[Senate Hearing 114-622]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-622
THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2017
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 8, 2016
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-767 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
David S. Luckey, Director of Homeland Security
William H.W. McKenna, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
Brooke N. Ericson, Deputy Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
Gabriel S. Sudduth, Senior Professional Staff Member
Shad A. Thomas, U.S. Coast Guard Detailee
Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Stephen R. Vina, Minority Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
Abigail A. Shenkle, Minority Professional Staff Member
Marian P. Gibson, Minority U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Benjamin C. Grazda, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Johnson.............................................. 1
Senator Carper............................................... 2
Senator Portman.............................................. 10
Senator Tester............................................... 12
Senator Baldwin.............................................. 14
Senator Heitkamp............................................. 16
Senator Booker............................................... 17
Senator Peters............................................... 20
Senator Ayotte............................................... 21
Senator Ernst................................................ 23
Senator McCain............................................... 35
Prepared statements:
Senator Johnson.............................................. 39
Senator Carper............................................... 41
WITNESS
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Hon. Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 43
APPENDIX
Charts submitted by Senator Johnson.............................. 60
Response to post-hearing questions submitted by Secretary Johnson 62
THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2017
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, Lankford,
Ayotte, Ernst, Sasse, Carper, Tester, Baldwin, Heitkamp,
Booker, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing is called to
order.
Let me first thank Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Secretary Jeh Johnson for coming before the Committee. I know
you have done this a few times, and I know you also did it a
little bit earlier than you necessarily wanted to, so I truly
appreciate that.
I also want to just thank you for your service. I cannot
imagine this is a real thank-filled position. It is a serious
responsibility. I know you are a serious individual and you are
trying to do everything you can to keep this Nation safe and
secure, I really do appreciate your efforts working with a
difficult agency--a difficult Department. It is never easy to
consolidate 22 different agencies with different cultures. It
has taken some time to do it. But, I think you have brought the
right approach to the job here, so I truly appreciate your
efforts.
For our own part here, I want to thank all of the Members
of the Committee for coming here. It is an important hearing.
When I became Chairman, I sat down with the former
Chairman, now my wingman, Senator Carper, and the first thing
we did
was--because of my business background, I thought it was very
helpful to have a mission statement, and so, we quickly
developed a mission statement for the Committee. It is pretty
simple: To enhance the economic and national security of
America. You cannot separate those two. They go hand in hand.
And, then, based on that, on the homeland security side of
the Committee, we established 5 priorities. I am not saying
these are the order of the priorities. They are all top
priorities, but border security--we have held 14 hearings on
border security, alone. We have taken trips down to the border,
to Central America. The border is not secure.
Cybersecurity--as General Keith Alexander said, it is the
greatest transfer of wealth in human history--these cyber
attacks. And, so, this Committee, working in a very bipartisan
fashion, passed out of Committee the Federal Cybersecurity
Enhancement Act of 2016 and married that up with the Senate
intel bill. It is a first step. It is not a panacea, but it is
a first step.
The third priority is protecting our critical
infrastructure, including our electrical grid. I understand
that Ted Koppel has written a book, ``Lights Out'', talking
about the vulnerabilities involved in that. That is something
this Committee has to do more work on.
And, the fourth priority concerns what we can do, as a
Committee and as a Federal Government, to counter Islamic
terrorists and other violent extremists.
And, then, the fifth priority--and this is really kind of
the purpose of this hearing, from my standpoint--is to commit
this Committee--commit myself--to do everything we can to
assist the Secretary, as well as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey and the National
Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) Director Nick Rasmussen, in
succeeding in their missions of keeping this Nation safe.
And, so, what this hearing is all about is the budget. This
is providing the funds in what I would consider a top priority
of government, the defense of this Nation--the defense of this
Homeland. So, I want to really have this hearing focus on those
threats and what we can do to keep this Nation safe and secure,
so that America can be prosperous, because national security
and economic security go hand in hand.
So, I do ask consent that my written statement be entered
in the record,\1\ but again, Secretary Johnson, thank you for
coming here. Thank you for your service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. And, I will turn it over to Senator
Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, great to see you, and I want to echo the
Chairman's comments thanking you for your leadership. Some of
your leadership team is here and we have had a chance to spend
time with them as of late and we are grateful for their service
and the approximately 220,000 people that you collectively lead
at the Department of Homeland Security. Thank you for joining
us today to discuss the President's budget proposal for fiscal
year (FY) 2017.
As you know, the President has requested a little over $40
billion--$40.6 billion to be exact--in discretionary funding
for DHS. It is roughly a one percent decrease from the budget
enacted this last year. And while I am pleased that the many
vital Homeland Security missions are funded in this budget
request, I do have some concerns about several of the proposals
and the impact that they may have on the Department and on our
ability to do our collective jobs.
I understand the need to do more with less as part of our
efforts to continue to bring down our Nation's deficit and
debt. Making additional progress is critical for the well-being
of our Nation and our economy. But, while doing so, we also
need to make sure that the Department has the funds that it
needs to keep the American people safe against the constantly
evolving and growing threats that we face as a Nation.
I am concerned, for example, by the proposal to cut funding
for several Department of Homeland Security grants. In fact,
some grants would be cut by as much as 35 percent. These funds
are vital to helping our communities better prepare for major
disasters and terrorist attacks. In Boston, for example, we all
recall how the Department of Homeland Security grants were
critical in training first responders and preparing the
community to respond, as they did, to the Boston Marathon
bombings.
I also have questions about the fee increases proposed in
the budget for aviation security. I know that raising these
fees has not always been popular with some in the Congress, but
I have always felt that if something is worth having, it is
worth paying for, and that is why I supported reasonable fee
increases that will help the Department of Homeland Security
carry out its missions. However, if Congress does not raise
these aviation fees, there will be roughly a $900 million hole
in the budget for the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA)--a $900 million hole--and that is deeply concerning. I
hope we can all come together and find a sensible solution to
this challenge.
Despite these areas of concern, there are a number of
positive items included in this budget request. I will mention
a few of them. For example, there is a sizable investment, over
$1 billion, in cybersecurity. That is a 30-percent increase, I
believe, over last year, for the budget. This new funding will
help the Department to carry out several laws that this
Committee has worked hard to pass over the past several years,
and I thank my colleagues here for all of their work in doing
that--really working with us over the last 3 years.
For instance, the budget request includes needed increases
for Einstein and for cybersecurity tools to better secure our
Federal networks. There is also funding for additional cyber
personnel as well as for the information sharing portal that
Congress called for creating at DHS.
The proposed budget also continues our recent investments
in border security. I was particularly pleased to see increases
in funding for valuable force multipliers, equipment such as
aerostats, airplanes, helicopters, vehicles, boats,
surveillance towers, drones, and fixed-wing aircrafts, that can
help our men and women on the ground be more effective along
our border with Mexico.
I was also pleased to see that the budget request continues
to make countering violent extremism (CVE) here at home a high
priority by funding the Office of Community Partnerships. Last
month, this Committee successfully marked up my legislation
that would codify this office. I thank the Chairman and others
for their support. I think we passed it out of the Committee
unanimously. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary,
and the Director of the Office, George Selim, as well as our
colleagues, to advance this important bill through the Senate.
Finally, I have also been quite encouraged to see funding
for the ongoing consolidation of the Department's headquarters
at St. Elizabeth's. Completing this project will ultimately
save taxpayers more than $700 million over the next 30 years by
cutting down the number of costly leases we use to house DHS
personnel.
Mr. Secretary, let me close by recognizing your leadership,
along with that of your Deputy, Ale Mayorkas, as well as the
efforts of your senior staff--some of whom are here today--and
of the over 200,000 rank and file DHS employees in support of
your ``Unity of Effort Initiative.'' Along with the Members of
our Committee's staffs, the Chairman and I are working
diligently to move legislation that would codify a number of
your proposed reforms, and we look forward to hearing more
today about how we can work together to ensure the Department
has the tools, the resources, and the authorities it needs to
grow stronger and to work even more effectively.
Again, thank you for joining us today. We look forward to
your testimony and to our conversation.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
witnesses, so if you will please rise and raise your right
hand.
Do you swear the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Secretary Johnson. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
Secretary Jeh Johnson is the fourth Secretary of Homeland
Security. Prior to joining DHS, Secretary Johnson served as
General Counsel for the Department of Defense (DOD), where he
was part of the senior management team and led more than 10,000
military and civilian lawyers across the Department.
Secretary Johnson's career has included extensive service
in national security and law enforcement. He has also practiced
as an attorney in private corporate law. Secretary Johnson.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEH C. JOHNSON,\1\ SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Johnson. Every time I hear that, I keep thinking,
I have to rewrite that bio. People think it is more impressive
that I ran an organization of 10,000 versus an organization of
200,000 people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, you have my
written statement.
This year's budget submission, as I think Senator Carper
has accurately outlined, reflects hard and difficult choices to
fit within the budget caps. Because we had to make hard
choices, there are some things that I wish we could have funded
at higher levels that we do not in this budget request.
Let me say that I appreciate very much the true partnership
that I think we have had at DHS with the Members of this
Committee and what I believe to be a very effective bipartisan
working relationship with Members of this Committee. Just since
I have been Secretary, I think, together, we have accomplished
a lot.
Going back to even before I was confirmed and I began
courtesy calls with members of this Committee, I took to heart
the message I received from you about the importance of
management reform--reforming the way in which our Department
does business.
Overall, my goal as Secretary, for the remaining 319 days I
am in office, is to leave the Department of Homeland Security
in a better place than I found it. What that means is improving
the efficiency and the effectiveness by which we deliver
homeland security to the American public.
The centerpiece for that, as you know, has been our ``Unity
of Effort Initiative,'' under which we have established joint
task forces for border security on the Southwest and Southeast
borders. We have established a Joint Requirements Council (JRC)
to improve our acquisition practices and efficiency. We have
beefed up our Office of Immigration Statistics. We are, as many
of you know, developing better border metrics for evaluating
and measuring border security as well as total attempts to
cross the border under an initiative that we started called
``BorderStat.'' I appreciate the advice and input I have
received from Members of this Committee in this regard. We have
initiated something called the ``Data Framework Initiative'' to
better integrate data that we collect within the Department, so
that the data, itself, is not stovepiped and is effectively
utilized against all of our databases.
This Committee helped us through the authorization of a
number of activities, so that they are cemented into law,
institutionalized, and will go beyond my job as Secretary and
the time I have as Secretary.
I appreciate the effort, and I have reviewed the
legislative language of this Committee to institutionalize our
joint task forces, our Joint Requirements Council, and our
joint duty, to elevate the Office of Policy within DHS to the
Under Secretary level and to elevate the importance of that
Office of Policy, which I think is indispensable to our ``Unity
of Effort Initiative.''
Thank you, Senators, for passing out of this Committee
legislation to specifically authorize our Office for Community
Partnerships, which spearheads our CVE efforts.
We also believe it is important to consolidate our Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and health affairs functions
more effectively and efficiently around our Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (CBRNE) Office,
which is in pending legislation right now.
I also support the restructuring of the National Protection
and Programs Directorate (NPPD) into a more streamlined,
effective, and operational cybersecurity and infrastructure
protection agency.
I know that we have been working effectively with your
staffs on authorizing a number of these things. I fully support
this effort and hope that we can continue to work down this
path in the future.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I want to go right to community partnerships, because you
just mentioned that. In a briefing with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation officials, I was struck by one of the comments
that, when officials go into communities--Muslim communities--
and talk about youth that may be, potentially, radicalized,
oftentimes, members of the community think we have perfect
information, that we know exactly who might be prone to
radicalization. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Can you speak a little bit about it, in terms of what you
are trying to do in terms of engagement that way.
Secretary Johnson. Yes. Thank you for that question. Given
the nature of the problem and the nature of the current threat,
which, in the homeland, includes terrorist-inspired attacks,
law enforcement and the U.S. Government is not always in a
position to know about someone who is self-radicalizing. It is
the case, however, that, in almost every instance I can think
of concerning a self-radicalized actor, somebody close to that
person was in a position to know.
So, since I have been Secretary, I have made our CVE
efforts a top priority. I think these efforts are fundamental
to the Department of Homeland Security's missions. So, the
first goal is to build bridges with communities, including
Muslim communities. I have personally traveled to almost every
major metropolitan area in this country that has a significant
Muslim population, and when I go, I want to be sure that State
and local law enforcement is with me. So, the goal is to simply
build bridges with these communities to say, ``help us help
you,'' and, ``if you see something, say something.''
Beyond that, the mandates that I have given our Office for
Community Partnerships are to engage the technology sector, so
that the technology sector helps communities amplify the
counter-message to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL), and to engage philanthropies. How can philanthropies
help and support a lot of community activities?
I am pleased that, in this year's budget, we have money for
our CVE efforts, and, in this year's budget submission for
2017, we have also requested some money for our CVE efforts.
But, those are basically my three goals for our CVE efforts
and I believe they are as important as any other Department of
Homeland Security mission right now, given the nature of the
threat we face.
Chairman Johnson. OK. And again, I appreciate your efforts
that way. I think that, probably, one of the most important
things we can do is to engage those communities in a positive
way.
I do have to bring up unaccompanied children (UAC). I think
we are still at, or possibly beyond, crisis proportions here,
largely because--and, listen, we went down to the border. We
were incredibly impressed with what your Department did
addressing the crisis in 2014. But, we have gotten more
efficient at apprehending, at processing, and at dispersing,
and Senator Portman held a great hearing in the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) on the depredations of
some of these children who have been processed and dispersed,
and we have kind of lost track of them.
I want to just talk about the numbers. Through January of
this year, we have had 16,438 unaccompanied children from
Central America. That compares to 11,034 in fiscal year 2014.
So, if we just did the math on that, just prorate that, in
2014, we had 51,705 unaccompanied children come in. This was
the crisis year. If we maintain this pace, we will have 77,000
in 2016.
Now, we have not gotten the February 14 numbers. That would
be my first question. How many unaccompanied children were
apprehended, processed, and, probably, dispersed in February?
Secretary Johnson. Well, I want to compare numbers with
you. I am looking at my latest and best, in terms of UAC
numbers. You are correct that in the fall of 2015, we saw an
increase. Fiscal year 2014--we saw the spike in the summer of
2014 that everybody knows about. Fiscal year 2015, after the
things we put in place, we had a pretty good year. It was down
significantly from fiscal year 2014. In terms of total
apprehensions on the Southwest border, it was the second lowest
number since 1972, in terms of total apprehensions.
In the fall--in October, November, and December--we saw an
increase in UACs. The number was 6,775 in the month of
December. In January, the number went down by more than half.
Chairman Johnson. This is just the chart,\1\ in terms of
the total, by fiscal year, through 2015. So, we had the spike
in 2014: 51,000. Last year, it went down to 28,000. But, again,
my point is, just in the first 4 months for which I had
numbers, if you annualize those numbers, we would be up to
77,000 for fiscal year 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Johnson. Well, I was just getting to that. In
January, we saw a significant dropoff, down to 3,111. In
February 2016, there were 3,113 UACs. The March number so far--
we are only 7 or 8 days into March--is pretty much at the same
pace as February--slightly higher.
As I think everybody here knows, in early January, we began
a series of public, concerted efforts in interior enforcement
that focused on families, but we have also focused on just
about every other population that has entered this country
recently. Those apprehended at the border are a top priority.
We focused more recently on those who came into the country as
children or adults--and those people are in removal
proceedings.
The total number of those sent back to Central America this
fiscal year is just over 28,000. The total number sent back to
Mexico, either by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), this fiscal year, is
around 128,000. So, those are pretty significant numbers. And,
so, we are sending a very public message that, if you come here
illegally, and if you do not have a valid claim for asylum and
you have been ordered to be deported by an Immigration Court,
we will send you back--and I have been very public about that.
Chairman Johnson. But, again, the point being--again, in
February 2014--I did not have the numbers for 2016 to compare--
there were about 3,400 unaccompanied children coming in from
Central America. So, you are saying in February 2016, it was
about 3,100?
Secretary Johnson. The February 2014 number was 4,840.
Chairman Johnson. So, again, one of the reasons I want
border metrics is so we are talking about the same----
Secretary Johnson. Well, I am happy to share this.
Chairman Johnson. OK, and we will take a look at that. But,
the bottom line----
Secretary Johnson. The February numbers were lower.
Chairman Johnson [continuing]. We are pretty darn close,
and if you annualize where we are in fiscal year 2016, we would
be looking at 77,000 this year, versus 51,000 in the crisis
year of 2015. I mean, we can massage the numbers a little bit,
but it is pretty darn close.
Secretary Johnson. I do not think that is accurate, sir.
Chairman Johnson. What do you have year to date through
February--unaccompanied children from--not by month, but year
to date?
Secretary Johnson. Year to date, UACs this fiscal year, we
have 23,553.
Chairman Johnson. So, in 4 months, we are up to 23,000
already.
Secretary Johnson. 23,553----
Chairman Johnson. 23,000. So, that is just in 4 months.
Secretary Johnson. 5 months.
Chairman Johnson. OK. That is through 5 months. We are
still at a pretty high pace. We will compare those figures.
Secretary Johnson. The numbers are high. Definitely, the
numbers are high. They are higher than I would like them to be.
But, I have not done the math and I am not sure that they are
at the same February 2014 pace. But, again, I am happy to share
these with you, sir.
Chairman Johnson. We will look at that. But, again, my
point is that 2014 was a crisis. Right now, I think we are
running ahead of 2014 levels from the numbers I am getting----
Secretary Johnson. I do not believe that is true.
Chairman Johnson. Well, we will compare notes, because I am
just talking about from Central America.
I have run out of time. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. I just ran the numbers really quickly, and
just from shorthand, back-of-the-envelope numbers, if we are at
24,000 through the first 5 months, that would, I think, equate
to an annual number--if it holds for the next 7 months--we
would be looking at about 57,000. I think that is how it works
out.
Secretary Johnson. I think the difference here may be,
Senator, that you are looking at Central America numbers. I am
looking at the total numbers.
Senator Carper. OK.
Secretary Johnson. That may be the difference.
Senator Carper. OK. Let us just stick with Central America
for just a moment. I want to applaud the Administration for
deciding to, not just to support force multipliers on the
border--that is important. We need to invest not just in Border
Patrol officers, but we need to invest in fixed-wing aircraft.
We need unmanned aircraft. We need to invest in helicopters,
boats, and motion detectors--all of the above. And, the
Administration's budget actually calls for a very small
reduction--I think by maybe 300 out of maybe 21,000 or 22,000
Border Patrol officers--but a significant investment in
technology that will enable the Border Patrol officers that we
do have deployed to be more effective--and I applaud that.
My colleagues have heard me say more than a few times, with
respect to Central America and the flow of unaccompanied
children and families--they are not coming from Mexico. As we
know now, there are more Mexicans going back into Mexico from
the United States than coming from Mexico into the United
States. And, for the most part--the flow of these numbers
actually represent people, but most of them are coming from
Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.
We spent, over the last decade, a quarter-of-a-trillion
dollars to strengthen our border with Mexico. In the same 10
years, we spent less than 1 percent of that quarter-of-a-
trillion dollars to address the root causes for why all of
these folks are trying to get out of Honduras, Guatemala, and
El Salvador to make it to our country.
The Chairman and I have been down there. Others have been
down there. They lack hope. They lack economic opportunity.
There is rampant violence. And it is actually a situation that
we are complicit in, because we buy drugs. We are addicted to
the drugs. They flow through those countries. And, we send
money and guns down to those countries and make life miserable
for the people who live there. They want to leave and they want
to come here.
And, rather than just build our fences and walls and so
forth, we need to also--while it is important, border security
is hugely important, we also need to address the underlying
root causes.
They have come up with their own plan. It is like a ``Plan
Colombia'' that was very successful in turning Colombia around.
The plan in Central America, among the three countries of
Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, is called the ``Alliance
for Prosperity.'' It focuses on governance--the ability to
govern. Number 2 is security and rule of law. And, number 3 is
economic development.
And, the idea is not for us to literally turn over American
tax dollars to those governments to focus on those three items.
They have to raise their own money. And, what we do is we
provide funding that goes through our own efforts, through a
nonprofit organization. I think it is a very smart strategy. We
need to be able to walk and chew gum, and I think with the
Administration's proposal, we will do that--and I applaud that.
The Chairman has already touched on the unaccompanied minor
surge with you. Let me just say, the numbers for the first 3
months of the fiscal year were very concerning. The numbers for
the months of January and February are much better, and I think
you sent a message. I think maybe that message has been
received by the folks down there that would otherwise want to
try to come up here.
I want to focus, for the last minute or so that I have, on
the impact of DHS fees, and their impact on the Department of
Homeland Security and on the public. Mr. Secretary, could you
just talk a little bit about why we need to increase some of
the fees--I think 2 of them that CBP and TSA collect. What will
be the impact on the average American if those fees are
increased slightly? What will be the impact on the Department
of Homeland Security if we do not support the fee increases
that the Administration has requested?
Secretary Johnson. Let me begin by saying that the budget
request, as I said before, does reflect hard choices to stay
within the caps. Part of our request is a request for
authorization of the fee increase, with respect to air
passengers, and the increased airline fee. The proposed
increase would restore revenue fees from the airlines. I
believe the amount is $470 million.
Senator Carper. Is that about a dollar a plane ticket?
Secretary Johnson. Well, that is for the airlines.
Senator Carper. OK.
Secretary Johnson. The proposed passenger fee increase, I
believe, is $5.60 to $6.60. That is a dollar increase.
The underlying rationale for the proposed fee increase is
that it goes to pay for aviation security and border entry at
airports and that those who use the system--as opposed to
taxpayers, generally--should help a little more in paying for
those things--in paying for those services for aviation
security.
My recollection is that these two proposals would generate
about $900 million in revenue for the Department. If these are
not increased, we are going to have a real problem finding how
to pay for aviation security. Aviation security right now,
given the world environment, in my judgment, is critical for
the Congress to support. I was very pleased by this year's
budget and next year's budget request. We have held the line on
Transportation Security Officers (TSOs). We are not reducing
them anymore. And Administrator Peter Neffenger and I are
making a number of other investments in aviation security. We
need help to pay for that. Right now, I believe aviation
security is critical, given the world situation.
Senator Carper. And I agree. Thank you so much.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Portman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
Johnson, it is good to have you before the Committee again.
I have so many questions for you, I do not know where to
begin, but I am going to, if I could, try to get some rapid
responses to four issues.
First is an issue, as you know, we are dealing with right
now on the floor of the U.S. Senate, which is this epidemic of
prescription drug and heroin addiction and overdoses. We will
lose probably 25 people in Ohio, this week, and 100 people in
America, today, to overdoses. We understand that this heroin is
primarily coming from Mexico, over the border. We recently had
testimony in the House Judiciary Committee from the Texas
Director of Public Safety saying this porous border with Mexico
provides cartels reliable means to infiltrate this country--to
smuggle and traffic drugs and people in the United States. He
talked about some of the cartels and what they engage in.
Can you give us a sense of what we could be doing better to
interdict these drugs, to keep them from coming into the United
States, and, specifically, tell us, if you could, what percent
of the heroin coming in is apprehended and stopped at the
border and what percent is coming into our communities.
Secretary Johnson. Well, a couple of things. One, most of
the heroin that is brought into the country is over land--not
by sea. The Coast Guard is focused on this, but most of it is
smuggled by land. I do know that the percentage of heroin--
interdicted by CBP that was smuggled--those numbers--that
volume has gone up between last year and the year before. That
has been going up because of our sustained, enhanced efforts.
This is an effort that our Joint Task Forces (JTFs) have
undertaken. It is an effort that CBP has undertaken. And, it is
an effort that ICE's Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) has
undertaken as well.
I do not have, sitting here, an estimate of what percentage
is interdicted versus what percentage gets through. If we have
that number, I will see if I can provide it for you.
Senator Portman. That would be helpful. The number that you
hear commonly is that 9 out of 10 of these packages of heroin,
which are killing our constituents and the people we represent,
are getting through, and----
Secretary Johnson. I do know that the volume of seizures by
CBP and by HSI has been going up lately.
Senator Portman. I would love to follow up with you on that
and figure out how we can do a better job. I mean, this
legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act
of 2016 (CARA), before the Senate today, focuses more on
prevention, treatment, recovery, helping law enforcement, and
so on. But one of the issues, obviously, that many of my
colleagues and I are concerned about is how do you stem this
flow and, therefore, increase the price, because one of the
issues is prescription drugs are being replaced by heroin
because the price is so low--and it is flooding our
communities.
On the unaccompanied children issue, as you know, we held a
hearing at the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on this
issue. This is where unaccompanied children come in, and we
talked about the numbers. It looks like, as you said, the
numbers are going to be high again this year--although you have
made some progress in the last couple of months. The fact is
that we have thousands of these kids in detention with the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). You do not
detain them, HHS does, and HHS releases these children to
adults who are called sponsors. The idea is they go to these
sponsors because they can come to an immigration hearing.
Sadly, what we found out in our investigation was that some
of these children were actually placed, not with sponsors who
were family members or surrogates of family members, but with
actual traffickers. And, in Ohio, we had kids from Guatemala
who ended up at an egg farm being exploited, working 6 to 7
days a week, 12 hours a day, and having their paychecks taken
away from them by traffickers. These traffickers got the kids
from the Department of Health and Human Services.
My question to you is very simple this morning. Are you
aware of this, first, and, second, are you working with HHS to
come up with a way to actually implement legislation that is
currently in place, which would prohibit these children from
being placed with traffickers.
Secretary Johnson. I am aware of these very unfortunate
situations, including the one in Ohio, sir. I know that HHS
Secretary Sylvia Burwell is very focused on the placement of
the children. It is her legal obligation. And, together, we
have been working on ensuring adequate placement consistent
with the law.
Senator Portman. You do have a role here. As you know, we
have, in our report, indicated that HHS can work better with
DHS to try to address this issue.
Final question--I have more, but--is just this issue of
social media and terrorism. We saw with regard to the San
Bernadino attacks, that Tashfeen Malik, the female shooter, was
on social media talking about her jihadi agenda. In fact, she
went so far as to have an anti-American remark beside a photo
of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center--and yet, she
went through several screenings and none of that was picked up.
Can you tell us briefly what you are doing to be sure that
social media is something that is looked at as people are
screened--not just for the K-1 visas for fiancees, but for all
of our non-immigrant visas.
Secretary Johnson. A couple of things. First, as the FBI
Director has commented, Ms. Malik's social media was not public
prior to her entry into the United States. Notwithstanding
that, we have, over the last 2 years, enhanced our use of
social media in connection with immigration benefits. We have a
number of pilot programs going on now. There was a ``Social
Media Task Force'' that recently gave a report to me. I
directed the Department to go even further in our use of social
media. We use it now for something like 30 different
investigative intelligence purposes across the Department, but
we are enhancing the use of social media in connection with
immigration benefits--both refugee vetting and K-1 review.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member.
Thank you, Jeh, for the job that you have done as
Secretary. You and your team need to be commended on that. It
is a tough job. Thank you.
I want to just talk a little bit about the Port of Raymond.
We visited it a little off schedule, outside of the door. There
is a recommendation to reduce it from 24 hours to 18 hours.
First of all, thank you for taking public input. I hope you
continue to take public input on border crossing with the folks
that live in that region, because it is important.
I think, from a security and an economic standpoint--I know
you are going to look at both--and I think it is really, really
important. I think that, as we try to continue to grow our
trade with Canada, I think it is just very important we take a
look at Raymond and look at it from that perspective. That is
all I am going to say on that point. We will follow up on that.
Since TSA was brought up and fees were brought up, I want
to talk just a little bit about full body scanners, because
Administrator Peter Neffenger was in front of our Homeland
Security Subcommittee on the Senate Appropriations Committee
last week, and we have a number of them in Montana. He said
there is a percentage of TSA folks who do not have the full
body scanners available. Is that because of lack of money?
Secretary Johnson. I am not sure. I am not sure whether it
is lack of money or whether we believe some other technology is
better.
Senator Tester. OK.
Secretary Johnson. I do know that we are doubling down on
our use of technology at airports for aviation security in
reaction to the Inspector General's (IG's) test results last
summer.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Secretary Johnson. I gave the Administrator a very
aggressive 10-point plan----
Senator Tester. Right.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. To reevaluate our
technology--and I know he is doing that.
Senator Tester. Yes. Well, I would just say that I agree
with you when we talk about air travel. I can tell you that in
a lot of these airports--they are big airports for Montana--but
they are smaller airports when you compare them to Dulles,
O'Hare, and places
like that. I think it is critically important that they have
the same--that we put forth the same effort of security, and if
you could kind of look after that, I would sure appreciate it.
I want to also talk about community partnerships. This
administration is proposing a $560 million cut to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) preparedness grants, which
includes ``Operation Stonegarden'' funding that impacts our
Indian communities in a big way. It is pretty steep. Can you
tell me why you are doing it this year? Last year, I think they
were held pretty constant.
Secretary Johnson. I support the President's budget. The
President's budget request reflects hard choices to live within
our caps. Having said that, I have seen, firsthand, the
importance and the effectiveness of our FEMA grant money, which
is delivered to State and local law enforcement and to
communities for such things as active shooter training and
overtime for police and fire. Grants are important--very
important.
Senator Tester. Yes. I think they are critically important,
and oftentimes, I wonder if the Administration does not cut
programs that are really, really good programs, just figuring
we are going to bump them up. And, I hope that is not the case
here. I hope it is not the case anywhere in the budget, but we
are going to have to do something about that, because, quite
frankly, I feel the same as you. They are very important.
I want to talk about border staffing really quickly.
According to the 2017 budget request, DHS has a target of 300
fewer border agents than last year. Tell me--that is on the
Northern border?
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Senator Tester. Tell me how that is going to work, because,
quite frankly, I thought you were undermanned at this point
now--that you were looking for more agents. If we are going to
cut an additional 300, it looks to me like we are putting
something at risk here--but maybe I am not seeing something you
are.
Secretary Johnson. Well, I believe that the allocation that
you see reflects a judgment about where the risk is and where
the vulnerabilities are. As you know, Senator, we have a pretty
active Southern Border right now. I also know that we are not
doing as good a job as I would like to see us do, in terms of
hiring--hiring up to the levels that Congress has authorized
and appropriated. And the Commissioner of CBP has very
aggressively taken steps to recruit and to get people through
the vetting process.
In terms of the allocation at the Northern Border, it is
something that I insist that we look carefully at every year
when we make these judgments, but I do believe it probably
reflects a judgment about where the vulnerabilities and the
needs are, Senator.
Senator Tester. OK. I will wrap it up really quickly,
because my time is up. I just think that, when we are talking
about drugs coming across the border, they do not all come
across the Southern Border. And I think that if we have a
Northern Border hiring problem, there are some things we can
do. Places like where Heidi and I live are pretty rural. You
are probably not going to get somebody from Chicago to move out
to Plentywood, Montana, but you would get somebody from Scobey
to do that. And, so, I think it is important that we start
building bridges with our university systems in those States,
because they can help you out a lot.
With that, I will just leave you with these words: Do not
forget about the Northern Border. It is damn important. I live
70 miles south of it. And, if we take our eye off of that, they
will go to where the weakest link is.
Thank you, Secretary Johnson.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Baldwin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BALDWIN
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking
Member.
I want to thank you, Secretary Johnson. The first question
relates to a question that Senator Tester just asked with
regard to State grant programs, FEMA preparedness grant
programs. I am concerned about the proposed cuts as well as
their impact and their potential for impact in the State of
Wisconsin.
The DHS grant program, which is, I think, budgeted at $267
million less than the Fiscal Year 2016 enacted level--this
funding has been critical in my home State. Recently, these
funds have provided equipment and training to our fusion center
in Milwaukee, which, I might just add, is where a terrorist
attack was thwarted just a couple of months back.
Let me ask a question about that, and then before you
answer, put forth an additional question related to the FEMA
preparedness program. I would like to see or hear the
justification for the proposed cuts to the State grant
programs. And, are there other efforts that we should be aware
of that may supplement the critical work of these programs?
Switching to the cuts in the FEMA preparedness programs,
particularly a 63-percent cut to the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), I also want to point out the
impact there in the State of Wisconsin. The Transportation
Technology Center (TTC) uses funding for its ``Crude Oil by
Rail Program.'' Over the past five or so years, Wisconsin has
seen a huge escalation in the number of oil trains that are
coming through from the Bakken to points west and south, and,
because of this, it is so important that our first responders
have the opportunity to receive training on the horrible
possibility of a train derailment. We have had several, by the
way, in the State. Fortunately, we have not seen any
explosions.
But, in your assessment, can you explain why the
President's request for the National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium was more than $60 million less than Fiscal Year
2016? And, to what extent does DHS prioritize funding for
proactive programs that prepare local first responders to
respond to natural or human disasters?
Secretary Johnson. Well, let me begin with the last part of
your question first. We place top priority on programs that
proactively get at preparedness and prevention, which is why,
at various different levels, we are funding State and local law
enforcement, first responders, emergency responders, and even
paramedic equipment. Having said that, as I remarked before,
this budget does reflect hard choices. The budget deal that was
made by Congress and the President for 2016 and 2017 provides
for greater levels in 2016 than it does for 2017. So,
regrettably, the proposal you received has the cut for the
various different grants.
Congress will ultimately do what you believe is necessary
and appropriate by way of funding, but that is where we believe
we needed to make some reductions. But, as I said before, I do
believe these grants are very important.
Senator Baldwin. I am going to stop you there, because I
want to fit in one quick, additional question--but we will
certainly be following up on that.
Last November, I wrote a letter to Commissioner Kerlikowske
along with Congressman Reid Ribble, from my State, about an
issue at the Austin Straubel International Airport in Green
Bay. This airport, which is a port of entry (POE) serving
Northeastern Wisconsin, has hosted the CBP's Green Bay Port
Office for over 20 years. However, in July 2011, CBP informed
the airport that the current port office did not meet its needs
and that a general aviation facility would be necessary for CBP
to remain at the airport. The airport subsequently worked with
CBP to construct a general aviation facility and spent over $3
million to meet CBP's specifications.
Unfortunately, in July of last year, CBP reversed course
and informed the airport that it would no longer occupy the
facility. Let me emphasize that this was after the airport paid
more than $3 million on the construction of the facility. This
was after the airport worked with CBP on the design of the
general aviation facility and after CBP signed off on the
facility.
This is unacceptable, and as I made clear in my letter,
there are no laws or rules that we can find that prevent CBP
from occupying the general aviation facility, as it has
claimed. So, it has been over 4 months since we wrote that
letter, and I raised the issue with the Commissioner. I have
yet to receive a response to the letter.
So, I want to ask you, today, and raise this to your
attention. Will you commit to looking into this issue and
responding to my constituents' concerns?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, I am aware of the issue and I am
already looking into it and I will ensure that you receive a
prompt response--and I will be interested in the response.
Senator Baldwin. OK. And, when can I expect a response?
Secretary Johnson. How about within the next week?
Senator Baldwin. That would be great. Thank you.
Secretary Johnson. I do not know what the status of the
response is, but I will ensure that you get a response within
the next week.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Heitkamp.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary, for the great work that you do on behalf of the
people of this country.
I want to just reiterate what Senator Tester began saying,
which is, those of us on the Northern Border believe that we
are entitled to a level of protection and a level of border
security that we do not always see. And, we measure the open
positions, the ones that your folks have already said we need
to protect the Northern Border, but yet we have huge vacancies.
Recognizing the challenges that you have in recruitment in
places like Portal, North Dakota, I want to just reiterate the
absolutely critical importance of getting more attention to the
Northern Border.
With that said, a couple of things. First, one of the
things I frequently hear from the folks down on the Southern
Border is that there is not really a plan, that the last kind
of organized plan, or strategic plan, for the Southern Border
is a 1990s plan, and that there is not a sense of coordination.
What is your response to that?
Secretary Johnson. My response is that, 2 years ago, we
created joint task forces for the Southern Border, where a
Joint Task Force Director is responsible for coordinating all
of the DHS assets and resources devoted toward border security
in the Southwest and the Southeast. Part of that responsibility
is that, every year, they have to submit to me a plan for
border security--which includes not just people, but also
prohibited items, like illegal narcotics, and so forth. So, we
do have strategic plans for how we intend to secure the border
in each place.
Senator Heitkamp. Why do you think that the other law
enforcement agencies believe there is not an overall strategic
plan?
Secretary Johnson. I am not sure. Other law enforcement
agencies are certainly aware of our joint task forces and help
support them.
Senator Heitkamp. Yes. I say this not by way of criticism,
but because that communication seems to be a gap here, in terms
of what you say you have and what people on the border--whether
it is people who are living on the border or people who are
charged with the responsibility of protecting people on the
Southern Border--believe there is. And, so, increased
communication and understanding, especially making sure that
the people who work for your agency actually understand what
that plan is and that it is not just some document that is on a
shelf in Washington, D.C.
The second thing, as we are talking about the movement of
narcotics across the border--with the movement of marijuana, I
think that we would all agree that marijuana is basically
carried across. But, one of the concerns that I have with
narcotics is that they are typically tunneled across. So, we
have been talking to your staff about tunnel detection--about
technologies.
I guess my question to you is, do you believe you have a
tunnel detection strategy on the Southern Border and are you
deploying the best equipment? If you cannot answer that in kind
of an open session, I think it would be good to do some kind of
secured briefing on tunnel detection.
Secretary Johnson. I would be happy to give you a secure
briefing on that. We do have a tunnel detection capability and
we have a very focused effort on this--but I could give greater
detail in private.
Senator Heitkamp. Right. In this budget, do you believe
there have been enough funds allocated to that kind of
technology?
Secretary Johnson. Within the confines of the caps we have
to live with, yes. But, I could always use more in the absence
of budget restraints.
Senator Heitkamp. Well, we had an opportunity to see some
of this in Israel, as it relates to securing their border, and
I am very interested in what kind of tunnel detection you
have--whether we are deploying the number of resources that
would reflect our concern about what it is that is moving
through those tunnels.
Finally, I would just like to talk about first responder
grants. I think we have been very concerned about preparedness
for first responders--whether they are responding to trains or
whether they are, in fact, responding to terrorist activity--
and yet we see a decrease in that kind of funding for first
responders. I am going to run out of time, but I just want to
impress upon you that those folks are on the front line. There
are not enough Federal agents. There are not enough Federal
personnel to protect this country. They are asking a very
minimal amount of investment in helping secure that mission,
and the last place we should be cutting, in my opinion, is
grants for first responders--whether they are responding to a
train or whether, in fact, they are responding to terrorism--
and being prepared to respond.
Just a note. When, in fact, we have had a very high-profile
incident of a train exploding, the single thing that the fire
chief told me is that the command and control incident training
that he received at FEMA was absolutely critical. So, it is
deployed every day. You do great training. Let us not lose
sight of our partnerships with the local folks.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Booker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOOKER
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
Again, I just want to echo the words that were said and
really compliment you on your work and your dedication--and I
just appreciate your leadership, especially during these
difficult times.
I just want to jump right in with regards to CVE. I was
happy that this Committee passed two bipartisan bills, and has
made it very much a priority. We passed authorization for the
Office of Community Partnerships. I really am grateful for the
leadership of Senator Carper and Senator Johnson in helping
this Committee to come together around these issues.
And, I am pleased to see the funding that was in the bill--
in the DHS-led CVE work--really becoming a part of the
President's budget, which is something, again, I am very
grateful for. $49 million dollars has been requested for DHS's
CVE efforts. If you look closely, unfortunately--at least I
seem to see it that way--we see $10 million requested in grant
funds for CVE-related activities at the local level and $39
million for activities targeted at preventing and preparing
for--and this is how it reads--responding to complex,
coordinated terrorist attacks.
And, so, my concern with this language is that the majority
of this money would be spent on preparing for a law enforcement
response, while CVE is intended to create partnerships for
community groups to do work to prevent radicalization really
before law enforcement gets involved. So, it seems almost as if
this funding is not really targeted towards the idea of CVE in
the first place.
And, so, how do you really envision this money being spent
and how can we ensure that we are really bolstering some of the
efforts, of which we are already starting to see some signs
that they could be very fruitful, in general, as opposed to the
law enforcement response that sort of ignores--to me--community
organizations, universities, educators, tech folks, and others?
Secretary Johnson. Yes. The language you read is for 2016,
right?
Senator Booker. Yes.
Secretary Johnson. Yes. Right. To be candid, I had the same
reaction you had. We learned we had $50 million for CVE, but
then upon closer examination, $39 million of that is for
terrorist attack preparedness, which is important, but it
leaves just $10 million for our CVE efforts.
As I explained earlier, CVE is a huge priority. One of the
things I heard, repeatedly, when I would go to these
communities in Minneapolis or elsewhere is the need for
resources. We need help supporting our efforts at the local
level.
My recollection, Senator, from the language you read, is
that there was some line in there that gave me some
flexibility, in terms of how we allocate that--but I could be
wrong.
Senator Booker. And, I will just say, just to get to my
next area of questioning, you and I both know budgets reflect
priorities. We can say that this is a priority, but, really,
the paucity of investment being made--what I found from being a
local leader--and I know you know this better than I do--is
that creating these partnerships--creating these
relationships--is incredibly valuable--not just in CVE efforts,
but also in helping to detect radicalization, in the first
place. So, I would just really emphasize the importance of
that.
And, one thing I want to say is, I am curious if your folks
can get back to me about whether there are a lot of concerns
coming from the Muslim community over all this being focused
just on the Muslim community, when we know there is
radicalization in, say, neo-Nazi groups and others that have--
and hate groups that have perpetrated violence and terroristic
activities within our communities. I am hoping that some of
this CVE effort is focused there, as well.
But, just real quickly, being that you and I have this
kinship in the love of the State of New Jersey, I just want to
bring to your attention----
Secretary Johnson. I love the taxes I pay there, too.
Senator Booker. We appreciate the taxes you pay, sir, even
though you spend so much of your time here.
But, I really need you to comment on something that I hear
so much anger and frustration over from people that live in our
metropolitan area: the lines at Newark Airport, which are just
outrageous. The holiday season--perhaps you do know that it was
reported that we had such long lines that it led to delays
exceeding an hour at some of these airlines that led, as one
single airline reported, to about 200 passengers missing a
flight. I believe that we have to do something to create more
efficiencies. I get people coming and screaming at me on social
media and the like, just so frustrated about this particular
airport being worse than others in our country.
And, so, my question is, with the increase in funding for
TSA in the President's budget, what flexibility do you have to
focus on where the problem is? I fly into other airports in our
region. I just do not see it as bad as what people are
experiencing in Newark. We now have spring and summer travel
seasons approaching. Can we not do something to alleviate this
outrageous problem that, rightfully, is angering people at the
Newark Airport?
Secretary Johnson. A couple of things. First, part of the
increase in wait times is due to the increased volume of air
travel. That is a fact. Part of it is due to the increased
volume of air travel.
Part of it is also due to the re-emphasis that the
Administrator and I have put on the airport screening of those
in the longer lines. So, one of the things you could say to
your constituents, Senator, is, ``join `TSA PreCheck' for the
shorter line.'' That is one way to get through faster.
With respect to the budget, it is the case that, in 2016
and 2017, we have reversed a steady decrease in the number of
TSOs for this reason. So, this budget submission reflects
holding steady on it with an emphasis on technology, so that we
are not focused, solely, on risk-based strategies that lead to
a decrease in personnel. We have reversed that trend to deal
with wait times and the like. But, increased volume is also
contributing to this, without a doubt.
Senator Booker. So, can somebody just get back to me
with--I understand the PreCheck warning, but, I mean, we tell
people to show up an hour before their flight and it seems like
we should be telling them 2 hours before their flight. Can
somebody get back to me with a plan to reduce wait times--if
there is one for Newark Airport.
Secretary Johnson. Yes. Well, as you know, Senator, a lot
of it depends on whether you are at Terminal A or Terminal C.
Senator Booker. Understood.
Secretary Johnson. Right.
Senator Booker. All right. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Johnson. OK.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank you, Secretary Johnson, for your testimony today.
I also want to thank you for your recent visit to Michigan
to meet with members of the Arab American Muslim community. As
you know, they expressed a number of issues and concerns to
you, and they appreciated your hands-on approach to come out
and talk directly to and to listen to the community. And, I
just want to say, I look forward to working with you and your
staff as you work through the number of issues that you heard
at that meeting--and appreciated.
Secretary Johnson. That was a good visit to Dearborn. Thank
you.
Senator Peters. It was. It was really wonderful, and folks
are still talking about it, so, thank you for that.
But, today, I would like to discuss the Blue Water Bridge
in Port Huron, Michigan. As you know, Mr. Secretary, Canada is
our largest trading partner, and the land ports connecting
Detroit to Windsor and Port Huron to Sarnia are absolutely
critical to our Nation's trade and commerce. In fact, in terms
of freight measured by the value of shipments--so that which
goes through those ports of entry--Detroit and Port Huron rank
numbers 2 and 3 in the country, respectively, moving over $200
billion worth of trade over those crossings. And, I know you
know that, firsthand, as well, because I appreciated an earlier
visit in 2014, when you came out and I accompanied you in
Detroit and you went to Port Huron to see, firsthand, what was
happening at those border crossings.
Last year, at this Committee hearing on the Fiscal Year
2016 budget, you testified that the case for expanding Customs
capability at the Blue Water Bridge was clearly there and, in
response to a letter that I sent, along with Senator Stabenow
and Representative Miller, Customs and Border Protection
Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske responded that the Blue Water
Bridge remains, and I quote him, ``a top priority.'' But, delay
in the modernization of the customs plaza at the Blue Water
Bridge has become a real burden for the city of Port Huron, and
St. Clair County, generally, which continues to lose out on
potential revenue as the land that was required for the
expansion actually sits vacant.
As you are well aware, over 100 properties were demolished
to prepare for this expansion. Folks believed that it was
moving forward. There is a large area of just vacant land,
which does not do much for the tax base of the city. It also
has other issues that it has to deal with. And, new revenue
from the construction and operation of that customs plaza would
help offset that, not to mention, again, it is very critical
for our Nation. Obviously, efficient border crossings are going
to be critical for us economically, given that Canada is the
top export destination for 35 States and that nearly 9 million
U.S. jobs depend on trade and investment with Canada.
So, it is a strategic issue for the United States, which
was identified, as well--and the Blue Water Bridge,
specifically--as a priority in the 2011 ``Beyond the Border
Action Plan Agreement'' with Canada. And that is why I am
disappointed that the project has not received funding so far--
and you have heard those concerns before. There is a need. The
local community is ready. The project is ready to go. So, I
would just hope you could explain why the Department did not
include funding for the Blue Water Bridge in the budget
submission.
Secretary Johnson. Senator, as you noted, I have been to
the Blue Water Bridge.
Senator Peters. Yes.
Secretary Johnson. I have seen the backup of tractor
trailers on the bridge trying to get into the United States
myself.
Senator Peters. Yes.
Secretary Johnson. And, as I said last year, I think the
case is there. I can report to you that, after projects
currently underway or soon to be under construction, the
expansion of the Customs capability at the Blue Water Bridge is
the highest priority--after the projects currently underway or
soon to be underway. As I said, I think the case is there. It
is not just a top priority, it is the highest priority on the
list of future projects.
Senator Peters. Yes. Any sort of timeline that you are
willing to offer with that?
Secretary Johnson. I do not have one sitting here, but I am
sure that Customs and Border Protection can give you that, sir.
Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate that, and I know there
are also some issues--or at least the potential to have a
public-private partnership that could be formed, as well,
perhaps, to accelerate that. It is my understanding
Commissioner Kerlikowske said that some of these alternative
financing projects may even speed that up. Do you concur that
that might even be another way for us to accelerate the
timeline?
Secretary Johnson. In my experience over the last 2 years,
great minds can think of some pretty creative ways to come
together and solve these problems.
Senator Peters. Well, great. Well, I appreciate that.
Secretary Johnson. The public-private partnerships and the
like----
Senator Peters. I appreciate that, Secretary, and I
appreciate that it has gone from a high priority to the highest
priority, so that is encouraging to hear that----
Secretary Johnson. That is what I have on this piece of
paper right here. [Laughter.]
Senator Peters. Well, if it is on paper, it must be true,
so thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate it.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you. And, I personally also
believe in the case, too, having seen it myself.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Ayotte.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Chairman.
I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your leadership and
service. You have a very important job.
I wanted to follow up on what both Senator Heitkamp and
Senator Tester talked about on the Northern Border. Actually,
Senator Heitkamp and I introduced, and this Committee passed
out, a bill called the Northern Border Security Review Act.
Essentially, what it would do is require an assessment of the
current state of the border between Canada and the United
States--and, to me, that makes sense as we look at resources.
Is that something you think would be sensible?
Secretary Johnson. It sounds right. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Ayotte. Great. Thank you. I hope we can get that to
the floor and I appreciate the Chairman getting that out.
Hopefully, we can get that passed and get that to you.
I also wanted to follow up on the questions that Senator
Portman asked you about, obviously, the heroin interdiction at
the Southern Border. I think it would be really helpful for us
to understand sort of what has been the trend, because, in
other Committees that I serve on, the testimony that I have
heard is that we have seen a significant increase in production
of heroin. So, I think it would be helpful for us to
understand, as we look at what is happening on the Southern
Border, how much is being interdicted and how much is coming
through. In New Hampshire, the price on our streets is so cheap
right now, and anything we can do, obviously, to drive up that
price and to stop its flow is going to help what our first
responders are doing on our streets to keep it away, and,
obviously, to protect people.
So, I wanted to ask you about the issue of fentanyl. Are we
seeing an increase in fentanyl, which, of course, could be as
much as 50 times more powerful than heroin--and it is a huge
driver of what is killing people in New Hampshire and in the
increase in our drug deaths.
Secretary Johnson. I have the numbers here for heroin and
heroin seizures, which have increased in 2015 over 2014.
Statistics on fentanyl--I do not have offhand, but I can
certainly get you that, ma'am.
Senator Ayotte. Well, that would be excellent, because we
have seen that combination--as someone I know who is in
recovery--an amazing young man--described fentanyl as a serial
killer because it is so much more powerful than heroin. So, I
think it would be helpful for us to understand the fentanyl
numbers, too, and whether those have increased along with
heroin.
I also wanted to follow up--I understand you just came back
from a trip to Turkey----
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Senator Ayotte [continuing]. And the issue of, first of
all, the foreign fighter flow--to get your perspective on where
we stand with the foreign fighter flow with regard to the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
And, in addition to that, recently before the Senate Armed
Services Committee we had General Philip Breedlove, who I am
sure you know--who is the European Commander--come before our
Committee. I asked him about the refugee issue, and he told me
that he is concerned that, in fact, criminality, terrorists,
and returning foreign fighters are, clearly, a daily part of
the refugee flow now.
So, could you give me an update on your trip to Turkey and
what you see happening with the fighter flow issue? How much is
this, from a homeland security perspective, something that you
are focusing on?
Secretary Johnson. Yes. All good questions. I was in Turkey
last week. I met with my counterpart, the Minister of Interior,
there and we are making good progress, in terms of information
sharing with the Turkish government. That is something that
they are interested in doing with us and we are interested in
doing with them. I signed several memorandums of understanding
(MOUs) with that government to enhance information sharing--
both with respect to cargo inspection and people. And, we
agreed to further discussions, in further areas, that I would
be happy to brief you on in private. Overall, I think it was a
very, very productive visit.
We know from prior experiences that members of ISIL have
left that area posing as refugees. That is a fact. So, I agree
with General Breedlove's comments insofar as the worldwide
refugee problem is something that poses a risk to us, in terms
of what ISIL is trying to do.
In terms of refugee resettlement in the United States, as I
am sure you know, we have a very thorough multi-layered
process. Before somebody is resettled, it takes something like
18 to 24 months to complete for each refugee--and we have
recently added further enhancements to the security of that
process--just in the last several months--which will most
likely add to delays, but we are also adding resources and
personnel to satisfy our undertaking. But, we do have a very
thorough process right now and we are adding more on, and we
are always looking at whether more is necessary, in terms of
our own U.S. refugee vetting.
Senator Ayotte. Do you think that process can eliminate all
risk?
Secretary Johnson. The way I like to say it is that in a
free, open, and democratic society that has a tradition of
humanitarian goodwill, obligations when it comes to refugees,
and an immigration heritage, we should welcome, with open arms,
people who are in need and who are vulnerable--but we should do
so carefully. And, I think the American people understand that
in a free and open society, we cannot erase all risk. But, we
should do our best at security--while maintaining our values.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Secretary Johnson. To me--I
fully support ensuring that we are a vibrant country of
immigrants, something that I have been supportive of--including
productive immigration reform and border security. But, I
respectfully disagree with you on the risk factor, as I hear
what our intelligence officials have been saying, with the
risks and a strategy from ISIS to actually try to purposely
infiltrate the flow of refugees.
I want to thank you for your work and thank all of those
that serve underneath you. I mean, we all travel so much and
are very appreciative of those who serve underneath you,
because they do very important work for our Nation.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary, for being with us today, and I just
want to mention that I do certainly appreciate the work that
you and your employees have done, as well. I think you provide
such a valuable service to all of us.
I would like to take a minute just to discuss an issue that
has arisen in Iowa, and it is affecting many of our levee
districts across the Missouri River, as it relates to
accreditation under the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). And, as you may know, the accreditation and
certification of a river levee is very desirable for
communities and property near the river, because it ultimately
affects the affordability of their flood insurance rates.
And, I understand that FEMA's involvement in this process
is to review and accept certification provided by a party that
is seeking accreditation on a levee on a flood insurance rate
map, providing 100-year protection. But, the cost of the
certification is really creating havoc for a number of these
communities in my State.
So, my questions on this are: first, in FEMA's eyes, how is
a rural community with almost no tax base--in my particular
area of Southwest Iowa, we have just a handful of families that
live and farm in these levee districts and they are supposed to
pay for--at a minimum--a million-dollar evaluation by a
professional engineer. This is not good news for a number of
these families, and I do not know how they can reasonably
accomplish accreditation when it is so costly for these
families. So, I am not sure if you have ideas on how these
rural communities can pay for those.
And, second, why is it that FEMA has different levee
certification standards than the Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) when it comes to reviewing the effectiveness of a
levee? And, I will stop right there and see if you have any
thoughts on that, but there seems to be some inconsistency
between FEMA and USACE. There is a memorandum from 2014 that
lays out how they are supposed to work together, but, from what
I understand from the exchanges of e-mails, this communication
process is not happening or is not working.
So, one, it is a big shock, the cost of levee
certification, and your thoughts on that, please?
Secretary Johnson. Senator, my overall view NFIP is that it
should be solvent, but also affordable. I cannot comment
specifically on the cost of certification and its
affordability, particularly, with regard to the rural
communities you spoke of in Iowa, but I am happy to look into
that and get back to you, specifically, on your question.
I do not have an explanation for you, in terms of the
different methodology that may exist between FEMA and the Army
Corps of Engineers, but I am happy to look into it.
Senator Ernst. OK. I think that would be important, because
it is not just in rural Iowa where this is happening. This is
all across the United States. And flood mapping is a big deal.
And, what we are running across in some of these areas, even,
is what I have heard from some of my constituents--and I know
this is true of other places, as well--that the cost of their
flood insurance, their premiums--monthly premiums--are starting
to edge up toward what their monthly home mortgage costs are.
And, you have to remember that we have very economically
challenged areas and it is all they can do to pay their
mortgage--and then to double that with flood insurance costs--
some of them are simply walking away from their homes, and this
is a very sad situation.
So, if you could provide us information about that, it
would be helpful, or if you could offer a way that we can do
better and find alternatives for these families.
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Senator Ernst. Next question. According to a recent article
in Bloomberg, DHS suffered over 100 spills of classified
information last year. While I understand that a spill is not
quite the same thing as a leak, both forms of mishandling
information in the Federal Government really do concern me. So,
what are your feelings on this and what are we doing to address
these types of situations?
Secretary Johnson. My view is that DHS, given our
cybersecurity mission, should be a model for other Federal
agencies and departments. I am familiar with that article. I
know that our cybersecurity experts and our Intelligence and
Analysis Directorate are focused on addressing spills. My
recollection is that the article was not accurate in all
respects.
Senator Ernst. OK.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. I would be happy to
identify that for you.
Senator Ernst. Yes. If you can clarify, that would be
great.
Secretary Johnson. OK.
Senator Ernst. I appreciate it. No, I do appreciate it, and
again, thank you for your very good work out there.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Ernst. And to all of your employees, as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
I have been cranking through some numbers here.
Secretary Johnson. OK.
Chairman Johnson. I got your sheet on unaccompanied
children.
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Chairman Johnson. The big difference here is you are
including all unaccompanied children, including from Mexico----
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Chairman Johnson [continuing]. And I was talking about
unaccompanied children from Central America, which is the big
problem. So, let us just kind of step through this, because it
is important. This affects your budget.
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Chairman Johnson. In your budget, you are basically
budgeting for 75,000 unaccompanied children from all sources,
correct?
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Chairman Johnson. If you take a look at 2014, again, the
crisis year, correct?
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Chairman Johnson. We can put the chart back up there. That
was, in total, about 68,631 unaccompanied children. This is
only for Central America. It just kind of gives you a--year to
date, we are 10 percent above the 2014 numbers.
Secretary Johnson. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. I am dealing with your numbers right now,
which includes Mexicans.
Secretary Johnson. 68,541 is what I have.
Chairman Johnson. Right. Exactly.
Secretary Johnson. OK.
Chairman Johnson. For the entire year.
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Chairman Johnson. Year to date, in 2016, we are at 23,553.
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Chairman Johnson. Year to date, in 2014, was 21,403. So, if
you include all unaccompanied children, we are up 10 percent,
which would imply that we are going to be 10 percent over
68,000. That is about 75,000. Now, that is including Mexican
children, as well.
Mexico is four times the population of Central America, and
yet, Mexican unaccompanied children encompass somewhere between
20 to 25 percent of the problem. So, that is why I isolate
unaccompanied children from Central America--because we treat
them differently. I am trying to figure out the best way to
address this problem. What is the best way to reduce the flow?
We have to take a look at the incentives, which, of course, you
see Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is one of
them. The length of the adjudication process under the
Feinstein Amendment is one of them. Another, is the fact that,
when unaccompanied children from Central America get here, they
are apprehended, they are processed, they are dispersed, and
they basically stay, correct?
So, again, the point I am trying to make is I think there
ought to be alarm bells ringing right now, because, in the
first 4 months, with just unaccompanied children from Central
America, we are up 49 percent over the first 4 months in 2014--
when it was a crisis. We are up 49 percent, which would imply,
again, when you run the numbers out, about 77,000 unaccompanied
children from just Central America, if that will hold.
Now, I see February's numbers. I have backed out my
assumption because it has been very consistent. We have had
about a thousand unaccompanied children from Mexico the first 4
months. So, if I assume it's 1,000 for February, I can come up
with a number and we are still 28.5 percent ahead of 2014,
which would imply 66,000 unaccompanied children, from just
Central America, compared to 51,000.
So, again, my point being is, in the first 4 or 5 months of
data, alarm bells ought to be ringing. The crisis has not been
averted. It is not getting better. It is getting worse, even
over 2014. Yes, it came down in 2015, but the early indications
of the first 4 or 5 months of 2016 is it is going to be worse
than 2014--and that is my point. It is obviously going to
affect your budget.
And, I think the reason it is not a crisis--and here is
what concerns me--is, again, because of the great efforts of
CBP and your organization, we have gotten very good--very
humane--at processing and dispersing. And, as I said earlier,
in the hearing that Senator Portman had on the situation in
Columbus, this is not a really humane situation when we
disperse and we just kind of forget about them.
So, again, are you acknowledging the fact that this is
still an enormous problem and we are not----
Secretary Johnson. Yes, absolutely.
Chairman Johnson [continuing]. From my standpoint,
addressing the root cause--and our public policy ought to be:
what can we do to stem the flow? Not to figure out how we can
more efficiently process and disperse, but how do we address
the incentives that are incentivizing people to come here?
Secretary Johnson. Yes--a couple of things--and I hope you
do not mind if I exceed the 36 seconds.
Chairman Johnson. Sure. We are here by ourselves.
Secretary Johnson. Correct.
Chairman Johnson. There is no clock.
Secretary Johnson. First of all, nobody in DHS, CBP, ICE,
or HHS is feeling as if a crisis has been averted. Whether it
is 75,000, 68,000, or 39,000, that is a whole lot of kids and
that creates a real problem for us. It overwhelms my resources,
HHS's resources, and taxes a lot of other resources.
I do think that the comparison to 2014 is imperfect in that
there is a certain trend that existed in 2014 that does not
exist in 2016. The numbers in January and February of 2014 were
considerably higher than the numbers in January and February of
2016. Now, having said that, much of this is seasonal, so I
think we have to assume that March is going to be higher than
February, and April is probably going to be higher than March.
And May, June, and July will probably do what they typically
do. So, we have to assume that we are not going to see numbers
as low as 3,100 for the rest of this fiscal year, which is why
our budget request assumes 75,000 UACs in 2016.
Now, I agree with you that you can put a lot of border
security on this effort to deal with kids who are not seeking
to avoid capture, and there is only so much you can do by way
of border security and immigration enforcement. However, I do
believe that it is important that people in Central America see
that people are being repatriated back to Central America,
which is why we have been very visible about our efforts in
recent months.
And I do agree with you, Chairman, that the underlying
factors have to be addressed. I am pleased that Congress
appropriated $750 million for Central America and I am
impressed with the new President of Guatemala, Jimmy Morales. I
hope you had a chance to meet him when he was here a couple of
weeks ago. He is a dynamic leader in Guatemala and I am hoping,
and I have some optimism for that country, given the new
leadership there.
But, we have to do more and we are seeking to do more to
help those in Central America with their border security,
through training programs and the like--through vetting
programs. We have to do more in Central America, which is the
heart of the problem.
Just in my 26 months in office, I have learned that, as
long as you have powerful underlying push factors--poverty,
violence, drought, and the like--there is only so much border
security that you can accomplish--whether it is more personnel
or more walls--to deal with people who are motivated to leave
their homes and travel thousands of miles to come here.
Chairman Johnson. But, we create an awful lot of pull
factors here, and that is the whole purpose of that chart. DACA
was a pretty tremendous pull factor. The fact that we grant
lengthy adjudication processes, and they learn the term,
``credible fear,'' and, all of a sudden, we are not sending
them back.
Secretary Chertoff, when we had a flow--what, in 2008?--in
2006, from Brazil, started sending people back immediately. The
flow stopped.
We were in Guatemala and Honduras. We met with the
President-elect, which he was at that point in time. I also met
with the President when he just came here--what was it last
week or 2 weeks ago? We actually saw a repatriation of illegal
immigrants from Guatemala when they returned to the airport.
And, during the reorientation speech, and this is a paraphrase
translated to me, the Guatemalans were told, quote, ``It does
not matter how poor, how rich, big, or small your country is.
This is still your motherland. Remember that you have to love
your country. Please consider that before attempting to leave
for the United States.''
The room of about 136 Guatemalans, who had just been
repatriated, erupted into applause. The reprocessing center was
very modern. We had non-governmental agencies (NGOs) ready to
help them. There was a phone bank. There was one minor. He was
separated from the group of adults and with their form of child
protective services (CPS).
So, we talk about these push factors. The President of
Honduras asked us, ``please, fix the ambiguity in your laws
that are encouraging our citizens to leave our country.'' Let
us face it. This is the United States of America. I do not know
how many people from around the world want to come here, but
there are literally hundreds of millions--if not billions--of
people who would like to be in America, but we cannot accept
them all. It has to be a legal process, and we have to look at
the incentives we create in our own laws that are the pull
factors, because there are push factors all over the world and
we really have to deal with what we can actually deal with
here.
Those countries are beautiful countries, but as long as we
have this insatiable demand for drugs, the farmers in Central
America will make 50 times what they can make on normal crops
by selling poppies. And, they do not have to deliver it
anywhere. They come pick it up.
And, Senator Carper was saying the same thing. From our 14
hearings on border security and our 100-page report, the
conclusion I came to is that the root cause, among many, of our
unsecured border is our insatiable demand for drugs. It is
causing so many other problems, as well.
So, that is my only point, let us look at this very clear-
eyed. Let us acknowledge the reality. Let us take a look at
policies that we have enacted, over multiple administrations,
and just acknowledge the fact that these things are not working
and we really have to look at what we can do ourselves. We have
to state, from my standpoint, what should be the goal of our
policies: what we can do to stem the flow, as opposed to what
we are doing right now in your budget--and again, you have done
a very good job with great humanity. What DHS did in the throes
of that initial crisis in 2014 was pretty extraordinary. But,
that is not the solution, bottom line.
You can comment. I have a couple of questions as long as--
--
Secretary Johnson. Well, let me make something----
Chairman Johnson. Sure.
Secretary Johnson. Let me say a couple of things. First, I
agree with what Secretary Chertoff told you, because he told me
the same thing about the situation in 2006. And, I share his
view that illegal migration is very market sensitive. It reacts
to information in the marketplace about what is going on and
what you can expect to happen after you pay a coyote $6,000 and
you have migrated all the way up here.
And, so, that is why, to the consternation and unhappiness
of many, I have been very public about our enforcement efforts.
Our enforcement efforts, just this fiscal year--the first 5
months of this fiscal year--with regard to Central America--
after all of these people go through the ``credible fear''
process, having their claim heard in Immigration Court, and
having the appeals run and so forth--just this fiscal year, we
have sent back 28,000 people to Central America. Nobody is
sitting on their hands. We have sent back 28,000 people to
Central America.
Chairman Johnson. Let me ask, out of how many that----
Secretary Johnson. On average, 14 flights a week. So,
people are being sent back routinely.
Chairman Johnson. But, out of how many that have come?
Again, we are talking about unaccompanied children. You are
talking about almost all adults----
Secretary Johnson. Most of them are adults.
Chairman Johnson. So, what is the total that have come in?
The 28,000 is what percent of the total?
Secretary Johnson. The total number who have come in just
this fiscal year, sure, exceeds that 28,000 number, because a
lot of them go through the litigation of their asylum claims.
As you know, that takes months and months. The Department of
Justice (DOJ) has a limited number of immigration judges to
hear these claims. But, once we have gone through that process,
I am sending people back as quickly as I can.
Chairman Johnson. And, listen, I understand the political
heat. You have done that and I appreciate that fact. But,
again, do you know the total number that have come in--what the
estimate is?
Secretary Johnson. Since when?
Chairman Johnson. Just for the year. I mean, if you sent
back--I mean, in the same period. If you are saying you have
sent back 28,000, that is out of how many that came into this
country illegally that we know of?
Secretary Johnson. Well, so far this fiscal year, there
have been 152,000 apprehensions on our Southern Border--152,000
apprehensions. That is not----
Chairman Johnson. And, again, there is a dispute over
how many get by without us knowing about it, so, I mean, it is
still----
Secretary Johnson. That is one of the reasons why I think
you and I are both interested in developing better border
metrics.
Chairman Johnson. Correct, and I appreciate that.
Secretary Johnson. Right. So, it is a larger number,
without a doubt. And, presumably, all of these people have--are
in deportation proceedings at one stage of the process or
another, but, as you know, it is a time consuming process. But,
we are, in fact, routinely sending hundreds and thousands of
people back to Central America and I have kind of made a big
deal about that.
Chairman Johnson. Right. But, again, I think one of the
reasons we only have a thousand Mexican unaccompanied children
is because we can send them back right away, and so there is
just--it is just easier to do it and so there is less
incentive. But, let me turn it over to Senator Carper----
Secretary Johnson. Mexico is a different--it is a different
situation, too. It is not quite the same situation.
Chairman Johnson. No, it is all complex. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Finish that sentence. Just follow up and
just finish your sentence about how Mexico is a different
situation--just briefly, please.
Secretary Johnson. Well, the economy is better, as you
know, Senator. The push factors are not the same. They are
different. Mexico is a much different country from, say, 15
years ago, when the numbers of illegal migrants coming from
there were far, far greater. And, so, I think it is notable
that, though our economy is improving, the number of
apprehensions on our Southern Border is a fraction of what it
used to be--thanks to the investments we and the Congress have
made in border security over the last 15 years.
Could we do better? Absolutely. Are we concerned about
another spike? We have to prepare for it and we are concerned
about that, absolutely. Nobody is popping champagne corks. Just
yesterday, I had a meeting with the Secretary of HHS on this
problem, to try to anticipate what could be the worst again.
But, as I said, I do not think 2014 is a perfect
comparison. I think the trend lines are a little different.
But, still, we can assume we are going to see seasonal
migration trending up again.
Senator Carper. OK.
Secretary Johnson. That is absolutely the case.
Senator Carper. Thank you. The other thing that is
different with Mexico, they have a--I am tempted to call it a
vibrant middle class. They have a middle class, today, that
they did not have 20 years ago, and part of that, I think,
could be attributable to the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and other things, as well. They are a strong
trading partner with us. They still have--we have, God knows,
we still have problems with rule of law in this country, and
they certainly have their challenges, in Mexico, in that
regard.
But, the folks that are coming out of Guatemala, Honduras,
and El Salvador--the Secretary has been down there and the
Chairman and I have been down there--if we lived down in those
countries and were trying to raise our families, we might want
to try to get out, too--or at least get them to a safer place.
OK. Cybersecurity. I know we talked a little bit about
that. Over the last several years, we have talked about it a
lot, and we have actually done very good work in an earlier
Congress with Tom Coburn passing legislation that made real the
Cyber Ops Center, well known as the National Cybersecurity
Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), which provided
greater hiring flexibility and enhanced your ability to hire
the kind of cyber warriors that you need and to retain them.
And, the other piece is to try to reconcile the difference
between the responsibilities of the Department of Homeland
Security and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with
respect to protecting our ``dot-gov'' domain and doing that in
a thoughtful way. Also, to move away from some kind of, like,
paperwork drill system to actually a real-time system, where we
actually are able to respond on a real-time basis--not, like, a
year after an intrusion.
But, we are happy with all of that. We have provided
funding, as you know, for all of that. And you now have had an
opportunity to begin hiring cyber warriors. How is it going?
Secretary Johnson. First of all, thank you to both of you
for taking on this complex subject and pushing out a really
good bill last year. Thank you also for the cyber legislation
we got in 2014 that gives us additional hiring authorities.
We are competing in a tough marketplace against the private
sector, which is in a position to offer a lot more money.
Suzanne Spaulding and her people are making very aggressive
efforts to, first, implement the 2014 legislation you passed,
and, second, in the interim, to do a lot of things in terms of
recruitment, expediting the hiring process, and so forth. We
need more cyber talent, without a doubt, in DHS and in the
Federal Government, and we are not where we should be right
now. That is without a doubt.
Senator Carper. Let me just interrupt you. Phyllis Schneck,
who is one of your top cyber people, she came out of the
private sector, went to Georgia Tech----
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Senator Carper [continuing]. But came out of the private
sector. I am sure she was very well compensated, and she gave
it up in order to come to work at the Department of Homeland
Security.
Secretary Johnson. I am familiar with the phenomenon, yes.
Senator Carper. Yes. And the reason why, when I talked to
her about it, was that she felt an obligation, or a desire, to
give back to her country. And, it is all well and good that
cyber warriors work for other companies or businesses and so
forth, but, in this case, there is something to be said for
appealing to people's sense of patriotism--and I think that is
one of the things that draws her. And, that is a calling card,
if you will, that we can use--and I am sure that we do.
Let me just follow up by saying, I think there is a 30
percent increase in the President's proposed budget for next
year for the Department's cybersecurity programs. Some of these
monies will be used to help expand Einstein so that, basically,
all Federal agencies are using not just Einstein 1 and 2, but
also Einstein 3, intrusion detection system, across the board--
as well as to bring in the new personnel that we talked about
for your cyber ops.
How does the budget support implementation of the
cybersecurity information sharing legislation that was enacted
last year? We worked on it together, and got great support from
the Administration, from the President. But, how does the
budget support implementation of our information sharing bill
that was enacted and signed into law last December?
Secretary Johnson. The short answer is through further
investments in maintaining our technology and building upon
what we have. Further investments in the Einstein system.
Further investments in the Continuous Diagnostics and
Mitigation (CDM). The legislation specifically authorizes DHS
to go into other Federal departments and agencies to detect, to
monitor, and to block intrusions. It is a good thing that
Congress gave us the authority to do that, because we were
finding considerable uncertainty to do that in departments and
agencies.
One of my top priorities for Federal civilian ``dot-gov''
cybersecurity while I am still in office is to have E3A in
place to block intrusions across our entire Federal civilian
system before the end of this year--and I think that is one of
the legal mandates in the bill. But, as I have said, Einstein
is also a platform for building additional capabilities, so
that we are not just going after known intrusions, but also
suspected intrusions. There are pilots out there now to do
that, and I think we need to build on that for the future.
So, the funding for additional technology implements the
legislation that was passed last year.
Senator Carper. All right. Just a quick question to follow
up on encryption, if I could. We hear a lot in the media about
Apple and the disagreement that they have with the FBI. It is a
serious matter.
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Senator Carper. And, we have a mass killing in San
Bernadino, as we know. I think 14 people were killed by a
couple who were radicalized. And, there is a cell phone, an
Apple cell phone, that is in question that I think was not
owned by the killers, the perpetrators of the violence, but is
owned by the county where the husband had actually worked.
We have a role to play here. Some of our colleagues in the
House and in the Senate are working on legislation. The
Administration has spelled out their own views. I think there
are actually some people who do not always speak in one mindset
on this issue within the Administration. It is a tough issue.
But, as we consider legislation on this matter, do you have
any advice for us?
Secretary Johnson. My advice is to ensure that you have the
views of all of the stakeholders, from the tech sector, from
the intelligence community (IC), and from the law enforcement
community--Federal and State. One person who comes to mind, for
example, is Cyrus Vance, who is the Manhattan District Attorney
(DA). Cy, who is a friend of mine, has been very vocal about
the encryption issue from the local law enforcement level and
he reminds us that basically any crime that involves
communications--not just Federal crimes--is harder to detect
because of the encryption issue.
I do believe that there needs to be a readjustment in the
pendulum. I think that, in response to the plans of the
marketplace, the tech sector has gone a long way toward
encryption. But, it has, in fact, created a situation where
crime and potential terrorist plottings are harder to detect.
So, I and others do agree that there needs to be a
recalibration. I, of course, support the government's position
in the case involving Apple in California. And, so, if we are
to grapple with this problem--I think that smart people can
solve the problem, but we have to ensure that all of the
stakeholders are represented in that discussion.
Senator Carper. All right. Well, we will continue to
welcome your counsel on this.
One last one, Mr. Chairman, if I could. The Chairman and I,
as well as others on our Committee--our staffs--have worked a
whole lot to try to put together legislative language
authorizing some of the initiatives that comprise, in their
entirety, your ``Unity of Effort.'' Why do you want to leave
some of your reforms in place for the next Secretary? And will
these reforms help, in some way, to get off of the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO's) High-Risk List and be able to
do the work more effectively?
Secretary Johnson. Well, first of all, through our very
able Under Secretary, who is sitting right there----
Senator Carper. What is his name?
Secretary Johnson. Russ Deyo.
Senator Carper. I have heard of him.
Secretary Johnson. He is a former client of mine from my
private practice days. And through his very able Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) and our Deputy Secretary, we have gone
a long way in working with GAO to get off of the High-Risk
List.
I believe very strongly that a lot of the things we are
doing to remove the stovepipes in DHS and have a more strategic
approach to budget making, acquisition, and so forth should be
institutionalized. It is not just something that should exist
while I am in office. I think it will make the Department a
better, more effective place for homeland security if we move
in the direction of more centralized, more strategic approaches
to our homeland security mission. We have been stovepiped for
far too long and we need to move toward a model more like the
Department of Defense, where you have joint duty, joint task
forces, and the like.
There are provisions in the current law that create some
limitations on our ability to do that, and I am sure our staffs
have spoken to you about that in the current Homeland Security
Act (HSA). And, so, the authorization of our ``Unity of Effort
Initiatives'' is something I very, very much support, which
includes reforming and restructuring NPPD. I have seen the
legislative language that I know your Committee is working
through now on a number of these things, and I support that,
and I support the good work there.
Senator Carper. Good. And I think it is fair to say that we
support what you are trying to do, as well. Thank you. Thank
you so much for joining us today.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
I think Senator Sasse may be coming. I still have some
questions, as well, so let us kind of step through them.
By the way, I do appreciate you working with me on a border
metrics bill and the fact that you recognize that, if we are
going to ever secure the borders, we need to understand the
situation. So, I hope you will continue to work with us. I
would like to get that actually passed and certainly support
efforts that you are trying to do within your Department.
Let us talk a little about critical infrastructure.
Earlier, I talked about Ted Koppel's book, ``Lights Out.'' We
held a hearing on this. We had Dr. Richard Garwin here. We had
James Woolsey. The Electromagnetic Pulses (EMP) Commission in
2008 tasked your Department with a number of, I guess, let us
call them quick fixes--and GAO basically reported that you have
not done a whole lot on that.
We have witnessed the unsolved attack on an electrical
substation at Metcalf. You read about the cyber attack on the
power grid system in Ukraine. You take a look at the potential
of solar storms with geomagnetic disturbances. You take a look
at the potential, I mean, obviously, let us look at North
Korea, with their ballistic missile technology and nuclear
capabilities. I am concerned about Iran. There are reports that
they have test fired Scud missiles off of ships--off of shore.
These threats are real.
And, I guess, can you just kind of talk about, across the
board, critical infrastructure--I would say, particularly, the
electrical grid, which is the number 1. When the electricity
goes down, the lights go out, and we are in a world of hurt.
And, we have these large power transformers that Dr. Richard
Garwin, who, by the way, Secretary Moniz, when I was
questioning him about this in the Foreign Relations Committee
said--again, Dr. Richard Garwin, a real national treasure.
Enrico Fermi referred to him as one of the truest geniuses he
had ever met.
So, can you just speak about what the Department has done,
in terms of the charge you were given based on the 2008 EMP
Commission on critical infrastructure, particularly, the
electrical grid, but expand it beyond just EMP--Ground-based
Midcourse Defense (GMD), cyber attacks, and physical terrorist
attacks. Where are we at on these?
Secretary Johnson. Better than we were, but there is more
to do. I do not agree with everything in Ted Koppel's book, but
I think he was right to put a spotlight on the issue.
Since the earthquake in Japan in 2012, there were a lot of
lessons learned for the U.S. Government and the private sector
critical infrastructure utilities here. And since that, which
was sort of a seminal event, we have done a lot more partnering
with the private sector--with critical infrastructure--to work
with them, sharing best practices and sharing information about
the potential for a cyber attack on power grids. And, we do
exercises now with them. So, we are in a better place than we
were.
There was a DHS team, along with an interagency team, in
the Ukraine recently. That was a cyber attack that led to a
power failure. We are not, at this point, in a position to
attribute it to any particular source, but that was a cyber
attack.
Chairman Johnson. And highly sophisticated, correct?
Secretary Johnson. And, it would appear to have been fairly
sophisticated, yes. And, that should be, and must be, a wake-up
call for those who have not already been awakened by this
problem and this risk.
So, we are working with critical infrastructure all of the
time. I have spoken to CEOs of utilities about this problem and
they are seizing on this issue, as well. But, there is clearly
more to do, Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. What is the lead group within your
Department looking at this?
Secretary Johnson. We have an Assistant Secretary for
Infrastructure Protection who is part of this effort, but also
our cybersecurity efforts, as well.
Chairman Johnson. OK. I want to work very closely with you
over the next few months to do whatever we can, legislatively,
to work with your Department. This is incredibly important.
I have more questions, but I will turn it over to Senator
McCain.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN
Senator McCain. Thank you very much.
Welcome back, Secretary Johnson. I want to bring up a
couple of issues really quickly.
We are terribly short on staffing at our ports of entry on
our Southern Border. We passed legislation which would expedite
veterans being hired. We have done a number of things. But, we
are still--for example, at the Nogales-Mariposa port of entry,
we are 20 percent understaffed--well over 100 agents short. So,
you see these lanes, these vacant lanes, and traffic stacked up
behind it, simply because we do not have the personnel.
It is my understanding it takes about 18 months--and we did
pass legislation that would expedite veterans, former military.
But, the fact is that we are still not making up for that
shortfall, and I am of the view that we need to have some kind
of incentive pay or hazardous-duty pay at the ports of entry
that experience high traffic flows. I am very interested in
your view on that.
Secretary Johnson. First, Senator, we are not where we need
to be. No argument from me, there. CBP needs to, and is, making
aggressive efforts to hire, to bring on people faster, and to
get them through the polygraph exams. I fully support the
hiring of veterans and making it easier to hire veterans. I
understand that you are interested in legislation that deals
with pay in these areas and I am happy to look at that with
you, sir.
Senator McCain. It is a very tough environment along all of
our Southern Border, but also, I would argue, in Arizona, it
gets particularly warm, and I can understand how tough a duty
it is. And, so, I think that, just as we in the military
provide incentive pay for hardship positions, I hope that you
would look at that. And, I will be introducing legislation on
it, because it is just not sufficient, as you know, when we are
100--well over 100--Customs agents short. There is either
something wrong with the level of staffing required or
something is wrong with the level of personnel.
I know that you know that there is an epidemic of
manufactured heroin, and the deaths from manufactured heroin
overdoses have been described by some Governors, including the
Governor of New Hampshire, as a, quote, ``epidemic.'' The
heroin that is being transported across the border in Arizona--
seizures have increased 223 percent as the drug cartels,
obviously, transport and distribute the drug to the United
States.
I think it is particularly interesting, now, with the
passing of Nancy Reagan--the ``Just Say No'' to drugs campaign
was something that I think we ought to do a lot more of.
But, one, do you agree that heroin drug overdose deaths are
skyrocketing?
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Senator McCain. That is just the facts that we get from the
Governors. And, is not most of this manufactured heroin coming
across through the ports of entry, rather than being smuggled
across the border areas, for several reasons? And, what do you
propose that we need to combat this problem, which some
Governors have described as a, quote, ``epidemic''?
Secretary Johnson. I agree that most of the heroin that is
seized is seized at ports of entry on our Southern Border, as
opposed to maritime, for example. That is what the facts and
the statistics show.
We have seen greater levels of seizures by Customs and
Border Protection and by HSI. We have created a national task
force with the Department of Justice to deal with the heroin
epidemic, specifically. Part of the joint task force missions
that I created 2 years ago--part of our JTF missions, which is
modeled, by the way, after the structure we have in Arizona--is
the illegal narcotics problem. It is not just migrants--illegal
migrants. I want our JTFs to be focused on narcotics, as well.
We are seeing an increase. It is alarming. And, I think
this needs to be a National Government effort. Within DHS, we
have ICE, HSI, and CBP focused on this problem. And, we are
seeing seizures at higher levels, without a doubt.
Senator McCain. But it also seems that the problem is
increasing--according to these Governors--rather than
decreasing. And, I agree, fundamentally. I am in total
agreement--it is supply and demand. But, it seems to me that,
despite our increase in interdiction, the problem is growing
worse. Would you agree with that?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. Have you got any ideas?
Secretary Johnson. I think we need more resources at the
Federal Government level, not just DHS, but DOJ and the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), and a coordinated, sustained
effort to deal with this problem.
Senator McCain. I hope that this Committee and the Congress
can get some recommendations from you, because, frankly, I have
not seen anything quite like this, when I traveled to New
Hampshire and heard the Governor of New Hampshire say it is an
epidemic in her State--and throughout the Midwest, as well.
Chairman Johnson. Yes.
Senator McCain. And, maybe also some time we ought to talk
about demand--but nobody seems to want to discuss that aspect
of it, either, and I know that is disappointing to you.
Finally, on the children showing up at the border, is one
of the answers increasing our embassy and consulate
capabilities in those three countries--El Salvador, Nicaragua,
and Guatemala--so that they can go there, rather than showing
up on our border?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir. I agree with that.
Senator McCain. I thank you for the good work that you do,
Mr. Secretary. We have some spirited discussions from time to
time, but I appreciate the work that you are doing.
Maybe, finally, as Nancy Reagan inaugurated, maybe we ought
to be talking a little bit more about trying to address the
demand side of this problem, rather than blaming it all on the
Mexican cartels, who I am glad to blame it on--but there is a
demand. Do you agree?
Secretary Johnson. I agree, yes. You have to deal with the
demand and the supply.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCain.
By the way, we mentioned earlier that, I think, the
evaluation I have come to in this Committee is that the root
cause of our unsecured border literally is our insatiable
demand for drugs--and so that is an important component. We are
working. We are trying to work on a piece of legislation to
address the consulates--to address that.
But, here is an idea in terms of interdicting drugs at the
border through ports of entry. We held a hearing--and I know
you are busy with the Armed Services Committee--an incredibly
interesting hearing. It was on canine units and it really
spawned--the red teams and the failure rates, because it is
difficult to detect these things. I went to the University of
Pennsylvania, where they have a pretty groundbreaking canine
training unit. Unbelievable capabilities. In the hearing,
certainly, we saw we have not really increased the number of
canine units--certainly not within DHS.
I wanted your evaluation. In the layered approach to
airport security--this is for bomb sniffing, this is for,
potentially, drug sniffing, and all of those issues--do you
think it is good to explore the efficacy and maybe the
expansion of canine units throughout your different missions--
whether it is drug interdiction or whether it is trying to,
potentially, sniff out bombs in airports--that type of thing. I
am very intrigued by it.
Secretary Johnson. There is actually no better technology
than a dog's nose for detecting certain types of explosives and
prohibited items. And, just in the last 2 years, I have seen us
expand the use of canines at the last point of departure
airports and domestic airports to look for prohibited items in
airports and in and around airplanes. So, I do believe in
canine use. It is very effective--in a number of our missions--
not just aviation security.
Chairman Johnson. But, we have not really increased the
numbers. I mean, is that something that you would want to look
at increasing--I think it is about 2,500 units, in total,
within DHS. I think it was 900 in TSA--or 1,000 in TSA. It has
been pretty flat. Do you think it is so effective that we
should be looking at expanding that?
Secretary Johnson. I think it is worth looking at. I
understand you had a hearing exclusively devoted to this not
too long ago. Canines are very effective, and one of the things
that I was fascinated by when I was in Turkey last week, is
that they are not as opposed to the use of canines, there, as
one might expect them to be. So, they are embracing this, too.
So, I think it is worth looking at, yes.
Chairman Johnson. Yes. Well, we will work together on that.
The final thing I will just talk about is what Senator
Carper was talking about: personnel in cyber. Happy to work
with you there, in terms of what we need to do. Is it, trying
to attract people from the private sector to take a 2-year
sabbatical and come here--whatever imaginative program we can
use to attract those individuals. I have stated, repeatedly,
that I am very impressed with the individuals, like yourself,
like Mr. Deyo, and really, like your entire team here--by the
quality of the Federal workforce. These people are patriots.
They take their mission of keeping this Nation safe seriously,
but they also understand the constraints. I am a private sector
guy. I know what the private sector will pay for talent and you
are constrained there.
So, we are going to have to put our heads together and
figure out, what we need to do so that your Department is
staffed with the best and the brightest. There are plenty of
patriots in America that will do it and will do it at a really
great financial sacrifice, so let us try and break down
whatever barriers we create, bureaucratically, to resource you.
Secretary Johnson. We have terrific career people, but I
agree with what Tom said, which is that we ought to appeal to
people's sense of patriotism, to, ``Hey, how about spending a
couple of years serving your country and working for the
government in cybersecurity, which will better enable you to
get that terrific job later on in the financial sector, in the
private sector, or with some terrific cybersecurity firm in
Silicon Valley.'' So, we ought to appeal to people's sense of
patriotism.
Chairman Johnson. General Electric (GE) has a very
imaginative marketing advertising campaign out right now trying
to make it really attractive to not go into these apps, but
actually to go in and figure out how to make an economy run
properly with informational technology. And, we can, maybe, do
something similar to that.
But, again, we want to work with you, in terms of what
Senator McCain was talking about, with consulates, so that
refugees and asylum-seekers can do that within Central America,
rather than make the dangerous journey.
We want to work with you, in terms of reducing our
insatiable demand for drugs. The passing of Nancy Reagan is an
important reminder. That campaign actually worked. We have been
very effective at reducing the demand for tobacco. We ought to
try the same thing with drugs.
But, again, I want to thank your entire management team. I
want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming here, and for all
of your efforts. This is not an easy job. This is an enormous
challenge, and you are working hard to try and keep this Nation
safe and secure. So, thank you for your efforts.
With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days,
until March 23 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and
questions for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]