[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STRENGTHENING THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR NATION: THE PRESIDENT'S
FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 26, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-63
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-901 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Mike Rogers, Alabama James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
John Katko, New York Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Will Hurd, Texas Filemon Vela, Texas
Martha McSally, Arizona Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
John Ratcliffe, Texas Kathleen M. Rice, New York
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York J. Luis Correa, California
Mike Gallagher, Wisconsin Val Butler Demings, Florida
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
John H. Rutherford, Florida
Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Virginia
Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
Ron Estes, Kansas
Don Bacon, Nebraska
Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
Steven S. Giaier, General Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Lou Barletta, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Pennsylvania:
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Pennsylvania:
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Witness
Hon. Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
For the Record
The Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., a Representative in
Congress From the State of New York:
Letter......................................................... 41
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Letter......................................................... 61
E-mail......................................................... 62
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Michael T. McCaul for Honorable Kirstjen
M. Nielsen..................................................... 65
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Honorable
Kirstjen M. Nielsen............................................ 66
Questions From Honorable Lou Barletta for Kirstjen M. Nielsen.... 67
Questions From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee for Kirstjen M.
Nielsen........................................................ 67
Questions From Honorable John Katko for Kirstjen M. Nielsen...... 67
Questions From Honorable James R. Langevin for Kirstjen M.
Nielsen........................................................ 68
Questions From Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. for Kirstjen M.
Nielsen........................................................ 68
Question From Honorable William Keating for Kirstjen M. Nielsen.. 69
Questions From Honorable John H. Rutherford for Kirstjen M.
Nielsen........................................................ 69
Question From Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman for Kirstjen M.
Nielsen........................................................ 70
Questions From Honorable Kathleen Rice for Kirstjen M. Nielsen... 70
Question From Honorable J. Louis Correa for Kirstjen M. Nielsen.. 71
STRENGTHENING THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR NATION: THE PRESIDENT'S
FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
Thursday, April 26, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Michael T. McCaul
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives McCaul, King, Rogers, Barletta,
Perry, Katko, McSally, Ratcliffe, Donovan, Gallagher, Higgins,
Garrett, Fitzpatrick, Estes, Bacon, Thompson, Jackson Lee,
Langevin, Keating, Payne, Watson Coleman, Rice, Correa,
Demings, and Barragan.
Chairman McCaul. Committee on Homeland Security will come
to order. Committee is meeting today to hear from the Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, on
the administration's priorities for the Department. I now
recognize myself for an opening statement.
Our homeland faces threats on multiple fronts.
International terrorists seek to attack our country and kill
Americans. Human traffickers, drug smugglers, and gangs like
MS-13 are crossing our borders and infecting our neighborhoods.
Nation-states and hackers are engaged in cyber warfare. The
next natural disaster can strike at any moment. We cannot let
our guard down.
We need a budget that matches these most pressing needs.
Fortunately, the President's fiscal year 2019 budget request
addresses many of these concerns. The $1.6 billion for a border
wall and additional funds to hire more ICE officers and Border
Patrol agents will help curb illegal immigration.
Securing our borders continues to be one of my top
priorities. That is why I introduced legislation to get the job
done. My bill authorizes $18 billion for the construction of a
border wall, ends funding for sanctuary cities, closes
dangerous loopholes, and puts more boots on the ground.
It also secures ports of entry, authorizes the National
Guard to provide aviation and intelligence support, and targets
visa overstays, and also provides for strong technology which
is desperately needed down there.
This administration has been a strong supporter of these
solutions, and I commend the recent decision to deploy the
National Guard to the border. I am pleased to see that $713
million requested for cybersecurity operations at NPPD was
requested. Cybersecurity is one of the most important missions
of the Department as the Secretary knows.
As Americans become more reliant on cyber space, we are all
targets. This committee has a strong bipartisan track record on
this issue. We passed bills that expedite hiring at DHS and
enhance cyber threat information sharing. We also recently
secured $26 million to support election infrastructure.
In January, the House approved our landmark bill to create
a stand-alone organization to elevate the cybersecurity mission
at DHS. I am hopeful that the Senate will get this bill to the
President's desk very soon.
Another area of concern for me is aviation security. I have
been very disappointed, I have to be honest, at the slow pace
of installing computed tomography scans in our airports.
However, I was pleased to see that we secured $65 million in
the omnibus for TSA to begin installing this technology
immediately.
These CT scanners provide 3D imagery to help stop IEDs and
other threats from boarding airplanes. Compared to the
technology we have now, it is a difference between an X-ray and
an MRI. The fiscal year 2019 budget request also requests an
additional $71.5 million for CT, which will certainly help. But
I do not believe that is enough to mitigate the threat
landscape that we have currently.
Many terrorists are only one plane ride away from the
United States and our aviation sector is still the crown jewel
of targets. DHS must fight through all bureaucratic hurdles so
CT scanners are in our airports and last-point-of-departure
airports for inbound flights as soon as possible.
Some parts of this budget request will help DHS carry out
its mission, but others I believe miss the mark. The $473
million cut to FEMA grants for State and local first responders
is a major step backward. Many parts of the country, including
my home State of Texas, were devastated by natural disasters
last year. I personally toured the devastation after Hurricane
Harvey and our first responders played a key role in saving
lives.
Last week, our committee reviewed the lessons learned from
both the Boston Marathon bombings and the recent bombings in my
home town of Austin. Our first responders were crucial in both
cities and they need our support. I hope today's hearing will
shed light on why these grants are targeted for cuts.
Protecting our homeland must be a unifying cause.
Partisanship should end at the water's edge. Last July, the
House passed the first-ever comprehensive reauthorization of
DHS with overwhelming bipartisan support. This reauthorization
reasserts Congress' authority to write laws, streamlines
redundant programs, protects taxpayer dollars, and supports
America's front-line defenders and first responders.
Unfortunately, our friends in the Senate have yet to pass
our bill. I strongly urge them to do so without further delay.
Madam Secretary, in this Congress alone, our committee has
passed 82 bills through the House and 6 were signed into law.
Politico named us as the hardest-working committee in Congress.
A strong DHS is our goal, and we are here to support you.
All of us are grateful for your service and for the hardworking
professionals, the men and women at DHS. We all look forward to
working with you in keeping our homeland safe.
[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:]
Statement of Chairman Michael T. McCaul
April 26, 2018
Our homeland faces threats on multiple fronts. International
terrorists seek to attack our country and kill Americans. Human
traffickers, drug smugglers, and gangs like MS-13, are crossing our
borders and infecting our neighborhoods. Nation-states and hackers are
engaging in cyber warfare. And the next natural disaster can strike at
any moment.
We cannot let our guard down. We need a budget that matches these
most pressing needs. Fortunately, the President's fiscal year 2019
budget request addresses many of these concerns. The $1.6 billion for a
border wall and additional funds to hire more ICE officers and Border
Patrol agents will help curb illegal immigration.
Securing our borders continues to be one of my top priorities. That
is why I introduced legislation to get the job done. My bill authorizes
$18 billion for the construction of a border wall, ends funding for
sanctuary cities, closes dangerous loopholes, and puts more boots on
the ground.
It also secures ports of entry, authorizes the National Guard to
provide aviation and intelligence support, and targets visa overstays.
This administration has been a strong supporter of these solutions and
I commend the recent decision to deploy the National Guard to the
border.
I am also pleased to see $713 million requested for cybersecurity
operations at NPPD. As Americans become more reliant on cyber space, we
are all targets. This committee has a strong bipartisan track record on
this issue.
We passed bills to expedite hiring at DHS and enhance cyber threat
information sharing. We also recently secured $26 million to support
election infrastructure.
In January, the House approved our landmark bill to create a stand-
alone organization to elevate the cybersecurity mission at DHS. I am
hoping the Senate will get this bill to the President's desk very soon.
Another area of concern for me is aviation security. I have been
very disappointed at the slow pace of installing Computed Tomography
(CT) scans in our airports.
However, I am glad that we secured $65 million in the Omnibus for
TSA to begin installing this technology immediately.
These CT scanners provide 3D imagery to help stop IEDs and other
threats from boarding airplanes. Compared to the technology we have
now, it's the difference between an X-ray and an MRI.
The fiscal year 2019 budget request for an additional $71.5 million
for CT will certainly help, but I don't believe it is enough to
mitigate the threat.
Many terrorists are only one plane ride away. Our aviation sector
is still their ``crown jewel'' of targets.
DHS must fight through all bureaucratic hurdles so CT scanners are
in our airports and last points of departure for in-bound flights as
soon as possible.
Some parts of this budget request will help DHS carry out its
mission. But other parts miss the mark. The $473 million cut to FEMA
grants for State and local first responders is a major step backwards.
Many parts of the country, including my home State of Texas, were
devastated by natural disasters last year.
I personally toured the devastation after Hurricane Harvey. Our
first responders played a key role in saving lives.
Last week, our committee reviewed the lessons learned from both the
Boston Marathon bombings and the recent bombings in my home town of
Austin.
Our first responders were crucial in both cities and they need our
support. I hope today's hearing will shed light on why these grants are
targeted for cuts.
Protecting our homeland must be a unifying cause. Partisanship
should end at the water's edge. Last July, the House passed the first-
ever, comprehensive reauthorization of DHS with overwhelming bipartisan
support.
This reauthorization reasserts Congress's authority to write laws,
streamlines redundant programs, protects taxpayer dollars, and supports
America's front-line defenders and first responders.
Unfortunately, our friends in the Senate have not yet passed our
bill. I strongly urge them to do so without further delay. Madame
Secretary, in this Congress alone, our committee has passed 82 bills
through the House and 6 were signed into law. Politico named us the
``hardest-working committee in Congress.''
A strong DHS is our goal and we are here to support you. All of us
are grateful for your service and for the hardworking professionals at
DHS. We all look forward to working with you to keep our homeland safe.
Chairman McCaul. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking
Member, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Madam Secretary. Today is your first appearance
before the Committee on Homeland Security, 4.5 months after
your swearing in as Secretary.
I have served on the Committee of Homeland Security since
its establishment, and have been fortunate to work with all
five of your predecessors from both political parties. Each of
them, including your former boss, Secretary John Kelly, stopped
by to establish a working relationship within days of being
sworn in to the position.
That did not happen with you, which is a shame. Just like
you met some of the Republicans on this committee this morning,
Democrats stand ready, likewise, to meet with you. Perhaps next
time, another 15 minutes from your schedule and you can stop by
and meet some of the wonderful Democrats who love America too
and want to do all they can to continue to keep America safe.
While we fundamentally disagree with many of the Trump
administration's policies, I can assure you that Democrats on
this committee are just as committed as our Republican
counterparts to keeping our Nation secure while upholding our
most important values.
Chairman McCaul has said, even in his opening statement of
this committee, perhaps if others in Congress did as we do, we
could in fact have a better situation. Eighty-two pieces of
legislation passed by this committee is no small feat. I would
say to him, however, that it is not Democrat's fault that the
legislation had not been signed. So we will try to fix that too
in time.
I hope that in the future, Madam Secretary, you will make
more of an effort to conduct outreach to Members of the
Democratic side on the committee. We have former chiefs of
police, county commissioners, members of the legislature,
district attorneys, everyone you can name, and they all love
this country. The American people expect no less that we engage
each other in these important issues.
Indeed, this is a critical time for the Department of
Homeland Security. America faces threats from the troubling
rise of domestic terrorism, mass shootings, and foreign
terrorists organizations that seek to do us harm.
Russia and other actors are likely to continue their
interference in our election systems including the upcoming
mid-term elections. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are
still devastated by Hurricane Maria and Irma and another
hurricane season is just weeks away.
Meanwhile, the Department is dealing with problems of
President Trump's own making. His Muslim travel ban, his
decision to terminate the DACA program, his Executive Order on
immigration enforcement and border security which seeks to make
us a Nation of immigrants no more.
No longer the Department's chief of staff but now its
Secretary, you, its leader, the buck stops with you, Madam
Secretary. I am concerned that since becoming Secretary, you
have not always been forthcoming on certain matters. You
testified before the Senate that you do not specifically
remember whether President Trump used a slur to describe
African countries during a White House meeting.
You claim ``I actually do not know that'' when asked at the
Senate hearing whether Norway is a predominately Caucasian
country after the President questioned why we could not have
more immigrants from Norway. Most recently, you declined to
explain the President's tweet referring to a breeding concept
in sanctuary cities in California.
If this is an indication of how you, as Secretary, interact
with the White House on Homeland Security policy matters, there
may be cause for concern. Your recent statements on Homeland
Security matters have been less than encouraging.
Based on your press release this week, you would think the
most important Homeland Security problem facing the Nation is a
handful of Central Americans moving through Mexico. That does
not make it so. We know who they are. We know where they are.
We know they generally do not attempt to evade the Border
Patrol, but rather present themselves to the agents and
officers upon arrival.
But--fear about this so-called caravan gets airtime on
certain media outlets and plays well with elements of President
Trump's political base. Better to distract the American people
from the real issues facing the Department and perhaps from the
President's own problems, too.
Likewise, we have heard a lot in recent days about so-
called loopholes in our immigration system as it relates to
children. These are not loopholes. They are basic humanitarian
protections enacted by Congress to protect vulnerable children
and ensure that those who have legitimate asylum claims are
heard, and those who do not are returned home safely.
We need only to look at some of the terrible cases that
occurred within this legal framework which implemented to know
why Congress acted. Politicizing and demonizing children should
be beneath the Department, and Congress must not go down that
path.
As you know, Madam Secretary, the mission of the Department
of Homeland Security is to safeguard the American people, our
homeland and our values. I appreciate this and understand that
it is no easy task, and that we are living in challenging times
in more ways than one. I hope that the Department, under your
leadership and with over 240,000 employees strong, live up to
that.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
April 26, 2018
Today is your first appearance before the Committee on Homeland
Security, four-and-a-half months after your swearing-in as Secretary. I
have served on the Committee on Homeland Security since its
establishment, and have been fortunate to work with all five of your
predecessors from both political parties.
Each of them, including your former boss, Secretary John Kelly,
picked up the phone or stopped by to establish a working relationship
within days of being sworn in to the position. That did not happen with
you, which is a shame.
While we fundamentally disagree with many of the Trump
administration's policies, I can assure you that Democrats on this
committee are just as committed as our Republican counterparts to
keeping our Nation secure while upholding our most important values.
Chairman McCaul has said this committee, perhaps unlike some others
in Congress, prides itself in its ability to come together where we can
to enact legislation in the interest of the American people. I agree.
I hope that in the future you will make more of an effort to
conduct outreach to Members on this side of the aisle. The American
people expect that we engage each other on important issues.
Indeed, this is a critical time for the Department of Homeland
Security. America faces threats from the troubling rise of domestic
terrorism, mass shootings, and foreign terrorist organizations that
seek to do us harm. Russia and other actors are likely to continue
their interference in our election systems, including the upcoming
midterm elections. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are still
devastated by Hurricanes Maria and Irma, and another hurricane season
is just weeks away.
Meanwhile, the Department is dealing with problems of President
Trump's own making. His Muslim travel bans, his decision to terminate
the DACA program, and his Executive Orders on immigration enforcement
and border security, which seek to make us a Nation of immigrants no
more.
No longer the Department's chief of staff, but now its Secretary,
its leader, the buck stops with you. I am concerned, however, that
since becoming Secretary you have not always been forthcoming on
certain matters.
You testified before the Senate that you do not ``specifically
remember'' whether President Trump used a slur to describe African
countries during a White House meeting.
You claimed ``I actually do not know that'' when asked at that
Senate hearing whether Norway is a predominantly Caucasian country,
after the President questioned why we could not have more immigrants
from Norway.
Most recently, you declined to explain the President's tweet
referring to a ``breeding concept'' in ``sanctuary cities'' in
California.
If this is any indication of how you, as Secretary, interact with
the White House on homeland security policy matters, there may be cause
for concern.
Your recent statements on homeland security matters have been less
than encouraging. Based on your press releases this week, you would
think the most important homeland security problem facing the Nation is
a handful of Central Americans moving through Mexico. That does not
make it so.
We know who they are. We know where they are. And we know they
generally do not attempt to evade the Border Patrol, but rather present
themselves to your agents and officers upon arrival. But fomenting fear
about this so-called ``caravan'' gets airtime on certain media outlets
and plays well with elements of President Trump's political base.
Better to distract the American people from the very real issues
facing the Department and perhaps from the President's own problems
too. Likewise, we have heard a lot in recent days about so-called
``loopholes'' in our immigration system as it relates to children.
These are not loopholes.
They are basic humanitarian protections enacted by Congress to
protect vulnerable children and ensure that those who have legitimate
asylum claims are heard, and those who do not are returned home safely.
We need only look at some of the terrible cases that occurred
before this legal framework was implemented to know why Congress acted.
Politicizing and demonizing children should be beneath the Department,
and Congress must not go down that path.
As you know the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is
to ``safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.'' I
appreciate this is no easy task, and that we are living in challenging
times in more ways than one. I hope that the Department, under your
leadership and with over 240,000 employees strong, is up to it.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields back. Other Members are
reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
[The statements of Hon. Barletta and Perry follow:]
Statement of Honorable Lou Barletta
Secretary Nielsen, thank you for coming before this committee today
to discuss the importance of the security of the United States, and for
your service to this country.
I am encouraged that President Trump has put a priority on
enforcement and that the American people finally have a partner in the
White House with their best interests at heart.
The United States is a compassionate country, but we are also a
country of laws. We as a Congress have failed by not enforcing the laws
of our land and refusing to put the safety and well-being of the
American people first.
That is why I am a cosponsor of the Securing America's Future Act.
This legislation is a common-sense solution that secures our borders,
improves interior enforcement, and provides relief for those that came
here by no fault of their own. I am hopeful the House will vote on this
bill soon.
Immigration to the United States has quadrupled from 250,000 per
year in the 1950's, to more than 1 million annually since 1990. America
is the third most-populous nation in the world with over 330 million
people. We cannot simultaneously sustain high levels of legal
immigration while millions of illegal aliens continue to cross our
borders.
My city of Hazleton had an illegal immigration problem. Our
population grew by 50 percent, but our tax revenue stayed the same.
With the spike in illegal immigration came gangs, drugs, theft, and
other crimes that left our police force undermanned and overwhelmed.
Hospitals and schools were pushed to their breaking point, as over-
crowding moved public resources from tax-paying Americans and legal
immigrants, to illegal aliens.
I have sat at the tables of Pennsylvanians who have lost loved ones
to the violent acts of illegal aliens, and it is those people for whom
I have compassion.
It is time to secure our borders, enforce our Federal laws, and put
America first.
______
Statement of Honorable Scott Perry
April 26, 2018
Earlier this spring, our Nation's Federal debt surpassed $21
trillion for the first time in history. This staggering milestone is a
reminder of the troubling fiscal realities facing our Nation and a
legacy of years of irresponsible spending under the Obama
administration. In February, testifying before Congress, the director
of national intelligence, Dan Coats, labeled the skyrocketing Federal
debt a ``dire threat'' to our National security.
In this fiscal environment, as the Federal Government seeks to cut
its expenditures, homeland security must remain a top priority. Our
Nation faces an unprecedented array of threats, from the continuing
menace of the Islamic State to the increasingly sophisticated cyber
capabilities of our adversaries. I am therefore pleased to see that the
President's fiscal year 2019 budget request prioritizes funding the
important missions carried out by the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).
DHS's fiscal year 2019 budget request would fund the Department at
$47.5 billion dollars (net discretionary funding). The budget request
calls for increases in funding for Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), and provides $1.6 billion for
border wall construction on the Southwest Border and $2.8 billion for
additional ICE detention beds.
While I commend the Department's request for addressing some of the
most challenging issues facing our Nation, I do have several
reservations.
The Department's budget request proposes to cut the DHS Office of
Inspector General's (OIG) budget by nearly $6 million from fiscal year
2018 enacted levels. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Management Efficiency, I have seen first-hand the importance of
maintaining the Department's transparency and accountability to
Congress and the American people. OIG is instrumental in assisting
Congress in its oversight role over DHS and I am concerned that
proposed cuts to OIG's budget will impair the Inspector General's
ability to properly audit the Department's operations.
I am also concerned about the Department's $231 million request in
new funding for DHS headquarters consolidation at the historic St.
Elizabeths campus in Southeast Washington, DC. Earlier this month, the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency held a hearing to
continue oversight over the St. Elizabeths project. The subcommittee
learned that headquarters consolidation continues to face schedule
delays and that DHS and the U.S. General Services Administration are
working to release an updated plan forward for the project by the end
of the year. Given the track record of failure at St. Elizabeths, I
urge Congress to exercise caution in any funding for new construction
until an updated plan is finalized.
Congress is charged with both the responsible stewardship of
taxpayer dollars and helping to ensure the security of the American
people. DHS's fiscal year 2019 budget request is an important step in
fulfilling both of these responsibilities. I want to thank Secretary
Nielsen for appearing before the committee this morning and I look
forward to learning more about the Department's mission priorities in
the upcoming fiscal year as reflected by the President's budget
request.
Chairman McCaul. On December 6, 2017, Kirstjen Nielsen was
sworn in as the sixth Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security. This is also the Secretary's first appearance before
our committee, and we thank you for being here today. Your full
statement will appear in the record. The Chair now recognizes
the Secretary for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Nielsen. Try that again. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished
Members of the committee, it is a privilege to appear before
you today. I am honored to present the President's 2019 budget
request for the Department of Homeland Security and discus how
that budget will help keep America safe.
Let me first take a moment to thank this committee for its
support for the $48.2 billion provided to the Department in the
recently-passed Consolidated Appropriations Act. The support of
this committee is critical to advancing the many DHS missions,
and I truly thank you for your continued support.
I would also like to thank you for your support for our
reauthorization. As you know, it is critical that the men and
women of the Department have the tools, resources, and skill
sets that they need to further the mission of this country.
The President's 2019 budget builds on the fiscal year 2018
and requests $47.5 billion in net discretionary funding for the
Department of Homeland Security. It also includes an additional
$6.7 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund for response and
recovery to major disasters.
Today, I would like to outline several core missions
empowered by this budget. First, securing and managing our
borders and enforcing our immigration laws. No. 2, protecting
our Nation from terrorism and countering threats. No. 3,
preserving and upholding the Nation's prosperity and economic
security. No. 4, securing cyber space and critical
infrastructure. No. 5, strengthening homeland security
preparedness and achieving resilience.
Within all of these missions, we are aiming to put our
employees first and empower our front-line defenders to do
their job. This will help mature the Department, and more
importantly, help us better secure the homeland.
For border immigration, first, we are focused on securing
and managing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.
While, we have made vast improvements in border security over
the last 15 months, we continue to see unacceptable levels of
illegal drugs, dangerous gang and transnational criminal
organization activity, and illegal immigration flow across our
Southern Border.
The current statistics for last month tell a dangerous
story. Overall, the number of illegal aliens encountered at the
border increased more than 200 percent when compared to the
same time last year. Perhaps more troubling, the number of
unaccompanied alien children encountered has increased over 800
percent, and the number of families encountered increased over
680 percent.
We also saw a 37 percent increase in drug seizures at the
border in March, and I am sad to report we have an increase in
73 percent in assaults on our border agents. This is
unacceptable and it must be addressed. We must do more to
secure our borders against threats and illegal entry and close
dangerous loopholes that are making our country vulnerable.
We have been apprehending gangs, TCOs, and aliens at the
border with historic efficiency. But illicit smuggling groups
understand that our ability to actually remove those who come
here illegally does not keep pace. They have discovered and
continue to exploit legal loopholes to avoid detention and
removal, and have shown no intention of stopping.
These legal loopholes are strong pull factors that entice
those looking to circumvent our laws. For border security to
work, violation of the law must have consequences.
As I have said many times, interdiction without the ability
to promptly remove those who have no lawful basis to enter or
remain is not border security. It undermines our National
security and we must work together to close these loopholes.
This budget would invest in new border wall construction,
technology, and infrastructure to stop this illegal activity.
I would be remiss if I did not say that one of our greatest
investments is in our people. Recruiting, hiring, and training
additional U.S. Border Patrol agents, additional U.S. Customs
and Immigration Enforcement officers, and additional support
personal to carry out these vital missions.
Second, we must continue to protect our Nation from
terrorism and decisively counter threats. This is the reason
the Department was created and it remains a cornerstone of our
work.
Terrorists are adapting. They are taking an all-of-the-
above approach to spreading violence. That includes promoting
attacks on soft targets, using homemade weapons, and weapons
they can bring in a bring-your-own-weapon style approach.
It includes crowdsourcing their violence through on-line
radicalization, inspiration, direction, and recruitment. But
they also remain focused on conducting sophisticated attacks
including using concealed weapons, weapons of mass destruction,
and modifying new technologies such as drones into deadly
weapons.
This budget ensures that our defenses keep up with the
innovation of our enemies. For instance, it allows TSA to
deploy advanced tools to detect threats. It funds new CBP
initiatives to identify high-risk travelers. It ramps up our
defenses against WMD, and it provides vital funding to protect
soft targets from concert venues to schools against attack.
Third, we are focused on preserving and upholding the
Nation's prosperity and economic security. On an average day,
the Coast Guard facilitates the movement of $8.7 billion worth
of goods and commodities through the Nation's maritime
transportation system.
Each day at our Nation's 328 air, land, and sea ports of
entry, CBP welcomes nearly 1 million visitors, screens more
than 67,000 cargo containers, arrests more than 1,100
individuals, and seizes nearly 6 tons of illicit drugs.
Annually CBP facilitates an average of more than $3
trillion in legitimate trade while enforcing U.S. trade laws
and processing more than $2.4 trillion in international trade
transactions every year.
The President's budget helps provide critical resources to
these efforts to keep our country competitive and to advance
the prosperity of our people. The budget also will help
continue efforts to keep foreign adversaries from stealing our
trade secrets, technology, and innovation.
Fourth, we must secure cyber space. This is one of my
personal priorities as there is much to do in this area. Our
networks are under attack constantly from all corners of the
physical world.
That is why DHS is taking historic strides to address
systemic cyber risk, secure .gov networks, and strengthen the
security and resilience of critical infrastructure. The budget
would enable DHS to support State and local election officials
in defending the integrity of our election systems.
As you know, the Department's mission is to provide
assistance to election officials in the form of advice,
intelligence, technical support, and instant response planning
with the ultimate goal of building a more resilient and secure
election enterprise to investing in hardware, software
intrusion detection and analytical capabilities, we are better
able to secure the digital ecosystem that makes our American
way of life possible.
Fifth, and finally, it is a core mission of DHS to
strengthen homeland security preparedness and achieve National
resilience. Last year, according to NOAA, our country
experienced one of the most costly and damaging seasons for
natural disasters in its history with a cumulative effect
costing $3 billion.
Through the FEMA and in cooperation with State, local,
Tribal, and territorial governments across the country, we will
devote the resources and attention needed to ensure recovery.
But we must also help communities across the Nation create a
culture of preparedness to be more resilient to disasters.
A culture of preparedness is a National effort to be ready
for the worst disasters at all levels. This budget helps us
with these efforts and supports the DRF which is necessary to
help State and local governments respond and recover.
In conclusion, we need to empower the men and women of the
Department to carry out these five missions and many others by
giving them the resources they need. In addition to the various
areas I mentioned today, I am also firmly committed to maturing
the Department and putting our employees first.
It is an honor to serve along the men and women of DHS who
work tirelessly each day to secure our country and who are
often unrecognized. I thank them for this service.
I thank this committee to support our budget, in supporting
our employees, supporting our missions and helping to make our
Nation more secure. Thank you for your time and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Nielsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kirstjen M. Nielsen
April 26, 2018
Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members
of the subcommittee: It is a privilege to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) crucial missions
and to present the President's fiscal year 2019 budget request for the
Department.
The men and women of DHS are exceptional and dedicated
professionals who are on watch 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
protecting Americans from threats by land, sea, air, and in cyber
space, while also promoting our Nation's economic prosperity. They work
tirelessly to strengthen the safety and security of our Nation from
persistent and emerging dangers, including terrorists, transnational
criminal organizations, rogue nation-states, and natural disasters.
The fiscal year 2019 budget request provides funding to advance
core DHS missions. It sustains and strengthens our most critical
programs and capabilities and places emphasis on protecting our Nation
from terrorism and countering threats; securing and managing our
borders and enforcing our immigration laws; preserving and upholding
the Nation's prosperity and economic security; securing cyber space and
critical infrastructure; and strengthening homeland security
preparedness resilience. DHS will also build a culture of efficiency on
the foundation of agency reform efforts to ensure accountable,
effective, and efficient operations.
The fiscal year 2019 President's 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 would make crucial investments needed to secure our
borders against threats and illegal entry. The request includes
recruitment, hiring, and training of 750 additional U.S. Border Patrol
Agents, 2,000 additional U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
law enforcement officers, and more than 1,500 support staff needed to
more robustly execute the Department's border security and immigration
enforcement missions. It also funds construction and renovations at the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers to meet increased training
requirements for DHS.
Investments in our layered defense at the border would include 65
miles of new border wall construction in the highest-traffic zones
along the Southwest Border, as well as priority tactical
infrastructure, border security technology improvements, and aircraft
acquisition. The administration also reiterates the unfunded wall
requests from the fiscal year 2018 budget in addition to the
investments outlined in the fiscal year 2019 budget. These investments
ensure DHS law enforcement personnel are supported with effective
surveillance technology and equipment to improve their ability to
detect and interdict illegal activity.
The fiscal year 2019 President's budget includes funding for 52,000
detention beds, including 2,500 beds reserved for family units, to
ensure that apprehended aliens who are subject to removal from the
United States--such as illegal border crossers, criminal aliens, and
National security threats--are detained in safe and secure detention
facilities pending their removal. For apprehended aliens who are not
considered a threat to our communities, but who may pose a diminished
flight risk, the President's budget would fund ICE's Alternatives to
Detention Program to provide intensive supervision for up to 82,000
average daily participants through a combination of home visits, office
visits, alert response, and electronic monitoring. Proposed funding for
removal operations will facilitate the complex coordination required to
return aliens safely and expeditiously to their home countries and pay
for transportation costs.
Unfortunately, some of these critical missions are impeded by
jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with DHS in the enforcement of
Federal law. This makes it more dangerous for Federal agents and
officers to do their jobs. It creates a greater threat to public
safety, and results in greater expense to American taxpayers. I hope
the committee will work with DHS to help make sure jurisdictions around
the country do not harbor criminal aliens or put the men and women of
DHS at risk while they are doing their jobs to protect the public.
The budget gives our front-line operators the tools and resources
they need to more aggressively disrupt and dismantle transnational
threats. It would advance the administration's efforts to block
terrorists, criminals, and other nefarious actors from reaching the
United States and exploiting our immigration system. It would further
integrate intelligence into DHS operations to make sure rapid changes
in the threat environment are met with a near-real-time change in our
response. And it proposes funding across the Department for initiatives
that will help us keep pace with adaptive enemies and new threats.
For example, the budget focuses on bolstering DHS activities to
counter transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). TCOs are
facilitating the illicit flow of opioids and other deadly substances
into America. The drugs and violence they import are a threat to the
homeland, which is why we are focused on ramping up counter-TCOs
activities. The budget bolsters the capacity of ICE/HSI special agents
to conduct transnational criminal investigations, and it provides
funding to support law enforcement hiring and workload growth
consistent with this mission, including $105 million for critical
training, IT, facility support infrastructure, and wiretaps associated
with ICE's proposed increased staffing and workload.
The budget proposes essential funding to implement the President's
Executive Orders to intensify vetting of U.S.-bound travelers and
individuals in our immigration system. Since the beginning of last
year, DHS has undertaken historic efforts to improve every phase of the
vetting process so that we can be more confident in knowing who is
coming into our country--and more capable of identifying nefarious
actors. This includes making applications more rigorous, deepening
background checks, tightening travel and arrival screening, and
enforcing foreign government information-sharing requirements. The
budget will facilitate the stand-up of the newly-announced National
Vetting Center (NVC), which will become a central U.S. Government hub
for fusing intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security data to
enhance the vetting process. A detailed implementation plan is
currently under development to identify NVC capacity and operational
needs that will inform future budget requests.
Additionally, DHS is seeking to provide critical resources to the
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to better defend the Nation against
transnational threats and support the response to natural disasters.
The USCG secures our maritime borders by operating up to more than
1,500 miles offshore to extend the Nation's security and to enforce
laws. During the 2017 hurricane season, the USCG, working alongside the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was prepared and
immediately responded to the needs of our citizens and partner nations.
Their unique blend of statutory authorities combines civil law
enforcement, response, and prevention with military service
capabilities, resulting in an extremely agile force capable of
responding to any significant event or emergency.
The fiscal year 2019 President's budget requests $1.9 billion for
the recapitalization of USCG assets. This funding provides for a new
Offshore Patrol Cutter, four Fast Response Cutters, and the Nation's
first new heavy Polar Icebreaker in more than 40 years, providing an
advanced command, control, and communications platform capable of
operating in the harshest environments. It also provides for timely and
necessary sensor and service-life extensions to aircraft and
improvements to shore infrastructure. These are the investments we need
to be making to defend our territory, and I hope the committee will
support our requests.
We are also seeking important cybersecurity enhancements. This
committee knows that the dangers we face on-line are serious, and they
emanate from hackers, TCOs, nation-states, and other nefarious actors.
DHS is on the digital front lines of this fight and is undertaking
historic efforts to safeguard the Federal Government's civilian
information technology systems and to work with all levels of
government, international partners, and business sectors to share
cybersecurity information and build resilient systems.
The President's budget would continue investments in cybersecurity
initiatives that protect Federal networks and address identified
vulnerabilities. More than $644 million is requested for DHS's
Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program and the National
Cybersecurity Protection System program, commonly referred to as
EINSTEIN, which provide network monitoring tools, intrusion prevention,
intrusion detection, and analytical capabilities that strengthen the
cybersecurity of Federal civilian departments and agencies.
The threat is real, and we know that a sophisticated adversary can
put the foundations of our democracy at risk through cyber attacks,
which is why our request for fiscal year 2019 would also make sure DHS
is positioned to counter foreign meddling by supporting State and local
election officials in defending the integrity of election systems. The
budget also would provide $158 million to secure the Nation's
interoperable emergency communications capabilities that enable first
responders and Government officials to continue to communicate in the
event of natural and man-made disasters.
Moreover, DHS is seeking to ramp up ``soft target'' security
efforts. From terrorist attacks to school shootings, we have seen
public areas continue to be struck by violence. Our National Protection
and Programs Directorate (NPPD) is helping to lead the charge on soft
target security. The President's budget would provide almost $12
million for the establishment of the Soft Target Security Program which
would expand NPPD's capabilities to reduce the risks to these locations
through a mix of technology integration, targeted threat information
sharing, training, and improved standards for security. This program
will provide a more comprehensive, innovative, and coordinated approach
to address threats to soft targets--including schools, entertainment
venues, major events, and public spaces.
Our wider transportation system also faces persistent and emerging
threats, as terrorists adapt their tactics to target airlines,
airports, and other transportation hubs. The President's budget was
built to confront these challenges. It would add 687 TSA screeners and
145 additional computed tomography systems in order to stay ahead of
our enemies, especially by helping to better detect concealed
explosives, threat devices, and suspicious passengers. This budget
would also provide an increase of nearly $27 million for CBP's National
Targeting Center to improve our capabilities to identify high-risk
individuals and cargo both entering and leaving the United States in
the air, land, and sea environments.
Similarly, we are seeing an evolution in the danger posed by
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents. That is why in
December I announced the establishment of a DHS Countering Weapons of
Mass Destruction Office (CWMD). I call on Congress to permanently
authorize this Office and to ensure we have the authorities needed to
protect Americans against such deadly agents. Already, CWMD has been at
the forefront of driving the Department's response to recent threat
streams and incidents. The President's budget supports CWMD's efforts
to mitigate security vulnerabilities, and includes $75 million for the
acquisition and deployment of nuclear, chemical, radiological, and
biological systems to support operational customers, including enhanced
Radiation Portal Monitors and other programs to support scanning of
cargo entering the Nation. In addition, it includes $65 million for
capability building, including outreach efforts necessary to ensure
Federal, State, local, Tribal, territorial, and international partners
are enabled to support the WMD detection mission.
The President's budget recognizes that homeland security is central
to economic security. It would provide funding to ensure DHS components
are able to facilitate lawful trade and travel, mitigate threats, hold
violators accountable, counter foreign economic aggression, and advance
America's economic interests. For instance, the Department is focused
on maintaining a level playing field for the $2.4 trillion dollars of
imports crossing our border each year, which is why the President's
budget includes funding to enhance the Automated Commercial Environment
(ACE) and to put more attention on high-risk imports while facilitating
smaller, legitimate shipments more quickly. The request also includes
funding for additional attorneys, trade specialists, and financial
specialists to provide adequate support for trade facilitation and
enforcement activities.
The men and women of the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) also protect
our Nation's financial infrastructure, and the fiscal year 2019 budget
supports the USSS in its use of advanced technologies and task force
partnerships to enforce counterfeiting laws and to safeguard the
payment and financial systems of the United States from financial and
computer-based crimes. The agency also protects our highest elected
officials, visiting foreign dignitaries, select Federal facilities, and
major events. The request would allow for an additional 450 USSS
agents, officers, and professional staff and would fund critical
protective infrastructure and technology upgrades.
Last year our country experienced one of the most costly and
damaging seasons for natural disasters in recent history. DHS is
committed to helping our communities in the wake of these catastrophic
events, and FEMA will devote the resources and attention needed--in
cooperation with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments
across the country--to ensure we recover. The President's budget
supports the DRF, which sustains FEMA's response and recovery efforts
and funds a variety of Federal assistance programs that enable State
and local governments to prevent, protect, respond, and recover from
incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic events. The budget also
focuses on other efforts that will help create a ``culture of
preparedness'' Nation-wide and make our Nation more resilient to
disasters.
The 2019 President's budget is committed to ensuring that every
American dollar is spent wisely, and DHS continues to identify
efficiencies to meet this goal. The budget funds the construction of a
new headquarters building for FEMA at the St. Elizabeths campus, which
will consolidate a wide range of DHS entities in a common location when
complete. This will not only foster integrated decision making and
collaboration, but it will provide for more efficient use of shared
resources across the Department, while also reducing the Department's
rent costs.
Ultimately, the President's fiscal year 2019 budget request
recognizes current fiscal realities, as well as the persistent and
evolving dangers we face. We have outstanding men and women working at
DHS committed to protecting our homeland and the American people. You
have my commitment to work tirelessly to ensure that they are equipped
and empowered to do their jobs. And I appreciate your support in doing
so.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and
for your continued support of DHS. I remain committed to working with
Congress, and I look forward to forging a strong and productive
relationship to secure our homeland.
I am pleased to answer any questions.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I now recognize myself for questions. First, let me just
say this committee passed a historic border security bill
providing $38 billion in funding for the wall, technology,
personnel, joined Chairman Goodlatte and his legislation to
close legal loopholes. But I think before we get to that, I
think you have to justify that need, it is important to look at
the threats that we face from the Southern Border.
Your predecessors, both General Kelly and Acting Secretary
Duke, talked about transnational criminal organizations
providing a potential means for transferring weapons of mass
destruction to terrorists. There are reports today that this
caravan is on its way to Tijuana. Can you tell us a little bit
about the threats that we face as a Nation and why border
security is so important?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir. So I think the way to think
about it is any threat that we face as a Nation, if it can and
will--if I can get across our border, our adversaries will do
all they can to bring it across the border.
So what we look at is everything from drugs to the
transnational criminal organizations you mentioned to smugglers
and traffickers who smuggle all kinds of illicit things, not
just people, but weapons, potentially weapons of mass
destruction, other illicit technology. They avoid our trade
regulations putting our economic prosperity at risk. We see
increasing violence on the border.
I would also point out that we have seen ISIS in written
materials encourage ISIS followers to cross our Southwest
Border given the loopholes that they also are aware of. So we
have a multitude of threats. We have emerging threats as you
know. We are probably likely to talk about UAS at some point
today. But UAS is yet another form of threat that we are
beginning to see more and more at the Southwest Border.
Chairman McCaul. Yes. I recall being briefed on ISIS sort-
of bragging about the ease with which it would take to bring a
weapon of mass destruction into the United States. I have to
take that seriously as they appear to be warning us of their
intentions.
When we talk about closing legal loopholes, you know, the
first bill I ever filed in Congress 14 years ago was to end the
catch-and-release program, and here we are 14 years later still
dealing with this problem. I am very frustrated as I know you
are. Can you tell me why this is so important?
Secretary Nielsen. I can. So the way that I think about
this is in terms of home security. If you have an alarm in your
home and you catch a burglar and you call the police and the
police come, and in fact it is an illegal entry into your home.
But the police then tell you that they have absolutely no
ability to detain or remove those criminals, and the criminals
stay in your house, you would not tell me that is home
security. That is what we face at the border.
We stop people, we interdict them, but we do not have the
authority given the loopholes in many cases to detain and
remove them. We are forced to release them back into the
communities after they have committed crimes.
We have eliminated the administrative use of catch-and-
release, which was popular in the last administration. We do
all we can to enforce the rules that you have passed. But given
some of the court cases and some of the legal loopholes, we are
unable to do that in all cases.
Chairman McCaul. I think to most Americans, they just do
not understand that, how that could possibly--you can detain
but you cannot deport them, and then they get released into our
society in the United States. This so-called described caravan
as I understand it maybe already in Tijuana. In your opinion,
if they cross into the United States, which is their full
intention, what will you be able to do?
Secretary Nielsen. Well, I think we have made quite clear--
first of all the attorney general has made quite clear, we have
a zero tolerance for illegal entry. But we have advised in
every way we possible, that we are aware of, to let those
participating in this so-called caravan know that participating
in a caravan does not give you any additional legal rights.
If you illegally enter our country, you will be referred
for prosecution. If you file a false asylum claim, you will be
referred for prosecution. If you aid and abet or coach someone
to break our laws, you also will be referred for prosecution.
So we are very clear about this. We will enforce our laws. It
is an unfortunate situation that there is a belief that by
coming in groups, it affords you some sort of legal protection
that is not otherwise afforded under our law.
Chairman McCaul. Well, my concern is with the legal
loopholes, which is really Congress' role to act. Under Article
I we have the authority under the Constitution to pass
immigration laws. If we fail to act on these legal loopholes,
my concern is they will be released.
You will have the same problem with this caravan. Once they
come to the United States, they will be detained and then
released into our society, and that is Congress to blame, Madam
Secretary, not you. That is why it is imperative I think
Congress act on this bill that we have before us.
My final question has to do with aviation security. As you
have received the threat briefings, I can say everyone on this
committee has received the threats to our aviation sector, the
briefing involving computer laptops and poisonous gases.
I think I speak for everybody on the committee, we are very
alarmed by this. We want to do everything in our power to make
sure the American people are protected on flights, both
domestic and international.
We appropriate in the omnibus $65 million to move this
forward. We will complete that full appropriation September for
300 CT machines so that your men and women can properly screen
at airports to protect Americans from explosive devices that
may not be seen today.
My question is how quickly how can these machines be
deployed? Then finally, I think the highest risk are the last-
point-of-departure airports, coming in from Istanbul and Cairo
and Riyadh and places I have been to where the airport security
is not as good as ours. What is your plan to make sure this
technology is also at those last-point-of-departure airports?
Secretary Nielsen. As you said in your opening statement,
sir, unfortunately, the terrorists continue to see this as a
crown jewel if you will of attack vectors. We also remain very
concerned about aviation security, and in particular how
quickly the adversary is advancing tactics and techniques and
weaponry to bring down an airplane.
So the CT machines, we thank you for your support. They are
critical in our--very critical in our ability to detect these
emerging threats. As you know we are testing the machines as
well as the algorithms that go with them that enable us to
detect these new threats this summer. We look forward to the
appropriation in 2019 so that we can in fact cover down over
the United States in terms of protecting Americans here.
Last points of departure are another type of threat area
that obviously a plane comes from a last point of departure to
the United States. What we have done there is, you know, last
year we substantially raised the bar in aviation security
across the world. We have a tiered plan. We continue to work
with countries to encourage them to adopt the CT technology.
In exchange for that, we pull back on other requirements
that we have levied on them. So we have tremendous outreach
occurring. I met with my G7 security ministers Monday/Tuesday.
We talked about this again. We talk about this almost in every
way we can. But you are exactly right to highlight the threat
and we will continue to focus on it.
Chairman McCaul. Well, thank you. I think it is one of the
biggest threats that we face from the terrorists today. It is a
spectacular event that they like to talk about, not a one- to
two-man operation or a vehicle assault. It would be a major
event that we want to do everything we can to work with you to
make sure it never happens. So thank you for being here.
I now recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, one of the oversight responsibilities we
have with DHS is to kind-of see whether or not things are going
according to the wishes of Congress and this committee. To that
extent, there are a number of policy deliverables that are
outstanding from the Department at this point, and I am going
to go through the list and try to get some idea on when we will
receive them.
The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review was due December
31, 2017. Do you have any idea when we might get that document?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir, I believe we have coordinated
with this committee as well as your sister committee on the
Senate side to work through the best way to present that
information.
We want to make sure that it is part of a larger National
security strategy, counterterrorism strategy. As you know, we
have other strategies that are due at the Department. So the
idea is to get the timing right so that they actually work in
parallel and we do not have one that then is not consistent
with another due to timing restrictions. So happy to come brief
you further on the progress and how that nests into many of the
larger requirements that we have.
Mr. Thompson. Madam Secretary, it is the law.
Secretary Nielsen. No, I understand, sir. So we have worked
with you on the timing, but I am happy to come brief you, as I
said, specifically on that.
Mr. Thompson. So you do not plan to follow the law on
delivering the report? I mean that is all I am asking. It is
due. To say you coordinated, that is all right. But it is the
law you have to produce the report.
Secretary Nielsen. Respectfully, sir, I did not say that I
would not follow the law. What I did say is that we are working
on it. We have told you what the timing is, and I am happy to
come brief you further if you would like.
Mr. Thompson. Well, I am not necessarily looking for a
briefing.
Secretary Nielsen. OK.
Mr. Thompson. I need from you, very simple, when you plan
to follow the law to present----
Secretary Nielsen. We will get back to you.
Mr. Thompson. Beg your pardon?
Secretary Nielsen. We will get back to you.
Mr. Thompson. Well, will you get back to us in writing?
Secretary Nielsen. If you would prefer that instead of a
briefing, happy to do that.
Mr. Thompson. I would absolutely prefer it in writing. We
have also a Department-wide cybersecurity strategy that was due
March 23, 2017.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. So we were out at the RSA
conference last week. We spent quite a bit of time talking to
stakeholders to finalize that as a last very important effort
to make sure that we had stakeholders involved. We will have
four pillars of that strategy. We are looking to identify the
risks, to reduce threats, reduce vulnerabilities, and mitigate
consequences. We also have it based on five trends----
Mr. Thompson. I appreciate that, but when can we as Members
of this committee receive the written report----
Secretary Nielsen. Shortly.
Mr. Thompson. That is outstanding?
Secretary Nielsen. Shortly, the strategy is--sir.
Mr. Thompson. A week, 2 weeks? A month?
Secretary Nielsen. It should be within the next 2 weeks,
yes sir.
Mr. Thompson. Within the next 2 weeks.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Now the long-awaited update plan
for the Department's major headquarters consolidation project,
it was actually due August 27, 2016. When do you anticipate
getting that to us?
Secretary Nielsen. That one I will have to get back to you,
sir. I am not as familiar. I know we continued to be in
discussions. As you know we have had some funding issues as
well as some construction delays given the historic nature of
the property. So I will get back to you on the timing of that.
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you. Those three reports, if you
would provide in writing the status updates and when we can
expect them, I would appreciate it.
With respect to Hurricane Maria, are you satisfied with
FEMA's response to Hurricane Maria as it relates to Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands?
Secretary Nielsen. Well as you know it is not over yet.
FEMA will continue to provide recovery services under its
statutory mission until they are complete. We continue to work
very closely with the Governor and the government officials,
mayors in the case of Puerto Rico.
We can always do more. It was a very difficult situation as
you know given, especially in Puerto Rico, the status of the
infrastructure before the storm. FEMA prepositioned more than
it ever had before. We had many people there in conjunction
with our interagency partners, and we are going through the
formal lessons learned process now. But recovery is on-going so
we should have the findings from the initial response shortly.
Mr. Thompson. So your testimony, you are not satisfied with
it or you are?
Secretary Nielsen. It was a big storm, sir, I think FEMA
went above and beyond in performing its statutory mission, but
we always learn lessons and we always make it better for next
time.
Mr. Thompson. What systems have you put in place so that
whatever shortcomings occurred with Hurricane Maria will not
occur again?
Secretary Nielsen. One of them is the administrator is
deploying Federal integration teams. The concept here is to
send steady-state people out into the field who are experts in
incident management preparedness prevention mitigation to help
different areas and jurisdictions be able to prepare for an
event.
So what we are trying to do at this point is push resources
to left of the event. As you know, recent studies have shown
for every dollar of mitigation we save $6 in--excuse me, $1 in
prevention and mitigation we have $6 saved in terms of response
and recovery. So what we are doing is relooking at all of our
systems so that we can build those cultures of resilience and
preparedness.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Madam Secretary, on January 16,
you testified before the Senate that 90 percent of unoccupied
alien children released never show up for court. Can you
provide this committee with how you came up with that 90
percent figure?
Secretary Nielsen. Sure. When we encounter a UIC, we
register them. As you know, we, at the Department, turn them
over to the Department of Health and Human Services. So we have
the numbers, then we----
Mr. Thompson. Well, what I am saying in writing?
Secretary Nielsen. Oh, OK. Sure.
Mr. Thompson. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Chair will recognize Members who were present at the start
of the hearing by seniority on the committee according to the
rules.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for your testimony here today
and thank you for your service. I have basically two questions.
I will ask them together so you have more time to answer them.
First is on the issue of grants, Homeland Security grants.
I live right outside New York City. New York City, Nassau and
Suffolk, Westchester County are the No. 1 terrorist target in
the country by all accounts. There is more than well over 1,000
police officers work full-time on counterterrorism and
intelligence.
We have subways carrying over 5 million people a day, a
thousand entrances and exits. We have commuter lines, Long
Island Railroad and Metro North with hundreds of thousands
more. Yet in the budget, your--grants are being cut--grants are
being cut.
To me, and you have maybe some other alternative plans, but
the fact is these police departments and these fire departments
and these emergency service units in these locales, and I am
not disparaging any other part of the country. They can fight
and they need it too. But yet we have been attacked many times,
twice just in the last 6 months. There has been over 20
attempted attacks against New York besides the two attacks on
the World Trade Center.
So I would just, again, ask you to reconsider and look at
how that money is being distributed and why we have cuts at a
time like this when, again, in many ways the threats are more
than they were before 9/11. They may be not at the same
magnitude as 9/11, but as far as numbers and the metastasizing
of Islamic terrorists, there is more threats today than there
were then. That is my question is on that, an easy one.
Second one is on MS-13. MS-13 is to a large extent focused
on my district. We have had over 25 murders in the last 2
years. They are right now digging for bodies within a mile of
my house. This goes on continuously. But let me commend both
HSI and ICE for the work they are doing. They are working very
closely with the local police, with the local district
attorneys, with the FBI. So progress has been made.
But one of the deficiencies we have, and this is not really
your Department's responsibility, but I think you have a say in
this. This is on the question of the unaccompanied minors. It
was brought to my attention last year both by Federal
intelligence and also local police that many of these minors
who come across, I do not say many, maybe 5 or 10 percent,
whatever the number would be, are actually sent here by MS-13
in El Salvador.
When they come to the border, they are apprehended by the
Border Patrol but then turned over to HHS, and then HHS places
those kids with families around the countries. A
disproportionate amount are going to Brentwood and Central ICE
up in my district.
Intelligence, as I understand, is showing that the families
who are asking for these kids are either in many cases or too
many cases are either supporters of MS-13 or they have
relatives back in El Salvador being threatened by MS-13. In the
most recent murders, of the 11 people indicted for the murders,
6 of them were unaccompanied minors that came across the border
within the last 2 or 3 years.
When I talked to the school superintendents, they talk
about how the unaccompanied minors, a number of them are
recruiting within the schools. Yet, HHS, the Office of Refugee
Resettlement does very little as far as notifying the local
police when these children, unaccompanied minors are being
placed in the community.
I would ask if you will get the administration to work with
HHS and your own Department to better coordinate this so the
local police are told who these kids are, where they are coming
from. Also a better job of vetting the families that they are
being placed with, and also a better job of vetting the
families they came from. So those are my two questions. Thank
you.
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you, sir. As you said, our grants
are not an easy conversation. The way we are looking at this,
and we would love to work with you further, we have put out, as
you know, about $50 billion in grants since 9/11.
The idea there was to help State and locals build capacity
to threats that they had not necessarily had to address before.
It was very important at that time to make sure that the State
and locals had what they needed to protect their communities.
As the threat environment quickly changes, what we are
trying to do is find ways to have grants, not just maintain and
help State and locals continue the capacities they have built,
but enable them to focus on the new and emerging threats. So
what this budget proposes is a new $525 million program,
preparedness program, to focus on emerging threats.
So it is not--I understand the question, but I just want to
make the point. What we are trying to do is use the grants
holistically in a way that we can cover down on the known, the
threats that we know we have, but also the threats that are
emerging. So it is important----
Mr. King. I was just saying that the threats--I realize
there is new threats, but again, large amounts of this money
are spent on surveillance, on programs which are on-going, the
threat is on-going.
It is not as if that you always need new equipment.
Sometimes they do. But it is also they have to have the
training and the constant work that goes on. When you have
1,000, 1,500 working on it, and they are working full-time, you
know, whether or not the threats changed, those 1,000 or 1,500
still have to work.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. So we need to balance the
maintenance and sustainment with the idea of the grants to
begin with, which is to build capacity, to build new threats.
But I did want to just take a few minutes to answer your other
question.
MS-13 does continue to be a problem as you know better than
most in this room given the violence that has occurred in your
area. Through Operation Matador and others, as you say, HSI
does play a very active role.
We continue to work very closely with our colleagues at the
Department of Justice to attack this from a network perspective
which means going all the way back to where they are
originating, watching their travel patterns, attempting to stop
them at the border of course. But should they enter, make sure
that we understand where they are and where they are headed.
Happy to work with HHS to make sure that that referral
process works better and more effectively. I would also say
that one of the loopholes that I often talked about is that
fact that we cannot based on gang affiliation alone prohibit
somebody from entering the United States. It is not a legal
criteria in and of itself for inadmissibility. So we also need
to look at inadmissibility and removability when it comes to
gangs, that we can make sure we can remove them.
The final point I would say on the UACs, we are working
with HHS to better vet the sponsors and the family members so
that we can understand where the children, for the children's
safety, are going and who will take care of them. But also so
that we can identify other issues that might occur.
As you say, we see recruiting from the gangs in New York
all the way down to Central America, and we see the push from
Central America to send UACs who are gang members into the
United States.
Mr. King. Again, let me emphasize that Homeland, HSI, ICE
are doing an excellent job working with the FBI and local
police in----
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. King. Nassau and Suffolk. Thanks.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson
Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much, and
thank you for this hearing along with the Ranking Member.
Let me welcome you, and I do not often make this comment,
but I think the Ranking Member made a point that I quickly want
to say, and that is that I had the tragic privilege of being on
this committee shortly after--the beginnings of this committee
shortly after 9/11, and was able to go to Ground Zero during
the long extended period of the recovery of remains. So there
is nothing more precious than the security of this Nation, and
I think it is bipartisan.
I do want to acknowledge Tacala and Madison; I brought them
here today. They are Take Your Daughters to Congress, and they
are in the room today, and I wanted to acknowledge them.
I am going to put a series of questions on the record and
then I am going to ask which ones that I would like you to do
in writing or I will indicate. I want you to tell me how many
African Americans do you have in your immediate circle of
staff. I do not see any in the room that seem to be with you
today. So I would be interested in that and your efforts on
that.
As it relates to the wall, I would be interested in knowing
whether Mexico is going to pay for the wall, and so how the
wall is going to proceed, as well as the 4,000 National Guard.
You mentioned, and certainly I want to respond to the assaults
on Border Patrol agents. I think we should respond to that in
whatever recommendations that you may have.
But the 4,000 National Guard as I understand it coming from
Texas being on the border, they will be unarmed and I see no
way that they will have an impact on the protection of Border
Patrol guards that are there now, and so what is the purpose of
the 4,000? Did you have input into that selection?
We know that there is a recent court decision that indicts
that the DACA structure right now and the President's removal
of DACA status is illegal, and frankly, there has been no
placement. We have a number of bipartisan bills to be put on
the floor.
Would you and the President ask and demand that Paul Ryan
put these bills on the floor for us to be able to vote for
them? Then secondarily, would you instruct your Border Patrol
agents to not treat DACA-eligible and/or DACA-status
individuals unfairly at the border by stopping them at the
border and not allowing them to come back and forth?
The other question is that I have been working extensively
on a young man from El Salvador who lived in this country more
than half of his life, two American children, citizen wife,
manager of a paint store.
I have repeatedly asked the Homeland Security Department to
address the question of Jose Escobar who was, I would say,
duped into doing what he always does, is reporting to the ICE
office and precipitously being deported to a place that he has
no knowledge of. We have not gotten one answer regarding the
ability for him to have humanitarian parole to come back to
this country and to address his status because he is DACA-
eligible.
TSA is in definitive need of retention programs and salary
programs because in your major airports, and I do not know if
you have been to all the major airports, there is a constant
rotation or departure of TSOs and that needs to be fixed.
FEMA needs to be fixed in terms of bifurcating recovery as
opposed to rescue. In Houston, the reimbursement, and I want to
thank FEMA and their staff, they are dedicated persons, but
reimbursement monies have not yet come to schools and other
facilities and people in desperate need.
Two other points: Domestic terrorism, the Mark Anthony
Conditt did kill other people in Austin but he also killed two
African Americans initially, and I think it was appropriate for
many of us to think of his inclination and call it domestic
terrorism. We heard nothing from the Department of Homeland
Security.
Finally, the President has gone to Mar-a-Lago 1 day out of
every week that he has been President, and 110 times he has
played golf. I want to know your response to the Secret
Service's long hours.
So let me ask you to answer the African American question,
all the others I want in writing. The TSA retention question
and the domestic terrorism, and you can just do quick
sentencing. Secret Service in terms of payment and the
responsibility of taking Secret Service to these joyful places
and the long hours that they have to do. TSA retention----
Secretary Nielsen. TSA----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you working on that?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, ma'am. That is a very--throughout
the Department, as you know, we do have some attrition problems
that remain. It is a priority of mine as part of maturing the
Department to become much more innovative. So we are looking at
mobility programs.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I am going to let you----
Secretary Nielsen. OK.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Go quickly. Domestic terrorism.
Secretary Nielsen. Domestic terrorism, we have created an
Office of Terrorism Prevention partnerships as you know to take
very seriously all forms of terrorism in this country and work
on----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you speak about the incident in
Austin, Texas in terms of potential of being domestic
terrorism?
Secretary Nielsen. I can speak to it only to say we are
working with State and local law----
Ms. Jackson Lee. If you had anything in writing on that, I
would appreciate it. I just want to go forward. Mr. Escobar,
would you look up Mr. Escobar? I have joined a bill with Mr.
Green asking for him to be able to return. But more importantly
this can be handled administratively by Homeland Security. Will
you look at the point of Mr. Escobar from Houston, Texas?
Secretary Nielsen. We will look at the case, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Secret Service and the many trips of the
President to places beyond Camp David, which is an
appropriately beautiful place, and the extra hours and the
tiredness of Secret Service and the need for extra staff. How
are you handling that burden?
Secretary Nielsen. We are working on hiring initiatives. We
are working on cross-training. We thank Congress for recently
passing a bill that allows the Secret Service to be paid
overtime. That will help very much with attrition and morale.
We also in that case are looking to cross-train and give them
more ability to move within the Secret Service to reduce some
of the burden that they have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. African Americans in your staff?
Secretary Nielsen. I do not have the exact number in front
of me. We do have diversity programs. We take that very
seriously. Happy to get you specifics on that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you have any on your immediate staff?
Secretary Nielsen. My immediate staff is rather large, but
I do not know.
Ms. Jackson Lee. In your office?
Secretary Nielsen. In the personal front office, we do not.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. All the other questions I would
appreciate it if you would more extensively answer in writing,
and I do want to just conclude by emphasizing the treatment of
DACA status individuals.
What is the Department's position since most courts have
indicated that DACA is a legitimate status to indicate to your
employees that they should not be treated precipitously and
disrespectfully and detained, which is what is happening?
Secretary Nielsen. We are complying with all court orders.
So what that means is if you are a currently-registered DACA
recipient, you will not be deported. If you have applied for
recertification as a DACA individual, you also will not be
deported.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And you will take new applications?
Secretary Nielsen. We are not taking new applications right
now, no, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. If you could give me answers to
all the rest including why you are not taking new----
Secretary Nielsen. It is not required at the moment so----
Ms. Jackson Lee. It----
Secretary Nielsen. As you know we ended the program because
it was an inappropriate--an inappropriate use of Executive
power.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I understand. If you could just put that
in writing since the courts have indicated your ending of the
program was incorrect, why you are not taking new applications.
Secretary Nielsen. OK. So just to be clear, though, the
courts have not said that. What the courts have said as of
recently in the last couple days is they have asked the
Department within 90 days to come and provide them additional
information. Should they find that that information is not
sufficient, they reserve the right to take additional action.
No court has ordered me to allow new DACA recipients.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I disagree with you, but I would prefer if
you would submit that to me in writing along with the other
questions that I did not specifically get.
I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady's time is expired.
The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, you are recognized.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here and thank you for
your service to our country.
On a parochial note before I get to my questions, I want to
personally invite you, now that you are settled in, to come and
visit the Center for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama.
As you know, it has done a stellar job since 9/11 in
training first responders all around the country, hospital
personnel. It has the only live agent training facility for
biological and chemical agents. So I think you would find it
interesting. The last Secretary to be there was Janet
Napolitano, and I am sure you will be as impressed as she was.
But in your written testimony you stated that,
``Investments in our layered defense at the border would
include 65 miles of new border wall construction in the highest
traffic zones along the Southwest Border.''
Yesterday, we had the CBP commissioner testify before the
Transportation Security Subcommittee, and he talked about in
addition to the wall itself, the importance of technologies
associated with it to give us situational awareness at those
borders. Can you describe for us what you see as your idea of a
border wall system, and meaning not just the wall itself, but
what would that system be compromised of?
Secretary Nielsen. Sure. So a border wall system is the
infrastructure which is important for the impedance and denial
capability. It is in the technology, which among other things
helps us with the domain awareness, situational awareness. It
is the sensors technology. It is also at the ports of entry,
the non-intrusive technology that helps us detect drugs and
illegal entrants.
It is personnel, mission readiness, and making sure we have
a work force who is trained. The last is access and mobility,
so it is very important that the Border Patrol is able to get
to parts of the wall where there are areas--parts of the border
where there is a wall or there is not a wall to be able to
interdict. So it is a combination of all of those things.
Mr. Rogers. Have you been able to ascertain what percentage
of the cost associated with the border security system is
actually the wall, and what is the rest of that system that you
just described? Which is substantial, the technologies and
personnel are substantial.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, in fact, we had asked for $1
billion alone for some of the technology when we were talking
about the $25 billion total number for the wall system. I can
get back to you on that. It changes, frankly, as we work with
Congress and we are appropriated money.
Then as you know in the last omnibus bill we had some
specific restrictions on how we could build the wall and where
we could build it. So we are reprioritizing and reorganizing
some of those funds that were given to us by Congress. So happy
to give you specific figures.
Mr. Rogers. Yes, I would like to get a proportion----
Secretary Nielsen. Happy to.
Mr. Rogers. Because, you know, one of the things that we
have heard is a lot of the critics of securing the Southwest
Border talk about the numbers being unreasonably high per mile
for this wall, and in fact, we are not just talking about the
wall or the fencing itself. We have to help people understand
that there is a lot more that goes to it than just putting that
fencing up, or whether it is see-through or concrete or
whatever at different points.
Let me ask this, do you feel like you have enough money
right now to take on that challenge and secure the Southwest
Border in its entirety?
Secretary Nielsen. Not in its entirety, no, sir. So our
goal is operational control of the border, that would have
those master capabilities I mentioned. We do not yet have
funding to secure the whole border.
Mr. Rogers. Well, one of the things that my friend and
colleague from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, requested information
about a little while ago was whether or not Mexico or South
America is going to help pay for the wall.
One of the things I would draw to your attention if you are
not aware of it is a bill I introduced called the Border Wall
Funding Act, which would assess a 2 percent fee on all
remittances going to South America.
It would generate right at a $1 billion a year, half of
that coming from Mexico, the other half from the other South
American countries where most of these illegal aliens who are
coming to our country are leaving, which would in fact require
Mexico to pay for at least half of the wall.
Now granted it is a billion a year, it would not do it all,
but I hope that you all will look at embracing that as one of
several funding mechanisms to get us the money we need to
secure that wall. You also in your testimony said, ``Some
critical missions are impeded by jurisdictions that refuse to
cooperate with DHS on enforcement of Federal law.'' I think you
are talking about sanctuary cities there?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rogers. Can you tell us briefly what kind of added
expense do you encounter when you have to go into an area that
is a sanctuary city or a county and they refuse to cooperate?
Secretary Nielsen. I will get you the figures, but it is
additional use of technology. It is certainly an additional use
of manpower. It is additional planning, additional
contingencies that are built in.
But in essence what it requires us to do is rather than
being able to take the criminal in a safe environment, which
would be the jail, we then require our agents to go out in to
the community putting themselves at risk but putting the
community at risk to be able to interdict, yet again
unfortunately, that criminal to be able to remove them.
Mr. Rogers. Well, if we can get our heads around that added
cost, I want this committee to consider legislation that would
force those sanctuary cities to reimburse the Department for
those added expenses that they are imposing on you.
With that, my time has expired. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating, is
recognized.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary for being here. You said in your
opening remarks that you are trying to create a culture of
preparedness. In response to Congressman King's questioning,
you said you want to build up a greater capability for emerging
threats.
You know we will never know where the emerging threats may
come from with surety, but we are pretty sure we know where the
response to those threats are coming from. Those responses are
coming from our front line. In fact, in my years here on the
committee, I often ask, you know, what is the important aspect
to our homeland security, and the answer almost always is our
front-line responders.
That being said, this budget does not reflect that
commitment to preparedness at all in terms of those responders.
There is cuts to the State, the Homeland Security Grants that
States like Massachusetts, my State, use of $157 million, the
Urban Area Security Initiatives, which were so critical in the
Boston Marathon bombing and the response in cities like New
York, cut $180 million.
The Transit Security Grants which is a target of great
concern given what has happened in other parts of the world
were cut $64 million. The Emergency Performance Grants, $70
million. The funds to our local fire departments, front-line
responders have been cut. So if you could, tell us how cutting
this kind of funding helps America be safer?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir. So grants are part of a
holistic approach to help State and locals prepare as you know.
So as I mentioned earlier, it was actually the National
Institute of Building Sciences that released the report. But $1
on the front end saves us $6 on the backend. So that is what we
mean by culture of preparedness. It is capacity building. We do
a lot of that through programs that are a direct distribution
of funds.
We help with exercises, we help with training. We do have
money in the budget for equipment through our CWMD office to
provide detection and training for those particular threats. We
have money in the budget for NPPD to help State and local
officials as well as critical infrastructure owners and
operators in cybersecurity. We continue to invest in--to
provide additional----
Mr. Keating. No, I understand that, Madam Secretary. But,
you know, why are you cutting where we know with certainty the
response is coming from?
Secretary Nielsen. So I----
Mr. Keating. Those are wonderful things.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Keating. But----
Secretary Nielsen. But those do that. The----
Mr. Keating. But these are the first responders----
Secretary Nielsen. Right. But that is what the----
Mr. Keating. That are going to be there.
Secretary Nielsen. That is what all those programs do. They
help local communities and first responders be ready to
respond.
Mr. Keating. But these are tried and tested.
Secretary Nielsen. Exercises and training.
Mr. Keating. And save lives.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, they are.
Mr. Keating. Those things that I mentioned have all saved
lives. So with a culture of preparedness with emerging threats,
how is that greater? How are we safer with that?
Those are critical monies to police, fire that they cannot
do on their own. It includes regional kind of preparedness. So
I will leave it with that. But I am concerned, and I think I am
not alone on this committee on both of the aisle in terms of
that concern because we have seen the effectiveness.
If I could shift very quickly, one other area. President
Trump in his private life, even though he is President, he
continues in his private life and his private business life to
take advantage of H-2B visas for his personal businesses. They
are there for him. They are not there for everyone right now
because of the demand.
I represent a seasonal area where small businesses really
rely on this. Under the Bush administration, they merely raised
the cap. Under the Obama administration, they raised the cap
several times in the past responding to this demand.
But you have had the opportunity to deal with it, and the
small businesses in my district are telling me that the way
that rolled out last year, the regulations, the uncertainty,
the burdens on a small business were so great that they did not
even dare and they were being advised by their own attorneys
even not to enter into it.
Now could you tell us the time frame for acting on these
additional H-2B visas? The clock is ticking and businesses are
losing money. American jobs are being hurt by this because by
not hiring a full complement of workers, they are closing down
for weeks that they would normally be open. Days that they
would be open. So it is hurting American jobs as well.
Why if we are going to roll this out, why could not we just
do what President Bush did, what President Obama did and just
raise the cap on returning workers? Those are the safest
workers. You do not see returning workers overstaying their
visas. We have a problem with that in other visas.
But these are people that have a history of working, by the
way, paying into Social Security, and have a benefits that they
are going to realize. Going home and then coming back. They are
safe. This is tried and tested. This is common sense.
Why cannot the Department simply have the cap raised on
returning workers and deal with this in a timely fashion, and
not leave so many revenues that would be important for our
economy wasted and lost? Now, it does not affect the President
but it is affecting people in my district. Could you----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir. So as you know we did raise
the cap last year. I worked into----
Mr. Keating. Yes, but excuse me. But----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Keating. I told you what my businesses are telling me
loud and clear. Many of them would not even take advantage of
it because supposedly a pro-business friendly administration
made it so uncertain and they would not even dare try. They
just shut down for weeks. So----
Secretary Nielsen. Sure.
Mr. Keating. I know you did it last year. I am asking you--
--
Secretary Nielsen. No, I----
Mr. Keating. Not to do it the same way this year.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. So the reg is done. The reg
actually was a result of talking to many Members who have a
concern in their district, and the concern was that the visas
were being given to those who are not seasonal workers. We
unfortunately have seen an increase in fraud, so what the reg
was meant to do was to get----
Mr. Keating. Again, excuse me. But that is an enforcement
issue. So the answer to better enforcement----
Secretary Nielsen. No, no, no, it is not enforcement----
Mr. Keating. Is these are better enforcement is not to
scuttle the program, not to make it ineffective.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. Right.
Mr. Keating. It is to do better in enforcement. You know,
the clock is ticking.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, I would ask Congress to act. I mean
I personally worked into the wee hours of night to try to get
this addressed in the omnibus. It is Congress' job to legislate
immigration. I have asked repeatedly for you to put the cap in
law and for you to put in law that returning workers that come
back----
Mr. Keating. Excuse me, again, if I could amplify that.
Secretary Nielsen. Sure.
Mr. Keating. Eighty-nine Members, bipartisan Members that
signed a letter asking the leadership to do that. Now they did
not. They gave you the authority again as they did before. But
within that authority, you still have the ability to do it.
So----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. So the visas should be----
Mr. Keating. So I am asking you to do it.
Secretary Nielsen. The visas should be----
Mr. Keating. And act in a timely way and a way that
businesses can take advantage of this.
Secretary Nielsen. I agree. There is no reason to have a
visa program that puts Americans' businesses out of business.
That is not the intention.
Mr. Keating. Well----
Secretary Nielsen. We are working, we should have it----
Mr. Keating. If you could get back to me on that, I would
really appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry is recognized.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, you have a tough job, and we appreciate
your service. I got four questions. I am going to try and ask
them all, and there is a little narrative with each one for
context, and then I am going to let you answer and try and be
respectful of everybody's time.
Some cases in the past including Iraqi refugees living in
Bowling Green were arrested in 2011 and a Saudi immigrant
living in Oklahoma arrested in February of this year
demonstrate how individuals have been able to make it through
DHS vetting despite being associated with terror groups.
In both of these cases, derogatory information was then
later discovered in DOD databases showing that the men in both
cases were linked to al-Qaeda. Ensuring the battlefield data is
available for DHS vetting is essential for Homeland Security.
The question is essentially will the proposed National
Vetting Center created by this administration in February of
this year prioritize addressing this vetting vulnerability, and
how you feel about that, if you think that is going to be
adequate?
Question No. 2, what is DHS doing to collect DNA from non-
U.S. persons being detained under the United States laws,
understanding that there is a requirement that the collection
of the DNA from detainees to send to CODIS for law enforcement
purposes?
Question No. 3, many Americans hope we end the catch-and-
release program, but it seems the current ICE parole policy is
almost a definition of catch-and-release, and that parole
policy is not codified in law. That was enacted under the last
administration and can be un-enacted so to speak under the
current administration.
People with valid claims of asylum should receive it, but
those who claim it unlawfully should not be paroled into our
country where we rely on those individuals who were unlawful
and dishonest to willingly reappear or appear at a hearing.
Then question No. 4, I have the privilege of chairing the
Oversight Management and Efficiency Subcommittee. As the name
might suggest, one of the roles is to look into what sort of
financial waste could be eliminated in DHS.
In this Congress we have held hearings on the consolidation
of St. Elizabeth's campus, integration and updating of
financial systems for some of the components at DHS, which is
currently, I might add, undergoing its fourth iteration and
failure. Some of the cumbersome character fitness examinations
processes that contractors undergo before they can work on some
project.
Here is the problem, ma'am, none of these things are
particularly headline-grabbing topics. They are not real sexy.
While I know that the country has, and you have much bigger
fish to fry, they remain systemic problems year after year.
I am just wondering, you know, let us just pick like--if we
look at the individual disparate parts, they all seem to be
doing their job and doing it fairly well, but the integration
component where leadership is required to bring them together
never seems to somehow come through.
The question is this, does the agency have benchmarks in
that regard for Congress to evaluate not only integration but
some of these other problems and the successes? I stand ready
to re-ask any of those questions if you have not gotten them.
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you. In the National Vetting
Center, the short answer is yes. That is exactly what it is
created to do, it is to use both high-side information and
information from our allies to help us continuously screen
those who seek benefits. As you say, unfortunately, sometimes
between the initial screening and the granting of a status or a
benefit, additional information comes to light that would
necessitate us changing the original determination. So----
Mr. Perry. We know it is hard to be perfect. But we----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. No, that is not----
Mr. Perry. We want to strive for that, right?
Secretary Nielsen. You know, we continue to expand so
called HSPD-6 agreements, which is an agreement with a foreign
country to provide known and suspected terrorist lists. We have
over 60 now. We continue to work with all of our allies to
implement the U.N. Security Council 2396, which as you know
would include that transmission of, you know, passenger name
record information.
The second one, the DNA. So yes, it is required in law, but
as you also know, a waiver was signed between then-Attorney
General Holder and then-Secretary Napolitano exempting most of
DHS from that.
Mr. Perry. But don't we want to side on law enforcement and
collect that DNA while we have those people? I mean I know
there is a waiver, but shouldn't we----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. So we are working with the attorney
general currently to form a pilot to start doing that, to start
collecting the DNA so that we do have----
Mr. Perry. When do you have an expected start date?
Secretary Nielsen. We are working on the pilot right now,
so I can get back to you----
Mr. Perry. Oh, the pilot is occurring right now?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir. Well, we are in the planning
stages and we are doing it in batches. So as you know, some of
it is the processing, we want to make sure the chain of
custody. And----
Mr. Perry. OK. Yes.
Secretary Nielsen. But, yes, happy to get right back to you
on that.
Mr. Perry. I want to keep the conversation open on that.
Secretary Nielsen. You got it.
Mr. Perry. All right?
Secretary Nielsen. The third one, ICE parole. So we have
eliminated what we call administrative catch-and-release, which
I believe is what you are talking about.
Mr. Perry. So you come and you claim a credible fear,
right?
Secretary Nielsen. Oh, I am sorry. OK.
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Secretary Nielsen. So if you claim a credible fear, you do
then go into the asylum process. If it is deemed that you have
a credible fear, you then go through an immigration judge and
go through the----
Mr. Perry. Right, right. But in the past there was not the
parole situation, right? So you claimed a credible fear, we
detained you to determine, really, do you have a credible fear?
If you did not then it was essentially fraudulent, and then we
had the opportunity to send you back to wherever you came from
because that was erroneous, right?
But now people know that they can claim a credible fear. We
will parole you, right? You are released out into our country
and then we never see you again. We do not know whether you had
a credible fear.
It seems like the current parole policy is actually a
magnet. People know that, and they know they can just come and
claim it and they will be paroled, and they will never have to
answer for that parole. That is what I think most of my
constituents that are interested in ending catch-and-release
are concerned about.
Secretary Nielsen. Understood. Part of that is detention
bed capacity. So if you are not a flight risk, there are a
limited number of people who are provided essentially
monitoring ankle bracelets so that we can track them in
different systems when we detain them and we do not have those
beds.
Mr. Perry. Do you need more money for ankle bracelets? Is
that----
Secretary Nielsen. Oh, we need more money for detention
beds. The numbers keep going up and----
Mr. Perry. Can we use the ankle bracelets if you are going
to detain--if you are going to parole these people? Is that
viable? Is it not viable? Do they take them off? Or what is the
story there?
Secretary Nielsen. They can evade them, yes, sir. So it
does help us. It is not a silver bullet. But in terms of
numbers and if we need more, happy to get back to you on
specific----
Mr. Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Secretary Nielsen. Numbers on that. The last one was St.
E's, but more broadly integration. You know, Unity of Effort
should not be a--it is not a destination. It is a constant
endeavor. We have developed some benchmarks internally.
Everything from measurements to performance controls, internal
controls to work on joint task force to eliminate
inefficiencies. Happy to give you more some stuff on that.
Mr. Perry. Yes, can we get that information?
Secretary Nielsen. Happy to.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, ma'am.
I yield, sir.
Chairman McCaul. Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I apologize,
initially, I was not sure I recognized. But when they brought
up the Norway--you not knowing Norway was a Caucasian country,
then I remember. I knew who you were. We have had----
Secretary Nielsen. You know, that is a funny one. I am very
proud of my heritage but I am an American. All Scandinavian
countries are not the same. I was not going to, the way the
question was asked, testify under oath to something that I
cannot guarantee was right.
Mr. Payne. I understand.
Secretary Nielsen. So I am not really sure why that became
a story. I do not know why it would be a requirement of the
Secretary of Homeland Secretary to know the racial makeup of
every country. I do not use screening based on race, religion,
or creed. But thank you for raising that again, sir.
Mr. Payne. As we have had to do in other committees,
reclaiming my time, I would think that it--I just saying how I
remember who you were and identify related with that. Let me
ask you also, since we are on the topic, the wall is something
that seems very important to many people in this country, would
you agree?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Payne. Who is going to pay for it?
Secretary Nielsen. The President continues to ask Congress
to appropriate, and so we thank you for the funds this year. As
you know we have $1.6 billion requested in 2019.
Mr. Payne. But during the campaign, who was going to pay
for it?
Secretary Nielsen. I cannot speak to the campaign, sir. But
right now we have given you are budget request.
Mr. Payne. No, I will tell you. I did not even watch that
much. Mexico was going to pay for the wall. How much have we
gotten from Mexico for the wall?
Secretary Nielsen. We have, as I said, continued to work
with you all to request money in the budget to build the wall
system.
Mr. Payne. Not Mexico?
Secretary Nielsen. We have requested the money from
Congress through the appropriations process.
Mr. Payne. OK. Well, I heard a lot about Mexico paying for
it. I just wanted to be clear.
You know, there are a lot of issues in TSA with low morale.
I can see why. What are you doing in terms of looking at this
issue in your organization, you know, when it comes to employee
satisfaction, with their job, their pay, organization, and
their willingness to recommend their organization as a good
place to work?
Secretary Nielsen. I think morale is a multifaceted issue,
one that we must take very--it is very critical. We must look
at it very importantly. I think helping to understand the
mission and your part in the mission is part one of morale.
Making sure that you have the training, that you understand
what is available to you for retirement. Understanding the
mobility that you might have within an organization. These are
all things that are important.
Communications from leadership I find to be very important.
I do not expect employees to learn about things in the news. I
hope to always keep them in the loop and help them to
understand what it is that we do on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Payne. There seems to be question of consistency in
training new TSA officers, TSOs, as opposed to old TSOs not
getting the same training, and therefore creating gaps in the
system which they are working in.
Also issues around, you know, not enough TSOs that they can
even take bathroom breaks where I have even had a report of a
TSO having an accident on herself because they were not allowed
to leave their post. Now that is going, you know, you know, a
bit too far where, you know, people cannot do bodily functions
because they are not allowed to leave their post. That is
something I think that really needs to be looked into and
addressed.
We have to make this situation where people want to come to
work. They are on the front lines. They are doing difficult
work with people that are not necessarily always patient with
the processes we have to go through in order make sure that
they are safe.
So there is a lot of stress on these officers, and so we
need to do what we can to identify ways of making this
circumstance a little more palatable for them throughout the
course of their shift.
I see my time is up, and I will yield back.
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, if you could provide me the name of
that employee, I am happy to personally look into that. That is
not an acceptable situation.
Mr. Payne. Yes, yes. I was shocked by that myself. So I
will try to get that information to you.
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Katko, is recognized.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony today and it is good to have
you before the committee. I do, however, want to echo the
sentiments of my colleague earlier today, the Ranking Minority
Member because it is a problem that preceded you at the agency
and that is basically ignoring deadlines, both statutory and
our Congressional deadlines.
I was a Federal prosecutor for 20 years and I would not
dare ignore a deadline set by a court, and I see the same
obligation with respect to your agency.
We had a similar problem with respect to TSA, and we have
had some very frank discussions on my subcommittee, Oversight,
of the TSA. I dare say that they have improved dramatically
with respect to honoring deadlines.
The culture that preceded you nevertheless is under you,
watch now, and I would implore you to follow the deadlines. I
do not think they are optional and I do not think responses
such as we will get back to you are acceptable. I think that
that is a bipartisan feeling and especially when it is a
statutory deadline. That is law.
I would ask that you treat that with less cavalierly and
understand that those are deadlines that should be answered.
Now----
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, if I could.
Mr. Katko. Yes.
Secretary Nielsen. I apologize if I misspoke earlier. All I
was trying to suggest is that I cannot give you today a
specific date, so I would get back to you on giving you a
specific date. I completely understand what you are saying and
you have my commitment to work not only with TSA but throughout
the Department to meet all statutory deadlines.
Mr. Katko. That is all we are asking. Thank you very much.
Secretary Nielsen. I understand.
Mr. Katko. Now, switching gears, with respect to the
border, and I have spent a lot of time down there as a Federal
prosecutor in El Paso going after cartel-level members and I
saw the border for that sieve that it is.
But I also spend a significant amount of my time as a
prosecutor on the Northern Border, and I think it routinely
does not get the attention that it deserves. About 95 to 96
percent of the Northern Border is unsecure. I was just
wondering how much time have you spent analyzing issue and
whether you have had any--whether you have taken a look at the
Northern Border threat assessment that was recently done?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, and as you know, what comes after
that is the Northern Border Security Strategy which we hope to
release shortly. We do spend a lot of time talking about the
Southwest Border. But we do have issues on the Northern Border.
I was just in Canada Monday/Tuesday talking to my
counterparts there about ways in which we can coordinate better
on some of the unique aspects on that Northern Border. But,
yes, we need to keep that in mind always.
Mr. Katko. Thank you very much. Switching gears again,
during my oversight at TSA, we have had much discussion with
the Chairman here as well as others about having the updated
technology.
We all know the bad guys are getting more advanced with
their technologies especially with respect to aviation and it
is quite concerning. We also believe, and I think you will
agree, that the CT scanners are a new generation of helping to
ameliorate that threat.
Not only does it help ameliorate the threat, it really
would expedite throughput at airports which is always a
concern, especially coming with the high travel season coming.
There are about 2,500 X-ray machines Nation-wide, and if
you replace all those with CTs, what we are doing this year is
really kind of a drop in the bucket. We have asked TSA, and I
do not know if they are spoke with you yet, about examining
whether we should reprogram some of that money from other areas
of Homeland Security to plow that into getting more of these CT
scanners up and running.
I say that because we saw them first-hand, myself and my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle here on a delegation to
Europe. They are already on the front lines there. They are
already being used there.
I understand the need to test these things, but there must
be an expedited way to test them when they are already being
used overseas. By the way, they are American companies and they
are ready to provide these to you. No. 1, the delay. But No. 2,
more importantly, the reprogramming of that money, if you can
look into where you can--about reprogramming from other areas
of Homeland Security I think it would be a really prudent thing
to do.
Secretary Nielsen. Just to answer quickly. So as you know
we did that in 2017. The current plan is if TSA is working as
quickly as they can with industry to deploy them, and if in
fact they are able to deploy the ones that we have
appropriated, we will look to reprogram as we have done before.
Mr. Katko. Thank you very much. Last, with respect to TSA,
there seems to be an on-going practice here, and we have tried
hard both in this committee and in my subcommittee to try and
stop TSA from having people go through PreCheck lines when they
are not PreCheck registered. The PreCheck is a known and
trusted traveler-type program, and it is there for a reason
because you minimize a risk because of our involvement in a
PreCheck.
The practice started as managed inclusion, then they had
body detection officers and they were throwing people into that
lane that they should not have been. Now that we told them they
cannot do managed inclusion, they cannot do some of the things
they are doing, they are just basically calling it by a
different name.
We have made it clear to TSA that we are going to introduce
some legislation to make it mandatory that you not do that. But
I just wondered have you had any discussions with the
administrator at TSA about this PreCheck problem?
Secretary Nielsen. Not this specific problem, no, sir. But
PreCheck as you say should be reserved to those who qualify for
PreChecks. I will work with the administrator on that.
Mr. Katko. I am very glad to hear that and I thank you very
much for your time.
I yield back Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields back.
Gentlelady from New Jersey, Ms. Watson Coleman, is
recognized.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, is this budget your budget?
Secretary Nielsen. This----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Did you have anything--did you have
any input in this budget?
Secretary Nielsen. We did, yes, ma'am. So the men and women
of DHS put together their request.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. OK.
Secretary Nielsen. It goes all the way up if you will.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So this happened under your watch too?
Secretary Nielsen. This----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. All right.
Secretary Nielsen. The 2019 budget, well----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So, you know----
Secretary Nielsen. As you know, I joined in December so we
were already well into the budget----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I think our greatest value statement
is where we are putting our resources, and I am not just 100
percent sure that there is a consistency between where your
people or your budget applies its resources and its ability to
keep this homeland safe.
With regard to land transportation issues, there is a
reduction in the security grants. There is a reduction in the
VIPR teams, there is a reduction or elimination of the Law
Enforcement Officers grants. There is a reduction in the exit
lane staffing. TSO staffing still is somewhere around 2,500
people short.
I do not know how that helps us to be more secure in those
areas where we are supposed to be. I do not understand where we
are addressing the fact that our subways and our land
transportation areas are soft targets and are being targeted.
So I am going to ask that you respond to how this budget,
in writing to me because I have got a lot of questions, how
these particular issues that I raised are a reflection of more
security for our homeland.
I want to know the difference or I want to know if there is
a difference between refugees and illegal immigrants as far as
you are concerned. I want to know is there a written statement
as to what our U.S. policy is on people who are fleeing very
dangerous countries, or very oppressive countries, or famine,
or whatever versus other types of people who are coming over
because I get the sense that we are locking them together.
I am particularly interested in this caravan that is
reaching our borders. I got the impression that we think of
them as illegal immigrants who are going to come to our border
and then we are going to detain them, these are women and
children.
Yet, we know who is in that caravan. If we really wanted to
know if there is any danger in that caravan, you would have the
capacity right now to be vetting some of those people. So I
want to understand what your policy is going to be when it
comes to that caravan actually coming to our borders willingly
acknowledging that they are here and why they are here and what
they are looking for. So I would like you to answer that in
writing.
I want to understand this policy that we have where since,
I guess it is December or October 2017, we have taken more than
700 children away from their families, 100 of those children
were under the age of 4, and they have been taken from their
parents in immigration detention. I want to know how that makes
our country safer and more secure.
I want to know what our policy is with regards to dealing
with the trauma that that must inflict upon both these
children, these babies and these children, and as well as their
families.
I have a question with regard to the Secret Service, I sent
a letter asking you all to explain to us the cost associated
with protecting the Trump kids going around the world doing
Trump business. I need to have an answer to that question.
I want to associate myself with Mr. Katko because I was up
there on the Northern Border and a lot of concerns were
expressed with regard to trafficking as well as drugs, opioids
in particular. It just seems to me that we think that we have
this responsibility to the Southern Border and not to any of
the other areas.
I guess the last thing I need to understand from you in
writing is explain how we are justifying putting additional
resources down on the Southern Border, particularly in the form
of our National Guard when all of the data that we have been
receiving, even data coming from your office is that there has
been quite a significant diminishment of people coming across
the border.
So what is the justification for putting more people and
ramping up the Southern Border as opposed to shoring up some of
our other targets, our soft targets? I mean is there really a
rationale? Or is this just campaign promises being fulfilled
that has absolutely no anchoring in logic or consideration of
where our tax dollars are going?
I see that I am over my time, so, Madam Secretary, I would
just appreciate it if I could get the answers to all of my
questions in writing.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I just would like to acknowledge that I
do have two foster daughters here today, Amina and Lauren who
are observing democracy in action. Thank you very much.
Chairman McCaul. Oh, and welcome to the----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Welcome to the committee to your step-
daughters. Very nice.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms.
McSally.
Ms. McSally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Nielsen, good to see you again.
Secretary Nielsen. Good to see you.
Ms. McSally. Earlier this week, Yuma Sector Border Patrol
apprehended 61 people who entered the United States illegally.
During an initial interview, one of these individuals claimed
to be an unaccompanied minor. He later admitted he was an adult
and a part of the MS-13 gang.
UACs from El Salvador and other Central American countries
are given different treatment than those from Mexico or other
contiguous countries, or Canada, and are allowed to remain in
the Unites States only to disappear into the shadows.
We also have some other data points, as you know, that in a
joint DHS/DOJ MS-13 operation last year, of the 267 gang
members arrested, approximately 25 percent entered the United
States as unaccompanied minors. In June 2017, a spot check of
one of the HHS facilities that had 138 teens being held, 39 of
them, roughly 30 percent, had ties to MS-13 and other gangs.
Is it, in your view, MS-13 is actually using the loopholes
in our law in order to send individuals to the United States?
There is about 10,000 members of MS-13 estimated in the United
States, and their motto is to kill, rape, and control. I just
want to hear your perspective on what is going on with MS-13
and how they are using these loopholes in order to further
endanger communities around our country.
Secretary Nielsen. We see them starting in their countries
of origin. They recruit young children. They train them. They
train them how to be smuggled across our border, how to then
join up with gang members in the United States.
We similarly see gang presence within the United States
reaching back down into countries within Central America and
recruiting and also providing instruction. We see smugglers
increasingly smuggle specific to MS-13. We see all of the
resulting effects of that from violence in general across the
border, but also the drugs and other illicit things that go
with that smuggling.
Ms. McSally. Thank you. So I mean, these loopholes we are
talking about are very real, right, because you are saying the
MS-13 gang members that are here are recruiting minors and they
know that they will be able to be let into the United States.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Ms. McSally. Others, probably that are adults, they either,
like in this case, try and pretend they are minors or they tell
them to say the right words, right? I have a credible fear.
Secretary Nielsen. That is right.
Ms. McSally. But then what is happening is they are then
being released with a future court date that they never show up
for, right?
Secretary Nielsen. That is right, we estimate we only have
3.5 percent of UACs that are eventually removed because they do
not show up.
Ms. McSally. So, you know, closing these loopholes is
paramount for security, for our National security, for our
public safety. The bill that Chairman McCaul and I have that we
have been working diligently with you on, that I know you
support, closes these loopholes.
I just really want to urge our colleagues that we have to
bring some form of our bill to the floor. This is just one of
the many issues----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Ms. McSally. That we are addressing in that bill to close
these loopholes. This is not partisan. This is a public safety,
local community, and important security issue that we are
trying to address and specifically highlighting this gang
issue.
So we also saw in California, according to DHS, 100 gang
members, many of which belong to MS-13, were recently released
from October 2016 to June 27 because of their sanctuary
policies in California.
So you have these gang members and other violent felons,
violent criminals, that because of the dangerous policies of
California, these individuals are being released back into our
communities to be a further danger to our communities instead
of being handed over to Federal authorities in prison where it
is safer for the community and safer for your agents. Can you
just speak to specifically the dangers of that and what needs
to be done?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. So sanctuary cities began as a
sanctuary for victims, as you know. What they have become over
time, unfortunately, is a very contorted version of that which
is a sanctuary for criminals, and we need to be very clear
about that.
Sanctuary city protects criminals. It is not protecting the
community. So as I mentioned earlier, what it requires us to do
is send our agents not moving from a controlled environment
back into the communities, putting that community at risk and
other immigrants in that community that are not serious felons
and putting my officers and agents at risk.
It does not make any sense. It is a way in which we are
pitting blue against blue, Federal law enforcement against
State law enforcement where we should all be working together
to protect our communities.
Ms. McSally. Great. Thank you for clarifying that, again,
because sometimes this gets misunderstood by people as to what
the real impact is. Again, cracking down on these sanctuary
cities is also in Chairman McCaul's and I bill--in our bill and
we look forward to working to move that forward.
I fully support the National Guard being deployed to
support border security at the Southern Border. I represent a
Southern Border district. Can you just touch on how it is going
so far? We would love to have you back to Arizona, would love
to host you there in order to be able to talk to the ranchers,
local residents, and see how things are going down at the
border.
Secretary Nielsen. Well, thank you for the invite. I try to
get to the border whenever I can. It is very important to learn
from the people there who are on the front lines of what works
and does not work.
The National Guard, we have about 1,000 deployed. We have
around 600 actually active at the, you know, within the border
communities. What they are doing is they are supporting CBP so
that we have more badges on the border so CBP can go and do
their law enforcement mission. So they are helping us with
surveillance, intelligence, fleet maintenance, road clearing,
all of the enabling functions that helps CBP to do what CBP
needs to do.
Ms. McSally. Great. Thank you. I am over my time. I yield
back.
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Gentlelady's time has expired.
I did meet with the Orange County Sherriff. It was of
interest to me with sanctuary cities. While they are barred by
their State law, they do put the ICE detainees on a website
that is then used publicly so ICE can make the safe transfer of
the prisoner to ICE custody without releasing that criminal
alien into the streets. I think that is very innovative.
With that, the Chair recognizes gentlelady from New York,
Miss Rice.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Nielsen. Good morning.
Miss Rice. I have three questions I will lay out for you
and hopefully I am going to do it quickly so you can answer. So
my first question is what is your personal opinion in your
capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security on whether Russia
interfered in our elections in 2016, and the likelihood that
they will continue their attack on our democracy in 2018 and
beyond? That is No. 1.
No. 2 is earlier this month, USCIS released internal
documents pertaining to the decisions and temporary protected
status for Haiti. The agency's report stated that many of the
conditions in Haiti that prompted the 2010 original TPS
designation remained and that country was still vulnerable.
So despite this report, Director Lee Cissna wrote to then-
Acting Secretary, Elaine Duke, that Haiti had made enough
progress and no longer met the conditions of the TPS
designations. So my two questions are why did Director Cissna,
if you know, make that recommendation which was clearly in
conflict with his own agency's internal findings, No. 1?
No. 2, are there any similar internal reports from USCIS on
the TPS designation for El Salvador? If so, if you could
provide those documents to this committee?
My last question, when you testified before the House
Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee earlier this
month, you committed to ensuring that, and this is a quote from
you, ``Any pregnant woman in our care in detention receives
adequate care based on the recent change to ICE's policy on
detaining pregnant women.''
So three questions, which detention facilities currently
offer prenatal care? Can you define for me what DHS's
definition of, ``adequate care'' is, and how you as the
Secretary intend to ensure each pregnant woman receives it? How
will you hold detention centers and individuals accountable?
Finally, what steps, specifically, are you taking to ensure
that ICE is meeting the assurances that you made?
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you. So on Russia, yes, I do not
think there is any question. Russia did interfere in our
election system through a variety of means. As you know, they
released everything from e-mails to foreign influence
techniques, used our social media to try to manipulate public
opinion. They did, in fact, attempt to undermine our elections
by attacking our election infrastructure.
I have no doubt they will continue to try to do this. It is
a priority of mine. The portion that we play is to protect--
help the State and locals, they have the primary responsibility
in protecting the critical infrastructure related to elections,
so we will continue to do that.
On TPS Haiti, TPS decisions require us under law to look
at, and maybe this is what you are referencing, the originating
conditions that necessitated the designation of TPS. If those
specific conditions no longer exist, the statute requires us to
terminate TPS because it was meant to be a temporary program.
So I am not particularly familiar with the backup work that
you referenced. But I can just say broadly, unfortunately, what
that means is some countries remain, perhaps unstable and have
difficult conditions, but if they are not a result of the
originating designation, that designation must be terminated.
But----
Miss Rice. I would ask if you could just look into that a
little because it----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Miss Rice. Seemed very clear that the report State--or they
say many of the conditions. I do not know if one does not exist
that means that it is over, but that seems pretty arbitrary. So
if you could just, you know, look for me.
Secretary Nielsen. I will. I will. I will look into it.
With respect to your question for documents regarding to El
Salvador, of course, we will be happy to provide any relevant
ones.
Neonatal care, so I do take this very seriously. As I
mentioned in my last hearing, we do screen for pregnancy for
women ages 18 to 56. We put them in a center, if they must be
detained, that does provide the neonatal care. I will get you
the names of the specific detention.
We provide counseling and we provide access to outside
experts. If they seek additional medical guidance or
prescriptions or other things they need that we cannot provide,
we give them that option.
In terms of how I am making sure they do that, I have had
many conversations with the director. We have audits in place.
We are taking this very seriously. I just would ask, as I did
then, if you have any concerns or specific examples of when
that is not occurring to please let me know and we will take
that very seriously.
Miss Rice. I will do that. Thank you. I appreciate you
following up as we discussed. Thank you very much for the
service.
I would just like to note that I think I am the only person
that stayed under 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. I appreciate it.
Miss Rice. Thank you for that, Secretary.
Chairman McCaul. Congratulations. Thank you so much for
that.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Donovan.
Mr. Donovan. I thank you, Miss Rice.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I would ask
unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter from the
Jewish Federations of North America discussing the importance
of the Not-for-Profit Security Grant program, a program that
has made a big difference to the not-for-profits in my
district.
Chairman McCaul. Without objections, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter Submitted by Honorable Daniel M. Donovan
April 25, 2018.
The Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr.,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and
Communications, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515.
The Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr.,
Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Donovan and Ranking Member Payne: We thank you and
the members of the Subcommittee, for holding this week's hearing on the
current terrorism threat to our Nation's high-risk metropolitan areas
and the importance of FEMA's Preparedness Grant Programs to these
cities and communities. We would like to take this opportunity to draw
attention to the particular threat concerns of the Nonprofit Sector and
the importance of the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to our security.
According to the joint statement of Joseph J. Esposito, the
Commissioner of the New York City Department of Emergency Management,
John Miller, the Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence and
Counterterrorism for the New York Police Department, and Joseph W.
Pfeifer, the Chief of Counterterrorism and Emergency Preparedness for
the Fire Department of New York City, ``More than any other place in
the world, New York City remains in the crosshairs of violent
terrorists.'' In describing the terrorist plots targeting NYC since
September 11, 2001, they noted that major synagogues were targeted.
They further testified that while deterrence has kept New York City
safe, ``the specter of an attack is forever present'' and the work
``cannot happen without the assistance and aid of the Federal
Government.''
Similarly, Jared M. Maples, Director of the New Jersey Office of
Homeland Security and Preparedness, testified that mass gathering
locations are often the primary targets of terrorists looking to cause
as much harm as possible, and that a whole community approach is
necessary ``to demonstrably reduce the risk of successful attacks on
soft targets.'' This is not a new threat concern. To his point, in
February 2002, the Associated Press published a translated al-Qaeda
training manual that was spirited out of Afghanistan. The manual
prescribed that special terror units should work in areas with large
Jewish communities: ``In every country, we should hit their
organizations, institutions, clubs and hospitals.'' It read further,
``The targets must be identified, carefully chosen and include their
largest gatherings so that any strike should cause thousands of
deaths.''
Today, the threat picture is no less disconcerting. According to a
recent audit conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, there were at
least 1,986 anti-Semitic incidents perpetrated throughout the United
States in 2017 (many additional incidents are presumed unreported).
This amounted to an increase of 57 percent over the number of incidents
reported in 2016, constituted the largest single-year increase on
record, and was the second-highest number reported since the Anti-
Defamation League began tracking such data in 1979. Moreover, for the
first time in nearly a decade an incident occurred in every U.S. State,
targeting Jewish schools, community centers, synagogues, cemeteries,
museums, public spaces, and private businesses and property. According
to the audit, the highest number of incidents took place in New York
(380 incidents), and the third-highest number of incidents took place
in New Jersey (208).
While the majority of religious-bias threats to the Nonprofit
Sector continue to target the Jewish community, mosques, churches and
other faith and communal organizations are high-value ``soft'' targets,
as well. Along with the Jewish community, these other vulnerable
communities have too frequently been the victims of arson and fire
bombing, shooting and mass shooting, attempted bombing, assault, death
threats, vandalism, property damage, and other incidents that have
occurred just during the 115th Congress.
With this overview as a backdrop, we are grateful to FEMA Grant
Programs Directorate Assistant Administrator Thomas DiNanno for his
testimony, which called attention to the significance of the Nonprofit
Security Grant Program to its stakeholders, and illustrated the
program's value toward improving the Nation's readiness in preventing,
protecting against, and responding to terrorist attacks targeting the
Nonprofit Sector.
In step with the testimony of Assistant Administrator DiNanno and
the panel of New York and New Jersey counterterrorism experts, the
threat picture for faith-based and other communal nonprofit
institutions is considerable and justifies Congress's continued strong
support for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program as a critical
component of FEMA's Preparedness Grant Programs.
Thank you for your consideration of our views and for your
continued support for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Goldberg
Senior Director, Legislative Affairs.
Mr. Donovan. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, I hate to do this to you, but everybody
has been asking you for questions answered in writing, and I
have to actually go into the Speaker's chair in about 4 minutes
to open up the legislative business. So I would just like to
lay out my questions and ask you to do so as well.
Earlier this week, my subcommittee held a field hearing in
my district which focused on the importance of Federal
counterterrorism support to high-risk urban areas like New York
City.
Witnesses representing law enforcement and first responders
in New York and New Jersey discussed the importance of
intelligence information sharing and the homeland security
grant programs to their operations. We must fully fund these
grant programs particularly in light of the evolving terrorist
threat.
Another topic of discussion at the hearing was the
difficulty in securing mass transit systems. The Transit
Security Grant program is vital to those efforts, but the
overall focus on surface transportation security programs
dwarfs that of aviation security.
Our witnesses expressed great concern about mass transit
security, and that is a concern I share especially in light of
the attempted bombing at the New York City Port Authority
Terminal in December. Can you please speak or write to us to
what more we can do to enhance the security of this
transportation mode? How is DHS supporting information sharing
when it comes to threats to mass transit?
My other question would be involving the Countering Weapons
of Mass Destruction Office. The President's budget request for
that office proposes changes to the Securing the Cities
program, a program that has proven very successful in New York
City.
We are hearing concerns from securing city jurisdictions
about proposed changes in permissible equipment, to whom the
equipment would be provided to, and the impact that would have
on the jurisdiction's ability to conduct radiological detection
in response operations. This committee has long supported the
Securing the City's program as it is currently operating, and
the House passed my legislation authorizing the program just
last year.
My three questions involving that would be what changes is
the Department proposing to the program? What outreach have you
done to participating jurisdictions to solicit their feedback?
How are you addressing the concerns that the Department is
receiving from securing the city's jurisdictions?
I thank you for your service to our Nation. I thank you for
answering my question. I thank you for indulging me. I have to
run.
Secretary Nielsen. OK.
Mr. Donovan. I yield back and, Mr. Chairman, I used less
time than Rice did.
Chairman McCaul. Yes. You yield back to, for the record, 2
minutes 15 seconds. That is a record I think. So thank you for
that.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Correa, who I notice brought in three or four children to the
hearing?
Mr. Correa. Yes.
Chairman McCaul. I want to welcome them as well.
Mr. Correa. Thank you. They are all our children. Those are
survivors of our veterans that made the ultimate sacrifice----
Chairman McCaul. Wow.
Mr. Correa. Fighting for our freedom around the world. So I
thought it was important for them to follow us here and shadow
us. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for pointing them
out.
Chairman McCaul. Yes, and thank you for bringing them.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for
holding this hearing.
Commissioner Nielsen, again, thank you for being here. I
wanted to follow up on some of the comments made by my
colleague, Mr. Katko, from New York. I represent California,
Orange County, California.
Our Nation's security is very important to my constituents
or the constituents to our State. These are issues that are
also very important to our taxpayers. Right now, as I travel
through our district, which is Democrat and very Republican as
well, I do not hear much talk about undocumented workers. As a
matter of fact, in Central Valley, I hear the need for more
farm workers.
Newport Beach area, I do not hear people talking about the
nannies that are undocumented. I do not see that as a
complaint. Then in Disneyland, our area is heavy in tourism, I
do not hear a lot of people complaining about the undocumented
workers, waiters, waitresses, and cooks.
But I will tell you what I do hear complaints about in my
district, and I think throughout the country, is this opioid
crisis. Some numbers have it as high as 500 percent increase in
usage throughout the Nation. Deaths have skyrocketed because of
the opioids.
So my question really is according to one of your DHS
reports, the Northern Border threat, you have more and more
fentanyl, ecstasy coming through Canada. What are we planning
to do in the, you know, Northern Border?
As Mr. Katko said, 95, 96 percent of that border is
essentially open. So any thoughts about where we are going in
terms of protecting our Northern Border?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. So as I mentioned, I just was
speaking with my colleague in Canada about this, so part of it
is the partnership on both sides to make sure that we
facilitate legal trade and travel, but that we reduce any
illicit activity including drugs. As you say, opioids continue
to be a problem throughout the Nation.
Mr. Correa. If I may?
Secretary Nielsen. Please.
Mr. Correa. What kind of partnerships do we have right now
with people north and south of the border?
Secretary Nielsen. They are strong. They are very strong
with the Canadians, yes, sir.
Mr. Correa. How about with the Mexicans?
Secretary Nielsen. The Mexicans, we have a strong
partnership as well.
Mr. Correa. OK. General Kelly, who was in your position
here a few months back, made some comments, and I agreed on to
the affect that if anything gets near our border we have
essentially lost a battle.
If we are going to stop terrorists, we have to work with
not only the Mexicans, not only the Canadians, but the
Brazilians and some Afghanis and some of the others. Are you
moving ahead and building those relationships through
formalized information-sharing agreements?
Secretary Nielsen. We are, absolutely. Yes.
Mr. Correa. So following up on that, we are looking at
building a border wall in the Mexican border. I presume we are
going to do something like that at the Northern Border as well?
Secretary Nielsen. Well, we are working with the Canadians,
so we still need the----
Mr. Correa. Are we going to build a Northern Border as
well?
Secretary Nielsen. In some places we need impedance and
denial, yes, sir.
Mr. Correa. So we are going to build a physical barrier as
well like the one we have seen on TV at the Southern Border?
Secretary Nielsen. We do not have a current plan right now
to build an equivalent structure that we have on the Southern
Border.
Mr. Correa. Let me ask you, and again, coming back to the
opioid issue, before this committee, this Homeland Security was
created, 30 years ago we had a lot of our drugs coming into
this country through Miami, through Florida. This country did a
great job of stopping those trades of illicit drugs through the
Caribbean.
What we did is we shifted it inland through Mexico. As a
result, we destabilized the whole country with our money that
went to buy drugs, weapons, so on and so forth. So as we cut
off the Mexico side, are they going to start flowing in through
Canada and are they start going in through our sea ports?
I say that to you because here, a few months back, our
Coast Guard commandant told us that a couple years ago they
identified about 600 known drug vessels bringing drugs into
this country, and the Coast Guard did not have the resources to
stop, to intercede, to stop those shipments.
So again, as a taxpayer, I am running out of time, my
question is, is the money best spent on a border wall, or is
it, you know, cooperating with the nations? Or if you had a
dollar, where would you spend it?
Secretary Nielsen. If I had a dollar? I think it needs to
be all of the above. I mean, the short answer would be----
Mr. Correa. But if you had a priority, ma'am?
Secretary Nielsen. If we have a priority, we have to secure
our Southern Border, sir. That is where we see the greatest
threat between the two borders.
Mr. Correa. The threat in terms of?
Secretary Nielsen. Drug smuggling, terrorist, traffickers,
illicit activity, and violence.
Mr. Correa. Mr. Chair, I am out of time but I would like to
have written information on that----
Secretary Nielsen. Sure.
Mr. Correa. Compared to what is coming through Canada and
through the ports. Mr. Chair, I yield time.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is recognized.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I appreciate you appearing before myself
and my colleagues today. Thank you for your service to our
country. I am concerned about authorization of the Department
of Homeland Security.
As you know, this committee crafted in the House of
Representatives in July 2017 with overwhelming bipartisan
support, 386 to 41 by vote, passed the full authorization of
the Department of Homeland Security, yet we have seen no action
in the Senate and this greatly concerns me and my colleagues on
both sides of aisle in the House. How has this lack of action
in the Senate injured your ability to serve and protect our
Nation, Madam?
Secretary Nielsen. Well, first of all, I want to continue
to thank this committee for your support. It is very important
to have this reauthorization. So as you know, it would give us
some additional authorities that we need. It would clarify
parts of the law. It would clarify our mission sets, and it
would give us the ability to more effectively manage to the
mission by reorganizing within the department.
Mr. Higgins. Centralized command and control, by your
definition and by those of us that sit on this committee, we
would concur that centralized command and control is crucial to
the efficiency of any operation. Would you not agree?
Secretary Nielsen. I would agree because we do this based
on risk. So it has to be a centralized look at risks that we
can match the mission set and resources accordingly.
Mr. Higgins. So the effect of reauthorization, would you
see that as allowing your Department to operate, and all the
components that agencies within your Department to operate more
efficiently and be better able to serve the Nation and to
protect the interest of National security?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir. Not having reauthorization
binds my hands and those of the men and women of DHS.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam. I hope my colleagues in the
Senate are listening.
It has been stated by some Members here of this committee
today several times regarding the caravan that you know who
those people are. I find that difficult to believe, Madam. Is
that true? How is that possible? Have they been vetted? Have
they been interviewed by your agents?
Secretary Nielsen. No, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Well, how would you possibly know who they are
then?
Secretary Nielsen. I do not know.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you very much for clarifying that.
Regarding my colleagues' request for confirmation of your 90
percent number for those that have been issued a citation, it
is a summons for court, is that not?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. Yes. A summons for court calls for probable
cause stating that there has been some criminal act. That
criminal act would have been illegally entering out Nation. Is
that correct?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, illegal entry without inspection.
Mr. Higgins. So these illegal immigrants receive a summons
for court, and then you are stating that 90 percent do not show
up for court. I would like to see the demographics of those
numbers as well because I would be surprised if 10 percent show
up for court.
During the course of my career as a police officer for over
a decade, I have had many interactions with illegal immigrants
either in field interviews or by stopping a car with no
registration, expired inspections, tag, et cetera. There is
nothing that can be done.
You stop these guys. They have no driver's license. Their
driver's license is fake. There might be three or four of them
in the car. It is pointless to give them a citation for a
misdemeanor traffic violation because they are certainly not
returning for traffic court.
You cannot tow their car because then they are on foot in
your jurisdiction. You get phone calls all night. You cannot
bring them to jail because ICE will not come pick them up. So
that is what happens to us both, nothing. Whereas an American
citizen in the same situation would be cited, issued a summons,
or perhaps brought to jail.
So I would be surprised if 10 percent of those that are
issued a summons to American court and Federal court for
entering our Nation illegally show up. So I would be interested
as well to receive the demographics.
Can you respond at all? Do you have those demographics? Who
they are, their age, their gender, their nation of origin,
whether or not they have an anchor family, et cetera? Can you
provide that information?
Secretary Nielsen. We do have much of that, yes, sir. We
are happy to provide it.
Mr. Higgins. I would appreciate that. I would certainly be
interested in looking at it. Thank you, Madam, for your poise
and your grace during your testimony. Your continued service to
our country is greatly appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
The gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Demings, is recognized.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our Ranking Member.
Before I get into my line of questions, Madam Secretary,
and welcome, it is good to meet you. I just want to follow up
on a question that my colleague just asked. Your answer was you
have no way to identify who is possibly in a caravan. I just
wonder why you did not give that answer to the person who asked
you that question?
Secretary Nielsen. Because he did not ask. It was just part
of his speech and I just did not want to interrupt him.
Mrs. Demings. You did not feel the need to clear that?
Because that is a major, I think, part. You have cleared up
some other things this morning. You did not feel the need to
kind-of clear that up just kind-of for the record? No?
Secretary Nielsen. But I was happy to do it just now.
Mrs. Demings. OK. All right. You know, budgets are
certainly, I believe, a list of priorities. Many say that they
kind-of express our values. Of the things we have talked about
this morning, we have certainly talked about building a wall
and even detention beds and immigration enforcement.
When you gave your list of your missions at the Department
of DHS, it was listed first on your list. So I would just like
to know, do you consider building a wall or immigration
enforcement a higher priority than say restoring or increasing
grant funding to local communities, local first responders who
deal with violent acts and other threats every day?
Secretary Nielsen. So I think they are both important
issues. I mean, I would hope that----
Mrs. Demings. Do you consider one a higher priority?
Because that is the business that you are in.
Secretary Nielsen. Right, so----
Mrs. Demings. It is a tough job.
Secretary Nielsen. OK. OK.
Mrs. Demings. Let me finish.
Secretary Nielsen. All right. So, yes----
Mrs. Demings. Let me finish. It is a tough job. I just want
to know, do you consider, based on your knowledge, training,
and experience, keeping our country safe and secure is a tough
but a big job? I certainly believe you are capable of doing
that.
I want to hear from you based on your knowledge, training,
and experience, do you believe that building a wall or
immigration enforcement is a higher priority, because you have
to decide how those dollars are spent, than increasing or
restoring funding to first responders to deal with, oh my gosh,
just a myriad of threats every day?
Secretary Nielsen. I think that if we can keep the threat
out of our country through strong border security, that is the
first and best way to help those State and locals prepared. So
we see 15 terrorists who are known or suspected who attempt to
travel or travel here every day. Border security is homeland
security. If I can do my job in keeping them out of this
country and thereby helping State and locals in----
Mrs. Demings. Can you tell me how many people have been
killed as an act of violence at the Southwest Border during
your tenure as Secretary?
Secretary Nielsen. I cannot, but I am happy to get back to
you with that figure.
Mrs. Demings. Can you tell me how many, if any, Custom and
Border Patrol officers or agents have been killed at the
Southwest Border, or even, let me say this, severely injured at
the Southwest Border during your tenure?
Secretary Nielsen. Sure. Two, and then the assaults are up
73 percent.
Mrs. Demings. OK. So 2 CBP officers have been killed in the
line of the duty----
Secretary Nielsen. Last year, yes.
Mrs. Demings. Last year. But you cannot tell me overall how
many persons overall have died at the Southwest Border through
acts of violence, of course, have been killed during your
tenure?
Secretary Nielsen. I cannot give you a specific number
right now, no, ma'am.
Mrs. Demings. OK. You know, coming from Florida where we
just had a school shooting, 14 people died. In Orlando a year-
and-a-half ago, we had 49 people who were killed in what we
labeled domestic terrorism.
Then folks who were just trying to go and enjoy a concert
in Las Vegas died, lost their lives, 58. But you have no idea
how many people overall died during your tenure at the
Southwest Border.
But you would consider that a greater priority than the 58,
the 49, or the 14, those that are classified as domestic acts
of terrorism? With your dollars, you believe that putting them
at the Southwest Border is a greater priority? How do you
justify that? Obviously, you do, but please tell me how you
justify that?
Secretary Nielsen. Sure. I apologize. I am not sure I am
following all of the--but what I was saying is border security
is a priority. The reason for that is because if we can keep
the threat from coming in our borders, whether that is drugs,
whether that is terrorists, whether that is TCOs or gangs, then
we eliminate part of the threat environment that the State and
locals have to deal with. So that is why I was saying border
security----
Mrs. Demings. Can you tell me very quickly, because I am
from Florida, I think FEMA has, gosh, been criticized quite a
bit, as you know, about their response to Puerto Rico and
housing has been an issue. You know there are multiple people
in hotel rooms. You know, a hotel room, 8 people, 2 beds.
But the program that would assist them has not been
utilized to assist--the Disaster Housing Assistance Program.
Could you tell me if you have any plans to implement that
program to help the victims from Puerto Rico?
Secretary Nielsen. Sure. So as you know, under the National
Disaster Recovery Framework, it is actually HUD that has that
recovery function for housing. So we are working very closely
with Secretary Carson. Actually, Governor Scott from Florida
has been very helpful in providing lessons learned from Florida
and what we can apply to Puerto Rico.
Mrs. Demings. So you are working with the Secretary to
utilize that program so that we----
Secretary Nielsen. Of HUD, we are working with him and what
he can do within its programs, yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Demings. Do you feel like we are going to be able to
reach an agreement?
Secretary Nielsen. I would refer you to HUD, but I am happy
to commit to you to continue to work with HUD.
Mrs. Demings. OK. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Thank you. Gentlelady yields.
The gentleman from, where am I, Nebraska, the General Don
Bacon is recognized.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Nielsen, for your leadership. We
appreciate all the folks that work at Homeland Security and
what you are trying to do for our country and keeping us safe.
We are grateful.
I want to just follow up on the statement you just made.
You just said 15 suspected terrorists try to cross our border
every day. Is that correct?
Secretary Nielsen. Who plan to travel or travel, yes, sir.
Mr. Bacon. Right. Could you just detail for us at the
unclassified level obviously, how are the Sunni extremists,
whether it be ISIS or al-Qaeda, what have you seen with them
trying to cross our borders? So if you could just--because I
think most people in our country do not realize this effort is
going on every day.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir. Just much more broadly because
we are at----
Mr. Bacon. Right.
Secretary Nielsen. An unclassified level as you say. Let me
just say that, you know, we have also seen--I am trying to
think of what I can say. So we see these numbers in terrorists.
We are happy to come and brief you on the breakdown.
What I can also say is ISIS in social media has encouraged
its followers to utilize our refugee program to come here. They
in writing have encouraged people to come across our
Southwestern Border. So we do see an uptick in any type of
terrorist groups trying to come here. But I am happy to come
brief you on the specific breakdowns.
Mr. Bacon. Well, I think it would be important would be at
the unclassified level, carefully vetted by you and your team,
to put this out to our citizens because I think it is an
important topic for our border wall and border security.
But I think a lot of our folks think about the immigration
issue when it comes to the wall and it becomes caught up in
political controversy. But when you know that there is actual
terrorists trying to cross and we have actual data, I think it
would help shape this debate in a positive way. That would be
my----
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you for that.
Mr. Bacon. My input. On a different topic, we know the
Russians and Chinese are working to infiltrate our energy grid.
Indeed, you know, the next December 7 will not be zeros with
torpedoes coming in at Pearl Harbor. It is going to be preceded
by rolling blackouts and the chaos that follows and some of our
bases do not have the alternative power.
Could you tell me what is Homeland Security doing to help
build that resiliency and protection for our energy grid? How
do we defend against this and how can we help?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. So I think you described the
threat. I agree with your characterization. Unfortunately,
itself is persistent. They are becoming much more nimble and
creative. So what we do is we work with a variety of partners.
We put out alerts.
We put out a technical alert, a joint one actually with the
United Kingdom just last week, about how we have seen nation-
states manipulating some of our systems to do some of the
things you were just describing. We work very closely with
State and local operators in the Department of Energy.
We give them best practices. We share information. We have
set up sector gridding councils with governance structures. We
also work through fusion centers. But a lot of this is, if you
will bear with the expression, basic hygiene.
So we want to make sure that we are raising the level,
everything from access control to passwords to basic malware
detection. We have a system at DHS called the Automated
Indicator Sharing program. We are encouraging more and more
companies and entities to do that. So at machine speed we can
advise them of incoming threat vectors.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you. One last question. We are seeing
criminal organizations and terrorists using more encrypted data
in their communications devices. It is very hard to penetrate
at times. They know what they are doing, and it impacts our law
enforcement. What can we do to help you with this? No. 2, how
do you partner with, say, DOJ or local and State authorities?
Because they are the ones often caught having to deal with
this.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. As we all know, this is a tough
area of how to balance the conversation around encryption. We
do work very closely with DOJ. DHS, as you know, we have many,
many law enforcement men and women with particular mission sets
that require their own use of encrypted data, so we have both
sides of the debate, if you will.
Part of this is increasing and going back to human
intelligence so that we can really track those that we are
trying to track, understand who they communicate with, who they
are participating with. We certainly take that approach in
TCOs, for example. So some of this is technological solutions
and we are working with the private sector on that. But some of
it is going to good-old, you know, back to good-old detective
work.
Mr. Bacon. Let us know, too, how we can facilitate or make
this an easier problem for you all to tackle.
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you.
Mr. Bacon. OK.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. I am under my five.
Chairman McCaul. Yes, congratulations. Nice job.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Barragan.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, did you testify that 90 percent of
unaccompanied minors do not show up to court?
Secretary Nielsen. So I believe what has been referenced is
my testimony in the last hearing.
Ms. Barragan. What was the percentage you said a minute
ago? Was it 90 percent?
Secretary Nielsen. I had not said that, but I think people
were quoting me----
Ms. Barragan. OK. Well, I just wanted to correct the record
because there is so much false information that comes out of
this administration, and this is one of those. My records,
which is the Department of Justice Immigration Court's data,
states that 69 percent show up to court.
When unaccompanied minors have counsel, 95 percent show up
to court. As somebody who has actually represented an
unaccompanied minor in an immigration proceeding, I think maybe
that sends a message that we should make sure unaccompanied
minors have access to counsel.
Your predecessor, Secretary Kelly, he committed to meeting
with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus regularly. Will you
commit to meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus
regularly like your predecessor?
Secretary Nielsen. I would be happy to.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Hopefully, we can get that scheduled
soon because I know since you have been sworn in we have not
seen you come in yet. So thank you for that.
Back in mid-January, my friend, Senator Cory Booker, had
asked if you had met with any DACA recipients. At that time,
you mentioned you had not. Have you met with any DACA
recipients since that time?
Secretary Nielsen. I have not.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you.
My colleague earlier, Miss Jackson Lee, had mentioned this
recent court decision that came out this week about DACA
applications, and I pulled the decision. Just to clarify for
the record, the order says, ``DHS must accept and process new
as well as renewal DACA applications.'' This is in the court
order.
Now, that is the actual court order. The court order goes
on to say that they are going to have a stay for 90 days so DHS
can explain why they ended the program because, you know, the
court, it was arbitrary and capricious.
Madam Secretary, you are a head of Homeland Security. Do
you have a better explanation?
Secretary Nielsen. I am sorry, for the court's decision?
Ms. Barragan. Yes. The court decision said----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes----
Ms. Barragan. That you had 90 days----
Secretary Nielsen. Right.
Ms. Barragan. To better explain why the program ended
because what was given before was insufficient. I am asking
you----
Secretary Nielsen. I am sorry.
Ms. Barragan. Do you have a better explanation?
Secretary Nielsen. The explanation is very simple. It was
an inappropriate use of Executive power.
Ms. Barragan. Do you have a better explanation? Because the
court has already ruled that that explanation was insufficient.
Do you have a better explanation?
Secretary Nielsen. Sitting here today, we are reviewing the
court decision, as you know, that just came down and we will be
prepared to provide the court the requested information.
Ms. Barragan. OK. So you do not have one yet? Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Secretary Nielsen. I do not review cases----
Ms. Barragan. I am looking forward----
Secretary Nielsen [continuing]. As you know the Justice
Department does, so I defer to the Justice Department on
arguing the cases on behalf of the U.S. Government as we do
with all cases. But we----
Ms. Barragan. Correct. But the Department of Homeland
Security enforces them and I think the court order is very
specific that----
Secretary Nielsen. We will comply. We will provide them the
information requested.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Madam Secretary, you are responsible
for more than 240,000 employees at the Department of Homeland
Security. Is that correct?
Secretary Nielsen. Around that, yes.
Ms. Barragan. Many of those employees have security
clearances. Is that correct?
Secretary Nielsen. Many of them do, yes.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Back in March, the Ranking Member, Mr.
Thompson, and I sent you a letter, this letter that I am
holding up here, asking you some questions about your handling
of security clearance. You have not responded to that. So I am
going to go ahead and see if I can get some answers here today.
Were you aware of the allegations of domestic abuse by Mr.
Porter prior to his resignation in February 2018?
Secretary Nielsen. Was I aware? Whatever was in the press
is what I was aware of.
Ms. Barragan. So you are saying as a deputy chief, as a
deputy working under Mr. Kelly in the White House that you were
not aware of allegations of domestic abuse by Mr. Porter?
Secretary Nielsen. I was the deputy chief of policy, and so
I did not review nor access clearance request records or
adjudications. That was not part of my job.
Ms. Barragan. OK, so the New York Times reporting is
inaccurate about this, that you as the deputy chief of staff,
in November when the FBI had a detailed report that was
submitted to the White House, you are saying you did not see it
and were not aware of it?
Secretary Nielsen. I did not see any FBI report. No, I did
not.
Ms. Barragan. OK. So you did not take any action at all
regarding Mr. Porter's security clearance?
Secretary Nielsen. I would not have. That was not in my job
description.
Ms. Barragan. What is the policy at Homeland Security now
on interim security clearances?
Secretary Nielsen. So we look at that very carefully. We
restrict access. When somebody has an interim, there is
particular circumstances which someone might be granted, but
mostly it takes a long time, as you know, to go through the
adjudication process, and so we reserve bringing somebody on-
board fully in most cases until their clearance is fully
adjudicated.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Can you commit to responding to this
letter of March 5 in writing please?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, I can.
Ms. Barragan. Great, thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Garrett is recognized.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you Madam Secretary. I want to go quickly first into
a particular and specific case with regards to USCIS and a
constituent of mine whose initials are J.B. I would like to
hold up this documentation that outlines J.B.'s efforts to
adopt a young woman from Senegal.
I think he might have had conversations with some of my
peers as it relates to this process. I would describe it in the
interest of conserving my limited time as tragic and ridiculous
what this woman has been through to include over a dozen trips
to the nation of Senegal.
An order from NBC, the National Benefits Council under
USCIS that suggests that they cannot complete the adoption of
this young girl who has known no family but this particular
woman in her life while she is in the country, thus regarding
or creating a circumstance wherein this 6-year-old child needs
to be sent back to Africa to an orphanage so that we can
complete the paperwork?
I do not take this tone with you to be derisive, but I
would ask for your specific intention. I presume there are
individuals who are here with you today who are staffing you. I
want to make sure this paper gets in their hand.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garrett. And ask for your specific attention. This is a
tragedy of bureaucracy that has a human toll and impact. Moving
on, and so I am going to set it there, please----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, you have my commitment to look into
that, sir.
Mr. Garrett. I would genuinely appreciate it, and thank you
for all you do. I understand that there is 330 million
Americans and this is but one aspiring American, but this is
the right thing to do.
Moving on there has been some interest expressed by some of
my colleagues in prioritization as it relates to saving
American lives. In fact, my good friend and colleague, Ms.
Demings, pointed to tragedies in Las Vegas, Orlando, and at
Parkland.
Would it surprise you, Madame Secretary, if I were inform
you that the Federal Government fatality reporting system
indicates that about 20 percent of all automobile accidents
fatalities involve illegal--I am sorry, unlicensed drivers and
about half of those are illegals?
Secretary Nielsen. I am not familiar with that statistic,
but, no, that would not surprise me.
Mr. Garrett. Would it surprise you with the number of total
people killed, American citizens on American highways each year
by illegals is estimated to be in the range of about 3,500?
Secretary Nielsen. No, it would not surprise me.
Mr. Garrett. OK. Would it surprise you to learn that in
Federal incarceration we have 709,440 illegal people detained?
Would that surprise you?
Secretary Nielsen. No.
Mr. Garrett. Would it surprise you to learn that the best
estimate of State and local incarceration figures for illegals
in this country is in the neighborhood of 297,000, thus
creating an incarceration of over a million people who were in
this country illegally?
Secretary Nielsen. No.
Mr. Garrett. Would it surprise you to learn that the cost
to incarcerate those individuals in Federal and State
facilities exceeds $31 billion, almost $32 billion dollars
annually?
Secretary Nielsen. That is a large number.
Mr. Garrett. If we had $32 billion dollars annually to
construct a Southern Border wall, could we keep those people
out of this country, thus reducing the cost to incarcerate, and
also saving upwards of 3,500 lives every single year of
Americans who die at the hands of people here illegally on U.S.
highways?
Secretary Nielsen. We certainly could keep most of them out
if we had a full border system, yes.
Mr. Garrett. So if we protected our Southern Border and
kept these million-incarcerated illegal criminal aliens out of
our country, not only would we save lives, but we would also,
presumably, if they were not here, they could not be arrested
and incarcerated, save about $32 billion dollars a year in 2017
data, if the numbers that I am giving you is correct?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Garrett. Which would amount to over three-tenths of a
trillion dollars in a decade. I just like to do this because I
am a public-school kid, three thousand, thousand, thousand,
thousand, million dollars, that we could save if we built this
wall in the front end. OK.
So if we were able to make this one-time commitment to
secure our Southern Border would it, in fact, be a net cost-
saver paid for by, technically, I suppose, the countries from
which these individuals come by virtue of the denial of
admission of illegal individuals?
Secretary Nielsen. It would save lives. It would save
money, and it would protect our communities.
Mr. Garrett. Ultimately, it would be paid for by the folks
who currently are breaking our laws by virtue of their absence
from our country, thus reducing the cost, would it not?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garrett. OK. I am just having fun here. I think though
that these points are points that need to be made.
As it relates to St. E, and the Homeland facility
consolidation plan, I would comment that I am as frustrated as
anyone. Having said that, sometimes I think it is time to start
anew.
I read the OIG report with jaw agape when I read, ``That
perhaps too much time, energy, and money was spent on the
revitalizing Washington, DC neighborhoods in the St. E.
renovations.'' Is it within the mission of Homeland Security to
revitalize Washington, DC neighborhoods?
Secretary Nielsen. No, sir.
Mr. Garrett. Is this what the American taxpayer expects
their money will be spent on when they support Homeland
Security's expenditures in our budget?
Secretary Nielsen. I highly doubt it.
Mr. Garrett. I do as well. So I would point out, by virtue
of that, I would confess my self-interest in the front-end
facilities like, Vint Hill, which are very large former
Government facilities located within 53 miles of where we sit,
where you could come and build right now, and we would not have
the cost overruns litigation that drive costs up. Editorial
comment.
Finally, I know I am running over, Mr. Chairman. We
included in the authorizing budgetary language the ability to
reinstate the waiver for returning workers under H-2B, because
we wanted you to be able to do it.
So allow me to join my colleague, Mr. Keating, from the
other side of the aisle in saying, please help. It is not about
foreign workers, it is about American businesses that have been
around for decades that are shuddering because we cannot create
a system and circumstance wherein they have reliability and
predictability.
Secretary Nielsen. I understand, and it should be a
sustained program.
Mr. Garrett. I am not, and again, not to attack you.
Secretary Nielsen. No, no.
Mr. Garrett. The reason----
Secretary Nielsen. I agree. I asked for your help in
passing it----
Mr. Garrett. I am all over it.
Secretary Nielsen. Through Congress so it is a sustained
program.
Mr. Garrett. I agree. However, just because we have not
done our jobs yet, does not mean, given that we have given you
the latitude within your executive purview to do this that we
are not--I am asking you, humbly, to do that. I would point
out, finally, that a returning worker by definition is someone
who has already demonstrated your willingness to go home. Thank
you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin is
recognized.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here, and for your
testimony here today.
So in your testimony before the Appropriations Committee 2
weeks ago, you stated that the Department is diverting
resources to help secure election infrastructure is certain. I
applaud the focus on election infrastructure.
Yet, the budget request included a modest $7 million dollar
increase for the organization that carries out this analysis
and support. I certainly commend the under secretary designate,
Krebbs, for his prioritization of election assessments.
But I worry about the strain on NCATs resources, especially
since they are responsible for working with other areas of
critical infrastructure, making them a priority customers as
well. So is the request sufficient to support important
assessments in other areas of critical infrastructure sectors?
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you for the question, sir. So,
what we are doing is, we are working--what we did receive in
the Omnibus was, I believe 380 that went to EAC, that we will,
in conjunction with them, help State and locals prepare. We
also have $26 million that went to NPPD, and we will continue
to work with that.
My comments on prioritization were simply that we all, and
I know you share this, take the election part very seriously.
So in terms of processing vulnerability assessments, sending
teams, doing pen testing, providing clearances, we are
prioritizing the election's subsector.
We will continue to work with our sector-specific agencies
that also bring funding to the fight so that we can, together,
have a holistic approach.
Mr. Langevin. All right, so what data are you using to make
sure that the NPPD has the resource it needs to respond to
other areas of critical infrastructure so that it is not being
ignored? Obviously, there is many attack factors that they have
to defend----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Langevin. Against, and how do we make sure those
priority customers are not going to be ignored at the expense
of the election security--which I certainly applaud the focus,
particularly now, on security election infrastructure, but we
also need to be focused on other areas of critical
infrastructure.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir. You have my commitment.
Mr. Langevin. OK. Thank you. Secretary Nielsen, your budget
request shifts more than $40 million dollars in cyber research
from the science and technology director at the NPPD.
So I want to say up front that I am very concerned about
this proposal, and I am skeptical about it. So what gives you
confidence that NPPD, which has become primarily an operational
organization, has the right tools and the people to take over
this responsibility from S&T?
Again, because this is an R&D function, for the most part,
which S&T would be the appropriate place to do this, I worry
that the high op tempo at NPPD will distract from the R&D work,
or that the R&D worker is going to take a backseat.
Secretary Nielsen. That is certainly not the intention,
sir. Actually, it was to more closely align the needs of the
critical infrastructure owners and operators in the 16 sectors
to an R&D plan. So it was meant to make it more requirements-
based. It is a priority to do so. As you know, the threat
continues to evolve very, very quickly.
So, we need to be continuing to do R&D as we operate,
innovate as we go. So, that was the idea behind moving it to
NPPD. But happy to work with you on how we make sure that that
is used in the appropriate way.
Mr. Langevin. OK, I just want to be clear. I remain
skeptical. This is a----
Secretary Nielsen. Understood.
Mr. Langevin. Very close and on top of it to make sure that
it does not become an afterthought or ignored.
Secretary Nielsen, some of my colleagues have introduced
legislation to start a bug bounty program at DHS. Some in your
Department have criticized the idea as being premature without
robust vulnerability triage processes, and I certainly
appreciate the concern.
However, the newly-revised NIST security framework and
other international standards, point to having a vulnerability
disclosure program. So with or without a bounty as a best
practice. The Department of Defense and General Services
Administration, have both implemented successful policies.
What in your mind would prevent DHS from having a
vulnerability disclosure program that helps well-intended
security researches inform DHS about problems in its own
systems?
Secretary Nielsen. So first of all, I agree that I think a
bug bounty program is a very important tool. It is not a silver
bullet, but nothing is. It is an important tool. We look
forward to learning the lessons that DOD has learned in their
own.
We are watching the legislation that is going through
Congress very closely. We will prepare on our side, to have the
resources in planning that we need to then respond to what we
find out through the bug bounty program.
Mr. Langevin. OK. But we started to talk about two related,
but different things. Yes, bug bounty program, but also a
vulnerability as a disclosure vector so that when researches
find a vulnerability, they can report it to someone.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Langevin. Right now, there is nobody home. In other
words, there is the security researchers do not have a way to
contact to DHS and make sure that DHS will then follow up on
that program.
So bug bounty program is good, I want to say let us do
that. But why do not you have a vulnerability disclosure
program?
Secretary Nielsen. Yep.
Mr. Langevin. The Department of Defense does, the General
Services Administration does, DHS does not.
Secretary Nielsen. We do have a way in which they can
contact us and actually receive calls very frequently within
the NCIC or directly to US-CERT. We are formalizing the
program.
Mr. Langevin. OK. US-CERT helps outside agencies, OK. So if
someone finds a vulnerability, for example, in medical device.
They would call US-CERT, and US-CERT can work to make sure that
they are put in touch with the right person at the company to
make sure we hear that vulnerability. The problem is, that is
not the case. US-CERT does not do that for vulnerability
disclosures within DHS.
Secretary Nielsen. No, they pass it to the correct people.
I am just suggesting the different ways that you can get into
DHS to report things like that. But we are formalizing the
program. It is very important. I do not disagree at all.
We need to be able to not only notify victims, which we do
in conjunction with FBI. But we need to in an appropriate way
balancing it through the inner agency process, disclose
vulnerabilities.
Mr. Langevin. Could you work with us to make sure----
Secretary Nielsen. Absolutely.
Mr. Langevin. We, that they develop this type of a
vulnerability disclosure program at DHS?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Langevin. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields. Last but not least, the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe, recognized.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here today. I very
much appreciate your testimony that you have given on all
aspects of how DHS is prioritizing resources to accomplish the
President's agenda for safety and security of the American
people.
As the Chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, I want
to focus my few minutes with you on this particular area. I
will start out by saying, with all due respect to your
predecessors, who have had considerable talents and abilities,
I am of the opinion that you have brought with you to this
office a greater knowledge and appreciation, and are more
steeped in cybersecurity than anyone before you.
I want to help you take advantage of that. I know we share
the common goal of wanting to improve DHS's ability to impact
the Nation's cyber posture and defense because I know we also,
I think, agree that cybersecurity poses one of our greatest
National security threats right now.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So in the spirit in wanting to help you be
successful, one of my priorities, early in this term, has been
to investigate the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation
program. We have held two hearings, we have had a number of
briefings, countless meetings.
I am of the opinion that CDM is certainly a value-add to
our Federal cybersecurity, a way to fortify our Government
networks and systems. So let me start out and ask you if you
share that opinion?
Secretary Nielsen. I do. I think it is a very--and part and
parcel of one of our tools to find out what is on our network,
who is on our network, and as you know, we are moving now,
fourth phase toward data.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So, looking then toward the continued
success, hopefully, of CDM, help me make the case to
appropriators, to other Members on this committee, as well as
to the administration about what we can do to ensure the value
of the CDM program so that it is reflected in future budget
cycles.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. Thank you. So we hope through the
newest vehicle, as you know, it is called the defend vehicle,
we hope to be much more agile, and we hope to be able to
utilize that to not only be up on the emerging threats, but to
use it to understand the threat patterns that we can more
quickly come to you with requests for additional resources and
tools.
Mr. Ratcliffe. One of the other priorities that the
Chairman and I have spent considerable time on, and we will
continue to do so, is DHS's cyber work force.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Ratcliffe. In light of the growing cyber threat
landscape, I think it is imperative the DHS be properly staffed
with an essential cyber work force to meet the cyber mission,
and to counter what are, obviously, some very highly
sophisticated cyber adversaries.
I know you have not been the Secretary for that long, but
early on, are there programs or initiatives that you have
identified as being most effective in recruiting and retention?
Secretary Nielsen. We have. So the NICE, the acronym NICE,
program out of NIST and others, which helps us identify the
unique school--excuse me, the unique skill sets that we need to
hire, is part of it.
But the other part is, helping, frankly, folks within the
community understand the mission. When they understand the
threat and they understand the mission, I find that they are
much more interested in coming to serve their Government. We
cannot pay them the same amount, but we can provide them an
opportunity to serve their country and to serve a mission.
We are looking at retention, as you know, benefits,
different programs, cross-training, what we can do on the back
end. We are working on some pilots with industry to cross-train
or do exchange so that we can both benefit from that
experience.
Mr. Ratcliffe. While I appreciate that, Madam Secretary,
one of the things that we have already done, what Congress did
in 2014, was to provide for some accepted service and expedited
authorities to address this cyber shortage, if you will, and,
you know, the indications are that that really has not been
utilized or maximized to the extent that we would hope. Is that
something that you are focused on?
Secretary Nielsen. It is, and I do agree that it has not
yet been utilized to the extent that it should be. So, yes, we
are actively looking at that. We thank you for that, including
the cyber pay that went with that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well again, let me just tell you that I
think we have a great opportunity under your leadership and
stewardship, to improve the historical reputation of DHS,
particularly as it relates to cyber issues. So I pledge to you
that I want to help you in that regard to move the needle in a
positive and appreciable way. So my door will be open to you in
that regard.
Secretary Nielsen. Well, thank you. I will take you up on
that. I appreciate it.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields back. You know, I also
want to thank you for your leadership in cybersecurity.
Yours, Madam Secretary.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Good afternoon, Madam Secretary. Thanks
for being here today, and I think we all would agree that you
have a very, very tough job. I just want you to know that we do
appreciate the work. We appreciate the difficulty and the long
hours and the stress. So keep at it. You are doing all right.
I want to talk about school safety. I do not know if my
colleagues have addressed this earlier, but certainly there is
a local role to play. Certainly there is a State-wide role to
play, and the Federal Government also has a role.
What do you view as the responsibility of the Department of
Homeland Security in helping us get to the point where we can
keep our kids safe and secure in their schools?
Secretary Nielsen. We actually have not discussed it. So
thank you for raising the question. This is a very important
topic and one on which we have spent a lot of focus.
So we have created internal to DHS a task force, a working
group. As you know, there are many parts of DHS that are part
of this mission. So we do everything from active-shooter
training to awareness, to helping States and locals build their
alert warning capability.
We have also just released a soft target crowded places
plan just a couple weeks ago, which goes through best practices
on what to do and how to respond. But importantly, how to
prepare.
We also are part of the Commission on School Safety that is
led by the Department of Education, working very closely with
the National Governor's Association and other associations.
So we are sort-of bringing everything we can bring to bear.
Information sharing. We do have suspicious activity reporting,
as you know. So we are updating that process. Working with the
State and locals training. So it kind of goes on and on. But,
yes, you have a full commitment from DHS.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Is there a lack of funding that we need to
be aware of?
Secretary Nielsen. Much of this is what we already do, so
it is just bringing it to bear and expanding the circles in
which we have traditionally provided this information and this
training, this exercises, et cetera. But if I find any, I will
be happy to reach out to you and let you know.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Sure. I appreciate it.
Second, and I know this has been discussed, but I want to
raise it independently is the aviation security piece. We
talked about the transition from the AT to the CT screening
devices.
Ideally, I mean, we want these in all of our airports,
right? I think there is 450 or so in the country--airports that
we have. I certainly hope that on this committee, that cost is
never an issue here, because I cannot--with all the tens of
billions of dollars we have spent on aviation security, I think
this is money well-spent.
My question is, is there any concern about the deployment
and the time it would take, given that there is only five or so
suppliers of these types of machines? So even if we had the
full financial commitment, and the commitment of DHS to
implement, are we looking at a lag time just based on the pure
supply issue and the number of machines that we would need?
Secretary Nielsen. There is a supply issue. We are working
very closely with industry to speed up the deployments. But
that is what I mentioned before. Our hope is that we do deploy
the full amount that we have asked for in fiscal year 2019, and
that we come back with a reprogramming request to do more. So
part of this is not partnership with industry, and helping them
in every way possible to go faster. It takes both of us
together.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Gentleman yields back. I think the Ranking
Member would like to make some closing remarks.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a record signed--for the record a letter signed by a
number of Members of this committee, both Democrat and
Republican, talking about the H-2B visa program, and its speedy
implementation of it for this year, in fact you are signatory
on the letter to the Secretary. I hope we will get some
response.
I have a letter from a constituent who had a business for
quite a while, utilizing this program and is threatened to be
closed because of their inability to access workers for this
program. So I would like to submit these two for the record.
Chairman McCaul. Now without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Letter Submitted by Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
March 30, 2018.
The Honorable Kirstjen Nielsen,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
The Honorable R. Alexander Acosta,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Secretary Nielsen and Secretary Acosta: Now that the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year (FY) 2018 has been
signed into law, we urge you to take decisive action without delay to
ensure small and seasonal businesses in our states can get the workers
necessary for a successful season. Due to the time-sensitive nature of
seasonal businesses, we also urge you to take immediate steps to re-
open the petition process and adjudicate any pending labor
certifications that demonstrate the requirements set forth in this
legislation. We believe your Departments can take these actions, using
the authority provided under this law, without the need for additional
rulemaking.
Under Division M, Extensions, Title 11, Section 205 of the FY 2018
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P. L. 115-141), the Secretary of
Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, has the
authority to approve petitions for admission under the H-2B
Nonimmigrant Temporary Worker program up to the new statutory level set
in the bill for the current fiscal year.
Small and seasonal businesses help our local communities thrive. In
fact, small businesses across the country often rely on seasonal H-2B
workers to help them operate during their peak seasons throughout the
year. As you know, the statutory allocation for H-2B visas for the
current fiscal year was reached on February 27, 2018. As a result, many
small businesses are left unable to get the workers they need, leading
to potential reductions in operating hours or closures. Under the
authority provided by Congress, the Department of Homeland Security can
immediately help businesses hire the workers they need and help local
economies as they head into their peak seasons.
We encourage you to make efforts to allow for efficient processing
of additional H-2B visa applications and request that you inform us as
soon as possible as to the process you will use to issue additional H-
2B visas and the number of additional H-2B visas you intend to issue.
This will not only help to alleviate concerns among employers, but it
will also reduce the inevitable time-consuming inquiries to your
agencies. By taking the necessary steps now, your agencies can
streamline the process and help employers get their employees sooner.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue. We thank you
for your consideration of this request and urge that you act as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Jack Bergman
Steve Chabot
Andy Harris, M.D.
William R. Keating
Chellie Pingree
Ralph Abraham, M.D.
Mike Bishop
Lisa Blunt Rochester
Susan W. Brooks
Anthony G. Brown
Ken Buck
Michael E. Capuano
Jim Renacci
Tom Rice
Thomas J. Rooney
John H. Rutherford
Tim Ryan
Mark Sanford
Pete Sessions
Carol Shea-Porter
John Shimkus
Bill Shuster
Chris Stewart
Steve Stivers
Scott Tipton
Dave Trott
Mia Love
Frank Lucas
Tom MacArthur
Thomas Massie
David B. McKinley, P.E.
Patrick Meehan
Paul Mitchell
John Moolenaar
Markwayne Mullin
Richard M. Nolan
Erick Paulsen
Stevan Pearce
Mike Simpson
Jared Polis
Mike Coffman
Tom Cole
Chris Collins
Barbara Comstock
K. Michael Conaway Ryan A. Costello
Kevin Cramer
Carlos Curbelo
Diana DeGette
Mike Doyle
Blake Farenthold
Ed Perlmutter
Thomas A. Garrett, Jr.
Bob Gibbs
Trey Gowdy
H. Morgan Griffith
Clay Higgins
Bill Huizenga
Bill Johnson
Filemon Vela
David P. Joyce
Adam Kinzinger
Ann McLane Kuster
Doug Lamborn
Leonard Lance
James R. Langevin
Robert Latta
Billy Long
Fred Upton
David G. Valadao
Tom Marino
Ann Wagner
Tim Walburg
Peter Welch
Brad R. Wenstrup
Robert Wittman
Kevin Yoder
Lee Zeldin
David N. Cicilline
Michael T. McCaul
Claudia Tenney
Bruce Poliquin
Tom Emmer
Steve Knight
Rob Woodall
Mike Johnson
Frank A. LoBiondo
Andy Barr
Bill Flores
______
E-mail Submitted by Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson
Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 5:21:59 PM
Subject: H2B Cap Relief
Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 2:05:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Heather Walker
To: Henderson, Claytrice
Hello Claytrice,
I seriously can not thank you enough for taking my call and listing
to the concerns for the H2B program. First, I would like to personally
assure you and Congressman Thompson that we would much rather hire US
workers since the H2B program is such a large expense for a small
business. However, after running job advertisements in the local paper
as well as through the WIN Job center we have had ZERO applicants over
the past two years! So, we truly have no other option but to apply for
guest workers through the H2B program!
We were so excited to see the wording for the H2B cap relief in the
Omnibus bill signed on March 23rd. We finally thought YES, WE ARE GOING
TO BE ABLE TO GET OUR WORKERS! However, we quickly learned just because
the wording was included in the bill didn't necessarily mean Secretary
Neilson would release them. The wording in the Omnibus bill for the
maximum amount would satisfy the demand for all. As the Spring season
advances we are sitting here struggling to keep our heads above water.
I understand we are just a small business, but it takes all the small
businesses as well as the larger corporations to keep America and the
Mississippi Delta going!
We have been in business for over 21 years, and we have grown our
business into a business in which we are very proud. We have worked
hard for everything we have, and now we are at a point where we are
going to have to choose which accounts to release due to the lack of
workers. This is not fair to us, our customers or our US workers. With
us having to scale our business back it will also effect the economy of
our community. We try to buy everything we can locally from equipment,
supplies, fuel, parts, etc. Our business provides business to other
businesses. It is so dishearten to feel as though you have worked so
hard for something and now it is just slipping away!
So, my request is to Please, Please, Please ask Congressman
Thompson to ASK Secretary Neilson to release the VISAs as soon as
possible!!! This will be the only way we can sustain our business!!!!!
Sincerely,
Heather and Bob Walker
Chairman McCaul. I mean, I am glad you raised that issue. I
have had a lot of Members come up to me asking about the H-2B
program. Would you mind addressing that, and what is the
current status?
Secretary Nielsen. Sure. So we have finalized, as you know
the law requires us to recruit the Department of Labor. We have
done that. We have met with, and I have talked to a variety of
Members of Congress, Ranking, who share your concerns. They
have very specific companies within their districts who are at
threat to go out of business if they do not receive additional
visas.
So we are very aware. We have finalized our recommendation.
It is working its way through the process. But we hope that we
will be able to issue additional visas next month.
Chairman McCaul. OK. Excellent. Let me also mention--I know
UAS did not come up today, but I know it is a very important
issue to both of us and in the United States' security. These
drones crossing across the border and domestically, it poses a
grave threat. I can assure you that we are working on draft
legislation right now, and working with your staff, Madam
Secretary, to accomplish that goal.
So I want to thank you for being here. I want to also thank
you for your public service. You know, it is a tough job, and I
think a lot of people look at Homeland Security, and all they
think of is border and immigration, and yet, it is so many
other things, as well, that you have on your plate. I want to
work with you to make your job successful.
So with that, the hearing record will be open for 10 days
if there are any additional questions. Without objection, the
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Michael T. McCaul for Honorable Kirstjen M.
Nielsen
Question 1a. Definition and Country List: In general, a Special
Interest Alien (SIA) is a migrant from a country outside the Western
Hemisphere with terrorist or security concerns who travels through the
Hemisphere to the United States.
Does the U.S. Government or DHS have an official definition for the
term ``Special Interest Alien?'' Do the DHS components utilize a
uniform definition?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. Does DHS maintain an official list of countries
considered ``special interest'' and what is the context of such a
designation?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1c. How does the definition and country list, or lack
thereof, impact the interagency effort to combat this threat? What are
the workarounds, if any?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2a. Current Threat: Last year, former Secretary Kelly and
then-Acting Secretary Duke emphasized the threat from SIAs, especially
the connection with terrorists, transnational criminal organizations
(TCO), and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In September 2017, Sec.
Duke stated that ``TCOs pose a persistent National security threat to
the United States. They provide a potential means for transferring
weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or for facilitating
terrorists' entry into the United States. We have already seen aliens
with terror connections travel from conflict zones into our Hemisphere,
and we are concerned that TCOs might assist them in crossing our
borders.''
Has there been any change to the threat or DHS's view of the
threat?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2b. Is there anything else you would like to add to your
comments about the exploitation of these illicit migration routes by
smugglers, terrorists, and TCOs?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2c. What is being done at DHS to counter the threat posed
by SIAs?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3a. Repatriation: There are numerous security and cost-
saving benefits to third-country repatriation of migrants, where for
example, Panama or Colombia is able to repatriate migrants back to
their home countries before they even reach the United States.
What is the current status of third-country repatriation?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3b. What can the United States do to improve and support
this process?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3c. Is it a funding/resource issue or a capacity issue for
these countries?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3d. What are the proper roles of DHS and the State
Department in this effort? Is there communication between the two?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4a. Information Sharing: As you know, information sharing
is an essential component of combatting terrorism and transnational
crime, especially the sharing of biometric information. The Biometric
Identification Transnational Migration Alert Program (BITMAP) and the
Biometric Data Sharing Program (BDSP) are two critical programs that
enable the U.S. Government and partner nations to identify such
threats.
What is your assessment of the current relationship between DHS and
the State Department in identifying SIAs and related threats,
especially regarding biometric information sharing?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4b. Besides BITMAP and BDSP, what are other key DHS and
State Department programs that facilitate SIA identification?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4c. What is the current information-sharing strategy
across the U.S. Government to ensure that information is best gathered
and shared to counter this growing and dynamic threat?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4d. How does DHS work with the State Department and the
intelligence community in the Western Hemisphere to stop nefarious
actors before they reach our borders?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5a. Relationships: Efforts to combat terrorism and
transnational crime often rely on strong relationships with our foreign
partners.
How would you characterize the U.S. Government's relationship with
Mexico, Central America, and South America in the identification of
SIAs?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5b. How can we improve these relationships?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Honorable Kirstjen
M. Nielsen
Question 1. Reports indicate that since October, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection has forcibly separated more than 700 migrant children
from their family members along the Southern Border. More than 100 of
those children are under the age of 4. How many of the 700 cases since
October have proven to be confirmed instances where human traffickers
attempted to use children to cross the border and gain illegal entry?
Please provide relevant information on any such cases.
Despite Department of Justice statistics to the contrary, you
testified that 90 percent of unaccompanied minors never show up for
their scheduled court dates. Please cite the relevant data and explain
in writing how you arrived at this percentage.
The vast majority of property along the Southwest Border is owned
by States, Tribes, and private citizens. In Texas, the Federal
Government owns just 100 miles of the 1,254-mile border. How much land
DHS will need to take from private citizens to build the border wall
system? What is the expected cost?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. Please provide a status update on the statutorily-
mandated delivery of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. When
will it be delivered to Congress?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3a. On March 19, 2018, The Center for Constitutional
Rights and Color of Change filed a lawsuit against DHS to release the
contents of the agency's redacted memo entitled the ``Race Paper.''
What were the origins of this paper?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3b. What DHS office produced it? Who signed off on the
paper?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3c. Does this paper provide a framework for evaluating the
alleged radicalization of black activists or the surveillance of
protected speech and activism of black activists and allies? If so,
what is the framework?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3d. What surveillance tactics does this paper recommend,
offer, or provide to DHS?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3e. Does this race paper provide classifications of
Domestic Terrorists/Terrorism? If so, what are they? How are they
determined?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3f. Was the ``Black Identity Extremism'' report influenced
by this ``Race Paper'' or vice versa?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4a. I am concerned about the disproportionate number of
lobbyists President Trump has put in political positions and the
potential for conflicts of interest and corruption, despite his
campaign promise to ``drain the swamp.'' Between 2012 and 2017, 7
political appointees at TSA had relationships with 27 organizations
that could trigger recusals under ethics rules. In just over a year
since President Trump took office, 9 individuals who could have
conflicts with 70 organizations have already cycled through TSA as
political appointees.
How have recusals affected the Department's ability to carry out
its mission effectively?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4b. Please provide the names of DHS political appointees
and the issues from which they have been recused.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Lou Barletta for Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Question 1a. Secretary Nielsen, can you detail why significant
investment in border infrastructure is necessary and essential to our
National security?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. How will a secure border help enhance the efficiency
of immigration and save taxpayer dollars?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2a. On a different note, following the tragic shooting in
Parkland, Florida, I called for schools to be classified as ``critical
infrastructure.'' Currently, sectors ranging from casinos and concert
venues to water treatment facilities and banks fall under this
designation.
What steps are the Department taking to better secure our schools?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2b. Do you believe that schools should be classified as
critical infrastructure; if not, what would prevent them from being
labeled such?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee for Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Question 1. Please explain what the Department intends to do to
address assaults on Border Patrol agents. What would you recommend
Congress do to support these efforts?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. Please provide my office with an update on the
Department's effort to reopen and review Jose Escobar's deportation
case.
A third court ruled against the administration's decision to
rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in
April. U.S. District Court Judge John Bates said that the DHS's legal
explanation for its decision to end DACA was ``arbitrary and
capricious.'' If DHS does not come up with a strong explanation for the
rescission within 90 days, the entire program will be restored. Do you
have a stronger explanation for the rescission of this program?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable John Katko for Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Question 1a. Can you describe the current relationship for testing
new equipment between DHS S&T and TSA?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. Are there any cost-sharing programs that allow both
organizations to mitigate overall financial exposure?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1c. Is DHS working to improve overall collaboration for
research, design, testing, and evaluation of new technologies across
all DHS components?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. As you may be aware, TSA currently has used a
personalized training screening tool for X-ray machines. As TSA moves
to CT, does TSA have plans to adapt these training tools for CT?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3a. You mentioned in your remarks, preparedness programs
save approximately 4 times as much money when compared to response
programs. As you may be aware, up-State New York has been hit with
several successive storms that fail to reach the designated minimum
threshold.
Does DHS, through FEMA, plan to reassess this minimum?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3b. Does DHS have any plans to support areas that are hit
by several successive severe weather patterns but fail to reach the
minimum about for the DRF?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable James R. Langevin for Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Question 1. You have recently spoken about the importance of
maintaining resilience in our Nation's critical infrastructure. What
specific operational role do you envision for the Department in
building resiliency into our critical infrastructure?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2a. As you, Under Secretary-Designate Krebs, and Assistant
Secretary Manfra have all recently testified, the prioritization of
risk and vulnerability assessments (RVAs) for election systems has come
at the expense of RVAs for other critical infrastructure sectors and
Federal agencies.
How many critical infrastructure and Federal agency RVAs have been
delayed as a result of prioritization of election-related RVAs?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2b. What is the expected length of the delays to these
RVAs?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2c. What critical infrastructure sectors and agencies have
had their RVAs delayed?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2d. When do you expect the backlog of RVAs to be cleared?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2e. What additional resources would NCATS require to meet
the increased demand from States and localities for RVAs, without this
impact to other critical infrastructure sectors and Federal agencies?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3a. One of DHS's key tools in ensuring the cybersecurity
of Federal networks is the Binding Operational Directive, of which DHS
has released only 6 since 2015.
How does DHS go about crafting these Directives?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3b. What--if any--other agencies assist in that process?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3c. What threshold of concern does DHS use to decide a
Binding Operational Directive is necessary?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3d. How effective have DHS's and OMB's efforts been to
hold agencies accountable for satisfying the requirements in those
directives?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4. Much of DHS's mission requires close coordination with
other agencies, especially with respect to cybersecurity. How has the
Department's ability to synchronize its cyber mission with other
agencies been affected by the recent high rate of turnover at the
National Security Council?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5. You recently spoke about two roles the Government plays
to improve National cybersecurity. The two roles, which I agree are
critical, were equipping suppliers to make their products and services
more secure, and educating the public to become more security-conscious
consumers. One role you did not endorse is the Government's
responsibility to ensure our critical infrastructure remains secure. Do
you believe DHS has sufficient authority to hold operators of critical
infrastructure accountable for implementing adequate cybersecurity
controls?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6a. In this year's FISMA report card, the DHS Inspector
General rated the Department not effective in 3 of 5 cybersecurity
functions: Protect, detect, and recover. It would seem important for
DHS to have its own cyber house in order before advising others on
their security. Given the importance of these findings,
What specific actions are you taking to correct these deficiencies?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6b. How frequently are you being briefed on progress?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. for Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Question 1a. Secretary Nielsen, earlier this week, my subcommittee
held a field hearing in my district, which focused on the importance of
Federal counterterrorism support to high-risk urban areas, like New
York City.
Witnesses representing law enforcement and first responders in New
York and New Jersey discussed the importance of intelligence
information sharing and the homeland security grant programs to their
operations. We must fully fund these grant programs, particularly in
light of the evolving terrorist threat.
Another topic of discussion at the hearing was the difficulty in
securing mass transit systems. The Transit Security Grant Program is
vital to those efforts, but the overall focus on surface transportation
security programs dwarfs that of aviation security. Our witnesses
expressed great concern about mass transit security, and that is a
concern that I share, especially in light of the attempted bombing at
the New York City Port Authority Terminal in December.
Can you please speak to what more we can do to enhance the security
of this transportation mode?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. How is DHS supporting information sharing when it
comes to threats to mass transit?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2a. The President's budget request for the Countering
Weapons of Mass Destruction Office proposes changes to the Securing the
Cities Program, a program that has proven very successful in New York
City.
We are hearing concerns from Securing the Cities jurisdictions
about proposed changes in permissible equipment, to whom that equipment
would be provided, and the impact that would have on jurisdiction's
ability to conduct radiological detection and response operations.
This committee has long supported the Securing the Cities Program,
as it is currently operating, and the House passed my legislation
authorizing the program last year.
What changes is the Department proposing to the program?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2b. What outreach have you done to participating
jurisdictions to solicit their feedback?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2c. How are you addressing concerns that the Department is
receiving from STC jurisdictions?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question From Honorable William Keating for Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Question. Please provide the time frame DHS is using to comply with
the requirement included in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus to increase
the caps on H-2B visas, specifically for returning workers.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable John H. Rutherford for Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Question 1a. We have 14 ports in Florida that bring people and
cargo from around the world into Florida, including Jaxport and the
Port of Fernandina in my district. It is vital that these ports are
properly staffed to ensure the safety of our Nation. Currently across
Florida, Customs and Border Patrol agents are working overtime, moving
between airports and seaports to ensure coverage.
Are there plans to hire more CBP staff to help secure our ports of
entry?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. How long do you expect it to take to resolve this
staffing shortage?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2a. As we work to secure our Southwest Border with
barriers and technology, people will look for other ways to move
contrabands into the United States, including by sea. The CBP Air and
Marine Operation, stops unlawful cargo and people from reaching our
shores.
What are the current needs for staffing and training in this
division of CBP?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2b. What is the outlook for this division; do you think
there will be a need for increased staffing in this Department in the
coming years?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2c. If we are expecting a shortage what resources can we
give to help bolster this division to try and prevent problems like we
are seeing in other parts of CBP?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. In regards to port safety, there was a rule issued by
the Coast Guard in 2016 that would require certain facilities to begin
electronic inspections of Transportation Worker Identification
Credentials (TWICs) by August 2018. However there have been concerns
raised about the viability of these scanners, and the ability of people
to move easily between TWIC-secured areas of the port and less secure
areas.
Does CBP have plans to address these concerns?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4a. There has been concern among ports in Florida that as
expansions happen, valuable space within newly-constructed areas is
being used by the CBP and Coast Guard for things not related to the
immediate security of the port, such as gyms and unrelated offices.
While I recognize the importance of having a strong Coast Guard and CBP
presence in close proximity to the port, it is important that valuable
space within in these facilities are used for port- and security-
related activities.
Are the Coast Guard and CBP able to effectively do their jobs if
they are in a space outside of port property but nearby with easy
access?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4b. Would you support Coast Guard and CBP having two
locations, a smaller place for necessary port functions on port
property, and other ancillary services in a location off property?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question From Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman for Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Question. How does the Department of Homeland Security distinguish
between asylum seekers and immigrants seeking entry illegally? What is
DHS's justification for changing its policy toward asylum seekers,
particularly families and children, and in light of the trauma
separation will inflict?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Honorable Kathleen Rice for Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Question 1. You stated before the House Appropriations Homeland
Security Subcommittee that the law restricts your ability to extend
Temporary Protected Status, arguing that if the effects of the
originating event do not continue to exist then the Secretary of
Homeland Security must terminate this protection.
In mid-April, a report produced USCIS in October 2017 was obtained
by the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
through a Freedom of Information Act request. This report concluded
that underlying conditions that warranted TPS for Haitians have
persisted. Yet, DHS chose to terminate TPS for Haiti. Can you please
explain this contradiction? What additional information or other reason
did the USCIS Director have that allowed him to disregard the findings
of this internal report?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. In light of this discrepancy, I request that you
provide us with the USCIS reports and other used to assess conditions
in the other countries with TPS and DED status as well as any related
memos prepared by Director Cissna.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3a. When you testified before the House Appropriations
Homeland Security Subcommittee earlier this month, you committed to
ensuring that ``any pregnant woman in our care in detention receives
adequate care'' based on the recent change to ICE's policy on detaining
pregnant women.
Which detention facilities currently offer prenatal care?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3b. Can you please define for me what DHS's definition of
``adequate care'' is and how you, as the Secretary, intend to ensure
each pregnant woman receives it?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3c. What steps, specifically, are you taking to ensure ICE
is meeting the assurances you made?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3d. What steps are you taking to hold accountable
detention centers or individuals when ``adequate care'' for detained
pregnant women is not provided?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4a. There have been numerous recent reports regarding poor
conditions in ICE detention facilities, specifically regarding
allegations of sexual harassment and assault. Late last year, the OIG
published a report that found poor conditions in five detention centers
that they investigated, including cases of detainee physical abuse by
staff members.
Given that ICE is detaining more vulnerable individuals, including
the elderly and disabled, what additional protections are you putting
in place to ensure the safety of the individuals detained by ICE and
ensure they are not subject to any type of abuse by ICE agents,
contractors, or fellow detainees?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4b. What has been done to address the concerns raised in
the OIG report?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4c. What steps are you taking to investigate allegations
of sexual assault while in detention?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question From Honorable J. Louis Correa for Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Question. Please provide data and any other relevant information on
the threats to our Northern Border compared to our Southern Border,
specifically regarding drug smuggling, traveling known or suspected
terrorists, other illicit activity, and violence. Please provide this
information for activity both at and between ports of entry along both
borders.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
[all]