[Senate Hearing 115-465]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-465
AUTHORITIES AND RESOURCES NEEDED TO
PROTECT AND SECURE THE UNITED STATES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 15, 2018
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
34-313 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McAIN, Arizona CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
RAND PAUL, Kentucky HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
STEVE DAINES, Montana DOUG JONES, Alabama
Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
Daniel P. Lips, Policy Director
Michelle D. Woods, Senior Professional Staff Member
M. Scott Austin, U.S. Coast Guard Detailee
Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
J. Jackson Eaton, IV., Minority Senior Counsel
Caitlin A. Warner, Minority Counsel
Hannah M. Berner, Minority Professional Staff Member
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Bonni E. Dinerstein, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Johnson.............................................. 1
Senator McCaskill............................................ 2
Senator Hoeven............................................... 10
Senator Carper............................................... 13
Senator Hassan............................................... 16
Senator Harris............................................... 18
Senator Daines............................................... 21
Senator Heitkamp............................................. 25
Senator Peters............................................... 28
Senator Portman.............................................. 31
Prepared statements:
Senator Johnson.............................................. 47
Senator McCaskill............................................ 48
WITNESSES
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Honorable Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 53
APPENDIX
UAC Apprehensions Chart.......................................... 61
Apprenhensions Chart............................................. 62
Letter to TSA.................................................... 63
DHS OIG Report................................................... 66
Statements submitted for the Record:
Church World Service......................................... 90
National Treasury Employees Union............................ 91
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Ms. Nielsen.................................................. 96
AUTHORITIES AND RESOURCES NEEDED TO PROTECT AND SECURE THE UNITED
STATES
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson
presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Hoeven,
Daines, McCaskill, Carper, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and
Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. This hearing will come to order. I want
to welcome Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. Thank you for your
service. I did read your press release on National Police Week
and I think it is fitting and proper that we pay tribute to the
law enforcement officers killed in action, and just, really,
honor the families for their service as well.
According to the National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial
Fund, since 1791, 21,541 law enforcement officials have paid
the ultimate price, sacrificed their lives. Last year, 129.
Year-to-date this year, 53. So I think it would be fitting and
proper if we just recognized a moment of silence to honor those
and their families.
[Moment of Silence.]
Thank you.
I would ask you to consent to my written statement be
entered into the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This title of this hearing is Authorities and Resources
Needed to Protect and Secure the United States, and I know,
Secretary Nielsen, you have testified before the Appropriations
Committee, so obviously the Senators can ask any questions they
want. But from my standpoint, because we are the authorizing
Committee, I really want to concentrate on the authorities part
of that hearing title. And, I would like to go down the list of
things that are certainly on my mind, and hopefully yours as
well.
But I think this Committee did a very good job and we are
kind of known for a very bipartisan, nonpartisan approach to
trying to find areas of agreement. And we did exactly that with
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Authorization Act,
which I am hoping we can pass through the Senate as quickly as
possible, marry up with a House bill, to provide you the
authorities that have basically become obsolete, in many cases.
I know in the omnibus, Section 72, the flexibility of
reorganizing parts of your Department was actually taken away,
which is important when we take a look at National Protection
and Programs Division (NPPD), turning that into the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Act (CISA).
These are the things that you need to do to do your job to
keep this Nation safe. In cooperation with your Department we
are working with a number of Members. I see two of them that
are co-sponsors right now, to the Preventing Emerging Threats
Act of 2018, which a big part of that is really addressing
countering unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), which is a growing
threat. It is a real threat and it is confusing. There are
conflicting authorities, no authorities from your standpoint in
terms of addressing those, being able to take those out of the
air. Again, it is a complex situation.
And, of course, I think it is just crucial that we fix our
completely broken immigration system. The fact that we have
laws, legal precedent, loopholes that, because you follow the
law really prevent you from deterring additional illegal
immigration.
A classic example of how that would actually work was in
2005. Under Secretary Michael Chertoff, we had a flow of
illegal immigrants coming in from Brazil because they had a
visa waiver system with Mexico. So we had over 30,000
Brazilians come in 2005, and Secretary Chertoff, by utilizing
his authorities, apprehended--I think they called the program
``Texas Hold 'Em''--apprehended those Brazilians, held them in
detention until their case could be adjudicated, and then
returned them. By the following year, less than 2,000
Brazilians came in here.
So the goal of his actions were to reduce, if not stop, the
flow, as opposed to, right now we have--unfortunately, you are
forced to apprehend, process, and disperse, and that is a huge
incentive for additional illegal immigration.
So those are the types of authorities that I want to
hopefully discuss during this Committee. Those are the types of
authorities I want to provide you, as Secretary of Homeland
Security, so you can actually fulfill your mission of providing
greater security for our homeland.
So with that I will turn it over to my Ranking Member,
Senator McCaskill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Nielsen, for being here.
I would like to talk about DHS' budget authorities and
policies in two important areas today, and one is on the border
as it relates to Border Patrol staffing. I am concerned about
Border Patrol staffing. I think the men and women of the Border
Patrol do an amazing job. I think they are brave and courageous
and hard-working, and this is Law Enforcement Week in
Washington and I think it is important to recognize all of the
men and women in uniform across this country who protect us.
But it is interesting because when you look at the diagram
of the staffing, it has been on a downward trajectory since
President Trump took office. In September 2016, there were
19,828 Border Patrol Agents along the borders, and in April
2018, it is actually down 400-500 staff, and that is in spite
of the fact that there is an authorization for many more, as
you are painfully aware of, I am sure. We have an authorization
for 21,370.
So we are hundreds and hundreds lower than we were when
President Trump took office, and we are many more under for
what we are authorized, and we keep debating additional
authorizations as if that is somehow going to solve the
problem. And we have talked about this in various hearings, and
I know everyone wants to point it to the polygraph, but it does
not seem reasonable to me that that is the only reason. You
cannot keep up with attrition right now. You cannot hire, and
we have some outrageous contracts for recruitment.
One of the things I want to talk about today is, are we
missing the boat here, in terms of improving pay and working
conditions? I mean, many times people leave a job because they
do not feel that they are getting adequate pay, or they are not
being asked to perform in ideal working conditions. And I know
that it is impossible to make this work always ideal, because
in law enforcement you have to take what comes. But there is a
real problem that clearly we are not getting at, and that is
one of the things I want to talk about today.
The other thing I want to talk about today is the
difference
between Border Patrol Agents and Border Patrol Officers, and I
do not think most Americans understand that we use those
terms--and for most people, they probably think they are the
same thing. I do not know how that happened. I do not know how
we named them that way, but it is terribly misleading, because,
of course, the officers are the ones that are the port of
entries. The agents are the ones along the border.
Unlike Border Patrol Agents, we are not authorizing
significantly new port officers. It is very clear, in a report
I released from the minority staff of this Committee what is
happening. We found that 88 percent of all the opioids seized
over the past 5 years were seized at ports of entry (POEs), not
along the border. So close to 90 percent of what is being
seized, in terms of dangerous opioids, is happening with our
border patrol officers at ports, not along the border, not in
the desert, not along the river, not, as has been described
sometimes by people in this Administration, that this is a
problem of people trying to enter illegally with drugs. It is
actually coming in through the ports. And the fentanyl seizure
increases on two fronts are in the ports of entry on the
Southern Border and in mail facilities, and in both instances
you are also woefully understaffed.
So these are the areas I want to talk about, because your
staffing demands are clearly not being met. We have to figure
out this problem, because people can give speeches and talk
about turning back illegal immigrants, and say that there are
too many illegal immigrants coming across, and nobody is
disagreeing with wanting to secure the border. But when you
cannot hire the people you need, and when the people you hire
are leaving more quickly than you can hire replacements, there
is a more fundamental problem here than just adding more
personnel, and I would like us to see if we could get to the
bottom of that today.
And I would ask that my written statement be made part of
the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the
Appendix on page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. Without objection.
It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
witnesses, so if you will stand 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 Nielsen. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is the sixth Secretary for the
Department of Homeland Secretary and the first former DHS
employee to become the Secretary. Prior to joining the
Department, Ms. Nielsen served as the Deputy Principal White
House Chief of Staff to President Trump. Secretary Nielsen also
served as the Chief of Staff to then Secretary John Kelly at
the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary Nielsen served
in the Bush Administration as a Special Assistant to the
President, and Senior Director on the White House Homeland
Security Council from 2004 to 2007. She holds a bachelor's
degree from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service
and a JD from the University of Virginia School of Law.
Secretary Nielsen.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN,\2\ SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairman
Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and other distinguished
Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today and I would like, if I could, to submit
my full written testimony for the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The prepared statement of Ms. Nielsen appears in the Appendix
on page 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. Without objection.
I want to begin by thanking you. As the Chairman mentioned,
we greatly appreciate your advancing the DHS Authorization Bill
earlier this year. As you know, we have not been reauthorized
since our creation 15 years ago. This results in critical gaps
that affect our ability to protect the American people.
I also wanted to thank you, in general, and to the full
Committee, for being strong supporters of DHS, for listening to
our analysis of emerging threats, and listening to what we need
to do our jobs.
A lot has changed in 15 years. The threats have evolved,
our enemies have adapted, and our adversaries are resurgent. In
the meantime, our authorities have not kept pace. So today I
want to highlight several areas where DHS requests your support
in order to help us better secure our country, including
achieving border security and closing immigration loopholes,
transforming our cyber agency within DHS, authorizing the
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) Office, providing
authorities to help us counter unmanned aerial systems, and
supporting the President's 2019 budget proposal for DHS.
First and foremost, border security is national security.
And while we have made vast improvements, make no mistake--we
do face a crisis. We see unacceptable levels of illegal drugs,
dangerous gangs, criminal activity, and illegal aliens flowing
across our Southern Border. That is why last month we deployed
the National Guard to our Southern Border. Anyone who thinks
this is a stunt should look at the stats. Our officers have
apprehended more than 2,000 people attempting to illegally
enter our country, and they are interdicting drugs that would
likely otherwise have gone undetected.
At the same time, my message to smugglers, traffickers, and
criminals is clear: if you try to enter our country without
authorization, you have broken the law. The Attorney General
(AG) has declared that we will have zero tolerance for all
illegal border crossings, and I stand by that. Anyone crossing
the border illegally or filing a fraudulent asylum claim will
be detained, referred for criminal prosecution, and removed
from the United States, as appropriate.
But our National Guard deployment, zero tolerance policy,
border wall construction, and other actions will only get us
part way there. We urgently need Congress to pass legislation
to close the legal loopholes that are fueling this crisis in
the first place.
Those coming illegally know it is easier to get released
into America if they claim asylum. They know that it is easier
to get released if they are part of a family or if they are
unaccompanied children. So it should come as no surprise that
we are seeing a spike in all of these categories. Word is
getting out. Asylum claims are up 200 percent in the past 5
years, family unit apprehensions are up nearly 600 percent
compared to this time last year, and unaccompanied alien
children (UAC) apprehensions are up more than 300 percent. In
fact, 5 years ago, apprehensions of families and UACs were less
than 1 out of every 10 apprehensions. Now they approach almost
half, 40 percent.
Some say these increases are the result of spreading crime
or failing economies in source countries, but in those places
we are actually seeing economic growth and lower homicide
rates. The reality is not that their economies are cratering,
it is that ours is booming. America is the land of opportunity,
and that is a pull factor for anyone.
But if we have a legal system of immigration for those who
want to come here for economic reasons, they should do so
legally. Asylum is for people fleeing persecution, not those
searching for a better job. Yet our broken system, with its
debilitating court rulings, a crushing backlog, and gaping
loopholes allows illegal migrants to get into our country
anyway, and for whatever reason they want. This gaming of the
system is unacceptable. We need urgent action from Congress to
close these dangerous legal loopholes that are making our
country vulnerable.
I would also note, and it is important--I try to say this
at every opportunity--that the journey itself to our borders is
risky. It endangers the illegal aliens themselves, the
communities they pass through, our agents at the border, and
U.S. communities in our homeland. To be clear, human smuggling
operations are lining the pockets of transnational criminal
organizations (TCOs). They are not humanitarian endeavors.
Smugglers priorities have profits over people, and when aliens
pay them to get here, they are contributing $500 million a
year, or more, to groups that are fueling greater violence and
instability in America and the region.
There are other options. If migrants have a legitimate need
to flee, they should seek protection in the first safe country
they enter, including Mexico. They should not subject
themselves to a long and dangerous journey.
This is not, and should not be a political or partisan
issue, and I hope that we can discuss real solutions today. The
past four Presidents have pleaded with Congress to act on this
security challenge, but this Administration is tired of
waiting. So, in the meantime, we are doing everything within
our authorities to secure the border and enforce our laws.
Turning to the cyber domain, I want to make clear today
that we have reached a turning point in cyber threat evolution,
where digital security is converging with personal and physical
security. Cybersecurity can no longer be relegated to the
information technology (IT) department and thought of as a
nuisance. Now it is a matter of preserving our lives, our
livelihoods, and our American way of life.
One of the most critical parts of the DHS Authorization
Bill is its elevation of our cybersecurity and infrastructure
security resilience mission. Transforming the National
Protection and Programs Division, into a new operational
component, the Cyber-security and Infrastructure Security
Agency, is imperative to our success on the front lines of the
digital battlefield. It will be a clearer focal point for our
interagency, industry, and international partners. It will help
DHS recruit and retain employees with critical skill sets, and
it will clarify DHS's role as national risk manager for
cybersecurity and critical infrastructure security. I ask and
thank for the Committee's continued support in the
transformation of this component.
I also want to take this opportunity to mention the
Department's cybersecurity strategy, which is being rolled out
today. The strategy is built on the concepts of mitigating
systemic risk and strengthening collective defense. Both will
inform our approach to defending U.S. networks and supporting
governments at all levels in the private sector in increasing
the security and resilience of critical infrastructure. I do
look forward to discussing that with you further today.
I am also seeking your support to confront another category
of evolving threats, weapons of mass destruction. From the
chemical attacks in Syria to Russia's brazen assassination
attempt against a UK defector, we have seen the damage that
these agents can do, and we know that terrorists are not only
using them on the battlefield but are working to incorporate
them into Western attacks.
In December, I announced the establishment of a DHS
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, which is now
leading our response to these threat streams and incidents. But
the office still lacks critical authorities. While we currently
have the ability to responds comprehensively to nuclear
threats, we lack comparable authorities for chemical and
biological threats. I ask this Committee and all of Congress to
work with me to permanently authorize this office, and to
equalize the authorities we possess across all threat vectors.
Further, our enemies are exploring other technologies as
well, such as drones, to put our country in danger. Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has used armed drones to strike
targets in Syria, and we are increasingly concerned that they
will try the same tactics on our soil. We have also seen drones
used to smuggle drugs across our borders and to conduct
surveillance on sensitive government locations.
So today I would like to particularly thank Chairman
Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, Senator Heitkamp, and
Senator Hoeven for responding to our request and introducing a
bill to help DHS counter the growing threat posed by UAS. DHS
needs clear legal authority to identify, track, and mitigate
drones that could pose a danger to the public and to DHS
operations.
Our proposal, and your bill, would authorize DHS and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to conduct limited counter-UAS
operations for a narrow set of important and prioritized
missions, all the while importantly protecting privacy and
civil liberties. We are grateful for your leadership on this
and look forward to working with you as the legislation moves
forward.
Finally, I would like to ask for the Committee's support
for the President's 2019 budget. The budget for DHS requests
$47.5 billion in net discretionary funding and an additional
$6.7 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) for response
and recovery to major disasters. This budget sustains and
strengthens our most critical programs and capabilities. It
emphasizes protecting our Nation from terrorism and countering
threats, securing and managing our borders, enforcing our
immigration laws, preserving and upholding the Nation's
prosperity and economic security, security cyber space and
critical infrastructure, and strengthening homeland security
preparedness and resilience.
Throughout all of these missions, the budget also
prioritizes my goal of putting our dedicated employees first
and maturing DHS operations. I ask the Committee to support
this budget, to continue supporting our employees and our
missions, and to continue to help us make our country more
secure.
I thank you very much for your time and I look forward to
your questions.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Secretary Nielsen. Before I
turn questioning over to Senator McCaskill, I do want to put up
and draw everybody's attention to a couple of charts. The first
one is UAC Apprehensions.\1\ The reason I am doing this is to
make the point that regardless of what a particular law says,
we, within our laws, our precedents, our legal loopholes,
create incentives for people to come to this country illegally,
and I think the first example was the Deferred Action on
Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a look at the number of children coming in here from
Central America in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. It was
relatively minimal. And in June 2012, we had the Deferred
Action on Childhood Arrivals, and you can see what happened
afterwards. I do not have the figure year-to-date 2018, but I
think we are on pace for an increase again over 2017.
The next chart\1\ has 5\1/2\ years of apprehension history
at the border, and again, nothing is definitive. This is not
scientific. But it is pretty indicative that when President
Trump came into office, obviously dedicated to securing our
border, and Secretary Kelly, I think, said all the right things
in terms of being dedicated and giving U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) the authority to enforce the law, there was a dramatic
drop in apprehensions, which indicates the number of people
coming in illegally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the reality of what our laws are has gotten
into the fabric of people's consciousness, and the result being
people realize that they can still go up to the border, as an
unaccompanied child, we apprehend them, we process them, we
disperse them. We have only returned 3.5 percent of
unaccompanied children from Central America, I believe, if my
numbers are right, and, of course, we still have the issue of
people walking up, claiming credible fear, and going through a
similar type of process, not showing up for their hearings,
that type of thing.
So that is the reality of our law. And so a deterrent fact
worked for about a year, but until we actually change those
laws, I think we are going to have a real tough time actually
deterring illegal immigration.
With that I will turn it over to Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. Well, first I would not call the DACA
recipients, the unaccompanied minors, ``apprehensions.'' The
vast majority of unaccompanied minors are walking across and
saying ``help us, please.'' I think ``apprehension'' is a weird
word to use.
Chairman Johnson. Well, that is precisely my point, though.
They can just walk in and turn themselves in.
Senator McCaskill. The second point I would make is that
DACA was wiped off the books by this Administration in March of
this year, and since March, the number of people coming across
the border has increased, not decreased. So DACA is gone, it is
no longer the law, and we went from having 36,000 people
apprehended at the border in February to 50,000 in March, and
then almost to 51,000 in April. So if DACA was the magic thing
that was causing this, it seems to me we would see a decrease.
And, by the way, DACA does not even apply to these kids. None
of them are qualified for DACA, none of them.
So I think we have problems securing our borders and I do
not want to argue about that because I think we all agree that
we have to secure our borders.
I want to focus in on this--once again, in your opening
statement, you talked about the drugs at the Southern Border.
Ninety percent of the opioids that are being seized are being
seized at the ports of entry. Correct, Secretary Nielsen?
Secretary Nielsen. I do not have that exact figure, but
yes, the majority----
Senator McCaskill. We got it from you.
Secretary Nielsen [continuing]. The majority of drugs that
we see are coming through the ports of entry.
Senator McCaskill. Well, about 90 percent. Eighty-five
percent of the fentanyl, which is killing all of our
constituents every day, 85 percent of it is coming in through
the ports, not across the Southern Border. So this talking
point that it is the people coming across the Southern Border
that are bringing all the drugs, it is like fingernails on a
blackboard, because it is just not accurate.
And here is the thing I do not get. There has been zero
requests for additional port officers, zero, last year or this
year, to be used at these critical places. You did ask for 60
this year, but it was all for a training center, not for actual
deployment into these ports. And according to your own staffing
studies, you are short by over 4,000 officers at these ports.
Our citizens are dying from fentanyl every day. Our
emergency rooms are overloaded. There is not a week that goes
by that I do not talk to a parent in Missouri who has lost a
child to a fentanyl overdose that is coming in, in this manner.
Can you explain why we are continuing to ask for more
agents along the border when we cannot hire enough, but there
are no requests for this critical need in our country?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. Senator, first I would just like to
say it is a huge problem. It is one that we take seriously, the
full Administration. Let me give you a short answer and a long
answer.
The short answer is, it is not just the people at the
ports. So what we have done is we have asked for additional
technology. As you know, we have now trained canines at every
port of entry to actually find the drugs. What we find is, far
and away, the best way to detect the drugs coming through the
ports is through non-intrusive technology and through canines.
So we have increased that and we continue to ask for additional
resources.
What we have also done, though, is taken the approach to
try to push the borders out. So rather than waiting for the
drugs to come here, we are working much more in a forward-
deployed fashion, through Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs),
through what we have in Key West, which, as you know, Joint
Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-South) is a multi, 20-, 30-
country effort to identify and track the drugs before they ever
reach our shores, before they ever reach the ports of entry.
You mentioned in your opening remarks the vast increase in
mail. We thank you for the International Narcotics Trafficking
Emergency Response by Detecting Incoming Contraband with
Technology (INTERDICT) Act. We are working with you on the
Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention (STOP) Act. We
need to do more there, absolutely, because that is the other
way that fentanyl is getting in. So we are trying to look at it
as a system of systems, in other words, what are all the
different interdiction points that we can best get after this.
Another one we have asked for budget on are our cyber
capabilities within ICE and U.S. Secret Service (USSS), because
most of these drugs in marketplaces are on the dark web. So we
have increased our capability to take them down, to track the
TCOs to their source, and to turn off not only their market but
their ability to get the drugs.
So, yes, we have to continue to do more, but we are trying
to do it in a layered approach so it is a system of systems
approach.
Senator McCaskill. Is there a good answer as to why there
were zero requests for additional port officers when you are
4,000 staff members under your staffing model, and yet there
were 750 additional agents requested along the Southern Border,
even though you cannot combat the attrition that you are having
now? Is there a good reason as to why there would be that
dichotomy?
Secretary Nielsen. The good news I will mention quickly is
that the attrition is down and we can talk more about hiring,
because I know that was a concern of yours, in general. But I
am happy to come in myself, or have folks come and walk you
through the model.
The other part about drugs that I did not mention is what
we tend to see is the drugs themselves will be smuggled through
the ports of entry--again, we use the technology and canines--
but the people, the actual TCO member who will then sell the
drugs, come in between the ports of entry, because they know if
they come in at the port of entry they will be stopped. So, we
need to stop the people and the drugs.
But in terms of the staffing model that you are discussing,
I am happy to come talk to you about it in detail.
Senator McCaskill. Yes. If you look at your staffing in the
United States, in terms of mail facilities, it is even worse.
You have 17 officers covering two shifts in Cincinnati,
screening almost 46 million import shipments in one year. I
mean, that is just overwhelming.
I just think somebody has to get off the political speeches
and get to the problem, and be pragmatic. All of us want to
support what you need along the border. But this notion that if
we can just say, ``Look over here. Look over here. It is all
about people coming across the border,'' and totally ignore the
biggest public health crisis this country has ever faced, by
not adequately staffing the places where the drugs are coming
in, is just heartbreaking to me.
Secretary Nielsen. Ma'am, I am not saying that. What I am
suggesting is that what we find is the best way to identify
those drugs is through technology and canines, and that is what
we are increasing.
Senator McCaskill. But you have to have people to run both
technology and canines. Every dog has a handler.
In fact, more than one handler.
Secretary Nielsen But there is no suggestion that we have a
lack of people to work with the canines or run the machines. So
again, I am happy to walk you through, but I do want to make
clear we are attacking the opioid crisis from many levels, with
many capabilities.
Senator McCaskill. I have questions about the air marshals
but I will hold those until the next round. Thank you,
Secretary.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Hoeven.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, and thank you,
Secretary, for being here today and for the important work that
you are doing every day.
I am going to follow up on some of the things we talked
about at our DHS appropriation hearing, which you were at
recently. I am pleased to co-sponsor legislation with this
Committee's leadership that will give you authorities at DHS in
regard to addressing some of the challenges with making sure
that, in our airspace, we mange the UAS, unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAV) and systems adequately, not only to protect
privacy but also security. That is very important work.
And my first question is, while we are working with you to
provide those authorities to track and disable threatening
unmanned aircraft, and as you develop these counter-UAS
capabilities, do you have a plan in place to identify promising
technologies from the private sector and get them validated by
the Department so that you can use them in this effort, and how
will you go about testing and evaluating counter-UAS
technologies?
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you. So we have learned quite a
few lessons from the Department of Defense (DOD), which, as you
know, has this authority already and uses it in theater. So we
are looking at their testing models. The approach would
absolutely be to go to the private sector. It often is at DHS.
It does not make sense to reinvent the wheel when something
already exists that could fill a need. So we are specifying out
the requirements, making sure we understand what it is we need
to do, and then work in conjunction with the private sector. As
you know, there are many centers of excellence, particularly
those, as well, in your State. We are doing a lot of work there
with the university as well, everything from intern programs to
other capability-building exercises, to help get both the
people and the technology.
Senator Hoeven. So you hit the nail on the head there. That
is where I am going. We are working with you on a time to get
you out this summer to see what we are doing in counter-UAS,
not only from the military standpoint but customs and border
protection, as well as the private sector. And as you develop
that plan, we think we can be very helpful in terms of you
seeing some of the things that are being done and then
leveraging some of that technology development for DHS.
When Secretary Jim Mattis was in front of our Defense
Appropriations Committee we also talked about it in terms of
the military, and in same way they are both seeking authority
and developing some of these counter-UAS technologies.
So we appreciate your willingness to engage in that. We
think it will be very helpful and productive.
Secretary Nielsen. Well, thank you again for the bill.
Senator Hoeven. You have an incredible Ops Center in
California that is managing your unmanned aircraft along the
border. And so I guess my question, does that Air and Marines
Operations Center have sufficient capacity to handle all these
far-flung
UAS activities, and do you have backup? So both capacity and
backup--that is another, I guess, area that I know you are
going to continue to develop and grow. How is that going? Can
we be of help there?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. Thank you. As you say, the Ops
Center in California allows us to deploy, to understand and
track where we are using, and to help us with a model for when
we need to use and where we need to use them.
At DHS we are trying to use a task force unity-of-effort
approach, so we borrow help, if you will, from other parts of
DHS that either have the technical capability to fly, and to
have the flight hours to use the UAS, but also in terms of
other models.
As you know, we use UAS for a variety of things. We use
them on the border but we also use them for disaster response,
to understand what it looked like before the hurricane, what it
looked like after, to determine public assistance. So there are
quite a few areas within DHS that we use it. We will continue
to use this center. As you mentioned, redundancy, what we are
looking at in addition to the underlying capability is making
sure that we do have that redundancy. That is sort of that next
phase that we are in now.
Senator Hoeven. There is an incredible pilot shortage, both
for manned and unmanned aircraft, and actually, I want to
commend you, and Commissioner Kevin McAleenan with Customs and
Border Protection, for developing the Pathways program, which
we have at Grand Forks, which, in essence, provides jobs for
young people that are getting their training in aviation at the
University of North Dakota. So not only does CBP get a quality
employee, a great young person, and, of course, they need the
manpower, as we have talked about, but it also helps them get
an education because they are working for CBP. Great program. I
think it is a great way to help with the pilot shortage in the
aviation industry, both manned and unmanned, so I want to
commend you on that.
And then I want to kind of switch gears for a minute and
ask about, for, when you do detain, apprehend unaccompanied
children coming across the border, as well as others, what are
you doing to try to address the adjudication process, which is
such a bottleneck, in terms of trying to address this issue? I
know you are short there. What can you do, and what are you
doing to try to adjudicate these individuals?
Secretary Nielsen. So as I continue to find out every day,
our immigration process is very complex. As you well know, it
involves many departments. What we have tried to do is look at
it from an end-to-end approach. So in the example you just gave
there are actually about three or four different processes that
those groups would undertake. In some cases we need additional
immigration judges. DOJ is working on that. In some cases we
need additional processes and agreements with other parts of
the interagency family. We have done that, for example, with
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to make sure
that we are appropriately taking care of UACs in their custody.
And then there are other parts who, depending on if they
are referred for prosecution we hand them over to the marshals.
We want to make sure that that is a process that works. And
then in some cases we use alternates to detention. As you know,
rather than detaining them we will have check-ins, in some
cases ankle bracelets, but other ways to make sure that we have
them detained while they are awaiting their removal.
Senator Hoeven. Is that working?
Secretary Nielsen. It does work. So it is a good
combination. We do it on a case-by-case basis. There are lots
of criteria that we look at to determine when that is
appropriate and when that is not appropriate. But again, I
think it is some of the opening remarks perhaps the Chairman
made, if you look at UACs, 66 percent of those who receive
final orders, receive the final orders purely because they
never showed up for court, and we find that we are only able to
remove 3.5 percent of those who should be removed, who a judge
has said has a final. So if we can track them, it is a much
more efficient process while we wait for the final
adjudication.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and thanks for
the work you are doing. I know it is challenging work. We
appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks. Again, Secretary Nielsen, welcome.
Thank you for joining us today.
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you, sir.
Senator Carper. We have a couple of recovering Governors
here on this panel, and I still think like one. And one of the
things I focus on is I do customer calls in my State. I visit
businesses, large and small, throughout the year, and our
Governor and I visited yesterday a fairly large financial
services company in the northern part of our State.
Last week I was down in the southern part of our State
where we do a lot of agriculture. And I do not care where I go,
I hear employers, large and small, talk about how difficult it
is to find people who will come to work and actually do a job.
And I do not care if it is landscaping, I do not care if it is
food processing, I do not care if it is someone working in
financial services, but they are having a hard time getting
people who actually come, can pass a drug test, who have the
skills, and will come to work.
And you and I have talked a bit about how to address at
least part of this challenge. In fact, I read a letter, I
think, about a couple of dozen Senators who wrote to you and
urged you to use the authority that we granted in the spending
bill for the balance of this fiscal year (FY) to go ahead and
issue additional H-2B visas. And I think the legislation we
passed we authorized a doubling of that cap, to maybe another
69,000.
And I guess my question, this is not going to solve all of
our problems, for all of the employers, as you know, but you
have this authority. We hear, literally, this week, from
companies and they are afraid they are going to lose their
business because they do not have people come to work and do
the jobs. They are seasonal jobs.
So let me just ask, what is the timeline for releasing
additional H-2B visas and when will you announce the decision?
How may additional visas does the Department plan to release?
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you, sir. It is in final
interagency process. As you know, it involves regulation, so
the regulation should be ready here shortly.
Senator Carper. Can I just say something?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Senator Carper. I do not mean to be rude.
Secretary Nielsen. No.
Senator Carper. I do not mean to interrupt you. That is not
good enough. I mean, these companies, they are highly seasonal.
They need the folks now. They needed them a month ago. And
whenever I talk to you about this it basically we are working
this, we are going through the process, and so forth. They need
the workers now.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. I understand that.
Senator Carper. And if they were here they would tell you.
Secretary Nielsen. I have been collecting evidence. I have
asked everyone I talk to to give me examples so that I can, in
turn, package it and send it back to Congress to say, next
year, please put the ceiling in law. There is no need to tie it
to an appropriations bill.
Senator Carper. We gave you the authority to basically
double----
Secretary Nielsen. I understand, but----
Senator Carper [continuing]. The number of visas you can
issue.
Secretary Nielsen [continuing]. If you all are----
Senator Carper. You have the power. This Administration is
not reluctant about using executive power.
Secretary Nielsen. If you all are wanting to help the
companies, which I know you are, the best thing that we can do
is give them stability and predictability. Putting them into a
situation each year, where we wait on appropriations cycle and
we wait on whichever secretary is secretary to make a
determination, does not give them the ability to plan and keep
their businesses open.
So I would respectfully request, again, that Congress work
with us to put this in law. We know it is a need. Let us just
put it in law, and then everybody knows what it is, and the
businesses can plan.
Senator Carper. We put it in law. We said there are 69,000
visas that could be issued, now additional visas, and all you
have to do is do it. There is plenty of need.
Secretary Nielsen. But, sir----
Senator Carper. Use that authority.
Secretary Nielsen [continuing]. If you wanted 69,000
additional just put it in law and then there is no discretion
and there is no timing, if it is already in law and everyone
can plan to it. So as we discussed----
Senator Carper. That is very disappointing----
Secretary Nielsen. Well, it should not be, because I think
we both want to help the companies, so I am telling you, in my
experience, this is the best way to help them is to give them
some predictability and not tie it----
Senator Carper. If our roles were different and you were
the Senate and I was the Secretary of the Department, we would
issue those 69,000 visas. We would put a lot of people to work,
and I will say, frankly, save a lot of businesses from going
under.
Let me ask my second question. Thank you.
The decision to extend or terminate Temporary Protected
Status (TPS) lies with the Secretary of Homeland Security, as
you know, in consultation with the State Department. Your
predecessor and former deputy, Elaine Duke, declined to end TPS
for Honduras only 4 months ago, in November. Did you speak with
Ms. Duke or other former administration officials prior to
terminating TPS for Honduras? Did you speak with Jim Nealon,
our former Ambassador to Honduras?
Secretary Nielsen. At the time, before Ambassador Nealon
and then Deputy Secretary Duke left, yes, I did talk with them.
Senator Carper. And can you give us some idea what was
said?
Secretary Nielsen. No. I cannot, sir. Those are
predeliberative conversations.
Senator Carper. Former Secretary Kelly also said, in an
interview on National Public Radio (NPR), I think it was last
week, he said, ``I think we should fold all the TPS people that
have been here for a considerable period of time and find a way
for them to--a path of citizenship.'' And those are his words
from last week. Do you agree with General Kelly's remarks?
Secretary Nielsen. I have said the same under oath.
Senator Carper. OK.
We talked in this room, often times, about root causes, why
people come here from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and
other places. They come here because their lives are not just
difficult, their lives, in many cases, are horrendous. We
contribute directly to that.
In the last Administration there was a fair amount of
discussion about root causes. We put in place--Congress passed
the Alliance for Prosperity, sort of like a Central American
version, as you know, of Plan Colombia. I have not heard much
about what is going on there lately, and maybe you can bring us
up to speed. As you know, Plan Colombia has taken a long time,
20 years, but over time it has become very successful. And what
is going on with Alliance for Prosperity and how are we doing
there?
Secretary Nielsen. So as I understand it, sir, the State
Department is distributing funds, but as you know that is a
State Department program. What we are doing at DHS is we worked
in conjunction with State, and the governments of Mexico,
Spain, Canada, others, last year, to host a conference with the
Northern Triangle to talk about this issue and talk about how
to increase their prosperity in addition to security.
We plan to host such a conference again next month.
Senator Carper. When and where?
Secretary Nielsen. In D.C., and we do not have the exact
date because it will be around the Organization of American
States, so it is a bit up to them as to which date works, so we
are still finalizing a date.
But we are working on some interesting programs to help in
the same way. One that I have found to be very interesting is
one with El Salvador, where it is micro-competition and the
company who wins receives about $27,000 equivalent, which is
the amount they would otherwise pay a smuggler to come to the
United States. So it allows them to stay in the country and
open up a business.
So we are working on creative ways to try to help. I agree
with you. We have to help the countries as well with the push-
and-pull factors, and, of course, as you and I have talked
about before, we also have to increase our overall drug demand
here so that we do not have that pull factor.
Senator Carper. All right. As they say at Home Depot, ``You
can do it. We can help.'' They can do it. We have an
obligation, I think, a moral obligation to help. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member McCaskill. And Secretary Nielsen, thank you for
appearing before the Committee.
Just a couple of weeks ago I traveled to the U.S. Southern
Border to meet with Border Patrol Port Officers and ICE
Detention Officers. We know that people are dying on both sides
of the border as a result of the drug cartel's narcotics
trafficking efforts. In 2016, drug overdoses killed more than
60,000 Americans, while in 2017, Mexico hit a record of nearly
30,000 homicides, the vast majority of which resulted from the
drug trade violence.
These numbers go hand in hand. The drug cartels use
violence and money to dominate their smuggling route, killing
many innocent Mexicans and migrants. The cartels' success means
that more and more drugs make their way into the United States,
where Americans are dying from overdoses at unprecedented
rates.
I was impressed by my visits to El Paso and McAllen, Texas,
to see the robust screening effort conducted by CBP of incoming
traffic from Mexico. In fact, in El Paso, just before I
arrived, they had seized 25 pounds of cocaine because we have
vigilant, excellent CBP port officers, as I know you know.
However, stopping the drug cartels is not solely a matter
of securing traffic coming into the United States. We have to
attack the cartels' business model. That means stopping the
flow of both drug money and weapons that travel southbound into
Mexico from the United States.
Unfortunately, as I saw on my trip, our southbound
screening effort for traffic leaving the United States for
Mexico pales in comparison to CBP's screening of traffic
entering the United States. We are in a system that our
officers refer to as ``pulse and search,'' so intermittent
checking of southbound traffic. We were told by CBP officials
that they need expanded facilities, more personnel, and updated
technology in order to try to strengthen our ability to stop
the flow of guns and money back into the cartels' hands.
So are you satisfied with the current state of southbound
inspections along the Southern Border?
Secretary Nielsen. No.
Senator Hassan. And what more do you need and what actions
will you take to address these shortfalls?
Secretary Nielsen. So the ports, as you know, are very
different----
Senator Hassan. Right.
Secretary Nielsen [continuing]. The infrastructure. So part
of what we are doing is, I have had multiple conversations with
the Government of Mexico on this exact issue. I have committed
to them that we will decrease the flow of guns and money headed
their direction. But part of the agreement with them is to how
we can restructure the ports so that we have those secondary
lanes so that we can pull people over when we suspect.
Senator Hassan. Right.
Secretary Nielsen. So we are doing more. We are working on
agreements back and forth, and then we are working on some
modeling and data that would lead us to a resource request to
come to you.
Senator Hassan. Well, that would be excellent. What I
heard, loudly and clearly, from our wonderful subject matter
experts at the border was that they need more people, and I
think that echoes what you heard from Senator McCaskill. We
need more people at the ports of entry. We need them southbound
as well as northbound. And I also know there were some
infrastructure issues for those second lanes of traffic and the
like. But I would look forward to working with you on that.
I also wanted to touch on another issue that we heard about
on the border. As you know, last year, Congress passed the
INTERDICT Act which requires DHS to increase the number of
fentanyl screening devices available to CBP officers. The
officers have faced a shortage of these devices, which are
essential to identifying correctly fentanyl and other drugs, as
well as keeping CBP officers safe from these toxic chemicals.
Despite the passage of the INTERDICT Act, the port
personnel I spoke with made clear that the devices were still
in short supply. When I spoke to them about the INTERDICT Act
legislation and its mission, they were encouraged by the
possibility of more devices heading their way but they had
clearly not received the benefits that intended when we passed
this bill and when the President signed it into law. Now that
was, I think, in December.
So why are not the devices getting into the hands of these
port officers, what accounts for the delay, and what are our
plans to get more devices there?
Secretary Nielsen. Well, first of all, that is
unacceptable, so you have my commitment to look into it and get
back to you this week. I am not aware that they do not have the
devices. They need to be trained.
Senator Hassan. Yes.
Secretary Nielsen. They need the protective gear to, as you
know, touch packages, and they also need the devices.
Senator Hassan. Right. I saw one of the devices. The issue
is they just do not have enough for them all to use, and I
think our intent was to get----
Secretary Nielsen. Absolutely. I will look into this.
Senator Hassan [continuing]. This technology to our
personnel as quickly as we could.
And then another issue that came up, because I went from
the border then down to Mexico City. And in my meetings with
U.S. Embassy personnel in Mexico City, and with key Mexican
government officials, we discussed how Mexico has to
significantly grow its Federal police force if it is going to
have success against the drug cartels. While the Mexican
government has to find the resources and the will to expand the
Federal police force, the United States can certainly play a
key role in helping to train and professionalize the police
force.
In a meeting with the National Security Commissioner Sales
I conveyed how every law enforcement officer in the State of
New Hampshire attends the same training facility in order to
standardize and professionalize their training, and I also
shared how DHS runs the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC), in order to integrate and standardize law enforcement
training for over 90 Federal law enforcement units.
Has DHS considered working with its Mexican counterparts to
help provide trainings to Mexican Federal law enforcement?
Secretary Nielsen. Absolutely, and we actually do. We have
graduated some already from training facilities. We are
continuing to expand that. We also work with Semar and Sedena,
parts of the military, which, as you know, play a huge role. We
have done a lot of training with them. We do a lot of joint
operations back and forth across the border. But yes, this
would be a priority for us.
Senator Hassan. And so when you say a lot of joint
training, do we open up parts of FLETC to our Mexican
counterparts? Can they come over and train?
Secretary Nielsen. We do offer courses for Mexican
counterparts, yes, ma'am. I will get you the locations. I
believe it is at FLETC, but if not it is a DHS-owned facility.
Senator Hassan. OK. Well, thank you very much. I will have
more questions for a second round but I am happy to yield now.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS
Senator Harris. Thank you, Secretary Nielsen.
As I sit here today I am extremely concerned about the
Administration's repeated attacks on some of the most
vulnerable communities, and, in particular, children and
pregnant women, as it relates to the work of DHS. And, in
particular, under your leadership, DHS has rescinded the DACA
program, and under the leadership of the Administration,
predating your arrival as Secretary. DHS has rescinded the DACA
program, putting 700,000 young people at risk of deportation.
It has separated 700 children from their parents at the border
since October 2017, including more than 100 children who are
under the age of 4.
The agency has released a directive that allows for more
detention of pregnant women to immigrant detention facilities.
The agency has instituted a new information-sharing system
between the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and ICE that
is likely to have a chilling effect on sponsors who otherwise
would be willing to come forward to provide care for
unaccompanied minors, and instead of allowing those children to
remain in detention. The agency has dramatically increased
enforcement actions that have left an untold number of both
immigrant and U.S. citizen children without one or both
parents, leaving some of those children in the child welfare
system.
And then just last Wednesday, the Washington Post reported
that you are considering undermining the Flores Agreement, an
agreement that ensures standards of care for immigrant
children, such as the provision of meals and recreation, and
that they are placed in a least restrictive setting as
possible.
In the course of carrying out these actions, the
Administration has routinely provided misleading information to
this Committee, and has even gone so far as to claim that
policies such as routinely separating families are carried out
in the best interest of the child, which many consider to be
cruel.
So my question to you is, last Thursday, when the New York
Times reported that the President has directed you to separate
parents from children when they cross into the United States as
a way to deter illegal immigration, is that correct? Have you
been directed to separate parents from children as a method of
deterrence of undocumented immigration?
Secretary Nielsen. I have not been directed to do that for
purposes of deterrence, no.
Senator Harris. What purpose have you been given for
separating parents from their children?
Secretary Nielsen. So my decision has been that anyone who
breaks the law will be prosecuted. If you are a parent or you
are a single person or you happen to have a family, if you
cross between the ports of entry we will refer you for
prosecution. You have broken U.S. law.
Senator Harris. At an April 26th hearing, I asked Under
Secretary James McCament to provide me with what percentage of
cases exist in your agency where a child has been separated
from a parent or guardian since October 2017, wherein the case
resulted in trafficking charges. I have not been given that
information. Can you provide that to me?
Secretary Nielsen. I do not have it now but, yes, I will
provide it to you.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information requested by Senator Harris appears in the
Appendix on page 129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Harris. OK. Can you do that by the end of next
week?
Secretary Nielsen. If we have the information, yes.
Senator Harris. Thank you. I also asked that I be provided
with what training and procedures are being given to CBP
officers as it relates to how they are instructed to carry out
family separation. I have not received that information. Do you
have that today?
Secretary Nielsen. No. You have not asked me for it so I do
not have it, but I can give it to you.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The information requested by Senator Harris appears in the
Appendix on page 134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Harris. No, I asked you for it. OK. So again, by
the end of next week please.
Secretary Nielsen. Can you explain a little more what you
are looking for?
Senator Harris. Sure. So your agency will be separating
children from their parents, and I would----
Secretary Nielsen. No. What we will be doing is prosecuting
parents who have broken the law, just as we do every day in the
United States of America.
Senator Harris. I can appreciate that, but if that parent
has a 4-year-old child, what do you plan on doing with that
child?
Secretary Nielsen. The child, under law, goes to HHS for
care and custody.
Senator Harris. They will be separated from their parent.
And so my question is----
Secretary Nielsen. Just like we do in the United States
every day.
Senator Harris. So they will be separated from their
parent. And my question, then, is, when you are separating
children from their parents, do you have a protocol in place
about how that should be done, and are you training the people
who will actually remove a child from their parent on how to do
that in the least traumatic way? I would hope you do train on
how to do that. And so the question is, and the request has
been, to give us the information about how you are training and
what the protocols are for separating a child from their
parent.
Secretary Nielsen. I am happy to provide you with the
training information.
Senator Harris. Thank you. And what steps are being taken,
if you can tell me, to ensure that once separated, parent and
child, that there will be an opportunity to at least sustain
communication between the parent and their child?
Secretary Nielsen. The children are at HHS, but I am happy
to work with HHS to get you an answer for that.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information requested by Senator Harris appears in the
Appendix on page 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Harris. And I would like it to be broken down
between what you doing for children over the age of 4 and what
you are doing for children under the age of 4.
On May 4th, the President of the American Academy of
Pediatrics issued a statement on behalf of the organization,
stating that he is appalled by a new policy by the DHS that
will forcibly separate children from their parents, and went on
to talk about that they will create stressful experiences like
family separation, which can cause irreparable harm, disrupting
a child's brain architecture, affecting his or her short-and
long-term health. And these findings are generally shared by
the American Medical Association (AMA) and many child welfare
advocates and professionals.
Last Tuesday, before Senate Appropriations, you testified
that you are ``working with the community to understand the
science as it relates to the impact of such separation.'' Do
you dispute that separating a child from their parent will
create and cause trauma for that child?
Secretary Nielsen. I believe the question that was asked to
me, if I was aware of the information, and what I said is I
would be happy to look into the studies. Again, we do not have
a policy to separate children from their parents. Our policy
is, if you break the law we will prosecute you. You have an
option to go to a port of entry and not illegally cross into
our country.
Senator Harris. Secretary Nielsen, we do have a policy in
this country, as a general matter in the justice system, that
if someone breaks the law they will be prosecuted. We also have
protocols about what is allowable and not in connection with an
arrest, in connection with detention in a jail, in connection
with how many hours a day with which we can bring charges or
not. So to suggest that the only law in this country relates to
what you do at the end is really misleading.
Secretary Nielsen. But that is not what I just said, ma'am.
If you are asking if we train and we take care of them and we
work with HHS, we now have a memorandum of agreement (MOA) so
that we can make sure that the children go to people who are
actually family members and who are not traffickers and who
will not abuse them.
Senator Harris. Right. So those are the policies I would
like to see.
Secretary Nielsen. OK.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Before I go to Senator Lankford, I think
is a good time, actually, Senator Daines, I see you showed up.
This would be a good time to explain a little bit more. When
you say that we do this every--prosecutors, law enforcement,
local law enforcement does this every day. So let us consider
maybe a drug dealer, single parent, with children in the home.
That drug dealer is arrested. Is there any difference, really,
in terms of how DHS handles somebody that you are going to
prosecute, that you are going to detain, somebody who has
entered the country through other than the ports of entry, is
there any difference in terms of how DHS would handle that
situation, those children, than what local law enforcement,
other than different jurisdictions may have different rules?
Secretary Nielsen. Right. So, broadly speaking, not to my
knowledge. The idea here is to make sure that the now
unaccompanied children, or the children whose parent is
incarcerated because they broke a law, are cared for. So we
transfer those to HHS, and as I just mentioned, we have now
worked on a memorandum of agreement to ensure that those
children are not being, in turn, placed in the hands of
traffickers, criminals, etc.
Chairman Johnson. Again, I want to underscore, that only
applies to family units, a parent, that crosses illegally,
between the ports of entry. If they show up at the port, claim
asylum, those family units are kept together because we have a
process for that.
Secretary Nielsen. In current policy, yes, sir.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Senator Daines.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Nielsen,
it is good to see you again. Thank you for your service to
secure our homeland. I am thankful for the leadership you are
showing, in terms of deploying National Guard resources to
secure our borders, building the first border wall in 10 years,
establishing a national vetting process to better target those
with criminal intent who seek to enter this country. As a
father of four children myself, I sleep better knowing you are
leading and securing our homeland. Thank you.
I want to switch gears and talk about flooding in my home
State of Montana. We had a tremendous snowpack this winter. The
skiers were thrilled. As a fly fisherman, I cannot wait once
the, as we say, the rivers blow out. They clear up, we get on
the rivers. But in the meantime we have flooding going on in
Montana. We are facing severe flooding due to rapidly melting
snowpack in our mountains, combined with some recent heavy
rainfall. Surging rivers and streams affect our communities
across our State, forcing families from homes, schools,
businesses. Roadways are closing. In fact, Montana has declared
a statewide flooding emergency and mobilized State resources,
but more flooding is yet to come and Federal aid is going to be
needed.
How is DHS assisting these affected communities in Montana
now, and how can your department provide support in the coming
months as we deal with additional flooding, as well as, believe
it or not, the upcoming wildfire season?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. I cannot believe we are there again
already, between that and hurricane season.
So what we are doing at the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) is we are trying to increase the capability and
capacity, in general, toward resilience. So, in part, that
means we are using things called integrated management teams.
We are pushing people out into the communities to help them
build their capacity for instant management. We have conducted
various reviews on alert warning. We are reviewing the
equipment needs and requirements, and then, as you know, in
certain cases, once the thresholds of the Stafford Act are met,
under a national disaster, there are funds available from the
Disaster Relief Fund. So it is a combination of on-the-ground
capacity-building exercises, etc., and then funding, of course,
when the thresholds are met.
Senator Daines. Thank you, and I know we will be in touch
with your team as we continue to, excuse the metaphor, navigate
through these difficult times right now in Montana.
I want to switch gears now and talk about the National
Guard on the Southwest Border. As you point out in your
testimony, there is probably no issue more important for DHS
right now than border security and immigration. According to
CBP, Southwest Border migration numbers for April, the number
of illegal border crossers more than tripled in April 2018,
compared of April 2017. Securing our borders is crucial to
protecting the American people and upholding the rule of law.
I am grateful to hear from you today in response to some of
the questions. It is about the rule of law. It is what sets
this great national apart, is freedom and the rule of law. You
are doing an admirable job and I know you and your workforce
are working tirelessly to get the job done.
More resources are needed, however, and I support President
Trump's call last month for the deployment of the National
Guard to enhance CBP's capacities out at our Southwest Border.
My question for you is, what further steps will be taken by
the Administration to mitigate illegal activity at the border?
Secretary Nielsen. Many things, as much as we can do within
the law. So we are changing regulationss to the extent that we
can to clarify particular issues. We are doing all this in the
protection of UACs, like the memorandum of understanding (MOU)
that I just mentioned. We are working with the border
Governors. As you may know, I have had lots of conversations
and I talk with them monthly--Governor Greg Abbott, Governor
Doug Ducey, Governor Susana Martinez, Governor Jerry Brown--not
just on the deployment of the National Guard but what else we
can do with local communities, with border sheriffs, to make
sure that when we identify criminal aliens that we can
apprehend them and remove them.
We also are working through some pilot projects with Mexico
on ways that we can prevent the flows that do not have a
legitimate claim to come to this country. Again, I encourage
all migrants, if they have a need to flee, to seek shelter in
that first safe country that they encounter. So we will
continue to do all we can on our side.
Senator Daines. Thank you. The issue of children came up in
the last line of questioning and I want to probe that a bit
more with you. I have introduced legislation with my colleague
from New Hampshire, Senator Hassan. It is called the Homeland
Security for Children Act, which would simply ensure that DHS
includes input from organizations representing the needs of
children when soliciting stakeholder feedback and developing
policies.
The question is, do you believe it is important to identify
and integrate the needs of children into the policies and
activities of the Department?
Secretary Nielsen. I think it is our duty to protect them,
to keep them in a safe environment, to provide for them when
they are in our care, and to make sure that within that 48-hour
period when we transfer them to HHS that we do all we can to
help HHS then take care of those children. Yes, I do.
Senator Daines. One thing I have seen, and I appreciate
your response there, is I think we need to make sure that the
necessary steps are in place so that children are kept safe
during emergencies. We think about preparedness. Sometimes we
do not always remember in the policies the importance of
children and thinking about their unique needs.
Last, I want to talk about border wall contractors. A
number of State and local governments are considering
legislation that would require them to discriminate against
companies involved in the design or construction of any
extension of the wall along our Southern Border. Further, some
cities are targeting contractors that provide database services
supporting Federal immigration priorities. This type of
legislation could obstruct the Federal Government's lawful
functions and cause private companies contracted with the
Federal Government to hesitate in fulfilling the critical roles
asked of them.
My question is, what is the position of the Department on
this issue, and how do you plan to respond?
Secretary Nielsen. So we continue to work with border
Governors and government officials. I would just say that
border security is the most basic and necessary requirement of
a country to protect its citizens, so I do worry that the
either intended or unintended consequence of this would be that
the Federal Government cannot do its most basic duty to protect
its citizens. But we are also trying to work with them to
explain and find out what the real concern is, because it is
not always clear on its face what the concern is, other than
they just do not agree with us enforcing the law.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Secretary Nielsen. Thanks.
Chairman Johnson. Senator McCaskill has a question for you
real quick.
Senator McCaskill. Yes. I just want to clarify something.
The Chairman wanted to equate the process by which children are
separated from their parents to a similar process when someone
is arrested. Let us just take a community where I was the
elected prosecutor for years. When a child is left without a
parent because of breaking the law, in the State system, the
police handed them over to the social service agency, who then
has primary responsibility, through social workers, placement,
and a child abuse hotline. They are always in contact with the
State authorities until there is some kind of permanency to
their legal situation.
Let us compare and contrast what happens with DHS. DHS
keeps the children for maybe 48 hours, and hands them off to
HHS. HHS then tries to put them somewhere, and rarely does
household visits for sponsors. And then they are done after
they find a sponsor. There is no handing off to the State
social service agencies. That is why nobody is showing up for
the hearings, Secretary. It is because it is not like the State
system.
I can assure you that if a child was supposed to show up
somewhere that was in the State's care, the phone would ring,
or the child abuse hotline would ring, or a teacher would be
required to call in. That is not happening with these kids.
That is why they are not coming to court. Nobody is paying any
attention.
So I just could not let it pass that we were equating those
two systems, because having a great deal of experience in one
of them, having handled child abuse cases for a number of
years, nothing is further than the truth. And there is still
not a joint concept of operations (CONOPS), which was promised
to Senator Portman and I at a hearing in 2016, as to how we are
going to alleviate this problem.
So once you start taking these children, I do not think any
record should reflect that somehow we are--you are confident,
or anybody is confident that they are being placed in a safe
and secure environment and being appropriately managed.
Because, frankly, if they were, they would come to their
hearings.
Secretary Nielsen. Could I just respond to that?
Senator McCaskill. Sure.
Secretary Nielsen. I think the comparison I was trying to
make was in the separation of families. It is not something
unique we do with illegal aliens when someone has broken the
law.
Senator McCaskill. There is no question, you have to
separate children from families when there has been a
violation.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, ma'am. But having said that, I just
want to say I could not agree with your concerns more, period.
We are working with HHS. We have done this MOA. I will look
into the CONOPS. I do know that we have revised it, because we
now, in conjunction with HHS, are requiring various checks be
made to ensure that the sponsor truly does have a custodial
relationship and is not a traffickers or an abuser. And, as you
know, we have terrible instances of that occurring.
Senator McCaskill. Terrible.
Secretary Nielsen. It is not acceptable.
Senator McCaskill. The fact that there is not a CONOPS, the
fact that there is no joint concept of operations, and we are
upping the number of children we are taking from families is
outrageous.
Secretary Nielsen. So there is a CONOPS. What I am
suggesting is----
Senator McCaskill. [Off microphone.]
Secretary Nielsen [continuing]. Yes, and I appreciate that
and we will get it to you. We are updating it because we now
have this MOA with HHS that requires both of us to share
information so that we can vet the sponsor who appears to take
the children, especially when that sponsor is not a parent.
Senator McCaskill. It is not being done now.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, so this is why we just signed this
MOA. I could not agree more. We have to do more.
Chairman Johnson. I would completely agree the State is
going to be better than the Federal Government in just about
anything it does, and the point I was making, in terms of
DACA--I mean, I completely understand that that does not apply
to current arrivals, but they do not know that, that DACA was
used as a spark. They were told, once they get there they can
stay. By the way, they have. 96.5 percent of unaccompanied
children from Central America have stayed. They use social
media. That is communicated down to Central America and more
come. So it is that flood into a Federal system that has
created the crisis. So again, the goal of policy ought to be to
reduce the flow, like Secretary Chertoff did, in Brazil.
Senator Heitkamp.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP
Senator Heitkamp. Yes. I do not think I can let that go
without at least some comment.
DACA, if you say it was a magnet that pulled people because
they are so connected, they certainly are connected enough to
know that the program has been terminated. So we know that
Central America presents a unique problem as it relates to
unaccompanied minors, because of a law that was passed by the
U.S. Congress. So the wringing of hands about what is, in fact,
the draw into this country, it is critically important that we
look at this from what is driving the factors below. And you
and I have had long conversations about the need to work with
the other countries in the region to allow people to refugee in
place, to allow people to live with their families in a safe
location, somewhere within the region.
We are on the verge of having a very anti-American
government elected in Mexico. It is going to make your job even
harder. And so we can talk about why that is. I think we should
just recognize it is going to happen. So we have to prepare for
a relationship change that we are going to have, that is going
to create an even greater problem.
But we have to be humanitarian about how we deal with this,
especially as it relates to children. Now we all sat at this
dais about a month ago, and I think I said we are the worst
foster parents in the world. We do not keep track of these
kids. And we are begging you, if, in fact, this is going to be
the outcome, where we are separating children, in some cases,
infants, from their parents, we need to know where these kids
are.
Secretary Nielsen. I could not agree more.
Senator Heitkamp. Well, that has not been----
Secretary Nielsen. Again, in the last Administration there
was no MOA to even screen or vet sponsors. I have put that in
place.
Senator Heitkamp. I am not talking about politics here.
Secretary Nielsen. No. I am not either.
Senator Heitkamp. I am talking about change.
Secretary Nielsen. I am saying what we have done to improve
the situation, because you are exactly right. We owe more to
these children to protect them. So I am saying I agree. We have
taken steps and we will continue to strengthen what our
partners do to protect these children. They are not in our
custody but I take it upon myself to work with my interagency
partners to do this.
Senator Heitkamp. And I would share Senator Harris' concern
about making sure people are trauma-informed and trauma-
trained, because what you are doing to children when you take
them away from their parents is the most trauma-impactful thing
you can do to a child. So let us be good people and good
Americans as it relates to how we treat children.
But I do not want to use my whole time. I want to talk a
little bit about the Northern Border strategy. You probably
figured this is going to come up. You are 5 months late in
getting me the plan. When is that plan going to happen?
Secretary Nielsen. It should be out this week.
Senator Heitkamp. OK. Thank you. I will look forward to
seeing it and thank you again. I think, again, we have such a
hyper focus on the Southwest Border, a hyper focus on the open
areas of the Southwest Border, and as Senator McCaskill pointed
out, a lot of the drug traffic is coming through the points of
entry. We know that that is a problem that we need to address.
And that brings me to the second thing I want to get at,
which is technology, and understanding what that technology,
what is available, what we are doing right now to train, what
we are doing right now to provide resources. I want to
associate myself with the remarks of my senior Senator, Senator
Hoeven. We appreciate the work that is being done to train
pilots. I think that we have a great resource in North Dakota
with the co-location of Customs and Border Protection, air and
marine, along with the airbase, along with a training center
for training pilots, along with a lot of great law enforcement
folks who are working to try and figure out how we can embed
and use new technology. So I again invite you to come up to
North Dakota to take a look.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. I am looking forward to it.
Senator Heitkamp. Yes. And I think you will find some very
interesting things up on the border.
One of the unique problems that we have in North Dakota, as
you know, is hiring and retention. That is not just a problem
in North Dakota but it is a problem across the agency. Senator
McCaskill, I think, made a great point on retention. What do
you think is going to improve retention and how do we get a
better answer on how we can deal with the attrition challenge
that you have?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. This is, for obvious reasons, all
the ones that Ranking Member McCaskill mentioned and you did as
well, important, but it is also important just for basic
morale, right? It is important for us to be able to do our job.
So I do take this very seriously, and of my six priorities one
is what I call Employees First, and this is a big chunk of
that. What it is we can do to make them willing to continue to
serve.
Senator Heitkamp. Why do you think they are leaving now?
Secretary Nielsen. I think, one of the things that we have
found over the last year is the system was not built for
mobility. So if you are in rural--it is not even rural--if you
are in an area where there is just not a lot of infrastructure,
particularly on the Southern Border, if you are a young CBP
agent you might be willing to do that for a few years, but if
the system cannot allow you to move, you might just decide to
leave. So one of the things we have built in is that mobility.
We have also built in cross-training. We find that particularly
in some of the areas, what you were trained to do is not
necessarily what you do, because of the limited----
Senator Heitkamp. One of the pieces of advice that Senator
Tester used to provide, and I used to follow up on, is there
are people who live up there.
Secretary Nielsen. Absolutely.
Senator Heitkamp. There are people who live on the northern
tier. They like it.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Senator Heitkamp. That is home. They hunt. They fish. They
know exactly what they are doing. They have friends and family.
We need to do better recruiting from the local people who live
there, who have lived that lifestyle, because if you move
someone in from Tennessee, let us say, and then an ICE position
comes open in Tennessee, we will lose them from Border Patrol.
And so we have seen this. We have talked to the folks up there.
Very much would like to see you look at recruiting within the
area, because those are folks who are used to that lifestyle.
Secretary Nielsen. Really quickly on that one, we found
that we were not very good at that, which is partly why we are
working with Accenture. And I know the Ranking Member had some
concerns that she mentioned at the front. I am happy to come
and speak to you both about that. But part of the concept of
that Accenture contract is to go into those areas and recruit
there, for people that we need there, because of exactly what
you are saying.
Senator Heitkamp. No, I think you would be more successful
in terms of retention, and I am out of time. I will probably
submit some additional questions for the record, and you
probably know I am concerned and aware of some challenges we
have with the border sheriffs. That is a critical relationship,
both in the Northern Border and the Southern Border, and we
want to follow up on some of the issues that we have had with
the local law enforcement.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, and Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I
just respond to that quickly?
Chairman Johnson. No. Fine.
Secretary Nielsen. You and I had a brief conversation. I
could not agree more. I spoke with the sheriff in Cochise
County. I have met with a variety of sheriffs when I was in
Texas. I met with the National Sheriffs Association last week.
Senator Heitkamp. Good.
Secretary Nielsen. I will continue to meet with them. But
yes, we look to their expertise, their experience. They are a
very important part of understanding the needs.
Senator Heitkamp. And they can be an incredible resource
for you in terms of intel if you have a relationship with them.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. I agree. Thank you.
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. No, I just want to offer clarification. I
think, Senator Heitkamp, you said DHS does this to the children
or families. When a parent brings a child illegally into this
country, between the ports of entry, DHS is responding,
reacting to that illegal act. I hate to give advice but if
those parents want to do it legally they can go right up to the
port of entry, claim asylum, and then, basically have to make
the case. But they are coming across illegally because they do
not want to have to go through that process, the legal process.
So Secretary Nielsen, DHS is enforcing the laws, and if we
do not like the laws we are going to have to try and change
them. But again, it is not what DHS is doing to them. DHS is
forced to react and is forced to follow the law.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Nielsen,
thank you for being here.
Secretary Nielsen. Good afternoon.
Senator Peters. Secretary Nielsen, I think you are well
aware that probably the most significant threat that we have to
our national security comes from cyber attacks, and we are
seeing these cyber attacks increase in frequency as well as in
sophistication.
And as this Committee has discussed this issue on numerous
occasions, we always talk about a whole-of-government approach,
that we have to bring all of our resources to bear in order to
thwart this threat. And yet often times we operate in silos.
Different agencies are doing their own thing and there is not
any kind of communication between them. So there has been a
pretty concerted effort to try to harmonize the
responsibilities as well as understand those whole-of-
government capabilities that may exist across the breadth of
government.
And I know that DHS, along with a number of other civilian
and military entities, have certainly made some significant
progress in this area, but we also need to have leadership from
the White House to make sure that this actually happens. And
that is why I was disappointed to hear reports that National
Security Advisor John Bolton is considering eliminating the
White House Cyber Coordinator position within the White House.
What impact would this change in leadership have, do you
think, on the national cyber mission?
Secretary Nielsen. So I have not had a conversation with
Ambassador Bolton about that particular issue. What I would
suggest, at least from a DHS perspective, we have strengthened
all of our relationships with the silos that you referenced, to
make sure that we are bringing all to bear, not just through
sharing of capacity and capabilities but clarifying and
reclarifying our roles and responsibilities from policy
efforts.
So your underlying point is valid. It is top-of-mind for
me, because no one entity has all the authorities, capability,
and capacity to address this, so we have to bring everything we
have to bear.
Within DHS, I find that we have pockets of excellence
within the Secret Service, within ICE, within the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG), within the Transportation Security Agency (TSA),
and, of course, within NPPD. So we are trying to knit all that
together so that we have best-in-class services through that
collective defense model.
Senator Peters. So you mentioned you were not aware of
this--or statement that John Bolton made. Could you tell me a
little bit about the kind of coordination that goes on between
DHS, cyber leadership, and the White House, in relation to
cybersecurity? Is there ongoing communication coordination?
Secretary Nielsen. Since Ambassador Bolton has come onto
the job, he and I speak regularly. We spoke over the weekend
about events that were emerging in Tennessee, for example, in
the alleged cyber attack. So we continue to work together. If
there are any issues that we ever have that we need to raise to
their attention we do so. We are working hand in glove on the
national cybersecurity strategy. We released the DHS
Cybersecurity Strategy today. We did that in close coordination
with the National Security Council (NSC).
Senator Peters. It has been reported that the United States
may see increased cyber attacks from Iran in the coming weeks
and month. Has the Department seen an increase in Iranian cyber
attacks in the past week?
Secretary Nielsen. We have not but we are looking. We have
something, a posture that we call Shields Up. We are in close
coordination with State and local governments, private sector
critical infrastructure owners and operators, and the intel
community, constantly asking and assessing to see if we see any
uptick in activity.
Senator Peters. So you are anticipating it may be a
reality.
Secretary Nielsen. We are anticipating it is a possibility
and, therefore, we will be prepared.
Senator Peters. I would discuss the Northern Border, pick
up on Senator Heitkamp, coming from a Northern Border, up in
Michigan. We have two of the Nation's busiest border crossings
in Michigan, one up in Port Huron, with Canada, and Sarnia down
in Detroit. We have had a number of issues in terms of staffing
and capacity. Those border crossings are particularly important
from an economic standpoint, and I know the difficult balancing
act that the Department has to keep us safe, at the same time
making sure that commerce moves efficiently across those
borders.
Right now we are in the process of building a second bridge
in the Detroit-Windsor, which is one of the top crossings in
the country, North America, the Gordie Howe Bridge. In fact, it
has been funded by the Canadian government but looking for
resources from the United States to make sure that our Customs
plaza is fully funded. Do I have your commitment that that will
be fully funded and properly staffed so that we can achieve
that twin goal of keeping us safe while, at the same time,
allowing commerce to move efficiently across that border?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. We would like to facilitate legal
trade and travel, as you know. I am not as familiar with this
but, yes, we would want to make sure that it allows legal trade
and travel and facilitates that.
Senator Peters. Well, I would like to have a further
discussion with you----
Secretary Nielsen. Happy to.
Senator Peters [continuing]. Or your staff as well. This is
a critical issue for us, and I can appreciate you may not be
fully up to speed on this particular one, but it is one that I
think we need to pursue, and I would love to have that
conversation.
And it goes, actually, with the other border crossing,
which is the Blue Water Bridge, which is between Sarnia and
Port Huron. That is a border crossing that needs to be
expanded. In fact, the government came in and condemned a
number of houses with eminent domain, cleared out land because
of a Customs expansion that should have taken place years ago.
It still has not occurred. It is an incredibly problematic
situation, to say the least, for the city of Port Huron. And it
is a piece of critical infrastructure. Do you have any idea
when that plaza will be completed, and is that something that
you are prepared to talk about today?
Secretary Nielsen. No, but we will get you an answer this
week.
Senator Peters. Well, I would appreciate that as well. We
will follow up.
The other final piece of major infrastructure in Michigan
is the Soo Locks, which connect Lake Superior with the rest of
the Great Lakes system. DHS reported, in 2016, that if the Poe
Lock, which is the major lock that can allow the large
freighters to move through there, if anything happens to that
lock, within a matter of weeks the entire U.S. economy would go
into recession. You would have production facilities shut down,
factories, mines. Auto parts would have difficulty being
constructed. So it certainly fits the definition of critical
infrastructure in no uncertain terms.
We had President Trump in our State recently, who made a
statement that we are going to fix the Soo Locks, we are going
to construct the additional lock that we have been looking for,
for some time. Could you give us an update on that?
Secretary Nielsen. Sure. So what we have done at DHS is
look at the modeling, because, as you say, it is a concentrated
point of dependency, and some might even argue it is a single
point of failure when it comes to trade. So we are doing the
modeling and then we are also working with our counterparts in
Commerce, the Council of Economic Advisors at the White House,
to make sure that we understand all the consequences.
It is critical infrastructure. We treat it as such, so we
are continuing that voluntary relationship to make sure that we
have the redundancy and resiliency built in. But I am happy to
come give you more detailed brief about what specifically we
are doing.
Senator Peters. Well, I would like a brief on what has
happened since the President's statement. We have the report
from DHS, which clearly states that it is critical
infrastructure----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Senator Peters [continuing]. That could lead to recession.
The Army Corps of Engineers are finishing a study that we
expect to see shortly, that will also come to what I believe
will be a similar conclusion. But it is something that we need
to focus on, and look forward to meeting with your folks to
talk further about it.
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. I agree, Senator Peters, on that one.
Senator Portman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary
Nielsen, thank you for----
Secretary Nielsen. Good afternoon.
Senator Portman [continuing]. Being here today, and for
being here at a critical time. You are in the process of
putting your own imprint on a massive organization that was
created by Congress some 16 years ago, and has never been
reauthorized since. And I appreciate the fact, Mr. Chairman,
that you and the Ranking Member, Senator McCaskill, have worked
hard on an authorization bill, again, for the first time in
almost two decades. It is overdue, in my view, and I think
there are a lot of positive things in that bill.
So we appreciate your working with us. I asked you earlier
today, in a conversation, what you thought about it, and I
think you are generally supportive of it.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Senator Portman. And I hope you will work with the Chairman
and Ranking Member to get that not just to the Senate floor for
a vote but to get that signed into law.
There are a number of provisions in that bill that I feel
strongly about. One is some of my provisions to strengthen
security for nonprofit institutions, focusing research on some
emerging threats, as was talked about earlier, in the
cybersecurity space, also in chemical weapons, as well as some
important requirements to combat the illicit opioids that are
coming into our country.
We here, in my State of Ohio, have had epidemic levels of
opioid addiction and overdoses and deaths, starting with
prescription drugs and heroin, and now it is this synthetic
heroin, or synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, carfentanil,
and others. It is now the big problem. I mean, we had 60
percent of the people who died in Ohio last year, our worst
year ever, died because of fentanyl. Locally, in Columbus,
Ohio, they just issued a report from that county, Franklin
County, that two-thirds of their deaths last year were
attributable to fentanyl.
It is coming in through the U.S. mail system, primarily.
That is what all the experts say, including testimony before
the Committee and before our Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations (PSI). So our own United States mail system is
providing the conduit for this poison. It is not coming over
land from Mexico, as heroin was. At least the vast majority of
it is not. Most of it is coming from China. We know where it is
coming from. We know how it is coming.
And we know that the post office, unbelievably, does not
require the same information on packages as other private
carriers have to in order for law enforcement to identify those
packages. So the post office has about 900 million packages a
year, by far the most, more than FedEx, UPS, DHL combined.
Again, those private carriers have to give law enforcement,
including your good folks at Customs and Border Protection, the
information. They can then find these packages that are
suspect, where it is from, what is in it, where it is going.
The post office, for the most part, does not have that,
because we do not have a requirement on them. The requirement
was put in place on the other carriers right after September
11, 2001 (9/11), and the thought was that the post office would
do it also because we required that they do a study of it. They
said it would take them some time. It has been 16 years and
they are still studying it.
So our legislation, that many Members of this Committee
have strongly supported--I see Senator Hassan here, for
instance. She has been a big advocate for this, as have
others--is just to say let us make the post office also give
your people what they say they need, and they have testified
before us here that they need it and need it badly.
Senator Carper, who was here earlier, and I conducted a
year-long investigation into this issue through the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations. We were able, by using some
undercover folks from your Department--thank you for lending
them to us--to find out some really shocking news, which is
that people are selling this stuff online, freely, not worried
about the enforcement side, and saying if you send it through
the post office it is guaranteed. If you send it through a
private carrier, it is not.
And the bottom line is in this authorization legislation,
we have some good things about helping with regard to working
with the Chinese government, through information sharing, but
the central issue here, the real gap in our defenses against
this drug coming in, is the delivery method.
So I hope you will work with us. What your people will tell
you is it is like finding a needle in a haystack if you do not
have this information. If you have it, at least you have a
fighting chance of both stopping some of this poison from
coming in, that is the most powerful, potent drug ever, 50
times more powerful than heroin, but also increasing the price
of the drug just by reducing some of that supply, because one
of our problems right now, in my State and others, is the fact
that this is not only readily available, it is relatively
inexpensive.
You are aware about the legislation because we have talked
about it, the STOP Act. You are aware of the fact that we are
trying very hard to get this through the process right now, not
just this Committee, which has done, I think, a very good job
on doing the research, but the committee of jurisdiction.
I guess my question to you would be, are you willing to
help us to get this done, and, in particular, we have heard
rumors that the House may move on something that is a watered-
down version. They, by the way, have 270 cosponsors of our
bill, and yet the committee there, the Ways and Means
Committee, apparently is talking about giving the post office
more time to do this, not having a requirement, ultimately,
because there would be no penalties associated with it.
I guess I would ask you, are you willing to work with us
and stick with us to ensure that we can require the post office
to provide this information to your law enforcement folks so
that we can stop more of this deadly poison from coming in?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, absolutely. You have my commitment
and I know, as you know, you have that of Commissioner
McAleenan as well.
Senator Portman. And the Commissioner has been great as
Acting and now as Commissioner. We appreciate it. Well, I thank
you. We want to work with you on it.
With regard to the H-2B visa program, let me just read you
one email that I got last week from a landscaper in Ohio. You
and I have talked briefly about this issue. He says, ``Rob, we
have $8,000 in revenue per day. We are not able to capture over
$250,000 a month. We will close $2 million under our budget for
the year which means we will lose close to $1 million this
year.'' This is a small landscaper. This is just because he
cannot rely on the labor force that he has relied on in the
past.
Can you just tell us briefly what your commitment is--you
and I have talked about this--with regard to the H-2B rule,
getting it through on B, and then what you think ought to be
done in terms of a legislative visa cap?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. The difficulty with the regulation
process is it is the regulation process. I will just be honest.
We go as fast as we can but the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) requires us to do certain things that take a while. What
we have tried to do is mimic the rule from last summer, so that
it can go as quickly as possible. The more changes, if we had
made them, to that underlying regulation, the longer it would
take, and I completely understand that time is of the essence.
So what we chose to do is do something as quickly as we can
under the APA.
What I had mentioned to you earlier, and I mentioned
earlier in testimony, was that the best way to fix this is to
take all of the information that the members have, which I am
gathering--everyone I have talked to, and you as well, I said,
``Please give me examples of companies that are going out of
business because of either the problems with the seasonality or
because there are not enough to package it up, give it back,
and just put it in law.'' That will give the companies
predictability, they will understand how many visas will be
available, and they will understand when.
Right now, as you know, it is tied to the appropriations
process, which it is anyone's guess when we can get that
through. So it is very difficult on businesses.
Senator Portman. Well, I would agree with your approach. My
time is coming to an end. Just to say that meanwhile, right
now, we need relief.
And then, finally, with regard to unaccompanied kids--and I
do not have time to go into it--but we have information now
from you all, as of 10 days ago, that on July 30 you will have
a new deadline to deliver the Joint Concept of Operations,
which we really need, both for the sake of these kids not to be
trafficked or abused, but also to be sure, as Senator McCaskill
said, these kids actually show up at their court proceedings,
and that is not happening now for a lot of kids. So the
memorandum of agreement is good. We want to get this joint
operations concept in place in order to ensure these kids are
protected.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Portman, before I go into the
second round of questions I kind of want to walk through. I
will, by the way, reinforce what Senator Portman talked about,
the H-2B visas. There is not one manufacturing plant in
Wisconsin, not one dairy farm, not one resort that can hire
enough people, so that really is a pressing need. And I
understand the problems you have with the rules and
regulations.
I do want to give you the opportunity--I just put my UAC
chart\1\ up there--that, again, I think kind of shows that DACA
sparked it. But I want you to go through three different
examples, and talk about the laws that you have to follow,
that, in the case of UACs, resulted in only 3.5 percent being
returned, which, again, from my standpoint, when you come and
you get to stay, that is a huge incentive for more to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I want you to cover an example of UAC, family units,
and then an adult that claims credible fear, all under the
backdrop, according to my calculations, and this is an
estimate, since 2013, about 750,000 unaccompanied children and
a parent and one child, in terms of numbers we have, have
entered this country illegally, and most of them are still
probably in this country.
But just go through exactly what is the process--UAC show
up, and let us say they do it legally.
Secretary Nielsen. Sure. So a UAC, if they are
unaccompanied, they come and they are put--OK, let me back up.
Chairman Johnson. Again, I want--the laws, the precedents,
that actually----
Secretary Nielsen. I understand.
Chairman Johnson [continuing]. Force you to do what you do.
Secretary Nielsen. So if they are Mexican children, of
Mexican origin, we can put them into expedited removal, if they
had no legal reason to be here. So that means they have not
claimed asylum, they do not have a legal visa, they are not
part of the legal immigration system.
If they are other than Mexican, which is the phrase in the
law--so that is, normally we talk about the Northern Triangle
countries--we do not put them in expedited removal. In any
case, we only keep the child for 48 hours. After 48 hours, we
turn them over to HHS. We now have this process by which we
will help HHS vet the sponsors to help place the child in a
safe place and safe care. So that is the UACs.
The UACs, though, important to know that, overall, under
current court cases, we can only hold UACs for 20 days, which
does quite a few things. It puts a lot of pressure, time
pressure, on making sure that we find, as a community, a
suitable sponsor, but it also serves as a tremendous pull
factor, because they will only be apprehended for 20 days, even
if there is no valid reason to be here.
Chairman Johnson. Just quick talk about the laws, the legal
precedent. DHS has to give up an unaccompanied child within 48
hours to HHS, and then HHS can only hold them for 20 days.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. So that is under the Flores
Settlement, the combination of the Flores Settlement and the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act is, in part, why we give them
over to HHS.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Now family units.
Secretary Nielsen. So family units, if they are claiming
asylum we do all we can to keep them as a family as they go
through the process. I mentioned earlier sometimes they are
detained. If we do not believe they are a risk, on a case-by-
case basis, we do other methods such as, we have an
alternatives-to-detention process. The difficulty there is the
backlog. So we have a 600,000-person backlog. We have had an
increase of 1,700 percent in asylum claims over the last 10 or
15 years.
So what that means as they go through the system, is 80
percent of the people coming in pass that initial credible
fear, but only 20 percent are actually granted asylum by a
judge. So our concern is that there is just a lot of fraud. It
does not mean that you made a fraudulent claim. It could just
mean that you believe that you can seek asylum, for example,
for family reunification, but our laws do not allow you to seek
asylum for the sole purpose of family reunification.
Chairman Johnson. But of the family units that have come
here since 2013, how many have been returned because they do
not qualify for asylum?
Secretary Nielsen. Again, if they are with the children we
have to release the children, so that often means we release
the parents as well.
Chairman Johnson. So a vast majority are still in this
country.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Now an adult with credible fear.
Secretary Nielsen. So adult with credible fear, we
process--well, it is interesting. We have ongoing litigation
that prevents us, in some cases, from detaining them. In some
cases we must let them go on parole. There are certain
exceptions to that, but we do not have the ability to detain
until we can process them and determine if they need to be
removed. If they claim asylum they go into the asylum bucket.
Again, the problem with the asylum bucket is the backlog, and
it is very heavily abused by those who actually do not seek
asylum there by putting those who need asylum in jeopardy of
not receiving it in a timely manner.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Thank you. Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. First of all, I think you are really
working hard at trying to address some of the shortcomings, in
terms of these children, and oversight, sometimes, is
unpleasant. But it does not mean that any of us up here do not
respect how difficult your job is.
I am really worried about a case involving a whistleblower
at TSA, and what is really upsetting to me about this
particular case is that, as you know, there has been a lot of
coverage about morale at TSA and problems of drugs and drinking
and inappropriate behavior. These are actual complaints that
were investigated by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
at Homeland Security, and this activity predated you, so I want
to be clear about that.
But following this investigation by the Inspector General
(IG), four charges were brought against a Senior Executive
Service (SES) employee, including poor judgment for maintaining
an inappropriate relationship; basically lying about an
intimate and sexual relationship during the investigation;
inappropriate conduct through violation of hiring practices,
and there are more details there; unprofessional conduct by
forwarding an email to a subordinate employee in which he
referred to an assistant administrator with inappropriate
language I will not use in this hearing.
So what was really most concerning about this OIG report--
and I have the report here and I would like to make it part of
the record,\1\ just so we have it, Mr. Chairman, without
objection, I hope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The OIG report referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the
Appendix on page 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. Without objection.
But what is really scary about this review is that they
found a series of deviations from standard policy, in terms of
how this was handled, allowing the employee to receive
unusually favorable treatment. And as you know, one of the
biggest problems you have with morale is that the rules have to
apply to everybody.
OIG specifically identified three members of senior
leadership at TSA that interfered with the disciplinary process
in a way that promoted favoritism. This was the Deputy
Administrator, the former Assistant Administrator of the Office
of Professional Responsibility, and the current Chief Counsel.
So, imagine my surprise when I find out that we are working
on this, and who is in charge? The Chief Counsel. And, by the
way, the table of penalties required that this SES be removed,
according to the table of penalties at TSA. Instead, they
offered a suspension and permitted the employee to continue to
receive the same salary that he was receiving.
The Chairman of this Committee, and I sent a letter\2\ to
you, in February, asking about what disciplinary actions have
been taken against this senior leadership, that interfered in a
disciplinary process involving a complaint by a whistleblower
that has been investigated by the IG and found to be valid. And
I am particularly worried that we have put the fox in charge of
the henhouse if this Chief Counsel that was part of the
problem, as cited in this report, is in fact the one that is
supposedly now helping making sure this does not happen again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The letter referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the
Appendix on page 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are welcome to take this for the record, Secretary,
if you do not have an answer for today, but this is why you
have bad morale.
Secretary Nielsen. I would like to get into more detail of
it on the record--or excuse me, to return--to get back to you.
But let me just say this. Whistleblowers need to be protected,
period. The IG needs to be listened to. The IG serves an
extraordinarily important function, particularly at a
department the size of DHS. I would say that if a policy is
such that a person who is part of the complaint is then put in
charge of rectifying the situation, that is totally
inappropriate, I will for sure look into that. You are right,
that is not acceptable.
And accountability. You have heard me say it many times
before. The vast majority of people, men and women, who work at
DHS are dedicated professionals. When something like this
occurs we need to all hold them accountable as a community. It
is as simple and as complicated as that. It needs to be done.
I am not as familiar with the particular one, but I can
guarantee you I will look into it and get back to you.
Senator McCaskill. I would love that, and I should just
tell you that the staff of this Committee has been talking to a
number of whistleblowers from the Federal marshal program.
Secretary Nielsen. Oh, I see. OK.
Senator McCaskill. These are all the air marshals. And you
have trouble there. There are inequities that are occurring,
there is favoritism that is occurring, there is abusive
behavior that is occurring, and we have a string of
whistleblowers that have been coming to us about various
problems.
So if you would get back to us specifically on this case
involving an investigation by the Inspector General, as it
relates to the Federal air marshal program, and I would like
your take on, now that you have been there a short period of
time, but, nonetheless, long enough, I would like to know what
your view is of the Federal air marshal program and whether or
not it is being utilized effectively, and whether or not we are
putting marshals on the right flights, or if we are putting
marshals on too many flights. I have always questioned some of
the procedures, because flying back and forth to D.C. on
commercial airlines as often as I do, for many years it was
really obvious who the marshals were. They were the two guys in
jeans that got on first. And so if there was some effort to
have them intermingle and be effective at detecting and
shutting down threats it did not work.
It was like, OK, everybody is standing in line at
Southwest, all of us. We were waiting to be herded on, standing
by our stanchion. Well, there goes the marshals. They are going
to load us pretty soon. And then I would say something, ``Have
the marshals gotten on yet?'' and everybody would look at me
like I had said a dirty word. They said, ``Oh, what are you
talking about?'', like it was some secret.
So it has always worried me that we are not staying on top
of what is the most effective way for us to put security in the
air, and I would love your take on that, from your view, as the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. I appreciate that. What we are in
the process of doing with the Administrator right now is
actually looking at that full program. How should it work? Does
it make sense? Is the modeling right? The example that you are
using, at least as I understand it, was a procedure under the
belief that deterrence was the most important. So, to some
extent, if the marshals were obvious as to who they were there
would be a deterrent value.
Senator McCaskill. Should not they give them uniforms then?
Secretary Nielsen. I am not disagreeing. I am just
explaining as I understand it.
Senator McCaskill. Yes.
Secretary Nielsen. But your point is valid, which is as
long as we are resourcing this way, we want it to be effective.
So the Administrator and I are happy to come talk to you
about it, our initial findings, and what we are looking at, but
yes, it needs to be looked at, from soup to nuts, to make sure
that it is effective.
Senator McCaskill. And we will be glad, at the appropriate
time, to share with you some of the whistleblower
investigations that are ongoing, but I would like your specific
response to that IG investigation where people in the highest
levels of management were skewing the process in favor of
somebody that was SES, as opposed to someone who had been
abused.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan.
Senator Hassan. Thank you very much, and again, good
afternoon, Secretary. I wanted to touch on homegrown terrorism
for a minute and our efforts to prevent it. According to the
President's budget request, the Office of Terrorism Prevention
Partnerships currently is staffed by 12 people. Its predecessor
office, the Office of Community Partnerships, had 16 positions,
and through a reprogramming of appropriations requested by then
Secretary Johnson, was able to use support staff to build an
outreach team that could build relationships with community
groups, with civic leaders, and law enforcement throughout the
country.
According to the budget request for fiscal year 2019, the
Office of Terrorism Prevention Partnerships is ``dedicated to
the mission of countering violent extremism (CVE) and the
building of community partnerships necessary to support
countering violent extremism efforts.'' That is the quote.
So given that the budget and personnel for this office is
smaller but the overall mission is still the same, it would
seem that this office would be hard pressed to build
partnerships across the country with no field staff. Has DHS
budgeted for field staff for this office?
Secretary Nielsen. There is some field staff. I am happy to
get you the specific numbers.
Just more broadly, very quickly, what we have done is we
have put the office within the larger Office of Public
Engagement, so we have actually force-multiplied the office---
--
Senator Hassan. Right.
Secretary Nielsen [continuing]. If you will, to make sure
that we do, as a whole group, as a whole part of DHS, look to
build those community relationships.
Senator Hassan. OK. Well, I would love to have our offices
follow up----
Secretary Nielsen. Happy to.
Senator Hassan [continuing]. And get full information about
that.
And as a follow-up to that, DHS co-leads the Interagency
Task Force on Countering Violent Extremism, along with the
Justice Department. The task force was created to help
coordinate the government's ability to tackle home-grown
terrorism. In 2015, this task force was staffed by
representatives from 11 different departments.
Can you tell me how many different Federal agencies
currently provide staff to this interagency task force?
Secretary Nielsen. I do not know the specific number but
happy to get back to you this week.
Senator Hassan. OK. I would appreciate that greatly
because, obviously, especially when it comes to home-grown
terrorism, the name of the game is coordination and
communication----
Secretary Nielsen. Absolutely.
Senator Hassan [continuing]. Among agencies and with local
authorities and State authorities.
I also wanted to touch on a New Hampshire-specific issue.
In my State, we have a significant Indonesian community, many
of whom came to New Hampshire fleeing religious persecution
against Christians in Indonesia. They have become members of
the community, they have worked jobs and paid taxes, and they
have raised their families in the Seacoast area of New
Hampshire.
Now, after many years of them living in this country, the
Department of Homeland Security has prioritized them for
deportation, a decision that could put their lives at risk if
they return to a country where violence against religious
minorities remains a serious issue.
Last week you publicly pledged to my fellow New Hampshire
Senator, Jeanne Shaheen, that you would take another look at
this issue. When you went back and looked again at this issue,
what did you find? Have you asked Immigration and Customs
Enforcement for review and reconsider their efforts to deport
members of this community?
Secretary Nielsen. We have asked them to review it. On the
face of it, we do not have an instance--but I would love to
work with both of you to get some actual facts--we do not have
an instance that they have moved in any way from
prioritization. Again, our prioritization, as you know, is
criminals. We do not prioritize groups, nationalities,
religious groups. So, yes, we are looking at it. We are
particularly concerned, as you know, given the recent terrorist
events in Indonesia, against Christians, Catholics, and in
particular cases.
Senator Hassan. And let me just be clear that these are
people who regularly went in for their check-in at ICE on a
regular basis, and all of a sudden, last year, they got
tickets, leave, and if were not for a Federal District Court
telling your Department that they could not deport these
people, they would be deported. And these people are not
criminals, so if there was some level of new prioritization
there that has put this community at risk, and I think there is
a strong feeling in New Hampshire, and I am glad to hear your
response, that we need to get some predictability and
sustainability here for these people, and they really do face
persecution back home. And so we would love to work with you on
that, and it would be really good if you could make a
commitment to finalize an answer on that----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Senator Hassan [continuing]. In the near term.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hassan. OK. Thank you.
Last, I know there has been a lot of discussion, while I
was at another hearing, on the issue of not only unaccompanied
minors but families with minor children. I will just add my
support to the line of questioning you heard from Members of
the Committee about our concerns about this. When we had a
hearing just a couple of weeks ago about the handling of
minors, especially as they went to sponsors, sponsor families
and the like, it was very clear that the Department does not,
neither DHS or HHS, they do not coordinate at all with local
authorities and with the States as we look at how we are going
to address the needs of children, generally, who come to this
country and are unaccompanied or separated from their families.
And do not support the separation of these children from
their families. I will add my comments in support of what you
heard from my colleagues on that issue. But if children are
placed away from their families I think it is imperative that
the Department and HHS work with the States. States have
interstate compacts about how to protect children who are not
with their families. It is important for local school
districts, for instance, to know to expect these children at
school, not only for the local districts' planning purposes but
so that if these kids do not show up there is somebody,
somewhere who knows to go look for them and find out what has
happened to them.
So I just think to echo what you have heard from both sides
of the aisle this afternoon, we need to see planning and we
need to see a better system for addressing the needs of
children who come to this country. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Harris.
Senator Harris. Thank you. Secretary Nielsen, how many
children have been separated from their parents at ports of
entry since January 2017?
Secretary Nielsen. As I understand, you have referenced 700
before, which I believe was an HHS number. Our figures are not
the same as theirs, but we are happy to give you our numbers
and explain why they differ.
Senator Harris. OK, great. And can you submit that by the
end of next week, with the other information?
Senator McCaskill. Would you share that with the Committee?
I think I have something----
Secretary Nielsen. Of course.
Senator McCaskill. If you guys have different numbers of
children, that is something that, just on its face, is rather
alarming. So I would like to figure out why that is.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. I think it is, in part, because
when HHS does the interview they do not ask the child why they
are unaccompanied, so their numbers are different than ours, if
you are asking at the border, for example. So it is not
necessarily that they conflict. It is just they are asking
different questions. But, yes, of course, we will provide
that----
Senator Harris. Thanks.
Secretary Nielsen [continuing]. And explain that.
Senator Harris. And again, I have asked these questions of
Under Secretary McCament before so perhaps everyone is working
on it and I would expect that we should get it by the end of
next week.
And can you also give us information about what the average
length of separation has been between those children and those
parents? And that would be that number that you are now going
to bring to us. OK. And also, what timelines, in terms of the
policy that you have, exist to establish a parental
relationship, or to reunify families. I am hoping, and will
assume, that your protocols would have such a goal in mind, or
at least a timeframe.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, ma'am they do. Part of it is a
voluntary DNA test, if it is a family member. The concern that
I have with that--and we do offer that--but the concern, of
course, is you could still have a custodial relationship and
not be a blood relative, so it is not dispositive to an
appropriate custodian.
But, yes, of course, that is our goal.
Senator Harris. And then as it relates to the number of
children who have been separated from their parents at points
of entry, again, I would like also, for the Committee,
information on how many of those cases resulted in trafficking
charges.
Regarding detention conditions, Secretary, are you aware
that multiple Federal oversight bodies, such as the OIG and the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), have documented medical
negligence of immigrants in the detention system, and, in
particular, that ICE has reported 170 deaths in their custody
since 2003? Are you familiar with that?
Secretary Nielsen. No, ma'am.
Senator Harris. Are you aware that they also found that
pregnant women, in particular, received insufficient medical
attention while in custody, resulting in dehydration and even
miscarriages?
Secretary Nielsen. I do not believe that is a current
assessment of our detention facilities.
Senator Harris. OK. Can you please submit to this Committee
a current assessment----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, I am happy to.
Senator Harris [continuing]. On that point?
Secretary Nielsen. We provide neonatal care. We do
pregnancy screening from ages 15 to 56. We provide outside
specialists, should you seek it. We do not detain any women
past their third trimester or once they enter their third
trimester. We provide them separate housing. So, yes, we are
happy to detail all of the things that we do to take good care
of them.
Senator Harris. And did you submit that to the OIG in
response to their findings?
Secretary Nielsen. We have been, yes, of course, working in
conjunction with the OIG. I am not sure exactly what the date
is of the OIG report that you are referencing. But I will look
into it after this.
Senator Harris. OK. And then also between fiscal year 2012
and March 2018, it is our understanding--before I go on, the
OIG report is from December 2017, so it is very recent, 5
months ago.
Also, between fiscal year 2012 and March 2018, ICE
received, according to these reports, 1,448 allegations of
sexual abuse in detention facilities, and only a small percent
of these claims have been investigated by DHS OIG. Are you
familiar with that?
Secretary Nielsen. I am not familiar with that number, no.
Senator Harris. OK. Can you please provide to this
Committee an analysis of what is going on and what plan you
have to investigate those cases of sexual abuse,\1\ and what is
the protocol in place in terms of what is being done to allow
the victim to be in a safe place during and pending any
investigation, what kind of services are these victims getting
in terms of treating their trauma, much less any medical
attention they may need as a result of what might be the sexual
abuse?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information requested by Senator Harris appears in the
Appendix on page 137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Nielsen. I will. What I have done is I have
talked to the International Committee of the Red Cross and I
had them visit some of our detention facilities. I am sure they
would be happy to come brief you on that. But their
determination is that they saw nothing but appropriate
detention, and, in fact, much better detention they, in their
experience, have seen in other areas.
Senator Harris. I am sorry. Is this in response to the
concern that you have received 1,448 allegations of sexual
abuse in detention facilities?
Secretary Nielsen. No, ma'am.
Senator Harris. OK.
Secretary Nielsen. This is in response to my wanting to
ensure that the detention centers are taking appropriate care
of anybody who is detained.
Senator Harris. OK. Well, obviously, sexual abuse would not
fall into that category.
Secretary Nielsen. It would not.
Senator Harris. Yes.
Secretary Nielsen. I guess what I am saying is that just
happened. I do not know when these results are that you are
talking about, so I will look into them, of course.
Senator Harris. Fiscal year 2012 through March 2018, this
year.
Secretary Nielsen. We will look into it.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
And regarding your treatment in facilities of pregnant
women, in December 2014, again, in this report, ICE issued a
new directive that terminated a previous policy of presumptive
release for pregnant women which were apprehended or
transferred to ICE. ICE adopted a policy for presumption of
release in August 2016, in recognition of the clear health
risks that detaining pregnant women in jail-like conditions
pose.
I was alarmed, frankly, Secretary, by your statement to
Senator Murray before the Senate Appropriations Committee last
Tuesday, that pregnant women in ICE detention were receiving
``much better care than when they are living in the shadows.''
So are you aware that this statement contradicts the views
of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the
American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Academy
of Pediatricians, who are all criticized the harmful effects of
immigration detention on the medical and mental health of
pregnant women?
Secretary Nielsen. What I do know is that if you cross
between points of entry you will be detained and prosecuted. I
also know that of the only 35 people that we have currently in
detention who are pregnant, 33 are statutorily required to be
detained. I also know that we go above and beyond to provide
them adequate health care. The questioning was whether or not
they received adequate health care. I was saying yes, they do,
and it is paid for. So if they are coming here and they are
fleeing persecution and they do not have adequate funds and
they are trying to get equivalent care in the shadows, it was
my discussion that we were providing care within the detention
centers.
Senator Harris. So is it your intention to continue with
ending a program that allowed for presumptive release for
pregnant women?
Secretary Nielsen. If you are in your third trimester, you
will be released, but if you break the law you will be
detained.
Senator Harris. So when, in the third trimester, exactly?
Secretary Nielsen. When it begins.
Senator Harris. At the beginning of the third trimester?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Harris. And is there a directive that has gone out?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Senator Harris. Will you supply that to the Committee,
please?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. It is the same policy we have
always had. The only thing we are doing now is we are no longer
exempting classes of people from the law. If you break the law,
you will be prosecuted.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. As long as we are talking about UACs,
still, and you are going to be providing some data, I have just
got a couple of requests. In terms of family units, the best
numbers I can come up with since 2013, about 225,000 family
units. If you just take the minimum, one child, that is
basically 450,000 additional individuals. You are saying about
700 we have seen separations of parent from is that from that
2013, or is that just currently in detention?
Secretary Nielsen. I believe the HHS number was a year-long
number.
Chairman Johnson. Year? OK. So, yes, I would kind of just
like all that data together. As long as you are also providing
that, I would like to know which of those separations are due
because you simply are not aware--is that really the parent?
Secretary Nielsen. Understood.
Chairman Johnson. Is there some question? So you are really
taking that step to protect the child so we are not dealing
with a human trafficking situation.
We had a whistleblower in May 2017, refer to a--I think it
was in 2014, 18 self-admitted MS-13 members were apprehended
and just released. At that PSI hearing, I brought some more
information. I do not have it right here but it is actually a
rather alarming number of MS-13 members that have been
captured, and some of them have been deported.
Do you have DHS, or are you keeping more accurate figures
on MS-13?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, we are, in conjunction with the
Department of Justice. One of the other loopholes, that I would
just mention quickly, is a court case called Zadvydas. Zadvydas
requires us to release criminal aliens back into the
communities after 6 months if their country is not willing to
take them back. Many countries, such as China and Cuba are not
willing to take them back. The criminals go back into the
community. It was 1,700 released last year.
Chairman Johnson. OK. I was going to--that just--so that
is--that was last year. Do you have that information going back
a number of years?
Secretary Nielsen. Happy to.
Chairman Johnson. OK. I would like that type of data.
Working on a piece of legislation, in terms of authorities
on unidentified aircraft systems, this is a really complex
issue. It really is. I guess I would just kind of like to give
you the ability to just kind of describe the complexity of it,
where you are constrained. I mean, I think we are so far behind
the curve on this thing, as these drones have become far more
prevalent and are a real danger, and they are being used in the
battlefield, and they are dropping--again, I really do not want
to put any ideas in people's heads.
But can you just talk about what you want to do? In working
with DHS I was trying to at least get into discussion, kind of
a more robust response, and again, I realize there is
jurisdictional issues, that type of thing. But I just wanted to
have you talk a little bit more of the complexities of the
issue, and baseline, what you are asking for in terms of
authority, what you absolutely need.
Secretary Nielsen. Sure. So right now we do not have the
ability to interdict or monitor, or actually, in some cases,
identify in a traditional sense. The Department of Defense has
such authority. So what we have done is we have mimicked our
request and then the bill this Committee has introduced.
Chairman Johnson. So, real quick, name the facilities the
Department of Defense has. Is it just around their facilities?
I mean, how limited is their capabilities?
Secretary Nielsen. Theirs is limited as well, yes. So in, I
would not say all of their--I defer to the Department of
Defense, of course, but it does not cover all of their
facilities, so it is very specific and limited cases, yes.
Chairman Johnson. So we have sports stadiums and we have a
number of venues that simply have--there is no authority
whatsoever--not local, not State, not Federal.
Secretary Nielsen. Correct.
Chairman Johnson. OK.
Secretary Nielsen. So soft targets is a big concern, and
then, of course, the border. So we are already seeing them
being used. I also do not want to put any ideas in people's
minds, but we already see them being used in nefarious ways on
the border.
Chairman Johnson. The Department of Energy has some
authorities as well?
Secretary Nielsen. Department of Energy does. DHS and DOJ
are the two departments that are currently lacking any
authority.
In terms of what we are doing, you are right. Because we
lack authority, we have limitations on testing, we have
limitations on research and development (R&D), we have
limitations on purchasing and using. That would be in the bill
that you both have introduced--would go a very long way in
helping us to get on top of this threat.
Chairman Johnson. I want to continue to work with you. I
think this is absolutely crucial.
Senator McCaskill. I just need to correct something for the
record. In a section of my books I had a whole section on the
morale and whistleblower issues at the Federal marshal's
program. Then I had a separate section on the IG report where
there were problems with an SES employee that was manipulated
by senior management. That was TSA.
Secretary Nielsen. OK. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill. So I wanted to make sure we did not
close the hearing without me explaining that I got them
conflated as we were talking about it. I wanted to clarify that
before we closed out the hearing.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Not a problem.
Let us quick turn to election security. We have held a
briefing on this. We have certainly talked about this in other
venues, during other hearings as well. From my standpoint there
are three areas that are at risk. It is affecting the voter
tally, I mean, the actual vote. Then you also have affecting
the voter file. And then, finally, just because of the
disruption, the public not having faith that it was a
legitimate election.
It is my understanding, first of all, that the Department
has all the authorities you believe you need to address all
three. Is that correct?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, that is correct.
Chairman Johnson. Voter tallies, because election machines
are not tied into the Internet, although there are some with
Wi-Fi, they are disabled.
Secretary Nielsen. Right. Our best practice that we
recommend is do not connect to the Internet.
Chairman Johnson. They really are not, unless it is done
through nefarious means or something. Correct?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Chairman Johnson. So it would be really very difficult to
change the vote tally, for an outside actor, through cyber
attack or something, to actually change the vote tally. Is that
your understanding?
Secretary Nielsen. That is my understanding. I think what
is more likely is the counter-influence question. Would they
change the minds of Americans through propaganda, etc? So that
is something the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has lead
on, and we are working on that.
Chairman Johnson. That would be the Facebook, where they
are----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Johnson [continuing]. OK, basically illegally
campaigning. Voter files, that is a concern, but again, we have
different controls and things in place. We know that. It would
be disrupting an election and then that would turn it into, is
this a legitimate election?
Secretary Nielsen. What we recommend there is redundancy.
If you do not use a paper ballot, then make sure that you have
an audit function so that, at the end of the day, we can all
assure ourselves that Americans have voted and their vote
counts and it is counted correctly.
Chairman Johnson. One of the reasons I am pointing this
out, and then I will be finished, is I think that the biggest
threat, really, is just the public perception--is this a
legitimate election? And if we overstate the ability of a bad
actor to both affect the voter file or the vote tally, we
actually do the maligned actor's job for them. So I think it is
very important that we are very honest in terms of what is the
threat, in terms of the first two, so we do not affect the
third.
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, I agree with that. What we are
doing at DHS, as you know, the responsibility, first and
foremost, belongs to State and local election officials. We are
working with them. We are hosting a meeting for all Members of
Congress--I understand the Senate might not be able to attend
on Thursday--but to answer any questions, talk about what DHS
is doing, talk about the threat. We will do it again for the
Senate. I think it is very important that everyone understands
what we are doing, but also what the States are doing and, in
some cases, they need to do, to make sure that they assure
their public that they are doing everything they can.
Chairman Johnson. But again, you believe you have the
authorities and resources----
Secretary Nielsen. We have all the authorities we need.
Chairman Johnson [continuing]. To counter this?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Chairman Johnson. Senator McCaskill, do you have any
further questions?
Well, then we will close out the hearing. Secretary
Nielsen, again, thank you for your service. We certainly
appreciate you taking the time here and your forthright answers
to our questions.
The hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until May
30, at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions
for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]