[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]