    [Senate Hearing 115-293]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-293

      THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 6, 2017

                                   __________

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     27-392 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2018

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                        RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
    JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                KAMALA D. HARRIS, California

                      Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
                  Rebecca N. Nuzzi, Professional Staff Member
                   Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
                     Jackson Eaton, Minority Senior Counsel
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                        Bonni Dinerstein, Hearing Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Johnson..............................................     1
        Senator McCaskill............................................     2
        Senator Tester...............................................    10
        Senator Peters...............................................    13
        Senator Hassan...............................................    15
        Senator Paul.................................................    18
        Senator Hoeven...............................................    20
        Senator Harris...............................................    22
        Senator Carper...............................................    25
        Senator Heitkamp.............................................    28
        Senator Lankford.............................................    30
        Senator Daines...............................................    34
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Johnson..............................................    41
        Senator McCaskill............................................    42

                                   WITNESSES
                             Tuesday, June 6, 2017

    Hon. John F. Kelly Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
      Security
        Testimony....................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    47

                                    APPENDIX

    Chart submitted by Senator Johnson...............................    53
    NTEU statement for the Record....................................    55
    Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
        Mr. Kelly....................................................    58

      THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2017

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Johnson, Paul, Lankford, Hoeven, Daines,
    McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and
    Harris.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON

        Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to
    order.
        I would ask consent that my written statement be entered
    into the record.\1\ Without objection.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1-\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 41.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I want to welcome Secretary John Kelly. This is a hearing
    on the Department of Homeland Security's Fiscal Year (FY) 2018
    budget. This is the third time that Secretary Kelly has
    appeared before this Committee this Congress, the second time
    as Secretary of the Department, and again, we welcome you and
    appreciate your service to this country, many years of it.
        In lieu of my opening statement, I just want to make a
    couple of comments. By vocation, I am an accountant, so I have
    gone through budget meetings many times.
        First, I want to just talk about the history of the budget
    of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We are not quite
    ready for the chart. When you take a look at total budget
    authority, when the Department was first stood up, the first
    fiscal year was 2004, and the Department's budget was--this is
    total budgetary authority, mandatory and discretionary--$36.5
    billion.
        Now, had that budget just grown by inflation, today's
    request would be a little under $50 billion--$48.25 billion.
    Instead, total budget authority is $70.6 billion, about a 93-
    percent increase.
        Now, from my standpoint, that represents on a bipartisan
    fashion President Bush, President Obama, now President Trump
    realized that the threat environment that America faces has
    become more severe. It is growing, it is evolving, it is
    metastasizing, and the Department needs more resources to try
    and keep this homeland safe.
        And so, as much as I am concerned about the long-term
    budget situation of this country, the $20 trillion we are
    already in debt, we cannot be penny wise and pound foolish. I
    do not think I have seen an accurate assessment of how much
    economic loss we suffered because of September 11, 2001 (9/11).
    We have to do everything we possibly can, and let us face it,
    the defense of this Nation and the defense of our homeland is a
    top priority of government.
        So, I want to be completely supportive of the Secretary's
    request. Tough budget times, but we need to allocate the
    resources to keep this Nation and our homeland safe.
        The next point I would want to make is just the dramatic
    change we have had in terms of total apprehensions. We have a
    little chart\1\ here. What I have done, because we really only
    have 3 months' worth of history under the new Administration, I
    have just gone back and had my staff prepare a 3-month moving
    average of apprehensions along the Southwest border, and it is
    incredibly revealing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
    on page 53.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Prior to the last 3 months, on average we were apprehending
    a little more than 122,000 individuals coming to this country
    illegally. The last 3 months total, it was just under 56,000.
    In other words we are about 46 percent of the previous 4 or 5
    years' average. That is a pretty remarkable result. Since I
    have taken over this chairmanship and really been on this
    Committee looking at the problem of illegal entry into our
    Southwest border, I have been saying repeatedly that the first
    thing we need to do is be committed to securing our border and
    then eliminate the incentives for illegal immigration. I would
    say lack of enforcement of our immigration laws has been a huge
    incentive for people coming to this country. Under the new
    Administration, under the new Secretary, we have obviously
    committed to securing our border.
        I was a little concerned when people were taking credit for
    this reduction, I think, after 3 months. We will see what
    happens after 4 months. I think just that signal alone that we
    are committed to securing this border and we are going to
    enforce our laws has had a powerful effect, and I think we are
    seeing the results right now. So, again, I commend the
    Secretary for standing strong against severe criticism and
    actually enforcing the laws of this Nation.
        With that, I will turn it over to our Ranking Member,
    Senator McCaskill.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL\2\

        Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary Kelly, for being here. You appeared before this
    Committee a couple of months ago for the first time after being
    confirmed, and just look at the developments that have occurred
    in the few months since then, where you have had to be all
    hands on deck for serious issues facing the national and
    homeland security.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the
    Appendix on page 42.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On May 11, you met with the airline industry executives
    about your concern about large electronic device bans in terms
    of international travel.
        On May 12, we had a ``ransomware'' cyber attack that struck
    more than 200,000 computers in 150 countries, shutting down
    auto production in France, police departments in India, and
    closing doctors' offices in Britain.
        And then, of course, tragically, on May 22, a terrorist
    suicide bomber killed 22 innocent children and adults in
    Manchester, England. And then, this past weekend, terrorists
    killed seven in London.
        These are just a few examples of why we are counting on you
    and why we respect the job that you have to do every day and
    how difficult it truly is.
        The importance of your work also speaks to the critical
    responsibility that this Committee has in providing oversight.
    I have never known of a government agency that worked better
    with less oversight. Asking hard questions is, of course, the
    way you do aggressive oversight, and I am really particularly
    pleased that you are not afraid to answer tough questions. It
    is kind of who you are. You have been that way throughout your
    career.
        In fact, I noticed in the speech you gave to the U.S. Coast
    Guard (USCG) cadets, and I will quote you here, ``Tell the
    truth to your seniors even though it is uncomfortable, even
    though they may not want to hear it. They deserve that. Tell
    the truth.''
        I know that you will continue to speak truth to power, and
    I look forward to your honest assessment of what we can do to
    help you in that regard.
        While none of the three terrorists who did the attack over
    this past weekend would have been impacted by the President's
    proposed travel ban, a lot of discussion in the United Kingdom
    (UK) is now about the Conservative Party's cuts in police
    resources over the last decade and how many fewer resources
    there were actually on the ground to try to prevent those
    terrorist attacks.
        I am concerned that the President's budget plans to cut
    critical Transportation Security Administration (TSA) programs
    at a time that we cannot afford to let up on these security
    measures. A large portion of this cut is taken from the Visible
    Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams, which are
    deployed all over the country to provide critical assistance
    with securing airports, subways, and bus terminals--some of the
    most attractive soft targets for terrorists in our country. The
    President's budget aims to cut the VIPR teams from 31 down to
    just 8 teams to cover the entire country.
        The Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), which has been a
    lifeline for major urban areas that have so many soft targets
    because of the large populations, those also have been cut.
        Additionally, the President's budget is going to completely
    eliminate the Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program
    which provides assistance to local law enforcement agencies who
    help secure our airports. Hundreds of airports across the
    country take part in this program, and particularly for smaller
    airports, this assistance is critically important.
        The President's budget will also slash other DHS programs
    that provide critical security to our transportation systems.
    The Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) will be cut in half.
    The Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) will be cut in half. The
    President is calling for a complete elimination of the Complex
    Coordinated Terrorist Attacks (CCTA) Grant Program. I am
    concerned that these priorities are not getting the attention
    they deserve, especially in light of what is going on around
    the world. I think we may be focused on a shiny object which
    has come to be known as the ``travel ban'' when instead we need
    to be focused on how many people we have, in your terminology,
    General, ``boots on the ground'' in terms of being able to
    identify, track, and prevent these terrorist attacks.
        We are being asked to fund additional Border Patrol agents
    and air and marine officers, but there is no provision in the
    budget for additional Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
    officers. And, the difference in terminology is very important
    because, as you know, Secretary Kelly, the majority of drugs
    and other contraband come into our country through the ports of
    entry (POEs), and the CBP officers are the ones responsible for
    finding them and stopping them. We cannot neglect our ports of
    entry as we try to increase resources in terms of Border Patrol
    and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
        So, I am glad you are here today, Secretary Kelly. There
    are a lot of important issues before us. I have a lot of
    questions. I know the rest of the Committee does, too. And, I
    cannot tell you how much it means to all of us that you are
    willing to come here, to both Democrats and Republicans, and
    answer our questions. I hope the rest of the Administration
    follows your example because I think you are setting a very
    good one.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
        It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in our
    witnesses, so if you would please rise and raise your right
    hand? Do you swear that 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 Kelly. I do.
        Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
        Secretary John F. Kelly is the fifth Secretary of Homeland
    Security. Prior to joining DHS, General Kelly served as
    commander of the U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM), where he
    worked closely with U.S. law enforcement and DHS personnel in a
    coordinated effort to combat the flow of drugs, people, and
    other threats against the homeland into the United States from
    across the Southern border. Secretary Kelly's career has
    included extensive service in the Marine Corps where he
    commanded Marine Forces Reserve and Marine Forces North and
    served as senior military assistant to two Secretaries of
    Defense, Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary Leon Panetta.
    Less than a year after his retirement from service, Secretary
    Kelly returned to serve the American people as Secretary of
    Homeland Security.
        General Kelly is a retired four-star general, a Gold Star
    parent. America could not be more appreciative and more
    fortunate to have you serving in this capacity, and we thank
    you for your service and look forward to your testimony.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. KELLY,\1\ SECRETARY, U.S.
                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

        Secretary Kelly. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member
    McCaskill, and distinguished Members of the Committee, every
    day the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security
    protect Americans from the threats we face, and so it is a
    great pleasure to appear before you today to talk about the
    tremendous men and women of the Department and the critical
    missions they carry out in service of our America every day and
    night, 24/7/365.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Secretary Kelly appears in the
    Appendix on page 47.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I believe anyone who fully understands the fundamental role
    of our government also believes that the Federal Government's
    responsibility every day begins and ends with the protection of
    the homeland and the security of our people. No other mission
    is as important, no other consideration more pressing. None.
        The President's Fiscal Year 2018 budget request for the
    Department will make it possible for us to continue and expand
    in many ways on our ability to protect our Nation and its
    people. The world is a different place today. We can no longer
    think in terms of defense over there but, rather, must think in
    terms of the security overall of the homeland, across the
    numerous domains of a potential attack and defense.
        The Department of Homeland Security is making a difference
    in fighting the home game while the Department of Defense (DOD)
    fights the away game. And, together with and because of the
    dedication and effective interagency integration with the
    Director of National Intelligene (DNI), the Central
    Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Counterterrorism Center
    (NCTC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the National
    Security Agency (NSA), the Drug Enforcement Administration
    (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
    (ATF), and over a million State and local and tribal
    enforcement professionals, America today is safe, secure, and
    prepared in a way that most could not have envisioned the day
    before 9/11. But, the plots to attack the Nation are numerous,
    their perpetrators relentless. But, we need a fully funded
    budget that matches our mission. No more continuing resolutions
    (CR). And, I think this budget does that.
        The President's Fiscal Year 2018 budget requests $44.1
    billion in net discretionary funding for the Department of
    Homeland Security. It also requests $7.4 billion to finance the
    cost of emergencies and major disasters in Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA's) Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).
        When you are talking about numbers like these, it is easy
    to lose sight of what is behind each dollar. But, when you get
    right down to it, behind each and every dollar are hardworking
    men and women who have dedicated their careers and in many ways
    risked their lives to protect the American people. Every dollar
    invested in the men and women of DHS and every dollar invested
    in the tools, infrastructure, equipment, and training they need
    to get the job done is an investment in prosperity, freedom,
    and the rule of law.
        Above all, it is investment in the security of the American
    people, and as far as I am concerned, recent events show you
    cannot invest too much in security. The terrorist attacks on
    innocent civilians in Kabul, Cairo, South Asia, Manchester, and
    now London are horrific reminders of the dangers we face
    globally.
        They also illustrate the need to do everything we can to
    keep our people safe. That means getting better about verifying
    identity, making sure people are who they say they are, and
    working with our international partners to raise their
    awareness and raise their defenses, and force them to do so, if
    need be, to at least operate at the levels that we work at.
        Domestically, one of the most important enhancements to
    this effort is the REAL ID Initiative, an enhancement passed
    into law 12 years ago by the U.S. Congress, one which most of
    our States and territories have taken seriously and have
    already adopted. Many others are working hard at compliance.
        In those 12 years, some elected or appointed State and
    Federal positions who have the fundamental and sacred
    responsibility to safeguard the Nation have chosen to drag
    their feet or even ignore the law passed by Congress. I will
    not. REAL ID will make Americans safer. It already is. REAL ID
    will soon be enforced at our airports, land ports of entry, and
    all Federal facilities. And, it is a critically important 9/11
    Commission recommendation that others have been willing to
    ignore, but which I will ensure is implemented on schedule,
    with no extension for States that are not taking the effort
    seriously.
        For those States and territories that cannot or will not
    make the January 2018 deadline, they should encourage now their
    citizens to acquire other forms of ID compliant with the REAL
    ID law, like passports, available, of course, from the State
    Department.
        We need to prevent bad actors, regardless of religion,
    race, or nationality, from entering our country. In recent
    years, we have witnessed an unprecedented spike in terrorist
    travel. There are more terrorist hot spots and foot soldiers
    now than almost at any time in modern history. In Syria and
    Iraq, for instance, we have thousands of jihadist fighters that
    have converged from more than 120 countries. As our superb
    military machine, acting in coalition with and leading many
    other like-minded partners, as they succeed on the battlefield
    in the caliphate in Iraq and Syria, these jihadi fighters are
    returning home to Europe, South Asia, Southeast Asia,
    Australia, and even the Western hemisphere. And, who knows what
    they are up to? But, we can guess. They are heading to what
    they think are safe havens to continue their plotting and
    otherwise advance their toxic ideology of hate, death, and
    intolerance wherever they are allowed to hide. We expect that
    some will look to travel to the United States to carry out
    attacks.
        With this context in mind, the President has issued clear
    direction in the form of an Executive Order (EO) to the entire
    Executive Branch to prevent the entry of aliens who seek to do
    us harm. But, the current court injunction, of course, prevents
    us from taking steps right now to improve the security of the
    homeland until we see how that court action plays out. While
    some discuss, debate, and argue the name, title, or label that
    best describes the President's EO, professional men and women
    like me are actually in the business of implementing the
    President's intent to secure the Nation, and we are doing that.
    We will let the chattering class and self-appointed critics
    talk about the name. I just hope Congress sees the wisdom in
    what the President is trying to do to protect America and its
    people and that Congress is willing to work with those of us in
    the business of securing the Nation. And, it has been my
    experience in less than 4 months on the job that Congress is,
    in fact, committed to that.
        The court's injunction has prevented us from implementing a
    temporary ban on travel by aliens from six countries that are
    in States of civil war, are State sponsors of terrorism, and
    are basically failed States. They are the same countries
    identified by Congress and previous Administration in 2015 as
    nations of great concern.
        At the time, the expectation was that those in the business
    of securing the Nation lawfully would focus additional
    attention on these nations and others in similar circumstances
    for supplementary and accurate vetting. It has nothing to do
    with religion or skin color or the way they live their lives,
    but all about security for the United States and nothing else.
        These are countries that are either unable or unwilling to
    help us validate the identities and backgrounds of persons
    within their borders. I can tell you right now, because of the
    injunctions I am not fully confident that we are doing the best
    we can to weed out potential wrongdoers from these locations.
    The injunction also prevents me from actually looking into the
    information that we need from each country to conduct proper
    screening, not just from the six countries identified in the
    Executive Order but from every country across the globe. It
    also prevents me from conducting a review under the Executive
    Order with the goal of improving the security of our refugee
    program.
        Bottom line, I have been enjoined from doing these things
    that I know would make America safe, and I anxiously await the
    court to complete its action one way or the other so I can get
    to work.
        The men and women of DHS will do everything we can and
    always within the law to keep the American people safe. But,
    the delay has prevented us from doing what I and those most
    familiar with the reality of the threats we face believe we
    need to do to protect our homeland.
        Again, sir, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
    the Committee today, and I thank you for your continued support
    and the Committee's continued support for the great men and
    women of the Department and the mission we take so seriously. I
    remain committed to working with Congress and protecting the
    American people. I have made changes within the organization
    since I have been the Department head to do exactly that, to
    increase responsiveness, availability of witnesses, and we have
    done all of that in a big way.
        I am glad to answer any questions you may have, sir. Thank
    you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Secretary Kelly.
        I really appreciate the attendance by my colleagues. I know
    everybody has tight schedules, so I am going to defer my
    questioning so people have their opportunities, and I will
    start out with Senator McCaskill.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate the note you ended on, Secretary Kelly, and
    while I condemn the leak and the person who leaked it, we now
    have in the public domain verified information that the
    Russians made an aggressive attempt to access not only a vendor
    of voter software in this country but also a number of States,
    the voter file databases in the month prior to our election.
        In any other circumstances, this would be an earthquake,
    but because of everything else that is going on, I do not think
    enough attention has been given to something that is your
    responsibility as the Secretary of Homeland Security, and that
    is, critical infrastructure, including the election systems.
        I have asked for a number of pieces of information. This is
    one area where we have not gotten a response yet. I do
    appreciate that you all have not frozen us out. Many of my
    colleagues are being frozen out across the government. You have
    not frozen us out, and I am deeply grateful for that. I am
    anxious to get more information about what we know about these
    attempts. Whether or not they accessed the tabulation, it is
    clear they were trying to get into voter files. And, I do not
    think they were going there to try to just hang out.
        Imagine the disruption--we spend a lot of time in this
    country talking about voter ID. Imagine the disruption if
    thousands of people showed up to vote and their names were no
    longer on the voter files. What would we do? How would we
    address that in terms of fairness and open and free elections?
        So, I guess my question to you is: Are you deferring the
    investigation of this to the FBI? Or is the Department actually
    actively engaged in investigating the penetration or the
    attempts to penetrate the voter files in this country
    immediately before the election by the Russian Government?
        Secretary Kelly. Thank you, Senator. You know me, I am not
    going to dodge any question relative to anything that anyone in

    the U.S. Congress asks. I would say, though, up front I would
    not be--because of the allegations and the things that have
    been allegedly released are so highly classified, I would not
    want to kind of confirm or deny anything in there. I think we
    just have to wait for the investigation.
        I am happy to come over or send people over to talk to you,
    to the level that they can, about what actually took place, and
    I believe certainly Members of Congress deserve that, given the
    levels of classification. But, I share your concern. I do not
    disagree with anything you said relative to the sanctity of our
    voting process. Clearly, it should be an interagency
    investigation, and that is taking place. DHS will be part of
    that.
        As you know, just prior to his leaving, Jeh Johnson went
    out and declared that the voting infrastructure was, in fact,
    critical infrastructure. I have had a large amount of pushback
    on that from States, many Members of Congress. It was done
    before I took over. We are looking at that, trying to help the
    States understand what that means, and it is voluntary
    entirely. We are here to help, so to speak. But, I am meeting
    with the State homeland security professionals, I think next
    week here in the city, and I am going to put that question to
    them. Should we back off on that? I do not believe we should,
    but should we back off on that? Do you see us as partners and
    helpers in this to help, inside the States and help you make
    sure that your systems are protected? But, there is nothing
    more fundamental to our democracy than voting.
        Senator McCaskill. Well, in following up with that, I just
    hope that you convey--I mean, it would be one thing for the
    States to say we do not want the Federal Government to be--I
    like that our elections are decentralized. I do not think the
    Federal Government should be telling each State how to run
    their elections or what vendors to use.
        On the other hand, this was Russia.
        Secretary Kelly. Right.
        Senator McCaskill. I mean, this was Russia. This was not,
    some hacker at a university trying to screw around with one
    individual State. This was an international attempt to impact
    the elections of the United States of America. So, it really
    would be, I think, distressing if the United States would then
    pull back from the ability to help States protect these voter
    files. And, you all are going to be in the best position to be
    able to do that.
        So, is someone from the Department working in the
    investigation over this intrusion into our data files, our
    voter data files?
        Secretary Kelly. Yes, Senator, we are involved.
        Senator McCaskill. OK. The other area I wanted to talk
    about and give you a chance to respond to the things I said in
    my opening statement, about cutting funding for the VIPR
    Program and for the Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement
    Program, the Urban Area grants that are so important to large
    cities in this country in terms of protecting soft targets for
    terrorism. Could you address those cuts and if you would be OK
    with the fact that we would maybe want to restore those cuts?
        Secretary Kelly. I would like to comment for sure.
        The first thing I kind of referenced it a little bit in my
    opening statement. We are as a Nation in a different place
    entirely--from a law enforcement and local protection point of
    view, we are in a different place today than we were 15 years
    ago when 9/11 first took place. Whether it is New York City and
    the largest non-Federal law enforcement organization in the
    country, the New York City Police Department, or small towns
    and counties with very few professionals, this kind of
    thinking, this antiterrorism, counterterrorism is in the
    Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). We have certainly and should have
    right after 9/11 for years afterwards, I think to the tune now
    of $45 billion in 15 years, helped States, whether it was
    acquire equipment, hire people, DOD has a program where they
    give excess equipment away. You know all of that.
        So, we are in a different place today. New York City Police
    Department, I was just up there last week and sat with them for
    several hours getting their concept of how they protect the
    city from a terrorism point of view, and I do not think there
    is anyone better in the world.
        So, in a perfect world, I would love to fund everything,
    but 15 years on, we are in a different place locally and
    federally in terms of protecting the homeland. Again, in a
    perfect world, I would love to fund everything.
        Senator McCaskill. OK. Well, I understand the point you are
    making; although I will say that I do not think any of us would
    think that the threat of a terrorist attack is less today than
    it was 15 years ago. And, I can speak for many of these
    communities that are struggling with enough officers now. St.
    Louis is a good example where we have a serious crime problem,
    and in order to have the resources they need to cover the
    airport, to do some of the things that this money allows them
    to do is really important. So, I am hoping that we can work
    together and figure that out.
        Secretary Kelly. Senator, if I could respond, I would not
    disagree at all, and the threat since 9/11 is, I think--certain
    types of threats are much more than they were during 9/11, much
    more metastasized, some of it local, some of it potentially
    from outside the country. I am with you 1,000 percent. But, the
    one fundamental difference is we have different State, local,
    and Federal focus on this, and training and equipment.
        Senator McCaskill. We do.
        Secretary Kelly. Yes, ma'am.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Tester.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER

        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Once again, thank you for being here, Secretary Kelly. I
    think that you have bipartisan support on this Committee
    because of your track record, and you were in front of the
    Subcommittee on Homeland Security here a few weeks back, and I
    appreciate your testimony there.
        Since then, it was reported that the President's son-in-
    law, Jared Kushner, attempted to establish secret back-channel
    communications with the Kremlin through Russian ambassador
    Sergey Kislyak. You were asked about these back-channel
    communications with Russia on TV, and you supported Kushner
    setting up back-channel communications. The White House has
    been mum about these communications. I believe that these
    communications did occur. Whether there was anything classified
    or not that went through, I think this is a big deal because we
    are talking about Russia.
        I looked up your age, and I thought we might be similar in
    age, and to your credit, you are a little bit older than me,
    but you look younger. OK, Mr. Secretary. But, you remember
    Russia in the height of the cold war. I do not trust them any
    more today than I did when I was a first grader in school. And,
    to have somebody this close to the President setting up back
    channels before they were in office through a Russian embassy
    is very disturbing to me if, in fact, this happened.
        And so, have you spoken to Mr. Kushner about this issue?
        Secretary Kelly. I have not.
        Senator Tester. OK. So, has anybody spoken to him about
    this issue in your Department or to find out if this happened
    and what kind of information was relayed? We just heard the
    Ranking Member talk about potential impacts on elections. We
    have talked about potential money flowing to the Trump business
    enterprise. There is all sorts of smoke here that we need to
    get to the bottom of, and so I am curious about that.
        Secretary Kelly. I hope no one in my Department has spoken
    to him. That would be inappropriate. I am the interaction with
    the White House as a general rule. He does not work like many
    of the White House staff do not work directly.
        But, if I could, sir, on the back channel?
        Senator Tester. Yes, go ahead.
        Secretary Kelly. Back-channel communications, I mean, I had
    back-channel communications myself through religious leaders in
    the United States to leaders in, say, Latin America. It is one
    thing if I call the President of a country and have a
    conversation with him. It is different if it comes from another
    direction. It is just the reality of the way things work. I
    would just offer to you, sir, that we have to make the
    assumption--and I will--that Jared Kushner is a great American,
    he is a decent American. He has a security clearance at the
    highest level, as I understand it.
        Senator Tester. He did not then, though, did he?
        Secretary Kelly. I believe he should have had.
        Senator Tester. OK.
        Secretary Kelly. Now, if he was trying to open back-channel
    communications to pass information through that back channel to
    get to Putin or anyone else over there to say, ``Hey, look, we
    are concerned about this,'' or ``This is what you might want to
    consider doing,'' because if it is official, then it is a whole
    different dynamic.
        Senator Tester. I got you. But the question is: There are
    no red flags that come up for you at all on this?
        Secretary Kelly. Not at the time. I did not know about it.
    Since it has been reported, back channels are the normal--are
    in the course of normal interactions with other countries. Very
    common.
        Senator Tester. Can you tell me if it is also normal to go
    to an embassy of a country that has been our foe since World
    War II and do this kind--is that normal?
        Secretary Kelly. I do not know if that was the case, but if
    that is the case, I am not so sure it is normal, but certainly
    it would be one way to communicate through the back channel.
        Senator Tester. So, if I were to do that, you guys would
    think that is OK? I have a security clearance. If I were to
    walk over to an embassy and say, ``Hey, look, I want to have a
    back-channel communication, and, by the way, even though it
    appears that nobody in the United States will know what I am
    talking about, and this is why I did it, it is OK because I am
    not''--is that--I mean, really?
        Secretary Kelly. Senator, if you went over to--whether you
    met them here in the building or you----
        Senator Tester. Went to the Russian Embassy.
        Secretary Kelly [continuing]. Went to the embassy and
    said----
        ``Let me tell you something, as a Senator from the great
    State of Montana and a Member of these committees, this is
    B.S., what you are doing and you better stop it,'' or whatever,
    that is essentially a back-channel communication.
        Senator Tester. Well, I would just say this: I appreciate
    your faith in the system. I am going to tell you that whether
    classified information was delivered or not, I find this
    unacceptable. I just do. To have somebody who is a son-in-law
    to the President that goes in and sets up with Russia, the
    country that I was told to hide under the desk when the nuclear
    bombs came--what the hell good that would do, I do not know--
    when I was in first grade. I just think if we do not get to the
    bottom of what is going on and what is happening--we have
    talked about the Russians, we have talked about money. There is
    all sorts of stuff going on here. And, as the Ranking Member
    said, there is so much going on here that we do not know which
    direction to have the investigation happen. If it needs to be
    you, you have the credentials, by the way, and you have the
    respect, I believe, on this Committee and probably in Congress
    to really find out what the hell is going on, because it does
    not make me sleep better at night, I will just tell you. And,
    if it does not make me sleep better at night, your eyes are
    probably wide open on this.
        Secretary Kelly. Senator, I think, again, I think we have
    to make the assumption that----
        Senator Tester. But, do you not think we should ensure that
    that assumption is correct?
        Secretary Kelly. Oh, sure, and I think there are numerous
    investigations----
        Senator Tester. But, nobody is doing that.
        Secretary Kelly. I think there are numerous investigations
    that are looking into this. I mean, I think it is part of the
    Bob Mueller investigation. I think there are a number of
    Congressional committees looking into it.
        Senator Tester. OK. Another topic. I just want to echo what
    the Ranking Member said. There have been folks that have been
    frozen out by different agencies. I think that is
    inappropriate. Whether you are on that Committee or whether you
    are a Member of Congress, oversight is our big job. I
    appreciate you not doing that, and I hope that policy
    continues. I would assume that that is going to be the case,
    correct?
        Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir. And, if I could comment?
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Secretary Kelly. As I was going through the process of
    confirmation, those Senators and House Members that gave me the
    courtesy of an office call prior to the hearing, the one single
    thing I heard repeatedly was how nonresponsive this Department,
    my Department, our Department, was prior to. I would tell you,
    since I have been running the show, to the degree that I think
    I am running it, we have over 37 appearances in Congressional
    hearings, 57 witnesses, 973 Hill engagements. Prior to that, it
    was a tiny fraction. In fact, I was just talking to Senator
    Grassley, who was the biggest critic of my Department relative
    to Congressional engagement, and I was on an open phone with
    him and his staff and asked him how we were doing, and he gave
    me nothing but high marks. We are going to make that better.
        First of all, we are leaning forward, and whether it is--
    regardless of who the letter comes from--and it does not have
    to just come from a Ranking Member or Chairman. We will respond
    to any Congressional inquiry.
        Senator Tester. Thank you.
        Secretary Kelly. If we cannot get to it right away--some of
    the letters, as you might imagine, are lengthy and in need of
    great detail.
        Senator McCaskill. Too lengthy, sometimes.
        Secretary Kelly. My folks will call. If it falls into the
    category we cannot get to it real quick and respond, we will
    call the staff and say, ``Hey, we got it, and we are on it, but
    it will be some weeks or even perhaps months before we can get
    it to you.'' If need be, we will send a letter, or I will call
    the Member and say, ``Boy, this is a big one. I am going to
    have to set some people to work on this. It will be a while,
    but we are on it.''
        And, I think in every case thus far, certainly in the last
    90 days--60 days, anyways, we are getting high marks. So, I
    will not freeze you out, sir.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I look
    forward to seeing you in Montana.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you,
    Secretary Kelly, for being here today, and I would like to once
    again thank you for your trip to Detroit. I think it was well
    received by the community, and I appreciate you taking the
    effort to come out to my State.
        Secretary Kelly, I am particularly concerned about some of
    the proposed cuts to several FEMA preparedness grant programs
    that are in the President's budget. Our first responders in
    Michigan use the Urban Area Security Initiative and State
    Homeland Security Program funding to support lifesaving
    efforts, including bomb search and rescue equipment, simulation
    drills, maintenance of local early warning, and emergency
    response centers.
        The proposed 25-percent cost share matching requirement for
    local governments would prevent a number of these efforts
    because, quite frankly, many of these departments simply do not
    have the money available for that cost share. And, I know you
    think it is important that there is skin in the game. You have
    used that term frequently, that our local communities have some
    cash as they are in these matching programs.
        But, given the fact that we are facing lone-wolf attacks
    and a lot of changes in how our domestic homeland security
    folks have to deal with situations, do you believe--how are
    they able to make the appropriate investments to make sure that
    they are equipped for these types of attacks? Are there some
    other alternatives, or are there ways that we could perhaps
    adjust that figure in the budget?
        Secretary Kelly. Yes, Senator, referencing a couple of my
    previous comments in this hearing as well as in the past, our
    local law enforcement--city, State, county, big city, small
    city--they are in a different place today than they were right
    after 9/11, and we all know that. They are just much better at
    what they do. Their head is in the game. They have skin in the
    game. The grants over the years have to a degree caused that to
    happen because we have given additional funding to the various
    municipalities to improve themselves.
        We are at the point now where much of that effort is
    already accomplished, and we are in the sustainment phase; that
    is to say, States and local governments now need to sustain
    what we have helped them, the points at which and the equipment
    and all that we have helped them get to, that combined with
    there are not unlimited resources. One of the things you
    mentioned, lone-wolf attacks, a lone wolf--and you know this,
    and I beg your forgiveness. I do not mean to lecture--not
    lecture, but to go too low in terms of my response. But, the
    thing we are facing with the lone-wolf attacks is a different
    dynamic. New York City is at risk. Detroit is at risk. Some
    tiny little town in the middle of Arkansas is at risk. Every
    small town, big town, is at risk from this lone-wolf stuff.
        I do not know, as hard as I have thought about it, if there
    is a way to prevent it, predict it, get our arms around it
    other than local cops and sheriffs getting into people's
    business legally, outreach and all of that kind of thing. But,
    my point is an unlimited amount of money parceled out to every
    big city, small municipality in America might prevent a lone-
    wolf attack. I do not know if it will, but it might. But, of
    course, we do not have an unlimited amount of money.
        We make these decisions in many ways based on formulas that
    we receive from the Congress. We plug in numbers and try to
    somehow evaluate what might be a logical target, not
    necessarily for the lone wolfers. They are everywhere. But, a
    logical target or a target that might be at higher risk, say
    New York City, than another municipality, particularly from an
    external terrorist.
        Senator Peters. Well, I understand that, and I appreciate
    the fact that this is a big challenge. We do not have unlimited
    amounts of money. But, I want to just challenge a little bit of
    the assessment that other communities are adequately prepared
    for it. Certainly we have come a long way. As you mentioned, we
    have come a long way and provided those resources. But, I am
    certainly hearing from my departments in Michigan there are
    still unmet needs that they think are pretty critical.
    Resources are tight for them as well, and we still have a ways
    to go. So, hopefully we can revisit some of those matching
    programs to make sure that those communities that may be at the
    highest risk but also have a fairly challenging budget
    situation in that community, that we are able to work something
    out. I would appreciate having further discussion in that area.
        Also, Mr. Secretary, the first travel ban Executive Order
    required the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report
    in 30 days that provides a list of countries that do not
    provide adequate information for vetting, within 30 days of the
    date of this order, and it is my understanding the district
    court in Seattle did not stay that aspect of the order.
        The second Executive Order required the exact same report
    within 20 days of its effective day, and as you know, aside
    from Sections 2 and 6, the remainder of the revised Executive
    Order is not affected by any subsequent injunctions. So, that
    means as of today, May 6, 2017, the report required by the
    first Executive Order is overdue by over 60 days, more than
    twice as much time as required, and a report required by the
    second Executive Order is overdue by about 30 days.
        Mr. Secretary, did you begin the report reviewing screening
    procedures that the initial Executive Order required?
        Secretary Kelly. Senator, we have been very cautious, extra
    cautious, in getting anywhere near where the court might
    consider we are not following their instructions. I would have
    to get back to
    you on exactly where we are on the reports. One of the things
    that--regardless of whether the court has told us not to do, we
    have looked for things that we could do. As an example,
    thinking about other countries but not studying it, and looking
    at vetting procedures, additional vetting, extreme vetting, but
    not studying it.
        Some of the procedures would be very obvious, some of the
    countries very obvious. But, if you do not mind, I would like
    to get back to you on the question.
        Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate it because it seems to
    me a court injunction is not going to limit you from doing your
    own internal reviews of policies and procedures. That goes----
        Secretary Kelly. I actually have lawyers telling me, sir,
    that we are too close on some of these issues, not necessarily
    ones you have addressed, but on some of these issues, and it is
    best just to show extra good faith and not getting too close to
    it.
        Senator Peters. Very good. Well, I would appreciate further
    discussions on that as well.
        Secretary Kelly. Sure.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN

        Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    And, good morning, Secretary Kelly, and thank you for being
    here. Like all of my colleagues, I appreciate your willingness
    to have this conversation with us.
        Last week, I visited our CBP base covering New Hampshire's
    Northern border with Canada. The men and women at the station
    are working overtime and on a shoestring budget to secure our
    Northern border, including intercepting human traffickers and
    preventing narcotic smuggling.
        I think they are doing an incredible job with truly limited
    resources, but they really need more support. And, while CBP is
    getting a huge boost in their funding in this budget, we know
    that this funding is not going to be used to shore up the
    Northern border. And, it is not just CBP's Northern border
    forces--they are not the only ones getting shorted in this
    budget, as some of the other Members here have indicated. TSA,
    in charge of protecting our aviation borders and stopping
    terrorists from taking down our aviation system, is facing a
    sizable cut to some of its key programs and renewed aviation
    threats. And, the Coast Guard protects our Nation's largest
    border, but despite its aging maritime assets, rundown and,
    frankly, outdated facilities, the Coast Guard is also getting
    cut.
        So, this budget tells me that your priority is to secure
    the Southern border and that fighting off all other threats is
    secondary. I certainly support securing the Southern border and
    reducing narcotics trafficking, but this budget presents
    really, I think, a false choice. We can and should secure the
    Southern border and also secure our other land, sea, and air
    borders as well.
        So, what is your plan for making sure that our Northern
    border forces, TSA, and the Coast Guard get the funding
    increases they so desperately need?
        Secretary Kelly. Well, Senator, the good news is from my
    perspective, and certainly what I have learned in the last
    going on 4 months, is we have two great partners in this effort
    to secure our borders: Canada to the north, obviously, and
    Mexico to the south. The bad news for Mexico and the Southwest
    border is largely because of our drug demand, an incredibly
    efficient network has developed that stretches, frankly, from
    around the world, goes through the Western hemisphere, the
    Caribbean, up the Central American isthmus, Mexico, into the
    United States. So, that is where the overwhelming amount of
    drugs, illegal aliens, special interest aliens come through
    because of that network. Not because Mexico is not a partner,
    not because they are not great friends, but because they are
    unfortunately astride a network or a land mass or a
    geographical feature that the drug traffickers have decided
    that that is how they are coming.
        Senator Hassan. And, Secretary Kelly, I am well aware of
    that. I am also well aware of how able, nimble, evolving, and
    creative these cartels and networks are. And so, it just seems
    to me a totally false choice to leave a border inviting and
    open, relatively open. It may disrupt things on the Southwest
    border for a time, but it does not do us any good if there are
    other ports of entry.
        You talk to the Coast Guard right now, and they are not
    able to intervene in some of the narcotics traffic on our seas
    because they simply do not have the resources, even when they
    know that they are there. And, that would be a very important
    aspect of our war on this drug epidemic we have.
        Secretary Kelly. Well, you are right on the Northern border
    versus the Southern border. But, for right now, the Southern
    border is the problem. If we were to seal the Southern border--
    and I believe we can get--I know we will get control of our
    Southern border. That does not mean seal it but control it, go
    from where we were several months ago, almost no control, to
    some pretty good control. They will, given the drug demand in
    the United States, they will figure other ways to get through.
    We have to watch that and react to it.
        Senator Hassan. And, we also have to keep people in the
    northern part of our country safe. And so, one of the things--
    that is not a very reassuring answer to the people of New
    Hampshire or the other Northern border States.
        I want to move on to another issue that we discussed the
    last time you were here. I asked you about an innovative way to
    protect DHS' systems from cyber attacks and the possible
    application of the Pentagon's pilot program to use hackers to
    probe the Pentagon's networks for vulnerabilities. The pilot
    program was called ``Hack the Pentagon,'' and it has been very
    successful. In the few weeks that the program ran, the Pentagon
    collected 138 previously undiscovered vulnerabilities. Since
    then, the Pentagon has expanded the program, and the General
    Service Administration (GSA) has announced an effort to launch
    a similar program.
        A little over a week ago, Senator Portman and I, along with
    others on this Committee, introduced the Hack DHS Act. That
    bill would instruct DHS to hold a pilot program to allow
    hackers to probe DHS' systems for vulnerabilities and report
    them to DHS. In return, DHS would pay the hackers a small sum
    of money for each vulnerability they discover and report. As my
    friend Senator Harris said, we will fight hackers with hackers.
        So, as you can see, a lot has happened since you were last
    here. At the last hearing, you promised to look into whether
    the Pentagon's pilot program would be a fit for DHS. So, I am
    just asking you today that you take a hard look at this bill.
    There has also been a similar bill introduced today in the
    House by Representatives Lieu and Taylor. And so, would you
    just commit to taking a hard look at those bills and seeing
    what the Department thinks of them?
        Secretary Kelly. Senator, I absolutely will, and probably
    will not wait to see if this law passes.
        Senator Hassan. OK. Thank you.
        Lastly, I have two more points. I do not want to reiterate
    everything Senator Peters said, but I will just let you know,
    as a former Governor who is in a State with lots of volunteer
    first responder forces, part-time police departments, and
    ongoing efforts to keep our State and do our part for our
    country's national security safe, too, the elimination or
    severe cuts to critical State aid and grant programs for
    everything from airport security to other kinds of security
    efforts to fight homegrown terrorism, you have to train
    ongoing. You need ongoing resources. We have an enemy who is
    evolving, and the notion that just because we have made
    improvements since 9/11 we can absorb this kind of drastic cut
    I think is just a really false notion. And, I would tell you
    that, having talked with my homeland security people in New
    Hampshire about the myriad of threats we are facing, the cuts
    here are really troubling.
        And last, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I just would encourage--
    and maybe we can talk offline about the President's Opioid
    Commission. I understand that the first interim report is due
    shortly. We just have not heard anything about it. I know you
    are on the Commission, and I would love to talk later about
    that.
        Secretary Kelly. Well, on that, if I could just have a
    minute, Mr. Chairman, to respond? Myself, Rex Tillerson, you
    may not have seen us with the Mexicans a couple of weeks ago,
    they are on board with our attempts to not only safeguard the
    Southwest border, their Northern border, but also get at the
    demand problem. I know Secretary Tillerson, Secretary Price,
    myself, and the head of the Office of National Drug Control
    Policy (ONDCP), who I have spoken to--and I like to think
    changed his attitude toward what his job is going forward--we
    will get together and put some real energy behind the demand
    reduction to include, obviously, the opioids. But, I think a
    big part of it, I think you will agree, I think we spoke about
    this, is this overmedicated society that we suffer from in the
    United States that just suggests to people all they have to do
    is put something up their nose, in their mouth, or in their arm
    to solve all their problems.
        Senator Hassan. And, one of the things that is going to be
    really important and really concerning, obviously, is the
    Administration's support for eliminating things like Medicaid
    expansion and requirements that insurance companies treat
    addiction, which gets at the overmedication and the
    overprescribing issue. So, I look forward to talking with you
    more about it. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
        I will again just point out, based on the baseline budget
    in 2004, it was $36.5 billion. Had it grown by inflation, it
    would be about $48 billion. Instead, it is about $70 billion.
    So, $22 billion more growth in spending for this Department
    because of those evolving threats. So, I just want to point out
    what the reality is in terms of the increase in spending over
    the last, whatever that is, 13 years.
        Senator Hassan. And, if I may--and I appreciate that, Mr.
    Chairman--my concern is that we are only as strong as our
    weakest link in this country.
        Chairman Johnson. Again, we do not want to be penny wise
    and pound foolish, but we have dramatically increased the
    resources of this Department.Senator Paul.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL

        Senator Paul. Secretary Kelly, thanks for your testimony.
    The last time you were here, we talked about U.S. citizens
    coming across the border and being threatened with non-entry or
    detention if they did not divulge the contents of their phone,
    all of the contents of their phone, and your response was, ``I
    just do not believe we are doing it.'' So, we asked some
    questions in writing, and we are still waiting on the response.
    That has been about 6 weeks or so. But, I thought I would list
    for you a couple of the public episodes of this happening.
        This year, a NASA engineer and a U.S. citizen was pulled
    aside after coming back from Chile. They demanded the PIN for
    his phone, and they handed him a form that explained how CBP
    had the right to copy the contents of his phone, all the
    contents of his phone. He recalled that the form indicated that
    his participation in the search was mandatory and it threatened
    detention and/or seizure if he did not comply. The phone,
    ironically, was already a government phone. It was a NASA phone
    that they were wanting to search.
        Two citizens were stopped on return from Canada. NBC did an
    investigation of 25 different cases of U.S. citizens being told
    to turn over their phones, unlock them, or provide passwords.
        A U.S. citizen was taken off of a flight in L.A.,
    handcuffed and released after a Homeland Security agent looked
    through his phone for 15 minutes.
        A U.S. citizen journalist also had their phone taken.
        So, I guess my question is: Is your answer still, ``I just
    do not believe we are doing it?''
        Secretary Kelly. My answer is we do not do it routinely
    unless there is a reason why, so that is a change. We do it
    whether they are citizens or non-citizens coming in. I think of
    the million or so people that come in the country, half of 1
    percent is checked.
        Now, typically, the officers--and always according to the
    law. Now, typically, the officers who are engaged in the front-
    line defense at the ports of entry, in their questioning of
    individuals for whatever has tipped them off, will cause them
    to have certain conversations, go down certain avenues of--not
    interrogation but, again, conversation. In the event of some
    indicator that perhaps the individual is returning from, sex
    tourism or something like that, we do catch a fair number of
    people in that regard. But, again, Senator, very seldom done
    and always for a reason and always within the law.
        Senator Paul. So, the answer now is not, ``I just do not
    believe we are doing it.'' It is, ``We are doing it, and not
    that often.''
        Secretary Kelly. Right.
        Senator Paul. The policy they are being threatened with,
    though, is detention? How long will they be detained if they do
    not give you the PIN to their phone?
        Secretary Kelly. It is a relatively short period of time.
    It is generally called ``secondary'' where they are follow-up
    questions. Once a decision might be made to put them into some
    legal justice system, then that is----
        Senator Paul. But, to you it is still--you are just fine
    with the policy that arbitrarily takes someone's phone, says
    you cannot come back into your own country?
        Secretary Kelly. Not arbitrarily. There is a reason why
    they do it, Senator.
        Senator Paul. Well, no. The thing is it is arbitrary unless
    there are rules as to how you do it. What are the rules? In our
    country, if you want to look at my phone----
        Secretary Kelly. There are rules----
        Senator Paul [continuing]. You call a judge in my country.
    So, this would not necessarily be American jurisprudence if you
    are just saying we might have some internal rules. Have you
    published what your rules are?
        Secretary Kelly. At the ports of entry, whether a citizen
    or non-citizen, the officers have procedures to follow, but
    certainly rights to check baggage and in this case look into
    electronics. There are procedures. Whether they are published
    or not, are specific enough to publish, I do not know, but I
    can certainly get back to you.
        Senator Paul. We would like to see that. We would also like
    to see the form that threatens them with detention and/or
    seizure if they do not comply.
        Secretary Kelly. Sure.
        Senator Paul. I can tell you I am not happy with the
    policy, and I wish it were different. And, we have actually
    introduced legislation to try to stop you from doing this and
    to make you go to a court the way we do in our country.
    Typically, we go to a court and you ask a judge, and you have
    to present evidence. You have to specify an individual, and you
    have to have a reason for doing it. Searching someone's phone,
    is not the same as searching someone's luggage.
        Secretary Kelly. Would that law also prohibit us from
    looking in bags and things like that?
        Senator Paul. No, and I think there is a difference. And, I
    think that that is the whole point here, is that looking in
    someone's luggage for an immediate threat to the country, to
    the people, to the plane, etc., I think we have decided that
    that is within the scope of your jurisdiction. But, looking at
    someone's phone is a much more personal and much more extensive
    look into their life, and we just do not think you should be--
    it sort of horrifies us to think that you could not come back
    in your country, you know? People are now talking. There are
    people giving you advice to not take your phone abroad because
    when you come back home, your country will not let you come
    home unless you let them look at your entire life. That does
    not seem like a fair tradeoff to be able to travel or for
    safety. And, I think there is a point at which we give up so
    much of our liberty to travel that has it been worth it,
    really? I mean, we can live in a secure State if we clamp down
    and we have no freedom to travel, and we give up all of our
    privacy to travel. I just do not think that is necessary. And,
    I think there can also be two different standards, frankly. I
    think there can be one standard for somebody who is coming for
    the first time from Afghanistan who has one name and no
    background. I am with you. We need to do more scrutiny on
    people coming to our country. But, if an American citizen
    leaves and comes back, I think, for goodness' sakes, they ought
    to still be protected by the Bill of Rights when they come
    home.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Hoeven.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN

        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary, for being here and for your good and very important
    work.
        Where are you in terms of this extreme vetting process as
    far as having the procedures in place that you want, and
    particularly as regards the six countries included in the
    President's EO?
        Secretary Kelly. I am sorry, sir. Where are we----
        Senator Hoeven. Where are you in the process of
    establishing your extreme vetting procedures the way you want
    to have them set up, and particularly as regards to the EO
    countries?
        Secretary Kelly. Because, again, of my not wanting to get
    crosswise with the courts in any law, we have been very
    reserved in that. I will tell you that there are two aspects of
    this. Some of it I control, some of it the State Department
    controls. The State
    Department has recently issued a number of additional questions
    as an example that their consular officers will ask those that
    want to visit the United States on visas. That is a little bit
    of an easier thing because typically those people are coming
    out of countries--well, they would present a passport as an
    example, and there has always been certain questions in place
    that they would ask. Now there will be some additional
    questions about where they have lived and, it could be access
    to their electronic devices. But, that is outside the country.
        In the case of refugees, I think the Senator knows that in
    many cases the refugees that we deal with have no paperwork
    that we can rely on. They have no passports. We have to take
    their word for it.
        The United Nations (U.N.), as hard as they try--and I think
    the last time I was here, or one of the recent hearings, I
    talked about my interaction with the U.N. They are in the same
    position we are. Although they are not in the position of
    allowing people to come to a given country, they themselves, as
    they do their initial refugee screening--they do not do
    screening. They do refugee registration: What is your name?
    Where are you from? All of that taken on faith, good faith.
        And then, it comes to us. In the past we have, I think,
    exercised entirely too much good faith, and I think the things
    we are looking at is, OK, if you do not have a passport, you
    have no proof of who you are, then we need to know some
    additional facts and figures about you. How did you support
    yourself in a given country? Do you have any way to prove that
    you work for a living so that we can kind of prove who you are?
    What village were you at? Can you give us points of contact in
    a given country that we can call? That kind of thing.
        But, in many cases, many of these refugees do not have any
    of that, so it would be very hard for me in good faith to then
    move them into the United States to establish, a home here.
        But, I believe what will give us an advantage is when we
    start to deal with them on their social media accounts, their
    telephone, registrations, that kind of thing.
        Senator Hoeven. What about the Visa Waiver countries? You
    mentioned earlier that as we inflict defeat on the Islamic
    State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in the Middle East, there are
    individuals who have been in the Middle East and returning to
    other Western European and other countries with which we have
    Visa Waiver in place. What procedures, extra procedures,
    precautions are you taking to protect them from coming to the
    United States?
        Secretary Kelly. Well, as I think the Senator knows, there
    are 38 Visa Waiver countries. As you might imagine--I know you
    realize this--they are countries that have more or less what we
    have. They have a working relationship with the United States,
    to say the least. They have a U.S. embassy locally to handle
    our affairs and look out for us. They have kind of an FBI and
    an Intelligence Community (IC) and all the rest with databases
    that allow us to tap into what they do. That is getting better,
    by the way, and I have commitments from many countries around
    the world because of the laptop ban that we implemented in 10
    airports about mid-March.
        But, the point is we are in very good shape in those
    countries. We have confidence in their systems and how they
    interact with our systems. Not every country, though, say in
    Europe is a Visa Waiver country because some of them have not
    got--even though they are, Western countries, First World, they
    do not have what we think they need. So, we set the bar very
    high, and they have in most countries--certainly 38 have met
    that bar.
        But, that said, again, the long pole in the tent is, as Jim
    Comey would say, the database is only good if you are on it.
    And, not to get into it--I do not want to be too open about
    this in an open hearing, but some of the more recent terrorists
    in England or U.K. may not have been on any of those lists, so
    that had they decided to come here--you are exactly right----
        Senator Hoeven. That is my question.
        Secretary Kelly [continuing]. Had they come to the United
    States, they would have certainly been able to buy a ticket and
    fly to the United States. Now, their baggage and everything
    would have been subject to the normal protocols, so my sense
    would be that, they would not be getting on the airplane with a
    bomb or something like that, if they got here, hopefully. And,
    if they got here and were trying to do something about that,
    you know that. But, if they got here, then it would possibly be
    problematic. But, the point is there is a certain point where I
    do not think we either have a Visa Waiver Program (VWP) or not.
    And, I can tell you, the 38 countries that are on it are
    committed to it. We are all committed to making it better.
    Right now I am comfortable with where we are on it.
        Senator Hoeven. But, clearly, we have to react to events
    and take extra precautions, right?
        Secretary Kelly. We do.
        Senator Hoeven. In regard to Senator Hassan's comments
    regarding the Northern border, one of the best tools you have--
    and you and I have talked about this--both at Homeland
    Committee Appropriations as well as this Committee, is the
    unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Kevin McAleenan, your Acting CBP
    Director, who, by the way, is absolutely fantastic, was out in
    Grand Forks. We have 900 miles of border responsibility, all
    different kind of terrain, all the way from Lake Superior all
    the way throughout most of Montana. The UAS is a great tool.
    You are collocated in the Grand Forks Air Force Base. We are
    looking at new facilities. We are working with him. I would ask
    for your strong support for him in that effort.
        And, also, with the technology park we have there at the
    Grand Forks Air Force Base, it is really a unique opportunity
    to develop that UAS tool, which helps you on the Northern
    border and the Southern border.
        So, again, I want to commend him and commend him to you and
    ask for your support for his good efforts. That is a tool that
    can really address some of the concerns that she raised.
        Secretary Kelly. Senator, I agree with you. Thanks for the
    comments about Kevin. He is really a first-round draft choice.
        Senator Hoeven. He is an All-Star.
        Secretary Kelly. I cannot wait to get him confirmed, or
    hopefully the Senate will confirm him.
        Senator Hoeven. I agree. Thank you for all you are doing.
        Secretary Kelly. Sure.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Harris.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS

        Senator Harris. Thank you.
        Secretary Kelly, as a follow-up to Senator Tester's
    questions, you mentioned that you have in your career had back-
    channel conversations with foreign governments. Is that
    correct?
        Secretary Kelly. I had people I could rely on to pass
    information to foreign leaders.
        Senator Harris. And, was that in your current capacity as a
    member of the President's Cabinet?
        Secretary Kelly. That was in my capacity when I was in
    uniform. I would not hesitate to do it now.
        Senator Harris. And, did you initiate any of those
    conversations such that you initiated that they would take
    place inside the embassy of a foreign government?
        Secretary Kelly. I have gone to embassies both in my
    current assignment as well as in past assignments or met with
    members of the diplomatic corps from other countries, and----
        Senator Harris. Have you initiated back-channel
    conversations----
        Secretary Kelly. Can I finish what I was saying?
        Senator Harris [continuing]. To occur inside of those
    embassies as opposed to attending a cocktail party?
        Secretary Kelly. I have had conversations with members of
    foreign diplomats in various places and talked to them about my
    perception of what they could do better in response to things
    that the U.S. Government would like to see them do.
        Senator Harris. Thank you.
        Secretary Kelly, included in the President's budget is a
    provision that says, ``The Secretary of Homeland Security may
    condition a grant or cooperative agreement awarded by the
    Department of Homeland Security to a State or political
    subdivision of a State for a purpose related to immigration,
    national security, law enforcement, or preventing, preparing
    for, or protecting against, or responding to acts of terrorism.
    Specifically, the budget authorizes the Secretary to condition
    grants on compliance with any lawful request by DHS to detain
    an alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours.''
        Are you familiar with that?
        Secretary Kelly. I am fairly familiar with it, yes.
        Senator Harris. I am sorry?
        Secretary Kelly. Fairly familiar with it, yes.
        Senator Harris. Grants that are subject to new conditions
    would include the Urban Area Security Initiative, a DHS grant
    that provided California last year with $124 million to help
    urban areas prevent, mitigate, and respond to acts of
    terrorism. This grant supports more than 100 incorporated
    jurisdictions in 12 counties in the Bay Area of California
    alone. It supports them to buy equipment, enhance systems, and
    conduct trainings so that localities can prevent, mitigate, and
    respond to acts of terrorism. Are you aware of that?
        Secretary Kelly. That is a good thing.
        Senator Harris. Another DHS grant is the State Homeland
    Security Grant Program that provided California $60.2 million
    last year to support State, local, and tribal efforts to
    prevent terrorism and to prepare the Nation for threats and
    hazards that pose the greatest risk to security in the United
    States. Is that correct?
        Secretary Kelly. I wish I had the same document I could
    read from as you do.
        Senator Harris. Are you familiar with this grant program in
    your Department?
        Secretary Kelly. I am familiar with the grant program.
        Senator Harris. And, are you aware that there are a number
    of Federal courts that have imposed civil liability on local
    governments for complying with ICE detainer orders that were
    not supported by probable cause? Can you answer the question?
        Secretary Kelly. Am I aware of that?
        Senator Harris. Yes.
        Secretary Kelly. I am.
        Senator Harris. And, in order then to comply with the 48-
    hour ICE detainer made with no probable cause, would that not
    force the jurisdiction to choose whether to comply with the
    Federal court ruling or forfeit vital public safety funds that
    are administered by your Department?
        Secretary Kelly. I am not a lawyer, but I think that
    Federal law is Federal law as State law is State law, and if we
    have a different view of the impact of some of the State
    rulings.
        Senator Harris. Well, imagine, sir, if you will, that you
    were a local law enforcement leader presented with a choice of
    either complying with Federal law that means that you may
    expose your department and your jurisdiction to civil liability
    or forfeiting DHS funds that are designed and intended to help
    you fight terrorism at a local level, would you not agree that
    puts those law enforcement leaders in--it is almost a Hobson's
    choice?
        Secretary Kelly. Well, Senator----
        Senator Harris. How are they supposed to choose?
        Secretary Kelly. Had you not cut me off, I would have said
    the same thing you just said, probably not as eloquently but I
    would have said the same thing you said. I appreciate the fix
    they are in. I appreciate that they get their legal advice from
    the State and locals. And, below the radar, we work with every
    police and sheriff department in this country to the degree
    that they can and are comfortable with.
        Senator Harris. Secretary Kelly, what do you mean, ``below
    the radar?'' They have two choices, and they are accountable--
    --
        Secretary Kelly. Talk to them on the phone----
        Senator Harris. Excuse me, sir. They are accountable to
    their jurisdiction, to the bodies that may have appointed or
    elected them, and they have to make choices. What do you mean,
    ``below the radar?''
        Secretary Kelly. We talk to them on the telephone, and----
        Senator Harris. And, what are you instructing them to do
    when presented with those two choices?
        Secretary Kelly. And, we tell them to--whatever they can do
    within the law, the interpretation, we are willing to work with
    them.
        Senator Harris. So, are you aware that there are local law
    enforcement----
        Secretary Kelly. Could you let me at least finish once
    before you interrupt me?
        Senator Harris. Sir, with all due respect----
        Secretary Kelly. With all due respect, Senator.
        Senator Harris. Are you instructing local law enforcement
    leaders that they can overlook a DHS detainer request so they
    are not exposed to criminal liability?
        Secretary Kelly. We talk to them about whatever they are
    comfortable with, whatever they think they can do within the
    interpretation of their local Attorneys General (AG), as an
    example, or local lawyers----
        Senator Harris. So, when they are----
        Secretary Kelly. Could you let me finish once?
        Senator Harris. Excuse me. I am asking the questions.
        Secretary Kelly. But, I am trying to answer the question.
        Senator Harris. When they tell you, as I know local police
    chiefs are being told, that it would expose their municipality
    to civil liability if they comply with the detainer request,
    are you telling them that you will not withhold the DHS Federal
    funding that they rely on?
        Secretary Kelly. OK. Before I start to answer, will you let
    me finish?
        Senator Harris. If it is responsive to the question, of
    course.
        Secretary Kelly. We talk to them on the phone and tell them
    whatever they are comfortable with, whatever they can do within
    the interpretation of their local lawyers or legal advisers, we
    will work with them.
        Senator Harris. So, are you willing to then not withhold
    Federal funding when police chiefs tell you that they cannot
    comply with the detainer request because they have been told by
    their lawyer that they will expose their jurisdiction or their
    department to civil liability?
        Secretary Kelly. I am willing to work with them in any way
    I can within the law, Federal and local law, whatever they are
    comfortable with. I do not make threats to people, Senator.
        Senator Harris. Thank you. My time is up.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Harris.
        By the way, there is actually a very simple fix for this
    predicament, and it is a huge predicament. Let us pass a law to
    give those local law enforcement officials liability protection
    against those civil suits, because part of Pat Toomey's
    sanctuary city law, that could clear up this whole difference.
    So, there is actually a pretty simple fix here which I would
    certainly support.
        Senator Harris. And, I would support any fix that would not
    withhold funding for local law enforcement to meet the demands
    that they face around combating terrorism in their local
    jurisdiction.
        Chairman Johnson. Great. So, this could be a bipartisan
    solution here.
        Senator Harris. Potentially.
        Chairman Johnson. Let us provide that civil liability
    protection against those civil suits so local law enforcement
    are not caught between a rock and a hard place in a very
    difficult situation. So, let us work on that together. I would
    appreciate that. I am sure Secretary Kelly would enjoy working
    with us on that as well. Senator Carper.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

        Senator Carper. Thanks. Mr. Secretary, thank you for
    joining us today. It is good to see you.
        When I first heard the words ``St. Elizabeths,'' I thought,
    Why would we spend that much money on creating a campus, if you
    will, a home, a consolidated home for the Department of
    Homeland Security? And, over time I became convinced that one
    of the ways to actually enable the leadership of this
    Department to manage their Department and to improve their
    performance and, frankly, improve the morale of the employees
    is to actually pursue and implement the plan to create this
    campus. When Jeh Johnson became the Secretary, he had the same
    kind of misgivings that I originally had about the proposal.
        Would you just take a moment and tell us whether you have
    had a chance to get a feel for this and how your Department is
    so far-flung----
        And, what do you think we ought to do? And, how does the
    Administration's budget actually take us in that direction or
    not?
        Secretary Kelly. Well, Senator, we are in--I cannot count
    the number of locations around the city. Various parts, every
    part of Homeland Security is just spread out over all of Hell's
    Half Acre here. To bring all or most of it or some of it
    together over at St. Elizabeths makes a lot of sense just from
    the point of view of time management. I mean, first--and money.
    We spend a huge amount of money renting, choice downtown real
    estate here in the city. We could avoid much of that. I think
    we would realize, if and when St. Elizabeths opened, billions
    of dollars in savings over 5 and 10 years.
        But, the other issue is time management. I mean, it takes
    me half an hour to get from where I sit most of the time to
    meet with CBP or ICE or whatever, and then, obviously, half an
    hour to get back. Sometimes I do that two, three times a day.
    It kills either my time management or their time management. I
    do the best I cannot to inconvenience the people that work for
    me. But, it would be an advantage to be more or less in one
    place. St. Elizabeths seems to be the locale. But, frankly, as
    I have gotten smart on that particular location, there are some
    worker issues that we need to sort out, and we can do that in
    terms of transportation, access to Metro, that kind of thing.
        But, overall, it would be a cost savings as well as a time
    savings if we were to consolidate much of the headquarters
    effort in one location--St. Elizabeths.
        Senator Carper. There are two pieces of funding. One is for
    GSA, and the other is for the Department of Homeland Security.
    I think one is for infrastructure and one is for if you go for
    a fit-out. And, one of them is--I think the GSA piece is funded
    in the 2018 budget. The DHS funding is not there, so I would
    like to follow up with you on that and certainly talk with our
    appropriators, some of whom are on this Committee, I believe.
        Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir.
        Senator Carper. I want to go back down to the Southern
    border. We see some substantial increases in funding for CBP,
    for ICE, money for detention centers, money for a wall. There
    is also money for what I call force multipliers. I am a big
    believer in force multipliers. I am not a big believer that we
    need a 2,000-mile wall. There are some places where a wall
    makes sense, but the idea of investing these force multipliers
    that have been demonstrated to be effective is good.
        You and I have talked often about root causes, and the root
    causes of why the people continue to come from Honduras,
    Guatemala, and El Salvador has a lot to do with our insatiable
    demand for drugs. Drugs are trafficked through those countries.
    They come to us. We send them money and guns. And, we set up
    something called the Alliance for Prosperity a couple of years
    ago. Actually, those three countries set it up, and we came in,
    and as you know well--you were there at the creation--to try to
    emulate what has been accomplished in Colombia.
        Do you have a sense for how things are going in those three
    countries with respect to the goals that they set themselves on
    the Alliance for Prosperity?
        Secretary Kelly. A great question and really a great story.
    Not perfect, but a great story. Based on the confidence that
    Congress and the previous Administration put into the three
    Northern Tier countries in helping them out, recognizing that,
    first of all, they have a problem; much of it is generated by
    our insatiable appetite for drugs, that those countries are
    nearly failed States, much as Colombia was 20 years ago and is
    not today. So, the miracle can happen. I mean, Colombia did it.
    And, frankly, at the time, Plan Colombia was put together by
    the U.S. Congress with a lot of resistance in other places and,
    as you know, I think, Senator, put some American money--I think
    4 cents on the dollar, but ultimately it is a miracle that has
    happened in Colombia. So, when people tell me it cannot happen
    in Central America, I tell them to look at Colombia.
        So, that said, the Alliance for Prosperity, the three
    countries putting their own money into it, then through
    Congress, the Obama Administration, Vice President Biden was a
    huge help in this, as you know, get some additional U.S.
    funding put against it, controlled in the right way.
        So, what has happened in Central America since we worked on
    the Alliance for Prosperity? Violence is down. Honduras, El
    Salvador, and Guatemala used to be the three most dangerous
    countries on the planet--more dangerous, frankly, than
    Afghanistan and Iraq was at the time. They have cut their
    murder rates by either a third or more. Still horrific, but cut
    it a third or more, all with human rights in mind, all with the
    rule of law in mind.
        They have a long way to go, but their economies are
    starting to grow. They have gotten their arms around the
    corruption. Four or 5 years ago, when I took SOUTHCOM,
    everything was going in the wrong direction on Colombia--or in
    Central America. I just read a report this morning where they
    have either stabilized, not getting worse, or getting better.
    That is huge.
        I think you know, in addition to my outreach, back-channel
    communications in some respects, to the leadership down there,
    through religious organizations and non-governmental
    organizations (NGO's) so that I do not make it official but
    they know where I am and where I am going on these issues, we
    have also asked them to ask their citizens to not waste the
    money and head north, to not get on that terribly dangerous
    network that I described before, stay where they are, because
    if they come here, this is no longer an illegal alien-friendly
    environment. It is a very legal alien--and as the Senator
    knows, 1.1 million people a year. But, it is no longer a
    friendly environment for illegal aliens. Do not waste your
    money. Do not go on the dangerous network.
        What we are doing, we have put together--frankly, the DHS
    has been the energy behind it, although it is not my job. We
    have passed it off to the State Department. So, next week, in
    Miami, we are bringing together as cosponsors of a conference
    on the Northern Tier countries; Mexico, great country, great
    partner, and the United States cosponsoring. We have observers
    coming in: Canada, I think Spain, certainly Costa Rica, Panama,
    Colombia, maybe Peru, for a 2-day conference. That conference
    will be led by the Vice President. I will be there; Secretary
    Tillerson, as well as Secretaries of Commerce and Treasury will
    be there.
        The point is the first day we will bring together investors
    to do the best we can to stimulate what is going on in those
    three countries economically, and then the next day will be
    security issues, trying to get at the human trafficking and the
    drug trafficking. And, just last week, I was down in Haiti
    meeting with the new leadership there on another issue. I
    suggested that maybe the Haitian President come on board for
    one of those days or at least do a cameo-type appearance.
        So, what we are trying to do is help them solve their
    problems at home economically. We have already helped them
    solve the security--not solved, helped them go in the right
    direction on security, and with a little luck, we might
    actually be able to help them. But, if we do not reduce the
    drug demand in the United States for heroin, cocaine, and
    methamphetamine, this is all a complete waste of time.
        Senator Carper. Yes. Well, I would just say to my
    colleagues, the Secretary said I asked a great question. I
    thought he gave a great answer. And, I think you have made the
    case for continued support for the Alliance for Prosperity.
    Just like in Colombia, the lion's share of the responsibility
    rests on these three countries. We did not just say to
    Colombia, ``We are going to come in and solve your problems.''
    We said, ``You solve them. You can do it, and we can help.''
    And, we said the same thing with these three countries, and you
    made the case for it.
        I am delighted to hear about the summit. I do not believe
    our schedules allow us to go and participate, unfortunately,
    but my thoughts and prayers will be with you on your efforts in
    this regard. Thanks so much.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Just a moment of clarification. You mentioned 2,000 miles.
    So, there is no confusion, this budget is literally requesting
    74 miles of fencing--60 new miles of fencing, 14 replacement in
    the San Diego Sector. I was just down there. It is amazing how
    many holes have been cut into that San Diego wall and have been
    repaired. And, the 60 new miles, 32 miles of that is in the Rio
    Grande Sector, new fence, new wall, and 28 is part of a levee
    system. So, again, we are talking about 74 miles over, 1,700 to
    2,000 miles. I think that is a pretty reasonable request.
    Senator Heitkamp.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP

        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, again, welcome, Mr. Secretary. Of course, you know
    what my question is going to be. How soon are we going to see
    the Northern border report as mandated by Federal law?
        Secretary Kelly. I will get back to you today. I do not
    know, but in all seriousness, let me take it for the record. I
    am sorry.
        Senator Heitkamp. OK.
        Obviously, we had hoped we would see it in June. I think we
    have some reason to believe it is going to be delayed. But, it
    makes my broader point, which is, we need a strategic plan in
    terms of border security, and one thing that we hear about is
    fencing, and I have spent a lot of time on the Southern border.
    I believe that barriers can be enormously effective as they
    have been in the San Diego area. But, again, we know that most
    drugs--at least the previous Administration would tell us that
    most of the drugs that we are talking about are coming through
    the points of entry and not walking across the border in remote
    locations.
        What additional strategies do you have to do additional
    screenings? Where is the investment in more personnel, more
    screenings, more technology at the points of entry?
        Secretary Kelly. In a sense, that is part of the border
    strategy. There is no doubt--and I know a lot about this from
    my last job in particular, but there is no doubt that heroin,
    methamphetamine, and cocaine primarily come through the border
    in vehicles, primarily. Marijuana is in some cases humped
    around, through the desert. But, for the most part, the three
    big killers in the United States come in, and if Kevin
    McAleenan--and just a tremendous professional, and dedicated,
    my hope is that the Senate confirms him. But, he is already in
    a role that makes him very valuable. I have asked him to look
    at the technology after next in terms of looking into vehicles,
    tractor-trailers, things like that, to look at the voids, as
    they are called, so we can decide which vehicles get searched,
    broken down, and to increase the number of vehicles.
        The other way to do that--we already do it in Canada. We
    are doing it in Mexico, and that is to work across the border
    with the Mexicans or the Canadians in terms of facilitating
    movement of transportation, looking at vehicles before they are
    locked and sealed on the way north.
        So, it is a multifaceted approach, but if I could--and I
    will just end with--but if we are trying to do this on our
    border, we have kind of already lost. The place to take the
    tonnages out, working with the Mexicans, which we are, to help
    them locate the heroin, the poppy fields which they can
    destroy, working with the Mexicans to identify, and we are, and
    they are, destroying the methamphetamine labs----
        Senator Heitkamp. And, just to raise a concern there, we
    obviously have in the past had pretty good relationships with
    the country of Mexico. We saw in a regional election the ruling
    party coming very close--in fact, not getting a majority. The
    last thing we need is to not have strong and great relations
    with the country of Mexico. So, I would just ask you and urge
    you, given your experience in the region, to encourage this
    Administration to look at the entire relationship, whether it
    is a trade relationship, whether it is a border security
    relationship, or whether it is just respectful talk, that that
    does us no good. I want to just cover a couple----
        Secretary Kelly. I work at it every day.
        Senator Heitkamp. I want to cover a couple of quick points.
        I have beekeepers who cannot get seasonal workers in, and
    it just seems like the delays are getting longer and longer for
    the
    H-2B visas and the H-2A visas, and seasonal workers cannot
    wait. How long do you think is a proper timeframe to get an
    answer on whether we can get workers in the country? And, what
    are you doing to meet the requirements of the law but to
    expedite especially for seasonal agricultural workers?
        Secretary Kelly. The A workers, I know we already have
    large numbers that come in and have been coming in over the
    years. But, looking on the B side, H-2B, working with labor,
    this is all about--in the current Administration, this is all
    about American jobs versus people that come in and do the work.
        Senator Heitkamp. Except I have doctors who cannot get in.
    If the Administration wants to send me beekeepers and doctors
    and a whole list of Americans who want those jobs, we will be
    glad to do that in my State. But, we have to recognize that in
    the meantime, especially as it relates to physicians, it is
    extraordinarily difficult to recruit physicians to my State.
    And, we have seasonal workers who we cannot--I mean, obviously,
    we would love to hire locally, but that is becoming
    increasingly impossible. And so, I will probably submit a
    question for the record.
        Finally, because I am running out of time and I want to get
    enough of this in, if you look at local border enforcement, the
    critical component in States like ours is not just technology,
    as Senator Hoeven talked about, but it is having a strategy and
    a plan. And, that strategy and plan has to involve local law
    enforcement. You have Border Patrol in North Dakota that, when
    they are patrolling the border, they are in radio contact with
    your people back in your points of entry, back where Border
    Patrol would muster and deploy. So, we know that we have to
    have that backup.
        One thing that concerns me, and it goes to the FEMA grants,
    it goes to this idea that we can cut grant programs and still
    provide those services. Stonegarden has been an enormously
    successful program. Really concerned about reductions in the
    commitments to local law enforcement, not just for border
    security but for safety of the personnel who are on the border.
    So, I would ask you to please pay close attention to this
    budget as it relates to working with local law enforcement,
    local first responders. They are force multipliers, and without
    those resources, they are going to have to cut back on
    resources, and that reduces our readiness. I do not think there
    is any doubt about it.
        Secretary Kelly. OK. I will.
        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Heitkamp, I would ask you to take
    a look at my State-based temporary visa program. I think it
    would solve an awful lot of that problem right there.
        Then just kind of a comment to majority staff, minority
    staff, as well as the Secretary. We should really have an alert
    for witnesses to be prepared to answer questions on the
    Northern border.
        Senator McCaskill. We have way too much Northern border----
    [Laughter.]
        Chairman Johnson. There is not much of the Northern border
    that is not represented on this Committee, so that is always an
    issue.
        Secretary Kelly. That is why I love appearing before this
    Committee. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

        Senator Lankford. So, my Northern border is Kansas, and we
    have had our moments, but we are getting along just fine.
        Let me talk about a couple of other things as well. One is
    you and I have spoken even in the past 2 weeks about REAL ID
    and some of the extensions and the process and the
    decisionmaking on that. At the time we talked before, I said,
    hey, the deadline is coming up June 6th for that. We were going
    to try to get back to it quickly. There has been a delay on
    this. So, there are several issues that are pending out there
    for States like mine and others that are working through the
    REAL ID process. For those our legislatures passed issues with
    REAL ID, working through implementation and such, that has been
    fairly automatic that if you are making progress and you are
    working through implementation, then those extensions are
    coming. It seems to have delayed this time until literally the
    very last second, and then we are still waiting to be able to
    determine what is the decisionmaking factor on that. So, help
    me understand a little bit better so we can take that back.
        Secretary Kelly. So, the first thing I would say, I had a
    lengthy meeting earlier this week--yesterday--on this because
    actually today was the day that normally I would have made the
    decision to extend or not. Now, I think the Senator knows, I
    think it is July 22nd before anything would stop.
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        Secretary Kelly. So, I have a little bit of time, and I
    have sent my staff back to kind of take a harder look at
    where--as you know, most States are either compliant or getting
    toward compliant. In fact, there is really only one State that
    is kind of not going to, I believe, if all the promises are
    met, will not make it. But, I have asked my folks to go back
    and start looking at some of the States that have not been as
    active as they maybe should have been over the last 12 years to
    implement.
        They have been in contact with these States, the Governors,
    the Attorneys General, whoever is in charge of this kind of
    thing. We have for the most part commitments from the States to
    really get at this issue. But, I have asked them to just go
    back one more time, if need be, talk to the States about the
    extension and what it means.
        Bottom line--and in that meeting they told me, ``Secretary,
    3 months ago we had States that were not even paying attention
    to this, that were getting dangerously close to not being able
    to implement before the deadline. They have all got the
    message,'' they said, ``Mr. Secretary, and with the exception
    of one State, they are all in there doing the right thing,
    getting close to it.''
        So, I know I will make a decision next week, likely will
    extend for 6 months until October, and then we will take a hard
    look then. But, the good news is, with a lot of pushing and
    shoving and gnashing of teeth over the last 10 years or so,
    most States are on board, and I believe all but one will be
    compliant.
        Senator Lankford. So, let me just give you a couple of
    inside pieces on this. When you talk about we have a little bit
    of time until basically late July, let us say that at some
    point DHS comes out and says, no, that driver's license is not
    going to be extended. Then that means everyone has to get a
    passport, which in the summertime takes 6 weeks minimum to be
    able to do.
        Secretary Kelly. Right.
        Senator Lankford. Plus you have to contact people and let
    us just start with the military base or a Federal courthouse
    and to be able to tell everyone coming to a Federal courthouse
    you are going to have to have something different. You are
    going to have to get a passport.
        Well, first, you have to identify who is coming to the
    Federal courthouse and be able to contact those folks and give
    them 6 weeks of lead time to get their paperwork together to be
    able to do it. We are out of time. Once you get to the June 6
    time period to know that deadline is really coming up, if
    drivers that are doing deliveries, the people that are
    refreshing the convenience store in a Federal building, the
    people that are bringing groceries into the facility onto a
    military base, if they have to all have some sort of other
    passport or something, that is going to take a long time to be
    able to get geared up. So, the earlier those waivers can be
    released, the less anxiety it is in all of those locations,
    because all of them are currently spinning up in each of those
    States to try to figure out how we are going to accommodate
    around this just to be able to get supplies and equipment
    brought in, or people coming in to apply for a job onto a
    military base as a civilian cannot even come and do that
    without an escort to be able to do it. So, that will be a big
    issue.
        The hiring process we have talked about before for CBP. Any
    progress on that of late? Because we are still talking 460 days
    for hiring. And then, the polygraph issues, have there been any
    changes since you and I have spoken last?
        Secretary Kelly. Yes, Senator. A couple of things. One, on
    the polygraph issue we will continue to polygraph, but there
    are other ways to polygraph. I did not realize this, but Kevin
    McAleenan, who is the designate and hopefully will 1 day be
    confirmed for the directorship of CBP, has told me that there
    are other techniques, other questions, things like that, that
    still maintain the vetting process but are faster. There are
    other parts of the Federal Government, not to mention the State
    and local, that have polygraphs that are a lot less----
        Senator Lankford. Right, so they have a fail rate in the
    30s, and CBP has it in the high 60s.
        Secretary Kelly. My daughter works for the FBI. She said
    her polygraph was a fairly pleasant experience. It took an hour
    and 10 minutes. They asked all the right questions, and she was
    out of there. By contrast, 6 or 7 hours. So I just, when I came
    in, said let us take a look at it.
        Senator Lankford. That could be the first time I have ever
    heard anyone say that polygraph was a fairly pleasant
    experience.
        Secretary Kelly. I love it. [Laughter.]
        Senator Lankford. So, let me ask about the entry-exit
    program. Is everything still on schedule for that? We have
    spoken about that before.
        Secretary Kelly. Well, it is like anything. The entry at
    the airports, we do it well.
        Senator Lankford. Right. It is the exit.
        Secretary Kelly. Working hard--and entry at the ports of
    entry. But, the exit is--it is not a bridge too far, but it
    will take some time, effort, but we are working toward----
        Senator Lankford. So, the pilot is on track? I guess what I
    am trying to figure out is by the end of next year, we are
    trying to implement that nationwide. Are we on track at this
    point to be able to implement that at airports nationwide? We
    still have a long way to go on vehicles and other entry-exit
    points.
        Secretary Kelly. Airports, I think I am comfortable with
    saying yes.
        Senator Lankford. OK. So, there was an announcement made by
    DHS on temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians to extend
    it for 6 months, but it basically raised a red flag for them
    and said, ``Hey, this is it.'' The situation has changed in
    Haiti that demanded the temporary protected status years ago.
    It may or may not be there. What I want to ask is: Is this an
    alert for Hondurans, for Salvadorans, for everybody on
    temporary protected status, that DHS is going to look at the
    situation that started temporary protected status and ask if
    that situation has changed?
        Secretary Kelly. Senator, it is an alert, but that said,
    for whatever reason, once someone goes on this status,
    traditionally or historically they just automatically renew it.
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        Secretary Kelly. Some of the Central Americans have been on
    status over 20 years, and they were put on status because of a
    hurricane that happened over 20 years ago. I can tell you that
    things are going better in Central America, much better over
    the last 20 years, in many ways better. But, no one has ever
    looked at it, and I think that we have to do that. There is a
    law. In Honduras--not Honduras, Haiti 7 years ago, and the
    program was for a specific event. In Haiti it was the
    earthquake. Yes, Haiti had horrible conditions before the
    earthquake, and those conditions are not much better after the
    earthquake. But, the earthquake was why TPS was granted, and
    that is how I have to look at it.
        Now, that said--and I do not want to get too far out front
    here, and I certainly would not suggest anything hard to
    Congress, but there are about, we do not know, 200,000 to
    400,000 people in the United States on TPS, the vast majority
    of them behaving themselves, the vast majority of them have
    clearly got jobs and all the rest of it. They are here more or
    less legally. A lot of them were not, but they were given TPS,
    so I would make the assumption they are here legally. That may
    be--we may think, you may think that a solution to this would
    be to look at them and say, OK, how many of them do we know are
    here and use that against the 1.1 million legal migrants with a
    way toward citizenship. That may be a way to solve it.
        I can look at the Haitian situation and say 7 years, it is
    a long time, but it is not so long that some of them--all of
    them might be able to go back. Twenty years, it is kind of
    hard. But, I would like to see this solved in another way, but
    according to the law, I do not have the ability to solve it.
    But, the word is ``temporary,'' and I think those that have
    been in my position over the years have simply automatically
    extended it. So, the 6 months--and I was down in Haiti last
    week, spoke with the leadership. I said during the 6 months,
    you, Haiti, need to start thinking about travel documents and
    how you are going to bring these people, who, by the way, are
    generally better educated, entrepreneurial, would be, I think,
    a boost to the Haitian economy and social function, and by the
    same token those that have been allowed to the United States,
    to remain in the United States under TPS should start thinking
    about going back to their homeland, unless they--and if they
    feel as though--and I said this in Miami right after the
    Haitian trip, many of them at this point probably have
    different immigration status anyways in the sense that they
    have married local men and women or whatever. So, they need to
    get on and consult with an immigration expert to find out if
    they have status.
        But, at the end of it, the word is ``temporary'' unless we
    change that, unless you change that to permanent somehow.
        Senator Lankford. Got it. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Daines.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Kelly, it is good to see you again. Montana
    recently passed a law--and it has been signed by our Governor--
    for REAL ID that I think is going to bring us a solution to the
    dilemma we faced. We still need an extension to get it put in
    place, but we will offer Montanans two IDs. You can get a REAL
    ID-compliant driver's license or one that is not and pay a
    premium for the REAL ID-compliant, but I think we have a path
    going forward. We will need an extension just as we get this
    system implemented, but the Governor has signed the bill. I
    think we finally have a path forward with the impasse that we
    have had here for certainly quite some time.
        I have to say something here, Secretary Kelly. This
    chart\1\ you shared showing the reduction in apprehensions
    across the Southwest border I think is one of the most under-
    told stories in the country at the moment, to think that we
    have seen a nearly 70-percent drop in illegal Southern border
    crossings under your first few months of leadership, and it was
    accomplished by sending a message to the world, and
    particularly down south, that the United States would enforce
    its laws. Thank you, as we are nation of law and not a nation
    of men that you have led with President Trump, and I think we
    need to get this message out more. I have spoken to a lot of my
    friends and constituents back in Montana, and that message
    needs to get out. So congratulations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Daines appears in the Appendix
    on page 53.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And, as we have seen the horrific attacks in London--there
    is breaking news now of a crazed man in Notre Dame cathedral
    here in the last few hours. Who knows if it is a terrorist
    attack or not? But, the point is it seems like we are 24 by 7
    breaking news with these horrific attacks around the world and
    that we have seen in London. Homeland security will remain our
    top priority and challenge, and I look forward to continuing to
    work with you to ensure you have the resources to keep our
    Nation safe.
        Secretary Kelly, we have discussed the impact of
    methamphetamines coming from south of the border on Montana's
    families. In fact, about one-third of the children in the
    Montana foster care system are there because of parental meth
    use, and most of that meth we believe is coming from Mexico.
        Recently, Senator Peters joined me in introducing the Child
    Protection and Family Support Act. It is going to help these
    children. But, we also need to continue to fight against the
    flow of drugs. I know CBP is requesting an additional $2.9
    billion. What will this mean for the interdiction of meth at
    the border?
        Secretary Kelly. I hate to say this. Probably a drop in the
    bucket. Necessary. And, you and I have talked about this,
    Senator, and made a few comments since this hearing. Really, we
    have to
    take a much more holistic approach to this: demand reduction,
    rehabilitation. Certainly law enforcement plays a role in the
    homeland. The Southwest border plays a role. Our partnership
    with Mexico--and here I think it gets more and more important.
    Our partnership with Mexico, to use the example of heroin and
    meth, as you say, they are cooperative with us. Just recently,
    within the last 60 days, they destroyed two massive
    methamphetamine labs. And, by the way, the reason the
    production of meth has migrated so heavily toward Mexico--and
    this is the balloon effect we talk about. When we do something
    that is effective, the cartels figure out a way to get around
    it. And, it is a cat-and-mouse game that never ends. Right now
    it is the Southern border, as I mentioned earlier. Tomorrow it
    could be the Southern border or containers, depending how
    effective we are.
        So, the U.S. Congress passed legislation 10 years ago,
    something like that, and restricted the precursor chemicals,
    the availability of the precursor chemicals to make meth. Up
    until that point, meth was made in a million little places in
    the United States, in tiny little laboratories. And, I use the
    term loosely there.
        Two things: The Congress reduced the availability of the
    precursors, and the cartels, as they have become more and more
    successful and sophisticated, said, ``OK, well, if they were
    responding to a market'': ``If the United States wants to try
    to kill themselves on methamphetamine, heck, we can do it for
    them.'' And so, that is why it has migrated. Again,
    Congressional action in terms of restricting the precursors and
    then simply the cartels taking it up and marketing it.
        So, that is primarily, in my view, the solution to the
    problem: working with Mexico, yes; the Southwest border, for
    sure; and increasing the amount of take we take there, yes.
    Internal U.S. law enforcement. But, Senator, it really is all
    about demand reduction. We will always have addicts. Studies
    tell you that, any population always included certain people
    predisposed to being addicted to something. But, an awful lot
    of these people--my personal experience as a kid, an awful lot
    of people start doing drugs because it is cool, there is no
    argument against it, and suddenly they are hooked on something,
    fill in the blanks, and they cannot get away from it.
        We have solved--not solved. I have appeared in this hearing
    a year ago April and talked about this issue of how we have
    managed to convince people over the years: seat belts, smoking,
    a lot of different things. You never get to zero, but we could
    do a lot better. I think the President has DHS, State, the
    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the lead,
    ONDCP. So, if we could get a comprehensive drug demand strategy
    put together that just is not law enforcement, it is Hollywood,
    it is professional sports, college sports, the President of the
    United States, the Senate, everyone out there, the influencers,
    we can solve this problem or reduce this problem significantly.
        But, back to your original question, we need the money, but
    it is a holistic thing, and it is not just a CBP guy on the
    border.
        Senator Daines. Senator Portman and I and a couple of
    others were over in Beijing just a couple of months ago working
    on getting U.S. beef into China. It was one of our missions. We
    were talking to North Korea as well. But, Senator Portman
    brought up the issue with the Chinese Government to stop the
    flow of fentanyl and carfentanil, which you can buy on the Dark
    Web. Oftentimes it comes out of China. So, this holistic
    approach is certainly the right approach, and I will continue
    to work with you on that.
        I want to shift gears for a time and talk cyber. As the
    budget request reflects, cyber is a national priority. The
    requested increase for the National Protection and Programs
    Directorate (NPPD) would help meet the current cyber threats,
    but we need to also stay ahead of these emerging threats that
    we see everywhere.
        Back in February, in fact, I introduced a bill, the Support
    for Rapid Innovation Act, which provided the Science and
    Technology (S&T) Directorate direction and authority to
    leverage limited resources with the private sector and academia
    to research and develop the next generation of cyber protection
    capabilities.
        Despite the proposed cuts, Secretary Kelly, how will the
    S&T continue to support cyber research and development (R&D) in
    fiscal year 2018?
        Secretary Kelly. Sir, first of all, I would like to just
    say a couple of words about the effort right now. On the
    morning that the malware was unleashed on Europe--and I went to
    the White House Situation Room, and as we watched that worm its
    way around the world, infecting hundreds of thousands of
    systems. We had FBI, DHS, and, well, everybody. When it first
    started, ``we,'' DHS, had made notification to those private
    and public entities that we deal with constantly and said
    something is up, put the word out, put the alert out. Other
    parts, including DHS, started to do the forensics on the thing.
    What is it? What is it doing? What is it made up of? Where did
    it come from? And, I am very proud to say that everyone in the
    room was constantly deferring to what is next. What do we do
    next? This includes NSA with DHS. Not that DHS professionals
    did it all, but we were the central focus of it.
        And, I am very proud to say that through the efforts of my
    predecessors and the U.S. Congress and others, that malware
    came to the United States but was contained to a handful of
    systems and contained within those systems. It is as if it
    never came across the ocean, so to speak, and we helped nations
    overseas contain it.
        That said, we need to get better because the threat is
    changing, morphing, and this Administration, to pat it on the
    back, and certainly my Department of Homeland Security are
    focused on increasing the protections better than they are now,
    particularly as we interact--and we do heavily interact--with
    private entities, Microsoft, people like that. It is one team,
    one fight, and can only get better.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Secretary Kelly. And, I just
    want to thank you again for, when the President asked you to
    serve in this capacity, that you said yes. I am just grateful
    for your leadership and the early results you are already
    seeing because of your leadership. Thank you.
        Secretary Kelly. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        I have just a couple of closing questions, Secretary Kelly.
    First of all, I am concerned about funding for the Coast Guard.
    When I was going through this, I asked staff, how much--I was
    hoping the Department of Defense made up a fair amount of
    funding, too, but they really contribute only about half a
    billion dollars per year. So, you take a look, since 2009 the
    funding for the Coast--or the budget was about $9.6 billion,
    then it was about $10.6 billion, a 10-percent increase. But,
    with the kind of threats we are facing, can you give me any
    kind of comfort that that is adequate?
        Secretary Kelly. I cannot. I think the Coast Guard, first
    of all, is just an amazing organization. It really came into my
    view when I was in Southern Command. I had seen them sprinkled
    around the world in the Persian Gulf, places like that, but it
    really came into my view in Southern Command about how good
    they are. Obviously, they are one of the five military
    services, small, and in my opinion, in exactly the right place,
    DHS. But, the myriad of missions that they execute and the
    authorities they have just make them value-added to say the
    least. But, it is not big enough.
        The biggest problem with the Coast Guard, I think if the
    Commandant was sitting right here, he would pat me on the back
    to say we need to recapitalize. They have some brand-new
    cutters coming on, national security cutters, valuable,
    essential. But, so much of the Coast Guard is so old that it
    just limps along. And, I think we have a plan--I would love to
    add to that plan, but I think we have a plan--and all of this
    is not to mention we have to get involved in the Arctic more
    than we are. We have a couple of broken down old icebreakers.
    We are looking to buy six--three heavy, three medium--to work
    up there in the northern reaches. We have to be up there, not
    to contest anyone's claims, but to simply work up there,
    particularly as importantly work in terms of the environmental
    protection of that precious international asset. But, it is not
    big enough, but it is doing yeoman's work----
        Chairman Johnson. Let us work together with Senator Boozman
    and his Subcommittee. Let us see what we can do on that,
    because I share your concern.
        I was just in Bratislava, and your predecessor, Secretary
    Chertoff, was there. He gave a speech, and he talked about the
    impact that the Visa Waiver Program had when they were able to
    expand it to some of these nations. I am highly concerned. I am
    also Chairman of the European Subcommittee on Foreign
    Relations, and I am concerned about the destabilizing nature of
    Russia, their pervasive disinformation propaganda campaign, and
    if we ignore central and southeastern Europe, there is a real
    concern that those nations do not join the West.
        And, Secretary Chertoff made a very powerful comment about
    how that Visa Waiver Program was sort of the stamp that really
    did solidify the fact that these nations that were granted the
    Visa Waiver were going to remain in the West and stay Western-
    facing.
        I personally think the Visa Waiver Program enhanced our
    security. There are risks associated with it, but there are
    safeguards put in place to qualify. It just seems like such a
    political heavy lift right now. Secretary Chertoff certainly
    offered every ounce of help he could have.
        Can you just kind of comment on your viewpoint of the Visa
    Waiver Program and expansion? Because, let us face it, every
    one of those nations wants it.
        Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir, Senator. I would like to expand
    it to everybody. We have set the bar very high, and countries
    that meet that standard, welcome aboard. And, I share your
    concern with the Eastern European countries.
        This is kind of a sidebar comment. When I was working in
    Mons, Belgium, years ago as a colonel, after the Wall fell, the
    enthusiasm of all of those countries--they were falling all
    over themselves. How do we get into the North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO)? How do we become observers? That has been
    cooled a little bit for whatever reason. Well, you and I both
    know the reason.
        So, I think anything we can do to expand it. The good news
    is there are a lot of countries out there that are trying to
    get up to our level of security and satisfy us, and there are
    some countries that are close, some countries that are not so
    close.
        Chairman Johnson. We should kind of review some of those
    metrics. Are they realistic? Can we look at those and still
    maintain the kind of security we are looking for? So, I would
    like to work with you on that. That is kind of a long-term
    project.
        Just finally, because I think some people may view this
    with skepticism, but I was just assuming, truthfully, that even
    with this injunction in place, the Department would be able to
    move forward with the vetting process and really reviewing
    that. And, you said that, no, that injunction really has
    inhibited your efforts. I think the Ranking Member may want to
    jump into this, but can you explain in greater detail how that
    injunction is hampering your efforts at moving forward in terms
    of how do we properly vet refugees and other people coming in
    from those countries?
        Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir, we are just being as
    conservative as we can be so they do not--and, frankly, with
    due respect to Congress, I get an awful lot of phone calls and
    an awful lot of ugly phone calls about how I am not following
    some law. I learned very early on if there is a perception that
    we are not executing the law, then a lot of people get agitated
    and call.
        That said, we have moved forward, as I mentioned a little
    earlier, the State Department, some enhanced questions, etc.,
    in terms of the normal visa process. In my case, looking very
    hard--and some of this is, by the way, a cultural change.
    Whether it is my people at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
    Services (USCIS) or the consular people, we are changing the
    culture to reflect the reality of security. That is to say,
    rather than the idea being bring in as many refugees as you can
    to meet some number set by the last Administration or bring in
    as many visas as you can, we actually now are changing the
    culture to say, look, if you want to come to America, you
    convince me you are who you are, and you are coming here for a
    period of time, and then you will go home, and you will not do
    anything wrong when you are here.
        In the case of refugees, same thing. I know you are a
    refugee, but you have to prove to me who you are and that you
    will come to the United States for all the right reasons. And,
    ultimately, if you stay, then you will assimilate into our
    society.
        But, the kind of things, I think, the studies worldwide and
    the studies throughout the regions about what is the best way
    to do this, I think I am restricted in that. But, it does not
    mean we are not thinking about it.
        Chairman Johnson. From my standpoint, I do not want you to
    feel constrained. I do not want you restricted. Maybe Senator
    McCaskill is the same way, maybe, at least lend that support
    from two U.S. Senators.
        Senator McCaskill. Yes, and I have looked briefly at the
    decisions, Secretary, and I do not see--I know the State
    Department is moving forward in terms of trying to prepare a
    report. And so, clearly, their lawyers are not seeing what your
    lawyers are seeing. And, specifically, in a couple of the
    orders, it is clear that you are not restricted in terms of
    moving forward with what I think your job is, regardless of a
    request by the Executive to pause. Really what this appeal is
    about is whether or not he has the right under the Executive
    Order to say certain people cannot come here during a period of
    time that you are preparing underlying policies. I cannot
    imagine anybody is going to argue with you about the fact that
    you should be preparing policies that will keep this country
    safe. we have now been paused--I mean, there has been plenty of
    time that was envisioned in the Executive Orders for those
    policies to be done.
        So, I would love further conversation with your lawyers
    that are telling you that you cannot begin to give us more
    clarity about what the extra vetting is going to be.
        Chairman Johnson. So, let us look on a bipartisan basis,
    working with the Department, and make sure that they are not
    restrained so they can move forward.
        Senator McCaskill. Yes, we would be glad to work with you
    on that.
        Secretary Kelly. At the risk of running through too much of
    a list here, we are doing some things. The examples I would
    give you is enhanced automated screening by USCIS, enhanced
    interviews, enhanced biometrics integration, enhanced data
    collection. So, we are doing some things.
        Senator McCaskill. That is great.
        Secretary Kelly. And, I could go on if you want, but there
    are more things here.
        Senator McCaskill. Yes, well, we can follow up together.
        Chairman Johnson. Let us work together on this and make
    sure we----
        Secretary Kelly. So, we have not stopped. We are just
    being, as I say, very cautious about not getting out in front
    of the courts that, I will genuflect to every day.
        Senator McCaskill. If you have done it, then the whole case
    is moot.
        Secretary Kelly. Right.
        Senator McCaskill. And, the President could move on and
    tweet about something else.
        Chairman Johnson. So, again, great Committee,
    bipartisanship, let us work together and----
        Secretary Kelly. Best Committee.
        Chairman Johnson [continuing]. Make sure that you can do
    your job.
        Again, Secretary Kelly, I think from every Member of this
    Committee, thank you for your service. It is not a job I envy,
    but thank you for doing it, and to all the members of your
    staff and the Department.
        This hearing record will remain open for 15 days until June
    21 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for
    the record.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]