department. And it is a tough, tough job.
        Mr. Chairman, you are trying to meld together some 22
    federal agencies. I think there are 16 different unions and,
    like, 20 different pay scales. So the work continues and we
    have got our work to do as well.
        But you are on the front line. There are many positive
    things in your budget request. I am deeply disappointed by the
    efforts to ratchet down border security and enforcement of our
    immigration laws.
        For example, the budget proposes a reduction of 300 Border
    Patrol agents, decreasing the statutory floor to 21,070, at a
    time when drug cartels from Mexico and elsewhere are flooding
    our communities, urban and rural alike, with heroin. We have
    never seen the like, and yet the budget proposes we cut back on
    the people fighting that surge and that scourge in our country.
        Others in the administration have rightfully labeled the
    abuse of opioids as a national epidemic. And I cite Tom
    Frieden, the director of Centers for Disease Control, who says
    that overdose deaths, heroin and prescription pills, are taking
    more lives than car wrecks in the country. He calls it a
    national epidemic. And yet, we hear from the administration,
    well, let us cut back on trying to fight it.
        Well, don't be surprised if things are different when we
    get through with your budget in that regard.
        We lose a hundred Americans every day to abuse. And yet,
    you have proposed to reduce our first line of defense against
    the entry of these dangerous, deadly drugs without the benefit
    of any supporting analysis that Border Patrol's mission won't
    be compromised.
        As I mentioned, you have been to my district, you have seen
    firsthand how these drugs are destroying rural communities in
    Appalachia. And of course, you have been all over the country
    and you see the same.
        While you and I agree that reducing demand through
    treatment and education is critical, we mustn't lose sight of
    the fact that enforcement remains a critical prong of our
    holistic strategy on this scourge. Stakes are high and we must
    do everything in our power to combat this scourge.
        I look forward to continuing to work with you to provide
    the resources that you need to do just that.
        Another crisis that is being caused by the drug cartels is
    the massive influx of unaccompanied alien children and families
    at our Southern border. We have seen a surge in drug cartel and
    gang violence across Central and South America, fueled by the
    production and trafficking of drugs. These thugs and murderers
    are wreaking havoc on millions of people, forcing many to flee
    to other countries, including the U.S.
        Recently, there has been an unprecedented spike in
    unaccompanied minors crossing our Southern border. In the first
    4 months of fiscal 2016, Border Patrol has apprehended 20,000
    unaccompanied alien children. That is double the number that
    were apprehended in the same time frame last year.
        Unfortunately, this humanitarian crisis does not appear to
    be subsiding anytime soon, the reality of which is reflected in
    your budget submission. You have requested resources to support
    a revised baseline of 75,000 unaccompanied child apprehensions,
    as well as a contingency fund should that number be exceeded.
        Our committee will analyze this request and my hope is that
    we can provide the necessary resources for CBP to handle the
    influx of these children at our borders.
        In addition, virtually half of the 5.2 percent increase in
    your budget request comes from the transfer of $305 million for
    the Office of Biometric Identity Management, which as you know,
    like fees, requires authorization from other committees.
        Unfortunately, the President has sent us a budget after
    budget after budget that requests large increases in funding
    and graphics them by using budget gimmicks, like increasing
    taxes and fees that he knows are dead on arrival here on the
    Hill.
        Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention President
    Obama's executive order on immigration. As you know, this still
    remains one of the most divisive issues in Congress and in the
    country, indeed at large.
        The President's unilateral action demonstrates that he has
    no intention of working with Congress or respecting our
    constitutional authority. Unfortunately, you and your agency
    are caught in the middle of this fight and it has made passing
    an annual appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland
    Security incredibly difficult.
        It also makes it impossible to move forward on any
    meaningful immigration reform while the President remains in
    office.
        So, Mr. Commissioner, thank you for being here today. Thank
    you for your service to your country. And we thank you for
    leading this agency.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner, I am going to start off with the questioning.

                                  CBP STAFFING

        And the flag I raised as I was talking to you, staffing is
    something that you are concerned about, I am concerned about,
    and I want us to discuss it.
        We will talk first about the Border Patrol and afterwards
    about aviation hiring.
        I understand that the Border Patrol is currently 1,268
    agents below the mandated personnel floor of 21,370, a floor
    that is not new, it has been around for a while. So the under-
    execution of agents is not due to hiring up to a new level as
    it is with the Customs officers, but sustaining the existing
    workforce.
        I am going to have a series of questions. We are going to
    pause and let you answer some of those, then we will move on.
        What are you doing to address the hemorrhage of agents from
    the Border Patrol? I would note that while we have been hiring
    CBP officers, we have consistently lost Border Patrol agents
    over the last year.
        To ensure that stations are manned to the suggested and
    needed levels, do you foresee a need to reinstate a hardship
    designation for certain stations or create other incentives to
    help prevent the attrition of agents?
        With the reduction of overall numbers, do you anticipate a
    need to reexamine and restructure how the Border Patrol mans
    stations and forward operating bases?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. So I share very much the concern that we
    have discussed on this hiring issue. And for the Border Patrol
    to be in a downward spiral, which means that we are not able to
    hire as fast as attrition, is very concerning.
        I have talked with your staff also about the number of
    programs that we have put in place particularly to speed up the
    process. So in these new hiring hubs we can get people through
    in 160 days until, at times, well over a year. That is
    important.
        The close cooperation with the Department of Defense as
    people leave the Department of Defense and the active duty
    military, to be able to hire them into the Border Patrol or
    into Customs and Border Protection is particularly important.
        Working with Congress on additional pay for some of the
    very difficult locations that they work, hardship reimbursement
    would be particularly helpful along with things that we have
    discussed around the age issues.
        When we talk about the Border Patrol, you know, we realize
    that their salaries were cut anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 as
    a result of the AUO, the additional overtime money.
        But we have now transitioned to the Border Patrol Pay
    Reform Act. You should be very happy to know that 96 percent of
    the Border Patrol agents who have now opted into the number of
    hours that they would work have opted into the maximum number.
    So instead of a 40-hour work week, they will work a 50-hour
    work week for the additional money, which they are clearly
    deserving of.
        And in turn, that actually results in us getting more boots
    on the ground.
        Mr. Carter. So the fiscal year 2017 request calls for a
    reduction of 300 in the overall strength of the Border Patrol.
    However, we understand that many stations along the Southern
    border are facing staffing setbacks for a variety of reasons.
    There is no empirical data to inform how many agents we need.
        How do you justify a reduction in manning when CBP cannot
    articulate a validated requirement for the number of Border
    Patrol agents, combined with the technology requirements to
    surveil the border? When will we see a validated requirements
    and resourcing model similar to the model used by the Office of
    Field Operations?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Yes, I don't think there is anything that
    is more frustrating to the executives of the Border Patrol or
    myself or certainly the secretary on not being able to have a
    set of metrics that actually said how many Border Patrol agents
    do you actually need.
        It has been unbelievably difficult and complex and it is as
    complex as when we tried to decide how many police officers we
    needed in Seattle versus how many police officers were needed
    in a city like Washington, D.C.
        But we are closer. We are much closer now to developing
    that set of metrics that would be helpful.
        And as you know, the offset in the reduction of the 300
    personnel would be to fund radios, improvements in the radio
    system, the vast majority of which would go to the Border
    Patrol and to their vehicles, many of which now are reaching a
    lifespan that makes them not as serviceable as they should be.
        And there is nothing more frustrating than having an agent
    who can't go out to do patrol because the radio is not operable
    or because of the vehicle. So we are looking at using those
    funds for that.
        Mr. Carter. Commissioner, while we have long discussed the
    hiring of Customs officers and Border Patrol agents, I am
    equally as concerned with the vacancy for area interdiction
    agents.
        Marine interdiction agents and air crew enforcement agents,
    by your own numbers, CBP is 12 percent below the goal for air
    interdiction agents, 93 below the goal of 775 agents.
        How can we efficiently utilize our air assets if we don't
    have enough pilots to fly the aircraft? It is my understanding
    that Corpus Christi is only manned to fly two, maybe three
    missions at a time, yet we have six P-3s and three UASs
    stationed at the facility.
        Do we hire more agents or rehire or retire them with the
    aircraft? Or are vacancies impacting air operations?
        Further, I hear pilots coming out of the military who have
    been flying combat missions overseas are failing the CBP
    polygraph. What is CBP doing to address hiring and polygraph
    issues? How do we address air crew vacancies for the P-3s, who
    are mostly former Navy, when the Navy is no longer training P-3
    air crews?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. So one of the difficulties in hiring for
    Air and Marine is that it is a very competitive environment.
    And one of my last flights, the first officer had been a pilot
    for us in San Diego and was now flying for Delta. And so we
    know and we have seen this huge increase in both domestic
    passenger travel and also international travel by air. So we
    are in a competitive environment.
        One of the difficulties has been, though, that this
    requirement that a pilot coming out of the military must also
    undergo the same level of scrutiny or screening that someone
    hiring from outside would go through; quite frankly they come
    with a top secret clearance if they are a pilot in the
    military. I don't see any reason why we can't continue to work
    with the Office of Personnel Management and others to bring
    them onboard much more quickly without going through as many
    hoops as we would go through for others.
        The last thing that I would mention is that amongst all
    those different job descriptions in Air and Marine, we have, I
    think, four different pay scales. And we are interesting in
    working toward the same law enforcement pay system that the FBI
    and the Marshals and DEA have, which is Law Enforcement
    Availability Pay, (LEAP) pay, which provides an additional 25
    percent of their salary for the extra hours that they would
    normally work. And we would kind of like to level that playing
    field for all of them.
        So we will continue to keep working on that. But of course,
    I think you know, too, our push has been to hire with the
    appropriated money the additional Customs and Border Protection
    officers, plus to stop the bleeding in the Border Patrol.
        Mr. Carter. Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                                BORDER SECURITY

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Commissioner, I would like to go back to
    the whole issue of border security and the fact that we don't
    have enough Border Patrol manpower there.
        And we also hear a lot about the fact that we have to
    secure our border. And when I go back home, I hear a lot of
    anxiety about that, because the impression is that our borders
    are fairly open and that they are unprotected.
        In practical terms, how does CBP define its border security
    mission? And what are the essential measures by which we should
    be judging CBP's performance?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. So we look very much, particularly with
    the Border Patrol, between the ports of entry, we look very
    much at the security at the Border Patrol. Do they have
    operational awareness or what we would call situational
    awareness? Do they know the number of people that may be
    attempting and the particular areas that they are coming
    across?
        They also have the information and the liaison with their
    state and city and county partners all along the border. And we
    know that many of those border cities, from El Paso to San
    Diego to Tucson, have some of the lowest crime rates of any of
    the large cities in the country.
        So understanding and recognizing that there are also
    places, and this is where we use our unmanned aircraft, that
    there are also places that are so desolate and so rugged and so
    difficult that we are not seeing people attempt in any way,
    shape or form to cross or enter the border illegally.
        Well, if they are not using those locations, we need to
    take those finite Border Patrol resources and allow them and
    put them in the places where we do have greater numbers.
        But you know, as a police chief I was always held
    accountable for managing our people, responding quickly, making
    sure they were trained and had the equipment they needed, but I
    was never held accountable for a crime-free city, whether it
    was Buffalo or Seattle. There will always be gaps. And we will
    work very hard to make sure that those taps are narrowed.

                             UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I would like to go now to an issue that
    we discussed during last year's hearing, and that is the
    treatment of unaccompanied Mexican children who cross the
    border, which is different from those children that are coming
    from Central America.
        Last July, GAO released a report on the treatment of
    unaccompanied children in DHS custody, which made a number of
    recommendations pertinent to Mexican children.
        GAO found that CBP personnel were not appropriately
    following the requirements of the Trafficking Victims
    Protection Reauthorization Act.
        For instance, CBP forms lacked specific indicators and
    questions agents and officers should use to assess whether a
    child has a credible fear of returning to Mexico, could be at
    risk of being trafficked if returned, or is capable of making
    an independent decision to voluntarily return.
        The report also found that CBP personnel did not document
    the basis for the decisions they made relative to these
    factors. GAO found that CBP repatriated 95 percent of
    unaccompanied Mexican children it apprehended between 2009 and
    2014, including 93 percent of Mexican children under the age of
    14, even though CBP's 2009 memorandum on the treatment of
    unaccompanied children states that children under 14 are
    generally presumed to be unable to make an independent
    decision.
        I saw that the department recently signed new repatriation
    agreements with Mexico. To what extent were those agreements in
    response to the GAO report? And what specific changes to
    repatriations do they entail?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Well, as a result of the questions in the
    discussion last year and also as a result of the GAO, we did a
    new series of training for the Border Patrol to make sure that
    those questions are appropriately asked and that the responses
    are appropriately recorded for that decision involving Mexican
    children.
        At the same time, within the last month, Assistant
    Secretary Bersin and Director Saldana from ICE were in, I
    believe, Arizona to sign new repatriation agreements with
    Mexico to make sure that there was close coordination with the
    government of Mexico upon returning someone so that they
    wouldn't be returned at night, they wouldn't be returned in an
    environment that may be considered hostile or dangerous and
    that their property, whatever property they crossed the border
    with, would be also returned with them.
        So I think that progress in the training and progress in
    the additional repatriation agreement with Mexico is helpful.
    And as you know, the vast majority of the unaccompanied
    children that we are apprehending are coming from the three
    Central American countries and really not Mexico right now.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I see that my time is up.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Carter. Chairman Rogers.

                           DRUG TRAFFICKING AND ABUSE

        Chairman Rogers. Mr. Commissioner, you and I have been
    working many times together over the years to curtail drug
    trafficking and abuse. I have said many times and I have heard
    you say it many times that there is no one answer to the
    problem, that it does take enforcement, treatment and
    education, a holistic approach.
        The President's budget rightly puts prescription drug and
    heroin abuse in the forefront, but largely focuses on treatment
    and the demand side of the equation. If we want to see any
    further success in treating victims of abuse and educating the
    public about the danger that is present, I think that we have
    got to be sure that enforcement on the front end is emphasized
    and in fact ironclad.
        Your agency is charged with protecting the borders and you
    have got the primary role to play in all of this. DEA says
    heroin seizures in the U.S. have increased in each of the last
    5 years, nearly doubling from 2010 to 2014.
        Your agency reports seizing over 9,600 ounces of heroin
    during fiscal year 2014. And yet, your budget would reduce the
    number of agents patrolling our borders by some 300.
        How can you justify taking boots off the ground in spite of
    this huge increase in heroin interdiction?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Mr. Chairman, I go back to a couple of
    things. One is that on the heroin issue, the majority of any
    heroin that we seize is not between the ports of entry, it is
    smuggled through the ports of entry, whether it is in San
    Isidro or El Paso or whether it is at JFK Airport. Heroin
    seizures almost predominantly are through a port of entry and
    either carried in a concealed part of a vehicle or carried by
    an individual.
        We don't get much heroin that is seized by the Border
    Patrol coming through. And I think just because there are a lot
    of risks to the smugglers and the difficulty of trying to
    smuggle it through.
        But when I look at the number of Border Patrol agents that
    we are already down and I look at offsetting, being able to
    provide additional radio equipment and additional vehicles as a
    result of using some of that money or the majority of that
    money to the Border Patrol, I think it is a decision that will
    help.
        We know that technology is better for their safety and it
    is also better to get get them out to be able to patrol.

                              VISA WAIVER PROGRAM

        Chairman Rogers. Changing subjects, the Visa Waiver Program
    permits citizens of 38 different countries to travel to the
    U.S. either for business or tourism purposes up to 90 days
    without a visa. In return, those 38 countries must permit U.S.
    citizens to remain in their countries for a similar length of
    time.
        Since its inception in 1986, that program has evolved into
    a comprehensive security partnership with many of America's
    closest allies. The department administers the Visa Waiver
    Program in consultation with the State Department and they
    utilize a risk-based, multi-layered approach to detect and
    prevent terrorists, serious criminals and other bad actors from
    traveling to this country.
        With the advent of the terrorist era that we are in now,
    the Congress deemed it impossible to live with that kind of a
    free border program with 38 countries in the world for fear of
    terrorist infiltration undetected.
        So we passed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and
    Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 which established new
    eligibility requirements for travel under the Visa Waiver
    Program to include travel restrictions.
        They don't bar a person from coming to the U.S. point
    blank, but they do require that the traveler obtain a U.S.
    visa, which then gives us the chance to investigate the
    background of the person.
        So in December, that law was passed. Can you outline for us
    the programmatic changes concerning aliens from these
    countries, how soon you will be able to implement the changes
    if they are not already there?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. So Secretary Johnson several months before
    the passage of this authorized an additional series of
    questions to be put into the ESTA, this system in which we
    would record information with more detail and more specificity.
        For instance, more specificity when it comes to the
    location that a person would be staying, additional contact
    information, such as cell phone and email, those types of
    pieces.
        And then when the law was passed, particularly the fact of
    dual citizenship with the four countries that were outlined, we
    canceled 17,000 travel approval requests that had already been
    basically approved.
        As you know, this ESTA system lasts. You can use it within
    a 2-year window.
        One thing that isn't always recognized with this system,
    though, is that a person is continually vetted. Those names are
    run against databases every 24 hours. So if you applied and you
    weren't going to travel for another 8 or 9 or 10 months, every
    single day your name would be run against the series of
    databases because we don't want you suddenly to say now I am
    going to go ahead and use the ESTA, it has already been
    approved, I am going to get on a plane. And we say, well, wait,
    in the last 48 hours or 72 hours, some information of a
    derogatory nature came up and needs to be worked on.
        We work closely with the Department of State. I testified
    recently at two hearings on this issue. I think the fact that
    we were able to cancel those 17,000 ESTAs and require that
    those individuals then go back to an embassy or a consulate and
    get a waiver and we will continue, including standing up with
    the National Targeting Center along with the State Department
    personnel sitting right next to us, a terrorist prevention
    group that will look at this much more in-depth on a 24-hour
    basis.
        Chairman Rogers. Are you properly staffed to handle this
    increased workload?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. In the budget, we requested an additional,
    I believe, 40 personnel to go to the Targeting Center. I would
    think that frankly if there is a real jewel in the crown of CBP
    when it comes to prevention.
        I would say our National Targeting Centers for cargo and
    passenger anticipation of things that could be dangerous or
    people that could be dangerous.
        And I know a number of members and a number of staff have
    visited it. And I would encourage them to see that 24/7
    operation. But asking for these additional people, including
    working in a Counter Network Division to work on human
    smuggling and drug smuggling is a good prevention technique.
        Chairman Rogers. The legislation also required program
    countries to validate passports, report lost or stolen
    passports, use INTERPOL screening and start passenger
    information exchange agreements. Can you tell us what these
    requirements are and how they will be put in place?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Yes. They must vet or they must check that
    foreign passport against INTERPOL's lost and stolen database.
    They must do that.
        And the requirement, you know, with visa waiver that I
    think is not often talked about, but is really quite helpful,
    is the fact that it brings these countries who are like-minded,
    who want to prevent terrorism and want to prevent smuggling, it
    brings us together in a better information-sharing environment.
        We have in CBP a permanent liaison to INITERPOL. We have
    two permanent liaisons to EUROPOL policing. And we have at our
    immigration assistance program a number of CBP personnel at
    airports where they don't do enforcement on foreign territory,
    but they certainly work closely with their foreign
    counterparts.
        And I think that is part of the benefit of, frankly, the
    Visa Waiver Program. It brings us together to all assess risk
    and to realize that we are all in the same boat.
        Chairman Rogers. The legislation directed you to terminate
    program countries for failure to comply with certain
    requirements. Do you foresee the termination of any countries
    from the program?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I am not familiar with that. I know that
    Secretary Johnson in counsel with Secretary Kerry and also the
    director of the Office of National Intelligence just added
    three additional countries to the original four that Congress
    passed.
        So that increases our workload, but it also improves our
    risk assessment and our safety and security.
        Chairman Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for your
    service.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Thank you.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Price.
        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Commissioner. Glad to see you here again.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Thanks.

                                BORDER SECURITY

        Mr. Price. I want to pick up where the ranking member left
    off on the question of border security, how you conceive of
    that going forward in terms of the mix of elements that would
    go to make up the kind of situational awareness and border
    security you are talking about.
        I understand this is a mix of personnel, infrastructure and
    technology that we are talking about here. I share the concern
    that has been expressed repeatedly this morning about the
    shortfall in personnel that this budget would apparently leave
    us with, something like 700 Customs officials, 1,300 Border
    Patrol agents.
        My own view, and I think it is widely shared, is that in
    the long term, true and effective border security isn't going
    to be achieved, even with all the money we might throw at it,
    without comprehensive immigration reform.
        And since it has been brought up here this morning, I think
    maybe a little reality check is in order.
        The President in fact pushed very hard in cooperation with
    the Congress for years for comprehensive immigration reform.
    And he worked effectively at it and successfully with the
    Senate. The Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill.
        But then the House never took it up. That is the problem.
    That is the problem with comprehensive immigration reform.
        And it was only after months, indeed years of that kind of
    stonewalling that the President did take executive action. It
    was limited action, it is very well-reasoned and legally sound
    action, I believe, to exercise a degree of prosecutorial
    discretion with respect to whom we initiate immigration
    enforcement on.
        And of course, then the Republicans take that executive
    action as a new excuse, a new excuse not to act. So
    frustratingly we fall short, fall short of the comprehensive
    immigration reform that might deal with this larger issue.
        So we return to border security. And that issue, too, has
    become inflamed in recently months, thanks largely to the
    Presidential campaign.
        People with little or no immigration enforcement or policy
    experience, including some high-profile Presidential
    candidates, have said once again we can simply build a fence.
    We can seal the Southern border. And one actually says we can
    send the bill to Mexico.
        Now, when I was chairman of this committee the fence loomed
    very large. And we appropriated on this subcommittee for
    hundreds of miles of pedestrian and vehicle fence. We
    attempted, with mixed success I have to say, to exercise some
    measure of cost/benefit analysis with these various segments of
    the fence. But we built it.
        There was a huge political push all of the time to build
    that fence. Well, now it is back. Now the fence is back, and I
    am going to give you a chance to comment explicitly on this.
        So what does a secure border look like? And do we need more
    fence?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. It does mean that when we have that
    situational or operational awareness and we know what is coming
    and where our gaps are, that that is particularly helpful.
        And the fence that has been built, I think it is
    approximately 600 miles of different types of fencing,
    including tactical fencing, very high fencing, double and
    triple fencing in some locations, and some to prevent a
    vehicle. The Border Patrol uses that type of technique and
    those types of fence technologies in order to move people that
    may be attempting to come across into different locations where
    they can have more resources.
        We also, you know, clearly recognize that anyone who has
    traveled and spent time on the border, as I think everyone of
    the members here has, that there are lots of locations in which
    fencing and walls would not be able to be built, would not work
    and would not be able to withstand.
        And even with the fencing that we have, we spend
    considerable resources repairing and keeping that fencing in
    line. So you know, we think it is the combination of all of the
    other things that we do, tactical aerostats, patrols, infrared,
    fixed towers, ground sensors, on and on and on, that make for a
    more secure border.
        Mr. Price. Would it be your judgment that the budget you
    have submitted gets that balance right in terms of the mix of
    elements going forward? Are there major gaps, major omissions
    that you would look to be addressed in later years?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. No, I think the budget that we have
    submitted is a very realistic budget. I think that I would be
    very happy, as I am sure every member of the committee would
    be, if we could hire and, again, get the number of Border
    Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers fully
    trained and on the job, that right now that is the number-one
    priority.
        Because regardless of all the technology, this is still a
    very labor-intensive and people-oriented kind of business,
    whether it is at a port of entry or between the ports of entry.
        But I think we have submitted a realistic budget that will
    help us get there. And quite frankly, the committee has been
    very supportive of a number of initiatives in the past. And I
    think that is why we have made progress.
        Mr. Price. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Stewart.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner, thank you for your many years of service, and
    to your peers as well, law enforcement all around the country.
    It is a difficult time to be in law enforcement and want you to
    know that many of us support you and the efforts that you are
    trying to undertake.
        I am going to ask you a couple of questions, and I don't
    think you are going to be able to answer them, at least I will
    be a little surprised if you are, but I would kind of like to
    explore do we know what we don't know and how good of a feel we
    have on some of these things that we may not, you know.

                              VISA WAIVER PROGRAM

        For example, I appreciated and I wanted to follow up on the
    chairman's conversation about the Visa Waiver Program. And you
    indicated there and it is in your written testimony something
    like 17,000 who have been denied or revoked today on the ESTA
    program.
        Do we have any idea of those 17,000, is that 90 percent of
    those who maybe, you know, we should have identified, is it 50
    percent? Do you have a sense for how successful that is?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. The 17,000 are the dual citizens with
    those four countries.
        Mr. Stewart. Right. So that is fairly easy to identify.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. And I would tell you that looking at it,
    it is a mix of people. Have we been able to--is there somebody
    in that mix that probably might not have or should not have
    gotten that? I think that is very possible.
        But also, it is people who have fled Iran during the
    overthrow of the Shah in 1979 that haven't been to Iran in 40
    years, but still have dual citizenship.
        Mr. Stewart. Yes.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. And they were canceled, too. So you know,
    it was a broad brush, widely supported by certainly Congress
    and the President.
        Mr. Stewart. But that is a relatively easy thing to do,
    identify those who have the dual citizenship of those targeted
    countries.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Right.
        Mr. Stewart. And I am guessing you identified most of those
    people, wouldn't you say?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Well, we identified them through the fact
    that they had already--we knew in the system that they were
    dual citizens.
        Mr. Stewart. Much harder, though, to identify those that
    the visa waiver legislation required us to identify, those who
    had traveled to some of these serious, not Syria, but some of
    these questions or countries question.
        Do you have a sense for how successful we have been in
    identifying those people? And let me elaborate and then I will
    allow you to answer.
        That is a much harder thing to do. And we need partners in
    order to do that. They may be traveling from Europe that we
    would be unaware of that travel were it not for our European
    partners or counterparts who have made us aware of that.
        And Department of Homeland Security, the director really
    was pretty firm on several countries, France, Belgium, Germany,
    Italy, Greece, gave them a February 1 deadline to fix what he
    called crucial loopholes.
        Can you give us an update on how our partners are doing in
    providing us this information? Because again, we would be
    unaware of it without their input and they hadn't done a good
    job of doing that previous. Have they gotten better? Are our
    partners doing a better job of giving us that information?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Visa waiver, it results in a lot of
    partnerships, including the exchange of information. So one,
    the relationship, particularly after the attacks in Paris,
    continues to get strengthened about the necessity of exchanging
    and sharing information.
        You are exactly correct when you talk about that it is much
    more difficult then to detect people because of either broken
    travel.
        So we rely, one, on a partner, another partner in another
    government to perhaps tell us about that. Also, people do self-
    declare about having traveled to one of the countries.
        And then lastly, when you enter the United States and that
    passport is gone through by that Customs and Border Protection
    officer, just as we did during Ebola screening, we do come
    across people that have traveled to one of those countries. I
    think 2011 was the cutoff date that you put in place.
        Mr. Stewart. So Commissioner, being short on time, let me
    just ask the question simply. Department of Homeland Security
    asked these identified partners, they gave them a February 1
    deadline to close these loopholes. Would you say that they have
    done that effectively?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I would say they are much better, but I
    couldn't answer for every one of them, and I would be happy to
    provide that information to you or your staff.
        Mr. Stewart. I wish you would.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Okay.
        Mr. Stewart. And I think it is something we are going to
    have to, you know, keep our eye on, because some of them are
    more effective than others.

                                  SOCIAL MEDIA

        And let me ask very quickly, one of the things that we
    identified and I think many of us recognized as something that
    we had to expand our capabilities, and that was using social
    media to identify some who may be entering our country and pose
    a threat.
        In San Bernardino, there were indications that there were
    some social--I am not talking about the radicalization, I am
    talking about those who were maybe radicalized, trying to enter
    a country. And if we had used social media as a tool, we would
    raise the red flags and be able to say this person is someone
    we should look more closely at.
        Previous to that, we hadn't done a good job of that. I
    don't think it was a policy to use that tool. Can you update
    us, how is that being implemented with using social media to
    identify those individuals who may be a threat as they are
    trying to enter the country?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Sure. The social media checks would
    certainly apply throughout DHS to USCIS, to ICE, et cetera. And
    Secretary Johnson has stood up a task force within DHS to look
    at expanding and moving forward on the ability to research and
    use information and social media that applies DHS-wide, not
    just for CBP.
        Mr. Stewart. Yes. And do you know when that task force is
    supposed to give their report?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I believe General Taylor from intelligence
    and analysis is in charge as the chair of that task force. I
    don't know the date.
        Mr. Stewart. Okay. We will find out and we will follow up
    with that.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Okay.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Thank you.
        Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar?
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner, thank you. I believe you said earlier this
    might be your last hearing. And I just want to say thank you so
    much for all the many years of service. I appreciate it.

                                BORDER SECURITY

        And also appreciate your moderate approach to this. I am
    from the border. Laredo is 96 percent Hispanic, most Hispanic
    city percentage-wise in the country.
        I think people know my policies. You know, I would like to
    see a moderate approach. We don't want to see open borders. We
    believe if somebody is put in detention they ought to be
    treated fairly, but that we should have detention, have some
    sort of deterrent.
        At the same time, we believe in immigration reform,
    sensible immigration reform.
        At the same time, we think the wall is a 14th century
    solution to a 21st century problem that we have.
        So we would like to see the moderation there because we
    want to see order at the border. And you know, just don't want
    to get political, but if the folks that I represent on the
    border wouldn't give me 95, 90 percent of the vote every time I
    run, so I assume they support my policies, which is pretty much
    what you do also, a moderate approach.
        One of the things we have been talking about lately is to
    extend our border beyond the U.S.-Mexico border because we
    spend billions of dollars on the U.S.-Mexican border.
        A couple of years ago, I think we put about $80-$85 million
    to help Mexico secure the Southern border with Guatemala. I saw
    some figures that over a period of time they actually deported
    more people than Border Patrol did over the same amount of
    time. So just $80 million did a lot to help Mexico extend, for
    us to extend our border.
        We were in Costa Rica. The Cubans, that is a totally
    different issue. But we were there, the Costa Ricans were
    telling us in December that the people who are coming in,
    trying to get into the U.S., they had people from Ghana,
    Somalia, Nepal and literally name the country and they were
    there.
        So my question to you in extending the border out besides
    the U.S.-Mexico border, what else can we do to help the
    Mexicans and our Central American folks to help us secure our
    border? Because the more we stop outside the U.S. border, the
    better it is for us.
        So if you want to address biometric equipment, training we
    can do. I know you are doing that, but what can we do to step
    this up?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Congressman, I think the government of
    Mexico has done a really admirable job, particularly in the
    last year-plus, in increasing and improving their border.
        CBP and other components of DHS have a number of advisers
    and technical assistance, both in places like Tapachula and
    other locations, but also within Mexico City.
        We visited the training center for those personnel. We
    visited the detention facility, I visited it particularly. They
    have made marked progress in the work that they have done.
        And I think we couldn't be more pleased with the government
    of Mexico as a partner in this. So we will continue to look at,
    can we assist in biometric identification processes, other
    types of things?
        But I think the last thing, and probably the most important
    in all of this, would be that if those three Central American
    countries, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, had better
    safety, better security, a better educational system for people
    and better hope for the people that live in those countries,
    they wouldn't be fleeing and making an incredibly dangerous
    journey to the United States.
        As Ms. Roybal-Allard and I sat on the floor with a father
    not that long ago and his 4-year-old daughter, and he said, you
    know, we had several murders down the street. He said the last
    thing I needed to do is to leave my wife with one of our other
    children and for myself and my daughter to flee, this is in El
    Salvador, to flee and try to get to the United States where his
    mother lives. But he said, I can't raise her in that
    environment.
        If those countries are more stable, I think people don't
    want to pick up and leave and come here.
        Mr. Cuellar. Well, I hope you work with the State
    Department. Because as you know, Mr. Chairman, and members of
    the committee, we added $750 million working with--for Central
    America, the Northern Triangle. So hopefully you all are part
    of that process, because the more we extend our security out,
    instead of playing defense on the 1-yard line, but extend it to
    the 20-yard line, the better it is.
        So there were $750 million that hopefully you all will work
    with the State Department.
        Thank you so much for your time and effort and your
    service.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. It would be really helpful to have an
    ambassador, too, in Mexico to be able to work with.
        Mr. Cuellar. Oh, I agree. I think Roberta Jacobson should
    be the ambassador and it is unfair that she has been delayed
    for something that has nothing to do with Mexico. It is very
    unfair to Mexico.
        Mr. Carter. Dr. Harris.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
        And thank you for being before the committee. And thanks
    for your service. You know, we have got your resume here and it
    is pretty impressive, including, of course, your service over
    at the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

                               DRUG TRAFFICKINGS

        So I am going to follow up with what the chairman of the
    full committee asked about a little bit, which is the role of
    your organization now in controlling drug traffic. I think
    there was testimony last year that your department or, you
    know, U.S. Customs and Border Protection doesn't have a zero-
    tolerance policy. That in fact people found crossing the border
    with marijuana or other drugs, actually there is no zero
    tolerance, you actually don't refer for prosecution everyone
    who attempts to enter our country and poison our youth.
        So I have got to ask you, why?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I don't actually know of any policy like
    that. I know that people are apprehended with drugs, whether it
    is small amounts that they are carrying for some personal use,
    or whether it is multi-ton or multi-kilo loads. All of those,
    to my knowledge, would be referred to the United States
    attorney and it would not be up to Customs and Border
    Protection to make a decision for the Department of Justice as
    to whether or not prosecution would be accepted.
        And frankly, if I did find out that we did have a policy
    where we were making those decisions rather than where they
    belonged with the Department of Justice I would reverse that
    policy very quickly.
        Mr. Harris. Well, you were head of the Office of National
    Drug Control Policy.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Right.
        Mr. Harris. Would you be disappointed with the Department
    of Justice if in fact they had set minimum amounts of marijuana
    to be brought into this country before it would be prosecuted?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I would tell you that----
        Mr. Harris. I mean, that seems like it would be a waste of
    time for your agents. Your agents go, you track them down, you
    find the drugs, they think they did a great job, you turn it
    over to the DOJ and DOJ looks the other way and says we are too
    busy.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I would tell you that I understand that,
    depending on the U.S. attorneys offices along the border, from
    Texas to California, that the number-one client for
    prosecutions is Customs and Border Protection.
        We keep them busy with everything possible. I think there
    are clearly going to be cases that they are not going to, and
    these are questions better answered by them, but I think there
    are clearly cases that, given the finite resources that they
    have, that they are not going to be able to accept for
    prosecution, either because of prosecutorial merit or because
    they have set some guideline.
        But I would tell you that we make those referrals all the
    time and we are happy to make sure that they have everything.
        I have assigned five attorneys in our office to be cross-
    designated as assistant United States attorneys just to help
    out in those areas so that they can have additional
    prosecutors. And if we need to assign more attorneys to do that
    to help them out, then that is what we will have to do.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. You know, I was a little
    disappointed when back in 2009, I guess, you know, the
    administration decided and I think you agreed to stop using the
    term ``war on drugs.''
        And honestly, I think if you look at the heroin epidemic we
    have now, it is exactly the result of the leadership of the
    country saying that we no longer have a war on drugs. Just my
    personal opinion, rhetorical question.

                              VISA WAIVER PROGRAM

        Let me go on to the Visa Waiver Program, because I just
    have a question about this. Because as you know, part of the
    controversy is is that this decision was made to, on a case-by-
    case basis, permit waivers for people, business people from
    Iraq or Iran who are conducting business, I believe those are
    the two case-by-case, can you tell us, since that program was
    put in place, how many, since it was case-by-case, who makes
    those case-by-case decisions?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. The process, if there was a request, and
    there has never been a request and to my knowledge there is not
    even a pending request for anyone to use that example, but we
    would use the unit or the group that we stood up in the
    National Targeting Center to review those.
        There are a series of questions that a person would have to
    answer if in fact, for example, it was a business case.
        We know that there are waivers already in existence,
    general waivers in the law for government officials and for
    military. But there would be a whole series of questions and we
    would have to validate through that system.
        But right now, I don't know of a single, there is not a
    single pending request or even one that has been made.
        Mr. Harris. So Iran's objection seems to be much ado about
    nothing?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I don't know if it is merely too early in
    the process for some of these additional requests, but I do
    know that no request has been made.

                            INTEGRATED FIXED TOWERS

        Mr. Harris. Okay. And just one final point, and this would
    be pretty brief. It has to do with the integrated fixed towers
    contracts.
        These were, you know, supposed to be important parts, the
    certification was delayed. Now there is no--is there money in
    the budgets for the rest of these towers? Are they going to
    proceed on time?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. There is money. And they are proceeding on
    time. The Border Patrol was required under the contract, and
    rightly so, to certify that these expensive pieces of
    technology are actually operational and are helpful. And I
    think as many members of the committee know, the attempt to
    build a virtual wall in SBI Net resulted in pretty significant
    investments of taxpayer dollars in some technology that did not
    prove to be useful to the agents on the ground that actually
    needed it.
        As I understand it, the Border Patrol has certified that
    the integrated fixed tower is a useful, helpful tool that
    expands their visibility on the border.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
        Yield back.
        Mr. Carter. Dr. Harris, you will recall that I mentioned it
    is a pretty strong rumor, at least on the Texas border, of the
    200 pound rule on marijuana. I didn't get a response from the
    attorney general when I asked her about that.
        Mr. Young.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner, welcome. Nice to see you. Thanks for what you
    do.

                                BORDER SECURITY

        I want to talk a little bit about Customs and Border
    Protection's use of UASs, unmanned aerial systems. I had gone
    down to the border last year, early last year, and noticed UAVs
    and aerostats. Can you talk a little bit about where those are
    being used and how they are being used and where they are being
    used?
        Are you seeing a drop in border activity? Because it seems
    to me this can simply be a real deterrent by seeing these
    intimidating blimps or drones. Can you just reassure us or talk
    about the relationship between using the UASs in conjunction
    with your agents? And is one meant to supplement the other? You
    are not phasing out agents with the use of UASs, are you?
        Can you just talk a little bit about this?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. No, they are all designed to enhance and
    kind of, even in my earlier statement, the fact that it is
    still a labor-intensive job, it still requires boots on the
    ground. But it can be greatly enhances with technology.
        So I think the tethered aerostats are particularly helpful,
    with the camera systems that are in them.
        Mr. Young. Do you know about how many aerostats we have
    now?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I think we are at five and we just put
    another one in McAllen area, so I think we are now moving to
    six aerostats.
        They are fairly expensive to operate because we use
    contractors to operate them. But frankly, I don't want to take
    a Border Patrol agent off the road and then have them operate
    the mechanics of the tactical aerostat.
        So I think they are helpful. I will be down in McAllen next
    week for my 12th or 13th trip and the agents down there feel
    that they are a definite deterrent and visible.
        I kind of thought that even if we had some extras, without
    the equipment we ought to just put them up in the air and see
    how that works, kind of like when we would park a police car
    with nobody in it and see if people slowed down.
        Mr. Young. Or the inflatable tanks they used in World War
    II.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. On the road. But we will have to see if
    they take up my idea.
        Mr. Young. Thank you for that.
        Last year I asked you about guidance given to CBP personnel
    to keep the administration's policies in mind and if these
    priorities supersede the law. And last month, House Judiciary
    heard testimony from a CBP agent that undocumented immigrants
    are no longer given a notice to appear and are released without
    any means of tracking their whereabouts.
        I have serious concerns about this and I know some of my
    colleagues do as well. Are agents being directed to ignore the
    law? Or is this coming from within their own decision-making or
    are they given guidance on ignoring the law on this?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Well, they shouldn't be releasing anyone.
    And the Border Patrol shouldn't be issuing the notices to
    appear, without going through and without having ICE,
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement. So we don't need to be in
    that.
        I mean, I think everyone is very familiar with policies in
    the past called catch and release in which people were not
    documented, reports were not as well-written, people weren't
    questioned. There is no one that is apprehended today, unless
    they are under the age of 14, that isn't fingerprinted and
    photographed, that isn't debriefed about how did you get here,
    was there a smuggling involved, who did you pay, how much did
    it cost, all of that information.
        But we don't need and don't want and I would not stand by
    if the Border Patrol was releasing people without going through
    all of the formalities that are required.
        Mr. Young. Well, did this concern you when this Border
    Patrol agent gave this testimony before the Judiciary Committee
    on this about----
        Mr. Kerlikowske. So the concern I have is quite often the
    Border Patrol Council, which is the union, is probably not the
    most knowledgeable organization about what is actually going
    on.
        I think unlike, you know, when I have police officers in
    Seattle, they would follow the law, then there is room within
    the law to actually do things. And if they weren't happy with
    doing that, it is kind of like, well, if you really don't want
    to follow the directions that your superiors, including the
    President of the United States and the commissioner of Customs
    and Border Protection, then you really do need to look for
    another job.
        Mr. Young. Well, there are some serious concerns out there
    that the law is not being enforced. And last year when, with
    ICE, Saldana was here and she gave intimations and pretty much
    a statement saying that their goals and principles and
    priorities should take precedence, even over the law.
        And so that is very concerning to myself and many others on
    this panel and just throughout America, wondering why if it is
    not happening, the law is not being enforced. It is a very
    serious thing. I urge you to keep an eye on that, please.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Thanks.
        Mr. Young. Thank you.
        Mr. Carter. All right. I think we will start a second
    round. First, going back to something one of my colleagues
    brought up, I think Mr. Harris.

                            INTEGRATED FIXED TOWERS

        The integrated fixed towers, the reality is that the first
    certification of one of these towers was last Friday. Am I
    correct? So it is a very, very current event.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Yes.
        Mr. Carter. And on those towers, here is the question that
    Texans would like to know, when will your budget install towers
    in Texas? Or what will you use in Texas if not integrated fixed
    towers?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. So I think that part of the delay with the
    integrated fixed towers was the fact that that contract was
    protested. And as we know, when a contract is protested it
    takes a long time then to overcome that.
        But that fixed tower in Arizona is up and working. We know
    that the additional aerostat in Texas is very helpful. And if
    there are other locations, including those within Texas, in
    which that fixed tower would make a difference, then I would
    like to move forward with that.
        I couldn't be more specific, but I am happy to get back to
    you on that.
        [The information follows:]

        Chairman Carter. And on those towers, here is the question that
    Texans would like to know, when will you budget install towers in
    Texas? Or what will you use in Texas if not integrated fixed towers?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. So I think that part of the delay with the
    integrated fixed towers was the fact that that contract was protested.
    And as we know, when a contract is protested it takes a long time to
    overcome that.
        But that fixed tower in Arizona is up and working. We know that the
    additional aerostat in Texas is very helpful. And if there are other
    locations, including those within Texas, in which that fixed tower
    would make a difference, then we would like to move forward with that.
        I couldn't be more specific, but I am happy to get back to you on
    that.
        RESPONSE: Surveillance requirements in Texas may be filled with
    various combinations of personnel, technology, and infrastructure.
    Capabilities currently deployed in Texas for ground surveillance are
    the Tactical Aerostats and Relocatable Towers System and Unattended
    Ground Sensors (UGS). In addition, we have the Tethered Aerostat Radar
    System (TARS) for air domain awareness. We are planning deployments of
    the Remote Video Surveillance System (RVSS) fixed surveillance, the
    Mobile Video Surveillance Systems (MVSS) and the Mobile Surveillance
    System (MSC), both mobile surveillance. In some parts of Texas, we will
    also deploy the Mobile Surveillance System (MSS), which adds radar
    capability combined with cameras.
        CBP does not currently plan to install integrated fixed towers
    (IFTs) in Texas, largely because the Analysis of Alternatives concluded
    they are not an appropriate technology for much of Texas. Because of
    the foliage and terrain along the border in Texas, camera technologies
    are more effective than current radars, like those on IFT. We are
    emphasizing the deployments of RVSS and MVSS in Texas. The MVSS
    contract has recently been awarded and we expect initial deployments to
    Texas later this year. With respect to RVSS, we have begun preliminary
    work to do environmental assessments and acquire land. Accounting for
    the sometimes lengthy timelines of these preliminary processes, we
    expect to begin RVSS deployments in FY 2017 or FY2018. As a stop-gap,
    we have deployed six tactical aerostats to high-priority areas in
    Texas, as well as several ``relocatable towers'' with cameras in 17
    sites. Ultimately, it is the combination of surveillance assets, with
    tactical infrastructure such as patrol roads and access roads that
    support the responding agents, that will ensure CBP mission success.

        Mr. Carter. Well, it wouldn't be the first time that we
    have looked around and seen resources going to Arizona that we
    really needed in Texas. So I think I am required to ask that
    question.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I got the message.
        Mr. Carter. Okay. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Cuellar. I agree.

                            BORDER SECURITY METRICS

        Mr. Carter. We understand that the department is exploring
    an outcome-based approach to metrics that would measure the
    effectiveness of our border security. How is CBP working with
    the secretary on this initiative? And how will it change the
    current CBP metrics which are more input-based instead of
    outcome-based?
        And what does the preliminary data suggest for border
    security between and at ports of entry? I understand the
    results differ compared with existing metrics.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Yes, the secretary, and I think everyone,
    including CBP and the Border Patrol, is frustrated with either
    the lack of metrics or the metrics that exist. What do they
    really tell you?
        And almost like I believe it was Dr. Harris, you don't know
    what you don't know would be one of the questions.
        So the secretary brought in a number of people from the
    Department of Defense and others that have been working pretty
    closely with all of us to gather as much information as
    possible about what are the measures and what should be looked
    at and what are the determinations that would be most useful in
    things like determining the number of Border Patrol Agents, how
    secure is the border, what are we missing, et cetera.
        It is very complex. I don't know the exact timeline, but I
    know that he is absolutely focused and intent on trying to have
    this done and out certainly before he leaves office.
        Mr. Carter. So you don't really know anything, the
    difference between, you know, between input and outcome basis?
    Do you have some examples as to what the differences might be?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I don't. The last briefing I had from the
    people that had come over from defense was probably three or 4
    months ago. So I am not all that familiar with where they are
    now, because they wanted to gather a lot of information from
    ICE, not just Border Patrol, but also at our ports of entry.
        Mr. Carter. Well, if you got anything that gives us a hint,
    would you share it with us?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I will be happy to.
        Mr. Carter. Okay.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I think if we look back on the record of the hearing
    last year, I do not believe that Director Saldana said or
    implied that the law should not be followed.

                            LAW ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS

        Commissioner, late last year, you briefed me on the results
    of CBP's review of body-worn cameras, which this committee
    supported as a way of potentially increasing accountability for
    CBP personnel as well as protecting them from unfounded
    allegations of misconduct.
        The budget request includes $5 million to continue
    examining how body-worn cameras might be used across CBP's
    varied operational environments while also looking at how the
    expanded or more efficient use of other camera technologies
    could be beneficial.
        Can you elaborate on how this funding will be used and how
    that activity will be different from the feasibility study that
    CBP conducted last year?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Yes, ma'am. So we have tried to move
    beyond the fact that, one, Customs and Border Protection is a
    very camera-rich environment now. Every port of entry, certain
    checkpoints, lots of locations and including all the cameras
    that are along the border. So we have lots of cameras and we
    use a lot of cameras.
        But expanding the cameras in two areas would be
    particularly helpful. One is that our marked vehicles do not
    have dash cameras, as many police departments have, like Los
    Angeles and others. We want to be able to use part of that $5
    million to put those cameras in those vehicles because we do
    end up in apprehensions and pursuits, et cetera, where that
    record would be helpful.
        Expanding cameras at the checkpoints, the permanent
    checkpoints, the number would be helpful.
        And also on our boats. We have had two fatal incidents, one
    off the coast of California and one with the British Virgin
    Islands within the last year, fatalities involving enforcement
    actions. And our boats are not equipped with those cameras.
        The difficulty that we have had with body-worn cameras, and
    our air and marine agents will be testing them out as they
    interact with people at locations, but the difficulty with the
    body-worn cameras for our Border Patrol agents is that we did
    not find a camera that withstood the environment that they
    worked in, for more than about 3 months.
        Since that time, we have had a number of discussions with
    vendors who have come forward with either ideas or ways to
    improve those cameras, because we think it would be helpful.
        And you know, I spent time over coffee with a number of the
    agents who field tested the cameras. You know, they were very
    positive about it. The Border Patrol Council, the union in this
    particular case, has indicated support for body-worn cameras.
        So we will keep looking at the technology.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And how long do you anticipate
    that this next phase will take? And when can we anticipate that
    CBP will make a decision about improving and expanding the use
    of cameras, including the body-worn cameras?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. It is relatively easy to improve and
    expand on the cameras in all of the locations that I talked
    about, except for the agents out in the field in the rough
    terrain.
        I would certainly make it a goal of mine before I leave
    office at the end of this year to make sure that we have
    developed body-worn cameras that agents can wear and rely upon.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. And what progress has been made in
    addressing the major procedural and policy challenges
    associated with using the cameras?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I think the most help that we have gotten
    has been from the nongovernmental organizations who are very
    involved in body-worn camera issues for state and local law
    enforcement, they have been a part of the discussion over what
    would be the best policies.
        But we also know, and I think the city of Los Angeles
    looked at a price tag just for that city alone of over $50
    million and wants to make sure, and I think you have brought
    this up, too, Mr. Chairman, you know, there are huge numbers of
    costs when it comes to retaining information, FOIA request, et
    cetera.
        And all of that needs to be included in the analysis.

                              USE OF FORCE POLICY

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. When you arrived at CBP, I and
    many others had significant concerns about allegations of the
    improper use of force and other types of misconduct among CBP
    personnel. And a short time later in 2014, you updated CBP's
    use-of-force handbook, incorporating many of the
    recommendations made by the inspector general and in the Police
    Executive Research Forum's review of CBP use-of-force cases and
    policies.
        You also announced the establishment of a use-of-force
    center of excellence. The budget request for fiscal year 2017
    includes a $4.2 million increase for the center, which is based
    at CBP's Advanced Training Center in Harper's Ferry.
        Can you elaborate on the purpose of the center, what it has
    accomplished to date and how the proposed funding increase
    would be used?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. So the center has been particularly
    helpful in two areas, one is less-lethal technology. There are
    a variety of less-lethal, from tasers to pepper ball launchers
    and on and on, that can be used before having to resort to the
    use of a firearm. And so part of the work that they do is the
    training and looking at that new equipment.
        The other is the simulators. So we are in the process of
    purchasing 21 simulators that will be assigned throughout our
    field of operations, from Spokane, Washington, to Florida,
    where agents and officers can go through a simulation.
        We make our own videos based upon the environment
    particularly that the Border Patrol works in. At the same time,
    we added a variety of fencing to the Border Patrol training
    facility in Artesia, New Mexico, so that agents could actually
    practice before they ever leave training, could actually
    practice in the environment that they were going to be
    operating in.
        So we have seen great progress in that area and we would
    like to make more. And that is part of the request.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Have you seen use-of-force incidents
    decrease over the past year?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. So our assaults on agents so far, year to
    date in this fiscal year, are down about, I believe, 25 or 30
    percent. So assaults on agents are down.
        We released our use-of-force information and our uses of
    force were, even though last year we did see a flattening or
    the same number of assaults on agents, we saw a reduction in
    the use of force by agents. And part of that is a result of
    better policy, better training, better equipment, et cetera.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
        Mr. Young [presiding]. Thank you.

                                  INTELLIGENCE

        As you well know, it is critical for CBP officers to be
    able to transmit information they have gathered for national
    security purposes. I am concerned about findings by the
    Homeland Security Committee that while CBP officers can pass
    along information collected at our borders, the process isn't
    [obviated] and it is not incorporated into the federal
    government's other intelligence and travel databases.
        I see you are requesting $48 million for--intelligence
    staffing. I want to be sure, and I know everybody does, and
    maybe you can talk a little bit more about this, about the
    integration and collaboration between systems and technologies
    to address this and make sure this information is not being
    missed.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Yes, when I arrived at CBP and examined
    each of the components, including the Office of Intelligence, I
    saw that the Office of Intelligence was very much tactical and
    very much focused on particular targeting. But that means that,
    as I described it, it was kind of a mile wide and an inch
    deep--no, vice-versa. It was very much targeted or very much
    tactical.
        And so it was very important that we brought in a new
    assistant commissioner who came from the Office of the Director
    of National Intelligence and the FBI and had been at the NSC
    and said let us broaden our intelligence scope and let us work
    more closely with the other intelligence agencies and feed the
    information to our targeting center. But let us not make our
    intelligence unit all targeting all the time.
        We needed all of the other information. For instance, we
    are negotiating on preclearance with nine other countries. We
    need that broad-based intelligence. That is where we are, that
    is where we are headed. And the relationship with the
    intelligence community to be able to use or access other
    databases is progressing well.
        Mr. Young. It is progressing well?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. It is.
        Mr. Young. Do you sense any impediments that you need to
    overcome that we can help with?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. No, we couldn't have better--you can
    always help.
        Mr. Young. Yes.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. But we couldn't have better partners than
    Director Clapper, than Director Comey and others. And I think
    they see the value and the importance of what CBP brings to the
    table on these issues.
        Mr. Young. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Thanks.
        Mr. Young. Mr. Price.
        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         CARGO SCREENING & PRECLEARANCE

        Commissioner, I would like to ask you about two distinct,
    but related areas to push our borders outward, as we say. The
    first, cargo screening overseas; the second, preclearance for
    airline passengers.
        First on the cargo screening, as you know, the 9/11 Act
    required CBP to scan 100 percent of maritime cargo originating
    in foreign ports prior to landing on American shores. For a
    variety of reasons, from costs to technological constraints to
    inadequate infrastructure at many harbors, this requirement
    remains illusive. Perhaps it is not ultimately possible.
        I think this subcommittee has recognized that. In fact, in
    our 2016 report we acknowledged as much. We acknowledged the
    expectation that the department, in light of this, would
    provide to the Congress aggressive, alternative requirements
    that build on the layered secured capabilities achieved to date
    and that could be realistically achieved within the next two
    years, I am quoting.
        So we directed CBP to provide a briefing within 45 days of
    enactment on its near-term and longer-term plans for the
    improvement of maritime cargo scanning at foreign ports.
        I have just not so much a question as a comment. I do think
    you have a case to make here. There may be elements there. But
    I do think the subcommittee needs to be assured that in light
    of this very difficult, perhaps impossible statutory
    requirement, that you are filling in the blanks with a risk-
    based screening process that we can rely on longer term.
        So we put great stock in your filling out that information.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. We do. The secretary has made it very
    clear the importance of this. We know we have a lot of
    screening systems in place, both overseas and here, but it does
    not meet the requirement of the law. And that is important.
        And also, of course, the direction through the law for
    biometric exit. And that is why we have moved very aggressively
    since we were given the mandate in 2013 to move to a biometric
    exit process. We have a biographic exit program that is pretty
    robust, but we need biometric exit.
        And I think the final part of this budget is the request
    that the Office of Biometric Information be moved to CBP, so
    that if you are going to hold me or the next commissioner
    accountable for biometric exit, we would have the tools and the
    resources to actually make that happen.
        Mr. Price. But my reference is to this prior statutory
    requirement for screening overseas. And as I said, this
    subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, has been cognizant of the
    difficulties there, but at the same time we do need to be
    filled in as to what the short and long-term plans look like
    for the screening of particularly risky cargo coming from
    overseas.
        Now, preclearance, airline passengers, this has been, in
    some instances, a very uncontroversial process involving
    Canada, Ireland, other countries; in the case of Abu Dhabi, not
    so uncontroversial.
        Nonetheless, it seems to me it has had a very solid
    rationale, a security rationale, a rationale in terms of
    convenience to passengers. In other words, the case is pretty
    strong, but we need to make the case and we need you to
    understand how the department assesses the work done so far and
    what kind of projections you make into the future.
        So I wonder here, and you may want to submit more for the
    record, but I wonder here if you could briefly give us an
    assessment, how many places this is going on, what do you think
    would be desirable in terms of the future reach of this
    preclearance effort. What kind of process report can you give?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. So the discussion with 10 airports in nine
    countries is continuing on. It is very robust. Tonight I will
    be meeting in New York with a group, a country, seven people
    flying in from another country to discuss final discussions. I
    believe that before the end of this calendar year that we will
    have several signed agreements with countries for preclearance.
    And then I believe in 2017, preclearance operations will
    actually be operational in a couple of those locations.
        For safety, security, for benefit to the traveler, for cost
    to the taxpayer, I don't think, and certainly with the support
    that Congress has given on this, I don't think we can go wrong
    with pushing our borders out.
        Mr. Price. Abu Dhabi in particular, do you have any
    comments on how that has worked, and particularly on the
    security benefits of that arrangement?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. The last numbers I looked at, which were
    several months ago, well over a thousand people who wanted to
    fly from Abu Dhabi to the United States, our recommendation to
    the airline was that if they arrived they would be deemed
    inadmissible. And the airline then made a decision not to admit
    them.
        And that doesn't mean just citizens from UAE, but that is
    people that have flown through Abu Dhabi to then continue-on
    travel.
        So from a security standpoint, I think it makes sense, but
    I am very pleased that in the negotiations with the current
    negotiations, all of these locations have American flag
    carriers that fly into and out of them.
        Mr. Price. That is the requirement going forward.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Yes.
        Mr. Price. It was not true of Abu Dhabi at the time.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Right.
        Mr. Price. That seems remarkable just on the face of it. A
    thousand you say?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Yes.
        Mr. Price. Do you think those thousands of people otherwise
    would have come to this country and be dealt with at one of our
    ports of entry? Or is there something attracting these people
    to maybe try their luck?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. They would have been deemed--I mean, we do
    apprehend and deny admissibility every single day. And they
    would have landed in the United States. They would have been
    deemed inadmissible based upon the information we had.
        The airline would have been required to place them on the
    next flight back, the next return flight. They would have been
    held during that, they would have been incarcerated during that
    period or maintained in a secure location until getting back on
    that flight where we escorted them back on the plane and they
    left the United States.
        Mr. Price. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Carter [presiding]. Dr. Harris.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.

                            FORWARD OPERATING BASES

        Let me ask a little bit about the OIG report on the forward
    operating bases, which I am sure you have seen, and I
    understand and they, you know, say, you know, your organization
    responded.
        But it seems it is pretty serious because these are pretty
    important operating bases. Are you committed to addressing all
    the problems they found?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. The first problems and the ones that were
    certainly most significant involved the quality of the water.
    And we made changes.
        One of the difficulties with an organization this vast and
    this widely dispersed is that sometimes by the time the
    information gets to me it is like, you know, what is being done
    and how many days has this already gone.
        I have made it clear that the safety and security our
    personnel, whether it is in where they work, is key to that.
        So these forward operating bases, which can be quite
    helpful, but are also quite remote, need to be secure and they
    need to be well-maintained and we need to work with our staff
    and the GSA to make sure these locations are better.
        Mr. Harris. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that, because you
    are right, our agents do need to have secure facilities and,
    you know, good facilities where they are working.

                               EXPORT ENFORCEMENT

        With regards to export enforcement, I just have a question.
    Obviously, the sanctions that prohibit U.S. exports to Iran
    still remain in full effect with the exception for civilian
    aircraft. But what is, you know, what steps are you doing now
    that there is this, you know, enhanced relationship with Iran
    to monitor for illegal exports, to make sure that we are not,
    you know, exporting illegally to Iran?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. You know, exports for any customs
    organization in the past, including ours, did not see the same
    level of scrutiny and review that certainly imports see.
        Over the last several years, we have taken a number of
    steps to do a much better job of looking at what is leaving.
    There is a program in which large numbers of exports from well-
    known manufacturers here in the United States may leave the
    country, but that the manifests of what was leaving the country
    would not be transmitted until it was already on a ship and
    already going out.
        So we are working with industry because we want the
    manifests in advance before it ever gets on a boat or ever gets
    the ability to leave.
        And we also need to make sure that we are working closely
    with the intelligence community and others on things that may
    be exported to a country that could be hostile to us, that they
    never get to that country.

                                FOREIGN STUDENTS

        Mr. Harris. Fine. And one final question. I am just not
    sure this is, you know, your jurisdiction. But the homeland
    security sector is supposed to deny entry to the U.S. of any
    Iranian citizen seeking to enter the U.S. to study for a career
    in the fields of energy, nuclear science and nuclear
    engineering.
        Makes great sense. You know, we don't need to train our
    enemies. And under the JCPOA, the law is to remain in effect
    for the next eight years.
        My concern is, and again maybe you have knowledge of how
    this works, but you know, look, I have five children, four have
    been to college, all four have changed their majors when they
    were in college. Someone can come here and say, no, I am not
    going to study nuclear engineering, go to school, and in fact
    take nuclear engineering courses.
        Do we have a safeguard to make sure that Iranians don't
    come here and literally gain access to what I believe is the
    best education in the world, technical education in the world,
    to go back and build weapons against us? I mean, how do we
    safeguard against that?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. You know, Dr. Harris, it isn't in my----
        Mr. Harris. That is probably ICE, isn't it, I imagine?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I don't have that information. Or USCIS.
    But we will be happy to get with your staff and figure out who
    the best people are.
        [The information follows:]

        Representative Harris. Do we have a safeguard to make sure that
    Iranians don't come here and literally gain access to what I believe is
    the best education in the world, technical education in the world, to
    go back and build weapons against us?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. You know, Dr. Harris, it isn't in my . . .
        Mr. Harris. That is probably ICE, isn't it, I imagine?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. I don't have that information. Or USCIS. But we
    will be happy to get with your staff and figure out who the best people
    are.
        RESPONSE: The best person to answer this question is the Director
    of Student and Exchange Visitor Program at U.S. Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement (ICE).

        Mr. Harris. If you would, I would appreciate that because
    that is of some concern to me. Because you know, people can
    come here and, you know, we don't know their intention. They
    will fill out a form and say that, you know, they want to be a,
    you know, a history major and end up in an engineering school
    learning things that will come back to bite us.
        Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar.
        Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.

                              CBP STAFFING: TRADE

        Two questions dealing with trade. Where are we on the full
    2,000 CBP officers? I know at one time we were delayed because
    of a breach of security backgrounds. Where are we with that?
        And then tell us a little bit about the agricultural
    specialist staffing issue. And again, you know my history about
    Laredo being the largest--and then the valley has a lot of
    agriculture.
        So tell us where we are on those two issues.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Sure. One, I would be remiss if I didn't
    thank you for speaking to our personnel when they have their
    large personnel meetings and talking to them about
    professionalism and their responsibilities and on and on. It
    means a great deal when a member of Congress spends time with
    them. So that is very helpful.
        We are about 700 Customs and Border Protection agents below
    the 2,000 that we would have hired. Remember, we have had a lot
    of, you know, a lot of attrition.
        In December we hit the highest number ever of Customs and
    Border Protection agents onboard. So we are making progress
    with them. That is particularly helpful.
        We also did not ever have a staffing program or a workload
    analysis for our agriculture specialists.
        And quite frankly, after 2003 and the fact that we were put
    together as a result of that, combining in the Department of
    Homeland Security, it was all security all the time. And our
    agriculture specialists, who are the most highly educated, by
    the way, of our workforce, did not receive, in my estimation,
    as much support as needed.
        And when you think about the things that can harm this
    country, from pests and diseases in agriculture, we have worked
    pretty hard to try and improve and increase and show the
    recognition for the important work that they do.
        But the staffing model will be helpful.
        Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Second question has to do with a letter
    that Governor Abbott and myself wrote to the secretary. And I
    see the response and I told the secretary I respectfully
    disagree, especially I think the chairman said a while ago that
    you all are 12 percent below the goal for air interdiction
    officers. Is that correct?
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Yes.

                                 NATIONAL GUARD

        Mr. Cuellar. Yes. So if there is air crew vacancies and we
    provided funding, full funding to the National Guard--and
    again, I disagree with the way the secretary had looked at it.
    And you know, he does a great job and I appreciate it. But he
    was looking at it 1 month, from December to January, when
    actually when you look at the longer one, it is, you know, it
    is actually 171 percent increase on just unaccompanied kids,
    102 percent on families.
        But regardless of all that, but if we are short, we have
    vacancies, the National Guard got funded, I would ask you all,
    with all due respect to the letter I got from the secretary, I
    would ask you all to look at that again one more time.
        Because, Mr. Chairman, I am going to request some language,
    especially if we fund it, that we put that back again,
    especially if your numbers are correct and they have been
    confirmed that 12 percent under the goal of air interdiction.
        And all we want to do is provide the men and women the
    support, air support. I can understand if we didn't provide the
    funding blame Congress, but in this case we did provide the
    funding.
        So again, you don't have to give an answer. I would just
    ask you to just respectfully consider our request again.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Certainly. And we would never blame
    Congress. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Cuellar. And again, my last question. Again,
    Commissioner, thank you for all and I wish you the best for the
    end of this year. And again, I really appreciate your
    dedication and the men and women that serve along with you.
    Thank you so much.
        Mr. Kerlikowske. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Carter. Commissioner, I, too, want to join my friend
    from Texas in thanking you for your hard work.
        Please convey our appreciation and thanks to all the
    members of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency. They
    do a tough job in a tough environment.
        And as we talk and question, we all know, because all of us
    have been there, and those that haven't are going to go,
    because they need to know the kind of rough environment that
    you all have to work in.
        And we hope God blesses each and every one of you. Thank
    you.

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Wednesday, March 2, 2016.

                     TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                                    WITNESS

    PETER NEFFENGER, ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                       Opening Statement: Chairman Carter

        Mr. Carter [presiding]. All right. We will call this
    hearing to order. This afternoon we welcome Administrator Pete
    Neffenger to testify on the Transportation Security
    Administration's fiscal year 2017 budget request.
        Welcome. Glad you are here. Administrator, thanks for all
    you do, and we are very pleased we are able to do this hearing
    today.
        The fiscal year 2017 budget for TSA is $7.6 billion, which
    is $149 million dollars above fiscal year 2016. This year's
    budget is a significant departure from previous years, which
    were marked by reductions in screening personnel and other
    efficiencies achieved through TSA's risk-based security
    initiatives.
        This committee has long supported risk-based approaches to
    transportation security, but has emphasized the need for these
    programs to be grounded in improving security, above all else.
    The fiscal year 2017 budget request continues initiatives
    funded in fiscal year 2016 to strengthen passenger screening
    operations, equipment, training, and intelligence and vetting
    programs, in response to the disturbing results from the OIG's
    Office of Testing last year.
        I look forward to hearing from you on the progress TSA has
    made so far and how the fiscal year 2017 budget continues to
    support these efforts.
        I would also like to understand how TSA is continuing to
    invest in risk-based security efforts that will ensure we are
    focusing our resources on the highest-risk passengers.
        Lastly, I would be remiss not to convey my disappointment
    that the administration has yet again resorted to budget
    gimmicks, assuming unauthorized fees as an offset for TSA's
    appropriations. This has created a huge hole in TSA's budget to
    the tune of about $908.8 million that Congress now has to deal
    with.
        I would like to recognize our distinguished ranking member
    of the whole committee, Mrs. Lowey, for any remarks that she
    would like to make.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Lowey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your very
    gracious welcome. It is always a pleasure for me to be here
    with you and our ranking member, Mrs. Roybal-Allard. I thank
    you for holding this hearing today.

                    Opening Statement: Ranking Member Lowey

        And, Administrator Neffenger, I welcome you and thank you
    for joining us.
        The President's budget proposes $7.33 billion for TSA,
    which is a modest $149 million increase from fiscal year 2016.
    The request includes investments to enhance aviation security
    and continue risk-based security initiatives such as TSA
    PreCheck. TSA has shown a commitment to maximizing security
    capabilities while expediting the screening process for low-
    risk travelers.
        Last year's OIG report on vulnerabilities in TSA's
    screening process was a reminder, however, that we must take
    great care in ensuring that security remains the top priority.
    Our aviation security infrastructure remains at risk due to
    poor screening standards of the airport employees and
    significant vulnerabilities to perimeter security.
        In particular, I am disturbed by reports of security gaps
    around airport perimeters and at non-passenger access points,
    which could be exploited by attackers to sneak bombs onto
    planes, much like what happened at the Sharm el-Sheikh Airport
    last year.
        I look forward to hearing from you on what improvements TSA
    is making to protect the traveling public.
        In addition to combat risk to aviation security, we need a
    trained and experienced workforce to deter and detect security
    threats. I worked with your predecessor, Administrator Pistole,
    to ensure that transportation security officers have
    satisfactory workplace rights and responsibilities.
        As I think you can agree, TSOs put themselves on the line
    every day to protect us and to serve in an enriching,
    professional environment. That is why I am concerned about
    morale and collective bargaining for TSA employees and, more
    specifically, career advancement and workplace discrimination
    for female TSOs.
        Administrator Neffenger, you have a lot on your plate. I
    look forward to discussing these concerns today and hearing
    your testimony.
        [The information follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey. We are honored to have
    you here, and I know you've got plenty of missions that you
    gotta accomplish today. We are thankful for you.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                Opening Statement: Ranking Member Roybal-Allard

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Administrator Neffenger, welcome to your
    first appearance before our subcommittee. You arrived on the
    scene just when significant changes were needed in TSA's
    screening operations.
        The results of the Office of Inspector General's covert
    testing found that TSA had been moving too fast on expedited
    screening without fully understanding a number of the risks and
    vulnerabilities. Because the vulnerabilities identified by the
    OIG were not really new, the OIG report raised questions about
    TSA's ability to manage competing pressures of prioritizing
    security and reducing wait times.
        Over the last several months TSA has taken a number of
    steps to address many of the vulnerabilities. There is one area
    of improvement in particular on which I want to commend you and
    your workforce.
        I am a frequent traveler between D.C. and my home district
    in Los Angeles, and I actually have seen a difference in the
    degree of professionalism that has been displayed by many of
    your officers. And I hope that my colleagues and members of the
    traveling public have also experienced the same thing.
        I look forward to this afternoon's discussion of TSA's
    proposed budget for the coming year and look forward to your
    testimony.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Carter. Administrator, we are ready to hear from you.
    And we have got your written statement in the file, and of
    course we are all aware of it. So you may proceed.

                   Opening Statement: Administrator Neffenger

        Mr. Neffenger. Thank you, Chairman.
        Good afternoon, Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Roybal-
    Allard, Ranking Member Lowey, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, and thanks for the opportunity to testify today
    on behalf of the fiscal year 2017 budget, which includes $7.6
    billion for TSA. And thank you also for the support that this
    committee provided to TSA in the omnibus bill of 2016. That
    was, I think, an important step forward in terms of addressing
    some of the challenges last year.
        This budget provides funding to sustain and strengthen the
    critical missions of TSA: protecting the nation's
    transportation system and ensuring the freedom of movement of
    people and commerce. Transportation underpins the entire
    economic health of this country. We depend upon it, and
    protecting it is one of the most important services our
    government provides the American people.
        It is now 8 months since I joined TSA on July 4th of last
    year, and of the many positive impressions, the most profound
    is the one I have gleaned about our workforce. TSA's nearly
    60,000 security professionals are dedicated to a demanding and
    challenging mission, and they are our most important resource.
    They are incredibly patriotic and passionate about our
    counterterrorism and will deliver excellence if properly
    trained, equipped, and led.
        This budget is a modest increase over last year and will
    enable TSA to more fully renew its focus on security
    effectiveness. It annualizes the investments made in our front-
    line workforce, our screening technology, and the new TSA
    Academy, and sets a foundation for the transformation of TSA
    into the professional counterterrorism and security agency the
    American people deserve.
        I would like to thank this subcommittee for its commitment
    to our mission and for helping us hold front-line staffing
    levels steady in the face of dramatic increases in passenger
    volume and a dynamic threat environment.
        This budget also enables us to hire air marshals for the
    first time since 2011, consistent with a risk-based concept of
    operations, modestly increases our intelligence capability, and
    invests further in the TSA Academy.
        We have made great strides in addressing the challenges we
    faced last summer. To ensure we do not repeat past mistakes,
    determining root causes of the problem identified has been my
    utmost concern. Delivered in a classified report to Congress
    and this committee in January, we concluded that strong drivers
    of the problem included a disproportionate focus on efficiency,
    environmental influences that created stress in checkpoint
    operations, and gaps in system design and processes.
        I am proud to report that we have refocused on our primary
    mission, retrained our entire workforce, corrected procedures,
    improved our technology, and analyzed systemic issues. We are
    emphasizing the values of discipline, competence, and
    professionalism in resolving every alarm, and I am confident
    that we have corrected the immediate problems. And I am also
    confident that TSA is able to deter, detect, and disrupt
    threats to our aviation system.
        TSA will continue to partner with the airlines, the airport
    operators, and the trade and travel industry to identify
    solutions that can reduce stress on the checkpoint,
    particularly as we move into the summer season, and we must
    continue to right-size and resource TSA appropriately to ensure
    that we continue to be responsive to the public we serve.
        Moving forward, we are guided by a principled approach
    central to a successful enterprise leadership. We are intensely
    focusing on the central unifying purpose of TSA, which is to
    deliver transportation security, and we are aligning our
    strategic guidance, our operational plans, our measures of
    effectiveness, our system design, and our performance
    evaluations to this core purpose.
        The unity of effort that we expect is memorialized in my
    Administrator's Intent. This is a document I published in
    January this year. I provided copies to the subcommittee.
        Mission success is built on a shared understanding of
    objectives, unity of purpose, and alignment of values and
    principles, and my Intent articulates those objectives for the
    entire organization, the approach we will pursue in
    accomplishing our essential counterterrorism mission, and the
    values and principles that define us. Simply stated, we will
    focus on mission, invest in our people, and commit to
    excellence.
        Our self-examination also gave us insight into imperatives
    for change and how we must evolve. We must adapt faster than
    the enemy; we must invest at the pace of the threat; and we
    must build resiliency into operations, and we must do so in a
    rapidly growing sector of the American economy.
        We are undertaking a series of foundational efforts,
    including a comprehensive assessment of our acquisition system;
    building a planning, programming, budgeting, and execution
    system; developing an enterprise-wide human capital management
    strategy; reviewing our staffing model to ensure operational
    focus and agility; and fielding an agency-wide training
    strategy which includes new officer training, continuing
    professional education, and leadership training and
    development.
        We are rethinking how we invest in technology and are
    partnering with several airlines and airports to develop and
    install in the near future a dramatically improved passenger
    screening environment in a couple of key airports.
        Of utmost importance, TSA must remain committed to the
    values that public service demands, and I have challenged our
    leaders at every level to commit themselves to selfless and
    ethical service. As I discover questionable policies or
    unjustifiable practices, I fix them. I demand an agency that is
    values-based and infused with character from top to bottom.
        This is my solemn duty, and it is what the American people
    expect of their government and those in whom they entrust their
    security.
        Many profound and important tasks lay ahead for TSA, but I
    believe we are on a sound trajectory and I am optimistic about
    the future. As I have relayed in my Intent, we will focus on
    mission, invest in our dedicated workforce, and will commit to
    excellence in all that we do.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
    today, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              CHECKPOINT SECURITY

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Admiral. Before we begin I am going
    to start off with a little humor.
        On my way up here for your hearing from Austin, Texas,
    standing in the PreCheck line and I handed the officer what I
    thought was my Texas driver's license. It was actually my
    concealed carry permit, which is, by the way--and I told him, I
    said, ``That is an official ID for the state of Texas.'' But I
    found out also that I didn't have my driver's license.
        He was in a dilemma because I think I threw him off with
    that concealed carry permit, and so I got my voting card and
    gave that to him, and that impressed him even less than the
    concealed carry permit. And so he went to the management to see
    if they were going to let me in, and meanwhile half of the
    constituents in my district walked passed me in the line
    saying, ``What did you do?''
        And I said, ``I don't know.'' And they finally very
    graciously let me through without any problems.
        But I have to go back tomorrow, and I might need a note
    from you before you leave giving me permission.
        Mr. Neffenger. I will write it while we sit here, Judge.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Carter. No, they were very courteous. They did a good
    job, and I told them that you did a good job.
        Mr. Neffenger. Thank you.

                  CHECKPOINT SECURITY: RESPONSE TO OIG TESTING

        Mr. Carter. Well, let's start off with--in fiscal year 2016
    Congress provided TSA with funding to strengthen aviation
    security in light of the disturbing results in the OIG covert
    testing; the 2017 budget proposes to continue these
    initiatives.
        Explain the actions TSA has taken to date to enhance its
    screening operations, or tell us, are our skies any safer today
    than they were a year ago when OIG conducted its covert
    testing? And what additional capabilities and security efforts
    will be supported with the additional funding requested in
    fiscal year 2017?
        Mr. Neffenger. Well, thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. We
    have actually--we have done a lot in the past 8 months, and I
    have actually been very impressed with the work that the agency
    has done to correct both the immediate problems raised by the
    leaked report of the inspector general as well as to identify
    systemic problems.
        So this budget really invests in--there is a people piece,
    a technology piece, and a training piece associated with this.
    The people piece is really the--was the ability to halt further
    reduction of the screening workforce--so we were, as you
    remember, originally scheduled to take another 1,600 or so
    bodies out of the screening workforce in fiscal year 2016, and
    this committee and Congress allowed us to keep some of those.
        I thought that was important, given the challenges that we
    came across and the fact that we were going to be pushing
    people that had been inappropriately moved into expedited
    screening back into the standard lane. So I knew we would
    probably need that staff.
        I owe you an explanation of what our staffing needs are,
    and we are working on that right now.
        So that is one piece of it is to keep those people onboard.
        The technology piece is to implement some software upgrades
    as well as some hardware changes to the--some of the screening
    equipment that is in the system. So the other thing that we
    found is that we needed to address the screening--or the
    effectiveness of that advanced imaging machine. This was the
    one that looks for nonmetallic threats.
        It is a good machine. It is probably the best there is out
    there right now for determining nonmetallics. But we found
    through our root-cause analysis that we needed to tighten up
    the standards and to improve the ability to detect in certain
    regions of the body.
        So we have done that, and we are fielding a new software
    algorithm that has dramatically improved our ability to do
    that.
        The other thing that we did was to--one thing I was
    surprised to discover when I came onboard is that there was not
    centralized and consistent oversight of training of our new
    hires coming in, particularly the front-line screening force.
        So if you join TSA as a transportation security officer you
    train largely at the airport that you are going to work. If you
    were at a smaller airport they might port you over to the
    nearest closest airport.
        But it was done in what I would consider to be an
    inconsistent manner, and without any good means of measuring
    the effectiveness. And it also wasn't done real-world scenario-
    based on the equipment that they would be using in the actual
    environment.
        So long story short, and I know we presented to the
    committee earlier on this, we started from scratch. With your
    funding we created a TSA Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement
    Training Center in Glynco, Georgia--a world-class training
    facility where some other 90 agencies train their officers.
        They are an accredited facility. They helped us to build a
    program that we are working to get accredited.
        But it is a basic training course, 2 weeks long right now,
    where they start with aculturation, first and foremost: What is
    this you are connected to? What does it mean to be part of a
    federal security program? What does it mean to be engaged in
    something larger than you?
        So I really want them to get connected to this sense of
    public service and the history of the organization.
        And then they go through classroom laboratory immediately--
    or classroom work immediately followed by a laboratory, where
    they work on the actual equipment that they are going to be
    using that we can create all sorts of scenarios in that
    environment. And then we move them through--they actually--they
    go out to a bomb range and they learn what the devices look
    like that they are trying to discover; they watch what happens
    when those devices explode. So it gives them a visceral
    connection to the work that they are doing.
        So I am very excited about that, and I think that that is
    going to be foundational in terms of transforming the agency in
    the future.
        The other thing that we did was to look deep into the
    organization for systemic issues. I was concerned that if all
    we did was fix the last failures then all we did was fix the
    last failures. It seems to me that if you have repeatedly seen
    things happen there is something more going on.
        And no surprise, as you looked at it we saw systemic issues
    across the agency. No one person at fault, but an agency focus
    that--and some of it is just the tyranny of being in an
    operating agency that has to do something every day. You tend
    to do the next thing that comes along--and sooner or later the
    next thing became the last thing, and becomes the last thing
    over and over.
        So I said, ``You gotta take a--you gotta step back and look
    at the big picture.''
        So that showed us that we had a disproportionate focus on
    efficiency over effectiveness. That might be the right thing to
    think about if you are in the management: You want to keep wait
    times to a reasonable level. But it can get translated in
    distorted ways when it gets to the front line.
        We had leadership--we had integration issues. You know, you
    have lots of things going on in the organization but they are
    not tied together very effectively. And then you have lots of
    environmental pressures: growth in passenger volume, lots more
    stuff coming through the checkpoint.
        All of that has to be considered as a system, otherwise you
    are just going to be swatting the next bad thing that happened.
        So I am proud to report that I think that we have done a
    good job of addressing those immediate challenges. Our own
    internal testing shows that we are significantly more effective
    than we were this time last year.
        I am working with the inspector general on the next round
    of testing that he intends to do. I want it to be aggressive; I
    want it to be--to--I want it to test the things that we have
    done in--just in the testing other aspects of the system. And I
    am convinced that we will do significantly better.
        We are going to continue to do that improvement as we go
    forward.
        Mr. Carter. Very good. Thank you.
        Mrs. Lowey.

            TRANSPORTATION SECURITY OFFICERS: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you again for your courtesy.
        And thank you for your service, sir.
        Two questions regarding the training program: As you
    probably know, I fought to provide collective bargaining rights
    to transportation security officers and ensure they have the
    same rights and benefits as other federal employees in the
    Department of Homeland Security. This is of vital importance,
    as the initial collective bargaining agreement between TSA and
    its front-line workers has now expired; the expiration of the
    contract should not result in scaling back hard-fought worker
    protections.
        So the first question is, can you update the subcommittee
    on when a contract between TSA and its employees will be
    finalized?

                           VETTING: AVIATION WORKERS

        The second question, the Government Accountability Office
    and the department's Office of Inspector General have issued
    reports over the last few years in which they found significant
    vulnerabilities in TSA's vetting of aviation workers with
    access to secure areas of airports. These vulnerabilities
    included oversight of how airports collect data on applicants
    for vetting purposes, security threat assessments that were
    based on checks against some of the government's watch list
    codes, and an inability to notify the employer when an employee
    gains a criminal record after hiring.
        So I understand your progress, so the first is once they
    are hired we want to make sure they get the rights of all other
    employees; but secondly, I am very concerned about this whole
    issue, and I understand you made some progress. What are you
    planning? Can you be confident that your aviation worker
    vetting is as rigorous as it needs to be?

            TRANSPORTATION SECURITY OFFICERS: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

        Mr. Neffenger. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Lowey, for
    the question.
        To the first question, with respect to the--where we stand
    on the collective bargaining agreement: The current collective
    bargaining agreement remains in effect while we are
    continuing--or completing negotiations on the next agreement.
        The current status is as we--the negotiating teams--
    negotiating team, both sides--completed its negotiations in
    December. They came to agreement on the majority of the
    collective bargaining items.
        That now is going out with the--to the union membership.
    AFGE has a schedule for presenting that for a referendum to the
    union members.
        We will see how that referendum goes. If it passes then we
    will have a new collective bargaining agreement; if there is a
    rejection of that then we will go back in to the negotiating
    table for an additional period of time and negotiate those
    items that we need to.
        But I am confident that we are on a good track. The teams
    worked very hard this past year.
        Like all negotiations, there are challenging components to
    it, but I am committed to a successful negotiation. I am
    committed to carrying forward the protections that we have in
    place now.
        As I said, the current collective bargaining agreement
    remains in place and we abide by that going forward.

                           VETTING: AVIATION WORKERS

        With respect to the aviation workers, this is a trusted
    population that has badged access to airport environments. I
    think we made a lot of progress this past year.
        As I came in those reports were coming out as I took over
    this job, and one of my first questions was, ``Explain to me
    how we do this vetting.''
        I think on the positive side, we have--they have always--
    all people who hold credentials--and there are about 900,000 or
    so aviation worker credentials. This includes pilots, and air
    crew members, and the like, so it is everything from the people
    who manage the baggage and the catering and the like, to the
    vendors in the airports, to the people who fly and crew the
    aircraft. That is about a 900,000-person population. They have
    always been fully vetted against the Terrorist Screening
    Database.
        I think what you are referencing is we--there is a
    companion database to that--to the terrorist database that is a
    data environment of additional information. TSA did not have
    what is called automated access to that data. We could take a
    name and plug it in, but that is very cumbersome when you are
    working with 900,000 names.
        I am pleased to report we have come to an agreement and we
    now have automated access to all of those categories. So now we
    have full access to all of the categories, both the Terrorist
    Screening Database as well as the data environment that feeds
    into that database. So that is good news.
        The second thing we have done is we always had a
    requirement to periodically vet all workers against criminal
    databases to see if they have had any recent arrests. That was
    a--that is a 2-year recurrent requirement--periodic
    requirement.
        We are about to pilot a project with the FBI called Rap
    Back, and all it really is is access to their daily recurrent
    data on criminal arrests throughout the system. And we are
    going to pilot that at Dallas/Fort Worth and Boston Logan over
    the course of the spring.
        Assuming that pilot goes well--and the nature of the pilot
    is just to see, are there any problems connecting to the
    database, do we have any problems bouncing names off of it, and
    so forth. We wanted to pick a couple of large airports so that
    we could do that.
        Assuming it goes well, then we will field that nationwide
    before the end of the calendar year. And that will give us then
    recurrent vetting of the same population against the criminal
    databases.
        So I am comfortable that we are doing everything we can,
    given the existing data that is out there to ensure that these
    workers are being vetted properly. The next step, of course, is
    to then verify the trust of that population, because we know
    that people that vet out okay can still go bad or can still
    have criminal intent.
        So you always want to find ways to deter people from acting
    in ways that you don't want, to detect them, and to disrupt if
    it does happen. So we are also in a--concurrently working with
    every--I required a vulnerability assessment at every single
    airport that is under federal control across the nation, so
    that are some 450-plus airports--or some--yes, close to the
    total population. There are some airports that don't require a
    federal security plan.
        But the idea behind this is to get a true, very detailed
    vulnerability assessment of every single airport, understanding
    what is the worker population at that airport, what are the
    accesses that those workers have available to them, who--what
    is the nature of the access that they have? I mean, are they
    driving cars through there, or are they bringing carts through,
    or are they carrying maintenance equipment?
        Who are the various employers that employ these
    individuals, and how are they conducting their individual
    checks and their recurrent checks, as well? What are they doing
    to employ these individuals?
        I felt that there just wasn't enough data to understand
    what is actually happening out there, so that is an order I put
    out earlier this year. We expect all of those reports to come
    back in over the course of the next month, and then we will
    evaluate those and my intent is to provide a classified report
    to Congress on what we find.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Carter. You are welcome, Mrs. Lowey.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.

           CHECKPOINT SECURITY: DISPROPORTIONATE FOCUS ON EFFICIENCY

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Administrator Neffenger, in your opening
    statement you talked about efficiency versus security issues.
    We know that one--the prime function of the TSA is to prevent
    dangerous passengers and cargo from threatening air travel,
    while at the same time the traveling public gets understandably
    frustrated by long wait times at the screening checkpoint.
    While safety is the highest priority, convenience is also a
    factor in the equation.
        The OIG report highlighted security vulnerabilities, but it
    also shined a light on the culture at TSA that was too willing
    to tolerate some of those vulnerabilities in the interest of
    managing wait times. Aside from the particular personnel,
    process, and technological changes that you have implemented,
    what has been done to address the underlying cultural problem
    of tolerating vulnerabilities?
        Mr. Neffenger. Well, there are a number of things, and some
    of it is the training that I mentioned.
        So the very first thing that we did--once we completed the
    initial root-cause analysis we said, ``What is driving all
    this?'' And we saw this big category of disproportionate focus
    on efficiency.
        I said, ``Well, how does that happen, and where did that
    come from, and what is the nature of it?''
        So there are actually a couple of pieces to that, too. It
    was also that we hadn't--so there is a lot of pressure on a
    TSO, the front-line--the uniformed member, to be the person
    managing the wait time.
        I mean, I think it is appropriate to pay attention to wait
    time; that is a challenge in and of itself. You don't want a
    lot of people congregating outside the secure area of the
    airport.
        But I felt that that comes up the management chain a little
    bit. We put a lot of pressure on people that should be focused
    on stopping things that shouldn't get through into managing.
        And so that creates a real tension in the individual and a
    little bit of cynicism, to be honest. They say, ``What is my
    real job here? Am I just flushing people through the line or am
    I actually supposed to do my security?''
        So that was one thing: Too much pressure at that very point
    of the mission to be the one responsible for that. So we took
    that off immediately and said, ``Your job is not to do--not to
    manage wait time. Your job is to ensure that things that
    shouldn't get through the checkpoint don't get through.'' And
    that is what I meant by focus on mission.
        And we got a resounding positive response to that from
    across the workforce. A lot of people said, ``Thank you for
    letting us focus on the mission.''
        Then you have to determine how to do that mission. So we
    did a rolling stand-down of training across the entire
    organization. We called it Mission Essentials training, but
    what it really was was to take what happened--I wanted to be
    very transparent with the workforce about what the I.G. had
    found.
        I didn't want them to feel guilty; I just wanted to see--
    let them know, ``Here is what we have to do going forward. This
    is what was found. It is a fact. It is a challenge. This is our
    fundamental mission. We have failed in a fundamental aspect of
    our mission.''
        So we showed them exactly what happened, what was the
    nature of the failure, what actually got through the
    checkpoint, how was it brought through, and in what manner did
    it present itself.
        The second thing we did was say, ``Now, let me--let's
    train''--so that is the first piece: what happened. Second
    piece was, what are the processes that we found that didn't
    work very well?
        Turns out we had these very complicated standard operating
    procedures--I mean, this huge document, nothing--something that
    it would be very challenging to remember. We simplified that.
        We worked with a team of front-line people to simplify that
    and turn it into a true simplified operating procedures: What
    am I trying to accomplish? What are the key steps for doing
    that and moving forward?
        And then we looked at the machines themselves and said, you
    know, you have to understand how this equipment operates. I was
    surprised to find out that many of our front-line officers
    didn't know what the limitations of the technology were that
    they were operating, and so we made it clear to them what that
    technology was.
        And then we closed it all up with a current threat brief.
        We are now doing that Mission Essentials training across
    the whole system of our technology for our officers every
    quarter, and we pick another aspect of the screening
    environment. And we do regular threat briefs to them, as well.
        I wanted to connect them to the mission, have them doing
    the right part of the mission and not things that they
    shouldn't be doing, get leadership back involved in the pieces
    that leadership needs to be involved--more engaged with the
    airlines, with the airports, with the--more engaged on managing
    the flow of people through. So distribute that work in the
    right way possible.
        So I am very happy about the response by the front-line
    workforce. I appreciate your comments earlier about their
    attitude. I think some of that is we are allowing them to do
    the job that they took the oath of office to do now and they
    are very excited about that. They really want to do this job
    well.
        I think we are on a pretty good track. There is more to do,

    clearly.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. And do you feel confident that these
    changes are being institutionalized so that----
        Mr. Neffenger. You know, it is still early. We are only 8
    months into it. But I push this every single day.
        I track measures directly related to the things I just
    talked about. I have a performance measure and a readiness
    measure for people and for equipment.
        And the readiness measure says, ``Are we giving people the
    tools they need to do what they need to do? Am I training them
    properly?'' There is an interactive piece, there is a survey
    piece, there is an engagement piece to that. I am happy to
    share with the committee how I measure that. I think it would
    be useful.
        And then the performance measure is, and can they do what--
    is the training worked? Does it make it possible for them to do
    their job?
        So I do that, which means--and what usually I have found,
    if the guy at the top pays attention to something, almost
    everybody below you starts paying attention to it as well,
    which has been very helpful.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Have you gotten any feedback from the
    OIG on some of these changes that----
        Mr. Neffenger. I have been working very closely with him,
    and I have had a number of meetings with Inspector General
    Roth. I think they are very happy with where we are going.
        The same report that we provided to Congress we provided to
    the I.G. They have concurred with every step that we are
    taking. He has told me that it addresses every one of their
    concerns.
        Their recommendations remain open because we have to
    verify, and they will stay open as they go back and test us.
    But he has told me he is happy with where we are going, he is
    comfortable with our approach, and we--and I have linked us up
    at all the staff levels, because I felt that there was too much
    distance between us and the I.G. and the work that he was
    doing.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. And do you feel satisfied that your
    fiscal year budget request would give you the resources that
    you need to continue to prioritize both security and minimize
    wait times?
        Mr. Neffenger. Well, I think it is--I think the--it is an
    open question whether the resources are right yet. What I
    wanted to do was just hold steady, because I knew that there
    would be more to learn as we looked at--as--first of all, as we
    moved more people back into standard screening, as we try to
    expand the PreCheck population and true vetted population to a
    level that is more sustainable over--that allows us to do a
    better job of the risk-based security, and as I watch what
    happens in the growth of the passenger industry.
        I mean, we have had record growth over the past couple
    years beyond what was anticipated when this budget was prepared
    a couple of years ago.
        So I am pleased that the committee has allowed me to keep
    that staffing. I think I owe you an answer on that, and we are
    looking--I have got staff right now looking at now the current
    projections for volume growth, what we think will get into the
    trusted traveler population over the course of the next year
    and beyond, and what we see is the current pressure on a
    checkpoint.
        In the meantime, we are working very closely with--
    specifically with the top 20 airports, but across the entire
    system--to work with the airports, the airlines that service
    those airports, as well as TSA to look--to mitigate to the
    extent possible.
        So I am going to husband my overtime resources now. I am
    going to push those into the summer months. We hope that we
    have what we need to address it, but my concern is that we may
    not have the staffing levels right yet.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay.
        My time up? Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Carter. Dr. Harris.

                        TSA PRE : IMPROVED SAFETY

        Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
        And thank you, Admiral, for taking the job. And, you know,
    I have noticed--I think it has gotten better, noticeably better
    at the airports. So you must be doing a good job.
        Mr. Neffenger. I hope so.
        Mr. Harris. I have got two areas of questioning. First one
    has to do with the PreCheck. From the sound of your last answer
    it sounds like we are actually a little bit safer--I will use
    the term--the more people we get into TSA PreCheck. Is that a
    fair--we--I mean, is it a safety as well as convenience measure
    to have trusted travelers?
        Mr. Neffenger. Well, I think first and foremost the more
    you know about travelers that are traveling, the more
    comfortable I am with the safety and the security of the
    system. So I said in previous testimony before Congress that I
    thought--the goal would be a fully vetted traveler population
    if you could get there. That is probably unachievable, but I
    would like to drive towards more and more people in the vetted.

                         TSA PRE : COST SAVINGS

        Mr. Harris. And so let me--the cost per traveler to get
    them through a screening process I imagine is actually lower
    with a TSA PreCheck person.
        Mr. Neffenger. It is, because there is less that you have
    to do----
        Mr. Harris. Sure.
        Mr. Neffenger [continuing]. To somebody coming through
    PreCheck.

                    TSA PRE : REDUCING ENROLLMENT FEE

        Mr. Harris. But one of the obstacles--and maybe it is--I
    don't know if you have studied it--I mean, there is still a
    charge associated with becoming a trusted traveler. It is like,
    you know, we----
        Mr. Neffenger. That is correct.
        Mr. Harris [continuing]. We want you to help us screen you,
    but we want you to--you know, but write a check first or give
    us a credit card.
        Is there any thought into saying, look, long-term we
    actually--would it save money to actually reduce the fee,
    eliminate the fee, just encourage people en masse to get into
    the PreCheck program? Is this something that has been
    considered?
        Mr. Neffenger. Well, the cost is designed--so TSA doesn't
    benefit from the cost. It defrays the cost of the enrollment,
    so it pays the private contractor that does the enrollment
    services and it is a reimbursement for the cost of doing the
    vetting against a--because we have to pay that----
        Mr. Harris [continuing]. My question----
        Mr. Neffenger. No, I understand that.
        You know, I think that there is a cost associated with
    the--with what we have to do to determine the trust of the
    trusted traveler, so that cost has to come out of somewhere. I
    do think it is appropriate to have people contribute to the
    cost of a program that they are asking to be vetted for. It
    gives them access to these expedited screening lanes. I hope
    that----
        Mr. Harris [continuing]. But as you get better in your non-
    TSA lanes, you know, you reduce that incentive. And so, you
    know, there seems to be----
        Mr. Neffenger. No, I hear what you are saying.
        Here is what I would say is I think that over time you can
    see the enrollment costs come down or the--and that is what we
    are hoping to see with the recent request for proposal that we
    put out, which would expand the opportunity for private sector
    enrollment centers to participate. So this would open it up to
    a couple of other opportunities, and I think if you can do that
    you create some competition and we can see the price come down.
    You know, the more people you have the more that there is an
    economy of scale as you start doing these vetting----
        Mr. Harris. Sure, which we would gain from----
        Mr. Neffenger. Exactly.

                         FEE INCREASE PROPOSAL: OFFSETS

        Mr. Harris. Now let me just bring up one other issue, which
    is, you know, a particular concern to some, and that is--and,
    you know, you have got a business degree so you get accounting
    and how you can do things in accounting. And one of the things
    is this $908 million that you depend upon in new revenues in
    order to take some other money from elsewhere and do something
    else with it. I mean, it goes somewhere else in the budget.
        Knowing that the $908 million--I mean, this committee--I
    don't think the administration wants this committee into--to
    open up that can of worms into being able to do things outside
    the appropriations--normal appropriations process. So you have
    got kind of a budget gimmick--I mean, I will just use the
    simplest word I can.
        You are not the only person or the only group that has got
    a little budget gimmick here. I sit on the Health Subcommittee.
    There is over a $1 billion budget gimmick that would--will
    reduce the NIH appropriation, basically.
        Because in an election year especially with this--and if
    you don't believe me, ask our former governor--you don't want
    to be raising taxes and fees in an election year. I believe you
    don't want to do it any time, but an election year you are
    certainly not going to get it.
        I can't imagine the administration really thought Congress
    was going to say, ``You know what? Let me fall on my sword and
    raise taxes and fees in an election year.''
        That leaves us in a quandary, because we have to actually
    write a budget no--without that $908 million. So that is a big
    chunk of your budget, so where are we going to cut $900 million
    to allow what we have control over to be in balance?
        I mean, do you have a list of priorities? You know, if the
    gimmick doesn't work, help us out. What are we going to cut?
        Mr. Neffenger. I will be honest with you: That would be a
    challenge for me to absorb a $900 million reduction in this
    budget request. That represents, in terms of people, about
    13,000 transportation security officers. I think if I were to
    reduce that level of front-line workforce we would have more
    than wait times as a challenge for us going forward.
        And there are some--there would--it would be challenging to
    find, given that two-thirds of my budget is pay compensation
    and benefits, it would be challenging to find that amount of
    money anywhere else in the budget----
        Mr. Harris. So----
        Mr. Neffenger [continuing]. Without eliminating entire
    programs.
        Mr. Harris [continuing]. Begs the question, why do that?
    You know, we all know the outcome of this is going to be that
    there is going to be no fee and tax raised. I mean, you know,
    it was tried before. Fortunately last fiscal year it was given
    up on.
        Why do that? You know, you seem to be like an honest guy.
    Come on. Why bring that to the committee, and why not just
    honest budgeting?
        You know, come in but don't depend upon those kind of--you
    put--you understand how difficult that decision would be for
    you. It is going to be equally difficult for us to do it.
        Mr. Neffenger. Well, I think the argument is that people
    who benefit from the security service--directly benefit from
    security services provided should contribute. And they do now.
    So we have a $5.60 per passenger fee per trip, with a cap of a
    roundtrip--you know, double that for roundtrips.
        Mr. Harris. Which we just raised, right?
        Mr. Neffenger. It was raised a couple of years ago, yes,
    by----
        Mr. Harris. I think it wasn't a couple. Think it was last
    year, wasn't it? We went to a per-trip where it got--where it
    is now per--you know, it used to be per segment; now we kind of
    raised per--it was pretty recent.
        So is this a pattern I am seeing develop that, you know,
    every year you come back and say, ``Let's just go ahead and''--
    because you did create last year's budget without that.
        Mr. Neffenger. That is right.
        Mr. Harris. What changed between last year and this year?
        Mr. Neffenger. You have a much more complex threat
    environment this year than we have had in a long time. And----
        Mr. Harris. Let me just interrupt. Your total budget
    request isn't $900 million higher, right? Your total budget
    request----
        Mr. Neffenger. $146 million.
        Mr. Harris [continuing]. Is--right. So it is not $900
    million. So give me the big reason. That is a little reason.
    Give me the big reason why you did this. It is $900 million you
    are talking about.
        Mr. Neffenger. I think it would be--this would reinstate
    the airline security fee that was in place until the budget
    amendment of 2013. That actually went out in 2014; it would
    reinstate that fee of $420 million across the industry.
        Mr. Harris. Oh, oh I get it. I get where it is from.
        Mr. Neffenger. And it would add a dollar to the passenger's
    fee.
        Mr. Harris. Right. It is a fee increase--$900 million.
        Mr. Neffenger. I think the only answer I can give you is
    that the--it is--I think the--as I have said, the argument is
    that people who directly benefit should contribute to the cost
    of the services that they get from the government.
        Mr. Harris. And you don't think the average American
    benefits from our planes being secure in the sky?
        Mr. Neffenger. Absolutely, I do.
        Mr. Harris. Okay. So there actually is a direct benefit to
    all Americans.
        I will just say--look, here I am disappointed because we
    are messing with national security. And I would hope that there
    are some areas of the budget where we don't play games. For
    heaven's sake, the security of our transportations is someplace
    we just shouldn't--just my humble advice--we shouldn't be
    playing budgetary games.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar.

                  CHECKPOINT SECURITY: RESPONSE TO OIG TESTING

        Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
        Mr. Administrator, again, thank you for the job that you
    are doing. And again, I appreciate the work that your folks do.
    I know through a week that I fly through Laredo, San Antonio,
    your folks have been very pleasant and doing their job.
        I want to ask you--go back to the question about the
    security gaps the I.G.--that the I.G. found. At this point I
    think you are requesting about $200 million for screening
    technology, $116 million for training front-line employees.
        How are we going to be assured that we are not adding money
    and then we get the same results? Because it is not the first
    time we face this type of situation.
        If you remember those x-ray machines that would show the
    body, and then you all put them in a--somewhere you all were
    renting warehouses. We lost millions of dollars on those
    machines. We were paying millions of dollars for storage on
    that, and I assume you all got rid of them already to the
    prisons or somewhere else where they expect less privacy.
        So how do we make sure that we keep adding money for
    personnel, that we are adding money for technology and we are
    not ending up with the same type of results? And I want to be
    very supportive because we all fly planes, and I want to make
    sure that if we get in a plane that we are secure. But, you
    know, when those red teams saw that it was only a success rate
    of 4 percent that puts us to think about some of the work that
    is being done.
        Mr. Neffenger. You know, those are all the same questions
    that I asked when I came onboard. There was a benefit to
    coming--to taking the job in the midst of a crisis: It allows
    you to ask questions that you might not otherwise be able to
    ask and allows you to address things in a way that you might
    not normally be able to do.
        So here is what I can tell you--and we owe you continuous
    updates, and I think I have provided--I think I provided a 120-
    day report to you, and I will continue to do that on a
    quarterly basis, partly to give you the measures that we are
    using to determine whether or not anything that you are paying
    for is actually--anything the American public is paying for
    is----
        Mr. Cuellar. But what is your number one--are your
    measures--excuse me for interrupting, but are your measures on
    performance.gov?
        Mr. Neffenger. I don't know if we--well, we probably won't
    post--some of these are sensitive information, so I am--I would
    prefer not to post actual performance. But I am willing to give
    that to the committee, but most of it is sensitive information.
        But I measure, as I mentioned, readiness, and then I
    measure performance. And I do that for both people and
    equipment. That is the big rollup measures; there are a lot of
    components to that.
        Mr. Cuellar. And we are measuring results, not activity?
        Mr. Neffenger. Absolutely.
        Mr. Cuellar. Because agencies have a tendency--and I have
    seen the performance.gov, and a lot of those measures there--
    and they are getting better. And I am not talking about you,
    but homeland in general, the measures that I have seen have
    been more for activity than measuring results.
        Mr. Neffenger. No, this is--these are outcome measures. I
    am very focused on how well are we doing our mission.
        In my opinion, we weren't focused on outcome measures. So
    it is easy to measure activity. You were busy every day.
        Mr. Cuellar. Right.
        Mr. Neffenger. But you may not be busy doing the right
    things. So I am very interested in understanding whether we are
    actually improving. So that is my fundamental focus right now,
    and that is one of the things I have been working with the I.G.
    is to ensure that his tests help us understand our outcomes, in
    addition to ours.
        So we have completely changed the way we do our red team
    testing so that it is focused on outcomes and then rolling
    those outcomes back into the way we do business. Here is what I
    would say--here is the way I approached it, and what I think we
    need to continue to do going forward: You always have to look
    at the systemic issues. You don't get that unless you figure
    out whether you got the thing that you needed to get on the
    other end.
        The other piece of this--and this is the piece that is
    sometimes, I don't think, as well understood by an agency: You
    can't just focus on the operating end of the agency; you have
    to look at all the things that support operations.
        So as you set--you know, when the American public says, ``I
    want you to get something--to do something''--in our case, to
    secure the aviation system--then you have to figure out, well,
    how do I get to secure? Well, there is a--there are things you
    have to buy; there is capability you need; there are
    requirements that you need.
        I wasn't sure that we were doing that very well, and so I
    asked the Defense Acquisition University to come in and do a
    top-to-bottom review of the way we analyze our mission, set the
    requirements for the mission, and then eventually field
    capability, either people or things, to do it. They just
    completed that study for me, and not surprisingly, they found
    things that we need to do better.
        So I think there is a lot of work we need to do on the
    requirements end of the business so that we actually know what
    we need to do to get the outcome we want. That will keep you
    from putting things in warehouses.
        You know, I am not a fan of buying the next shiny object on
    the shelf. I would like to buy the object that actually does
    the thing and it integrates into a system and is designed to
    produce a result at the end of the day.

            TRANSPORTATION SECURITY OFFICERS: HOURS AND PAY SCHEDULE

        Mr. Cuellar. I got another appropriation--as you know, we
    are running around--so I won't be able to come back in again,
    with all due respect.
        Thank you again, but for your personnel, I know there--some
    of your folks are part-timers. Are you planning to move any of
    them up to full-time? And then TSA officers--maybe somebody
    asked this question--plan to move any of them to the G.S. pay
    scale?
        And that is all the questions I have.
        Mr. Neffenger. Okay, well on the part-time, full-time, we
    actually have a sizeable full-time staff, but almost everybody
    hires in part-time and then converts to full-time. I would like
    to see whether we can work with the committee to find ways to
    hire more full-time on the front end so that they don't have to
    wait to go full-time.
        And then with respect to the G.S. schedule, as you know,
    the--I am not currently under the General Schedule, and that is
    a function of the Aviation Transportation Security Act. It
    would take a----
        Mr. Cuellar. That is more of a----
        Mr. Neffenger [continuing]. Congressional act to do that,
    if we were to do that.
        Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Thank you, again, for the work you are
    doing.
        Mr. Neffenger. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.

               NATIONAL EXPLOSIVES DETECTION CANINE TEAM PROGRAM

        Mr. Carter. Congress has consistently added funding for TSA
    to expand its canine program. You and I have talked about it,
    and I like canines. But TSA has had trouble hiring and training
    teams at the enacted level.
        As you and I have discussed, canines are extremely
    effective assets, and I think TSA can do a better job of
    leveraging these resources. TSA's budget request includes an
    increase of $9.7 million in fiscal year 2016 to fund 997 canine
    teams.
        How many teams does TSA currently have deployed? What is
    TSA doing to aggressively hire and train canine teams to reach
    the enacted level? And how many more canine teams does TSA need
    to support its operations?
        Mr. Neffenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like canines too,
    and I think it is probably one of the most effective elements
    of the security program. And it also allows us to move people
    very efficiently through the system.
        So I think I have got a good story to tell on canines. We
    have 997 teams currently, and we are--322 of those are directly
    operated by TSA. As you know, we also provide teams to state
    and local law enforcement, but we train for them.
        So we now have 322 teams. Of those, 142 are trained--in
    addition to being cargo-sniffing dogs, are trained as
    passenger-sniffing does. The goal is to train all 322 in both
    so that you can move them between cargo and passengers.
        And as you know, it is two different modes of training. If
    they are sniffing cargo it is a--they walk up to an item and
    they sniff it. The passenger, it is--they are moving within a
    passenger environment and they are detecting the vapor that
    is--and then they trace it back to its source, which is
    fascinating to watch when the do it, both in the test and in
    the real environment.
        So the goal is to train them. We will get about 230 of
    those done by the end of this year.
        We can move about 230 teams a year through our new training
    center down in San Antonio. In fact, I will be in San Antonio
    tomorrow to take a look at the new training facility that we
    have conducted there.
        We just completed contracts for--with vendors to get dogs.
    So right now we are not seeing--we are not having a problem
    getting dogs and we are not having a problem with the through-
    put.
        There is still a fairly high attrition rate for dogs--about
    13 percent annually. These are dogs that either become
    medically unfit during training or for some reason fail the
    training. But that is apparently standard around the world at
    that level, so that means about 260 dogs start; about 230 come
    out the other end.
        I think we can use more teams. I owe you a good number on
    that. I don't want to just make one up.
        But I think that we could put more teams to use. It is of
    great value, particularly in the top 20 busiest airports, you
    know, that account for about 85 percent of the traveling
    population. So we will get you a full report on what we are
    doing, but I think it is a good story.

       NATIONAL EXPLOSIVES DETECTION CANINE TEAM PROGRAM: PRIVATE SECTOR
                                  CANINE TEAMS

        Mr. Carter. And in 2016, in fiscal year 2016 the House
    directed TSA to look at the feasibility of using private sector
    canine teams, along with the canine program. Do you think using
    private sector canine teams would accelerate TSA's efforts to
    expand its program?
        Mr. Neffenger. Well, you know, I think we owe you a report
    the end of this month on that very question, but there are a
    couple components to that: Can they construct a facility that
    can meet the standards for the training? And then what is the--
    how do we continue to ensure they meet that?
        I think those are the easy questions to answer. The harder
    question is integrating them into the checkpoint environment.
    Are there any authorities needed to do that?
        We would have to talk to you about that. We will take a
    look at that.
        So those are the questions that we are asking. Our goal is
    to come to you with an outline of what we think the questions
    would be, the concerns, and then the availability of the teams
    out there.
        So I would want to make sure it was done consistently to
    the right standards. I am very pleased with the work that is
    being done now to train canines, and we have got a--it is
    actually a very good program and people are--the state and
    local law enforcements that are using the dogs are very happy
    with the program.
        Mr. Carter. Good.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENING: PRECLEARANCE AIRPORTS

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. The fiscal year 2016 House report
    highlighted the problem for current preclearance locations in
    which baggage transferred to connecting domestic flights in the
    U.S. has to be rescreened. And I understand that TSA has made
    some progress on this problem.
        Can you give us an update and talk a bit more about how TSA
    verifies the baggage screening operations at the checkpoint for
    preclearance airports? Is the equipment up to TSA standards?
        Mr. Neffenger. Yes, ma'am.
        So I will start with the last point. They do have to meet
    TSA standards and they have to be equivalent, in terms of their
    ability to detect explosives and other contraband that
    shouldn't get through.
        There are 15 preclearance airports right now. There are 15
    preclearance airports, and as you know, that is a--it is a
    program managed by CBP but we work very closely because there
    is a TSA--strong TSA component to that.
        In order to meet preclearance requirements they also have
    to have a TSA equivalent screening, so equivalent to what we do
    domestically, both for passengers and checked baggage.
        Of those 15, there are five airports now that have
    agreements with us that we have agreed--that have agreed that
    meet the baggage screening requirements so there is no need to
    rescreen when they come here. So we are very pleased about
    that. We are hoping to expand that over the course of the
    coming months.
        The way in which we verify that they meet our standards is
    through annual inspections. Well, there is the initial
    installation, so they have to identify and demonstrate that
    they meet our standards, and we verify that. And then we do
    periodic--at least annual, or whenever we make a change to the
    system requirements to inspect them.
        A lot of that is done by our teams that are present in
    countries around the world to do that.
        I think it is a good program. It is part of the No-Hassle
    Flying Act was to address this, and we are systematically
    walking through it.
        Some countries are having a little more challenge in
    meeting the baggage screening standards. They obviously hit the
    passenger screening--and I don't mean challenge in that they
    don't have--they don't do a good job; it is just that it has to
    have the explosive-detection system as part of it.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. What happens if you find that they don't
    meet the standards?
        Mr. Neffenger. If they don't meet the standards then,
    depending upon the severity of not meeting it, sometimes it is
    just a correction. But ultimately I suppose you could wind up
    losing your preclearance status if you couldn't maintain the
    standard.

                      AIRPORT SECURITY: NON-STERILE AREAS

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. We usually talk about airport security
    in terms of protecting the sterile areas of airports, but the
    nonsterile areas prior to the checkpoint are also vulnerable.
        My hometown airport, LAX, has experienced its share of
    security incidents, including the tragic shooting death of TSO
    Gerardo Hernandez in late 2013. And following that incident TSA
    made a number of changes to security policies and procedures,
    including new recommended standards for law enforcement
    presence outside the checkpoint and requirements for response
    times.
        Are airports generally following the recommended standards
    for presence and the requirements for response times?
        Mr. Neffenger. They are. That was a tragic wakeup call
    across the whole system. I mean, it didn't--it sort of directly
    affected LAX, of course, but it was felt across the system, and
    not just by TSA--by other law enforcement agencies. I actually
    watched the video of that and sat down with Chief Pat Gannon,
    of the LAX Police Department, and we talked through that.
        So here is what we have done: We have a very strong active
    shooter program now in place, so we do annual training and
    twice yearly drills. And we do that not just by ourselves but
    in conjunction with the law enforcement and airport partners.
        And then there is periodic retraining throughout the year
    that the individual officers go through. And so there are
    constant drills.
        We have installed duress alarms across the entire system at
    every checkpoint, at every point in every checkpoint, and those
    duress alarms tie directly to the local law enforcement for a
    response, and they drill those duress alarms for response time
    and actions.
        I can tell you that just--if you recall last year we had
    the incident in New Orleans where the individual with a machete
    and wasp spray attempted to attack a checkpoint. The people at
    that checkpoint, both our officers as well as the Jefferson
    County sheriff's deputy who was the one who wound up stopping
    the individual, said it was a direct result of that training
    that we instituted that they knew what to do. And when you
    watch that video you can see people doing exactly what they
    should be doing.
        So I think that that is one--it is one data point, but I
    think it is an example of why it is so important that you train
    and that you drill and that you continue to work it.
        This is a focus of mine. I am always concerned about the
    safety of our officers who are outside the sterile area of the
    airport, because we know that there are people in this world
    who will--who are unpredictable and will do things that they
    shouldn't.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. My 5 minutes are up.

              TSA PRE : PRIVATE SECTOR ENROLLMENT EXPANSION

        Mr. Carter. Dr. Harris. No more questions?
        Well, let me ask a couple more.
        TSA PreCheck private sector expansion: TSA has often cited
    a goal of enrolling 25 million people in DHS's trusted travel
    program to more effectively and efficiently focus our--the
    resources on unknown or high-risk travelers. It has an
    initiative underway with the private sector to extend TSA
    PreCheck enrollment.
        When do you expect PreCheck enrollment will be available to
    the public through these private sector vendors? What other
    efforts are you using to expand enrollment?

                      TSA PRE : ENROLLMENT TARGETS

        And in your statement you indicate TSA is aiming to reach
    the goal of 25 million enrollments within the next 3 years. How
    realistic is the timeline--this timeline, and what are the
    resources implications for achieving that goal?
        Mr. Neffenger. Well, I think it is--in talking with the
    private sector folks who are--who had indicated or did respond
    to our RFP, they tell me that they think it is very reasonable
    that we could achieve that goal within 3 years once they go
    active. So I am hoping by the end of this calendar year we will
    have let contracts to additional private sector vendors to
    provide enrollment services, and to do so in a more retail
    environment.

              TSA PRE : PRIVATE SECTOR ENROLLMENT EXPANSION

        You know, as you know, part of the request for a proposal
    was to determine whether or not--was to ask them for response
    to the requirement to market it more effectively, as well. You
    know, as it turns out, advertising is actually pretty important
    if you want people to pay attention.
        In the meantime, we have worked with the existing vendor,
    both to increase the availability at airports, and we have
    worked with--I have talked with the airlines and travel
    associations, airline associations, and if you have noticed
    recently on flights, many of the airlines are actually
    marketing PreCheck on--either on their in-flight notices or in
    their in-flight magazines. If you go to some airlines' Web
    sites it pops right up to see if you want to join PreCheck.
        All of that has actually been helpful in dramatically
    increasing enrollments. So we are seeing already, just with the
    existing vendor, a doubling of enrollments--daily enrollments
    since--over this time last year. So we were averaging a little
    over 3,000 enrollments a day last year; we are up around 6,200
    enrollments a day this year.
        So that is huge. We have grown the--so the PreCheck
    population has grown to about 2 million right now. That is on
    top of about 6.5 million people in the other trusted traveler
    programs.
        So I am hopeful that we can see dramatic growth, but it
    will depend upon issuing these contracts to the private sector
    partners and then them getting to work.
        Mr. Carter. Do you expect those contracts to be let this--
    --
        Mr. Neffenger. I hope by the end of the--I hope by the end
    of this calendar year, of calendar year 2016. But we are
    evaluating those bids now, and what I will have a better feel
    for that as we do the bid evaluation.
        Mr. Carter. Ms. Roybal-Allard, do you have----

                   SECURE FLIGHT: USE FOR EXPEDITED SCREENING

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I do have one more question, and it is a
    follow up on the prescreening, or PreCheck. Because even though
    there have been some increases in PreCheck, it is my
    understanding that the largest portion of the traveling
    population that receives expedited screening are those assessed
    to be low-risk using the Secure Flight risk assessments.
        And last year TSA discontinued the use of Managed Inclusion
    II because the risk assessment on which it was based was
    determined to be inadequate. So how confident should we be that
    expedited screening is appropriate for travelers based on
    Secure Flight assessments? And isn't the kind of vetting that
    is associated with the PreCheck program and CBP's vetting
    programs what we actually should be relying on?
        Mr. Neffenger. Well, I would like to see a fully vetted
    population. But I am confident that--first of all, we had to
    turn off Managed Inclusion II. I don't think that that was
    supportable, and plus, I think it introduced a higher level of
    risk into the system than we were willing to accept and that
    was justifiable.
        What I would like to do is, without going publicly into the
    rules, I think I owe you an answer offline about the--how the
    rules are determined. We have dramatically shrunk that
    population.
        I am comfortable that what we are doing is appropriate, and
    if I could show you that population I think you would
    understand that, and what I would like to do is not talk
    publicly about those rules. But it is a very small percentage
    compared to what it was before.
        But the goal is to move all of that into truly vetted
    population. And what I would like to do is transition to that
    fully vetted population as we provide more opportunities for
    people to enroll, to sunset those other provisions and make it,
    like I said, a fully vetted population across the board.

                    EXPEDITED SCREENING: FUTURE EXPECTATIONS

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. And then my final question is, do you
    foresee in the future a time when the vetted population would
    be so large that TSA would then start limiting the expedited
    screening to----
        Mr. Neffenger. No. Actually, just the opposite. I think you
    could then--once you get--if you had a very large vetted
    population then you can really begin to do true dynamic risk
    assessment of travelers.
        And so you can think about it--you could actually get to a
    point where you are confident enough in some travelers that
    they will--that they could actually move through in--with
    relatively little oversight and screening, whereas--and then
    you graduate, depending upon how much you know about somebody.
        So I think it is just the opposite. I think you actually
    get a much better approach to your risk-based security so that
    you are not just have a few categories of people now; now you
    could have a true continuum of risk.
        And I can foresee a day when you could have travelers going
    through things like the Known Crewmember lane, where you have
    got--you know enough about the individual and they have
    provided you with enough confidence that they are safe to go
    through the system.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Neffenger. Like members of Congress.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Young, welcome. Are you ready to--with a
    question?
        Mr. Young. Do I have a choice?
        Mr. Carter. Yes. You can say no.

                    CHECKPOINT SECURITY: RISK-BASED SECURITY

        Mr. Young. I was born ready.
        Welcome. Nice to see you.
        In your testimony you state that TSA is pursuing an
    intelligence-driven risk-based approach to screening and
    identifying threats. You are trying to move more people into
    PreCheck to provide more efficient screening for low-risk
    frequent travelers.
        TSA is also developing the Dynamic Aviation Risk Management
    Solution, the DARMS, to integrate intelligence assessments and
    analytics into procedures. Yet the most recent terror attack
    our nation has suffered, the San Bernardino shooting, was
    committed by terrorist previously unknown to law enforcement.
        At the same time, security lanes are routinely shut down
    for false alarms resulting from novelty items and, as has been
    discussed at length, TSA is still failing to detect a vast
    majority of the real weapons reaching screeners.
        Is this risk-based strategy TSA is pursuing leaving the
    door open for those who have gone undetected by our law
    enforcement and intelligence communities, and is there a
    substitute for thorough, hands-on, effective screening?
        Mr. Neffenger. Well, what I would say is I think we are
    doing a far better job of catching things that shouldn't get
    through the checkpoint now than we were even a year ago. And
    that goes to the work that we have done since the I.G. report
    was leaked publicly to determine true root causes of those
    failures, and then to implement a change to that.
        Mr. Young. But how do you measure that? When you say, ``I
    think we have done a far better----''
        Mr. Neffenger. Well, you have to test it. So we are going
    out and we are doing follow-on red team testing of our own to
    determine--not just red team testing, but you test to see
    whether the procedures actually catch the things that you want
    to catch.
        So there is open testing, first of all: Hey, am I--if I do
    a pat-down of a certain type did I find the device that we are
    hiding there? I mean, do that openly just to see if you find
    it.
        And you also do your own covert testing through the system,
    and we have done a lot of that. What I am finding is that we
    are significantly better at that.
        So our own results tell us we are better. Now, that will be
    borne out by--as others independent of us do that testing, and
    the I.G. has got a series of tests scheduled over the coming
    months and over the course of this next year. And I have worked
    very closely with him to ensure that we work collectively on
    correcting these problems.
        So that is the first thing is you have to get better at
    that primary mission, and so we really, really focused our
    folks back on the mission and took all the other stressors off
    them.
        You know, I don't want transportation security officers
    managing wait times; I want them focused on their mission, and
    if their mission is to read an x-ray I want them to read that
    x-ray and pay attention to it.
        So that is the first thing we have done.
        The second thing is with respect to the population, there
    is always going to be the potential that you have an unknown
    who suddenly becomes a problem. But there are things you can
    do, even given that, to identify problems that might be
    arriving.
        So remember, you put your name into a system when you make
    a travel reservation. That gets vetted against databases.
        Now, if it comes up negative you might say, ``Well, how
    would I know that this person is not what they are supposed to
    be?'' But you have all of these--you have these virtual
    elements that you use to determine, and you have physical
    elements that are used to determine.
        And the general thought is you want to--if you want to
    deter, detect, and disrupt you need to have some visible
    elements, you need to have some virtual elements, you need to
    have some things happening in the background, all of which is
    designed to create uncertainty in the mind of somebody who
    would do harm.
        So, for example, if you had a San Bernardino-like shooter,
    there is a reason, I believe, that that individual went to a
    place where he was known and he had worked and didn't have any
    security standards in the way between him and the individuals
    that he wanted to do harm to.

                          FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS SERVICE

        Mr. Young. Thank you for that.
        And now I want to get to my last question: You have
    requested a funding increase for the Federal Air Marshal
    Service. However, the mission and objectives of federal air
    marshals remain somewhat unclear.
        Could you elaborate on why an increase in federal air
    marshals is necessary and how this will improve the safety of
    air travel? And where do federal air marshals fit into the
    TSA's mission, and do they have a specific goal or purpose they
    are working to achieve?
        Mr. Neffenger. Yes, sir. Well, the funding is specifically
    to allow us to begin hiring. We haven't hired any new federal
    air marshals since 2011, and so that is a challenge for any
    operating agency. You have to replace, at some point, the
    attrition and create an entry path.
        The average age of the federal air marshals now is 43. We
    will age out on mandatory retirement about close to 30 percent
    of that workforce over the next 5 years. So just to sustain the
    workforce--so what this will allow us to do is to higher back
    to attrition for the first time since 2011.
        I think it is critically important first of all to have a
    law enforcement capability in an agency tasked with the
    security of this nation's transportation system. That is first
    and foremost, and there are things that air marshals do that I
    think are important in that respect.
        There is still, in my opinion, a mission for the air
    marshals on flights. What I would like to do is provide the
    committee with a classified report which can show some of the
    reason behind that statement, what the types and the nature of
    flights that they are--that we are putting them on.
        That said, Director Rod Allison, who has been in place for
    about a year-and-a-half now, has done a--what I think a superb
    job of identifying what the true need is, establishing a
    strategic CONOPS for their--concept of operations for the air
    marshals, addressing what specifically they do to fit into the
    transportation security network, and as well as what the real
    reason is to have them on certain flights of certain types.
        Mr. Young. Well, I will take you up on that classified
    briefing, and I appreciate you being here today.
        And I appreciate my chairman and my ranking member, Lucille
    Roybal-Allard.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Neffenger. Thank you.
        Mr. Carter. I, too, would like to have a classified
    briefing.
        Mr. Neffenger. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Carter. And I do have a question--this price tag is
    $815 million--and I would like some----
        Mr. Neffenger. Yes. And if you would like, Mr. Chairman, we
    can do it for the committee and just come give you a classified
    brief on----
        Mr. Carter. I think we ought to know the risks----
        Mr. Neffenger. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Carter. I would love to get the air marshalls--it has
    been a long time since we have seen----
        Mr. Neffenger. Well, and one of the other things I wanted
    to do was to have a defined number. And, you know, we have
    never publicized a number, but we have also never developed a
    number.
        And so I said we gotta develop a number. What do we need?
    So I think we have that now, and I think we have a good
    strategy that we would like to present to you, and I think we
    can show you why we think that strategy makes sense.
        Mr. Carter. Okay, you know the ``Where is Waldo?'' Well,
    when my wife flies with me--she is pretty good at----
        Mr. Neffenger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, we appreciate you being here and we
    wish you well. We will be working with you on this budget and
    trying to get passed the fees that are unauthorized and come up
    with solutions----
        Mr. Neffenger. Yes, sir. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                               Thursday, March 3, 2016.

                           UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

                                    WITNESS

    ADMIRAL PAUL F. ZUKUNFT, COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
        Mr. Carter [presiding]. We are calling the subcommittee to
    order.
        Mr. Price, we are really glad that, with your experience,
    you are sitting in for Ms. Roybal-Allard. She is a little under
    the weather today, and thank you for being here. Thank you for
    stepping up like you always do.
        Admiral, we are going to get started. I think we told you
    before we got started we have a vote pending in about 10
    minutes. We will try to get through our opening statements and
    then we are probably going to be called to vote, we will come
    back as soon as we can after that vote, and we will proceed
    forward from there, okay?
        Admiral Zukunft, thank you for being here. We look forward
    to getting your perspective on the Coast Guard's budget for
    fiscal year 2017.
        Coast Guard is the principal federal agency in the maritime
    domain responsible for securing our borders, safeguarding our
    maritime commerce, ensuring environmental stewardship of our
    ports and waterways, interdicting drug trafficking and illegal
    immigration, and combating transnational crime. To be sure, the
    Coast Guard has a complex and diverse mission requiring
    significant resources including vessels, aircraft, and
    especially personnel.
        To that end, Congress provided substantial funding in the
    fiscal year 2016 omnibus appropriations to improve the
    readiness, recapitalize vessels and aircraft, modernize shore
    facilities, and recruit and retain a quality force. From my
    assessment, the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2017 budget request
    appears to largely sustain these efforts, along with some
    limited though important recapitalization efforts to continue
    to address the Coast Guard's aging fleet, both vessels and
    aircraft.
        Admiral, I know you support the President's budget, but I
    am concerned there are unmet needs within this budget request.
    That said, as I told the Secretary, the fiscal year 2017 DHS
    budget submission is a disappointment, given the budget
    gimmicks and large gaps in funding through the request.
        Tough decisions are necessary to ensure critical priority
    programs are adequately funded, and that all funding
    appropriated is, in fact, executable.
        While you have two vessel modernization programs underway--
    the NSC [National Security Cutter] and the FRC [Fast Response
    Cutter]--we are moving towards a third with the award of a
    detail design contract on the OPC [Offshore Patrol Cutter],
    many of the remaining vessels in your fleet are past their
    useful life and replacements are years away from being
    delivered. The planned acceleration of the development and
    production of a new polar icebreaker will further strain
    modernization efforts.
        And I understand in your recent State of the Coast Guard
    Address you stated a bigger force is needed, which will require
    even more resources. I look forward to hearing from you on what
    you see as your staffing requirements and what your strategy
    will be to fund this growth, especially in light of the
    recapitalization efforts that the Coast Guard will no doubt
    need to continue to address in future budget submissions.
        Admiral, we fully understand the challenge you face
    recruiting and retaining a quality force, sustaining operations
    with aging assets, recapitalizing for the future, and taking
    care of the Coast Guard families--no easy task in today's
    constrained fiscal environment. So I look forward to a candid
    discussion about unmet needs that are not addressed in this
    budget. We are relying upon you to explain how the request
    balances the nation's needs for both fiscal discipline and
    robust security.
        Before I turn to the Admiral for his statement, the text of
    which will be included in the record, let me first recognize
    Mr. Price, who is sitting in for our distinguished ranking
    member, as she is a little bit under the weather today, for any
    remarks he wishes to make.
        Mr. Price.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are sorry to hear
    that Ms. Roybal-Allard is not feeling well today, but I am
    happy to sit in and to be a part of this hearing.
        Admiral, I want to welcome you. And let me just say a word
    as we begin this hearing, and then we will return after the
    votes.
        I was pleased, as was Ms. Roybal-Allard, that we were able
    to provide funding above the fiscal 2016 request for the Coast
    Guard, including $928 million above the request for the
    acquisitions, construction, and improvements account (ACI)
    which funds the recapitalization of the Coast Guard air and
    marine assets; and $239 million above the request for operating
    expenses. Coast Guard has a critical set of missions that we
    must properly support.
        Now, the fiscal 2017 request for the ACI account is $1.14
    billion, which is $808 million below the fiscal 2016 level. I
    don't anticipate that we will be able to absolutely match the
    current-year ACI appropriation in the fiscal 2017 bill, but the
    request level is lower than what we would usually hope to see,
    and we are going to have to address that.
        Admiral, your predecessor thought properly recapitalizing
    the Coast Guard fleet would require at least $1.5 billion per
    year. So this morning we will want to discuss the adequacy of
    the ACI request.
        We also want to look at the other components of the budget,
    see whether the request adequately supports your important
    missions, including personnel and operations funding that you
    require, and that most certainly will include the Coast Guard's
    Arctic strategy and the icebreaker request.
        So thank you again for joining us this morning. I look
    forward to our discussion.
        Mr. Carter. We see that the vote has been called and has
    started. Time is running, and they are getting kind of strict
    on getting there on time, so I guess we ought to recess now,
    get our votes done, and be back as soon as we can.
        Sorry about the delay, but that is the nature of Congress.
    Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Carter. Admiral, I think you offered that you might
    forego your statement and just get right into the questions?

                     Opening Statement: Commandant Zukunft

        Admiral Zukunft. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would just ask that
    my written statement be accepted as part of the official
    record----
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Carter. We will make a record--I will get Mr. Price
    seated and we will get back into it.
        I call this subcommittee back into session.
        Admiral, we were just talking about you submitting your
    statement to us in writing, and we will make it a part of the
    record and we will go straight to questioning. Is that
    satisfactory with you?
        Admiral Zukunft. Absolutely. Thank you.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Price, is that okay with you?
        All right, then we will get started.
        Admiral, as has been pointed out, the missions of the Coast
    Guard run the gamut from search and rescue, to ensuring the
    safe flow of commerce, to combating criminal trafficking of
    drugs and people. And no one appreciates more than I do the
    successful execution of those missions.
        And we know it is due to the sacrifice and service of men
    and women in the Coast Guard. It is our duty to provide them
    the best possible equipment and facilities we can, and we have
    been--in the last several appropriations bills--doing just
    that.
        You state that your recapitalization remains your highest
    priority. However, many of the vessels the Coast Guard operates
    today have reached or surpassed their projected service life.
        Admiral, the magnitude of a recapitalization and
    modernization effort will require tradeoffs annually. What
    strategic risk do you face to fund this recapitalization while
    executing the spectrum of missions assigned to the Coast Guard?
    What keeps you up at night?
        Admiral Zukunft. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
        And what does help me sleep at night is we have also made a
    significant investment in the intelligence community. The Coast
    Guard is an official member of the intelligence community.
        And so when I look at managing risk, recognizing if the
    Coast Guard can't be at all places at all times, where must we
    be? And we look at transnational crime, drug flows, but more
    importantly, the illicit proceeds from those drug-trafficking
    activities that have created violence in Central America that
    eight of 10 of the most violent countries in the world are not
    in the Mid-East; they are right here in our backyard.
        These are countries that are thoroughfares to bring drugs
    into the United States for ultimate consumption where 50,000
    Americans died last year due to drug abuse--and many of these
    deaths in your districts, as well. I know you are well aware of
    this fact.
        So that is one area where I cannot accept risk. I can't
    accept risk if there is a threat to the homeland, but at least
    I can make informed decisions and not shoot from the hip when
    it comes to risk if we don't get the full appropriation that we
    need to invest in the Coast Guard.
        Mr. Carter. Admiral, funding a capital ship like the NSC is
    expensive. There is no question that the national security
    cutter is a tremendous asset and performing well above
    expectations.
        However, I believe it is just one of the many tools in the
    toolkit that the Coast Guard needs to successfully execute its
    complex and diverse missions. I am concerned there may be a
    growing misperception that adding more national security
    cutters and foregoing other recapitalization like the OPC would
    better serve the Coast Guard.
        Admiral, let me ask you today, just as I asked the
    Secretary last week: Does the Coast Guard need more national
    security cutters to execute any of its 11 statutory missions?
        Admiral Zukunft. Mr. Chairman, our number one priority is
    the offshore patrol cutter, and I always look at any new adds
    that might jeopardize that program of record. I am indebted to
    this subcommittee when a ninth national security cutter was
    added into our 2016 appropriation. That could have potentially
    offset the offshore patrol cutter.
        In fact, this committee added the final $89 million for
    final design work. I am encouraged that there is $100 million
    in long lead time materials in our 2017 budget.
        But this is the platform that we really need to move out
    on, because I look at, one, affordability; and I also look at
    what the out-year costs are of adding these newer platforms
    onto our base. The shore infrastructure cost alone is $140
    million to home-port that ship; the annual operating expenses,
    including salaries, fuel expenditures is another $45 million.
        So I look long-term that these are ships that will be
    around for 60 years, and what is the commandant--three or four
    commandants, what are those challenges going to be of how do
    you sustain this mixed fleet?
        And when I look at our fleet mix analysis that was eight
    national security cutters, 25 offshore patrol cutters, 58 fast
    response cutters--we got it right. And so now we are going back
    to our force mix analysis again now with the ninth.
        But I am quite satisfied with where we are now that we have
    a ninth. But really, the offshore patrol cutter is my number
    one priority going forward.
        Mr. Carter. Would a 10th national security cutter endanger
    other priority recapitalization programs like the offshore
    patrol cutter and fast response cutter, and the polar
    icebreaker, which is a huge-ticket item? Let's speak
    specifically about that.
        Admiral Zukunft. Specifically, absent any topline relief to
    our acquisition budget--and actually, it was me last year who
    said, you know, we need a reliable, predictable AC&I budget--a
    floor of $1.5 billion to keep all of these acquisition projects
    moving forward. But within that base, it does not give me the
    latitude, a 10th national security cutter, to build out the
    offshore patrol cutter, finish out the fast response cutter
    program, and now look at building new icebreakers as well.
        So something would have to give if we were to look at a
    10th national security cutter. And so that would jeopardize our
    other programs within the funding climate that I see going
    forward.
        Mr. Carter. And as your answer to the previous questions
    was that the 11 statutory missions that you have are--as far as
    they relate to the national security cutter--are well-served
    with the number that you have got now.
        Admiral Zukunft. I am happy with what we have.
        Mr. Carter. Yes, sir. Okay.
        Mr. Price.
        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Carter. I am going to have to go to a Defense
    subcommittee meeting right now because the Chief of Staff of
    the Army is from my district and I need to get on him about
    some stuff, so--but I will probably be back.
        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Admiral, I want to read a sentence from the Coast Guard's
    recent Arctic strategy paper. ``Numerous studies have examined
    national and Coast Guard shortfalls in the Arctic, from the
    need for additional icebreakers and long-range patrol vessels,
    to improved communications and maritime domain awareness
    capabilities and aviation assets.''
        Pretty large menu implied there by changes in Artic waters
    and climate, and certainly international activity that we are
    looking at. I would like to get to as much of this as we can,
    but I do want to focus on the most immediate item, which is the
    icebreaker.
        You identify in this same study icebreaking capability as a
    significant gap in the Coast Guard's current fleet, so we are
    pleased that the President has announced he wants to expedite
    the acquisition of a new heavy polar icebreaker.
        This is not going to happen quickly, however, so it--I
    wonder if you could describe in more detail how the $150
    million proposed in this budget for this year would be used. Is
    there any way to further expedite the acquisition?
        And let me just ask you a follow up while I am at it,
    because I want you to set the context here. We often hear that
    Russia has 20 to 30 icebreakers already. I don't know of what
    size or what quality, but maybe you can fill that in.
        How many do you think the Coast Guard will need? Do we need
    to match the Russian fleet or is there a particular number that
    would give us the capability we need? And assuming we stay on
    track to begin constructing this first icebreaker by 2020, when
    could we realistically begin acquiring a second or third ship?
        Admiral Zukunft. Thank you, Congressman.
        And I will first talk to the $150 million that had been
    identified in the President's budget for 2017. We are already
    moving out on hiring the acquisition staff professionals that
    would oversee the buildout of a heavy icebreaker.
        We have published in FedBizOpps what the requirements for a
    heavy icebreaker are, and we have actually worked with the--at
    least six other stakeholders that have equity in the Arctic to
    identify what would they require of an Arctic heavy icebreaker.
        So we have done that up front, and now we are reaching out
    to industry. The shipbuilders of the United States are
    convinced that they can build a heavy icebreaker here in the
    United States. To accelerate this timeline we are also looking
    at parent craft designs in other countries, but that design
    would be built here in the United States to accelerate that
    timeline.
        What the $150 million does is it incentivizes industry. It
    also provides a stable platform, as we have seen in years past
    with sequestration, budget control acts, in the last 4 years we
    have been through a number of continuing resolutions, two
    funding lapses that would cause an acquisition of this
    magnitude to stall out at a point in time where the Polar Star,
    our only heavy icebreaker, has maybe 5 to 7 years of service
    life. We are doing everything we can to sustain it before its
    relief arrives.
        Russia has about 40 icebreakers. About eight of those are
    heavy and they have six more under construction today.
        This last year I hosted all eight of the Arctic Council
    nations, and through the State Department I was allowed to
    invite Russia here to the United States to have a strategic
    dialogue and establish an Arctic Coast Guard Forum to not look
    at the Arctic as the next battlefield, but to look at the
    Arctic for the safety of life at sea, the amount of human
    activity, fisheries activities, indigenous populations, search
    and rescue, oil spill response, all of that.
        And other Arctic Council nations look to the United States,
    as the most powerful nation among the Arctic Council, to really
    have a leadership role because there are sovereignty issues at
    play up in the Arctic, as well. So on a global scale, we are
    seeing internationally a desire for the United States to step
    up to the plate and be a more active player in the Arctic
    region, as well.
        There is a high-latitude study that said--you know,
    independent--said that the nation would require three heavy and
    three medium icebreakers. One, it would be under consideration
    right now to at least provide some self-rescue capability.
        And we will have to see what happens over time, but right
    now the baseline study says three heavy icebreakers, three
    medium, but not peer-to-peer competition with Russia to be, you
    know, ``If you have 40 then we need 41.'' There is really no
    good return on investment when it comes to that.
        Mr. Price. That is your own projection you are talking
    about, three plus three?
        Admiral Zukunft. So mine is--would be three heavy and three
    medium. And ironically, when I was an ensign many years ago we
    actually had seven icebreakers in the Coast Guard inventory.
        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fleischmann [presiding]. Admiral, good morning, sir.
        Admiral Zukunft. Good morning.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Want to thank you for your outstanding
    service to our country, and I want to thank the Coast Guard for
    all the great work that you all do.
        Before I ask my questions, couple of things: I represent
    the 3rd District of Tennessee. That is Chattanooga. And the
    Coast Guard does an exemplary job in my part of the world with
    the inland waterways. And I wanted to note that for the record.
    It is a very important function in our part of the world, and
    you all fulfill that very well.
        I also wanted another point of thanks: We hold two military
    academy days in our district. We are very proud of the fact
    that the 3rd District has provided some of the best students to
    our military academies, and--all five. And the Coast Guard
    without fail has sent personnel and alums--I understand you are
    a graduate of the Coast Guard Academy--to our academy days, and
    I want to thank you for that because I want all the students in
    the 3rd District to have opportunities for our military
    academies, and the Coast Guard Academy is doing a great job,
    sir.
        Admiral, last year you testified that the offshore patrol
    cutter was the very top priority for the Coast Guard. As a
    result, Congress provided the funding needed for you to award a
    contract this fiscal year for detail design that will lead to
    production in 2021.
        I am pleased to see that you included $100 million in your
    request to complete the design and procure the long lead time
    materials required to meet that date. However, I am concerned,
    sir, with the timing of that award.
        Where does the process stand today, and how confident are
    you that you will be in a position to make that award before
    the end of this fiscal year?
        Admiral Zukunft. Congressman, I have the utmost confidence
    that we will down-select to one shipbuilder before the end of
    this fiscal year. The detail design funding certainly provides
    the impetus for us to move forward.
        And, quite frankly, the $100 million for long lead time
    materials for fiscal year 2017 really sets that first platform
    up for success because this will be a one-ship build initially
    before we go into full-rate production. But at least to get
    this first one on the starting blocks, we are very well
    postured going forward.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Follow-up question: What would be the
    impact to the program if that contract awarded needed to be
    shifted to early fiscal 2017, sir?
        Admiral Zukunft. Right now I would be loath to see any
    delay in this moving forward. When the first offshore patrol
    cutter is delivered in about the year 2021, the ships that it
    will replace, if I don't have to decommission them before that,
    will be reaching 55 years of service.
        In our fast response cutter fleet we have had to take two
    ships offline, and we will decommission those, just in the last
    2 months because of deterioration. So really we are at an
    inflection point right now where any delay on the offshore
    patrol cutter will impact front-line operations.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Cuellar.
        Mr. Cuellar. Chairman, thank you so much.
        And, Admiral, thank you for your service and, of course,
    what your men and women do.
        Let me talk about immigration a little bit and part of the
    work that y'all do. Traditionally Cubans who are coming into
    the U.S. would cross the water and then go to Florida most of
    the time.
        The last 2 or 3 years they have been coming through my home
    town of Laredo, which is a port--a land port. In fact, the last
    2 years out of the 67,000 Cubans that came in, 47,000 of them
    came through a port of Laredo--a land port.
        And, as you know, the wet-foot-dry policy, the 1966 Cuban
    Adjustment Act, says basically if you touch the U.S. you get to
    stay. The wet-foot policy came in, and basically you know what
    that means.
        Now there is no more wet-foot-dry policy, at least for some
    of them, because they are coming in--they were coming in
    through Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, and then, you know, Costa
    Rica till Nicaragua said, ``Put a hold on them.''
        And then they would come in through Laredo, not come
    through a river, not come in and see border patrol; they
    actually would see only CBP, which are the men and women that
    we have at our bridges. They just come through a bridge, show
    their passport; 45 minutes or so, they come through and that is
    it.
        And then they are fast-tracked: 1 year they become legal
    residents, and then in 3 years they become a U.S. citizen so
    they can ask for immediate federal benefits on the moment they
    come in.
        So you can understand what has been happening on the
    border. If you can tell us--and I am looking up some numbers as
    to what y'all have--I think for fiscal year 2015 Coast Guard
    made a total of 3,800 maritime migrant interdictions, which
    2,900 of them were Cuban nationals.
        Do you have any thoughts whether the Joint Task Force East
    is taking to extend this SONAR security that helps us address
    this issue? Because now they are--somebody got real smart and
    said, ``Forget about the water''--they are still doing that,
    but now they are coming in in the thousands, and what they are
    doing is now they are flying directly from Costa Rica--Iberia,
    Costa Rica.
        They will fly into Nueva Laredo, which is a city right
    across from Laredo, and they fly in, they take a bus--maybe not
    a Uber, but they will take a bus or a taxi, and then they get
    to the bridge and they are in.
        Any thoughts on how we address this issue, besides changing
    the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, which I think is the magnet in
    this case.
        Admiral Zukunft. Yes, Congressman. What happened in the
    last year or year-and-a-half, there was a four-fold increase in
    remittances that could be sent back to Cuba. So those who were
    the benefactor of these remittances then had the wherewithal to
    get on an airplane, get to Central America, ultimately Mexico,
    cross our land port of entry in Laredo, and as soon as they
    cross that border they are feet-dry.
        Not everyone is a recipient of these remittances. Just in
    the last quarter our numbers in maritime flow is up about 45
    percent from where it was a year ago. And what we are seeing
    are those that don't get these remittances.
        And in fact, one of our most recent interdictions we asked,
    ``How many of you is this the first time you have been stopped
    by the Coast Guard? '' Some it was the fourth or fifth time.
        And he says, ``Well, what are you going to do when you go
    back?''
        He says, ``Well, we will come back again.'' And they will
    keep trying and trying until they ultimately go feet-dry and
    are welcomed into the United States.
        So it is a policy, but it is also a policy that is folded
    in with `is Cuba a country that honors human rights? ' So if we
    are going to address this policy, I think in the same breath we
    have to take stock of the government of Cuba and is this a
    country that abides by human rights policies.
        In the interim we need to protect our borders.
        Mr. Cuellar. Yes. And I understand that, and certainly I
    think maybe when President Obama goes down there he can address
    some of those issues because, you know, my good friend Mario
    Diaz-Balart and some of us, we have talked about that.
        But it is more political freedom. The Central Americans are
    escaping. It is a life-and-death situation for them because
    they are escaping drug cartels, try to put them into
    prostitution, try to get them to join the gang. So it is a
    little different.
        But for those folks we deport--so you can understand how
    the Central Americans and the Mexicans and even people on my
    side of the, you know, on this side of the river feel. It is a
    little unfair. One is trying to escape political freedom, and
    here they are trying to escape deaths in many cases.
        So it is, you know, I understand what you are saying. It is
    a politically correct answer.
        But understand that at least us on the ground on the
    southern border, we are facing two folks: folks coming in
    trying to escape the death--and I think you know this. We have
    talked about this. People are trying to escape the drug cartels
    and the violence, and some of the most violent places in the
    world are in Central America. And we deport them after a while.
    But here it is they touch and they are in.
        So I do understand your answer, but my question is, any way
    we can at least put a speedbump for some of the folks coming in
    on the land area? And I know you are more water, but any
    thoughts on that question?
        Admiral Zukunft. And again, through the joint task force
    approach, looking at who are the enablers of moving these
    individuals. They generally don't move on their own, so there
    is a human trafficking, organized crime element to this as
    well, and I think that is really what we need to be focusing
    our attention to, as well, you know, exploiting this--seeing
    this policy that we have in that regard.
        Our biggest challenge in the maritime domain, people taking
    such acts of desperation as to shoot themselves and not damage
    any vital organs, swallow bleach, use babies as fenders to keep
    our ships away from boarding them, but truly desperate measures
    to find a better life here in the United States, which is
    really no different than what we are seeing in Central America
    as well.
        Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Young.
        Mr. Young. Thank you.
        Welcome, Admiral.
        Recently I asked Secretary Foxx, of the Department of
    Transportation, about the United Nations rule regarding
    International Maritime Organization's requirement that shippers
    verify the weight of cargo containers for steamships and
    terminal operators before being loaded on the vessels. You are
    aware of this issue?
        Admiral Zukunft. I am, Congressman.
        Mr. Young. Thanks.
        I had a roundtable--an agriculture transportation
    roundtable--a few weeks ago in my district, 3rd District in
    Iowa, with retailers, transportation folks--great way to get
    people together and discuss issues. But this is a real concern
    that a lot of our retailers had in the agriculture community.
        They are worried there may be some real concerns that could
    create delays and turmoil at our ports and repercussions on our
    economy. How can retailers be assured that this is not going to
    be an issue that is going to choke things up and cause delays?
        What current procedures are there for verifying cargo
    weight? And can you, again, reassure agriculture exporters that
    they will not have to be really concerned about this
    regulation?
        And if there are unintended consequences that result from
    this--the July 1st date is coming up--is there a way out of
    this? Can an extension be given to become compliant or can
    there be an exemption altogether?
        Admiral Zukunft. Again, Congressman, as you noted, this was
    a--you know, run through the International Maritime
    Organization, not a regulatory process per se. But it really
    does apply to exporters to verify the weight of a container
    before it is loaded onto a ship and then exported to a foreign
    country. So if there is not verification of weight then the
    shipper can refuse to load that particular container.
        Now, the same container in all likelihood has to go on
    another mode of conveyance--maybe the highway, maybe a train--
    where there are typically weight requirements as well. So it is
    rare where we encounter containers today that have not been
    weighed prior to loading aboard a ship, and it really is
    designed for safety of life at sea: What is the load of these
    containers, with ships carrying upwards of 18,000 container
    equivalent units on there, but what is the ultimate weight of
    that? And then how are they loaded and how it might affect
    stability, as well.
        We do not foresee any disruption to shipping activity. We
    have had significant outreach with both exporters, shippers at
    container terminals. One of my admirals was in Houston earlier
    this week. We had 2,000 people in attendance.
        So I think much of this is really in the communication
    realm right now, and we will continue to do that outreach
    effort and assure folks that there will not be a disruption in
    getting their products into the international commerce stream.
        Mr. Young. Well, I would appreciate your commitment as the
    July 1st date comes that you will be monitoring this and
    listening to the stakeholders and seeing what they are
    experiencing with this new rule.
        Secondly, like my colleague from Tennessee regarding inland
    waterways, Iowa is very unique. We have the Missouri River on
    one side, Mississippi on the other side. And it is a great way
    to help us get our agriculture goods to market.
        Can you share with the committee the work the Coast Guard
    is doing to protect our inland waterways and facilitate trade
    for a lot of the landlocked states?
        Admiral Zukunft. Absolutely. We work closely with the Army
    Corps of Engineers; we work real close with the American
    Waterways Operators.
        As you are well aware, this was almost a biblical flood
    season on our inland river system, and so there are occasions
    where the size of tows have to be broken down into smaller
    units so they can safely transit going downstream.
        We are making investments in our inland river tender fleet
    to keep those viable. The good news: They operate on
    freshwater, not salt. They are getting up there in age, but we
    are attending to that as well.
        We have had a lot of outreach with the operators as we look
    at being a little bit more efficient on how we mark the inland
    waterways--do we need visual aids to navigation or can you use
    electronic virtual aids to navigation--and try to strike a fine
    balance. But none of that is done in the absence of input and
    consultation with the American Waterway Operators.
        What we have seen is a reduction in flow coming downstream
    here of late, because a year ago I would say every day we are
    putting a new tank barge into the inland waterway system, and
    it was typically carrying Bakken crude going downriver. And a
    year ago oil was triple what it is today, in terms of that
    value.
        So we are seeing that immediate impact there, but in terms
    of agricultural goods and the like, you know, those are moving
    at--within normal rates.
        Mr. Young. Well, thank you for mentioning ways to address
    some of these problems, and I just encourage you to keep that
    outreach with the stakeholders and the operators because this
    is a big deal for not just the state of Iowa and the 3rd
    District, but other states as well. We mentioned Tennessee
    here--my colleague--and the inland waterways, and so thank you
    for paying attention to this issue, and please stay engaged
    with it.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Young.
        And, Admiral, we are going to begin a second round of
    questioning, sir.
        I note that the fast response cutter, the FRC, which we are
    acquiring to replace the aging fleet of 110-foot patrol boats,
    is an important asset in the interdiction of illicit drugs. But
    the fiscal 2017 request only includes funding for four FRCs.
    This request, sir, is down from the six that were funded in
    fiscal 2016.
        Is the goal still to acquire 58 fast response cutters? And
    if so, why is there a reduction in the number requested this
    year? Will this drop in production significantly delay your
    ability to complete this acquisition goal or negatively impact
    your ability to prosecute your interdiction missions?
        Admiral Zukunft. Congressman, we looked at when the full
    production run of these fast response cutters need to be
    complete, and that year is 2023. The reason that year is
    important, because that is when we go to full-rate production
    on our offshore patrol cutters. So we need to close that one
    account before we go full-bore on the offshore patrol cutter.
        We can go at risk this year with four, but part of this is
    driven by a $1.1 billion AC&I budget, so those were some of the
    tradeoffs that we had to make going forward with four, but
    recognizing we need to get up to full-rate production of six
    per year to deliver all 58 by 2023.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. I understand that you are in the
    process of contracting for the remaining 26 ships that will
    complete the program of record. What risk do you face if you
    are unable to reach an agreement on a fair and reasonable price
    for the remaining hulls, and what effect would a pause in
    production have not only on the cost of the ship but also on
    your ability to meet the Coast Guard's missions.
        Admiral Zukunft. Congressman, we are in I would say very
    emotional negotiations with the vendor as I speak today to come
    to closure on the cost of these final 26 cutters. We have a lot
    of experience with this program of record. We have held
    requirements steady and we know what the unit cost is, and we
    know what a fair and reasonable price is.
        That is the subject of the negotiations going forward, but
    we need to come to closure on this within the next 2 months so
    we can move forward. Otherwise--and I will just leave this
    vague--we will have to explore other options. But fair and
    reasonable is absolutely paramount.
        The immediate impact, as I said earlier, we had to take two
    110-foot patrol boats offline and we will decommission them. It
    was on plan, but when they went in for their routine dry-dock
    availability, the hulls are deteriorated to a point where we
    would be throwing good money after bad, and we are not going to
    do that. All the more reason we need to keep this program
    moving along.
        But I am encouraged that we will come to closure on these
    negotiations, which are critical, one, to the taxpayer, we get
    a good value; but more importantly, for our men and women who
    are operating these platforms and just doing fantastic things
    for our country out there on the water.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Price.
        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Admiral, I want to pick up on some of the issues raised
    regarding Cuban migration by my colleague, Mr. Cuellar. But
    first I want to wrap up where we got cut off on the icebreaker
    and the Arctic strategy.
        I do want to make sure I understand the fiscal 2017 request
    and how it relates to the bigger picture, in terms of this
    initial icebreaker project.
        You asked for $150 million in the way of an initial
    appropriation for fiscal 2017. That is with a total projected
    cost of how much?
        Admiral Zukunft. Right now we are using a place marker of
    $1 billion, but I would not use that as a figure to go on
    record with. But that is a nominal value right now until we do
    the full scoping requests for proposals and we see what comes
    back.
        Mr. Price. All right. And the way that would be parceled
    out over how many years? What is the completion date?
        Admiral Zukunft. Right now we are talking upwards of 8
    years to produce a heavy icebreaker. Part of that depends on if
    we can go with a parent craft design to accelerate that
    timeline.
        Mr. Price. Eight years does seem like a very long timeline,
    or is that not unusual for icebreakers?
        Admiral Zukunft. Well, we haven't built a heavy icebreaker
    in over 40 years, Congressman, so there will have to be
    investments in technology by our industrial base to be able to
    build ships with that hull thickness. And so there will be some
    front-end investments required, which is why we have given this
    nominal value of $1 billion. Because we don't know what it will
    take industry to be able to build this because we have not
    built a ship of this type in such a long period of time.
        Mr. Price. That does bring to mind, though, the way you
    described the $150 million down payment. You talked about
    incentivizing industry. That was your phrase, and you implied
    that there might be some degree of incentivizing required to
    carry out this project.
        What does that mean exactly? And does this add up to
    obligating, you think, the entire $150 million in the fiscal
    year?
        Admiral Zukunft. I can't project out whether we will be
    able to obligate that $150 million, but certainly to accelerate
    detail design and then get ourselves to construction of an
    icebreaker.
        Our biggest challenge in the past has been the vagaries in
    the budget process. We have seen our acquisition budget ebb and
    flow 40 percent in some cases. And even with a continuing
    resolution that prevents no new starts in acquisition, it has
    really challenged our ability to move forward in some of these
    large acquisition projects of ours.
        So what it does do is it provides us some surety to overlap
    a fiscal year, but more importantly, to keep industry keenly
    interested in this as well. It does signal to our industrial
    base that we are serious about making this particular
    investment.
        Mr. Price. Well, we are serious, and this committee is
    serious. I fully sympathize with the desire to protect the
    project against the vagaries of the process. Believe me, we--I
    understand that and share that concern.
        At the same time, we need to assure ourselves that there is
    some reasonable relationship between the amount requested and
    the amount likely to be actually obligated within the
    timeframe.
        Let me turn to the questions Mr. Cuellar was raising. He
    has returned; he may want to raise some more himself.
        But with respect to the Cuban migration and the way it has
    stepped up since the President's opening to Cuba, which I fully
    support that. I know that there are some challenges to the
    Coast Guard which result, however. And I want to focus on the
    people that are interdicted at sea, as opposed to the land
    migration.
        First of all, I want to know if our budget--if the budget
    proposal is sufficient in what you anticipate in terms of
    interdiction and rescue. And then I just wish you could clarify
    the process. I understand wet-foot, dry-foot; I am not sure I
    understand what differences, if any, might pertain to people
    you apprehend at sea, the process for returning these people to
    Cuba. And then how does that compare to the process for
    returning people let's say from the Triangle countries of
    Central America?
        Mr. Cuellar has a very compelling point here: These people
    are all fleeing tough situations and threatening situations,
    but the threats are very different. And in the case of the
    Central Americans, in many cases it is a more dire and more
    immediate threat.
        How do we treat these migrants who you pick up at sea? Do
    we treat the ones from Central America differently from the
    Cubans?
        Admiral Zukunft. There are two different policies. So with
    the foot-dry policy, when we apprehend Cuban migrants at sea
    they are detained aboard our Coast Guard cutters. They go
    through an interview with an Immigration Service official to
    ascertain whether there is a bona fide claim of political
    asylum.
        And these are economic migrants. Very rarely does one raise
    to a threshold where there is a bona fide claim of political
    asylum.
        Mr. Price. This is the Cubans you are talking about.
        Admiral Zukunft. These are the Cubans. So they are
    repatriated.
        The other countries, historically it has been Dominican
    Republic and Haiti that we apprehend at sea, and they are
    directly repatriated upon recovery aboard a Coast Guard cutter.
        In each and every one of these cases, first and--these are
    actually safety-of-life-at-sea events. You don't see like you
    do in the Mediterranean Sea corpses coming ashore, which--so
    there is a human element to this as well.
        But it demonstrates the magnitude of risk that these people
    will go through to try to find a better life here in the United
    States. But these are two separate and distinct policies.
        Mr. Price. Is there any substantial number of people
    attempting to come through this--through the Caribbean from
    these Central American countries, the ones under such duress,
    at present?
        Admiral Zukunft. No, Congressman. All of those typically
    arrive at our land ports of entry. But to date we are seeing
    few, if any, migrants taking to the water from the tri-border
    region of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
        Mr. Price. All right.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Admiral, that bell that we hear is the
    voting bell, which necessitates our members to go and vote, as
    you know; we talked about this earlier.
        If any of the members had a very brief--very brief
    question--I had some more, but I will defer.
        Mr. Cuellar, did you have any really quick questions?
        Mr. Cuellar. Just a real quick question.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Chairman.
        Just real quick on the aids to navigation--I don't
    represent Corpus Christi, but it is part of Texas--that I would
    like to ask you is your budget requests, what, about $51.1
    million for shore units and aids to navigation? Could you tell
    us real quickly what the process and the criteria for
    prioritizing aid to navigation projects?
        And more importantly, do you have the authority right now
    to do a reimbursement to nonfederal entities that choose to
    advance the aid to navigation projects pursuant to your
    specifications? We are doing that because we did that for CBP,
    myself and Chairman Carter, we added language to do
    reimbursement.
        Are you allowed to do that reimbursement? Are you allowed
    to get money if let's say the city of Corpus Christi decides to
    move forward and advance that funding?
        Admiral Zukunft. Congressman, right now we do not have a
    reimbursement vehicle, but we certainly--with private aids to
    navigation we routinely consult with those to assure that they
    properly mark a federal waterway.
        Mr. Cuellar. Okay. And like to follow up with your folks. I
    know you have met with them. I know that my friend Senator John
    Cornyn I believe sent a letter, and Senator Cruz also. So I
    just want to follow up on that and see if we can find a way.
        And, Mr. Chairman, we are going to try to look at--possibly
    we will talk to Chairman Carter about the same thing we did for
    CBP, to look at giving you authority to allow a reimbursement.
    That is a call from Chairman Carter and we will definitely work
    with them.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
        And, Admiral, again, thank you for being before this
    subcommittee. We appreciate your testimony today and we wish
    you and the Coast Guard the best in your endeavors.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                               Tuesday, March 15, 2016.

                          UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

                                    WITNESS

    JOSEPH CLANCY, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
        Mr.  Carter [presiding]. Good morning, everybody.
        Let me start off by saying I am cursed by a bunch of
    allergy attacks right now, and I may sound like I am either
    dying or have escaped from a tuberculosis isolation, but I am
    not contagious, I am just congested, okay? And please forgive
    me for that.
        When I get allergies they all settle in my bronchial tubes,
    so I sound like heck. But anyway, that is the--you know, live
    as long as I have you get certain problems that stay with you
    for a while.
        Well, this hearing is called to order and I want to thank
    all of you for being here. Today we welcome Joe Clancy, the
    director of the United States Secret Service--his second
    appearance before the subcommittee.
        Director Clancy, welcome. We appreciate you being here.
    Thank you for your service to DHS and to our nation. We
    appreciate you.
        Before I begin, or we begin, I want to take a moment to
    remember former Congressman Martin Sabo, who passed away this
    weekend in his home in the state of Minnesota. Congressman Sabo
    served 28 years in Congress, and for 2 years served as the
    ranking member of this subcommittee. Please remember his
    friends and family in your prayers.
        I want to commend you and the Secret Service on
    successfully and, most importantly, safely completing multiple
    national security events last September. And you remember that
    September, especially since the events overlapped as the Pope
    visited Washington, New York, and Philadelphia at the same time
    the United Nations General Assembly hosted 162 heads of state
    in New York. It was truly a whole government response.
        Thank you and everyone in the service for a job very well
    done, and I know you took the responsibility very seriously and
    we are very proud of you--the kind of pride we like to always
    have in the Secret Service.
        Fiscal year 2017 budget for Secret Service is $1.9 billion,
    a decrease of $42.4 million below fiscal year 2016, which is
    largely due to the close of the 2016 presidential campaign
    cycle. I am pleased to see a continued investment in
    communications with the inclusion of $27 million to complete a
    long-needed reinvestment in radios and significant increases to
    explosive detection systems; chemical, biological and
    radiological detection systems; and upgrades to the White House
    physical protective structure.
        Director, while you have tackled many challenges over the
    last year, I remain concerned about the rate of hiring and
    associated attrition, which is forcing unsustainable overtime.
    On this note, a few weeks ago you and I discussed a new agent
    career track path you instituted last summer to improve morale.
    However, your budget underfunds the program's latest
    initiatives by $29 million, or 130 percent.
        I look forward to hearing from you on what you are doing to
    address these continuing challenges.
        Before I turn over to you to make your opening statement, I
    would like to recognize Ms. Roybal-Allard, our distinguished
    ranking member, for any remarks she would like to make.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms.  Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I, too, would like to take a moment to send my
    condolences to former Representative Martin Sabo's family. He
    was a tireless advocate for the people of Minnesota and our
    country, and we have lost a truly remarkable person and I am
    saddened by his passing. I hope his family and the people of
    Minnesota will find comfort in the legacy he built and in the
    foundation he built for members of this subcommittee and for
    his state.
        Director Clancy, welcome to this morning's hearing. I know
    the past few years have been challenging for the Secret
    Service, but I am very hopeful that you have now turned a
    corner on putting the agency back on the right track.
        Beyond incidents that have brought negative attention to
    the agency, the Secret Service faced a significant operational
    challenge last September when it provided protection for the
    Pope's visit and the United Nations General Assembly while also
    preparing for the beginning of the presidential nomination and
    transition process.
        By all accounts, the Secret Service performed admirably,
    and I congratulate you, your senior staff, and all the men and
    women of the Secret Service on a job well done. I understand a
    number of TSA and ICE personnel also pitched in and supported
    the efforts, so this was truly a DHS unity-of-effort
    initiative.
        Other tests will be the nuclear summit coming up at the end
    of March, the ongoing presidential nomination contest, and the
    presidential transition next January.
        Earlier this year you began providing protection for three
    presidential candidates in addition to protection already
    provided to Hillary Clinton as a former First Lady. By the
    summer, you will be protecting the nominated candidates, and
    shortly after that, setting up President Obama's post-
    presidency protective detail.
        Since the Protective Mission Panel issued its report, the
    Secret Service has made a number of productive changes,
    including improvements to the hiring process for both officers
    and agents. But as we discussed, officer attrition continues to
    be a real problem.
        Thank you for joining us this morning. I look forward to
    hearing from you about the progress you see at the agency,
    areas that you hope to address during the last year of the
    administration, and how the fiscal year 2017 budget request
    will help the Secret Service continue moving in the right
    direction.
        I yield back.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Price. Mr. Chairman, before we turn to our director
    could I say just a word about our colleague, Martin Sabo?
        Mr. Carter. Certainly. David, I recognize you.
        Mr. Price. I remember Martin Sabo very fondly as just a
    wonderful man, wonderful colleague, devoted member of this
    institution. He first entered public life at the ripe age of
    22, I believe, when he was elected to the Minnesota House. He
    later served as speaker of the Minnesota House and then
    succeeded Donald Fraser, an esteemed member of this
    institution, in the U.S. House of Representatives.
        Martin was a well-established, accomplished member by the
    time I got here in the in the late 1980s. He served as chairman
    of the House Budget Committee and then was the inaugural
    ranking member of this subcommittee when this--he had offered
    leadership on appropriations in a number of areas, most notably
    transportation. But when this subcommittee was first formed,
    Martin took on the leading Democratic role on the subcommittee,
    and that is where I served most closely with him and learned a
    great deal from him as we figured out what the Homeland
    Security Subcommittee was all about and what this new
    department was all about as we undertook that post-9/11
    reorganization here in the House.
        So it is with real sadness and very fond memories that we
    receive news of Martin's death. And since this is the first
    subcommittee hearing since that has occurred, I think it is
    appropriate that all of us pause to remember him and his
    service to our country.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Price.
        Anyone else want to comment?
        All right.
        Director Clancy, we have your written submission, but we
    are ready to hear from you and we yield the floor to you.

                   Opening Statement: Director Clancy

        Mr. Clancy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Roybal-
    Allard, and distinguished members of the committee. I am
    honored to join you to discuss the President's fiscal year 2017
    budget request for the Secret Service.
        This budget builds on the investments made over the past 2
    years, moves our agency forward, and strengthens our
    capabilities to carry out our priority mission of protecting
    the President and the White House. The fiscal year 2017 budget
    will continue to advance initiatives centered on increased
    staffing and training as well as enhancements to technologies
    and infrastructure that directly support our front-line
    personnel. These investments are important contributors to our
    operational success.
        Ultimately, it is the dedication and the professionalism of
    our people that ensures our success as an agency. I am proud of
    them and what we are accomplishing together every day.
        The fiscal year 2017 budget for the Secret Service totals
    $1.9 billion. This amount is roughly $42 million below this
    year's enacted level, largely due to the drawdown of the
    presidential campaign operations.
        Program increases proposed in the budget will allow us to
    complete the 2-year effort to upgrade the radios and associated
    infrastructure at the White House complex. Other enhancements
    at the White House complex include ongoing work to replace
    aging officer booths and security gates and necessary
    investments in classified protective countermeasures to address
    known and emerging threats.
        In addition to these increases, the budget provides funding
    for the final months of the presidential campaign activities
    and to sustain the costs associated with the establishment of
    the former presidential protective division for President
    Obama, to ensure a smooth transition on January 20, 2017.
        The Secret Service is focused on our human capital needs
    across the organization. Attaining appropriate staffing levels
    will ease overtime demands on individual employees and further
    increase training opportunities.
        In fiscal year 2015 the agency hired 500 new employees. In
    fiscal year 2016 we are building on this momentum as we work to
    meet our goals of hiring 860 new employees. In fiscal year 2017
    we will continue to maximize our hiring efforts as we work to
    keep pace with our 5-year human capital plan and fulfill the
    recommendations made by the Protective Mission Panel.
        As we work to meet our hiring goals, it is critical that we
    recruit the highest-quality candidates. In 2015 more than 2,100
    recruits representing 96 organizations attended the Federal Law
    Enforcement Training Center, or FLETC. Only eight received the
    prestigious Honor Graduate Award. I am proud to say that four
    of those recipients were Secret Service recruits.
        As impressive as this achievement is, I am especially proud
    that one of our special agent trainees earned the distinguished
    title of 2015 FLETC Honor Graduate of the Year. I congratulate
    these individuals for their achievements and could not be more
    optimistic about our future when I see people of this caliber
    joining our ranks.
        While the Secret Service has made significant progress in
    meeting our hiring goals, we have yet to see the desired impact
    on our overall staffing levels due to increased attrition. In
    order to maximize our hiring gains, we have turned considerable
    attention to the retention of our existing workforce. We have
    begun retention initiatives available to us within our existing
    authorities and are pursuing several options for more
    comprehensive retention initiatives, which will be inclusive of
    all members of our workforce.
        Every presidential campaign increases the operational tempo
    of the Secret Service. This year a number of National Special
    Security Events, as well as overseas protective travel, have
    increased the tempo even further.
        This increased operational tempo highlights two important
    points.
        Number one, the success of these protective trips and
    events is dependent on more than just those agents and officers
    assigned to permanent protective details. The majority of the
    staffing and advanced planning that is required to fulfill the
    mission is a result of special agents and support staff working
    in field offices around the world.
        Number two, our hiring and retention initiatives are
    especially critical this year so our employees across the
    agency can begin to see the benefits of increased staffing
    levels.
        With respect to the presidential campaign, candidate
    protection details are currently in place for Secretary
    Clinton, Donald Trump, and Senator Bernie Sanders. Work has
    already been underway for months to establish the security
    plans for the nominating conventions which will take place
    later this summer.
        In fiscal year 2017 the budget provides $72 million for
    presidential campaign activities. This includes protection
    costs for the nominees and their families through the general
    election, funding for the protection of the President-elect and
    Vice President-elect and their immediate families during the
    transition, and funding to secure the 58th presidential
    inauguration and associated events.
        As we move further into the 2016 presidential campaign
    cycle, I recognize the next year will remain challenging. As
    our personnel continue to meet the considerable demands of the
    mission, my leadership team will support them by building on
    last year's staffing and retention initiatives.
        We will continue to advance training as a central component
    of our success and aggressively pursue the equipment and
    technologies that are reflective of an elite organization and
    ensure our employees have the tools necessary to provide them
    every advantage.
        Through the dedication and sacrifices of our employees
    around the world, the Secret Service has built momentum at a
    time when the demands of the mission are at its highest. I ask
    for the committee's support for this budget, which will
    continue this momentum at a critical time in our agency's
    history.
        To close, I would like to take a moment to extend our
    condolences to the Reagan family on the passing of former First
    Lady Nancy Reagan. Protecting the President and first family is
    an honor unique to the Secret Service. Over the course of 35
    years, many fine people served President and Mrs. Reagan with
    honor and distinction. I salute them all, past and present, for
    their service and thank the Reagan family for this privilege.
        Chairman Carter, Ranking Member Roybal-Allard, thank you
    once again for the opportunity to be here to represent the men
    and women of the Secret Service. I will be happy to answer any
    questions you and the members of the committee may have.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    STAFFING

        Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Director. We will try to stay
    to our 5-minute, but we have a little flexibility.
        Right to something you mentioned in your conversation when
    you started. Given the amount of overtime being worked by
    agents on the President's detail on campaigns and within the
    uniformed division, it is obvious the service needs additional
    agents and officers. In fact, your own human capital plan says
    you will need 7,600 people by the end of fiscal year 2019, an
    increase of 1,300 above your current end strength of 6,287.
        However, your fiscal year 2017 budget only requests 6,772
    positions. Congress funded 6,714 positions in fiscal year 2016
    for the Secret Service. Is that number obtainable in light of
    the fact that the service is losing more agents than they have
    brought onboard?
        In the last 4 months you have lost 19 positions. Can you
    truly bring on 427 people by the end of September?
        How is the service changing the recruitment and the hiring
    process to ensure that both quality and quantity officers are
    acquired?
        Lastly, is 7,600 personnel truly the requirement of the
    Secret Service? If so, your future budget continues to build on
    this number? Is that correct?
        I note that the fiscal year 2017 budget only increases by
    58 FTE over fiscal year 2016, and none of those are special
    agents and uniformed division, but instead are all support
    staff. Could you go into some detail on that?
        Mr. Clancy. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I first came
    in over a year ago I had three priorities: staffing, training,
    and morale, and you have hit on the number one priority here,
    which is staffing.
        We have basically re-tooled the way we go about hiring
    people, trying to condense the time without lowering the
    quality of candidates that we get to bring in new employees. We
    have had to retool the way we do business in our human
    resources.
        But we have made significant progress in our hiring. As you
    see, we hired, in fiscal year 2015, approximately 200 agents.
    We hired approximately 150 Uniformed Division officers and
    approximately 140 professional staff people.
        So in our first year we have done significant hiring, and
    we will continue to build on that momentum. We are very
    confident that this year, fiscal year 2016, we will reach our
    goals of hiring 312 agents, 312 officers, and over 260
    professional staff.
        We think that we have this hiring process fixed, I would
    say. But the big issue for us here--and you hit it here, Mr.
    Chairman--is the retention.
        We are losing a lot of folks. Our attrition rate for
    Uniformed Division is approximately 8 percent; for our agent
    population it is about 7 percent; and for our professional
    staff it is about 8 percent. So we are losing some very good
    people, and when you think of the amount of time that we invest
    in training these people, the amount of time that we take to
    give them the experience they need, and then to lose those, we
    have got to find ways to keep them.
        One initial retention initiative that we have done, which
    we thought was within our authority working with the Department
    of Homeland Security, was to provide a bonus for Uniformed
    Division officers. It is a 2-year plan. It hopefully entices
    our Uniformed Division officers to stay throughout this
    critical time in our agency where we have this campaign going
    on.
        Over 1,000 of our uniformed division officers signed up for
    that, but we have more initiatives on the table that we are
    looking at within our authority.
        Just as an example, we are hoping to push out this month a
    student loan repayment initiative; also a tuition assistance
    initiative. Those are, within our authority, things that we can
    do to try to entice our people to stay with us rather than move
    on to other agencies or other opportunities.
        There may be additional initiatives we may look at further.
    Of course, we would work with your staff and the Department of
    Homeland Security and OMB if we go in that direction.
        Mr. Carter. Is your chief financial officer looking at this
    and telling us what it is going to cost to do those things? We
    have got that great ideas will retain people. I can understand
    that. But in turn, we have got to always put in what you are
    requesting so we don't have any shortfalls.
        Mr. Clancy. Yes.
        Mr. Carter. Because we have got some shortfalls we have to
    deal with right now.
        Mr. Clancy. Yes. In fact, I have the Chief Financial
    Officer with me today. She was newly appointed to this position
    within the past year--and I may get into this later with the
    structure of the Secret Service--but in the past we have had
    agents in a lot of these positions, and now we are moving to
    run this agency as a business and we have brought in a Chief
    Financial Officer who has that expertise.
        Mr. Carter. That is a good idea.
        We are joined by the Chairman of the whole committee. Even
    though we are into questioning, I am going to yield to Hal
    Rogers to make an opening statement or any comments he may
    make.
        Chairman Rogers. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize
    for being late, and I have to leave early because we have got
    three simultaneous hearings----
        Mr. Carter. Yes, we do.
        Chairman Rogers [continuing]. That I have to be at. But I
    wanted to be here with the Director and you.
        I want to echo the sentiments exercised by the Chairman,
    Ranking Member, and others regarding our former colleague and
    committee member Marty Sabo. Marty dedicated over 47 years of
    his life to public service, 28 of which was in this House,
    including 2 years as the first ranking member of this
    subcommittee.
        David, I am correct on that, aren't I?
        Mr.  Price. That is right.
        Chairman  Rogers. When we started this subcommittee on
    Homeland Security in 1980 and 2003, Marty was ranking member, I
    was the first chairman. We worked together beautifully and I
    think effectively for those years.
        He was a true patriot, he was a great legislator, former
    speaker of his home state House, and many other things. My
    condolences go out to his family, Sylvia, his wife, and loved
    ones, and let them know that he will be sorely missed here in
    his nation's capital.
        Mr. Director, thank you for being here. I want to share my
    gratitude, first off, for the men and women at your agency who
    serve our great country, many of whom put their lives on the
    line on a daily basis and put their families, really, in harm's
    way themselves.
        Your fiscal year 2017 request includes $1.89 billion. That
    is a $42 million decrease from current levels, largely due to
    the winding down of the presidential campaign, I understand.
    The request includes $108 million to enhance security at the
    White House, $27 million for national capital region radio
    system upgrades, $72 million to continue the security work of
    presidential candidates throughout the inauguration.
        I am disappointed, though, to see that the request does not
    include funding for the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children, which has been a bipartisan priority for
    years.
        The Secret Service fulfills a very critical mission, of
    course, of protection and investigation. Your agency is charged
    with protecting the Commander-in-Chief, the Vice President,
    presidential candidates, visiting foreign heads of state, among
    many others.
        This past year you were tasked with protecting the Pope on
    his visit throughout the U.S., as well as over 160 visiting
    heads of state or their spouses for the U.N. General Assembly
    in New York. These were no small tasks and I want to commend
    you and all the men and women at your agency for the tremendous
    job they did. The world was watching and the Secret Service did
    an exemplary job.
        There is much to praise your agency about, but there have
    also been some major missteps in recent years. There seems to
    be an overarching theme within the Secret Service since well
    before your tenure as director began just a short time ago.
        A number of high-profile incidents in the recent past have
    called many to question the integrity, culture, and
    effectiveness of the agency. From a series of unacceptable
    misconduct acts by some of your agents to major security
    lapses, changes need to be made in order for the Secret Service
    to regain the trust of the American people.
        While I have to commend you and your agency for being
    relatively scandal-free since the last time you came before
    this subcommittee, the bar needs to be set much higher.
    Leadership starts at the top and I trust that you are
    leveraging your career's worth of experience to right the ship
    at the Secret Service.
        I look forward to hearing from you today on what measures
    you have put in place over the last year to address these
    problems at your agency.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              COUNTERFEITING: PERU

        One particular thing comes to mind. I was recently in South
    America, and Peru, I think, is the counterfeiting capital of
    the world, is that correct?
        Mr. Clancy. Sir, right now there is a significant amount of
    counterfeit coming out of Peru, yes.
        Chairman Rogers. I mean, you could get a Harvard diploma or
    a $1,000 bill or whatever you wanted, it seems at will. What
    are you doing there?
        Mr. Clancy. We have an agent assigned to our Peru office
    who is making tremendous strides down there. I know we have
    gotten good, positive feedback from the ambassador down there,
    and I think over $10 million was seized last year alone, and
    there have been several offset printing presses that have been
    closed down.
        They are making a significant effect on the counterfeiting
    out of Peru and getting great support from the ambassador's
    office in the embassy.
        Chairman Rogers. Well, that is not quite the report I got.
    I mean, I talked to the ambassador and the head of the agency
    and so on, and, you know, they are working hard. I give them
    that.
        But the problem is so broad and wide, and it is an absolute
    factory for fake dollars, fake money, and everything else.
        Mr. Clancy. Yes, sir.
        Chairman  Rogers. And I don't think we are putting enough
    effort there to try to stop a real sore on the American dollar.
        You have got a lot of critically important missions:
    safeguard the nation's financial infrastructure; you play a
    vital role in protecting the economy from cyber crime and the
    counterfeiting. In fiscal year 2015 alone you made nearly 800
    arrests and seized almost $60 million in currency before it
    entered into circulation.
        You also trained 24 members of the Peruvian counterfeiting
    force to help them combat this problem, but I really think that
    we are not doing nearly enough there, and I sometimes wonder
    whether Peruvians are not too unhappy.
        I mean there is a lot of money that is being circulated in
    their country before it is caught on to be counterfeiting
    elsewhere. Could you give us a report in due course of time
    here on how we might be able to beef up our efforts there?
        Mr. Clancy. Yes, sir. My staff will get with yours
    certainly to give you a more detailed briefing.
        I will say that those recruits, the Peruvian recruits, did
    come up to our training facility here in Washington, and I met
    with their command structure there, as well, to talk about how
    we are doing down there. But we will take a good look at that
    and our staffs will give you a better briefing.
        Chairman Rogers. Yes, I am not interested in a briefing; I
    am interested in action----
        Mr. Clancy. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Rogers [continuing]. To get something done. I know
    what is going on there; we just got back----
        Mr. Clancy. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Rogers [continuing]. And met with all the players
    there. And they are all hard-working, and they are innocent and
    they are above board, and they are trying their best, but it is
    not enough.
        Thank you, Mr. Director.
        Mr. Carter. Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                            PROTECTIVE MISSION PANEL

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director Clancy, you talked a little bit
    about some of your efforts when it came to hiring and
    retention. But the Protective Mission Panel in its 2014 report
    also went beyond the hiring process. Can you elaborate on the
    status of fulfilling the other recommendations of the
    Protective Mission Panel, and is the budget request sufficient
    to allow you to make progress on or to complete all of those
    recommendations?
        Mr. Clancy. Yes, thank you. There were 19 recommendations
    through the Blue Ribbon Panel. We took them all very seriously
    and we concur with most of these recommendations.
        I am very proud to say we have made a lot of progress in
    addressing these recommendations. In fact, a month or so ago, I
    brought back two members of the Blue Ribbon Panel to assure
    them that we are taking their report serious, a very well-
    written report.
        You know, it started with a structure, I will say, that
    they talked about an outside perspective with the Secret
    Service and the culture of starving for management, starving
    for leadership. So what we did was we restructured the way we
    do business.
        In the past, we have had a Director and a Deputy Director,
    and now we are looking at running this more like a business, as
    I said earlier, with our Chief Operating Officer we brought in
    from the Department of Defense--this gentleman is with me here
    today--and that Chief Operating Officer is now overseeing the
    business aspect of the Secret Service. And we have elevated the
    Chief Financial Officer, who we spoke about today.
        In the past, our finances were overseen by an agent. We
    brought in a subject matter expert to oversee our finances.
        We created a new directorate, the Office of Strategic
    Planning and Policy, to look at our 30-, 60-, 90-day plans as
    well as our 5-year plan. And with that, we have elevated a
    subject matter expert, an attorney. He is not an agent; we
    wanted to get that outside perspective again.
        The COO just recently hired a Chief Information Officer who
    is a 34-year Marine Corps brigadier general. He was a CIO in
    the Marine Corps. We were thrilled to get this gentleman, and
    in a few months he has made great strides in assessing where we
    are. We have strengthened that position, the CIO position, so
    that we can do a much better job in our I.T. functions.
        And then we have done some other things structurally,
    based, again, on the Blue Ribbon Panel and their
    recommendations. Training--you know, they said our training--
    and we agree--was not where it should have been. So we have
    applied more focus to our training.
        Our human resources and training previously was one
    directorate. We have split that to give both the focus that
    they need. And our training has increased over the last year,
    fiscal year 2015, increased 43 percent.
        And certainly leading up to this campaign, we have made a
    commitment to ensure that our details that are protecting these
    candidates that are out there are well trained. We trained over
    940 agents prior to this campaign to ensure that they are set.
        So with the Blue Ribbon Panel, structurally we have made
    significant changes. It is a much different agency from a
    management standpoint than it was years ago.
        Thanks to the funding that you have provided here, our
    radios and infrastructure will be improved. Some of our
    facilities at our Beltsville training facility will also be
    improved. So we are moving forward with the Blue Ribbon Panel
    recommendations and I think making a lot of progress.

                              PERSONNEL MISCONDUCT

        Ms.  Roybal-Allard. The Secret Service has had a difficult
    couple of years with several incidents of misconduct by
    personnel, suggesting strongly that the culture within the
    agency had drifted and needed to be changed. The issue is not
    only about misconduct, it is also about whether personnel feel
    confident in coming forward when they become aware of
    misconduct. For example, do they know how to register their
    concerns of misconduct, and do they feel confident that their
    careers will not suffer as a result of speaking out?
        Can you please elaborate on how things are improving and
    what the signs of progress are that you can point to and the
    areas where you think more progress still needs to be made in
    this particular area?
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes. Primarily through communication,
    initially; trying to get to our workforce to tell them, ``We
    can't fix what we don't know, and you have got to come forward
    and tell us what issues are out there.'' And we have given them
    several avenues to do this, whether it is through the
    ombudsman, whether it is through our Office of Professional
    Responsibility, through our inspection division, or through the
    Office of Inspector General.
        Any of those avenues, or come to me directly. I have an
    open-door policy; come to me directly and we will look into the
    misconduct that may or may not be out there ,and we will act
    upon it.
        But we have also gone out to field offices, and we have
    addressed them. I have addressed them personally, and I have
    gone to every protective detail we have and addressed them and
    reiterated the fact that if there are issues out there, we need
    to know about them so that we can fix them.
        And I think we are making some progress. We have heard
    several responses from our workforce where we have taken
    initiative and gone out to field offices to investigate what
    they have reported.
        Ms.  Roybal-Allard. Okay. And just very quickly in that
    same area, one of the recommendations was to implement a
    disciplinary system in a consistent manner that demonstrates
    zero tolerance for failures that are incompatible with a zero-
    failure mission. Is that also something that is currently being
    worked on?
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes. It is.
        We have just recently elevated our integrity officer to an
    SES position, again, to highlight the importance of integrity
    within our agency. We have also, through the table of
    penalties, we have strengthened some of these penalties so that
    if you are a supervisor and you don't report things up, you are
    subject to discipline--or severe discipline.
        So we have gone back and looked at that. And the whole
    entire table of penalties is under review now to see if we are
    where we should be with the discipline process. And we are
    benchmarking against other federal agencies.
        Mr.  Carter. Mr. Young.

                                  CYBER-CRIME

        Mr.  Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome, Director Clancy. I recently cofounded a
    bipartisan caucus--a congressional task force to combat
    identity theft and fraud.
        And you know the seriousness of all this, both in your
    public and private sector experience. It can happen on the
    individual scale, a larger scale, affecting corporations,
    businesses, individuals, the public sector, and it is something
    that we need to take quite seriously, and I know you know that.
        How will the proposed budget assist the Secret Service--and
    I looked particularly at your testimony here about the
    Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program.
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes.
        Mr.  Young. And how will the budget assist the Secret
    Service to help prevent and investigate cyber crimes and data
    breaches? And is the need primarily in staff or is it new
    technologies?
        Mr.  Clancy. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
        It starts with staffing, and our field offices are down
    considerably at this point because we have had to move a number
    of our field office agents to our protective mission. But what
    we do have in the field is we have 37 Electronic Crimes Task
    Forces throughout our country, and we have two overseas in
    London and in Rome.
        So we take this very seriously, obviously, the cyber crimes
    that are out there and the identity theft that is out there. We
    are also partnering with our local and state law enforcement
    officials. We also have a National Computer Forensics Institute
    down in Alabama where we train a lot of these law enforcement
    officials, as well as judges, so that they can go back into
    their communities and use this expertise that they have learned
    and take the equipment that we provide for them to work these
    types of cases in their communities.
        Mr.  Young. In your testimony as well you state the Secret
    Service is working with state and local partners. Can you
    elaborate on this, and how does the Secret Service work with
    other agencies to protect private citizens?
        Do you review and follow up on your investigations, and
    from there find shortcomings, successes and needs with the real
    analytics on this? How can we help you, in terms of maybe even
    legislation?
        Mr.  Clancy. Right now, again, through the Electronic
    Crimes Task Forces, that is where we really partner with our
    community, state, and local law enforcement authorities.
        For example, during this campaign year a lot of folks think
    that our investigations may get pushed to the wayside. But the
    beauty of these Electronic Crimes Task Forces, where we have
    the locals and states working with as well as the private
    sector, that if our agents get pulled out to do a protective
    assignment, those cases continue on. They are not dormant; they
    are not being put aside. So we continue to work those.
        And we do look at the metrics. And our staff can get with
    yours and give you a better idea of what those metrics are in
    terms of the number of cases closed in your community, for
    example, and the amount of arrests made in your community.
        Mr.  Young. And with new technologies and scams and
    hucksters out there trying to steal identity and commit these
    frauds, you are seeing this growing? And what are your roots in
    this criminal community?
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes, you are exactly right. You know, these
    cyber criminals today, they run it like a business. They don't
    just take their spoils from their crime and spend it; they
    reinvest in their criminal enterprise.
        And we have to evolve and improve our techniques as well,
    and that is where this continuing education for our
    investigators in the work with the private sector and trying to
    keep up with the new technology is beneficial. We have a
    representative out at Carnegie Mellon to study the newest
    technology out there; we are out at Tulsa University studying
    the wireless mobile new technology that is out there. So we are
    trying to continue to educate our folks, too, as we move
    forward.
        Mr.  Young. Well, thank you for coming here today, and our
    bipartisan task force I am sure will take you up on your offer
    for briefings and sharing information on how we can work
    together to do this.
        So I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr.  Clancy. Thank you, sir.
        Mr.  Carter. Mr. Price.

                             PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

        Mr.  Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome, Director. We are happy to have you before the
    subcommittee.
        I know you have a lot on your plate this year, with the
    election warming up and the election proving to be very
    contentious. And that really defines what I want to ask you to
    address today, that contentiousness.
        We had a regrettable example in my congressional district
    last week, Fayetteville, North Carolina--a recent incident at a
    Donald Trump rally. In this instance it was reported that
    without any physical provocation a Trump supporter allegedly
    sucker-punched, as they say, a man named Rakeem Jones and later
    said--and I am quoting here, ``The next time we see him we
    might have to kill him,'' when referencing Mr. Jones.
        Now, there is a lot of inflammatory rhetoric being used on
    the campaign trail. I would imagine that is making your job and
    that of your agents more difficult at a minimum, and perhaps
    more dangerous.
        So that is what I want to ask you to help us understand
    here today, to the extent you can in an unclassified setting.
    Can you speak to these challenges faced by your agents and--as
    more and more violent and provocative rhetoric is being used
    out on the campaign trail?
        Are you seeing an increased number of incidents that you,
    of course, need to protect against, but also need to
    investigate, compared to the 2012 election cycle or any modern
    election cycle, for that matter? And then this vitriol on the
    campaign trail, has that led to an increased number of threats
    against the President or the first family, again, to the extent
    you can comment on this--in this setting.
        Mr.  Clancy. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
        In general I will say that every day is a challenge for us.
    And we talk about this within the ranks. Every minute of every
    day is a challenge for us, whether our protectees are at a
    large rally where there is a lot of passion and intensity, or
    whether a protectee is going into a coffee shop. Every minute
    of every day, we have to be on our game, and to the question
    that came earlier, even off-duty as well, and that is something
    we are stressing too.
        But in regard to the campaign, it all starts with the
    advance. And one of the things that we talk about at the
    advance is that we are there to protect our protectee. If there
    are protesters, if there are people that are disrupting the
    event, that is not our primary responsibility.
        If it is an NSSE we are more involved that way, but for
    typical campaign events as you have brought up here, we sit
    down with the host committee or the event organizer and we tell
    them that if there is someone that you feel is disrupting the
    event or protesting, it is incumbent upon you to make that
    decision and then work with your private security that you may
    have or your university security or the local law enforcement
    to remove the protester if you think that is warranted.
        Our concern is overt acts of--or threats to our protectee.
    If someone, for example, comes into the buffer zone or secure
    zone we are going to respond to that, as we saw in Dayton, Ohio
    just this past weekend. We have also seen at other rallies
    where individuals have crossed into our buffer zone over the
    bike rack. We will remove those individuals.
        But we do not interfere with people's First Amendment
    rights. People have the right to voice their opinions, and it
    is for the host committee to decide whether or not that is
    disruptive to that event.
        Mr.  Price. Surely the environment matters, though, and the
    cooperation with--I understand you are saying the cooperation
    with local law enforcement involves deferring to them, mainly,
    in handling protests and presumably counter-protests. The
    atmosphere surrounding this, though, surely has some influence
    on how you assess your mission and the kind of complications
    you might face in executing your mission.
        And what I am really asking you is not about--I gave you an
    illustrative instance, but I am asking you about the
    environment surrounding this campaign and whether it has posed
    those kinds of challenges. And if so, what have you undertaken
    to deal with this? This is not politics as usual, at least in
    my experience.
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes. We are flexible with our security plan at
    each site, and we look at all the factors of every event.
        And we are flexible with our assets. We may bring in
    additional assets if we feel that there is more intensity, for
    example, in a rally.
        We have certain requirements that we want to make sure that
    we have available to us. And I don't want to get into much
    detail here, but we want to make sure, for example, we have a
    good, clean route in as well as a good, clean route out. And if
    we don't feel that we can have some of these basic requirements
    of a good security plan, then, you know, it may require us to
    bring in more assets or have more discussions with the staff or
    local law enforcement.
        But there is a lot of give and take with all these events.
    And there is no question some of these events create even more
    challenges for us, but it is our job to be flexible and
    resilient and make sure we have a good security plan.
        Mr.  Price. And your responsibility conceivably could be to
    advise local enforcement as to what you are picking up and the
    additional precautions and safeguards they need to put in
    place, and you might even advise that a rally be canceled or
    postponed.
        Mr.  Clancy. Right. We work very closely with local law
    enforcement.
        One of the beauties of our field offices is that we have
    great relationships with the local police departments through
    our investigative missions. And in fact, for a lot of these
    rallies and events, our field offices are the ones doing the
    initial advance work.
        So those relationships have already been formed, and there
    is a lot of give and take from an intelligence standpoint, what
    assets are available, what requirements are needed. So it truly
    is a unity of effort, a team effort.
        Mr.  Price. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr.  Carter. Thank you, Mr. Price.
        Mr. Stewart.

                            PERSONNEL ACCOUNTABILITY

        Mr.  Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Clancy, I want you to know that we--many of us
    support you and we understand that, you know, just culturally
    as a military officer, I am supportive of law enforcement. I
    recognize that you have a difficult job, that many times you or
    your agents or others involved with law enforcement have to
    make split decisions--split-second decisions that they are
    going to be criticized on after the fact in many cases, that
    many times it is under very stressful situations, including
    life-and-death situations.
        And again, I think the great majority of Americans support
    you and others working with you and want to support you, but
    that only works, I think, if we recognize that that trust is
    based on behaviors and holding people accountable in some cases
    to earn that trust.
        And that is a bit of a concern of mine, which I will--I
    would like to elaborate on here if I could.
        And going back to quote a Government Oversight and Reform
    report from 2015, and I am quoting here, ``Internal USSS data
    shows that morale is further harmed because many employees do
    not have confidence in agency leadership. Some whistleblowers
    told the committee that they believed this is due to a culture
    where leaders that are not held accountable.'' And I know that
    was previous to your time or about the same time that you came
    on, and that is not a critique of your leadership, this quote I
    just gave.
        But I would like to give an example of accountability and
    then ask you to respond if you would. And I am not using this
    example because he is a friend of mine or because he is a
    member of Congress. This is Jason Chaffetz. I am using it--I
    would feel the same way about any U.S. citizen.
        And that was where there was a breach of some 60 of his
    personal data--60 different items. And quoting from the
    Washington Post, ``Some information that he might find
    embarrassing needs to get out,'' is what the assistant
    director, Edward Lowery, wrote to another director.
        And wanting to support you, but also recognizing that that
    trust and that accountability is so important. Could you tell
    the committee what disciplinary actions have been involved with
    those who were responsible for leaking this data of a private
    citizen, especially in regard to Director Lowery?
        Mr.  Clancy. Congressman, there have been 42 Secret Service
    employees who were issued discipline with regard to that case
    that you referred to here. Many of those are in the appeal
    process and coming to the end of that appeal process.
        I can't speak specifically about what--because of privacy
    issues--what each individual received as a result of those
    actions, but it is something that the agency is embarrassed by,
    and we have said that publicly.
        And in terms of are we holding people accountable and are
    people willing to come forward, in the year that I have been
    here we are now putting out a report--showing that discipline
    across the board, from supervisors as well as non-supervisors,
    to be transparent to our agency, to show the discipline. We are
    not naming people in this report, but we put it up for everyone
    in our agency to see the type of misconduct that occurs, and
    then what type of discipline is put into effect as a result of
    that.
        Mr.  Stewart. You know, I guess this is a--is just a
    contrast of what I experienced. And again, using my military
    experience, when we had, you know, a concern, whatever it might
    be, whether we crashed an airplane or some type of security
    breach, I mean, we knew immediately what the outcome would be.
    And the discipline was very public and it took place in a
    matter of days, maybe weeks.
        But here we are a long time later and we don't know those
    who have been disciplined; we don't know the outcome of that
    discipline. And they are already--they are on appeal.
        You know, just watching this, I can understand why some
    members of your organization look at this and say, ``We do have
    a hard time holding people accountable and the system protects
    them, it seems.''
        And again, let's use Director Lowery as an example. I mean,
    I would be curious to know what his position is. I mean, this
    is fairly egregious to me, him writing to another--``Some
    information he might find embarrassing needs to get out.'' This
    is what he wrote about a public official. And yet, again, can
    you tell me any discipline that has been effected upon this
    individual or this director?
        Mr.  Clancy. Congressman, I am sorry, I cannot speak to
    that currently until this appeal process goes through.
        We are committed to Title 5, where there is due process.
    And I realize the frustration that it takes a long time to go
    through this process, but that is where we are today.
        Mr.  Stewart. Okay, and I appreciate that and I actually
    expected that would probably be your response.
        But again, Director, a long time has passed, and if we are
    going to hold people accountable it can't be accountable 5
    years down the road. In my opinion, it has got to be something
    more immediate than that.
        But once again, we appreciate what you are doing. I think
    you are trying to do the right thing here under maybe confined,
    you know, restrictions that are imposed upon you.
        But, my heavens, I just can't imagine that these
    individuals would have this type of attitude--cavalier attitude
    regarding, you know, their elected representatives and that
    they wouldn't be held accountable.
        But thank you. Do you want to respond, or----
        Mr.  Clancy. No, sir.
        Mr.  Stewart. Okay. I understand.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
        Mr.  Carter. Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
        Mr. Cuellar.

                         WHITE HOUSE TRAINING FACILITY

        Mr.  Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I also want to echo what Chairman Rogers said, Mr.
    Director, on the issue with Peru. There is an issue, and even
    the Peruvians say that outside of Washington, we are the--they
    are the biggest printing press in the whole world.
        Why Peru? We don't know. But I think just having one Secret
    Service--and he is doing a great job, by the way, and under the
    circumstances.
        So I would echo Chairman Rogers that you all put a little
    bit more resources on that. Because even though I think you
    said you got $10 million, that is probably just a drop in a
    bucket as to what they are doing. So I would ask you to--
    following Chairman Rogers--ask you to follow up on that and
    just keep our office posted on that.
        Second of all, Director, what are y'all doing to combat
    transnational organized crime that targets citizens and
    financial institutions in the U.S.? I do have a press release
    what y'all did in San Antonio, I think it was in January, where
    you did this San Antonio Electronic Crime Task Force and you
    brought people together. And I want to thank you. This is very,
    very good.
        I would encourage you to set up something, if you can talk
    to your folks, do something on the border. Also, I would be
    happy to bring you down to Laredo and work with your folks, and
    I will be happy to put folks from the border--law enforcement,
    state, local folks, academicians, whoever you all might need
    for the private sector to sit down. So I would ask you to--if
    you would do this on the border.
        Everybody talks about the border, but when they do events
    they usually do them 150 miles away. And I do represent San
    Antonio; I love San Antonio. But if we are going to talk about
    border, I would ask you to have your folks come down to the
    border. We will be happy to set that up for you, okay?
        The other question I have: Whatever happened to the--we
    talked about this a lot--the White House mockup. What was it,
    $15 million? How is that coming along?
        Mr.  Clancy. Well, we are committed to this White House
    mockup or building defense training facility. We are in the
    process now working out a revised master plan for our Rowley
    Training Center, out in Beltsville, Maryland, and we have to
    submit this master plan to the National Capital Planning
    Commission to get approval for what we want to do.
        We are definitely committed to this mock White House. We
    had an initial design that came back to us. We are going back
    to reevaluate that design to see where we are with that, but we
    have full intention of implementing the training facility.
        Mr.  Cuellar. I think last year we talked about a $15
    million, if I am going by memory. I hope that hasn't gone up
    because, as Chairman Carter says, you know, we gotta work with
    a tight budget.
        My experience dealing with the Federal Government is you
    start out with a number and then before you know it, it
    explodes. Has that gone up? And from what amount to what
    amount?
        Mr.  Clancy. I am not prepared to say what the amount would
    be, but I will say that I know the initial design came back,
    which was a little bit more elaborate than what we really had
    expected and the cost was going to be higher. So we have gone
    back to the drawing board in that regard.
        Mr.  Cuellar. Will you keep certainly Chairman Carter, and
    the members of the committee, the ranking member also, and
    myself what the cost is? Because we want to be supportive, but
    again, my experience has been is you start off with an initial
    number and I assume the number they gave you went up and not
    down.
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes.
        Mr.  Cuellar. So I would ask you to just keep us informed,
    because I originally thought the original amount was a lot, but
    again, I understand the purpose and the rationale. But I am
    interested in you keeping the cost as close as possible to the
    amount.
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes, Congressman.
        Mr.  Cuellar. Thank you so much.
        And again, the culture issues that were brought up the last
    time you were here, I know there are still some incidents but I
    do have to say, you are doing a good job and I appreciate your
    good service.
        Mr.  Clancy. Thank you, sir.
        Mr.  Carter. Very quickly, on the White House mockup, last
    year you asked for $8 million; we gave you $1 million. I know
    you are going forward and doing studies and so forth. Echo what
    Mr. Cuellar said, be sure and stay with us on this. Don't take
    us out on a limb and let it break off on us on this extra
    expense, okay?
        Mr.  Clancy. Which, Mr. Chairman, is exactly why we went
    back to get another design. We want to be good citizens here
    and with the budget here.
        But it is a critical element, as you have all addressed
    here. This would really help our training to move into the 21st
    century, with allowing our people to train on real-life
    scenarios with the exact grounds that we have at the White
    House rather than on a hard tarmac surface. So it is critical,
    but we know that we have to be very careful with the way we
    move forward.

                      PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTIONS

        Mr.  Carter. Just echoing what Cuellar said.
        Director Clancy, the Secret Service is responsible for
    securing both 2016 Republican and Democratic National
    Conventions. What is the state of planning for securing this
    year's political conventions in Cleveland and Philadelphia in
    back-to-back weeks in July?
        Do you have any credible threat information regarding the
    events to be held at these venues? Are you satisfied that your
    fiscal year 2016 funding, along with separate appropriations
    made available to host states, will be sufficient to cover all
    the foreseeable security costs of the convention?
        Mr.  Clancy. First, I want to thank the committee for fully
    funding the campaign, which includes these conventions. The
    conventions itself, there is a fixed cost of I think $19
    million, and $40 just for RNC and DNC, and then another $20 for
    associated costs with those conventions.
        But as it is now, we have had individuals specifically
    assigned to the conventions in Cleveland and in Philadelphia.
    They have been working with the local law enforcement for
    several months to work on everything from outer perimeter to
    credentials, and we are well on our way to providing a very
    good security plan for these events.
        As you have stated, Mr. Chairman, they are earlier this
    year than they typically are in the campaign year, so that does
    cause for some additional protection dollars coming out the
    convention. In the past, conventions were late August or maybe
    early September, and now coming out of the conventions in July,
    we will have additional protectees.
        We will have the President-elect--I am sorry, the
    candidate-elect and the Vice President-elect for both parties,
    and that will add some additional requests. Well, it is in the
    budget, but the costs go up as we move forward.
        Mr.  Carter. Are you in charge of the overall security for
    both the conventions? The Sanders campaign has brought a lot of
    new voters into the mix; the Trump campaign on the Republican
    side has brought millions of new voters into the mix.
        In addition, we have already experienced violent outbreaks
    with protesters coming in to disrupt the campaign side of this
    stuff. Those of us that can remember back to 1968 remember what
    happened in Chicago, and nobody on either party wants to have a
    convention that ends up like Chicago back in 1968, where tear
    gas was fired, you know, weapons fired, a lot of really bad
    things happened there. I believe the National Guard even was
    called out for that Democratic Convention.
        So whenever, you know, whenever you see disrupters start to
    come in in campaigns, you are going to say, ``How big a project
    is this going to be?'' And I hope you are doing, like I said,
    threat analysis and intel to see if there is any rumors out
    there of organizations to come in to disrupt either convention.
    We don't need that. We have got enough problems without that.
    So that is----
        Mr.  Clancy. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that with
    these, they are designated as National Special Security Events.
    And as you noted, we are in charge of the overall security
    plans.
        We have 24 subcommittees for each of these conventions, and
    each of those committees has a unique responsibility, whether
    it is intelligence, as you rightly mentioned, where they work
    with all the federal, state, and local authorities to gather
    all of the intelligence, and we have already started that.
        Then we have a committee on transportation, just to make
    sure people can get to and from the sites. We have someone who
    works with the public affairs. And so there are 24 different
    subcommittees working on each individual component to make sure
    that these conventions are safe and that they are a positive
    event for all who want to attend.
        Mr.  Carter. Well, and I can say that I have been--I have
    attended some of the conventions and I have been very pleased
    with, overall, both the local and the Secret Service's
    participation in keeping people safe. When you are in big
    crowds in big areas in a strange city, yes, there are a lot of
    things that can happen to you and your wife if you are not
    careful. So thank you for that.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                     RADIO SYSTEM: NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

        Ms.  Roybal-Allard. Director Clancy, the budget request
    includes $27.2 million in additional funding to upgrade the
    Secret Service National Capital Area Radio System, and this
    request follows $16.8 million provided for phase one of the
    upgrade in the fiscal year 2016 bill.
        Can you elaborate on how the phase two funding will be
    used, what additional capabilities the new system would
    provide, and how it would improve reliability as compared to
    the current system?
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes. Thank you for this question.
        This comes out of the Blue Ribbon Panel as well. As we
    talked earlier, they noted that our communications needed to be
    enhanced and replaced.
        Additionally, I have to credit the Office of the Inspector
    General, who did a study as well. And although they saw that 97
    percent of our radios worked well around the White House
    complex, they rightly stated that we can't have any failure at
    all. And I have to credit, again, Mr. Roth and his team for the
    review that they did.
        So this funding will allow us to--first of all, to assist
    our Joint Operations Center. Most of that equipment hasn't been
    replaced in 7 years. It is getting old; it is breaking down. We
    can't even find some replacement parts in some cases.
        But we are looking to the Joint Operations Center, which is
    where all of our alarms come in, all of our video feeds come
    in, so with funding, we will be able to replace that. And also,
    to allow more interoperability with our local partners--
    Metropolitan Police and the Capitol Police--and take in some of
    their feeds as well. So the Joint Operations Center is going to
    be enhanced considerably.
        Additionally, we will continue what we have already started
    in fiscal year 2016, by getting radios out--handheld radios--to
    individual employees. They will be state-of-the-art with a lot
    of new features, and the coverage will be better using these
    radios.
        But more importantly, we did a survey throughout the
    National Capital Region where typically the President has
    events or visits or motorcade routes for dead spots. And with
    the help of our Washington field office, we identified these
    locations, and we are going to add an additional 56 repeaters
    and transmitters throughout the National Capital Region. And
    that all has an impact on how these handheld radios work. So
    that is a big plus-up for us as well.

                          RADIO SYSTEMS: FIELD OFFICES

        Ms.  Roybal-Allard. Okay. Could you talk a little bit about
    the status of radios and radio systems for the field offices?
        Mr.  Clancy. That will also be included in this funding.
    For example, I went out to Chicago and talked to the field
    office and surrounding field offices, in an effort to try to
    communicate with our workforce. I can't get out to everyone so
    I have actually moved to doing video messages and pushing out a
    video message when we have new policies or a state of the
    service, which for example, we released about a month and a
    half ago.
        But because of the bandwidth in some of our smaller
    offices, they haven't been able to view some of these messages.
    This new funding will help us with the bandwidth so that we can
    do a better job of communicating not only our messages, but
    also help us with our security. We have got to have a better
    infrastructure as we expand from our large field offices into
    the surrounding communities.

                               WHITE HOUSE FENCE

        Ms.  Roybal-Allard. Okay. Last year improvements to the
    current fence--I am going back to the White House fence--the
    improvements that were completed were an interim solution, as I
    understand it, and it was designed to make it more difficult to
    scale the fence and give officers on the White House grounds a
    critical few extra seconds to respond.
        Can you describe the improvements to the current fence and
    whether they are working more or less as expected? And what are
    the plans and the schedule for completing a new and permanent
    fence?
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes.
        The interim measure was placed on the White House fence in
    July of 2015. We knew that wasn't going to be an end-all,
    obviously, but it was going to buy us some time if someone did
    attempt to jump the fence. Since we put that up there, we have
    had one fence-jumper over the north fence, and we think it is a
    deterrent.
        I don't have metrics to show that because we don't know who
    has an intent to come over that fence, but one individual did
    get over the fence, and he was immediately contained just on
    the other side of the fence.
        But moving forward the permanent fence, will be a very
    complex and lengthy process. And we know that whatever fence we
    put in there has to last 100 years. We are not going to get
    another opportunity to do this.
        We could go in and just put up a higher fence, maybe a 10-
    foot fence, but is that enough? Maybe you need a 12-foot fence.
    Is 12 feet enough?
        And we have got to do some more studying with that. There
    are some other areas in a classified setting I could talk about
    where we want to do some things with the fence, but also a more
    comprehensive look at what we are doing there at the White
    House and the perimeter.
        The perimeter, as you know, every day--just last week we
    had--we have a buffer, as you know; you have walked in front of
    the White House. We have a bike rack there, and that has been a
    good help to us. We know people can get over the bike rack, but
    it gives us an early warning that someone has bad intentions.
        And just last week we had an individual who went over that
    bike rack, and we immediately--because we have added some
    additional posts--we immediately contained that individual
    before they could get to the fence.
        So in terms of the timeline, 2017 will still be used for
    design and to do more research on the type of fence that we
    need, and 2018 is when we expect to be able to actually put a
    shovel in the ground and start to build a more permanent fence.
        I can tell you that even last week we met with the National
    Planning Commission and the Commission on Fine Arts. They feel
    the same urgency that we do to get this project completed. But
    we have to do it right, and that is where we are, 2018,
    actually getting it into the ground, I think.
        Ms.  Roybal-Allard. Okay, thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr.  Carter. Mr. Price.

                  COORDINATION WITH DHS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

        Mr.  Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director, I would like to address your relationship within
    DHS with the Science and Technology Directorate. The Secret
    Service relies heavily on your colleagues in the directorate to
    develop and validate tools that you and your agents use in the
    field every day. Unlike some of your other DHS counterparts--
    counterpart agencies that have their in-house research
    capabilities, you are more dependent on the department's
    research and testing capability to ensure that you have the
    tools and resources needed to carry out your mission.
        So could you speak to that, to the way you work with S&T,
    the value add of that important relationship? And how is your
    ability to fulfill your mission related to funding for science
    and technology priorities?
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes. We have a very good relationship with the
    S&T Directorate in DHS. In fact, their director very recently
    came down to the White House complex, and we gave them a full
    tour of our facility and what we have in place.
        We have worked with them. One of the bigger problems today
    are unmanned aircraft systems (UAS's), the drones. And we have
    worked with them, as well as other partners outside of DHS, to
    try to come up with the best detection systems as well as
    mitigation.
        So this is a critical issue, the drone issue, for both DHS,
    Science and Technology, as well as us. So there are numerous
    meetings between S&T and our technical department directorate.

                           UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

        Mr.  Price. I want to return to some of the other S&T
    projects perhaps, but on the drone issue, you catch my
    attention here. What is the Secret Service's particular take on
    that issue? How does it relate to the involvement of other
    agencies? How would you describe that?
        Mr.  Clancy. Well, it is a problem for everyone.
        Mr.  Price. I realize that. That is why I asked.
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes, sir.
        Again, it is a challenge for all of us. FAA, of course, is
    taking a role here with education. We have to educate the
    public and ensure that they know areas that they cannot fly
    these UASs, or unmanned aerial devices. We have worked with the
    Department of Defense because they have a lot of experience
    certainly out in the wartime zone.
        Our challenges are a little unique because we are in an
    urban environment. Some of the things that they can do to
    mitigate and detect drones in a military environment are
    different than we have here in an urban environment, where you
    have to be concerned about the public, and of course the public
    buildings, and so on.
        But the technology, though, is where we are working very
    closely and sharing. That is the important thing here, I think,
    is that there is a sharing of ideas. There is no holding back.
    And in fact, just a couple weeks ago my assistant director in
    technology informed me that they are working with the Germans
    now, too, to see what they have out there and the sharing of
    ideas.
        I know the Blue Ribbon Panel talked about how insular we
    are. We have made a committed effort to make sure that we
    branch out and we see all the good work that is being done out
    there. Science and Technology and DHS I know are doing the
    same. We are getting the best advice we can get.
        Mr.  Price. But on the ground in a specific setting, you
    know, a permanent setting like the White House or special
    events settings, I assume that those words ``detection'' and
    ``mitigation'' are shorthand for a whole range of activities.
    To what extent does the Secret Service take on an independent
    or a proactive responsibility for this?
        Mr.  Clancy. Right. I don't want to get into specifics with
    regard to what measures we have in place, but I will say that
    beyond science and technology it also affects our staff that
    are on the ground, our uniformed officers.
        They are trained on what to look for. If they see a drone
    in the air, they know what to look for and how to respond to
    it. And then also our protective details, whether it be in the
    White House or whether it be on a trip in some other city
    throughout the country, they have specific protocols if one of
    these devices is in the air.

                  COORDINATION WITH DHS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

        Mr.  Price. If I have another minute, could you return to
    S&T? Are there--or you could do this for the record--are there
    are other particular areas of collaboration where you are
    dependent on S&T and therefore S&T funding to support your own
    mission?
        Mr.  Clancy. In terms of S&T funding, I will have to get
    back to you on that, Congressman. But I will say that
    everything from our enhancements with CBR detection down at the
    White House to enhancements of our perimeter defenses, we work
    with S&T to see what the best types of systems there are out
    there--x-rays, et cetera, we will work with S&T.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Price. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr.  Carter. Mr. Cuellar.
        Mr.  Cuellar. Chairman.

                            COOPERATION WITH MEXICO

        I live on the border, represent a large chunk of the
    border, so we understand what is happening across.
        We spend, I believe, about $18 billion, when you combine
    everything, on border security--north, south. A lot of money.
    So we play defense on the 1-yard line, what I call the 1-yard
    line. I would rather play defense on their 20-yard line instead
    of our 1-yard line.
        So the more we can do to work with the Republic of Mexico--
    and I believe Secretary Osorio Chong is here or will be here
    Secretary Johnson, and I appreciate the work that they are
    doing--and whatever we can do with our Central American and
    other Latin American countries will be good.
        Could you tell us what your efforts are, in particular what
    you are doing with, keeping that in mind, moving the defense a
    little bit more--and the more we can do in those countries the
    better it is--what we are doing with the Republic of Mexico and
    Central America to address, you know, some of this
    transnational problems that we are seeing right now?
        Mr.  Clancy. I would just say that we have, again, a
    terrific relationship with the government of Mexico. We have an
    agent--we have an office in Mexico City----
        Mr.  Cuellar. I am sorry, just one agent?
        Mr.  Clancy. I believe it is one agent, yes.
        I am sorry, Congressman, I don't know that number off hand.
    I will get it to you.
        I will say that just recently we had reason to work with
    the Mexican government. They had the Pope's visit in Juarez and
    they did a tremendous job.
        But knowing that we had experience with the Pope's visit in
    the fall. We offered any advice that they may want, but--and we
    did talk to--we sent our agents down there to talk to them,
    share our experiences. But again, I have to say that the
    Mexicans did a terrific job with protection of the pope just a
    couple of months ago.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Cuellar. Okay.

                                 HIRING PROCESS

        Well again, I would ask you to institutionalize the working
    relationship with the Republic of Mexico and Central America,
    because again, the more we can do outside the 1-yard line
    defense, the better it is. So I encourage you to do as much as
    you can under our tight budget that we have.
        And again, I appreciate--I know changing the culture has
    been hard. We talked about it a lot. I know Chairman Carter and
    members of the committee, we talked a lot about it, and I know
    there is still once in a while an incident, but I--you know,
    keep addressing the culture within the Secret Service because
    you have a lot of good men and women working in our government,
    so I appreciate that.
        And the final point, because I know you have got to go, but
    the last point is the hiring process--and I know this has been
    an issue with Homeland--it takes a long time. You start out
    with jobs.gov and then you go to process. I understand from
    your earlier testimony you have been reducing that.
        So the more you can keep working on that, the better it is,
    because I have had people say, ``I am not going to wait a year
    or a year and half.'' By that time they move on to something
    else. So whatever you can do to shorten that time up, I really
    would appreciate it.
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes. I will just comment on that one item. We
    have instituted these--we call them ELACs--these Entry Level
    Assessment Centers, where we bring in candidates and we give
    them interview, and a test. If they pass the test, then there
    will be a super interview and a scheduled polygraph in the very
    near future, if not that weekend. So we are condensing it.
        Mr.  Cuellar. Keep working with the Hispanic-serving
    institutions and the black universities, also, and other
    places, of course. But there are pools of qualified individuals
    that you can start them as interns and move them on on that.
        But thank you so much. My time is up.
        Mr.  Clancy. Yes, sir.
        Mr.  Carter. Well, Director, I think we will end this
    hearing now. You have done a great job.
        We thank you for the great service you have done here
    lately. We are really proud of you. Keep it up. Keep up the
    good work and I compliment the service and thank them for a
    good job.
        Mr.  Clancy. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        And, Ranking Member Roybal-Allard, thank you.
        And I want to commend your staffs, as well. We want to be
    as transparent--we want to be transparent, and your staffs have
    been very patient as we have gotten our structure together this
    first year. But my thanks to you and your staffs.
        Mr.  Carter. Well, we will continue to work together for
    the betterment of everything.
        Thank you, sir.
        We are adjourned.
                                              Thursday, March 17, 2016.

               UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

                                    WITNESS

    SARAH SALDANA, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
        ENFORCEMENT
        Mr. Carter [presiding]. Good morning. This subcommittee
    will come to order.
        Director Saldana, thank you for being here. I understand
    you have your husband with you today. Would you like to
    introduce him to the panel?
        Ms. Saldana. Thank you very much, Chairman, yes.
        My husband unadvisedly wore pink this morning. He is in the
    pink tie.
        Mr. Carter. Well, he will get pinched--you will get pinched
    because you are not wearing green.
        Ms. Saldana. He, like----
        Mr. Carter. I would volunteer, too.
        Ms. Saldana. But he, like I am, from the great state of
    Texas.

                       Opening Statement: Chairman Carter

        Mr. Carter. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
        Well, welcome. And you have had about 18 months under your
    belt now as director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
    known as ICE, and we look forward to hearing from you today,
    our subcommittee hearing on the department's fiscal year 2017
    budget request.
        I think I have used the word ``complex, diverse, and
    demanding'' to describe missions and responsibilities of every
    agency in the department which has appeared before us--before
    we got to ICE. ICE is no exception. To say the job is
    challenging is an understatement.
        ICE is the principal investigative arm of the DHS,
    responsible for preventing the exploitation of our borders by
    transnational criminal organizations while simultaneously
    securing our interior through the enforcement of our nation's
    immigration laws, apprehending and detaining criminal aliens.
    ICE agents, whether here or deployed abroad, serve on the front
    line to safeguard our country. We could not be prouder or more
    grateful for all they do.
        This committee also has a challenging job. It is our
    responsibility to ensure ICE receives the resources necessary
    to properly man, train, and equip your organizations; to enable
    it to successfully accomplish the myriad of missions assigned
    to it.
        The fiscal year 2017 budget for ICE is $5.9 billion in
    discretionary spending, an increase of $76 million over fiscal
    year 2016. Although the budget reflects an almost $140 million
    increase in Homeland Security Investigations, unfortunately the
    administration yet again resorted to budget gimmicks to achieve
    this increase, decrementing custody operations funding by $185
    million and reducing the number of detention beds by 3,087 from
    the mandated level of 34,000 to 30,913.
        This reduction makes no sense. The average adult daily
    population has steadily remained 33,000 since fiscal year 2015
    and shows no sign of retreating. In fact, with more localities
    cooperating with ICE through the Priority Enforcement Program
    and the potential lifting of the injunction against the
    executive order on DAPA, the requirement for detention beds is
    likely to exceed 34,000.
        This is unacceptable and will force Congress to search for
    offsets in your budget to fund the required number of beds.
    Today we expect you to provide a thorough explanation for this
    shortsighted decision.
        And before I turn to you, Ms. Saldana, I would like to say
    that the text that you have submitted will be in the record.
        And I would like to recognize our ranking member, Ms.
    Roybal-Allard, and congratulate her on the tree that was
    planted in honor of her father on the Capitol Grounds. I saw
    that, and red oak is a good tree. And we've got them in Texas.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                Opening Statement: Ranking Member Roybal-Allard

        Good morning, Director Saldana, and welcome to this
    morning's hearing.
        Let me begin by saying how pleased I am that the advisory
    committee for family detention began its work last December.
    The budget proposes $57 million for 960 family detention beds,
    which is a significant reduction below the number of beds
    funded for the current year. This is a reflection of how the
    approach to families has changed over the past several months.
    As we have discussed, much more still needs to be done, and I
    am hopeful the advisory committee will play a significant role
    in addressing the serious issues that still exist.
        I was also pleased to learn of your announcement last week
    about an initiative to hire community relations officers to
    help improve relations with nonprofit organizations, community
    groups, local law enforcement agencies, and other stakeholders.
    My understanding of this initiative is that it will help
    generate constructive feedback that ICE can use to improve the
    way it carries out its mission.
        I believe there is real opportunity here, and I hope ICE
    will make the most of it because I continue to have serious
    concerns about how ICE is carrying out its immigration
    enforcement activities and detention operations. We have
    discussed those concerns a number of times, but I have yet to
    see the kind of progress that I have hoped for.
        I am specifically concerned that ICE's enforcement actions
    have targeted families with young children from Central America
    who are already traumatized by the violence in their home
    countries and the dangerous journey they took to escape that
    violence. It is unclear whether these families were given the
    opportunity to present themselves for removal, which might have
    made enforcement actions unnecessary.
        Also in question are ICE's tactics, which importantly have
    involved subterfuge and taking advantage of the fact that most
    families don't know their rights. These individuals are not
    criminals. Even a final order of removal doesn't mean they
    don't deserve to be treated humanely and with respect.
        Let me clarify that I am not suggesting ICE should not
    enforce our immigration laws or never remove anyone from the
    United States. What I am suggesting is that the current process
    fails to ensure due process to those seeking asylum--especially
    children.
        Most of us who were born and raised in this country and
    speak English would find it difficult if not impossible to
    navigate our immigration system by ourselves. Just think how
    impossible it is for a child. Yet more than 50 percent of
    unaccompanied children have no legal representation.
        To make matters worse, a Washington Post story earlier this
    month reported that a senior immigration judge--someone who
    trains other immigration judges--testified during a federal
    court deposition that he has taught unaccompanied children as
    young as 3 and 4 immigration law, and therefore they can
    adequately represent themselves. That is simply outrageous.
        It is true that currently there is no obligation for the
    Federal Government to provide legal representation. But we have
    to ask ourselves a crucial question as to whether due process
    can really exist without it.
        That is why Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, Luis Gutierrez, and
    I have introduced the bill, ``Fair Day in Court for Kids.''
    While I realize legal representation may be more of a
    Department of Justice issue, ICE needs to be sensitive to
    concerns of due process.
        Thank you again for being here, and I look forward to our
    discussion this morning.
        [The information follows.]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Ms. Roybal-Allard.
        Before we start with your statement, we are on a time
    crunch. We are told we are going to call a vote about 10:30,
    which is 20 minutes from now.
        And we will certainly complete your statement and we will
    maybe go to the first question. Then we will have to take a
    break and run off, and we will be back and we will finish after
    we get through with that vote.
        We will expect another vote around 12 o'clock, and
    hopefully we will be through by the time we have that second
    vote.
        So you are now recognized for your statement, and thank
    you.

                      Opening Statement: Director Saldana

        Ms. Saldana. Good morning, Chairman Carter--it is good to
    see you again--Ranking Member Roybal-Allard, and other
    distinguished members of this committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to represent ICE's fiscal year 2017 budget request,
    and I really do appreciate the continued support you all have
    provided to our agency.
        We have the same objectives in mind: public safety, border
    security, treating people who are in our temporary custody with
    dignity and respect. All of these are values that, of course, I
    am particularly interested in and do my best to ensure occurs.
        This budget for fiscal year 2017 is largely in line with
    the enacted fiscal year 2016 budget. It is a sustaining budget,
    something that will help us continue what we started in 2015,
    are doing now in 2016, and try to accomplish our core missions
    of immigration enforcement, criminal investigations, and
    investing in technology that is going to bring us into the 21st
    century.
        The government is a slow and--can be very slow and
    burdensome sometimes. I find myself impatient with our
    progress, particularly in this technology area. But we are
    moving forward and doing the best we can. And I will share more
    details about that as we proceed.
        We continue to respond to the influx of families coming
    across the southwest border. You all have seen the numbers.
    Certainly the first 3 months of this fiscal year the number
    were going in the creasing--were increasing; the last couple of
    months it has been declining, but we are always standing ready,
    monitoring those carefully, and doing our best to stay on top
    of it and, quite frankly, in some cases trying to stay ahead of
    it.
        We have tremendous cooperative arrangements and working
    relationships with the governments which are largely involved
    in this influx: Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and also
    Mexico. Mexico has been a great partner in assisting us with
    respect to all this.
        I remain committed, sir, to continue my law enforcement
    efforts that I started as a United States--assistant United
    States attorney and then United States attorney to ensure that
    the immigration laws are enforced effectively and, quite
    frankly, sensibly. We are focused on undocumented immigrants
    who are threats to public safety.
        Our numbers, I feel, reflect the quality if our efforts as
    opposed to maybe in some cases the quantity. Of the 235,000-
    plus removals we had last fiscal year, over 98 percent fell
    into one of our top three priority enforcement--enforcement
    priorities that the secretary laid out in late 2014.
        We have a number of challenges. You alluded to that
    earlier.
        This is tough job. The 20,000 women and men of ICE are
    challenged left and right--almost literally from left and
    right. But they continue in their work because their interest
    is in the safety of our country, and I am very proud of that
    fact.
        Some of these challenges include court decisions, going
    both ways. When we believe a decision is wrong we challenge it,
    and we continue to do that. But we are not deterred in our
    overall effort.
        We are working with state and local jurisdictions with
    respect to Priority Enforcement Program. I am happy to report
    that I targeted the top 25 jurisdictions which had failed to
    honor our detainers in 2014. I made them a top priority in
    2015. Seventeen of those 25 have come back to us in some form
    or fashion to cooperate with us where they hadn't, so I do
    foresee an increase in some of the demands on our detention
    system.
        Further, we have asked for an additional 100 officers to
    continue this effort, focusing on the worst of the worst, in
    the Criminal Alien Program that we have, focusing on criminal
    aliens. And I trust the committee, if you have any questions,
    you will inquire about that, because we believe that is a very
    important part of what we do.
        The $2.12 billion we requested for current investigative
    efforts. HSI, Homeland Security Investigations, our
    investigative arm, as opposed to ERO, our administrative civil
    enforcement arm, certainly has had tremendous success. When I
    see that 239 transnational criminal organizations have been
    dismantled or disrupted by our efforts, I am very pleased with
    that.
        I am pleased with the fact that 3,500 of these involve gang
    members. We continue focusing on gangs and gang members in our
    investigative efforts.
        A million pounds of narcotics. We all know the dangers that
    drugs and in particular methamphetamine and heroin present to
    our, and we are committed to working with that.
        An area near and dear to my heart, human smuggling and
    trafficking, something I prosecuted as an assistant United
    States attorney: We have assisted more than 2,300 crime
    victims, including 384 human trafficking victims and 1,000--
    this is where I give our people gold stars--1,000 children that
    we have saved from further exploitation.
        So part of this is the request of $43 million for our
    continued efforts and modernization of our technology. You all
    know. You all are the source of a number of inquiries we get
    from the Congress, and there about 100, I understand,
    committees, subcommittee that exercise some form of
    jurisdiction over Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We have
    to respond to those inquiries, and we are working very hard to
    modernize our technology.
        We are going to continue to play a critical role in
    fulfilling the Department of Homeland Security's national
    security, counterterrorism, border security, cybersecurity, and
    public safety mission, and I think the fiscal year 2017 budget
    reflects the resources necessary to support these efforts.
        In conclusion, I want to recognize the hard work and talent
    of our 20,000-strong Immigration and Customs Enforcement, both
    domestic and foreign. We are in 46 countries, including our VSP
    program, which is in 20 countries. I am very proud to represent
    them.
        And I should note here that we have been demanding more and
    more our--of our enforcement and removal people, Chairman, with
    respect to more investigations as opposed to just their
    traditional civil enforcement, more investigative
    responsibilities. And I look forward to working with the
    department, with this committee, with the Congress, and with
    our labor union representatives to try to correct some issues
    we continue to have in overtime compensation there.
        So I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am--
    stand ready to answer your questions after your break.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 DETENTION BEDS

        Mr. Carter. Thank you for your statement. And I will--of
    course it is part of the record.
        Director, as I mentioned in my opening statement, the
    fiscal year 2017 budget proposes to cut funding for ICE
    detention and reduce the number of detention beds from 34,040
    to less than 31,000. While the number of families being
    detained has dropped dramatically, the average adult daily
    population has been holding steady over 33,000 since the end of
    fiscal year 2015. Surprisingly, the fiscal year 2017 budget
    request proposes to reduce the number of adult detention beds
    by 1,327.
        Why is DHS proposing to reduce the detention capacity so
    dramatically when the current trend for adult detention remains
    33,000 and will likely increase significantly with the
    potential court decision on DAPA and the increases in ICE
    fugitive operations and Criminal Alien Program? And please
    explain these assumptions used to develop this number, and are
    they still valid today?
        Ms. Saldana. Thank you for that question, Chairman Carter.
        I think you have hit on an issue that has really obviously
    gotten my attention. Beds is a large part of our budget, and--
    but I want to point out to you, you know that the budget
    process is a very long one.
        We formed our assumptions for this particular number back
    in 2015, even though it is for the 2017 budget, because of,
    obviously, the process. In the spring of 2015, you will recall,
    we had a tremendous decline in apprehensions at the border by
    CBP. The numbers I have seen are 65-plus, almost close to 70
    percent decline in apprehensions.
        And we have had a decline--we had--we were enjoying a
    decline in people we were taking into custody. That, to me,
    actually is good news, not necessarily bad. I know we may have
    some argument there.
        But I am very keenly aware of the situation. You all, much
    wiser and more experienced than I am in these areas, will make
    the ultimate decision on what our number should be, but we
    based it on the assumptions that we were dealing with the time.
        You are right. Currently we are at about 33,000. Of course,
    at the end of fiscal year 2015, you all have reminded me very
    often, our number was 29,000 for the year. So that is why we
    came in with this 30,000 number.
        Also looking at the fact that while we have a number for
    adults and for families, we appreciate the ability to react to
    a very volatile situation on the border and perhaps interchange
    the beds there as the need arises. So I am looking at it
    closely.
        I can commit to you, if we stay at the number or if you all
    choose to do something else with it, that we will follow it
    closely and monitor it daily.
        Mr. Carter. Well, first off, if you talk to the people who
    talk to the people that get apprehended--the Border Patrol--
    they will tell you that detention is a deterrent to people
    coming across the border. If they think they are not going to
    be detained, more people will come.
        Secondly, to base it on the lowest number in 3 years is not
    good analysis. You don't even have to be a member of the
    government, you don't even have to be a member of law
    enforcement and live in the state of Texas to know that when it
    gets cold less people come across the river and when it gets
    warm more people come across the river. It has been going on
    that way for my entire lifetime, and I am getting pretty old.
        So everybody in Texas knows that. No analysis there. Cold
    weather, it is not as much fun to swim the river as it is in
    nice spring weather. And we generally see the uptick start in
    April, May, peak up until it gets too hot, and then it slows
    down again.
        So, I mean, it is--without the other problems that have
    been created with executive orders and other things that we can
    argue and not argue--I am not going to get into that--but I
    think it is a--you made an assumption based upon the best
    numbers you can find, and that doesn't work because if we run
    out of detention beds then we are scrambling to shovel money
    around to get you where you want to be.
        If ICE has less capacity to detain the number of criminal
    aliens, and recent border crossers, repeat offenders, and other
    high-risk population--which are required; they are priority
    detainees--how can you mitigate that risk?
        Ms. Saldana. Well, the secretary clearly directed us, and I
    have done in kind, have directed our workforce, that we are not
    going to release criminals who should be detained just because
    there aren't enough beds. We are going to do whatever we do,
    short of perhaps them spending the evening at my home, we are
    going to do whatever we can to make sure those people are
    detained.
        And let me just say, Chairman, I really do want this--to
    communicate this clearly: We don't do detention for deterrent
    purposes. Detention is specifically outlined in the statute.
    You have to be an expert in these laws and regulations to be
    able to maneuver around that.
        But we can't use detention as a punishment. Detention is
    for the specific purpose of taking custody of people who are
    going to be removed, and to remove them and ensure we can
    remove them. Those who are not detained, there is a reason for
    it.
        Judge, I am in law enforcement. This is what I do and what
    I know, and I assure you, if there is anyone that needs to be
    removed, we are going to remove them. But short of having an
    order, short of having travel documents, we cannot just remove
    somebody willy-nilly.
        Mr. Carter. The purpose of incarceration is three-fold. One
    is punishment. I didn't say punishment.
        I said deterrence. Number two is deterrence.
        And three is rehabilitation. You served as a criminal
    attorney. You know. You made that argument in court. I promise
    you, you have.
        Ms. Saldana. In a criminal context.
        Mr. Carter. In a criminal context, but it is--this is one
    of these like juvenile law, that falls into a civil category,
    but has people who are committing--some people who are
    committing acts that fall into the criminal code, okay? My
    whole point was if it slows down the flow, that is deterrence,
    okay?
        If somebody coming across says, ``I might get put in
    detention; I am not going,'' we haven't had to do any work on
    that guy. He is staying in Mexico or he is going back to
    Guatemala.
        Ms. Saldana. I mentioned that we don't operate in a vacuum.
    We have courts reviewing everything we do. You know we have a
    decision out of the----
        Mr. Carter. Look, we are not going to get in a discussion
    about courts.
        Ms. Saldana. But it says we cannot use deterrence.
        Mr. Carter. You can wait 5 years to get to some courts,
    okay? So let's don't get off on a tangent on courts.
        Ms. Saldana. I have to follow court orders----
        Mr. Carter. And let me finally say, and then we will go on
    to Ms. Roybal-Allard, this is like ``Groundhog Day'' for us in
    the Obama administration. We have had a request for a reduction
    in beds every year since--and the administration clearly wants
    to reduce the amount of detention beds. We have had it as low
    as 25,000--reduction down to 25,000 in my memory, and it has
    probably bounced around in numbers everywhere in that category.
        This is not new. This is every year, just like the movie
    ``Groundhog Day,'' just bing, and there it is again.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Secretary Saldana, I would like to
    clarify something that Secretary Johnson told us when he
    appeared before the subcommittee in late February. In his
    response to a question about the potential for the Karnes and
    Dilley family detention facilities to be issued state operating
    licenses, the secretary seemed to indicate that simply the
    issuance of a state license would make the facilities fully
    compliant with the requirement that children be housed in
    licensed, non-secure facilities. But the licensing rule
    promulgated by the Texas Department of Family and Protective
    Services specifically states that it has no role in determining
    whether the family detention facilities are secure.
        In order to ensure the facilities also comply with the
    intent of the U.S. district court ruling, what changes will you
    require to be made at these facilities so they meet the
    requirements of being a non-secure state child welfare agency?
        Mr. Carter. Before you answer, I want to ask Ms. Roybal-
    Allard, I didn't see that we are 10 minutes----
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Carter [continuing]. We got 10 minutes left of the
    vote. We probably talked a little bit longer than we should
    have. Do you want to give her a chance on----
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Maybe just that one? Just that one and
    then I have others. Okay.
        Ms. Saldana. Congresswoman, the welfare and well-being of
    the people in our custody is topmost in our minds of everyone
    who deals with the detention facilities, be it family or
    adults. You are right, we are in the middle of this licensing
    procedure in Texas. Also in Berks, actually, we have a battle
    going on there in Pennsylvania.
        We are constantly monitoring the safety and welfare of
    those facilities. We are constantly evolving. You know last
    year I set up that family advisory committee. They were in
    Dilley and Karnes this very week and reviewed, and I am very
    eager to hear back from them with respect to what they saw and
    what they considered.
        We have standards that must be complied with. There are two
    aspects to the court's order that you are referencing, both the
    secure part and the secure part I think is the part that you
    are in part focusing on.
        We--and the court's decision recognizes--rely--we can't
    license our own facilities. Every state, wherever we have a
    facility, with respect to those questions, has to do so. So
    that is why we are looking to Texas to see if we can get--
    continue our license.
        I assure you, however, that the safety and welfare of the
    people in our custody is not determined by the state of Texas.
    It is determined by our people. And we have people on site; we
    have people who monitor those people; we have people who
    monitor the people who monitor, at the I.G.'s office and
    elsewhere.
        So it is a continuing concern of mine, and I keep up with
    it daily.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, ma'am, and we will get back to you
    after we take a break to go vote.
        Ms. Saldana. If you don't need to, Judge, that is fine too.
        Mr. Carter. No, I would like to see you later.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Fleischmann [presiding]. Madam Director, we are going
    to continue on with the hearing. It is my understanding that we
    are going to have votes called again, another vote series
    around 12:30 or so.
        I believe the ranking member, Ms. Roybal-Allard, is in the
    middle of her questioning.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director Saldana, I would like to go
    back to the issue of the state licensing of Dilley and Karnes.
    I was not clear with regards to your answer.
        Clearly Dilley and Karnes are secure facilities. And simply
    by having them licensed differently does not change that fact.
        So my question really is that once they have received that
    license, in order for you to be able to place children there
    does that mean that it will then have to become a non-secure
    facility? Will the fence be taken down so that it is in
    accordance with the U.S. district court ruling?
        Ms. Saldana. So let me be sure I do answer your question. I
    am not sure I still understand it, but the court itself in
    Flores is what we are talking about--recognized that the state
    determines what is secure and not secure for purposes of
    meeting the--that obligation in the overall settlement
    agreement. The court recognized that.
        What I am saying to you is even if we get the license and
    they determine it is a non-secure facility, that doesn't end my
    responsibility and my job. I recognize that.
        But we will have met that on the letter of the law. We will
    have met that obligation under that. That is my understanding.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay, because my understanding is that
    the Texas Department of Family Protective Services has
    specifically stated that it has no role in determining whether
    the family detention facilities are secure. We will talk about
    this a little bit.
        Ms. Saldana. Okay.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, I am just concerned. I just want
    to make sure that simply by changing the designation of the
    facility, that then all of a sudden Karnes and Dilley are okay
    to place these children. Because clearly those are facilities
    that are not places where children should be at this point,
    based on what I saw when I visited. So that is my concern.
        Ms. Saldana. And I know we have had that conversation in
    your offices, or Congresswoman Lofgren's offices. I am happy to
    talk more about that with you.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And what is the current average
    length of stay at Karnes, Dilley, and Berks right now? Do you
    know?
        Ms. Saldana. It is still holding steady at about 17 days.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. And are any families being detained
    beyond the 20-day period that the district court had
    established as the upper limit for a reasonable processing
    time?
        Ms. Saldana. What the court established on the 20-day is
    that there is a presumption of reasonableness there. It doesn't
    require a 20-day stay. It recognizes that there are reasons to
    detain people, under certain circumstances, for a longer period
    of time.
        So there may be some that--but the average I think tells
    you that it is--it would be probably few and far between.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. And do you know what percentage of
    arriving families now spend at least some time in detention?
        Ms. Saldana. I have that number somewhere, Congresswoman,
    but I don't want to just speak out of memory.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Well, you can----
        Ms. Saldana. I will provide that later for the record.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard [continuing]. Provide that, yes, ma'am.
        The fiscal year 2017 budget proposes funding for 960 family
    detention beds, which is a significant reduction from the 2,760
    family beds funded for the current year. And I saw that last
    week you published a request for information for facilities and
    services provided in an innovative manner and which do not
    resemble traditional correctional practices.
        What are ICE's plans for consolidating its family detention
    facilities? And depending on what you get back from the RFI, is
    it possible that ICE will stop using Karnes and Dilley for
    families in fiscal year 2017?
        Ms. Saldana. Well, we are pretty much there on the decision
    on Karnes. We are probably going to convert that into--our
    plans are to convert that into an adult male--perhaps with
    children--facility, not family facility, as it now with largely
    women.
        Dilley will continue to exist. We will continue working
    there.
        And although with respect to Berks, the jury is still out.
    Our license continues there, but the jury is still out as to
    whether we will be able to win that challenge to--that is being
    made right now with respect to our license at Berks.
        So this is such an answer that is determined by so many
    different factors, not the least of which is what is going to
    be--what is happening on the border tomorrow or the month
    after. I know we all recognize the fact that there is a season
    for migration and then there are times when it is a little
    slower, but that is currently our plan.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. What is the specific role of the
    advisory committee for family residential centers, and will it
    make formal recommendations to ICE on how to improve family
    detention?
        Ms. Saldana. We have left it intentionally fairly broad.
    They are not going to be running our family facilities. That is
    our responsibility.
        But they will be, as they did this week, visiting
    facilities, making recommendations to us. All of this is in a
    public setting, Congresswoman. Anybody can come visit our
    meetings when we have them.
        And as I say, I expect to hear back from them on their
    visit this week pretty soon. I am hopeful that we get some
    good, solid suggestions.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I would look forward to seeing what
    those suggestions are.
        Ms. Saldana. Thank you. And I was just handed by people who
    are brilliant that the average is at about 68 percent of
    families who are actually booked. So 32 percent, more or less,
    don't ever get booked in to one of our facilities.
        Mr. Carter [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Roybal-Allard.
        Mr. Fleischmann. And thanks for helping out.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, Director Saldana.
        Ms. Saldana. Good morning.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Good to see you today.
        I have some questions for you regarding the family
    detention beds.
        The cost of beds for family units was $342.73 in fiscal
    2016. Yet the budget requested a drop in the average cost to
    $161.36. In addition, the request projects a decrease in the
    number of beds by 1,800 beds.
        While I applaud the effort to cut costs in this current
    fiscal climate, I am concerned as to whether this estimate is
    achievable. I have three questions.
        First, why does the request drop the number of beds so
    dramatically?
        Ms. Saldana. As I tried to say earlier and I may not have
    been clear enough, this was our number back at a time when
    actually our--the actions we had taken in enforcement were
    working, the government of Mexico was helping us with respect
    to stopping people at our southern border. This was looking
    fairly steady and even declining, so we based that number on
    that. That is why we did that.
        But again, I am going to be all over this. I will be
    looking at that very, very frequently.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. So then you would agree with me the
    situation has changed to make that number not feasible?
        Ms. Saldana. It has changed, sir, and obviously that is
    part of what you are going to be doing with respect to looking
    at that request, I am sure.
        Mr. Fleischmann. I understand.
        Did you consult with industry in developing the cost
    estimate? If not, how did you develop it and how confident are
    you that the bed cost can be reduced so significantly?
        Ms. Saldana. Well, we have quite a few people who are
    experts who have been doing this for 20 and 30 years. I cannot
    answer your question as to whether there was a specific private
    consultant we used. We certainly use private sources for
    consultation. In the end the decision is ours.
        But let me just point out to you, you may remember that
    when we had that tremendous influx in 2014 we had to stand up
    Dilley and turn that on a dime, and as a result we paid dearly
    for those demands that we made to get the housing in shape, get
    it available. And we have just released that request for
    information with respect to trying to get facts that will help
    us decide how we are going to save this money.
        But we really do anticipate, since we had a lot of front-
    end costs in the Dilley stand-up, that we will be saving that
    money and target it--this number for you.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. And I have one final question. Thank
    you.
        What financial management controls does ICE have in place
    to ensure the service costs don't escalate outside the normal
    perimeters over time?
        Ms. Saldana. We have people who are constantly monitoring
    the contracts that we execute. They are looking at them. There
    is a family--there is a detention oversight group within our
    agency that looks at that.
        Our financial people are always on top of that, including
    our contract management people. They are very smart folks and
    they keep me in line with respect to managing those costs. So I
    rely on them and I am very confident that what they are telling
    me is accurate.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Director.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.

                          PRIORITY ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

        Mr. Carter. Mr. Price.
        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Director.
        I am glad to see you here and want to focus on a familiar
    topic but one that I think is at the heart of your mission and
    at the heart of the policy questions that we need to address.
    That has to do with priorities you set for immigration
    enforcement actions.
        The department's announced policy is to focus on people who
    pose a danger to the country--particularly convicted felons--
    for enforcement action. That is a declared priority that I and
    others have applauded--widely applauded. In fact, it has been a
    priority of this subcommittee for many years to facilitate
    exactly that kind of focus.
        Now that was the original intent of the Security
    Communities Program, which lost some focus, unfortunately, and
    lost some support of local communities, and therefore was
    replaced by the administration with precisely this issue in
    mind of how to focus on the right people for enforcement, for
    deportation. And that is where the memo of November 2014 came
    from, recalibrated DHS policy.
        Once again, though, we seem to be in some danger of losing
    focus or losing clarity about what our priorities are and what
    this priority one, so-called, includes, and what the relative
    weight is that might be given to the different priority one
    categories. I am referring to, of course, the November 2014
    memo.
        And I am raising this issue based on several North Carolina
    cases. I am not going to go into the specifics of that, but
    that is how we learn where some problems lie often is in cases
    that come to our attention, whether they are anomalous or not.
        I mean, we have to ask the questions that I am going to ask
    you now. We have five priority one categories. Four of them I
    think are clearly within the guidelines or the standards that I
    earlier articulated: aliens engaged or suspected of terrorism,
    people apprehended--people convicted of an offense in
    connection with a street gang, aliens connected of an offense
    classified as a felony, convicted of an aggravated felony.
        Okay. Those categories, pretty clear.
        The fifth one is maybe more spacious and more problematic,
    just convicted. Seems to be--to target people who were turned
    away immediately at the border. All right, so that, too, we
    understand.
        Except when I look at these North Carolina cases I see some
    that weren't apprehended at the border. They might have been,
    but they haven't maybe shown up for a hearing, some may have
    been reentering the country. It is just clear that they do not
    fit that category of dangerous people or convicted felons.
        So my question is, what is the policy within these priority
    one categories, and can you put a percentage on these five
    components of priority one as to how many of the people you are
    going after fall under each of these categories?
        Ms. Saldana. Thank you, sir. Yes, this is the cornerstone,
    the foundation of the work we do now in the post-November 20,
    2014 memorandum era.
        We are razor-focused on criminal aliens. That is absolutely
    for sure, and I mentioned some of the stats with respect to the
    fact that in our detained population over 59 percent have a
    criminal conviction, the highest we have ever had in the
    history of the agency.
        But, sir, it is a two--it is a--this is what makes our job
    interesting. There are two aspects to what we do.
        There is definitely the focus on interior enforcement and
    getting people who do not belong in this country out of here.
    At the same time, there is the border security aspect.
        And while I was not here in November of 2014, I have heard
    from the secretary personally tell me about all the
    handwringing, the consultation, the work that went into
    deciding what part of the priorities is going to be focused on
    border security. And while we believe all of them are, the part
    that you are talking about, the recent border entrants, that is
    where we are trying to stop the flow of people continuing to
    come into the country.
        Because all our enforcement priorities with respect to
    criminal aliens and others will not serve us as well if we
    don't pay attention to stopping the flow. And that is why the
    date of January 2014 was used to say, ``If you can't show us
    that you were here in the country peacefully, abiding by the
    laws, before January of 2014, we are--you are going to be
    subject to removal.''
        Mr. Price. So this isn't a matter of just turning someone
    away at the border. This is a matter of fingering for
    enforcement action anybody who entered after that date no
    matter where they are in the country.
        Ms. Saldana. That is right. That is right.
        Mr. Price. All right. So here you are breaking up families,
    you are going after people who have no criminal record or
    criminal intent. It seems like we are back where we were in
    terms of a pretty indiscriminate approach.
        Anyway, do you have the percentages as to how many people
    fall in each of these categories?
        Ms. Saldana. Generally speaking, yes. Border entrants, it
    is about 42 percent, just a little bit over that.
        Gang members, a little bit over 1.5 percent. Many of the
    gang operations we have end up being citizens, unfortunately.
        Felons and aggravated felons, about 21 percent. These are
    the really serious criminals.
        And so that is approximately the number up to now. And that
    is just focusing on those categories.
        Mr. Price. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is expired. I will
    return to this. Thank you.

                           RELEASE OF CRIMINAL ALIENS

        Mr. Carter. Dr. Harris.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
        And thank you, Madam Director, for coming before the
    subcommittee.
        I am going to follow up a little bit about a letter that
    you sent to Mr. Grassley over on the Senate side February 11th,
    and it was in response to a letter he wrote on June 16, 2015
    about the release of criminal aliens, and especially looking
    into some details of the ones who subsequently were arrested
    for homicide-related crimes. You are aware of the letter you
    wrote back?
        Ms. Saldana. Yes.
        Mr. Harris. Okay. I hope so, because what you have is you
    have, you know, 120--I am going to get the number--124 criminal
    aliens who were released, who were actually in your custody and
    released who went on to commit 135 homicide-related crimes.
    And, you know, I think obviously you have a large task to do,
    but, you know Americans expect that someone who is here
    illegally and has a criminal record ought to be looked at
    really carefully before they are released back into the
    population.
        In fact, in the list--and, you know, it is on page seven of
    your letter in response--you know, two of those people had
    previous convictions for homicide. So let me get it straight: I
    mean, there really were two people who were held by--in
    detention with previous convictions of homicide who were
    released to subsequently be arrested for a homicide-related
    crime.
        That right? Is that what your letter implies?
        Ms. Saldana. If that is the facts of those two cases, yes.
        Mr. Harris. Well, it says there are two convictions--I am
    sorry, it is two convictions. It could be the same person
    actually had two convictions of a homicide. I am not sure if
    that is better or worse.
        Ms. Saldana. And I can't tell you to distinguish, but
    that--your point is--I understand your point----
        Mr. Harris. So under what circumstances would someone
    convicted of homicide be released instead of deported? I mean,
    is this, you know, a person who went to Zadvydas--the--let's
    hope I pronounced that right--Zadvydas ruling, or is that----
        Ms. Saldana. Can't do much better than you, sir. I think it
    is----
        Mr. Harris. Yes, I know. I----
        Ms. Saldana. Zadvydas.
        Mr. Carter. It is Zadvydas.
        Ms. Saldana. Thank you so much, Judge.
        Mr. Harris. Zadvydas, a silent D, huh?
        Ms. Saldana. Thank you so much, Judge.
        Yes. Now, Congressman, you----
        Mr. Harris. I mean, because otherwise it would be pursuant
    to a bond set by the DOJ's Executive Office of Immigration or
    an--or something that you all decided.
        Ms. Saldana. Exactly. Now, this is something--this is one
    of the reasons I designated this criminal--this community
    relations officers, is because there is so much
    misunderstanding of what we do and the fact that we are guided
    by this statute and the regulations.
        Mr. Harris. Sure. And I understand that but, you know, we
    go down the list. I mean, 22 were convicted of assault prior to
    their--you know, prior to their detention and release; 14,
    vehicle theft; 11, robbery; nine, possession of a weapon. I
    mean, someone convicted of possession of a weapon and they get
    released?
        I am not sure I--so I am--what I will do, and I will--and
    you don't have to respond. What I am going to do is I am going
    to ask you to follow up, because the senator didn't ask the
    question that way, is specifically those crimes that--I mean,
    homicide is a felony. I mean, there is no question that even
    under the highest prioritization--under any prioritization
    scheme they would be prioritized--is just to see if you could
    give me information if those, in fact, if any of them were
    related to the discretion that you have. Not the ones where you
    don't have discretion, where it is, you know, the 180-day
    detention limitation, things like that.
        Ms. Saldana. And let me just tell you the short answer with
    respect to last year, fiscal year 2015. Is that in----
        Mr. Harris. I think 2015 might be in here.
        Ms. Saldana. Yes. So we were at 57 percent there of
    discretionary cases. That came down from 61 percent in 2014.
    Currently we are at 37 percent.
        You know, I set up a committee to make sure that we double
    and triple check any criminal releases that are discretionary,
    sir. We do not release criminals unless there is--we are
    obligated to under Zadvydas, an immigration court judge has
    told us to do it.
        In those discretionary cases we do it on a case-by-case
    basis. But I am happy to delve further into that----
        Mr. Harris. No, I would appreciate that. And maybe we will
    have to figure out some solution because, you know, releasing a
    convicted--person convicted of homicide back into the community
    when they are here illegally is just an interesting concept.
        With regards to the Secure Communities Program being
    switched over to Priority Enforcement, what has been the
    response from those jurisdictions that previously were
    considered sanctuary cities as you converted from one program
    to the other?

                              PRIORITY ENFORCEMENT

        Ms. Saldana. All right. So if you don't mind, I am going to
    stay away from that term because, quite frankly, I don't know
    if you and I would agree on that definition.
        Mr. Harris. Well, I live in a sanctuary state, so I
    understand what the term means.
        Ms. Saldana. So I can tell you that with respect to what I
    did when we were trying to focus in on this issue and we
    converted into the Priority Enforcement Program is I asked my
    staff to identify the top 25 jurisdictions in the country,
    which at the time were responsible for something like, I don't
    know, 86 percent of the declined detainers--our detainers that
    are being declined.
        Let's laser-focus; let's have all hands on deck, including
    the secretary and the deputy--not that I directed them to do
    this; they did it on their own--but myself and our staff have
    been out working the field to make sure local law enforcement--
    once again, that is my community relations folks that are going
    to be doing this in the future, but currently my field office
    directors, everyone is all hands on deck to explain to local
    jurisdictions these priorities and the Priority Enforcement
    Program.
        Currently, as I think I mentioned earlier, although I might
    have dreamt this, of those 25 jurisdictions, 17 have come to
    the table with cooperation. That is a big impact. And I haven't
    given up on the remaining eight because we will continue going
    back to those jurisdictions and asking them to work with us in
    a reasonable way.
        Our efforts have paid off. I think by that number it shows
    that.
        In the end, we--I think we have been persuasive because we
    all are interested. Local law enforcement are not interested in
    releasing criminals and having people victimized by people in
    the country illegally.
        We all have the public safety concern. And so I think that
    has carried the day so far, but we are continuing to work with
    those remaining eight.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Cuellar.
        Mr. Cuellar. Chairman, thank you so much.

                                   EMPLOYMENT

        Director, again, thank you for your service. I think you
    are in a very difficult situation. On one side you have
    Republicans that think you are not deporting enough; then on
    the other side you got Democrats who are saying that you are
    deporting too many out there. So I know it is a difficult
    situation.
        Let me just direct your attention to recruitment and
    retention of employees, because I think I am seeing a pattern
    in homeland where a lot of the agencies are having a hard time.
    My question is, what are you doing to recruit, retain, and are
    you streamlining the process? Because it takes a long time to
    bring people onboard.
        Ms. Saldana. It does. And let's not forget the training
    part, even when we have employed them.
        We were very ambitious after the lapse in appropriations
    last spring of 2015. As soon as that was lifted we hit the
    ground running and brought on 800 positions or so----
        Staff. A thousand.
        Ms. Saldana [continuing]. A thousand--for the balance of
    the 6 months, furiously working to try to fill some of the
    positions.
        We still have a ways to go because, as you know, December,
    January, people are retiring. So when we make gains, we
    sometimes have to take some steps back.
        But what I charged our human capital people in particular
    with is I don't want to hear about delays and things get--I
    said, ``Let's do this as efficiently and effectively as
    possible, because we can't do anything unless we have the well-
    trained, appropriate staff onboard.''
        And, by the way, I had my human capital number one person,
    officer, had been vacant, that position, for some period of
    time. Thank goodness we have an outstanding woman, Catherine
    Payne, who is now our human capital officer for the entire
    country, and she is laser-focused on my directive.
        She has--and part--much of our staff--has done several
    things. One of them is we are now doing like one-stop shopping,
    where we have gone to like five or six jurisdictions and done
    fairs where we say, you know, let's do the pre-employment
    interview; let's get--let's start the processing on the
    background; let's concentrate so you--we don't have to keep
    going back and saying, ``Now this is the next step.'' We are
    taking several steps at one time. That has really gained us
    things.
        We have got additional people focused on background checks,
    which are vital. We have gotta have them before people come
    onboard.
        As you said, a lot of agencies--investigating agencies--are
    in this box. Just within our departments, Secret Service is
    trying to find people, Border Patrol is trying to find people.
    We are all pushing against the same pot of people, so to speak.
        But as a result--and I was just in Georgia to see our
    FLETC. I don't know if any of you all have visited it, but it
    is an extraordinary place, the Federal Law Enforcement Training
    Center. We are all competing for place there, just to get our
    people trained when they get onboard.
        So one of the ideas that came up and we have adopted it is,
    you know what, get those people onboard. We will continue
    working with them to get them trained as early as possible in
    that tenure, but let's get them onboard.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
        Ms. Saldana. So----
        Mr. Cuellar. And thank you for doing that, because I know
    it is--you hire people and then the attrition rate comes in on
    that, so I appreciate it.

                                FAMILY DETENTION

        Real quickly, I added some language on transparencies of
    family detention facilities, and I think within 15 days and
    monthly thereafter you all were supposed to give the
    information in the committee. Maybe you are getting that.
    Because I am one of those Democrats that I believe in
    immigration reform, but I still want to see law and order at
    the border. I represent a good section of the border.
        So I would ask you all to give us this transparency
    language detail that we have sent to you.
        The last point I want to make is the area that I represent
    I got two very unique situations. Rio Grande Valley, part of my
    district, it is from fiscal year 2015 to February of this last
    year family units went up 149 percent, from 11,000 to 27,000
    for that same period of time, compared to fiscal year 2016.
    Unaccompanied kids went up 89 percent, from 12,000 to 23,000.
    The majority--the Rio Grande went up 90 percent, 133 percent on
    that.
        Then on the Laredo area I have a different type of
    situation. I have Cubans coming in.
        And I know your role is a little bit more limited because
    of the Cuban Adjustment Act, but just to give you an example,
    in fiscal year 2024--I mean fiscal year 2014, 24,000 Cubans
    came in; 15,000 came through the Port of Laredo. Fiscal year
    2015, 43,000 came in; 28,000 of the Cubans came in through
    Laredo. Fiscal year 2016 up to February 24th, 25,000--almost
    26,000--Cubans came in, and over 18,000 came through the Port
    of Laredo.
        So my district is one of the those that on the southern
    part I have, you know, the Central American folks coming in,
    and then in Laredo, my home town, I have Cubans come in. And I
    know that is more limited on that.
        Again, all I would ask is we play defense on the 1-yard
    line. The more we can play defense on their 20-yard line--and I
    know y'all have folks working in Central and Mexico and other
    places--the more you can do that, the better it is. Because
    otherwise they get to the border and they come in and they get
    to stay, quite honestly.
        Ms. Saldana. I understand that. And, of course, everyone
    here knows that we are in the middle of this transition period
    with Cuba, but I am quite sure that is going to be one of the
    top topics in the discussion as we move forward with them.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much for your service.

                                     HIRING

        Mr. Carter. I am going to recognize Mr. Young, but before I
    do I got a quick question on the hiring situation Mr. Cuellar
    was talking about.
        You are about to go to a polygraph investigation, and one
    of things that we have heard from CBP and others is one of the
    reasons for the delays in their hiring is waiting on
    polygraphs. So I don't know if you are aware of that, but that
    claims to be a delay almost across the entire DHS department, a
    lack of polygraph operators to get a schedule and get it done.
        And you are about to instigate--to put that into this--have
    you thought about that, and have you got any plans to not
    create something that further delays the hiring of people?
        Ms. Saldana. Well, yes. And you are right, there is a
    shortage just generally of polygraph examiners, and everybody
    is using them, and we were late to this game.
        But we are visiting with our colleagues that have already
    had that experience with respect to polygraphs. We are doing
    the best we can to try to identify--because we haven't started
    this, as I understand. We haven't started the polygraph
    examinations, but we are doing everything we can to ensure, put
    in place, you know, get people lined up, get contracts in place
    to try to find as many people to do these exams for us as
    possible.
        We are going to stay on that and just make sure it doesn't
    delay us any further.
        Mr. Carter. Well, it seems to be a problem and I wanted to
    raise a flag.
        Mr. Young.

                                   DETAINERS

        Mr. Young. Hi, Director Saldana. Thank you for being here
    today.
        As you know, on February 3rd this year my constituent in
    Iowa, Sarah Root from Council Bluffs, was killed by a drunk
    driver, Eswin Mejia. Mr. Mejia entered this country illegally,
    and after posting bail on February 5th he has failed to turn up
    for mandatory sobriety tests and has not been seen since.
        After speaking to Ms. Root's father and learning the facts
    about the situation, it is clear there are serious mishandlings
    of Mr. Mejia's case. Specifically, the judge in this case
    should have more accurately assessed Mr. Mejia's flight risk.
        I know that you are aware of this. There was a hearing
    yesterday where Senator Sasse asked you about this.
        Do you believe that this is all just very unjust?
        Ms. Saldana. It is tragic. It is horrific. Again, you know,
    I am a prosecutor. I want those people in jail, in prison.
        We look at every case on a case-by-case basis. We rely on
    the professional judgment of our people evaluating risk,
    because that is what we do every day.
        You and I may disagree on looking at the same person, but I
    am 99.9 percent satisfied with the risk assessments we do. We
    even have a tool to help us with that.
        But I don't want to see a single one of these cases or hear
    about them. That is at the top of our list of fugitives. We are
    assisting the local police department and trying to locate him.
        Mr. Young. Eswin Mejia is at the top of your list of
    fugitives?
        Ms. Saldana. They are at the top of the list, and we have
    notified, through our transnational contacts that we have with
    governments--I believe he was from Honduras, and we have
    notified the government there that, ``Please be on the lookout
    for him.''
        We will find him. We will find him.
        Mr. Young. Do you think he will show up to his court
    hearing in 2017?
        Ms. Saldana. I would not put any money on that, sir, but we
    are looking for him and we are going to find him, with the
    assistance of the local police department.
        Mr. Young. Well, you said that this is unjust and, of
    course, I agree with you. It is tragic.
        And you mentioned in your opening statement that one of
    your priorities is to challenge unjust decisions. Thank you for
    that.
        There are state and federal roles in these kind of cases,
    but there seems to be a lot of confusion, based on what you
    read, Q&A from yesterday, about what exactly ICE's role is and
    when do they get involved. Can you elaborate on that?
        Ms. Saldana. Yes. So we are talking about, essentially, the
    transfer--the relationship between local government law
    enforcement and ourselves when we have a detainer on somebody.
        So what we will do is we have got databases that will tell
    us that somebody has been arrested by a local jurisdiction and
    that there is some information maybe that this person is in the
    country illegally. We run that check. Sometimes we are there at
    the jails; sometimes we are not allowed in the jails. And we
    will meet with that person and interview them to confirm,
    because it is not always the case they are in the country
    illegally.
        As I said, every decision we make, from apprehension to
    bonds to detention decisions, is made on a case-by-case basis.
    So we are looking at the facts relating to that situation and
    we decide, ``This is a risk. This is a flight risk or this is a
    risk to public safety.''
        So we will look at that, make that decision, and then it
    goes from there. Sometimes when we have to release them or
    put--they are put in removal proceedings. But we make that
    decision on detention while we have information from the local
    jurisdiction that there is a--they have been apprehended for a
    crime.
        Mr. Young. Well, yesterday you stated ICE did not follow
    through on a detainer request made by Omaha police for Mr.
    Mejia because Ms. Root had not passed away when Mr. Mejia
    posted bail. Can you elaborate on this? Because certainly she
    had passed away, because the bail was a few days later.
        Ms. Saldana. Sir, if I said that I didn't say that very
    clearly or very well. I believe what I said was our posting a
    detainer would not have saved her life. It, unfortunately----
        Mr. Young. But it kept him from being released----
        Ms. Saldana. Yes, it kept him from facing justice
    immediately. He will face justice, I am very confident. But it
    did keep him from facing justice.
        And that sounds fairly callous. I am very confident I would
    not have said that. What I was trying to explain is that at the
    time that we were looking at it, the facts we were looking at
    is that we had a serious injury.
        And as I say, sir, I don't want to see a single instance of
    where we have somebody on whom we do not place detainers and
    they abscond when they have been involved in such a serious
    situation. We have had conversations and we will continue to
    have conversations with our people in our training and
    everything else to consider that because, quite frankly, the
    priorities allow it with respect to federal interest cases. And
    that, to me, if I had been looking at this file I would have
    considered that heavily.
        Mr. Young. I would like to have some further conversations
    with you on this.
        Ms. Saldana. I would be happy to.
        Mr. Young. And I know you view this as a tragedy, but
    others have died in similar situations like this. Sarah Root is
    dead. Eswin Mejia is missing. A family in the community mourns.
        And I just don't think that we are doing enough, and I
    think this committee would stand with you in trying to do more
    to make sure that these things don't happen again.
        Ms. Saldana. Thank you. We are like-minded in that regard.
        Mr. Young. I yield.
        Mr. Carter. We will end this first round with Mr. Culberson
    and then start a second round.

                              PRIORITY ENFORCEMENT

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director, the secretary of homeland security testified
    earlier this year that there were a large number of--or still a
    number of large jurisdictions that are not participating in the
    Priority Enforcement Program. And in your testimony this
    morning you say that, quote--``16 of the top 25 jurisdictions
    with the largest number of detainers that declined to
    participate in Secure Communities are now participating in PEP,
    representing nearly half of the previously declined
    detainers.''
        It is 16 of the top 25, so which are the--what nine large
    jurisdictions are still refusing to participate and are not
    honoring detainers?
        Ms. Saldana. And as I said, I am very happy for that
    progress. And I think the number is more like 68, maybe close
    to 70 percent now of the detainers are being honored, or some
    form of----
        Mr. Culberson. Well, in these 25 largest jurisdcitions----
        Ms. Saldana. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. So I am asking what are the--you say 16 of
    25, so who are the other nine? Is----
        Ms. Saldana. I can share that list with you, Congressman. I
    am still working with these jurisdictions. I will share the
    list with you----
        Mr. Culberson. I understand. Did you ask one of your folks
    back there? Somebody can tell you. Who are the nine?
        Ms. Saldana. I will share that list. What I am hesitant to
    do, sir----
        Mr. Culberson. You have got it with you. It is important. I
    would like to know who they are, and as----
        Ms. Saldana. And I will provide that to you. I am not
    saying I won't.
        What I am saying is shaming somebody is not productive when
    I am trying to work very closely with these----
        Mr. Culberson. I am not looking to shame them. We are
    looking to solve the problem.
        Ms. Saldana. And I will provide you that list.
        Mr. Culberson. They are going to honor detainers and they
    are going to follow federal law, or they are going to lose all
    their federal grant money. It is that simple. You want federal
    money? Follow federal law.
        I need to know the answer to that question.
        Ms. Saldana. And I will provide it to you immediately.
        Mr. Culberson. It is time-sensitive.
        Ms. Saldana. I will provide it to you immediately----
        Mr. Culberson. And I need the list of those--or all of
    them, actually. I want to know who those nine are, but then I
    would like to know who those 25 are, and then a list of those
    that are not honoring detainers. Could you provide that to me
    within the week?
        Ms. Saldana. That may be a little ambitious because I want
    it to be accurate, but we will attempt to.
        Mr. Culberson. Well, I know the list exists. You have
    already got it. I----
        Ms. Saldana. No, I thought you said--I am sorry--all of
    them.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, I would like to know all of them.
        Ms. Saldana. The nine we can give you immediately.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay, great. Thank you. That would be super.
    And then I need to know who these--who the others are, as well.
        Ms. Saldana. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Culberson. Because it is my responsibility as chairman
    of the CJS Subcommittee to make certain that jurisdictions
    don't ask for federal money unless they are complying with
    federal law. So I need that list right away. Thank you very
    much.
        Ms. Saldana. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Carter. Ms. Roybal-Allard.
        I guess I am next.
        Thank you.

                           ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

        It shows how much I like you, Lucille.
        Director, your budget requests project a significant
    increase in the number of participants eligible for the
    Alternatives to Detention Program for fiscal year 2017. Since
    the beginning of this fiscal year, the monthly average for
    participants in ATD has increased from 34,000 to 43,000.
    Despite this data, your request maintains the capacity at
    53,000.
        Given this large increase in such a short period of time
    and the projection for significant increases, is the request
    sufficient to meet the projected increases? What happens if
    53,000 ATD options are insufficient? Will you then detain more
    aliens or will you release more aliens?
        Obviously not all aliens on the detain docket are enrolled
    in ATD. What statistics do you have to support the
    effectiveness of ATD with regard to compliance with hearings
    and actual removals?
        Ms. Saldana. Let me see if I can remember all your
    questions. Let me start with the----
        Mr. Carter. I will go back through them for you if you want
    me to.
        Ms. Saldana. Let me start with the first one, and that is
    with respect to ATD and how ambitious we are. We are at 44,000
    or so now; we are looking at 53,000 overall.
        As you know, we are at the beginning of that peak season,
    we believe, where we may be seeing more people as the weather
    warms up. We also have that success that we have enjoyed in
    PEP, which may end up producing more people that we have and
    that we may end up using ATD for some of them.
        With respect to the last question on effectiveness, we have
    currently a pilot program, a family residential program that
    talks about--that has let out a contract to GEO, a contractor,
    to actually monitor and give us hard statistics on helping
    these people to make sure they show up for their hearings to
    the very end when it is time for removal and taking them back
    into custody if we are--if we have had to release them.
        I believe we will have some good numbers from that pilot
    study. But in the interim, my understanding is that we have had
    very good success with ATDs in terms of compliance of people at
    hearings for that--for the period of time that they are on
    release.
        Mr. Carter. What do you anticipate would happen if you
    exceed 53,000? I mean, based on some recent current events,
    that could happen.
        Ms. Saldana. It could, sir. That is part of my job is
    managing and watching the numbers and seeing where we are. Same
    thing with beds.
        We will keep a close lookout on it and we will keep the
    committee informed as to how things are----
        Mr. Carter. If this happens we gotta find the money.
        Ms. Saldana. I understand, sir.
        Mr. Carter. And effectiveness, you got a pilot going on
    that. When do you anticipate some kind of information from that
    pilot?
        Ms. Saldana. Well, it just started, Congressman, and I
    think in a few months we will have some results to share with
    you. Are----
        Mr. Carter. I used to do alternative to detention or
    incarceration in my county and we got monthly reports on the
    effectiveness of that. And we didn't have near the numbers you
    got, I will go along with it, but we had more than our share.
    And monthly reports make it--for people making determinations--
    much more effective making decisions if you see whether
    something is working or not.
        Ms. Saldana. Absolutely.
        Mr. Carter. And the more you make those people report, the
    more they realize that they have got an obligation. And if you
    don't--if you leave them alone and let them roam, they go away.
        Ms. Saldana. Well, that is why we asked for that increase
    is because we think it is effective.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                               FAMILY ENFORCEMENT

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Director Saldana, as you know, I
    and many of my colleagues have been concerned about ICE
    enforcement actions targeting families, particularly one that
    took place at the end of the winter holidays in which
    reportedly ICE agents used deceptive tactics to gain entry into
    homes.
        There are also reports that out of the 121 individuals who
    rounded up, 77 were deported within 4 days without ever
    speaking to a lawyer, despite available pro bono legal
    assistance at the detention center. Multiple women also
    reported asking to speak to a lawyer and being denied by ICE
    agents.
        While immigrants in civil deportations proceedings have no
    legal right to counsel, do you believe that the government has
    at least an obligation to respect the detainee's request to
    speak to a lawyer? And also, if you could answer as to whether
    or not ICE targets only individuals who have refused to comply
    with a removal order, or does it also target individuals who
    have not had the opportunity to voluntarily surrender
    themselves to ICE for removal?
        Ms. Saldana. The operation you are talking about,
    Congresswoman, was very targeted. It started with a large list
    of individuals who were possible candidates for the operation
    and ended up a very small list. And in fact, I think the
    numbers with respect to families was something like, across the
    country, 77 people that were actually apprehended.
        We do not go outside the priorities unless there is, as I
    said earlier, a federal interest or a good reason to do so. I
    don't know how much scrubbing we did, but we did it at the
    headquarters level, we did it at the local level, and we had
    supervisors reviewing that list. And as I say, it started out
    much larger than it was.
        I have heard some of these same reports. I will assure you
    that we have run down--everything we get a specific information
    on, we have run in down, and all the people involved in that
    operation were enforcement priorities.
        Now, you and I may disagree on whether we should be looking
    at recent border entrants. But to the extent that they were--
    some families may have been involved, they probably fell into
    that category and that is the answer that we have at ICE,
    enforcement-wise, to trying to stop the flow of people. Because
    it makes a tremendous impression to put someone on a plane and
    return them to their country so that people can say--see it is
    not worth the dangerous trip to the United States to come here.
        But that issue of whether or not we should include recent
    border entrants was hotly debated, I understand, and that is
    where we came down. And it wouldn't have been somebody outside
    of those parameters.
        You and I have met about specific instances. To the extent
    you provide us any information on specific examples, we can do
    that.
        But I think I have shared this with you before,
    Congresswoman--I mean this: We are professionals at ICE. People
    may disagree, and they throw allegations at us all the time.
    Things are reported that are not accurate.
        I take every allegation seriously and I ask people to take
    a second and a third look. You know I have a special advisor,
    someone who interned with you not that long ago, Liz Cedillo-
    Pereira, and she assists me in monitoring these situations.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Let me just stop you there, then, and be
    a little bit more specific in what I am trying to get at in
    terms of the allegations about multiple women asking to speak
    to a lawyer and being denied by ICE agents. Have you looked
    into that allegation?
        Ms. Saldana. Yes. Yes, we have.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. And you are saying that that is not
    true.
        Ms. Saldana. Exactly. People are advised of their rights.
        But part of the targeting of this operation are people who
    have been through the process. We did not include anyone in
    that operation who didn't have a final order of removal; had
    had due process up one side, down the other; had exhausted
    their appeals. Not one single person in that operation fell
    outside of those--of that specific targeted population.
        From the moment they get into the door they are advised of
    people who provide legal services free. They have phones in
    which to make those--free phones in which to make phone calls
    to their legal representatives. Many of them are represented,
    and they----
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I am running out of time, so I just want
    to say I think we need to look into this a little bit more. And
    we don't have the time to do that now, but I just want to make
    the point that even when a final order of removal is imposed
    and the time for appeal has closed, it doesn't necessarily mean
    that these individuals have been provided due process.
        And that is the reason that the Board of Immigration
    Appeals agreed to hear cases of several families taken into
    custody during the early January enforcement actions even
    though they had final orders of removal. And the issue is
    whether an individual really has been given fair access to
    effective counsel.
        I am over my time and I would like to follow up at a later
    time with you on this particular issue.
        Ms. Saldana. Certainly.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Culberson.

                                  ICE RELEASES

        Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director--according to your budget submission, ICE removed
    235,413 illegal aliens in fiscal year 2015. How many illegal
    aliens did ICE release during that same period?
        Ms. Saldana. Did ICE release?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes.
        Ms. Saldana. In this is 2015?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, fiscal year 2015. If you removed
    235,000, how many did you release?
        Ms. Saldana. I have got that number, sir. Let me take a
    look at that.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
        Ms. Saldana. And we are talking about general release as
    much as criminal.
        Mr. Culberson. Yes, fiscal year 2015, all releases. How
    many did you release who were in the country illegally during
    that same period, fiscal year 2015?
        Ms. Saldana. Okay.
        Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
        Ms. Saldana. You know, I am not finding that real quickly
    right now.
        Mr. Culberson. And also, if you see it there, how many did
    you release in fiscal year 2016?
        Ms. Saldana. Total removals in 2015--this is very--well you
    already know it is 235,000.
        Mr. Culberson. 235,000. Right. So how many were released?
        Ms. Saldana. I don't have that number right in front of me.
    And you know that in 2016 we are at 74,630 so far total
    removals.
        I don't have that number in front of me. I will have to
    give that to you in a little bit.
        Mr. Culberson. That is a very important number.
        Ms. Saldana. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Culberson. That is the one that concerns us all because
    it includes--how many of those people, for example, that were
    released fit into category one or two of priorities for
    removal?
        Ms. Saldana. Who have been released?
        Mr. Culberson. Yes.
        Ms. Saldana. If we have a reason to detain someone, if the
    statute provides our ability to detain someone, we are going to
    detain them. They are not going to be released unless they come
    within Zadvydas, which is that Supreme Court decision, or an
    I.J.--an immigration judge--has ordered it.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. Then you will be able to tell me that,
    as well, if you would in a follow up.
        Your folks are going to provide me with a list of
    jurisdictions that are not honoring detainers, the list of
    jurisdictions--those large ones, the 25--and then that list
    show me the--those--there are 16 of the 25 you said that are
    now at least participating in PEP, and that is good news. And I
    will work with Jeremy back there on this--thank you, Jeremy--on
    letting me get ahold of that list soon as possible. And then
    Jeremy I guess would also provide me with how many folks were
    released in 2015 and 2016?
        Thank you.
        Ms. Saldana. Now it is 17, by the way. I don't want to give
    up that one. Instead of 16 out of 25, it is now at 17. We just
    added Miami-Dade and another jurisdiction, so it is 17 now.
        Mr. Culberson. Miami-Dade is honoring--is participating in
    the PEP program.
        Ms. Saldana. Yes, as of about a month ago.
        Mr. Culberson. But Miami-Dade still does not honor
    detainers.
        Ms. Saldana. I think it is only notifications, but----
        Mr. Culberson. What?
        Ms. Saldana. Notifications. That is that they want to be--
    they will notify us before they release someone.
        Mr. Culberson. But they will not honor a detainer. They
    won't hold them.
        Ms. Saldana. I don't think so.
        Mr. Culberson. Miami-Dade will not hold them.
        Ms. Saldana. That is right.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        What about Chicago--Cook County? Will Chicago hold people
    until you come pick them up?
        Ms. Saldana. That is one of the folks--the jurisdictions we
    are still working with. They have not, up to now, agreed to
    participate in PEP.
        Mr. Culberson. Will Cook County hold an individual until
    ICE comes and picks them up?
        Ms. Saldana. No.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. Will Los Angeles hold an individual
    until ICE comes and picks them up?
        Ms. Saldana. They will notify us.
        Mr. Culberson. Will Los Angeles hold them until ICE comes
    and picks them up?
        Ms. Saldana. Well, they can't hold them beyond the 72 hours
    even under a detainer.
        Mr. Culberson. I understand. Will they hold them at all?
    Will they honor your detainer?
        Ms. Saldana. Well, in--at--in Los Angeles it is----
        Mr. Culberson. Same question as Miami and Cook County.
        Ms. Saldana. They are far different from Cook County. We
    have an arrangement, and actually it is even in writing, with
    them with respect to notifications. So they will hold them for
    a period of time. As they process them out they give us notice
    and we come pick them up.
        Mr. Culberson. But they will not honor a detainer.
        Ms. Saldana. They do not honor detainers.
        Mr. Culberson. Los Angeles.
        Ms. Saldana. That is correct.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay. Does San Francisco honor detainers?
        Ms. Saldana. No.
        Mr. Culberson. What other major jurisdictions come to mind
    that don't honor detainers?
        Ms. Saldana. Currently Seattle.
        Mr. Culberson. Okay.
        Ms. Saldana. Significant, substantial size, that is all I
    can recall right now.
        Mr. Culberson. Doesn't the state of California have a law
    that forbids the jurisdictions or even the state from honoring
    detainers?
        Ms. Saldana. It has the Trust Act, sir, which is a legal
    morass. In my view it is very hard. But yes, part of it is to
    discourage cooperation.
        But obviously since we have a number of jurisdictions in
    California cooperating with us, we have been able to work with
    the legal departments of those entities to see if we can either
    find a way to work within the Trust Act or make some
    arrangement. And in a number of jurisdictions we have been able
    to do that, including Los Angeles.
        Mr. Culberson. The purpose of the Trust Act is to
    discourage cooperation with federal authorities on immigration
    status of people held in their----
        Ms. Saldana. I don't think I can opine on the purpose, sir.
    You will have to ask the people who passed the law.
        Mr. Culberson. I am just confirming what you just said.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have gone over my
    time. Forgive me.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Price.

                              PRIORITY ENFORCEMENT

        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director, I would like to return to the question of the
    Priority Enforcement Program and who actually is prioritized,
    in terms of immigration enforcement.
        Let me first, though, indicate that an aspect of at least
    one of these cases that have come to my attention--and again, I
    am trying to just take cues from those cases. I know we can't
    adjudicate them here. But there is apparently a company policy
    that has to do with the places where people are apprehended,
    sensitive locations that might be involved.
        And I am reading here from a statement by Secretary
    Johnson--``When enforcing the immigration laws, our personnel
    will not, except in emergency circumstances, apprehend an
    individual at a place of worship, a school, a hospital or a
    doctor's office, or other sensitive location.''
        One of the troubling aspects of one of these cases is that
    a young man was picked up waiting for a school bus. But is
    there any reason to doubt that this is and should be and will
    be a department policy, as the secretary stated here?
        Ms. Saldana. We have it in writing, and I believe it is
    even posted on our--which I found kind of unusual--it is even
    posted on our website, our sensitive locations policy. We train
    on it.
        Mr. Price. All right.
        Ms. Saldana. We discuss it. We discuss situations where
    perhaps--because it is not all-encompassing. There is a
    recognition that there may be additional situations where some
    sensitivity is involved.
        And as I say, I have confidence that in 99.9 percent of the
    cases we make the right judgments with respect to that.
        Mr. Price. All right. I just wanted to confirm that that
    was, indeed, the policy and that this is a relevant concern to
    raise about cases that come to our attention.
        Ms. Saldana. And I just directed, Congressman, my field
    office directors to be sure to incorporate sensitive locations
    issues into their meetings with local communities and law
    enforcement.
        Mr. Price. Good.
        Now, let me return--we were rushed when you were going
    through these priority one categories and giving me percentage
    figures. The figures I have don't add up, so I want to ask you
    to revisit that.
        You said, I think, that maybe 42 percent category B. That
    is the one category that is not criminals or people who pose a
    danger, gang members. You said 42 percent were in that non-
    criminal category, and that is--I want to return to that.
        But then I don't have the figures on these other
    categories, I suppose, that add up, or maybe I misunderstood
    you. If you can give them now and then maybe make sure you
    confirm the numbers for the record.
        Ms. Saldana. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Price. Yes. When we are talking about the--do you
    have--you said 21 percent, I thought, for both of the felony
    categories, but maybe I misunderstood.
        Ms. Saldana. Well, it is 42 percent or recent border
    entrants, 1.5 percent for gang members, 20.8 percent--I am just
    picking on specific priorities. I think you had mentioned
    recent border entrants in particular. Aggravated felons and
    felons, 20.8 percent. And----
        Mr. Price. In category A, those suspected of terrorism?
        Ms. Saldana. I don't have that percentage in front of me,
    sir.
        Mr. Price. Well, it doesn't add up to 100 percent. That is
    my point.
        Ms. Saldana. Right. And I didn't intend for it to.
        Mr. Price. Okay, so what is--what--who is not here who has
    been apprehended? Are these from priority two or----
        Ms. Saldana. I can give you----
        Mr. Price [continuing]. Or other categories----
        Ms. Saldana. I can give you that top-to-bottom if you will
    allow me to go back to the office and fill that in.
        Mr. Price. Yes. That is what I am saying. If you can give
    us the final numbers. I think it is highly relevant to our
    discussion to----
        Ms. Saldana. I will do that.
        Mr. Price [continuing]. To put numbers on this.
        And then I guess I am still left with some uncertainty
    about who is prioritized here. You know, I say that with some
    regret because I think we all want to get this right. I know
    you do. We have worked for years to get this right, to
    prioritize dangerous people, to get our immigration enforcement
    priorities where they need to be.
        And you and your department have devoted considerable time
    and effort to this, working with Secure Communities, deciding
    finally it needed to be replaced with a more focused effort.
    And now I must say there is some similar confusion creeping
    into this enforcement regime.
        And these cases I mentioned do--maybe they involve people
    who are entering for a second time. They clearly involve people
    who are in the interior of the country. Maybe didn't show up
    for a hearing--you know, the circumstance is different.
        But in any case, these are not dangerous people. They are
    not dangerous criminals. It escapes me why they should be
    prioritized.
        So I am looking, I suppose, for yet more clarity, both in
    statement and in actually the way policies are executed, as to
    where we are going with this and what it means to say that it
    is national policy to give absolute priority to dangerous
    people when it comes to deportation.
        Ms. Saldana. Two parts, Congressman: the danger, and then
    the border security part, trying to stop the bleeding at the
    border.
        That is why we chose that January 2014 date. I say we chose
    it; I wasn't here.
        But that was why that date was picked is because recent
    border entrants, we are trying to send a message that our
    borders are not open. And so that is why some of those people
    who are not--who have no criminal record but who can't show
    that they have been in the country since before January 2014
    are not otherwise in the--or apprehended at the border, for
    example, are turned back.
        Mr. Price. Well, all I can say is that if you are turning
    people away immediately at the border, that is one thing. We
    know that you have to do that, and that does send an important
    message.
        I think it is quite another matter when you are pursuing
    people in the interior of the country who have been here, who
    are parts of families, they are working, whatever, they have
    become more or less integrated into communities, and you are
    singling them out based on the date at which they entered, or
    what? I mean, it doesn't take too many cases of this sort to
    send uncertainty and fear and apprehension through the entire
    community and----
        Ms. Saldana. There should be no uncertainty. It is January
    of 2014. It is specified in the priorities.
        Those people do need to have a concern about being removed.
    That is that is what we do.
        We have settled this issue--the secretary did when he
    issued that November 20, 2014 memo. The president is behind
    this effort because we need to do something about border
    security and stopping the flow.
        I understand we disagree on that particular priority. We
    seem to agree on criminals and aggravated felons. But that is
    the policy that has been decided upon and I certainly can see
    your point of view, sir, but the enforcement is where we are
    focused on with respect to recent border entrants.
        Mr. Price. Well, there is a problem here in the way this
    policy is presented because the basic presentation, which, as I
    say, I applaud, is that we have our priorities straight; we are
    going to go after people who pose a threat, and that is what
    deportation in the first instance is all about.
        Priority one is not just about that, although I think that
    is the way it is often presented, and so understandably, when
    people in the communities, in the interior of the country, are
    being fingered for enforcement action, then it causes great
    puzzlement because these people don't seem to fit what the
    declared policy is all about.
        Ms. Saldana. Millions don't fit that priority who arrived
    here before January of 2014. Millions. We don't go after those
    millions, but we have, for example in this recent operation,
    gone after and were able to apprehend 77.
        So it is a message that the secretary is committed to, and
    we are going to continue to enforce the law that way. And, sir,
    I understand your point and that you disagree with that policy,
    but that is the policy we are guided by.
        Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Mr. Price.
        And, Mr. Cuellar, you will bat cleanup.

                           ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Thank you so much.
        I want to support the chairman on the emphasis to the ATD,
    the alternatives to detention. And I certainly want to support
    the president's request for the $125 million--almost $126
    million.
        Could you just tell us what the cost is to do one of those
    alternatives compared to a cost of a detention for one
    individual compared to--what does it cost to provide the
    alternative to detention, and what does it cost to have
    somebody in the detention? I know I have seen those numbers
    before. You might not have them, but if you can get back to us,
    I would appreciate it.
        Ms. Saldana. Absolutely will, sir. I know we have those
    numbers. That is how we constructed the number we had. But I--
    it escapes me at this moment.
        Mr. Cuellar. Yes. If you could just have somebody get back
    to us.
        Probably the other this is I am a big believer--again, I am
    on the border. I am one of those Democrats who believes in law
    and order and the border even though immigration reform is
    extremely important to me. But I believe in extending the
    defense from the 1-yard line.

                                OPERATION COYOTE

        Tell us how--and I assume you are still doing Operation
    Coyote?
        Ms. Saldana. Yes.
        Mr. Cuellar. Yes. And I know that was--has been successful.
    I have looked at some of the numbers.
        This is my last question: Can you just tell us how that is
    coming along and how you are working with our neighbors to the
    south, also?
        Ms. Saldana. Absolutely. I am happy to do that.
        So this is Homeland Security Investigations, and we want to
    break the backs of smuggling organizations, and that is why we
    have targeted Operation Coyote, Coyote 2.0, and it is just a
    constant part of our work.
        Those are pretty much like pretty bad people who will focus
    on vulnerable people who need--who feel like they need to come
    into our country and will do it even illegally. So we have a
    tremendous network of information, working with the government
    of Mexico in particular, and also the governments of Central
    America. Tremendous amount of information, and this is where
    our TCIUs--transnational criminal investigation units.
        And if I can just tell you, I know you probably know this,
    but this is using local law enforcement in these governments to
    assist us with finding these smuggling organizations and
    prosecuting them either in Mexico or, if they are part of an
    international operation, bringing them to the United States for
    prosecution.
        We have had good numbers. I think I mentioned overall the
    numbers with respect to the transnational criminal
    organizations that we have broken. But it is very much an
    important part of what HSI does and they do it very well.
        Fortunately, we have attaches in Mexico and all three
    Central American government countries, and they help us
    immensely in trying to do our domestic operations with respect
    to smuggling organizations.
        Mr. Cuellar. Right. And I want to thank you, because the
    more we do outside the U.S. border the better it is, because
    otherwise we will get into do we have detention centers, will
    we not have detention centers, how do we take care of folks, do
    we do this, do we deport people after this, and immigration,
    federal order there, what do we do. And again, the more we can
    do outside and work with those countries and extend our
    security, the better it is.
        Again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking woman--
    yes. And I want to thank the chairman and the ranking woman for
    their work.
        And I know as we put this budget together we want to thank
    you and the men and women that work for you.
        At this time we will yield to my good friend from
    California.

                              PRIORITY ENFORCEMENT

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Congressman, for yielding.
        I just wanted to just quickly respond to something that
    Congressman Culberson was asking. He had mentioned Los Angeles,
    as to whether or not Los Angeles would detain folks for you
    after the notification, and the answer is no.
        It isn't just an issue of ``just say no.'' I just wanted to
    make the point that constitutional issues are involved. There
    is some question right now about what constitutes probable
    cause. That is one reason.
        And secondly, local governments in Los Angeles, our budgets
    are already stretched, our jails are overcrowded as it is, and
    to be able to detain someone without any end to it until ICE
    gets around to it is problematic.
        Also, the fact that when they are being detained by local
    government, they do not get reimbursed by the Federal
    Government. That comes out of the local budget. And that is a
    big, big issue for local law enforcement.
        So I just wanted to throw that into the mix, in terms of
    responding to your question. Thank you.
        Mr. Cuellar. Yield back. Well I don't have any time, but I
    yield back the balance.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
        Mr. Carter. Under a higher court order, having to oversee
    overcrowdedness at a jail, those are valid arguments that Ms.
    Roybal-Allard makes.
        Mr. Culberson. May I?
        Mr. Carter. Yes.
        Mr. Culberson. Let me just say I understand what you are
    talking about, that that is--but that is their local decision.
    If they choose not to honor detainers, if they choose not to
    cooperate with ICE, if they choose not to share information
    with ICE, that is their local decision.
        But federal law requires them to share information. Federal
    law does require them to cooperate with ICE.
        And if they choose not to follow federal law, then that is
    their decision but don't ask for federal money. They are not
    eligible for federal grant money. That is an obligation of
    every federal agency, federal--local jurisdictions have to
    comply with federal law to be eligible for federal grant money,
    and that is my only point.
        They can keep their--if they want to keep their policy
    where they don't honor detainers they can do so, but don't ask
    for federal money.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. L.A. is involved with the PEP program,
    so they are following----
        Mr. Culberson. Correct. I am glad they are honoring--I am
    glad they are working on the PEP program. But they are not
    cooperating with ICE; they are not honoring detainers as
    federal law requires, so therefore they are not eligible for
    federal law enforcement grant money.
        They can keep their policy. Just don't ask for federal
    money.

                             DETENTION ALTERNATIVES

        Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Chairman? I am sorry I gotta change the
    subject, but I want to follow up on what the chairman
    mentioned. I am changing the subject a little bit. I apologize.
        On this alternatives, I agree with the chairman about
    having monthly reporting. And I don't know what your logistics
    are. Maybe you are doing that.
        But if you have monthly reporting on the alternatives, at
    least we know if somebody is doing what they are supposed to be
    doing. And you could take it to another level and maybe go to
    detention if they are not reporting.
        I mean, it is a very cost-effective, but we have got to
    have some sort of performance measures on them. And I don't
    know if you do, but if we can do it at the local level, I know
    in Texas we do that--we have got to be able to report.
        And I don't know what the logistics are on a national
    basis.
        Ms. Saldana. And I will explain it to you more clearly in
    written form, Congressman, but I know that we do some
    assessment. As I say, that is why I said that it--we are very
    satisfied that it has been successful on the small scale that
    we are doing it.
        I mean, 25,000, now 53,000, is not that big. But I can get
    you more detail on that.
        Mr. Cuellar. Well, if we are going to add--and I don't want
    to speak for the chairman, but if we are going to add some
    money to alternatives, we have got to have some accountability,
    and a monthly--if it can be done across the country on the
    local basis, we can certainly do it.
        Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Carter. All right.
        Well, thank you for this day. We almost got out of here at
    12 o'clock. We got a little wordy right there at the end.
        But we thank you for this, and we will be in recess.
        Ms. Saldana. Congressman, can I just----
        Mr. Carter. We will adjourn.
        Ms. Saldana. Can you reopen?
        Mr. Carter. Yes.
        Ms. Saldana. Okay. Just for me to say, I gotta tell you, I
    appreciate every viewpoint that is expressed here. I have a
    good understanding of some of the issues involved.
        I appreciate the courtesies you all extend to me. I have
    actually been in hearings where people scream and yell at me
    and it hurts my feelings tremendously, but I have always--I
    felt like this was a committee that I can deal with, and I look
    forward to continuing our relationship.
        Mr. Carter. We are all trying to meet the same goals. Thank
    you.
        Ms. Saldana. Thank you, sir.
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               W I T N E S S E S

                                  ----------                              --
    --------
                                                                       Page
    Clancy, Joseph...................................................   257
    Johnson, Hon. J. C...............................................     1
    Kerlikowske, R. G................................................   113
    Neffenger, Peter.................................................   173
    Saldana, Sarah...................................................   303
    Zukunft, Admiral P. F............................................   219

                                   I N D E X

                                  ----------                              --
    --------
                                                                       Page
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).......................     1
        Airport Wait Times...........................................    59
        BioWatch Gen-2...............................................    41
        Budgetary Priorities.........................................    26
        Counterdrug Interdiction: Coast Guard........................    38
        Countering Violent Extremism.................................    31
        Cyber Attacks:
            Electromagnetic Pulses...................................    46
            Information-Sharing with State Governments...............    40
        H-2B Visa Process............................................    35
        Icebreaker Acquisition.......................................    52
        Immigration Enforcement:
            Cuban Adjustment Act.....................................    58
            Deportations.............................................    57
            Detention................................................    53
            Family Detention Centers.................................    60
            Interior Enforcement Efforts, Detention Beds.............    49
            Operation Phalanx........................................    33
            Policy...................................................    29
            Priority Enforcement Program.............................    50
            U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents..........    51
        Joint Task Forces............................................    61
        National Security Cutters....................................    56
        Opening Statement: Secretary Johnson.........................     7
        Science and Technology Directorate's Budget..................    56
        Temporary Protected Status: El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala.    39
        U.S. Government Accountability Office:
            Einstein Report..........................................    28
            High-Risk List...........................................    27
        Urban Area Security Initiative...............................    29

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).........................   113
        Opening Statement: Chairman Carter...........................   113
        Opening Statement: Ranking Member Roybal-Allard..............   117
        Opening Statement: Commissioner Kerlikowske..................   119
        CBP Staffing.................................................   141
        Border Security

        Unaccompanied Children.......................................   144
        Drug Trafficking and Abuse

        Visa Waiver Program

        Social Media.................................................   151
        Integrated Fixed Towers

        Border Security Metrics......................................   158
        Law Enforcement Cameras......................................   159
        Use of Force Policy..........................................   160
        Intelligence.................................................   161
        Cargo Screening and Preclearance.............................   162
        Forward Operating Bases......................................   164
        Export Enforcement...........................................   164
        Foreign Students.............................................   165
        CBP Staffing: Trade..........................................   166
        National Guard...............................................   166
    Transportation Security Administration (TSA).....................   173
        Opening Statement: Chairman Carter...........................   173
        Opening Statement: Ranking Member Lowey......................   175
        Opening Statement: Ranking Member Roybal-Allard..............   177
        Opening Statement: Administrator Neffenger...................   179
        Checkpoint Security..........................................   194
        Checkpoint Security: Response to OIG Testing

        Transportation Security Officers: Collective Bargaining

        Vetting: Aviation Workers....................................   197
        Checkpoint Security: Disproportionate Focus on Efficiency....   199
        TSA Pre ': Improved Safety.................   202
        Fee Increase Proposal: Offsets...............................   203
        Transportation Security Officers: Hours and Pay Schedule.....   207
        National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program............   207
        National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program: Private
          Sector Canine Teams........................................   208
        Checked Baggage Screening: Preclearance Airports.............   209
        Airports Security: Non-sterile Areas.........................   210
        TSA Pre ': Private Sector Enrollment
          Expansion

        TSA Pre ': Enrollment Targets..............   211
        Secure Flight: Use for Expedited Screening...................   212
        Expedited Screening: Future Expectations.....................   212
        Checkpoint Security: Risk-Based Security.....................   213
        Federal Air Marshals Service.................................   214

    United States Coast Guard (USCG).................................   219
        Opening Statement: Chairman Carter...........................   219
        Opening Statement: Congressman David Price (standing in for
          Ranking Member Roybal-Allard)..............................   223
        Opening Statement: Commandant Zunkunft.......................   223

    United States Secret Service (USSS)..............................   257
        Opening Statement: Chairman Carter...........................   257
        Cooperation with Mexico......................................   299
        Coordination with DHS Science and Technology

        Counterfeiting: Peru.........................................   280
        Cyber-crime..................................................   283
        Hiring Process...............................................   302
        Opening Statement: Director Clancy...........................   262
        Personnel Accountability.....................................   286
        Personnel Misconduct.........................................   282
        Presidential Campaign........................................   284
        Presidential Nominating Conventions..........................   290
        Protective Mission Panel.....................................   281
        Radio System: National Capital Region........................   291
        Radio Systems: Field Offices.................................   292
        Staffing.....................................................   275
        Unmanned Aircraft Systems....................................   294
        White House Fence............................................   292
        White House Training Facility................................   288

    U.S. Immigration and Customs (ICE)...............................   303
        Opening Statement: Chairman Carter...........................   303
        Opening Statement: Ranking Member Roybal-Allard..............   306
        Opening Statement: Director Saldana..........................   310
        Priority Enforcement Program.................................   329
        Release of Criminal Aliens...................................   331
        Priority Enforcement

        Employment...................................................   333
        Family Detention.............................................   334
        Hiring.......................................................   335
        Detainers....................................................   336
        Alternative to Detention

        Family Enforcement...........................................   340
        ICE Releases.................................................   342
        Operation Coyote.............................................   347

                                      [all]