[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19271-19272]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            VOTE EXPLANATION

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I was absent from the Senate 
yesterday and was unable to vote on the nomination of Jeh Johnson to be 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Had I been here, I 
would have voted in opposition to this nominee.
  Reforming our broken immigration system is one of the Nation's top 
priorities. To that end, ensuring that our borders are secure and 
preventing illegal entry is absolutely vital. In my capacity as the 
senior Senator from Arizona and one of the lead advocates of 
comprehensively reforming our immigration system, I have a solemn 
obligation and a constitutional prerogative to make sure that the 
Department of Homeland Security, DHS, accomplishes that mission. In 
furtherance of that obligation and that prerogative, I--indeed 
Congress--must count on DHS cooperation to provide any relevant 
information I and this body request.
  Unfortunately, in connection with the Senate's effort to craft 
legislation to help secure our borders, the former DHS Secretary 
unjustifiably refused to provide such information. The information I 
asked for was intended to let Congress and the American people judge 
for themselves if progress is being made to protect our borders from 
illegal entry. To date, I never received that information from this 
administration.
  So first during his confirmation hearing and then in writing, I asked 
Mr. Johnson to commit to me that, if confirmed as the new DHS 
Secretary, he would provide me that same information. Unfortunately, on 
grounds that I find to be specious and unacceptable, he declined. On 
the basis of his response, I can only conclude that, if confirmed, the 
level of cooperation between DHS and me, particularly on the vitally 
important issue of border security--when comprehensive immigration 
remains such a vitally important issue--would remain business as usual, 
and that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to me and to the people 
who interests I am committed to representing.
  For this reason, I have no choice other than to oppose Mr. Johnson's 
nomination.
  I have known Jeh for some time. I have respect for his work while 
General Counsel for the Department of Defense. In particular, I applaud 
his efforts in the development of the Department of Defense's policy 
regarding the use of deadly force in connection with counterterrorist 
operations and other important defense and national security issues.

[[Page 19272]]

  But what I have seen all too frequently is the inability or 
unwillingness of appointed officials within this administration to free 
themselves from the unelected, unappointed, political staff in the West 
Wing that put political expediency ahead of meaningful governance. I 
can have no tolerance for another Secretary who will act as nothing 
more than a road block on behalf of those with a political agenda and 
is either unwilling or unable to provide transparency into the actions 
of this department and its components.
  Congress, particularly those of us who are from the border, has the 
right to have that information. It is our responsibility and obligation 
to our constituents. I have constituents in my State who every night, 
there are people who are crossing their border illegally. I have 
constituents that every day, drug smugglers are going across their 
property and their homes. They certainly have the right, as citizens, 
to know what measures need to be taken in order to control our border.
  Earlier this year, the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill 
with 67 votes that included unprecedented increases in spending to help 
secure the border. The information we based these spending increases on 
came directly from leadership within the Border Patrol, and I believe 
it will be successful. But the American people deserve to have more 
than my faith in the efforts of the Border Patrol as to whether the 
border is made secure. Our constituents are relying on us to finally 
secure the border but also be good stewards of their tax dollars and to 
have the capabilities to ensure their money is being used wisely and if 
not, to make the appropriate adjustments.
  When developing this legislation, we requested information from 
Secretary Napolitano that I believe would have helped make the 
legislation stronger and potentially garner more support from my 
Republican colleagues. This information was never provided to us, I 
believe, for solely political reasons but has ultimately harmed our 
ability to get comprehensive immigration reform legislation signed into 
law.
  This is the source of my disappointment with Mr. Johnson: His refusal 
to commit to provide the information necessary would prevent Members of 
Congress from making reasonable and informed decisions that serve the 
American people. And Mr. Johnson did so under circumstances that other 
Members of this body have sought--and obtained--commitments of 
cooperation.
  For example, here is what Secretary Kerry said in response to a 
request for answers regarding the Bengazi raid: ``[H]ere's what I say 
to you. After 29 years here--in my 29th, I respect the prerogatives of 
the United States Senate and the members of Congress. You represent the 
American people, you're the other branch of government, you have the 
right to know what took place. And I have an obligation commensurate 
with the, you know, regulations and classifications and privacy and 
other things that are at play here, to help you get the answers, and 
we'll do that.''
  And what did I get from Mr. Johnson? ``If I am confirmed . . . I 
promise that addressing your letter will be a top and immediate 
priority for me.''
  For years, we were told that apprehensions are down and the border is 
more secure. In reality, we all knew that the economy was the primary 
driver in reducing potential illegal border crossers. In the last 2 
years, with slight improvements in the economy, we have seen a 20 
percent increase in the number of apprehensions. Does that mean the 
border is less or more secure?
  For years DHS has been telling us they are developing a border 
security index in a shift away from using apprehensions as the sole 
measure of success and to get a true measure of security along the 
border. We have been waiting 3 years with no sign that the index will 
be made public. All indications are the development of the index has 
been shelved.
  Until Congress is provided greater information on the capabilities 
and deficiencies of the Department of Homeland Security's abilities to 
secure the border, Congress will not be able to determine if the border 
is secure.
  I regret that Jeh Johnson has refused to commit to providing this 
information to Congress, and I do not support his nomination.

                          ____________________