[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE SECRETARY'S VISION FOR THE FUTURE--CHALLENGES AND PRIORITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-53
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-170 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Peter T. King, New York Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Candice S. Miller, Michigan, Vice Brian Higgins, New York
Chair Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina Ron Barber, Arizona
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Dondald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Jason Chaffetz, Utah Beto O'Rourke, Texas
Steven M. Palazzo, Mississippi Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Filemon Vela, Texas
Richard Hudson, North Carolina Steven A. Horsford, Nevada
Steve Daines, Montana Eric Swalwell, California
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Vacancy
Vacancy, Staff Director
Michael Geffroy, Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, 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.............................................. 4
Witness
Hon. Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
For the Record
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Letter From the Air Line Pilots Association International...... 13
The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California:
Letter From The Coalition For Humane Immigrant Rights of Los
Angeles...................................................... 16
Appendix
Question From Chairman Michael T. McCaul for Honorable Jeh C.
Johnson........................................................ 51
Questions From Honorable Patrick Meehan for Honorable Jeh C.
Johnson........................................................ 52
Questions From Honorable Tom Marino for Honorable Jeh C. Johnson. 52
Questions From Honorable Mark Sanford for Honorable Jeh C.
Johnson........................................................ 53
Questions From Honorable William R. Keating for Honorable Jeh C.
Johnson........................................................ 56
THE SECRETARY'S VISION FOR THE FUTURE--CHALLENGES AND PRIORITIES
----------
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Michael T. McCaul
[Chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McCaul, Smith, King, Broun,
Miller, Meehan, Duncan, Chaffetz, Palazzo, Barletta, Hudson,
Brooks, Perry, Sanford, Thompson, Sanchez, Jackson Lee, Clarke,
Higgins, Richmond, Keating, Barber, Payne, O'Rourke, Gabbard,
Vela, Horsford, and Swalwell.
Chairman McCaul. The Committee on Homeland Security will
come to order. Committee is meeting today to hear testimony
from Secretary Jeh Johnson on his vision and priorities for the
Department of Homeland Security.
The committee is under several time constraints this
morning, including limited availability of the Secretary, and
scheduling commitments Members may have. For this reason, the
Chairman will strictly enforce the 5-minute rule for
questioning witnesses.
Should Members have additional questions for the witness,
they will be able to ask--they can't ask during their 5
minutes, they can submit questions for the record pursuant to
Committee Rules 7(e).
The Chairman appreciates Members' cooperation of moving the
hearing along in an efficient manner. The Secretary will be
testifying before this committee again in March with the
release of the fiscal year 2015 budget. I now recognize myself
for an opening statement.
Today is the 21st anniversary of the first World Trade
Center Bombing, which marked the beginning of the War on
Terrorism. Eight years later, the attacks on 9/11 changed our
country, and reformed our Government with the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security. So it is fitting that today
the new Secretary of the Department, Mr. Jeh Johnson, is here
to discuss his vision for DHS.
Sir, your new position is among the most important in the
Federal Government. You are at the helm of the Department,
charged with securing this Nation in the midst of evolving
terrorist threats, shrinking budgets, and persistent management
challenges.
I appreciate sincerely, sir, your outreach to me over the
past few months to discuss our shared concerns about issues of
National security. I am committed to solving these challenges
and look forward to working constructively with you in the
future.
I just returned from New York City, where I met with the
new police commissioner, Bill Bratton, and other officials, to
discuss current threats. Al-Qaeda affiliates continue to target
the United States.
Iran's terrorist proxies are present throughout the Western
Hemisphere. A growing number of ungoverned locations across the
Middle East and Northern Africa provide safe havens for
Jihadist networks.
With the growing concern over lone-wolf attacks, we have to
adapt to the reality that threats are not diminishing, they are
evolving. DHS has a major role in identifying and mitigating
terrorist threats to the homeland, whether from plots directed
by jihadists, networks abroad, or from individually-inspired
radicals within our borders.
The events in Syria are now threatening to become issues
for us at home. I know, sir, you said in your speech at the
Wilson Center, that Syria has become a matter of homeland
security. I agree, and I want to hear what the Department is
doing to counter this threat to the homeland.
In addition, the capture over this last weekend of the top
drug lord, El Chapo Guzman, is a huge win for the United States
and for Mexico. He is responsible for thousands of deaths, and
his reach went far beyond Mexico.
He is public enemy No. 1 in Chicago and carries indictments
in California, New York, and my home State of Texas. His arrest
is significant, both symbolically and operationally. I applaud
the ICE agents for their participation, along with the DEA,
U.S. marshals, and Mexican authorities, for this capture. I
want him to face justice in the United States, and make sure he
is never out on the streets again.
As in the Guzman case, spill-over violence from drug
traffic goes well beyond border towns in the United States.
Pourous borders are a vulnerability to homeland security, and
our border security has been woefully haphazard since 9/11.
Last year, this committee unanimously passed the Border
Security Results Act, which requires the Department to create a
National, strategic plan on the border, complete with metrics
to check our progress. I am hopeful, with your DOD experience,
sir, that you will be able to best organize your staff with
both strategists and planners needed to address border security
at the National strategic level. I am also hopeful the
Department will work with this committee on improving our cyber
defenses, which I know you have vast experience in.
The Department of Homeland Security has a critical role to
play in the National Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure
Protection Act of 2013, which we unanimously passed out of our
committee earlier this month, takes an important step by
codifying the Department's cybersecurity mission.
The committee would like to see a greater emphasis on
building an experienced and streamlined cyber workforce, and
increasing the security and resiliency of our Federal networks.
All these missions will only be successful if the Department is
managed efficiently.
Next week marks 11 years since the creation of DHS. No one
should minimize the job of combining 22 different agencies,
systems, and cultures into one. There have been many unforeseen
challenges, but strong management means strong leadership.
I appreciate your sincere focus on filling the vacancies at
DHS in a very short period of time since you have become
appointed and confirmed. With the DHS senior leadership vacancy
rate at 38 percent, I hope you will encourage the White House
Presidential personnel to approve your recommendations quickly.
DHS needs competent leaders. You understand how to inspire
and motivate staff, but also, how to make the tough decisions.
More than 200,000 men and women whose job it is to keep
Americans safe are now under your leadership.
These employees strongly believe in their mission. You
briefed me on security measures also prior to the Super Bowl. I
believe that the local, Federal, and private-sector
collaboration that took place there is really a model for how
our National security apparatus should work here at home.
I understand there is much to be proud of at the
Department. I also know there is much progress to be made. I
will look forward to hearing your vision and perspectives
today, and for the coming years.
[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:]
Statement of Chairman Michael T. McCaul
February 26, 2014
Today is the 21st anniversary of the first World Trade Center
bombing which marked the beginning of the war on terrorism. Eight years
later the attacks on
9/11 changed our country and reformed our Government with the creation
of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). So it's fitting that
today the new Secretary of the Department, Mr. Jeh Johnson is here to
discuss his vision for DHS.
Your new position is among the most important in the Federal
Government. You are at the helm of a Department charged with securing
this Nation in the midst of evolving terrorist threats, shrinking
budgets, and persistent management challenges.
I appreciate your outreach to me over the past few months to
discuss our shared concerns about issues of National security. I am
committed to solving these challenges and look forward to working
constructively with you.
I just returned from New York City where I met with the new Police
Commissioner Bratton and other officials to discuss current threats.
Al-Qaeda affiliates continue to target the United States. Iran's
terrorist proxies are present throughout the Western Hemisphere.
And a growing number of ungoverned locations across the Middle East
and North Africa provide safe havens for jihadist networks. With the
growing concern over lone-wolf attacks, we have to adapt to the reality
that threats are not diminishing; they are evolving. DHS has a major
role in identifying and mitigating terrorist threats to the U.S.
homeland--whether from plots directed by jihadist networks abroad or
from individually-inspired radicals within our borders.
The events in Syria are now threatening to become issues for us at
home. You said in your speech at the Wilson Center, ``Syria has become
a matter of homeland security.'' I agree, and I want to hear what the
Department is doing to counter this threat to the homeland.
The capture over the weekend of the drug lord, ``El Chapo'' Guzman
is a huge win for the United States and Mexico. He is responsible for
thousands of deaths and his reach went far beyond Mexico.
He is public enemy No. 1 in Chicago and carries indictments in
California, New York, and my home State of Texas. His arrest is
significant both symbolically and operationally and I applaud
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for their participation along
with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Marshals, and
Mexican authorities for this capture. I want him to face justice in the
United States and make sure he is never out on the streets again.
As in the Guzman case, spillover violence from drug traffic goes
well beyond border towns in the United States. Porous borders are a
vulnerability to homeland security and our border security has been
woefully haphazard since 9/11.
Last year this committee unanimously passed the Border Security
Results Act, which requires the Department to create a National
strategic plan on the border complete with metrics to check our
progress.
I am hopeful with your Department of Defense (DOD) experience you
will be able to best organize your staff with both strategists and
planners needed to address border security at the National strategic
level.
I am also hopeful the Department will work with this committee on
improving our cyber defenses. The Department of Homeland Security has a
critical role to play, and the National Cybersecurity and Critical
Infrastructure Protection Act of 2013, which unanimously passed out of
our committee earlier this month takes an important step by codifying
the Department's cybersecurity mission. The committee would like to see
a greater emphasis on building an experienced and streamlined cyber
workforce and increasing the security and resiliency of Federal
networks.
All of these missions will only be successful if the Department is
managed efficiently. Next week marks 11 years since DHS's creation, and
no one should minimize the job of combining 22 different agencies,
systems, and cultures into one. There have been many unforeseen
challenges but strong management means strong leadership.
I appreciate your sincere focus on filling vacancies at DHS. With
the DHS senior leadership vacancy rate at 38%, I hope you will
encourage White House Presidential Personnel to approve your
recommendations quickly. DHS needs competent leaders who understand how
to inspire and motivate staff but also make the tough decisions.
More than 200,000 men and women whose job it is to keep Americans
safe are under your leadership now. These employees strongly believe in
their mission. You briefed me on security measures prior to the Super
Bowl and I believe the local, Federal, and private-sector collaboration
that took place there is a model for how our National security
apparatus should work. I understand there is much to be proud of at the
Department and also know there is much progress to be made. I look
forward to hearing your vision and perspectives today and for the
coming years.
Chairman McCaul. With that, the Chairman now recognizes the
Ranking Member, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson,
for any statement he may have.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Secretary. I am pleased that our committee is the first in
Congress to hear your vision for DHS.
I understand that the day after being sworn in as the
fourth Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, you
went to New York City to the National September 11 Memorial.
That quiet act reflects an appreciation of the magnitude of the
job.
First and foremost, DHS was established to help make sure
that America never experiences a day like that again.
Specifically, DHS was established to improve terrorism
prevention in safeguarding aviation and other critical
infrastructure from physical and cyber threats, to achieve
interoperability so that our first responders can communicate
during an attack or in other emergencies, make our land, air,
and sea borders more secure, and to bolster emergency
preparedness, response, and resiliency at all levels.
In the 10-plus years since the Department was established,
some progress has been made. But as the Comptroller General and
many Members of this committee can tell you, more needs to be
done for DHS to become the agency that Congress envisioned and
the American people deserve.
The 233,000 men and women who serve in the Department and
the 314 million Americans that it protects are looking for you
to be the leader that takes DHS to the next level. Your last
Federal position was at the Department of Defense. I know you
have not been at DHS long, but I am sure you have noticed that
the level of command and control to which you may have become
accustomed to is not really there at DHS.
Last week, you experienced the potentially damaging results
of this structural defect. The fact that an acquisition
solicitation with significant privacy implications was
published without approval by DHS, or the awareness of ICE
leadership, is very troubling.
Your immediate predecessor promoted the concept of One DHS,
once structural changes persist that dates back to when 22
independent offices and agencies were essentially thrown
together under one roof.
As you have undoubtedly learned by now, DHS components
essentially function as independent entities. All too often,
components see directives from headquarters as advisory. This
has to stop.
For One DHS to truly have meaning, components must adhere
to Department-wide policies and mandates, and I appreciate your
position when the Chairman and I had a meeting with you that
you basically committed to making that happen, as well as
making sure the vacancy rate at DHS would be substantially
reduced.
This committee has consistently supported on a bipartisan
basis granting authority to the chief officers of the
Department to ensure adherence to Federal and Department-wide
policies and mandates throughout DHS. Short of redoing the
Federal appropriations process, this is the surest way to
provide you with needed authority to prevent costly acquisition
debacles and deliver timely progress on homeland security
initiatives.
Mr. Secretary, there are a number of DHS programs that
warrant your immediate attention. Decisions need to be made on
whether to reform or in some cases end them as these programs.
I urge you to ask tough questions and keep the lines of
communication open with Members of this committee who have
considerable knowledge about these matters.
On the subject of communication, I want to acknowledge my
appreciation for the outreach to me and other Members of this
committee that you have shown. We look forward to working
constructively with you going forward.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the Ranking Member. I associate
myself with your remarks in terms of the outreach you have
demonstrated to this committee. It certainly does not go
unnoticed.
Members are reminded that opening statements may be
submitted for the record. We are pleased today to be joined by
the new appointed and confirmed Secretary. Congratulations to
you.
Jeh Johnson, Secretary Johnson, was sworn in on December
23, 2013, as the fourth Secretary of the Department for
Homeland Security. Prior to joining DHS, Secretary Johnson
served as general counsel for the Department of Defense, where
he was part of the senior management team and led more than
10,000 military and civilian lawyers across the Department.
As general counsel of the Department of Defense, Secretary
Johnson oversaw the development of the legal aspects of many of
our Nation's counterterrorism policies, including most
importantly the successful raid on bin Laden, bringing him to
justice. He also spearheaded reforms to military commissions at
Guantanamo Bay in 2009.
His career includes extensive service in National security,
law enforcement, as an attorney in private corporate law
practice. He was also the general counsel for the Department of
the Air Force from 1998 to 2001. He also served--we have this
in common, sir--he also served as an assistant United States
attorney. I was in a different district. You were in the
southern district of New York, perhaps one of the finest, from
1989 to 1991.
His entire written statement will appear in the record. The
Chairman now recognizes the Secretary for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEH C. JOHNSON, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have my
written statement submitted for the record. I would just like
to give some brief comments within the 5-minute allocation.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, Members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I have
appreciated your kind words, encouragement, and support in the
days leading up to today's hearing. I look forward to working
with this committee to meet the critical mission of homeland
security.
In this, my first opportunity to testify before this
committee, I would like to spell out my vision for the
Department that I am privileged to lead. As each of you are
aware, the Department of Homeland Security was born out of the
tragic events of September 11, 2001. I am a New Yorker who was
present in Manhattan on 9/11. Therefore, out of the events of
that day--which happens to be my birthday--my personal
commitment to the mission of homeland security was also born.
As the senior lawyer for the Department of Defense for 4
years, from 2009 through 2012, I was at the center of much of
this Government's counterterrorism efforts during that period.
Through the efforts of both the Bush and Obama administrations,
we have put al-Qaeda's core leadership on a path to strategic
defeat.
My best day as a lawyer, as the Chairman mentioned, and as
a public servant, was May 1, 2011, the day our Special Forces
got bin Laden.
My second best day was May 5, 2011--the day I returned to
Manhattan with the President to meet with the families of the
victims of 9/11. Their message to the President was simple--
thank you. Bin Laden's death brought them some degree of
closure, but our work must continue.
Given how the terrorist threat to this country is evolving,
I welcome the opportunity to continue that work as the leader
of the Department of Homeland Security.
The cornerstone of the Homeland Security mission has been
and should continue to be counterterrorism--that is, protecting
the Nation against terrorist attacks.
Security along our borders and at ports of entry is also a
matter of homeland security. At our borders and ports of entry,
we must deny entry to terrorists, drug traffickers, human
traffickers, transnational criminal organizations, and other
threats to National security and public safety, while--and I
emphasize this--continuing to facilitate legal trade and
travel.
In this regard, I, too, congratulate our law enforcement
and National security partners in the government of Mexico for
the capture and arrest this weekend of Joaquin ``El Chapo''
Guzman on February 22.
DHS must continue efforts to address the growing cyber
threat to the private sector and the dot-gov networks,
illustrated by the real, pervasive, and on-going series of
attacks on public and private infrastructure.
Many in Congress have expressed a willingness to help in
cybersecurity. We appreciate those efforts. I have studied H.R.
3696, reported out of this committee on a bipartisan basis. We
think this bill is a good step forward. We want to continue
working with Congress on this and other legislation to improve
the Government's and the Nation's overall cybersecurity
posture.
We must continue to be vigilant in preparing for and
responding to disasters, including floods, wild fires, winter
storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, and chemical leaks,
like the one into the Elk River in West Virginia that
threatened the water supply of hundreds of thousands of people.
Finally, we must be mindful of the environment in which we
pursue all these missions.
First, we operate in a time of severe budget constraints.
As Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, I
therefore believe I am obligated to identify and eliminate
inefficiencies, waste, and unnecessary duplications of
resources across DHS's large and decentralized bureaucracy,
while pursuing important missions such as the recapitalization
of the aging Coast Guard fleet.
Second, I am mindful of the surveys that reflect that
morale is low within various components of DHS. I intend to
constantly remind our workforce of the critical importance of
their homeland security mission, and that the Department's
greatest asset in the pursuit of these missions is our people.
I will be a champion for the men and women of DHS and I
will advocate on their behalf.
I look forward to working with this committee. The Chairman
is correct that I am actively working to fill the vacancies in
senior management positions. I do that on a daily basis. I look
forward to a shared vision and a partnership with Congress on
our important mission.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Honorable Jeh C. Johnson
February 26, 2014
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of this
committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I have appreciated
your kind words, encouragement, and support in the days leading up to
today's hearing. I look forward to working with this committee to meet
the critical mission of homeland security.
In this, my first opportunity to testify before this committee, I
would like to spell out my vision for the Department I am privileged to
lead.
As each of you is aware, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
was born out of the tragic events of 9/11.
I am a New Yorker who was present in Manhattan on 9/11. Therefore,
out of the events of that day, which happens to be my birthday, my
personal commitment to the mission of homeland security was also born.
As the senior lawyer for the Department of Defense for 4 years from
2009 through 2012, I was at the center of much of this Government's
counterterrorism efforts during that period. Through the efforts of
both the Bush and Obama administrations, we have put al-Qaeda's core
leadership on a path to strategic defeat. My best day as a lawyer and
public servant was May 1, 2011, the day our Special Forces got bin
Laden. My second best day was May 5, 2011, the day I returned to
Manhattan, with the President, to meet with the families of the victims
of 9/11. Their message to the President was simple: ``Thank you.'' Bin
Laden's death brought them some degree of closure, but our work must
continue.
Given how the terrorist threat to this country is evolving, I
welcome the opportunity to continue that work as the leader of the
Department of Homeland Security.
We must remain vigilant in detecting and preventing terrorist
threats that may seek to penetrate the homeland from the land, sea, or
air. We must continue to build relationships with State and local law
enforcement, and the first responders in our communities, to address
the threats we face from those who self-radicalize to violence, the so-
called ``lone wolf'' who may be living quietly in our midst, inspired
by radical, violent ideology to do harm to Americans--illustrated last
year by the Boston Marathon bombing.
Addressing each of these types of threats is a matter for the
Department of Homeland Security in close collaboration with other
departments and agencies.
The cornerstone of the homeland security mission has been, and
should continue to be, counterterrorism; that is, protecting the Nation
against terrorist attacks.
Security along our borders and at ports of entry is also a matter
of homeland security. At our borders and ports of entry, we must deny
entry to terrorists, drug traffickers, human traffickers, transnational
criminal organizations, and other threats to National security and
public safety while continuing to facilitate legal travel and trade.
We must be agile in addressing threats to border security. We must
dedicate resources where the threats exist, and be prepared to move
when they move.
We are gratified by the support Congress has provided to improve
security at our borders and ports of entry. With that support, we've
made great progress. There is now more manpower, technology, and
infrastructure on our borders than ever before, and our men and women
in and around the border are producing results.
For example, on February 10, a task force led by U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement shut down a 481-foot drug smuggling tunnel
between Nogales, Mexico and Nogales, Arizona, arrested three men
involved in the smuggling operation, and seized 640 pounds of
marijuana.
Meanwhile, our law enforcement and National security partners in
the government of Mexico are making great strides in our common
interest of combating drug trafficking, violence, and illicit activity
along our shared border, marked by the operation to capture Joaquin
``Chapo'' Guzman Loera, the alleged leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, on
February 22. We congratulate the government of Mexico for these
efforts.
As you know, more needs to be done.
The day in January I visited the Port Isabel Detention Center near
Brownsville, Texas, I saw about 1,000 detainees, 18% of whom were
Mexican, and the rest representing over 30 different nationalities who
migrated through Mexico in an effort to get to the United States.
Smuggling organizations are responsible for almost all those who
cross the border illegally. We must attack these networks. And when
individuals are detained in our custody, we must ensure our detention
facilities are safe and humane.
And, as part of reforming our immigration system, we support the
additional border and port security resources that common-sense
immigration reform legislation would provide.
The President, many Members of Congress, the business and labor
communities, and others all recognize that immigration reform is a
matter of economic growth. In my view, immigration reform is also a
matter of homeland security. There are an estimated 11.5 million
undocumented immigrants living in this country. Most have been here for
years. Many came here as children. I believe that, as a matter of
homeland security, we should encourage these people to come out of the
shadows of American society, pay taxes and fines, be held accountable,
and be given the opportunity to get on a path to citizenship like
others. Allowing individuals to come out of the shadows will also allow
DHS to dedicate even more focus and attention on public safety,
National security, and border security threats. I support common-sense
immigration reform and the additional resources it would bring.
DHS must continue efforts to address the growing cyber threat to
the private sector and the ``.gov'' networks, illustrated by the real,
pervasive, and on-going series of attacks on public and private
infrastructure.
In this effort, I believe that, for DHS, building trust and
relationships with the private sector is crucial.
Through the President's Executive Order 13636 on critical
infrastructure cybersecurity, and Presidential Policy Directive 21 on
strengthening the security and resilience of critical infrastructure,
we are continuing to strengthen our partnerships with the private
sector.
On February 12, the White House made public the ``Cybersecurity
Framework,'' which is a set of best practices and voluntary guidelines
for the private sector. Initial reports are the Framework has received
a positive reaction from the private sector. That same day, DHS stood
up for public use the Critical Infrastructure Cyber Community--or
``C\3\''--Voluntary Program, which gives companies direct access to
cybersecurity experts within DHS who have knowledge of the threats we
face. There is more to do.
I believe it is crucial that, for the cybersecurity mission to
succeed, we must recruit the next generation of cybersecurity talent to
serve in Government. For this, I have embarked on a personal
recruitment campaign. On February 14, I visited Georgia Tech and
Morehouse College to encourage students there interested in
cybersecurity to consider public service. I am planning other visits to
colleges and universities for the same purpose.
Many in Congress have expressed a willingness to help in
cybersecurity. We appreciate those efforts. I have studied H.R. 3696
reported out of this committee on a bipartisan basis. We think this
bill is a good step forward. We want to continue working with Congress
on this and other legislation to improve the Government and Nation's
overall cybersecurity posture.
We must continue to be vigilant in preparing for and responding to
disasters, including floods, wildfires, winter storms, tornadoes,
hurricanes, droughts, and chemical leaks like the one into the Elk
River in West Virginia that threatened the water supply of hundreds of
thousands of people.
FEMA has come a long way from the days after Hurricane Katrina. We
have improved disaster planning with public and private-sector
partners, non-profit organizations, and the American people. We have
learned how to pre-position a greater number of resources and we have
helped to strengthen the Nation's ability to respond to disasters in a
quick and robust fashion.
For example, on Tuesday, February 11, the President signed an
emergency declaration in response to the severe winter storm that
rolled through Georgia that week. By 6 p.m. on Thursday February 13,
FEMA had shipped to the State 112 generators, 453,000 liters of water,
over 1,000,000 meals, over 7,000 blankets, over 2,000 cots, and 2,500
tarps.
We must continue good work like this.
We must be mindful of the environment in which we pursue these
missions:
First, we operate in a time of severe budget constraints. The days
are over when those of us in National and homeland security can expect
more and more to be added each year to our top-line budgets. As
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, I believe I am
obliged to identify and eliminate inefficiencies, waste, and
unnecessary duplications of resources across DHS's large and
decentralized bureaucracy, while pursuing important missions such as
the recapitalization of the aging Coast Guard fleet.
I compliment TSA for its recent decision to realign the number of
Federal Air Marshal offices across the country, to achieve greater
efficiencies while continuing to perform this critical mission, and I
am encouraging other DHS components to think in these terms.
To achieve greater efficiencies, we must manage our large and
diffuse bureaucracy more effectively. I am pleased that late last year
DHS received its first unqualified, or ``clean,'' audit opinion, a
significant achievement just 10 years after the largest realignment and
consolidation of U.S. Government agencies and functions since the
creation of the Department of Defense. At my direction, we are also
working to get DHS programs off the GAO ``high-risk'' list.
Second, I am mindful of the surveys that reflect that morale is low
within various components of DHS. I intend to constantly remind our
workforce of the critical importance of their homeland security
mission, and that the Department's greatest asset in the pursuit of
that mission is our people.
I will be a champion for the men and women of DHS, and I will
advocate on their behalf.
I did not enjoy, early in my tenure, suspending Administratively
Uncontrollable Overtime pay for certain categories of DHS workers. I
continue to support overtime for DHS personnel who earn it and require
it, especially the men and women in the field working to keep our
Nation safe, but we must work within the laws and rules pursuant to
which overtime is sought and received.
We must inject a new energy into DHS, and good leadership starts
with recruiting other good leaders to join the team to help run the
organization. With the help of the White House and Congress, we are
actively recruiting terrific people to fill the large number of senior
management vacancies that have existed within DHS.
We look forward to the Senate confirmation of Suzanne Spaulding to
be under secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate;
Gil Kerlikowske to be the next commissioner of Customs and Border
Protection; John Roth to be the next inspector general; Leon Rodriguez
to be the next director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
and Dr. Reggie Brothers to be the next under secretary for Science and
Technology.
I am very pleased that on February 12 the President nominated
retired Brigadier General Frank Taylor, the former ambassador-at-large
for counterterrorism, to be our next under secretary for Intelligence &
Analysis. We are working to recruit terrific people to fill other key
positions, including the next under secretary for Management, director
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Chief Financial
Officer.
Finally, the Department's ability to serve the American people well
requires effective oversight by Congress. I want to work with this
committee to reform DHS Congressional jurisdiction, which is spread
across more than 100 committees and subcommittees of Congress. More
than 10 years after the Department's creation, it is time to fulfill
this 9/11 Commission recommendation and streamline the current
oversight structure.
For my part, I have directed my staff and our component leadership
to be responsive to inquiries and letters from Members and committees
of Congress. I have begun a practice of personally reading each letter
addressed to me from any Member of Congress, and, along with the deputy
secretary, I track the status to ensure you receive the responses
promptly.
In all, I believe DHS must be agile and vigilant in continually
adapting to evolving threats and hazards. We must learn from and adapt
to the changing character of the threats and hazards we face: 9/11;
Hurricane Katrina in 2005; the underwear bomber in 2009; the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in 2010; Hurricane Sandy in 2012; and the Boston
Marathon bombing in 2013 illustrate these evolving threats and hazards.
We must stay one step ahead of the next terrorist attack, the next
cyber attack, and the next natural disaster.
In the pursuit of this important mission, I pledge to this
committee my total dedication and all the energy I possess.
Thank you for listening and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the Secretary, and I believe that
your priorities and mine are very similar. We look forward to
working with you on achieving those.
This last weekend was an extraordinary weekend for me,
having been the chief of counterterrorism, who at the U.S.-
Mexico border, my jurisdiction, the drug cartels have been on
my radar screen for quite some time. The arrest of the largest,
most well-known drug lord of the most powerful, oldest drug
cartel organization, the Sinaloa, was hugely significant.
He has smuggled tons of drugs into the United States,
killed thousands of people. I want to personally take this
opportunity to thank Homeland Security officials, ICE agents on
the ground who made this happen, who worked closely with DEA to
bring Chapo Guzman finally, after 3 decades, to justice.
I think it is important that we recognize our men and women
in Homeland Security who had a role in bringing him down.
I am concerned, and I did talk to the Ambassador from
Mexico yesterday, we had a very good conversation. He is very
proud of the cooperation between the United States and Mexico,
which was extraordinary in this case. Mexico is to be commended
for their willingness to take this threat on, head-on. They
took down the head of the Los Zetas cartel and now with Chapo
Guzman, Sinaloa.
As you know, Mr. Secretary, El Chapo Guzman escaped
captivity, a prison, in 2001. He has 12 years left to his
sentence. But I am concerned about that happening again in
Mexico. My understanding is that extradition papers have not
been served to date.
Do you know whether this administration is intent on
extraditing El Chapo Guzman to the United States to stand trial
for the crimes he committed in the United States?
Secretary Johnson. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by echoing
much of what you said. We do indeed have a terrific partnership
with the government of Mexico in our shared homeland security,
border security efforts. We work together constantly.
I was in Mexico with the President last week. I intend to
go back in the next couple of weeks. I intend to speak with my
Mexican counterpart today on various matters. So I can't
emphasize enough the importance and the strength of our shared
law enforcement, homeland security, National security efforts.
We work well together as a team with the government of Mexico.
I, too, agree with the importance and the broad
implications of this weekend's capture and arrest.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, extradition is a matter for the
Department of Justice. I have read what you have read with
great interest. One of the things that strikes me about where
we are, it may be easier to work out the appropriate
arrangement with the government of Mexico than it will be to
work out an appropriate arrangement among the six U.S.
attorneys who would like to prosecute this individual. That
will be an interesting discussion.
But I have to respectfully refer you to the Department of
Justice with regard to the discussions that I know they are
having with the government of Mexico regarding extradition.
Chairman McCaul. Well, you are a part of this
administration. I would hope that having a seat at the table,
you will urge the Attorney General and the State Department, as
I am doing, to seek extradition and bring him to the United
States for trial. I would hope that you would agree with that
assessment.
Secretary Johnson. I agree wholeheartedly that we in this
country have an interest in seeing him brought to justice.
Chairman McCaul. Well, and I know that there are multiple
jurisdictions here at play. I am going to do everything in my
power to see that that happens.
You talked about Syria in your speech at the Wilson Center.
You said that Syria is now a matter of homeland security. I
couldn't agree with you more, as we see more and more jihadists
pouring into Syria for the fight in the rebel forces who have
been now infiltrated by al-Qaeda affiliates. It is becoming one
of the largest training grounds now in the world, in my
judgment, surpassing the FATA in Pakistan.
Therein lies the threat, I think, to the United States.
These individuals have travel documents, with training,
expertise, leaving Syria, perhaps going to Western Europe or
the United States is a serious concern of mine. I would like
for you to elaborate on that statement.
Secretary Johnson. From my experience at the Department of
Defense in counterterrorism matters, I know that terrorist
organizations look for places to build safe havens. They look
for places in remote areas, in areas that do not have robust
law enforcement, to train and from which to launch terrorist
attacks and terrorist planning.
So we have to be constantly vigilant in looking out for
those efforts and preventing them. I have seen that time and
again over the 4 years I was at the Department of Defense. We
are concerned about foreign fighters going into Syria. It is a
shared concern between us and our European allies and others in
the world.
The numbers are concerning. We are monitoring the situation
very closely. I would say that for those of us in National
security and homeland security in this government, this
particular issue is at the top of the list or near the top of
the list for us. We talk about it all the time. We are
carefully monitoring the situation, and I would be happy to
share with this committee in a non-public setting some of the
more sensitive elements of what our Government is doing.
I believe at least several of you may have been briefed on
that, but we are happy to share that information.
Chairman McCaul. We appreciate that information. Thank you,
Secretary.
The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Again, welcome, Mr. Secretary. Recently, TSA decided to
open a pre-clearance operation in Abu Dhabi. Some of us have
expressed concern that it might in our estimation have been a
rush that could potentially create some vulnerabilities for
people traveling to the United States.
I think one of the issues is that people coming from Abu
Dhabi would bypass the domestic screening when boarding
connecting flights in the United States. Some of those people
are identified as selectees.
So if I am coming to New York, Dulles, or LAX, can you
assure this committee that the process TSA has implemented
would somehow allow the selectees to be more than just passed
through? That once they touched down in the United States,
there would be some kind of re-screening of that individual
once they are here?
Secretary Johnson. Thank you, Congressman, for that
question.
The short answer to your question is yes, that is something
that is important that I intend to look at, in terms of what
happens at the arrival, once somebody has gone through pre-
clearance overseas.
I want to emphasize what I regard as the importance of pre-
clearance at our last point-of-departure airports. Aviation
security involves, in my judgment, primarily security when it
concerns what happens in the air on the way to the United
States. We got a rude awakening of that on December 25, 2009.
So, in my judgment, looking at the security at the various
last point-of-departure airports that are out there in the
world that send flights into the United States, I believe it is
a homeland security imperative that we improve that security in
one way or another. I think pre-clearance is a good way to do
that.
Abu Dhabi is not intended to be an endpoint. It is a point
along the way in a progression. We will continue to look at
additional airports and I think we ought to also look at your
question, as well--what happens when the traveler gets to the
United States.
Mr. Thompson. Especially when some of the travelers have
been ping'd in the system as a selectee. I am concerned about--
because we have a number of those individuals who would come
through that. I look forward to working with you on that.
Chairman, I would like unanimous consent that the letter to
the committee received from the Airline Pilots Association
expressing concern with the pre-clearance operation in Abu
Dhabi be inserted in the record.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter From the Air Line Pilots Association International
February 25, 2014.
The Honorable Michael McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, 176 Ford Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Bennie Thompson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, 117 Ford Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson: On behalf of the
50,000 professional airline pilots represented by the Air Line Pilots
Association, International (ALPA), we would like to thank you for
holding a hearing on future priorities and challenges at the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We recognize that DHS faces
monumental tasks and are pleased to partner with your committee and
Secretary Johnson's team to address aviation security challenges.
ALPA continues to oppose the Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
preclearance facility at Abu Dhabi International Airport. The lack of
U.S. air carrier service to Abu Dhabi as well as the unusual pay-to-
play precedent that is being set by CBP with regard to future
preclearance facilities is extremely troubling and aggravates the
immediate CBP staffing challenges at our domestic airports.
The very real threat posed by Middle Eastern air carriers to the
future of the U.S. aviation industry is further exacerbated by our own
country's willingness to provide these foreign carriers with a
competitive financial advantage by authorizing these preclearance
facilities. The direct and indirect financial and policy support these
foreign air carriers receive from their respective governments already
provides them with a competitive advantage. They don't need our help.
In addition to ALPA's opposition to the Abu Dhabi site, we are
particularly concerned with recent reports of another preclearance
facility being planned less than 100 miles away in Dubai. If these
reports are true, and another preclearance facility is in fact planned
for Dubai, then our initial concerns with respect to Abu Dhabi and the
``domino effect'' it will have on other Middle Eastern airports are
fully substantiated. If anything, this situation has highlighted the
need for a clear and uniform policy on how future preclearance sites
are established, but more importantly, the need for Congressional
oversight and approval of any such facilities.
We appreciate the committee's commitment to ensuring sound security
oversight related to any expansion of preclearance facilities and hope
that you will continue to explore the security questions surrounding
Abu Dhabi preclearance. Further, we respectfully impress upon you that
any expansion of CBP preclearance facilities that present an unlevel
playing field for U.S. carriers is poor policy and will have serious
ramifications for the U.S. airline industry and U.S. jobs.
Thank you for your continued interest in this matter.
Sincerely,
Lee Moak,
President.
Mr. Thompson. Secretary, several years ago, Congress passed
100 percent screening mandate for maritime cargo. Your
predecessor looked at it and said we didn't need to do it. Will
you look at the 100 percent screening mandate that Congress
passed and report back to us on where we are toward meeting
that mandate?
Secretary Johnson. That legal mandate is something that
many Members of Congress have talked to me, too--talked to me
about, including in the Senate confirmation process, it was
raised by a number of Members of Congress on both sides of the
aisle.
As recently as last week when I was at the port of Los
Angeles, I examined what our screening scanning capabilities
are and the implications of putting that--trying to put that
and the cost of putting that at overseas ports to comply with
the legal requirement. I understand that the Secretary of
Homeland Security can, for a period of time, waive that. I am
looking at that.
In general, I believe that the Department ought to comply
with legal mandates. So if there is some reason we can't
immediately, then consistent with the law, we ought to at least
have a plan for getting there.
So I am studying the issue very closely, and I did that as
recently as last week.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman will now recognize other
Members for 5 minutes for questions in the order of arrival.
The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Johnson, let me switch to the subject of
immigration. The administration has been making a sales pitch
that they are deporting or removing record numbers of
individuals compared to previous administrations.
You all count, do you not, the turn-arounds, the turn-backs
at the border, as deportations?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, Congressman. I believe that was
reflected in the removal numbers we reported recently for
fiscal year 2013.
Mr. Smith. That is correct. That is correct. That is
reflected in your deportation numbers. The problem is other
administrations, including the Bush administration and the
Clinton administration, did not include turn-backs at the
border as a part of their deportation numbers.
So to say that you are setting records when comparing
oranges and oranges is simply not accurate. If you look at
interior deportations, they are down 40 percent since 2009. Do
you agree with that generally speaking, if we are looking at
interior deportation? You may need to check that, I realize.
But I have looked at the figures, and they are down 40
percent. So for this administration to say it is breaking
records in removing individuals is simply not accurate. If you
have any comment on that, you are welcome to make it.
Secretary Johnson. Well, I would have to look at the the
numbers myself. My understanding, which could be wrong, is that
consistent with prior administrations, we have reported the
overall numbers; but that with respect to the last report, we
broke out, within that overall number, the number of those who
are border arrests----
Mr. Smith. Again, the problem with this administration is
that they are including the turn-backs and the removals by the
Border Patrol at the border. Previous administrations did not.
So you are inflating your figures so that you can claim to be
setting records, when in fact, you are not.
Actual deportations from the interior are down 40 percent.
If you want to get back to me on that, you are welcome to.
Secretary Johnson. I will look into those numbers, sir.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Let me go to another subject, and that is
what the administration is doing with illegal immigrants who
have been charged with serious crimes. As I understand it, the
administration is releasing tens of thousands of these
individuals back into our communities where they are of course
a threat to American citizens and residents.
I was not able to get the figures from the Department of
Homeland Security, but I was able to get the figures from the
Congressional Research Service, though they are I think a year
old. Fourteen percent of those individuals who have been
charged and released were charged with DUI; 10 percent, drug
violations; 7 percent, thousands of people, charged with
murder, assault, rape, and kidnapping, were released back into
our communities. Why?
Secretary Johnson. What I am committed to do is removing
those who represent National security, public safety, and
border security threats. I believe that that requires a
constant reevaluation of our process, what we are doing, who we
are removing. I am committed to continuing to do that.
Mr. Smith. Shouldn't individuals in our country illegally,
who have been charged with these kinds of crimes, shouldn't
they be a priority to remove? Why would we release them back in
our streets, and communities, and neighborhoods?
Secretary Johnson. Those who represent public safety
threats who are in this country illegally fit within our
removal priorities.
Mr. Smith. Do you not think they represent a public threat,
these individuals who have been charged with those crimes?
Secretary Johnson. Well, as I said, I think we should
continually reevaluate what we are doing to make sure that what
we are doing fit within those priorities.
Mr. Smith. In your reevaluation, I hope you will give
greater priority to removing those individuals who are clearly
a threat to the lives and safety of American citizens, and who
have been charged with these crimes, tens of thousands of
people. You are actually releasing more people into our
neighborhoods than you are removing of the individuals who have
been charged with crimes. I just don't know what the
justification or rationale, for that is.
Last question goes to border security: As you probably
know, in 2011, the Government Accountability Office came up
with the determination that about 44 percent of the border was
under some level of control, but that only 6.5 percent of the
border was under actual control--6.5 percent.
The administration didn't like that result, so they said,
``We are not going to use the GAO's metrics anymore. We are
going to come up with something else.''
To this day, they have not. So we have no way of knowing,
as we sit here right now, how secure or insecure the border is,
other than 6.5 percent a few years ago was actually under
actual control. When is the DHS going to update its border
security statistics?
Secretary Johnson. I agree with the goal of establishing
metrics for what constitutes border security. I agree with that
goal. We are working toward that goal right now, and we are
working towards something we can share with Congress.
When I was at the Southwest Border, and I talked to the
border-security experts about border security, they emphasized
to me an approach that is agile, with an emphasis on
surveillance, with an emphasis on mobility, so that we can
follow the threats as they exist, as we can follow the trends
in illegal migration as they arise. I think that is a good
approach. I think that with the resources Congress has given
us, we have done better. But there is always more work to do.
Chairman McCaul. Chairman now recognizes the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, it is
great to have you. Of course, seen you before the House Armed
Services Committee before, and really excited to have you over
at the Department. Have a lot of questions for you, so I am
going to sort of go through them, and maybe if you have a
pencil there, what have you.
First of all, I want to put into the record, with unanimous
consent, Mr. Chairman, a letter from the Coalition for Humane
Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles to be into the record, please.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter From The Coalition For Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
February 25, 2014.
The Honorable Michael McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, 176 Ford Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Bennie Thompson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, 117 Ford Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson: The Coalition for
Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) is a regional
organization whose mission is to advance the human and civil rights of
immigrants and refugees in Los Angeles. CHIRLA advocates on behalf of
this community through policy & advocacy, organizing, education and
community building. On behalf of CHIRLA, I am writing to express our
views and issue recommendations for the hearing on immigration border
enforcement to be held on 26 February 2014, ``The Secretary's Vision
for the Future--Challenges and Priorities.''
As an organization with a strong commitment to its members to do
its utmost to advance the cause of immigration reform, we wish to
reiterate our support for this committee's measured bipartisan approach
to border security as outlined in the Chairman's bill, H.R. 1417.
Unfortunately, similarly sensible action has to date neither been taken
by the House Judiciary Committee nor has H.R. 1417 or any other
immigration bill been brought to the floor for debate or a single vote.
While we will continue to push for fair, inclusive reform that will
recognize the contributions hard work of millions of immigrants, CHIRLA
and its allies feel strongly that the Department of Homeland Security
can and should act to provide relief for our communities in the mean
time. To our mind, it is both counterproductive and fundamentally un-
American to deport the very same people who ultimately would benefit
from the passage of such reform, simply due to the fact that they were
arbitrarily entangled in the tentacles of immigration enforcement.
Accordingly, we propose the following as topics of concern to the
immigrant community and should therefore be at the forefront of the
Secretary and the administration's work to help guide the country
towards a solution to our broken immigration system:
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).--Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) should not only focus on the renewal
process, but also on updating the language and requirements to
ensure that a broader portion of the eligible population is
covered;
Keep families, including but not limited to those with DACA
recipients, together by expanding upon administrative relief
options;
In concert with the Executive Office of Immigration Review
at the Department of Justice, DHS should implement a broader
use of prosecutorial discretion as outlined in the Morton memos
dated 17 June 2011 and 3 March 2011;\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2/3/11 ``Civil Immigration Enforcement: Priorities for the
Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens:''; 6/17/11
``Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and
Plaintiffs'' and ``Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with
the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the
Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designate the nationals of the Philippines as eligible for
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) due to the on-going crisis
following Typhoon Haiyan;
Recommend a far greater appropriation of DHS monies towards
the integration of New Americans rather than further
strengthening the enforcement apparatus that instead removes
aspiring Americans from this country;
Require that all ICE detainers (1-247), whether issued by a
Federal agent or a 287(g) cross-deputized local law enforcement
officer, be co-signed by a supervisory official at a DHS
headquarters;
Exercise greater vigilance regarding racial profiling.
Follow through on the DHS Officer for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties (OCRCL) commitments to statistically evaluate
unconstitutional and disparate impact of immigration
enforcement programs such as ``Secure Communities''.
We look forward to seeing the above can be implemented by the
Department, and would be happy to discuss this in greater detail with
Members of the committee and their staff.
Sincerely,
Joseph Villela,
Director of Policy & Advocacy.
Ms. Sanchez. Second, Mr. Secretary, here are my questions.
The first is a plea, if you will, I know that you understand,
or are trying to understand what is going on in Venezuela right
now. There is not as much of an emphasis of what is going on in
Venezuela vis-a-vis the TV reporting, et cetera, as the
Ukraine, for example.
But the fact of the matter is it is getting incredibly
dangerous, and a lot of people are suffering. So my first would
be just to remind your USCIS agents who are dealing with some
of these visas that people are on from Venezuela, that in a
time of such instability and almost a civil war going on there,
that they have a lot of discretion in being able to extend some
of that time, or helping those people stay here until it gets
better in the situation over there in Venezuela. I think that
is incredibly important for you to reiterate, please, with the
people that you oversee.
Second, we have a particular situation on the California-
Mexico border. Been working a long time. As you know, Mexico
has been--this is between Mexicali and Calexico. I know the
area well, because my mother grew up in the Mexicali area.
So the waits are 2 or 3 hours, sometimes, in the pedestrian
line, to walk across. There is a lot of cross-traffic that
happens. People live in one place, they work in the other, vice
versa.
Mexicali gets up to about 125 degrees in the summer. Summer
is coming up. There are no shade areas for these people as they
stand in line. I know that the local chamber there is coming up
with about half the money.
It would take about a million dollars to kind of
restructure the pedestrian piece of processing, where they
could get a much faster flow-through, you know, without any
increase in risk of who is coming across.
I would urge you, please, to take a look, and to help us
get that done before the summer months come, because it really
affects a lot of people. It is--you know, a million bucks is
not a lot when we are talking about the Federal Government. It
would really, really help there.
TWIC cards, just want to get some indication from you. With
the readers not working, what do you see as the future of what
is going on with the whole TWIC card situation?
The next one, of course, I have been a big advocate of the
U.S. exit biometrics to exit, understanding the visas that we
allow people to come in on, and then they overstay. Quite
frankly, the former Secretary sat in front of us the first time
she was there, and said she just wasn't going to do it.
We have passed it in law twice. This committee has passed
it two or three times. Mrs. Miller and I have a bill to try to
get that done. So I would be very interested in that.
Last, you have a lot of experience from the Defense
Department. What can you bring? How can you help us to get
things more streamlined, more categorized, and better off in
this Department? Again, thank you for your service.
Secretary Johnson. Item No. 1, I would be happy to look at
the letter that was put into the record. I would like to
mention, ma'am, that I was in Los Angeles Friday, and met with
a coalition of those interested in immigration enforcement and
reform. We had a good meeting at the City Hall with the mayor.
No. 2, thank you for your reference to Venezuela. It is
obviously a situation we are looking at closely. But I
appreciate the context in which you mention it.
No. 3, on the issue of wait times, that is something I will
look at, particularly in the port of entry you mentioned. I do
know that wait times, whether it is at a land port or an
airport, can spike up or down, depending on circumstances. But
I am happy to look at that as well.
With regard to TWIC cards, I think the overall goal of the
card, the overall Homeland Security goal is a good one, and a
valid one. I think it is a program that we need to continue to
develop and pursue.
In the development of such a program like that, there are
always a few things that could be done more efficiently. I know
that a number of truckers, for example, would like to see it be
done, you know, sort of one-stop shopping, versus having to
visit two or three times. I understand that, and I think we
will get there.
Biometric exit is, in my judgment, the gold standard. It is
a place that we eventually ought to get to. I have asked about
it. We have biometric entry.
I would like to ultimately see us get to biometric exit.
There are some practical and cost considerations to doing that.
But it is the gold standard. I agree with that.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I look forward to
hopefully--to having an individual meeting, maybe going more
in-depth on some of these issues, because I think they are
incredibly important.
Secretary Johnson. It is nice to see you again as well.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Chairman now recognizes Chairman Emeritus,
Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also, at the
outset, thank you for the visit you made to New York on Monday.
From talking to the commissioner afterwards, it was a very,
very fruitful meeting. I thank you for the interest you have
shown.
Secretary Johnson, I want to welcome you to the committee.
Thank you for the interest and the outreach you have done since
your nomination, and certainly since your approval by the
Senate.
It was mentioned that 21 years ago today was the first
attack on the World Trade Center. Actually, a neighbor of mine,
Monica Rodriguez Schmitz, was killed that day. I think a
mistake all of us made, was none of us realized the full
implications of that.
As you said, you were in New York on 9/11 itself. We did
respond very strongly to that. As you said, under both
administrations, we have gone a long way toward decimating the
leadership of al-Qaeda, of core al-Qaeda.
I guess a concern I have is that all of us, perhaps, you
know, to make sure that we don't make the mistake we made after
1993 and not realize the full extent of the threat. Because, as
you mentioned, regarding Syria, and the Chairman has mentioned
also, al-Qaeda has now metastasized and morphed. So core al-
Qaeda is no longer probably the main threat we face.
In your speech, you mentioned Syria. But also, there is
Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Algeria, Mali, Somalia, all of which
have organizations with either--direct relations to al-Qaeda,
or they share the al-Qaeda philosophy.
What is the Department of Homeland Security doing to adapt
to the threats that could be coming from those countries,
specifically like with Syria, where we would have people who
are foreign fighters, who could have come from visa-waiver
countries, or they could be U.S. citizens, or the other
countries that were mentioned. How is DHS adapting to this new
type of terror we are facing?
Secretary Johnson. Thank you for that question,
Congressman. I think, from my Homeland Security perspective,
which includes TSA, CBP, CIS, ICE, Coast Guard, information
sharing with our partners through which individuals of
suspicion may travel, we need greater information sharing.
We need greater attention to the borders, not just the U.S.
borders. It is something we are working on. It is something
that I worked on with our allies, as recently as 2 weeks ago
when I met with our European counterparts, Syria was the issue
at the top of the list.
I think greater attention to aviation security and port
security. That is why I mentioned that in my judgment, pre-
clearance is very, very important from a Homeland Security
perspective. I think we need to build on that.
I think we need to continue to build on intelligence
information sharing across JTTFs, fusion centers, with the
intelligence community and Homeland Security. I think
information sharing is key. I am also concerned about those who
self-radicalize. I think you share that concern about the so-
called lone wolf. I think that the Boston Marathon bombing may
be a sign of the future. In many respects, those threats are
harder to detect.
So working with State and local governments, first
responders, police commissioners, fire departments, funding,
training, preparedness--and we saw, I think, a decent example
of how that training and preparedness can work in places like
Boston if another tragedy happens.
So I think we have got to be vigilant. I think the
terrorist threat is becoming more diffuse. In many respects, it
is harder to detect. Beginning in around 2009, we saw a rise of
affiliates. But I think it is becoming even more diffuse.
Mr. King. Secretary, whenever the Secretary of Homeland
Security comes in, we were always critical of the fact the
Department is not run efficiently enough. Yet, looking at
ourselves, we have, I think, 110 Congressional committees, and
subcommittees, which have just totally spread jurisdiction all
over the place when it comes to homeland security.
In this, I would say, both parties have failed to really
address this. I would just ask, as we have asked other
secretaries, to try to use whatever influence you might have
with the Congress, just to make it clear, the terrible drain on
your time that it involves, and also, the fact that you can't
respond to that many masters. I mean, basically, Defense
Department has asked.
You, now in your capacity, have 110 committees and
subcommittees. So whatever you could do just to lend your voice
to that would be appreciated.
Secretary Johnson. I hesitate to tell you folks how to do
your job. That is your prerogative. But I do agree that when I
have 108 committees and subcommittees of Congress performing an
oversight function, it takes a lot of time to--and I enjoy
coming up here. But it takes a lot of time to deal with all of
the oversight, which detracts from the core mission that I
think you want me to pay attention to.
Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, I just have 10 seconds on this.
There is a matter which I will talk to you privately about.
There is an individual I am aware of, who I believe has been
watch-listed for a number of years. I have met with Homeland
Security, with TSC, FBI, to try to resolve this issue.
Unfortunate to say, since I have been asking questions, his
treatment seems to be worse; yesterday, a terrible incident at
an airport. I will discuss it with you privately. This is not
primarily your responsibility, but again, TSA does have some
bearing here.
So I just wanted to discuss it with you privately. I don't
want to cause any extra problem for this person by mentioning
his name publicly. But I will get back to you on that.
Secretary Johnson. Glad to take that for the record.
Mr. King. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Thank the gentleman. Let me also say, I
agree with the jurisdictional problems. I think it detracts
from your mission. It is something I would like to fix. We have
a hearing scheduled on this issue.
The Aspen Institute came out with a very good video called
``Homeland Confusion.'' So with that, I recognize the
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
this hearing. Secretary, again, thank you for your commitment
to service.
Might I just echo two of my preceding colleagues. It would
be great if we, ourselves, self-regulated ourselves with
respect to the streamline of committees that address the
question of homeland security. So I hope that we will have the
opportunity to do so. We hope the administration would be
supportive, as they can be, with the three branches of
Government.
Let me very quickly add my appreciation for the
apprehension of Guzman, and all that that represents,
particularly the heroic efforts of ICE and the U.S. Marshals,
DEA, Mexican authorities. It is a very important statement.
I join my colleague for indicating that I am respectful of
Mexican sovereignty. But I think we are neighbors and
collaborators, and I believe it would be very important that we
have the ability for Mr. Guzman to be transferred here to the
United States under the necessary procedures.
I also want to thank you, as the Secretary of Homeland
Security, for your forceful comments during Sochi regarding the
security of our athletes, and all the efforts that were made by
Americans that complemented the work that was done in Europe
and in Russia. We are very thankful for the safe return of our
athletes.
I want to quickly ask some questions. I am going to say
them, then hopefully, you will be able to answer them. I want
to go specifically to the question of detention.
I think we have had some discussions, and the whole idea of
the fact that we are detaining through ICE. We have gone from
167,000 to 478,000. There has not been much use of the
alternative detention process.
I would be interested in your thoughts on that. Then I want
to thank CBP and others. I always acknowledge the good part of
their service. But I am concerned about the number of deaths,
and the issues dealing with excessive force by CBP, and the
report that came out that suggested that they would be engaged
in reforms.
My question to you is: How will you engage to make sure
those reforms move quickly, and that they are done in the
highest professional way?
In addition, the CBP short-term facilities, they are at the
border, and they are classified to hold 300 persons. We have
found that they have held three times--that is 900 people.
A Honduran lost his life, had a massive stroke, I believe,
or heart attack. He was in one of those facilities. The
question is whether or not he was able to get medical care
quickly enough. There are questions of heat, questions of
cleanliness, et cetera.
I would be interested--we are in the business of protecting
our borders. But we are also a country that believes in
humanity and humaneness.
The issue of human trafficking has become a major issue in
the Southern Border, in Houston, Texas. I would like to know
any strategies that Homeland Security has. I have indicated we
will be holding a hearing on that in Texas.
But what will Homeland Security be doing to thwart that
particular issue? If you would, I would appreciate your
answers. Thank you.
Secretary Johnson. Ma'am, first on the issue of detention,
and detention practices, when I was general counsel of the
Department of Defense, within the first 3 or 4 weeks I was in
office, I visited our detention facilities at Guantanamo, in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and urged certain reforms that were made.
I recall in Afghanistan, actually going into one of the
cells, and asked the guards to close the door behind me so that
I could fully understand. You could imagine the lawyer jokes
when I did that. But I am very interested in this issue.
I have visited the detention center in South Texas already.
I intend to visit more around the country. It is an issue that
I want to study carefully.
One thing that strikes me about the Southwest Border in
particular, is that almost everyone who crosses the border
illegally has paid money to a smuggling organization is being
trafficked, so to speak. I think the key is to attack the
network in some way. In working with our inner-agency partners,
working with our Mexican friends, we should focus on that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I think I asked you another
question about the short-term facilities and the reforms on
excessive force by CBP. That is a different question. There is
a report that indicated that they would be reforming their
processes, as in use of force, at the border.
Secretary Johnson. I am very interested and concerned about
use of force. I think that a law enforcement agency, foreign
armed-force military, has to be credible in the communities in
which it operates.
So I was happy to know that the CBP commissioner intends to
make the CBP use-of-force policies public any day now. I am
encouraging other components of DHS to think along those lines.
I am also interested in reviewing some of the more recent
cases myself to ensure that we are getting this right.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think you answered the human-trafficking
question about the concern by Homeland Security engaging on
that issue.
Secretary Johnson. Yes. Yes, ma'am. It is something I
intend to do.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Let me remind Members, the Secretary has a
hard stop at noon today. So I would ask that you stay within
the 5-minute rule. Chairman recognizes Dr. Broun.
Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
you for your statements regarding wanting to work with this
committee and being responsive to our inquiries.
After years of frustration and stonewalling from your
predecessor, I look forward to having a dialogue. In fact, if
we had as much stonewalling going on down at the border as we
have had from this administration, we would have a secure
border.
I am very keen on doing that first and foremost. That being
said, I am very concerned about some of your comments regarding
illegal immigration.
You claim that so-called comprehensive immigration reform
is a matter of homeland security, and have even gone so far as
to say that those here legally have, to quote you, ``earned the
right to be citizens,'' which clearly signals that you favor
amnesty.
However, as we have seen in the past, amnesty simply does
not work. We need to enforce the laws on the books. We need to
secure the border before any conversation on any broad reforms.
Your comments of those that you have made as well as what
President Obama has made, promising amnesty, seem to encourage,
not discourage, illegal entry into this country.
My question is: Do you believe that your apparent
inclination towards amnesty will improve homeland security and
not worsen the problem of illegal immigration?
Do you honestly believe those who have broken our laws, in
fact, have broken many of our laws, including Social Security
fraud, identity fraud, and lots of others, that they have
earned the right to be citizens?
Secretary Johnson. Senator--Congressman, sorry----
Mr. Broun. I will accept that.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. The core----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Broun. I am running for Senate.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. I have spent a lot of time
with Senators in the confirmation process, sorry.
The quote that you attribute to me is a misquote. That was
a journalist attributing to me something I did not say.
Mr. Broun. Okay, well, do you think that those here have
earned the right to be citizens?
Do you believe----
Secretary Johnson. No. What I said----
Mr. Broun [continuing]. That----
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. What I support is how it is
reflected in the Senate bill, which was passed by a vote of 67
bipartisan Senators, which is that those present in this
country, the 11.5 million or so, who go through a background
check, are held accountable, who pay their taxes and do
whatever the law requires them to do, should be eligible to be
put on the earned path to citizenship.
Mr. Broun. I disagree.
Let me interrupt you, sir; I apologize. I just have a very
short period of time.
Secretary Johnson. Understood.
Mr. Broun. I am very concerned about refugee relocation,
because we are getting a lot of these refugees coming to my
home State of Georgia. I am not sure that these refugees are
being vetted as thoroughly as they should be.
We have a lot coming from places around the world, where
there are a lot of people who want to do harm to Americans. I
would like to work with you on this issue because I think this
is a very dangerous issue of our accepting these refugees in
this country and not having some way of monitoring them.
I think we are getting too many. These people are being
forced upon American citizens in a way that is going to be
dangerous for our own homeland security.
I am also very concerned about the Abu Dhabi pre-clearance
that has been suggested. We have seen TSA allow people who are
on the No-Fly list get on airplanes. TSA has not in itself
prevented one terrorist attack.
Every single terrorist attack that we have seen on this--
against this Nation, that has been prevented has not been
prevented by TSA. I think TSA has been a total failure as the
way it is set up now. I think we need to focus upon those who
want to harm us instead of patting down Grandma and children at
the airports and having this tremendous attack upon upon
persons, U.S. citizens, that we need to focus on those that
want to harm us, which means having the intelligence-gathering
capability to focus on those and let's get rid of this idea of
political correctness.
We need to focus on those that want to harm us. I don't
think the Department has been. I would like very much to work
with you as Secretary to try to reform or do something with
TSA, to make it so that it is functional or get rid of it
altogether. My time is expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to work with you as we go forward. Thank you,
sir.
Chairman McCaul. Will the Secretary like to respond to that
last--the question?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, just very briefly.
On the issue of refugees, I agree. We should work together
on that issue. I mean, it is--when I go down to the border, it
is the No. 1 thing that the people on the front line talk to me
about. So I would like to work with you on that. I have some
concerns.
Just on the initial point, I have told my staff we need to
be more responsive to this committee and to Congress, when you
write to me, when you have inquiries, I read each one
personally. I have told my staff we need very prompt responses
so that you get the information you need.
Mr. Broun. I thank you for that reassurance and I look
forward to working with you, sir. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Barber.
Mr. Barber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us today and
congratulations. I think you have taken on what I believe is
the most difficult job, challenging job in the Cabinet. We all
wish you well.
Our mission and your mission, I think, are united in making
sure that the homeland is protected.
I also want to thank you for accepting our invitation to
come down to the border less than a month after you were
confirmed and sworn in. You came to my district, which is the
most porous, unfortunately the most porous area of the border,
where we have 13 percent of the border but have 47 percent of
the pounds of drugs seized in this country. I know that the
people I represent appreciate the opportunity to talk with you.
As you well know from what time we spent together, my most
important priority is border security. I still have people who
are unsafe on their land every single day. I still have the
drugs coming in and illegal immigration is, while getting
lower, still a major problem.
But my responsibility, Mr. Secretary, as you know, is to
make sure that we have the resources we need, along with my
colleagues, to get the job done to ensure the safety and
security of people who live and work near the border. This
includes steps, of course, to support our agents, our Border
Patrol agents, in particular and, of course, our Customs
agents, that they have the resources they need to get their job
done effectively.
In January, Mr. Secretary, you issued a Department-wide
memo, calling on all components to conduct a position-by-
position review of the use of administratively-uncontrollable
overtime or AUO. If it is found that the position uses AUO on a
regular basis as a regular part of the shift duty, that
position will no longer be eligible to receive AUO.
For Border Patrol agents, this policy shift threatens to
reduce the number of agents or time on the border by as much as
20 percent. I believe this will undermine the progress we have
made in securing our border with still work to be done.
It would also hit our Border Patrol agents and their
families very hard because they would face a loss of pay due to
the loss of hours, in some cases up to 20 percent pay cut.
We have heard in this committee before some reports that
morale in the Federal agencies is measured and, unfortunately,
the Department of Homeland Security morale is amongst the
lowest. Within the Department, CBP is the lowest. I am
concerned that this adjust or this change will further
exacerbate the morale problem.
When we toured the border, we heard very real concerns
about those who live and work near the border about the
importance of ensuring safety and security 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, 365 days a year. I believe now is the time to
strengthen our position and our efforts, not weaken them, as I
believe this change in payment will do.
So I would like to focus my questions, Mr. Secretary, on
this issue.
First of all, how do you believe that the policy is in the
best interest of our security?
Should the Department and CBP decide to limit or eliminate
overtime for our Border Patrol agents, what plans does it have
in place to ensure that there are not big gaps in Border Patrol
shifts on our U.S. borders?
Let me ask a second question and if you could answer both,
there are efforts under way, Mr. Secretary, as you probably
know, to reform agent pay in the AUO system; specifically,
there is a bill that was introduced by Mr. Chaffetz, which I am
a co-sponsor, to reform the pay system in a way that preserves
security efforts and saves taxpayer money. I mean, I assume you
are aware of these. If the case you are aware, why would you
change the AUO system when this reform is under way?
Secretary Johnson. First, Congressman, thank you for
spending the day with me in Arizona and introducing me to a
number of State and local officials there. I appreciated the
time.
With regard to AUO, as you know, we have from the Office of
Special Counsel, allegations, findings, however you
characterize it, of wide-spread abuse of uncontrollable
overtime. The review of that is pending right now within the
Department. I look forward to the results. In the interim, what
was brought to us was three discrete classes of people who were
eligible for AUO, that we could not continue to justify paying
out AUO in that manner, given the allegations of widespread
abuse. It is very--it is three very, very discrete classes of
people that total, I think, 900 people across the Department of
250,000 people, just 900 people.
The suspension--and I want to emphasize this to you and to
the workforce--does not affect Border Patrol agents on the
front lines and people are still eligible for overtime if they
earn it and they are entitled to it. They just--for those
discrete number of people, they have to go through a different
method to get it. But I am fully supportive of paying somebody
overtime when it is necessary and when they earn it.
Mr. Barber. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield back.
Secretary Johnson. I am sorry. I am sorry. The bill you
referred to, I am happy to review the bill.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman now recognizes the Chairman
of the Border and Maritime Subcommittee, Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the hearing. I certainly want to, and Maritime
Security as well, welcome the Secretary and thank you so much
for your service to our country. We look forward to working
with you.
I certainly want to add my--express my admiration as well
for the great work of everybody from DHS in regards to what
they did with capturing El Chapo Guzman. I certainly want to
associate myself with the Chairman's very strong feelings about
extradition and we appreciate your assistance, if you can help
us with that as well.
As you might imagine, as a Chairman of the Border and
Maritime Security Subcommittee, I have a border question. The
subcommittee there, we have been working very hard on a border
bill with bipartisan support, actually passed our subcommittee
unanimously, and then passed the full House unanimously.
I appreciate your comments about the Senate immigration
bill. However, I am one that does not agree with the Senate
immigration bill, the comprehensive bill that they have passed.
However, I do think that this Congress--and I hope that we
will pursue moving on a border security bill; that is one of
the enumerated responsibilities under the Constitution of the
Congress. I think we have to pursue that.
So I would ask you, if I could, I made a note when you were
talking about establishing the metrics, that you agree with the
goal of establishing metrics. Maybe you could flesh that answer
out a little bit for me, if you would.
Your predecessor indicated that the term that we had used
previously about establishing operational control, the term of
``operational control,'' she said was an antiquated term.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But we are trying to
understand what term might be agreeable, and what the construct
of those terms actually would look like.
So then we were looking at this Border Control Index. That
also has been abandoned now by the DHS. But I do think it is
important that we do have some actual metrics that the country
can understand, that the Congress can understand, in regards to
what kind of control we have at our border.
As was mentioned, about 40 percent of operational control
at one point, at the Southern Border--as you know, Secretary, I
am--I have a Northern Border district. That same study showed
that the operational control in the Northern Border was only 4
percent. Essentially, we have no operational control on the
North Border to speak of.
So could you tell us a little bit about what your
Department is doing to develop measures that could give us an
accurate picture, so that we could, again, understand not only
our successes, but our failures as well, and so--as we can
proceed on establishing border control?
Secretary Johnson. Let me begin by saying that in my
conversations with the border-security experts in uniform, what
they emphasized to me is a risk-based approach that is agile,
that is not necessarily operational control, as I think a lot
of people define it.
The risk-based approach is effective. It is cost-efficient.
Now, in terms of metrics, I have read H.R. 1417, which defines
an effectiveness rate in a certain way.
What we have said is that--well, first of all, it is
Congress's prerogative to define border effectiveness, however
you do that, in a fully-informed way. What we have said--and I
tend to believe this--that border security should be defined by
looking at a number of things. It is not simply the percentage
of all those who attempt to cross the border who are either
arrested or turned back. Because you have to look, first of
all, at the quantity of people who are attempting to cross the
border.
You have to look at the nature of the traffic. Is it third-
party nationals? Is it Mexicans? Is it somebody else? You have
to look at the motives, are these convicted criminals who are
attempting to cross the borders for purposes of drug smuggling?
So you have to look at the nature of the traffic, the
quantity of the traffic. There are a number of things which I
have looked at, which I have asked my folks to further develop,
that we can share with Congress in an effort to define what we
believe is a secure border.
I would urge us to not focus simply on a percentage, which
tends to disregard certain other very important things. So it
is something that I am committed to. I think in order to
further immigration reform overall, we ought to settle on a set
of metrics that we all agree to and understand.
Mrs. Miller. I appreciate that. As I am running out of
time, this won't be so much a question, as just a heads-up. We
will be sending you a letter on another issue about visa
overstays.
Your predecessor had agreed to give the Congress a report,
and the percentage of visa overstays, and how you were tracking
that. That was supposed to be given to the Congress at the end
of last year.
So obviously, that deadline has come and gone. We are
probably going to send that letter along to you shortly, asking
for that report.
Secretary Johnson. I have seen a draft of the report. I
think it needed further work. I think that there were some
things that I wanted to have some second or third opinions
about before I shared it with Congress.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is a
real honor and a privilege to have you here today. I am just
delighted that you were confirmed, and looking forward to your
leadership in your capacity as Secretary, and also feel that
you have one of the finest Members of Congress representing you
from your district. So everyone knows, I am his constituent.
Let me just start with something that is one of my major
priorities. That has been the whole issue around Sandy funding.
One of my major priorities on this committee is ensuring that
Hurricane Sandy relief reaches the areas that need it the most.
A portion of that funding, you know, is controlled by the
State of New Jersey. I am getting disturbing complaints from
constituents, from the news, from organizations like the Fair-
Share Housing Center, that many municipalities that were
hardest-hit, including areas where low-income and minority
populations live, are not receiving the relief proportionate to
the amount of damage suffered.
News reports are naturally very concerning to me. In this
Congress, you know, we failed to have a hearing in reference to
this. I think oversight is very important.
I was delighted to go to the floor of Congress that evening
to implore my colleagues to make sure that we got the relief in
that area of the country that we need it, and they responded to
their fellow Americans. So even though it is my area that has
benefited from that, I still feel that there needs to be
oversight and responsibility to the American people, that
Congress knows how those dollars are being spent, irrespective
of what area it goes to.
So, you know, I am just asking--like to have you commit to
ensuring that DHS is conducting proper oversight over the State
of New Jersey, so that people who are deserving of that relief
are being provided for.
Secretary Johnson. Thanks for that question, Congressman.
First of all, my own home was impacted by Hurricane Sandy, took
us months to repair the damage. I would also point out that a
lot of the funds that we refer to when we talk about Sandy
relief money is Housing and Urban Development money, as well as
DHS money. There was a lot of HUD money in that mix.
I would be interested in seeing the report that you
referenced. I certainly agree with the importance of
Congressional oversight with regard to how the money is spent.
Mr. Payne. Okay. A lot of it, as you know, I think a lot of
the discretion, when it comes to how that money is spent,
belongs with the State?
Secretary Johnson. Correct.
Mr. Payne. But insofar as the Federal Government is
concerned, I agree with you certainly about the importance of
Congressional oversight.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. In reference to--it has been brought up on by
several Members, and the Ranking Member, the whole issue around
Abu Dhabi and the pre-clearance facility there. You know, I
know the deputy administrator was in Abu Dhabi last week
observing the operation there. There is still a lot of concern
about allowing passengers, once they get here, not to be
rechecked while they are in this country.
The other thing, you know, we had issues several years ago
at Newark Airport, where covert operations were taking place.
They were able to slip things past the TSA. So we are
concerned, how often will TSA be afforded the opportunity to
observe passenger screening in Abu Dhabi? Will TSA and other
agents of the United States Government be allowed to conduct
unannounced inspections or covert tests of the screening in Abu
Dhabi?
Secretary Johnson. First of all, it is my understanding
that the pre-clearance operations at Abu Dhabi are conducted by
CBP, Customs and Border Protection. I am concerned that there
not be any security gaps when it comes to arrivals as well.
That is an issue that I intend to look at.
Certainly, when it comes to Newark Airport, it is an
airport I am very familiar with. It is probably the airport I
have used most myself. So I am concerned about security gaps,
and want to focus on that, and be interested in a further
dialogue with you, Congressman, on that question.
Mr. Payne. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Chairman recognizes the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and
Security Technologies, Mr. Meehan.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, thank you
for your long and distinguished service to our country. Thank
you for taking on this very, very important mission. Thank you
as well for the work that I know you are doing in the area of
cyber. I look forward to working with you in that area as well.
But in my limited time, I want to talk about a couple of
issues: One, the chemical facilities' antiterrorism standards,
very important work that has been done in our country on this.
We appreciate the situation in Texas, West Texas, not so long
ago identifying what happens when there are outliers who are
allowed to exist without our recognition of their being there.
Simultaneously or conversely, industries made significant
investments in responsibly accounting for and also creating the
kinds of protection systems that have been called for
underneath the CFATS program. But it has now been 3 years since
it has been reauthorized.
Now, there have been some breakdowns in that, to be sure, a
legacy that has not been too proud from the Department. But at
the same time, there has been significant progress in the
course of the last year, and very deliberate efforts to look at
criticisms that have been taking place, and to address those in
a proactive sense.
We have introduced legislation to reauthorize the CFATS
program. I want to ask whether you believe that that is a bill
that you can support?
Secretary Johnson. I have reviewed H.R. 4007. I think it is
a good bill. I am very supportive of it. Indeed, my folks tell
me, ``We wish we could extend the period longer.''
We have a regulatory scheme that we have put in place. I
agree with you, that over the last year, it has gotten better.
That all stems from an appropriations measure, not an
authorizations measure.
I have read this bill. I think it is a good bill. Our
critical infrastructure folks think it is a good bill. I
support it.
Mr. Meehan. Well, I thank you. I look forward to working
with you. We may be able to discuss a further extension, if in
fact we can make sure that we are working simultaneously
towards the progression, which I think this will allow us to
do.
Let me switch hats very quickly. I know you have been
dealing with the questions of Abu Dhabi, so this is not a new
matter for you. Although most of these decisions have been
made, at least while you were overseeing your anticipated
leadership.
There have been a series of programs that already exist;
immigration advisory program, global entry, trusted traveler
all have been used in the past. Can you explain to me whether
the stated security goals that we have outlined in Abu Dhabi,
could not have been realized using those kinds of programs? Or
do you believe they could have been realized using the kinds of
programs that currently exist, like you know, immigration
advisory, et cetera, that I identified?
Secretary Johnson. Congressman, I think that in general,
the more opportunities we have to put security in place
ourselves in last points of departure airports, the better. So
that bad things don't happen, not just once the terrorist gets
into the country, but on the airplane, flying into the country.
I have looked at the various different levels of security at
our last points of departure airports. It tends to vary and
that is of considerable concern to me. So, I believe--and I
understand the concerns that have been raised about
alternatives. I understand the concerns that have been raised
from the commercial airline industry.
I believe pre-clearance is a Homeland Security imperative.
Now, could things be improved at the point of arrival? Or in
the Abu Dhabi situation in particular? I am not going to insist
to you that, you know, we are doing it absolutely the best way.
But it is a work in progress, I believe--a long road.
Mr. Meehan. It is just that in making those calculations--
the determination to--instead of going to Dubai where we have 5
times the amount of--identified going to Abu Dhabi, did not
make sense to me if in fact that was the policy?
Secretary Johnson. Well, Abu Dhabi is not an endpoint. I
think that this is a point along the way in a progression to
where I think we should get to a more aviation secure
environment for this country.
Mr. Meehan. May I close my questioning on this? What are we
going to do, as we put more resources over there and we are
saying in the very airport you identified, Newark among others,
as American citizens flying in from all over the world are
seeing extended delays in simply getting through. You are
already down in the form of resources that you need to do to
work that you are doing. Why are we sending personnel overseas
during a period of time when you are remarkably under-staffed
right at our own border?
Secretary Johnson. In general, the more we can put at, you
know, in forward areas, last points of departure outside this
country before the terrorists can get on the airplane to fly
into this country, the better. I believe that that is a
Homeland Security imperative, Congressman.
Mr. Meehan. Mr. Chairman, I respect the 5 minutes. I yield
back and look forward to working with you.
Chairman McCaul. Let me also say, I appreciate your support
for the chemical facility anti-terrorism legislation that Mr.
Meehan introduced, and as with all major legislation, I hope
that we can pass that out of this committee in a bipartisan
way. With that, the Chairman recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. O'Rourke.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
you for your comments so far and being available to answer our
questions. As you have heard from other Members of the
committee, I think the dominant perspective and view when it
comes to our border, and certainly our border with Mexico, is
to see that as a threat and a security situation to be locked
down. While I think that that perspective is understandable and
I think it is borne of a good intent to secure the border and
secure the homeland, when you look at the facts, we are
spending $18 billion a year right now, unprecedented levels of
spending.
We have doubled the size of the Border Patrol in the last
10 years. We have record-low, north-bound immigration attempts,
record-high south-bound deportations. El Paso, Texas, the city
I have the good fortune to live in and represent, is the safest
city in America today, 4 years in a row actually, bordering on
Ciudad Juarez, the largest--with what is the largest bi-
national community in the world. San Diego is in the top 10
safest cities, Laredo is in the top 10 safest cities, Honolulu,
another port city, is among the top 10 safest cities. So, I
want to hear you talk about the opportunities at the border?
In El Paso alone, we have 22 million pedestrian and auto
crossings every single year. It is the lifeblood of our economy
and it is the lifeblood of who we are as a community. That is
in addition to the $90 billion in U.S.-Mexico trade that passed
through there. That trade, that commerce, and that human
crossing activity support more than 400,000 jobs in the State
of Texas, more than 6 million in the United States at large,
and yet those ports of entry in El Paso, in Arizona, other
parts of the U.S.-Mexico border, are sorely understaffed. What
is your proposal and plan to make sure that we have the
resources to capitalize on the opportunities at the U.S.-Mexico
border?
Secretary Johnson. In this job, Secretary of Homeland
Security, it has been made very clear to me that part of my
mission is to facilitate and expedite trade. Whether it is on
the Southwest Border or the Northern Border. You know, for
example, the Canadians have talked to me about our bridge
crossings in Michigan and the importance of building--funding a
Customs plaza on the U.S. side in Michigan. Same with Texas,
with south Texas, where I was a couple of weeks ago. I haven't
been to El Paso yet, but I hope to go there soon. But, it has
been stressed to me the importance of, as a matter of Customs
enforcement, facilitating and promoting trade.
Now, that also depends on Congress being willing to fund at
the appropriate levels, our Customs plazas, our ability on the
U.S. side of a bridge or a land port to be--you know to build
these things. So we need Congress to authorize and appropriate.
But I want to work with you on that, and I recognize the
importance of promoting trade. Whether it is El Paso, or
Detroit, or any of our other ports of entry.
Mr. O'Rourke. I appreciate that answer, and I will do my
part as a Member of Congress, to make sure that we have those
resources there. But even within the existing DHS budget, I
just urge you to deploy those resources and assets as
intelligently and as effectively as possible to capitalize on
those opportunities that we have there.
I want to associate myself with Mr. Barber's remarks
earlier about supporting our men and women in the Border
Patrol. They have among the toughest jobs that I can imagine.
The level of vigilance required, the terrain that they are
working within, the encounters that they have to deal with.
So I also join him in urging you to support Mr. Chaffetz's
bill to make sure that we have some fairness and predictability
when it comes to pay for the members of the Border Patrol. But
I also want to make sure that we have the appropriate oversight
and accountability for law enforcement on the border. I
appreciate the fact that you are going to release the CBP's Use
of Force Policy. I would also ask you to release the Police
Executive Research Forum's report on CBP's use of force. Right
now, we only know about these use of force incidents
anecdotally. I get them in my office regularly, and I also hear
far too often from these 22 million bridge-crossers, a lack of
respect, and sometimes poor treatment and sometimes abuse at
the hands of CBP Officers on our border.
We need greater oversight and accountability given the
missions and the opportunities there at the border. So, I would
just ask you to release that. Also as one of the other Members
of the committee said, become more transparent and accountable
as an agency. I think that has been a major failing of DHS up
until now.
Secretary Johnson. I will look at this particular report
you refer to, Congressman. I agree generally with the
importance of law enforcement being credible, and being
transparent in the communities in which they operate. If law
enforcement--and you see this also in the military context, is
viewed with suspicion, is not credible, it undermines the
entire mission.
Mr. O'Rourke. Great. I appreciate that. Thank you very
much. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman recognizes the Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency, Mr.
Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you Mr. Chairman and thanks for this
hearing. Secretary Johnson, thanks for being here, and I am
impressed with what I have seen so far, and I look forward to
working with you on an on-going basis.
In your statement, you talked about being responsive to
inquiries and letters from Members and committees of Congress.
I just want to bring one example to your attention. June 16--
June 6, 2013 letter to Under Secretary Borras dealing with
training videos that has never been answered. I will make sure
my staff gets your guys a copy of that so that it can be
answered.
Secretary Johnson. Happy to do that, sir.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, thank you. Thank you for that. Because I
think that is important. That is part of the oversight
function. Oftentimes we can't have hearings, but we can send
direct inquiries to the agencies and the departments for
request of information. I sat here earlier thinking about all
of the things you are responsible for. It is sort of
overwhelming. Border security, immigration, customs
enforcement, USCIS, maritime and port security, the Coast
Guard, transportation security, air security, Secret Service,
law enforcement training, cyber threats, FEMA, and all of the
things that our committee deals with. That is a tremendous
responsibility that you have to keep this Nation safe.
I just want to make sure that the folks watching at home
understand the Department of Homeland Security brought 22
agencies together, our sub-agencies, under one umbrella. In the
last decade or a little more, trying to make sure that all of
those operate in a very cohesive fashion. So, I fully
understand the challenge. I just want to go on the record for
that.
I want to shift gears and talk about something that is on
my mind regularly as we talk about immigration reform. Because
the numbers that were used today, roughly 11.5 million--say 12
million illegal immigrants in the United States. Roughly 40 to
49 percent of those didn't just violate our sovereignty by
crossing our border--Southern Border, Northern Border, doesn't
matter.
They actually violated the National trust that we have
placed in them. Because we gave them a permission slip to come
here, known as a visa. Where they had an interview at a
consulate or an embassy and we have the correct spelling of
their name. We have got a picture, probably a fingerprint. We
know where they were going in most instances. We know they were
going to work, or coming to school. Tourists? I get that, that
they could travel just about anywhere. But, we have got an
address of where a lot of these folks were going. Where they
were going to work, or where they were going to attend college.
Roughly half of the illegals in this country, I estimated 4.8
million to 5.8 million people that are here illegally,
overstayed their visa. They didn't just cross the border. We
gave them a permission slip to come into this country, and they
violated our trust. This is low-hanging fruit from a customs
and immigration enforcement issue. So the question I have for
you is, don't you think that we should work real hard, because
the information that I have--that ICE devotes less than 2
percent of its investigative resources investigating these
overstays. Less than 2 percent, but we know who these people
are.
This isn't chasing a footprint in the desert. So don't you
think we ought to ramp up that percentage, put more effort in
effectively enforcing the immigration laws that we have with
regard to these overstays, either getting them back into a
legal status if they are still attending college somewhere or
still gainfully employed, but deal with half these illegals
before we take on a whole 'nother avenue of immigration
enforcement?
So I would love to hear your thoughts with regard to these
overstays, enforcement policies, and dedication of ICE
resources to investigating these.
Secretary Johnson. First of all, I don't know that the
number is 40 percent. Forty percent has kind of worked into the
narrative based on a report that was done some years ago. It is
my understanding that is not a Government report.
I don't know that it is 40 percent.
Mr. Duncan. Well, use whatever percentage we want, 20
percent, 25 percent, 30 percent, 15 percent, it doesn't matter
to me. It still remains that this is low-hanging fruit of
information we know about these people. We know who they are.
So I will----
Secretary Johnson. I do agree that we should correlate
resources to the removal of--and the way in which we say we
ought to prioritize my removals. In my view, as a matter of
homeland security, we need to prioritize our removals with
regard to National security, public safety, border security
threats, as a matter of homeland security.
If in the category of visa overstays there are those people
we need to focus on going after those people----
Mr. Duncan. They are a National security threat. So----
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. Public safety threats,
which involve those convicted of serious crimes and border
security threats, you know, people who are recent border
crossers who are apprehended in and around the border, who are
repeat crossers and the like, the people who represent threats
to border security.
I agree entirely with your point that we ought to correlate
resources with our priorities. We've got to devote the
resources to meet what we say should be the priorities. My
priorities are homeland security, protecting the American
people, enforcing our immigration laws. We need to correlate
our resources in that way.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you for that. I will just remind the
committee, I believe that 7 of the 10 hijackers on 9/11 had
overstayed a visa.
I yield back.
Secretary Johnson. I understand your point.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman will now recognize the
gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Gabbard.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome and aloha, Secretary. Great to have you here with
us.
You have touched on a lot of different topics today that I
look forward to being able to address that really impact us
Nationally from cyber threats to domestic drone use and the
policies that we need to come up with as we look at this new
technology, duplication of resources, aging Coast Guard fleet,
and so on and so forth.
I also want to welcome you to come and visit Hawaii. I know
you have been there before, but to come in this capacity,
because there is nothing like seeing first-hand the challenges
as well as the opportunities that we have that are unique from
the rest of the country, from the District 14 Coast Guard,
which covers, by far, the largest sector of any district that
the Coast Guard has responsibility over, and the unique
implications of what they do on the international front,
engagement, diplomacy, the exclusive economic zones that they
patrol, it is really quite impactful what they are responsible
for and how they have done so well with such little resources.
Also just to touch on the portal that exists in our State,
both the air portal and the international port are really being
the gateway between Asia and the United States as well as in
our maritime ports.
Since 1996, we have had two international airports in the
State of Hawaii, the primary, which is the Honolulu
International Airport and the Kona International Airport.
Kona was able to accept flights and we had Customs and
Border Patrol operating from there up until 2011. This is a
situation I know that you are familiar with and that we are
trying to remedy. The CBP has stated basically that the
facilities at the Kona airport were insufficient in 2011. The
airport facility staff sought feedback from CBP in 2012, were
given a book of regulations, 295 pages, that was dated in 2006,
told to look through it and update the facility.
The following year, they were given an updated book in
2011, said, oh, well, this is the updated version.
I think our folks on the ground have been really proactive
in trying to make sure that we are able to meet CBP standards
and are requesting a 5-year exemption so that we can continue
to operate as we were up until 2011, which is important from an
economic perspective, but also from a security perspective, if
anything were to happen at the Honolulu International Airport,
that we have another gateway and we have another facility
there.
So I am wondering if you can comment on the status of that
request that is supported by the mayor on the ground as well as
by the Governor.
Secretary Johnson. I have your letter in this regard. I
will probably get myself into trouble by saying that I have
been to Kona Airport and it is probably the most pleasant
airport experience I have had in a very long time. It is a
very--I also--I recall that when you can fly from Kona to the
mainland, and I don't think it was in the early 1990s. I am not
sure you can do that anymore.
Ms. Gabbard. You can.
Secretary Johnson. I know the burden of being on a multi-
hour flight to Honolulu and then you got to change planes and
fly to Kona. So I know the inconvenience of that.
So I would like to see us work with local airport officials
to try to get to a place where you can have an international
arrivals capability. I am--you know, you make a good point,
that if you lose one you don't have a second.
So I would like to see us try to work together on that. I
do believe, however, that we can't do something that is going
to potentially compromise aviation security, Border Patrol
security, and so I am personally familiar with the Kona
airport. Happy to try to work with your constituents, represent
local officials in this regard, to get there with the concern
for security.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you. I appreciate being able to work
with you on that. Understand that the private sector is also
very much invested in helping to bring this about. Applied for
a reimbursable agreement, was denied by CBP, and hope to become
one of the other cities that will be approved at some point in
the future.
I want to touch quickly on airline fees with the budget
that was passed recently, some of these fees that directly
impact airline travel were increased in part to help pay for
CBP to help pay for TSA. I am going to be an advocate here for
the two non-contiguous States, Hawaii and Alaska, where air
travel is essentially our only option. This is not an area that
is a luxury, but one that is essential for business, for health
care, for education and look forward to working with you on
seeing how we can, as has been done in the past, make sure that
these two States are considered differently.
Secretary Johnson. I have your bill in this regard. I have
read your bill. You know, I am interested in studying it
further.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from
Utah, Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you and congratulations, Mr. Secretary. I look
forward to working with you. I think you properly pointed out
in your testimony that people are your greatest asset.
One of the areas of concern that I have is how do we do
security clearances, background checks on the personnel? The
overwhelming majority of people, good quality people; I do have
questions and concerns as I highlighted in a letter more than 2
weeks ago about your current chief of staff, Mr. Christian
Marrone.
When and where did you first meet Christian Marrone?
Secretary Johnson. First of all, I have your letter. You
asked that I respond by the 26th, which is today, and I will be
responding today.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
Secretary Johnson. In a timely fashion.
I first met Mr. Marrone in early 2009 at the Department of
Defense.
Mr. Chaffetz. Was there a background check conducted on Mr.
Marrone before the appointment you made to his being the chief
of staff?
Secretary Johnson. You mean chief of staff for DHS?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Secretary Johnson. Yes, to the best of my understanding,
there was.
I also know him for 5 years and know his qualities. I am
glad I hired him.
Mr. Chaffetz. So there was a background check. Did you
review that background check?
Secretary Johnson. Not myself, no.
Mr. Chaffetz. Who did read it?
Secretary Johnson. The appropriate officials, I am quite
sure. My understanding is that the background check was quite
thorough, which included matters of public record from the Fumo
trial, which is what your letter refers to.
Mr. Chaffetz. Did the White House review it?
Secretary Johnson. So far as I know, they did.
Mr. Chaffetz. Were there any----
Secretary Johnson. As is the standard practice.
Mr. Chaffetz. Did it reveal any concerns?
Secretary Johnson. Mr. Marrone's background was viewed
extensively, including the matters of public record. I have
every reason to believe that it was thorough, and we hired him,
and I am glad we did. He is doing an excellent job for the
Department.
Mr. Chaffetz. Who conducted the background check?
Secretary Johnson. I could not tell you that, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. Are you aware of any court judgments against
Mr. Marrone?
Secretary Johnson. Not sitting here right now, no.
Mr. Chaffetz. When did you become aware of the trial
involving Pennsylvania State Senator Vincent Fumo?
Secretary Johnson. In 2008.
Mr. Chaffetz. Did you--when did you first become aware of
Christian Marrone and his testifying in the trial involving
Vincent Fumo?
Secretary Johnson. In 2009.
Mr. Chaffetz. Did you review, are you aware of the city of
Philadelphia's forensic review and financial investigation into
three of the entities that Mr. Marrone was involved and engaged
in?
Secretary Johnson. Not specifically, no, sir, but I would
like to say that I hired Mr. Marrone because he was working for
Robert Gates and Robert Rangel in the front office of the
Secretary of Defense. Those two individuals are demanding,
scrupulous people who expect the highest of people.
Mr. Marrone impressed me while we worked together at DOD
for his administrative organizational skills, his ability to
put together a budget process, and his ability to identify
inefficiencies.
I hired him at DHS to do the same there. He is doing an
excellent job. He is doing the job that I think Members of
Congress would want us all to do for the Department.
Mr. Chaffetz. Were you aware when you selected Mr. Marrone
to be your chief of staff at Homeland Security that he made
personal use of moneys from tax-exempt charities?
Secretary Johnson. I was generally aware of his public
testimony. It was highly-publicized and it concerned events 12-
17 years ago. I am more focused on the last 5 years, when he
has worked in National security.
Mr. Chaffetz. Were you aware when he was hired that, at one
time, he secured in writing from Mr. Fumo approval for the
retention of a private investigator to ``snoop'' on then-mayor
of Philadelphia, Ed Rendell?
Secretary Johnson. As I said, his employment by Senator
Fumo, 12 to 17 years ago, when he was in his early 20s, is a
matter of public record. It was highly publicized. Anybody who
knows Christian Marrone knows that when he came out of college,
12-17 years ago, he worked for Senator Fumo.
If you don't, you could figure that out by spending 6
seconds on the internet.
Mr. Chaffetz. That is exactly my concern is that he has
been engulfed in a variety of controversy.
Have you reviewed this e-mail that Christian sent, this is
on April 21, back in 1998, concerned about the Department must
change its practices of hiring. He is referring to the
Philadelphia Police Department, where he says, ``The end result
has been the skipping over of qualified white candidates and
the hiring of minorities with criminal records.''
He wants--he advocates changing the city charter, and
again, goes on--I will give you the full e-mail, if you haven't
seen it, ``The result is an uneducated, unskilled, and
unqualified department of minority officers.''
I would think that this would cause concern in addition to
all the public things that are out there about Mr. Fumo; I
would encourage you to please look at the public record
regarding judgments.
My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
But I do hope to chat with you on this. I was disappointed
when I asked if I could come see you personally and talk to you
about this, I was told no. I couldn't do that.
Secretary Johnson. I actually was told that you wanted to
talk to me. I said, yes, I am happy to talk to the Congressman.
But for some reason, you were unavailable.
I am happy to talk to you further about this issue.
Mr. Chaffetz. I would love to come sit down with you and
talk to you about it. I have great concerns about this.
Secretary Johnson. May I respond, sir?
Chairman McCaul. Yes, Mr. Secretary,
Secretary Johnson. Congressman, I am focused on trying to
make the Department of Homeland Security a more efficient and
effective place for the benefit of the public, for the benefit
of the taxpayers.
I have known Mr. Marrone since 2009, when he worked for
Robert Gates. Secretary Gates held him in the highest regard. I
hired him to be our chief of staff because of his
organizational administrative skills over the last 5 years,
that had been demonstrated to a lot of people.
Since he has come to the Department of Homeland Security,
my expectations for him have been, in fact, exceeded.
This is a man who has three young children. He is married.
He is at work at 5 a.m. He is streamlining our organization. He
is making the Department of Homeland Security a more efficient
place.
He is putting together a budget process, something that
people on this committee and in this Congress have been after
us to do for some years.
He is doing an excellent job for the benefit of the public
and the taxpayer.
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the excess time.
But three of the entities he was involved with, the
inspector general of the city of Philadelphia said was
fraudulent, misrepresented, misspent money, and overspent some
$5-million-plus that they want to get back in the city of
Philadelphia. That is the concern.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman's time has expired.
We have 10 Members left. The Secretary has agreed to stay
until 12:15. So I would ask unanimous consent that all Members
limit their questions to 3 minutes, so we can accommodate all
the Members.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. Welcome. We
do look forward to your leadership.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Swalwell. A quick question about the Urban Area
Security Initiative program, known as UASI. The Department
develops a risk score for UASIs by looking at factors like
population, military assets, critical infrastructure, et
cetera.
But some UASIs fund additional counties and neighboring
areas that have close economic and military ties that are in
the commute areas.
For example, in the Bay Area, where I am from, San
Francisco, we have 5 of the--we have 12 counties, but 5 are not
included in our Urban Areas Initiative grant.
We are wondering and hoping if the Department can work with
us to consider other assets and population and cultural and
economic ties to bring into the Bay Area's footprint some of
these surrounding counties, because they do include Travis Air
Force Base, the Defense Language Institute, and a number of
other important assets.
Secretary Johnson. I am very familiar with the Bay Area and
all that it includes. I have spent considerable time in the Bay
Area. I am happy to take a look at this issue and work with you
more on it.
Mr. Swalwell. Great.
The second question, with respect to immigration
enforcement priorities, I know, being a former prosecutor, that
how you classify different crimes is important. Right now, 72
percent of individuals removed were convicted of Level 1 or
Level 2 offenses. A Level 1 offense can include an aggravated
felony, and a Level 2 offense can include multiple
misdemeanors, which also could be driving without a license,
which, of course, if an undocumented person is here, they would
not be able to obtain a license.
I want to make sure that we are focusing on removing the
most serious and violent offenders, and not necessarily
breaking up families that are--especially my concern, being a
former prosecutor, was people would commit crimes that were--we
would call it a crime for driving without a license, but, up
until just a couple months ago in California, an undocumented
person could never receive a license.
So were you focused on more violent individuals when we
prioritize removal?
Secretary Johnson. I am committed--and I am continuing a
continual evaluation and reevaluation of our prosecution
priorities and ensuring that we are operating and acting in
accordance with those.
So it is something that I am going to continually look at.
Mr. Swalwell. Great.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of
my time.
Again, thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. We look forward to
working with you.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman recognizes the Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Transportation Security, Mr. Hudson from
North Carolina.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us here today.
I am extremely concerned and upset about the cost, overall
cost, and the delays of the new Department of Homeland Security
headquarters at St. Elizabeth's campus.
The cost has now ballooned to something like $4.5 billion.
A completion date has moved out from 2015 to 2026. Frankly, I
just fail to see how this is an appropriate use of the taxpayer
dollars, to spend this kind of money for a headquarters, and
just really disappointed in the way it has played out.
You know, I understand, when you are consolidating 22
agencies, this is a very difficult process. I understand the
command-and-control concerns of having your agency scattered
all across the region.
But to put this in perspective, the world's tallest
building only cost a billion dollars and it only took a
fraction of the time to build.
Frankly, I think the way we are going about this, by trying
to take these historic buildings that are crumbling and trying
to bring them up to speed and build a facility is the wrong way
to go.
I mean, I am a history major, so I am trying to contemplate
or even comprehend this type of money. You talk about $4
billion, it is a quarter of the amount of money we spent to
rebuild Japan after World War II, and it is 3 years longer.
I was doing some math, and $4 billion, if you were to stack
dollar bills, would be as tall as a thousand Empire State
Buildings.
I mean, this is an incredible amount of money for a
headquarters when we have got so many other needs in Homeland
Security and other things, when we are borrowing 40 cents of
every dollar we spend.
I realize that decisions were made on these headquarters
before your tenure and, frankly, before I got here. So, my
question to you is: Will you be willing to work with us? Can
you go back to the drawing board and let's come up with a
better plan that doesn't cost us $4.5 billion to meet the needs
of the Department?
Secretary Johnson. I have asked my folks to work with GSA
on a plan going forward.
My general observations about St. Elizabeth's: First of
all, it is a wonderful place. The Coast Guard is headquartered
there now.
It is a terrific place. I am envious. But I will probably
never work there.
From my Pentagon experience, I do believe there is a value
for the, you know, ``One Team, One Mission'' message, if you
have all the components in one headquarters. I have seen that
at the Pentagon.
In the E-Ring, you have got DOD. You have got Army, Navy,
Air Force, Marine Corps, all in the same square footage. There
is value to that.
I think that the morale of DHS, unity of the mission, that
emphasis would go a long way if we could get to a headquarters.
I also believe we ought to finish what we started. You
know, we are investing a lot of money in this project. There is
a certain wisdom to finishing what you start. Then the question
becomes the time line pursuant to which you finish it. So, we
have got some years ahead of us.
But I have asked my folks to work with GSA. So I have some
of the same questions you do.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate that. I know I am out of time, but
finish what you started. If you are in the middle of a huge
mess, you stop digging. We are in the middle of a boondoggle of
epic proportions. I would just say we need to look at starting
over.
We could build a skyscraper up on that mountain, and put
the whole Government in it for that kind of money.
Let's look at a new plan.
But I look forward to working with you.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman's time is expired. I now
recognize Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I just wanted to get back to the Northern
Border and security. I represent Buffalo, and we have the Peace
Bridge. It connects Buffalo to southern Ontario, which is a
population center of 8 million people.
Secretary Johnson. Sorry I couldn't be there Monday.
Mr. Higgins. What is that?
Secretary Johnson. Sorry I couldn't be there Monday.
Mr. Higgins. You were missed. But it was a good event, and
we are making progress.
It is the second-busiest Northern Border crossing between
the United States and Canada. Forty billion dollars in trade
crosses the bridge every year.
In previous hearings here, on Hezbollah, which is a Shia
terrorist organization bent on violent jihad, it was disclosed
that Hezbollah has a presence in North America, including 15
American cities and two major cities in Canada.
In the post-9/11 era, the one thing we know clearly is that
terrorists seek to destruct and kill, but they also seek to
disrupt our way of life. So they seek out high-impact targets.
Around the Peace Bridge--we have no other Peace Bridge. As
I said, second-busiest Northern Border cross between the United
States and Canada, but also Niagara Falls, destination of some
20 million visitors from every country in the world, every
year. A high-impact target.
The Niagara Power project produces the largest, the most
hydroelectricity in all of New York State. A high-impact
target.
Toronto, an international city, a high-impact target.
Earlier, last year, a terrorist plot was thwarted that was
targeting a passenger train from Niagara Falls to New York
City.
So I just wanted to make you aware of that and get your
thoughts on it quickly. Thank you.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you for that, Congressman.
I am aware that some of the most serious border threats can
be threats to the Northern Border. They are of a different
character and kind from the threats on the Southwest Border. I
appreciate that.
I also recognize the importance of facilitating trade in
places like the Peace Bridge and I know that you and Senator
Schumer and others have been very focused on that and I
congratulate you for those efforts.
The Northern Border is one I expect to get to very soon in
my travels so I can study this issue further. I agree with your
concerns regarding security.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the gentleman for yielding back
time. Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Barletta.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you Mr.
Secretary for coming here today. As was noted earlier, today is
the 21st anniversary of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings as
you well know.
Mahmud Abouhalima is one of the terrorists who perpetrated
this attack. He overstayed a tourist visa and received amnesty
when comprehensive immigration reform was passed in 1986. He
claimed that he was really a cab driver, but he claimed to be a
seasonal agricultural worker. The only thing he ever planted in
America was a bomb.
Terrorists in this country need to find a way to remain
here legally and not be deported. It is possible and likely
that there are people in this country illegally who have
connections to radical groups in the Middle East.
Secretary Johnson, my question is that employees within the
DHS say that they are pressured to rubber-stamp citizenship and
visa applications and lack the resources to adequately
investigate applicants.
I was a mayor, and I am very aware of what is involved in
doing criminal background checks. If we do not conduct face-to-
face interviews in these background checks, how can we be sure
that we are not gonna legalize individuals who have connections
to radical groups in the Middle East as any part of any
immigration reform that is being discussed here?
You know again, I have seen the other side of illegal
immigration. I know we talk a lot about, you know, the good
people who are here just working. But, you know, I have seen
the criminal aspect and the drug dealers.
How are are you going to separate salt from sugar if we are
not going to do face-to-face interviews and investigate the
backgrounds of these people and their country of origin?
Secretary Johnson. First of all, Congressman, thank you for
that question.
When it comes to counter-terrorism, I don't think I take a
back seat to anybody, and I think my track record in National
security demonstrates that. I am most concerned about
identifying individuals of suspicion who have terrorist motives
in this country or who want to come into this country.
Regarding the complaint that some may feel pressure to
rubber-stamp a visa application, I have heard this before. It
is something I have asked about. I have asked my folks to look
into it. I am interested in the subject and it is something
that I am willing to engage with your office about so that we
can both understand the nature of it.
Mr. Barletta. Could you address the face-to-face
interviews? How are we going to conduct background checks on
any immigration reform without doing those type of very, very
time-consuming----
Secretary Johnson. I have asked the same question, so.
Mr. Barletta. I would like to work with you if we can, I am
very concerned.
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman
from Nevada, Mr. Horsford. Mr. Horsford.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will be brief.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. Earlier this
week I had the opportunity to meet with my sheriff from Clark
County, as well as our fire chief and 12 local first responders
from agencies throughout Southern Nevada.
During this meeting, they expressed concern that the
current risk-assessment model does not factor in considerations
that are unique to tourism-centered locations such as Las Vegas
and that the model seems to be moving more to a response and
recovery approach and not as much a focus on prevention.
The Attorney General, Eric Holder, who has visited this
southern Nevada fusion center considers it to be the model for
how agencies should be working together.
The officials with whom I met believe that they were not
sufficiently involved in the risk evaluation process and that
FEMA did not take advantage of their local expertise as first
responders.
Now, I know these concerns apply to other cities throughout
the country, beyond Las Vegas in the last year, including
places like Orlando and New Orleans who have also fallen off
the UASI list.
But I also know that you have inherited this model. So as
you lay the foundation for this new Department of Homeland
Security under your administration, I would like to ask for
your commitment to work with me and other colleagues on
addressing issues with the risk assessment model that does not
adequately factor the unique characterizations and needs of
tourism-based economies like the one I represent.
I want to personally invite you out to our community to
meet with our Fusion Center representative as well as the
public and private sector who have concerns about the fact that
we have moved away from this focus on prevention.
I want to ask if you will review that model, going forward,
and if you will take me up on my invitation to come to Las
Vegas.
Secretary Johnson. You are correct that I have inherited
the model, but I now own it, so it is mine. I have heard this
issue before, and not just from a Congressional representative
in Nevada and I am willing to review it, work with you on it to
make sure we have gotten it right.
I understand the concerns around potential threat to
tourism, so I get that.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you. Again, I would like to----
Secretary Johnson. I would welcome the opportunity to visit
Nevada again.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you. Yes, the Fusion Center is a great
place and again, I think it is a model as the Attorney General
Eric Holder has said for how local State and Federal agencies,
public, private entities can work together to proactively meet
our security needs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Perry, is recognized.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome
and congratulations, you have got a tough job.
Recently, a DHS drone was used to assist local law
enforcement in apprehending a North Dakota man after a dispute
with some cattle.
It is my understanding the drones are to be used to assist
in the apprehension of illegal immigrants who cross the border,
not for domestic surveillance of American citizens.
Also, in 2014, we appropriated almost a billion dollars
towards CBP's Office of Air and Maritime, which includes
unmanned aircraft operations for the robust airborne
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance to extend the
reach of CBP's drug interdiction and border security operation.
Not to indict you for the sins of the past and your
predecessor, but there were often cries that the Department
or--didn't have enough money, didn't have the funds to carry
out its mission.
I am wondering if--two things--if this is going to continue
the use of DHS drones for law enforcement regarding American
citizens? If it does--and if it is, then shouldn't we consider
the budget in that regard and, you know, are you really that
short in funds if you are using the asset that had been
appropriated for the Department for specific reasons and then
is used elsewhere for local law enforcement?
Then how do you know, are you going to continue that
policy? Then how do you determine--I mean, maybe the community
I represent is interested in using DHS drone for law
enforcement, but how do we get in the queue then?
So, just like to get some of your thoughts on----
Secretary Johnson. My general comment is this: I think that
surveillance, including aerial surveillance, is very important
for border security. Border security is one of my missions.
I want to be sure, as we go forward with this technology
that we are also providing adequate assurances, safeguards,
protections, when it comes to the privacy of our citizens who
live in and around the border.
I want to be sure we further refine our policies in that
regard if we are going to continue to conduct surveillance
along the border.
With regard to your specific question about uses for law
enforcement and funding, I would have to get back to you on
that. But my general view is that there is an important need
for surveillance for purposes of border security and that is my
primary----
Mr. Perry. I agree with you, and I don't want to interrupt
you. But I have got just a few moments left.
The Washington Times reported that the DHS had lent border
drones out to local State and Federal agencies hundreds of
times, so I just want to--and so that is domestic--that
surveillance of American citizens, is it generally your theme,
or something that you would accept that you would continue in
that regard?
I am asking from privacy standpoint, from a legality
standpoint and from a funding standpoint, is the Department
going to continue to do that?
Secretary Johnson. Look, my principle--my priority is
border security, that is part of the homeland security mission.
That is my priority.
If I have surveillance technology that Congress has funded
and given to me for that purpose, that is my priority.
Mr. Perry. For Americans or for people on the border that
are coming----
Secretary Johnson. For border security. For----
Mr. Perry. Only?
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. Border crossings, I can't
say solely, there may be some instances where for a very
important law enforcement objective, we might support some
local law enforcement's efforts at drug trafficking or
something of that nature. So I wouldn't rule that out.
But the principle reason they are there is border security.
Mr. Perry. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman's time has expired.
Gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome
Mr. Secretary. I am going to just give you my questions and
then have you respond, given the time constraint.
It is good to hear that you support the CFATS legislation.
It is my understanding, however, that DHS is currently engaged
in a working group whose recommendations will be coming out in
May. So I just want to get your feedback as to whether you
think it would be great for us to be informed by what the
working group comes out with as we move forward to bring forth
legislation.
I also want to raise the issue of personnel surety. This is
a--the direction that NYPD is going with components of CFATS
raises some issues of long-standing concerns to this committee.
Lack of standardization and harmonization in the area of
personal surety requirements across critical infrastructure
sectors. If you would address that.
Then, finally, just a comment. I want to applaud you on
your commitment to comprehensive immigration reform and add my
voice to encourage you to prioritize those who we are looking
at in terms of their immigrant status when we are looking at
removals. That--if we can drill down into the agency to look at
that categorization, because I believe that comprehensive
immigration reform is inevitable. The status quo just can't
hold. But, we are also dealing with the fragmentation of
families, and oftentimes the breadwinners of those families.
Having said that, I look forward to your response, sir.
Secretary Johnson. Yes ma'am, first my general attitude is
if we have got a good bill and there is an opportunity to pass
it in this Congress that supports my goals and objectives,
enhances homeland security, I am going to support that measure.
If there is support for it, it is a good bill--I think we
in the Congressional and Executive branches owe it to the
American people to try to get something done. So that is my
general attitude and I think that this bill is a good bill.
I believe we need to continually evaluate our removal
priorities to make sure we are getting it right, the removal--
border threats are--you know, it is a fluid situation. You have
to continually re-evaluate it and that is what I am doing.
I am sorry that I have forgotten your second question.
Ms. Clarke. Yes, it was about the personnel surety program.
Right now, we are dealing with an issue of background
checks and credentials across several agencies and the
redundancy of that. Would you give us your----
Secretary Johnson. I am very interested in achieving
greater efficiencies and that is a directive that I have given
to my staff to look for, whether it is with regard to
background checks or a number of other items.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Gentlelady's time is expired.
Mrs. Brooks.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Secretary for being here and for
sitting here even longer than you were expected.
In the past two budget cycles, the President's proposed
consolidating several of the Homeland Security grant programs
administered by FEMA into a National preparedness grant
program, but that request has been denied by--in a bicameral,
bipartisan way, because there were never enough details
provided as to how this was going to affect our State and local
partners. We are still waiting and have been waiting to hear
what FEMA proposed with respect to consolidating these very
important grant programs.
I am curious whether or not you have seen the language,
whether or not the administration is planning on submitting
this consolidated grant program once again?
I have one other quick question for you.
Secretary Johnson. I will have to get back to you on that
one. Sorry.
Mrs. Brooks. Okay, I would just let you know that it has
been met with much opposition by both sides, both chambers, and
would expect it to receive the same response if it is presented
in the same way.
We also, in sharing the Emergency Preparedness Response
Communication Subcommittee, we just held a hearing recently on
the bio-terror threat facing the country. You may or may not be
aware, but the Weapons of Mass Destruction Center issued a
report card that showed that we, in this country, received
grades of a large number of Ds and Fs in our preparation for a
bio-terror threat.
Wasn't--would like to know--one of the recommendations out
of the 112th Congress was that the Next Generation-3 system
that was proposed for detecting bio-terrorism exceeded cost by
almost three times, to $5.8 billion in the life cycle for the--
what is called Gen3 of the Bio-Watch program.
Did not know if you have been yet briefed on the Bio-Watch
program, the analysis of alternatives, and whether or not you
were aware that our country really is lacking in its
preparedness and its response for a bio-terror attack.
Secretary Johnson. Bio-terror--the bio-terror threat is
part of the Homeland Security mission. It is--on my watch I
have been briefed generally on the bio-terror concerns that we
all have, and agree that this has got to be a real priority in
a cost-effective way. I am happy to work with you, further the
dialogue on this and make sure we address this in a cost-
efficient, effective way.
Mrs. Brooks. I just might make a suggestion that came out
during this hearing, that there is currently no one singular
person that has his or her mission in Department of Homeland
Security to be responsible for bio-terror. I would encourage
you to look at that. It is--there have been those positions in
past administrations. There currently is not that in this
administration.
Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. Gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Richmond, from Louisiana.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
We are in a process of fixing these massive flood insurance
premium increases around the country and we are getting some
push-back from FEMA in terms of what they can and can't do and
I just wanted to get you--to ask you to commit to ensuring that
FEMA implement all aspects of the legislation as soon as
possible, as soon as it is signed into law by the President,
passed by both chambers.
So can you commit to doing that?
Secretary Johnson. Yes sir.
Mr. Richmond. Second, I would move to TSA's use of small
businesses. Usually it is difficult because small businesses
didn't have the money and expertise to invest in the specific
technologies, but they are there, and TSA has failed to use
them. In fact, they just awarded a $68 million contract to a
company just as a small business is about to be certified and
able to do that.
So can you commit to us to ensuring that you put pressure
on TSA to use small businesses?
Secretary Johnson. I would encourage all of my components
to look at the most effective and efficient way to contract out
services.
My general view is that big is not necessarily better. I
would rather have somebody who is more effective, was cost-
efficient, is, you know, a little hungry and is looking to
fulfill my mission in a cost-effective, efficient way.
Big is not necessarily better.
Mr. Richmond. I would just ask you to look in that specific
instance of the business that is nearing certification. The
fact that I think we may have contracted out all of the
opportunity for them without taking into account the fact that
they could be included.
The other thing I would follow up with or conclude with is
Coast Guard reauthorization and the fact that I will publicly
state on the record that, in the aftermath of both Katrina and
Rita, watching the Coast Guard and what they do and how they
did it, they are certainly a key component to homeland
security. I would just urge that we stake our claim to
jurisdiction and make sure that, that legislation--
reauthorization would come before us and have your commitment
to support us on that.
Secretary Johnson. I am very focused on Coast Guard re-
capitalization at the moment. I am told that the Coast Guard is
the most aged fleet of vessels in the world--I don't know
whether that is true or not, but that is what I am told--and I
think it is time for re-capitalization.
It is something I am focused on. I appreciate the support
we have been given from Congress thus far.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you, and I will yield back the
balance----
Chairman McCaul. On that note, let me just say we--I intend
to offer a Coast Guard reauthorization bill.
With that, last but not least, the gentleman from
Mississippi, Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
Johnson for being here today.
Mr. Secretary, I want to highlight an issue that is
intimately related to FEMA, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy,
and other storms that may have flown under your radar so far
since your confirmation.
I am talking about flood insurance, this rising cost and
the multiple shortcomings of FEMA to get their flood mapping or
premium rate setting right. There are countless instances where
FEMA has used inaccurate or outdated data concerning land
elevation and landscape features, and in some cases data that
is decades old.
Much of this is detailed in the 2008 GAO report.
The House has been working on H.R. 3370, the Homeowner
Flood Insurance Affordability Act. This bill will provide
relief to homeowners who went to great efforts and expense and
followed all the rules to build back after storms such as
Hurricane Katrina and Sandy.
This bill will prevent FEMA from changing the rules and
punishing those people when FEMA updates their flood maps. I
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3370 when it hits the floor,
hopefully next week.
Now, while H.R. 3370 will go a long way to providing
relief, we still need to ensure that FEMA is using good science
and rating methods.
So Mr. Secretary, I know you are relatively new to your
post, but this is a critical priority that needs to be
addressed. Because FEMA and the NIFP fall under your purview as
the head of DHS, I am curious, have you been made aware of the
flawed and outdated formula FEMA has been using for premium
rate setting? Are you aware of the way FEMA's faulty mapping
practices and data are directing affecting the severity of rate
increases for homeowners?
Secretary Johnson. Well, first of all, I think the overall
goal for us in the Executive and Congressional branches is that
we maintain going forward a solvent flood insurance program for
the American people. That is the overarching priority.
I am aware of discussions, disagreements concerning maps. I
was in one as recently as 2 days ago with a certain Governor
who had raised concerns about the maps. I do know that when we
adopt maps there is an opportunity for public community comment
on the maps, and an appeal process so that local communities
can raise concerns with the technique that we have used, that,
that process is built into the law and I would encourage local
communities that have concerns to raise those in the process.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that, and
you know, the bill that is going forward in the House right
now, it is a Nation-wide bipartisan issue. It is affecting
homeowners. It is affecting communities. It is deteriorating
property values. Just in my district alone, we are already
seeing foreclosures because rates have gone from $1,000 to
$11,000.
We could get into the unintended consequences of bigger
waters, but this bill that we are gonna be introducing is paid
for, it helps lead NFIP to become solvent, but it does it in a
compassionate manner by not punishing those who have already
played by the rules that FEMA and the local governments have
set.
So, I look forward to working with you on that.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Secretary, let me just say, thank you
for your generosity with time.
I look forward to working with you on our priorities that I
know we share together.
Members may have additional questions in writing. We ask
that you respond to those.
Without objection, the committee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Question From Chairman Michael T. McCaul for Honorable Jeh C. Johnson
Question. The Congressional EMP Commission and numerous other
experts have expressed concern about the vulnerability of the Nation's
critical infrastructure to damage from a catastrophic EMP event as a
result of a high-altitude EMP attack against the United States or a
solar geomagnetic storm. These studies also warn that the Nation's
current lack of EMP preparedness should be a top priority for National
and homeland security. Please describe DHS activities related to the
EMP threat and its potential impacts and consequences to the Nation's
critical infrastructures.
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is working
collaboratively, both internally and with external stakeholders, to
reduce the risk from Electromagnetic Pulse and solar weather. Within
the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), the Office of
Cyber and Infrastructure Analysis\1\--and the Office of Cybersecurity
and Communications have worked to model and assess Electromagnetic
Pulse effects, and to conduct research and propose solutions to
understand and mitigate Electromagnetic Pulse risks. For example, NPPD
conducted a study in 2010 on Electromagnetic Pulse's potential impact
on extra-high voltage transformers and recommended options for
hardening these systems from Electromagnetic Pulse attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In February 2014, NPPD created the Office of Cyber and
Infrastructure Analysis by integrating analytic resources from across
NPPD including the Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis
Center and the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center
which were formerly located within the NPPD Office of Infrastructure
Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Science and Technology Directorate's (S&T) Recovery
Transformer (RecX) project is intended to increase the resilience of
the power grid. A pilot demonstration was successfully conducted in
March 2012 in which an extra-high voltage transformer prototype was
transported, installed, and energized in less than 1 week. DHS S&T and
RecX project partners are working on transition plans for RecX with
various stakeholders, including Federal partners and private industry.
Additionally, the Resilient Electric Grid program under DHS S&T
increases the resilience of the grid, particularly in urban areas, by
enabling substations to interconnect with one another in order to share
power and assets in the event of an emergency, via an inherently fault-
current-limiting high-temperature super-conducting cable. The Resilient
Electric Grid program will demonstrate this new capability in a pilot
installation with our partner utility, Consolidated Edison, later this
year. S&T has also developed modeling and simulation capabilities that
are capable of analyzing the impact of blasts, Electromagnetic Pulses,
and other hazards on critical infrastructure. S&T has a fiscal year
2014 new start program, Solar Storm Mitigation, that will provide the
capability to forecast geomagnetically-induced currents levels at
specific nodes within the grid. This capability would allow the utility
to take proactive operational measures to protect a given transformer
from damage due to the impacts of a solar storm.
Other DHS components also have roles in building resilience. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has exercised scenarios
involving Electromagnetic Pulse and solar weather and is developing
plans to help address these evolving threats. FEMA is also working with
States and industry to reduce the risk from Electromagnetic Pulse,
notably by deploying new capabilities as part of the integrated public
alert and warning system to help keep the public informed and alerted
during a major Electromagnetic Pulse event. Additionally, DHS
coordinates Unclassified and Classified briefings and workshops for
industry and works to analyze their vulnerabilities and demonstrate
potential impacts and costs if those vulnerabilities are left
unaddressed.
Questions From Honorable Patrick Meehan for Honorable Jeh C. Johnson
Question 1. We are concerned about the EAGLE II procurement and the
Department's corrective action to re-evaluate bids. As you know,
Members of this committee, have been watching how the Department has
handled--really mishandled, this massive contract procurement. What we
have witnessed has not given us comfort in the Department's
administrative capabilities. The procurement took almost 3 years
between the time proposals were submitted and contract awards were
finally completed last fall. Since that time, the Department has been
besieged by protests--I believe there are over 40 protests pending.
Clearly, there are many groups that feel this procurement was flawed.
At the end of December, we were informed that the Department was taking
corrective action to re-evaluate bids, but have not had received an
update since. Could you comment on the status of the Department's
correction action and a time line for when this process will be
concluded?
Answer. The Enterprise Acquisition Gateway for Leading Edge
Solutions II procurement consisted of 9 distinct competitions across 3
functional requirements categories. The Department of Homeland Security
began awarding contracts 21 months after proposals were received and
completed contract awards within 31 months.
Contract awards have been made in all nine Enterprise Acquisition
Gateway for Leading Edge Solutions II award tracks in an open and
transparent process employing Federal procurement best practices and in
accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Out of the 9
competitions, 6 are available for immediate use, while 3 are in the
final stages of the procurement process. To date, awards have been made
to large and small companies--task order awards have been made to
companies in all three functional categories.
The Department of Homeland Security recognizes that protests are
part of the procurement process in accordance with the Federal
Acquisition Regulation. For Enterprise Acquisition Gateway for Leading
Edge Solutions II, a significant number of protests have been received,
many of which have been dismissed or withdrawn. However, protests add
significant time to the overall procurement cycle.
In addition to agency level and Government Accountability Office
protests, interested parties may also protest the acquisition through
the United States Court of Federal Claims.
Based upon the significant number of offerors protesting the award
decisions, the Department of Homeland Security decided that re-
evaluation of proposals in some functional categories and tracks is the
most effective and efficient way of addressing the concerns raised,
while ensuring fairness in this competitive process. This will allow
the most expeditious path to completion. The Department has completed
all re-evaluations.
Question 2. I remain concerned about the impact delays will have on
the Department's ability to provide mission-critical services to secure
our Nation's borders. Given the problems with the Eagle II procurement,
is the Department providing the flexibility (exceptions or waivers) to
component agencies that generally use this vehicle, so they have the
ability to move their work elsewhere to ensure they are able to provide
mission-critical services?
Answer. As of March 26, 2014, four of the awarded Enterprise
Acquisition Gateway Leading Edge Solutions II tracks are fully
available for use. Department of Homeland Security contracting offices
have the flexibility to satisfy current mission requirements through an
``exception'' to the use of Enterprise Acquisition Gateway for Leading
Edge Solutions II without the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer's
approval. In addition to 6 specified exceptions, contracting officers
may request a waiver from the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer
to purchase goods or services from an alternative contract source. The
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer has received a total of 25
waiver requests and all but one of these requests was approved.
Questions From Honorable Tom Marino for Honorable Jeh C. Johnson
Question 1. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, and
the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, known as
the IPR Center, both play vital roles in the battle against theft of
our Nation's intellectual property. In your new capacity, I strongly
encourage you to ensure adequate resources within the Department are
provided to assist in their missions to protect our citizens from
dangerous products, and to guard against the criminals and terrorists
who traffic in illicit, illegal, and counterfeit goods. Research has
shown that IP theft is truly a matter of National security--such as
counterfeit memory chips found in our military aircrafts in 2010. In
your new role, can we count on you to provide the various agencies
within the Department with the funding and resources they need to
effectively fight IP theft?
Question 2. Further, do you have any ideas on how we can better
strengthen these programs to protect against future threats?
Answer. Yes, I will continue to work with Congress to ensure the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to provide the funding
and resources necessary to ensure that it remains the leading U.S.
Government agency for combating intellectual property crimes. Enforcing
intellectual property laws remains a priority for both DHS's U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP). The ICE-led National Intellectual Property Rights
Coordination Center (IPR Center) is a collaborative effort supported by
17 U.S. Government agencies, Interpol, Europol, and the governments of
Canada and Mexico to enhance enforcement of intellectual property and
trade fraud violations that threaten the U.S. economy, endanger public
health and safety, and threaten America's military personnel. The IPR
Center integrates law enforcement efforts with private industry
information in the exchange of tactical intelligence and joint
operations.
ICE, CBP, the IPR Center, and partner agencies have developed
initiatives to address some of the most pressing threats from
intellectual property infringement. Operation Chain Reaction combats
counterfeit and substandard parts within the U.S. Department of Defense
and U.S. Government supply chains. Operation Engine Newity targets the
importation and distribution of counterfeit and substandard automotive
products that pose a health and safety risk. Pursuant to this
operation, investigations conducted by ICE Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well
as interdictions made by CBP, have uncovered counterfeit airbags,
steering, braking, and seat belt components. Operation Apothecary
addresses, analyzes, and attacks potential vulnerabilities in the
customs entry process that allow for the smuggling of commercial
quantities of counterfeit, unapproved, and/or adulterated drugs.
Operation In Our Sites identifies, targets, and seizes internet domain
names that defraud U.S. consumers and businesses by trafficking
infringing goods, pursuing assets, and criminally prosecuting
principals. Recognizing the importance of protecting our own supply
chain from counterfeit goods, ICE has developed counterfeit awareness,
mitigation, identification, and reporting training for ICE purchase
card holders and approvers via ICE acquisition office-hosted webinars.
Additionally, the IPR Center coordinates National and international
operations that focus on the security of the supply chain and protect
the U.S. economy and American jobs. Congressional support, such as
appropriation for these initiatives and assistance in raising
constituent awareness about the dangers of counterfeit products can
assist DHS in effectively fighting intellectual property theft.
Questions From Honorable Mark Sanford for Honorable Jeh C. Johnson
Question 1a. Is individual privacy a priority for the Department of
Homeland Security?
Answer. Protecting privacy is critical within the DHS mission. The
Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Privacy Office within
DHS. The Homeland Security Act established the DHS chief privacy
officer as the first statutorily-created privacy officer in the Federal
Government. The chief privacy officer reports directly to the Secretary
and is charged with ``assuring that the use of technologies sustains,
and do not erode, privacy protections relating to the use, collection
and disclosure of personal information.'' Pursuant to this mandate, the
Privacy Office works to ensure that the protection of privacy rights is
incorporated into the Department's programs, policies, and procedures.
The Privacy Office's division into four major functional areas--
Compliance, Policy, Oversight, and Disclosure--has positioned it to
ensure involvement with programs, offices, and initiatives across the
Department at each stage of the development life cycle--from planning
and design, through implementation and, possibly, retirement. The
Privacy Office calls this process ``operationalizing'' privacy.
The foundation of this process begins with privacy compliance. The
Privacy Office's Compliance team manages this by ensuring that the
agency has published in the Federal Register a System of Records Notice
for all Privacy Act systems of records. In addition, the Compliance
team ensures that all personally identifiable information contained in
these Privacy Act Systems of Records as well as within any electronic
record systems is handled in full compliance with fair information
practice principles, as set forth in the Privacy Act of 1974 and E-
Government Act. The Compliance team also works closely with Component
Privacy Officers, who are embedded in programs and offices across the
Department. This collaboration has facilitated the Privacy Office's
understanding and reach into projects at the earliest stages of program
and system planning, including those related to transporta-
tion-, border-, and cybersecurity. These efforts are reflected in the
hundreds of Privacy Impact Assessments published on the DHS Privacy
Office public-facing website: www.dhs.gov/privacy. These Privacy Impact
Assessments support transparency, and give the public a detailed look
into DHS efforts to secure the border, protect the transportation
system, ensure that critical infrastructure is protected from cyber
threats, and the whole range of DHS missions that may include
collecting personal information. These Privacy Impact Assessments also
analyze potential privacy risks and detail the steps the Department
takes to mitigate those risks.
The Privacy Policy team assesses novel privacy challenges that are
raised during the privacy compliance process, either through the use of
new technologies or methods of fulfilling our Department's vast mission
set. Examples include the Policy team's engagement on the Department's
information sharing in support of ``big data'' counterterrorism
programs, and its support for DHS's international activities, which
must account for other countries' differing requirements and
expectation about privacy.
The Oversight team in the Privacy Office ensures that programs are
effectively mitigating potential privacy risks discussed in compliance
documentation--like Privacy Impact Assessments--and helps to identify
and mitigate new risks that are discovered over time. Their pioneering
use of Privacy Compliance Reviews has become an important tool for
fine-tuning privacy protections in the Department's operational
programs. The Oversight team is already designing a Privacy Compliance
Review for many of DHS's cybersecurity activities.
Finally, the Privacy Office's Disclosure team is responsible for
providing individuals and the public with appropriate access to and
transparency for DHS records, following a request for access either
under the Privacy Act or the Freedom of Information Act. The Disclosure
team pursues proactive, timely disclosure of information about DHS
programs, operations, systems, and policies in a manner that is easily
accessible to the public. Additionally, the Disclosure team provides
policy and compliance leadership for Freedom of Information Act
Officers across the Department.
Question 1b. What specific steps will you take to ensure the civil
liberties of American citizens as they interact with DHS at our
airports, along our borders, or at their home computers?
Answer. Given the volume of daily interactions DHS has with the
public it is critical for us to diligently protect the civil rights and
civil liberties of all persons. The Homeland Security Act established
the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) in section 705.
The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties provides policy
advice and internal oversight to ensure that civil rights and civil
liberties are respected and not diminished. Many DHS components also
have offices dedicated to civil rights and/or civil liberties policy
and oversight. A major focus of CRCL's work is the initiation of
investigations based on complaints received from the general public and
non-Governmental organizations through U.S. mail, email, and fax, and
the CRCL telephone hotline, as well as through the DHS Traveler Redress
Inquiry Program. Incidents that merit investigation are also forwarded
to CRCL from other offices at DHS and other Government agencies.
Whether through recommendations arising from investigations, or its
role in providing proactive advice to the Secretary and component
leadership, CRCL is engaged in policy development throughout the
Department.
CRCL supports the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as
it provides the highest level of security to all who pass screening
checkpoints in a manner that also respects individual rights. For
example, CRCL has worked with TSA on revised anti-profiling training
for TSA's behavioral detection officers. Similarly, CRCL works with
U.S. Customs and Border Protection on civil rights and civil liberties
issues that can arise in border screening.
CRCL has also developed and implemented training for law
enforcement officers and other DHS personnel who interact with
travelers at the border to ensure that the civil rights and civil
liberties of travelers are appropriately protected during the process
of border screening.
In 2009, President Obama recognized the need to increase education
and dialogue about cybersecurity. The President directed a Cyberspace
Policy Review, which resulted in recommendations that have become the
blueprint from which our Nation's cybersecurity foundation will grow to
support an assured and resilient digital infrastructure. CRCL has been
an integral part of the implementation of the recommendations stemming
from that review, advising DHS cybersecurity professionals, managers,
and leaders on how to protect individual rights while improving the
Nation's cybersecurity posture across a range of cybersecurity
initiatives conducted by the Department.
DHS efforts have focused on securing the Federal Government's
networks--the ``.gov'' domain--while providing assistance to help
secure critical infrastructure and the Nation's private cyber
infrastructure using means other than Government monitoring of internet
communications. The Department provides threat information, technical
assistance, and coordination of National-level preparedness and
response efforts for critical infrastructure owners and operators,
State, local, and Tribal governments, foreign partners, and the general
public, to assist them as they work with us to improve cybersecurity.
CRCL and the DHS Privacy Office also took an active role in
implementing Executive Order 13636, which focuses Federal cybersecurity
efforts securing the Nation's critical infrastructure. The Executive
Order directed the annual completion of Privacy and Civil Liberties
Assessments of activities conducted under the Executive Order, and the
compilation of assessment reports from other Departments and agencies
involved implementation activities. Working in close partnership with
the DHS Privacy Office, CRCL completed assessments of Executive Order-
related cybersecurity activities conducted by DHS, to ensure those
activities appropriately address any privacy and civil liberties issues
associated with those activities.
At the same time, CRCL and the DHS Privacy Office worked to ensure
the interagency task force operated in a transparent manner, co-hosting
meetings with advocacy groups and others focused on cybersecurity,
privacy, and civil liberties issues. Concurrently, CRCL and the Privacy
Office co-chaired the Privacy and Civil Liberties Assessments working
group, 1 of 9 working groups established by the DHS-led Interagency
Task Force charged with carrying out the directives of the Executive
Order, and Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 21, which advances a
National unity of effort to strengthen and maintain secure,
functioning, and resilient critical infrastructure. Together, CRCL and
the Privacy Office shared best practices with privacy and civil
liberties office colleagues from the participating Departments and
agencies, and worked through the Assessments Working Group to manage
the assessment reporting process.
Question 2. The Transportation Subcommittee heard testimony on
November 14, 2013 from Administrator Pistole and others on TSA's
Behavior Detection & Analysis Program (BDA) and its Behavior Detection
Officers. Do you support the continuation of this program in light of
GAO's report that there is no proof that it works after nearly $1
billion has been spent on it in the last 5 years without identifying a
single terrorist?
Answer. Behavior detection techniques have been an accepted
practice for many years within law enforcement, customs and border
enforcement, Department of Defense, and security communities, both in
the United States and internationally. The Transportation Security
Administration's (TSA) Screening of Passengers by Observation
Techniques (SPOT) behavior detection program is an important element of
the TSA multi-layered security approach. TSA's Behavior Detection
Officers (BDO) also play a key role in carrying out TSA's risk-based
screening (RBS) initiatives. RBS initiatives are intended to provide a
more common-sense, less-invasive screening experience for low-risk
passengers.
Because TSA's overall security posture is composed of interrelated
parts, to disrupt one piece of the multi-layered approach will have a
far-reaching adverse impact on other pieces, thereby negatively
affecting TSA's overall mission performance.
Additionally, in April 2011, the Department of Homeland Security
Science and Technology Directorate completed a comprehensive study that
examined the validity of using behavior indicators. The study found
that the SPOT program provided a number of screening benefits and is
more effective than random selection at identifying high-risk
passengers.
Since the publication of the 2011 Study, TSA has taken steps to
improve the entirety of the behavior detection program and the process
by which it is validated. In early 2012, TSA began another round of
research aimed at further substantiating the behavioral indicators and
improving the detection protocols. This effort evolved into what is now
known as the Behavior Detection Optimization effort. Optimization
encompasses four pillars of behavior detection: (1) Improving
recruiting processes, (2) Enhancing training content to further enhance
BDO skill sets, (3) Instituting greater management and quality control
systems, and (4) Revising its Behavioral Indicator Reference Guide
(BIRG) and designing a new referral methodology.
Concurrently and integral to the Optimization project is a
comprehensive Operational Test designed to collect the data to validate
behavior detection over and above what was seen during the original
2011 SPOT Validation Study. Scenario-driven testing will be used in
addition to the outcome-based protocols used in the prior Study. Each
of the GAO limitations discussed in their report will be mitigated to
the maximum extent possible given the constraints of testing within an
operational environment. Initial testing will begin in Fall 2014, and
full data collection is planned for late Winter 2015.
Question 3. The Transportation Subcommittee also heard testimony on
January 28, 2014, from Mr. Roderick Allison, assistant administrator
for TSA's Office of Inspection on a GAO report regarding whether or not
TSA's criminal investigators in the Office of Inspection met the
criteria for Law Enforcement Availability Pay (LEAP). Have you reviewed
this issue and are you in favor of changes to the status of these
criminal investigators?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is
authorized under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Pub. L.
107-71 (ATSA), to establish and classify positions and compensate its
workforce. TSA's criminal investigators receive Law Enforcement
Availability Pay (LEAP) for unscheduled overtime pursuant to TSA
policy, TSA Management Directive (MD) 1100.55-8, Premium Pay, and
MD1100.88-1, Law Enforcement Position Standards and Hiring
Requirements. TSA policy provides that for the purposes of law
enforcement premium pay administration, the agency follows the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5545a, and 5 C.F.R. 550.181 through
550.186.
TSA's 1811 criminal investigators conduct criminal investigations
of TSA employees and contractors, integrity testing, and external
investigations. In accordance with both TSA policy and the referenced
statute and regulatory provisions, TSA's 1811 criminal investigators
must work, or be available to work, a minimum annual average of 2 hours
of unscheduled overtime per non-excludable regular workday.
Pursuant to the Department of Homeland Security, Inspector General
recommendation (from its September 2013 report entitled Transportation
Security Administration Office of Inspection's Efforts to Enhance
Transportation Security, not from a GAO report), TSA has an on-going
effort to determine the appropriate number of criminal investigators
within TSA. Following the completion of the review, TSA will determine
the scope of any changes that should be made to staffing allocations
and position classification within the Office of Inspection (OOI).
Questions From Honorable William R. Keating for Honorable Jeh C.
Johnson
Question 1a. Mr. Secretary, I have a question on a topic that I
have been involved with since my days as a district attorney outside of
Boston, Massachusetts, when a 16-year old named Delvonte Tisdale
perished after he breached airport security and stowed away on a plane
from Charlotte-Douglas to Boston Logan Airport. Since joining this
committee in 2011, I have sat through several hearings on perimeter
security and have heard numerous testimonies on the discouraging 2009
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of Transportation
Security Administration's (TSA) assessments. Following GAO
recommendations, TSA published an assessment in July 2010--the
Transportation Sector Security Risk Assessment (TSSRA)--that included
various risk-based scenarios related to airport perimeter security but
did not consider potential vulnerabilities of airports to an insider
attack.
It is now 2014 and I remain unconvinced that TSA is capable of
adequately securing ports of entry, and, earlier this month, I sent a
letter to GAO Comptroller General Gene Dodaro requesting that GAO
conduct a comprehensive review of the efficacy of the Transportation
Security Administration's perimeter security assessments.
Can you elaborate on the Department's vision for ensuring perimeter
security moving forward?
Answer. Commercial airports in the United States are required to
establish and carry out measures for controlling entry, and to provide
for detection of and response to unauthorized presence or movement in
the controlled area. These plans are approved by the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA),
Airport authorities, in partnership with State, and local law
enforcement (including airport police and public safety departments),
and overseen by TSA, enacts a layered and multi-faceted approach to
increase perimeter security through regulation and inspection
activities.
First, TSA establishes regulatory requirements, such as
Airport Security Programs (ASP) that must be adopted by
regulated commercial airports, and inspects to those standards.
TSA issues ASP changes and Security Directives to counter
emerging threats or tactics that threaten airport perimeter
security. TSA's Transportation Security Inspectors (TSI),
perform inspections at regulated commercial airports. Perimeter
security, including pedestrian access points, vehicle gates,
and building access points, are a focus area of these
inspections.
Second, TSA maintains regular communication and partnering
efforts with airport associations, including the American
Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and the Airports
Council International--North America (ACI-NA), to promote
increased vigilance and security.
Third, TSA conducts numerous outreach efforts at the local
level directly, including TSI Perimeter Security Outreaches and
Joint Vulnerability Assessments (JVAs) and partnered with
Federal, State, and local law enforcement to identify security
weaknesses at airports including the perimeters.
Together, these efforts demonstrate TSA's vision of continuously
improving airport perimeter security through risk-based efforts and
partnership with affected stakeholders.
Question 1b. How effective has TSA's implementation of GAO's
recommendations been?
Answer. In response to GAO 09-399, Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) conducted a series of Special Emphasis Assessments
(SEA) of airport perimeter security at all Category X through Category
III airports in 2012. Local Transportation Security Inspectors (TSIs)
gathered physical security data from the 284 affected airports. The
data gathered from this SEA drove TSA's additional outreach efforts.
Based on the identification of best practices and potential weaknesses,
in 2013, TSIs worked with commercial airports to help them continue to
identify areas for improvement and take action to increase perimeter
security. All GAO questions related to regulatory compliance have been
closed.
Using the results of the perimeter assessments, outreach, and
additional assessments, in 2013, TSA completed a Perimeter Security
Risk Assessment which identified best practices and potential sources
of risk in perimeter security. TSA posted the results to its web board,
to which airport operators have access, and provided these results to
GAO. TSA provided in-depth results to its Federal Security Directors in
the field to discuss with their respective airports, allowing each
airport operator to understand the airport's current state and where to
address mitigation efforts. Airport operators responded favorably to
TSA's assessment, outreach, and information-sharing efforts.
Question 1c. How do you plan on reallocating resources to ensure
that necessary recommendations are enforced and our perimeters are
adequately secured?
Answer. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has
appropriate staffing and resources to accomplish its compliance
mission. Over and above its continuous regulatory compliance
inspections of perimeter security, in fiscal year 2014, TSA implemented
targeted testing of security measures as a component of TSA's
Compliance Security Enhancement Through Testing (COMSETT) protocols.
TSA is using COMSETT to direct its limited Transportation Security
Inspector force toward targeted critical aviation security tests in
order to buy down risk. TSA will continue to use COMSETT in fiscal year
2015 and future years to identify the vulnerabilities that persist in
perimeter security and will work with those particular airports to
improve their access control security.
Question 2a. I believe there is no greater depiction of the state
of current information sharing between intelligence agencies and our
international partners than the events surrounding the Boston Marathon
bombings last April. The Boston Police Commissioner, Ed Davis, sat
before this committee last year to explain that information was held
from him by the FBI that could have potentially served as a force
multiplier in the search for the suspects following the attacks in
Boston. Further, this committee ran into additional hurdles when we
asked the FBI to testify before us both in public and secure settings.
Instead of complying and walking us through what happened on that
fateful day, the FBI citied bureaucratic, jurisdictional guidelines to
explain why they did not need to share information with our committee
(despite the fact that they have testified before the Homeland Security
Committee in the past).
In response to further inquiries to both DHS and the FBI, Chairman
McCaul and I were able to find some discrepancies in communication
between those two agencies, as well. In the lead up to the Boston
bombings, Tamerlan Tsarnaev's questionable past and travels in and out
of Dagestan, did cause enough alarm to even designate him for a second
screening. FBI and DHS are supposed to work together when individuals
are flagged in the databases.
In this regard, Mr. Secretary, what can we do to make sure that
there is not only adequate information sharing across the agencies, but
also between Federal and local entities during a mass casualty event?
Question 2b. What is the biggest hindrance to better coordination?
Question 2c. Nearly 13 years after 9/11, I am still concerned that,
despite the improvements, there are still serious gaps that need to be
addressed.
Answer. On a daily basis, DHS and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, along with other Federal agencies at all levels,
coordinate and share information and intelligence regarding real and
potential threats to our Nation. We do this through a number of
mechanisms in offices and areas all across the Nation. DHS also works
closely with our State and local partners to share investigative
information, intelligence, and other Homeland Security information. DHS
components routinely work along-side State and local partners on
investigations and law enforcement operations, sharing the information
necessary to protect our communities. In addition, we have placed DHS
personnel in State and major urban area fusion centers for the express
purpose of sharing intelligence and information with those best-
postured in the States to share relevant information more broadly at
the local level.
DHS recently completed its internal After-Action Review. We found
that in the wake of the bombings, a large information void existed.
Since the Boston attack, DHS, the FBI, and National Counterterrorism
Center (NCTC) have expanded our ability to share information with State
and local officials about potential threats. Examples of recent events
where information has been shared include the 9/11 anniversary and the
homeland security implications of the conflict in Syria. DHS identified
ways to more effectively work with interagency partners at FBI Joint
Terrorism Task Forces and sent updated guidance to officers in the
field to improve such collaboration. DHS also continues to work closely
with Federal partners to screen and vet domestic and international
travelers, visa applicants, and other persons of interest to identify
potential threats. After the Boston attack, DHS reviewed its name-
matching capabilities, leading to improvements in its ability to detect
variations of names derived from a wide range of languages.
In recent weeks DHS also completed an interagency review along with
Department of Justice and Central Intelligence Agency of information
handling and sharing prior to the bombing. This report, along with the
DHS After-Action Report, are driving procedural and operational changes
to the way DHS coordinates and collaborates with other Federal
agencies, and how we share information with our State and local
partners.
DHS is committed to continuing to share the most germane and
meaningful data in its possession with other Federal agencies, and with
our State and local trusted partners. Following the attack in Boston,
DHS upgraded its name-matching capabilities, and issued guidance to its
officers at the JTTFs to formalize communication practices to ensure
practices regarding travel alerts are documented. DHS is also committed
to continuing its work with the FBI to ensure effective information
sharing. Boston is a reminder that we must continually strive to work
together across Federal agencies to identify and share threat
information with each other and among our State and local partners who
ultimately will bear the brunt of any successful terrorist attack.
Question 3a. In the aftermath of the bombings, emergency response
was key. I have spoken to several first responders, medical personnel,
and law enforcement officials who said that the fact that so few people
perished in Boston on April 16 was simply a miracle.
Are there efforts underway to make sure that all emergency
responders carry a tourniquet as well as quick clot gauze to control
traumatic bleeding?
Question 3b. Are there such efforts under way?
Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in
coordination with the DHS Office of Health Affairs (OHA) supports whole
community preparedness for mass casualty incidents through a number of
efforts, to include workshops and training, policy and doctrine, and
grant programs.
Workshops
In partnership with the National Counterterrorism Center and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, FEMA's Office of Counterterrorism and
Security Preparedness developed the Joint Counterterrorism Awareness
Workshops in 2011. The Joint Counterterrorism Awareness Workshops
(JCTAWS) bring together law enforcement, fire service, emergency
medical services and the private-sector stakeholders to conduct
scenario-based reviews of local prevention and response plans and
capabilities. The workshop is based on a scenario in which multiple,
coordinated assaults occur over a 24-hour period, similar to the
November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. Since its inception
in 2011, 15 JCTAWS sessions have been delivered with over 2,500
participants.
The workshops are designed to bring together law enforcement, fire,
emergency medical services, and the private-sector stakeholders that
would respond to complex terror event. Response protocols range broadly
throughout the United States. Workshops have included representation
from the following disciplines/fields: Local, State, and Federal law
enforcement; State and local fusion centers; local and regional fire
and emergency medical services responders; hotel/convention security;
large sporting/commercial venues; private/public university;
telecommunications; private/public infrastructure; and airport
administrators/security.
Workshops have been conducted in the following locations:
Monterey, CA--November 2010--Kickoff conference at Naval
Post Graduate School
Philadelphia, PA--January 31, 2011
Boston, MA--March 10, 2011
Sacramento, CA--May 10, 2011
Indianapolis, IN--June 28, 2011
Honolulu, HI--September 29, 2011
Houston, TX--November 16, 2011
Bethpage, NY--January 2012--Kickoff conference
Nashville, TN--March 15, 2012
Denver, CO--June 12, 2012
Charlotte, NC--June 27, 2012 (Briefing of Lessons Learned)
(Democratic National Convention)
Tampa, FL--July 10, 2012 (Briefing of Lessons Learned)
(Republican National Convention)
Los Angeles, CA--July 31-August 1, 2012
Las Vegas, NV--October 9-10, 2012
Atlanta, GA--February 26-27, 2013
Seattle, WA--June 18-19, 2013
Minneapolis, MN--August 27-28, 2013
Washington, DC--December 3-4, 2013
Miami, FL--February 11-12, 2014
Workshops currently scheduled for calendar year 2014 include
Oklahoma City, OK on June 16-17, 2014 and Orlando, FL on September 9-
10, 2014.
Beginning in 2012, the workshop added a second day to address
medical issues (pre-hospital, hospital, post-care) associated with a
complex attack, including Tactical Emergency Casualty Care. A set of
best practice treatment guidelines for trauma care in a high-threat,
pre-hospital environment, the Tactical Emergency Casualty Care
guidelines are built upon medical lessons learned by United States and
allied military forces, as well as civilian mass casualty experiences
both in the United States and abroad. The lessons learned have been
modified to address the specific needs of civilian populations and
civilian out-of-hospital practice, and address the use of tourniquets
by all levels of first responders as well as the appropriate hemostatic
agents. Tactical Emergency Casualty Care guidelines consider the
requirements of a civilian population to include: Pediatric, geriatric,
and special needs patients; underlying medical conditions common in a
civilian population; characteristics and limitations of civilian
providers; and the varied types of threats that responders face.
The DHS Office of Health Affairs (OHA) held a stakeholder
engagement meeting in February to facilitate a discussion between
subject-matter experts in the first-responder community on improving
survivability in improvised explosive device (IED) and active-shooter
incidents. OHA partnered with the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and
Response (ASPR), and the Department of Transportation National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Office of Emergency Medical
Services on the meeting.
More than 250 representatives from across the country, from State,
local, and Federal organizations in the fire, emergency medical
services (EMS), law enforcement, emergency management, and other
professions heard presentations from subject-matter experts and
participated in panel and group discussions on hemorrhage control,
personal protective equipment, and interoperability when responding to
IED and active-shooter incidents. The group also reviewed response
strategies from the U.S. military, focusing on the military's protocols
for tourniquet use, discussed how to apply lessons learned in the
civilian first-responder environment, and best practices from recent
incidents in the United States. OHA brought the first responder groups
together so that unique solutions that work for each community can be
discussed and adopted at the State and local level. Some of the
solutions developed included: Improving access to and training on
hemorrhage control materials; increased education on PP&E equipment and
how it can be most effectively used by all responders; improving
working relationships, regular joint training and exercises, between
fire, EMS, and law enforcement personnel at the local level; and
targeting grants to facilitate interoperability.
Training
In addition to the JCTAWS, FEMA's emergency responder training
courses currently offered by the National Preparedness Directorate's
Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) and the National Training and
Education Division (NTED) provide instruction on the use of tourniquets
and quick clot gauze to control traumatic bleeding.
In its health care curriculum and specialized mass casualty
response training, the CDP highlights and promotes best practices to
include the use of tourniquets and quick clot gauze to control
traumatic bleeding when practicable. CDP monitors National events and,
when appropriate, incorporates best practices regarding response
actions, techniques, tactics, and protocols into applicable training
curriculum. Curriculum updates are made once the relevant National
organization or governing authority promulgates acceptance of best
practices through the creation of competency standards and training
objectives.
Selected NTED training partners include emerging trends in the use
of tourniquets and quick clot gauze to control traumatic bleeding in
their courses. Texas Engineering Extension Service's Medical
Preparedness for Bombing Incidents course specifically addresses
tourniquets and quick clot gauze to control traumatic bleeding; and the
American College of Emergency Physicians' First Responder on the Scene
Training and Texas State University's Active Threat Integration
Response courses (both under development) include details on these
emergency medical response techniques. All NTED training partners use
either the Tactical Emergency Casualty Care standard or the Department
of Defense equivalent United States Military's Tactical Combat Casualty
Care standard.
Policy
The DHS Office of Health Affairs (OHA) is leading a cross-
Departmental working group on the development of Federal guidance for
first responders on the medical response to improvised explosive device
(IED) and active-shooter incidents. The ultimate goal of the document
is to improve survivability of victims from IED and/or active-shooter
incidents. Based on best practices and lessons learned, the guidance
document will provide evidence-based information on the medical
response to both IEDs and active-shooter incidents, with
recommendations for hemorrhage control and tourniquet use, personal
protective equipment for first responders, and interoperability between
law enforcement, EMS, and fire professionals responding to IED and
active-shooter incidents. The guidance is still under development, but
will be posted on-line and distributed to the first-responder
community.
The DHS OHA also participated with the Departments of Health and
Human Services, Transportation, Justice, and Defense, and non-
Governmental organizations in the development and subsequent publishing
of an evidence-based guideline to standardize hemorrhage control
treatment. Previously, no consistent standard existed for local and
State medical officials and responders.
Grant Programs
For years, FEMA's preparedness grant programs have provided funding
in support of a wide range or prevention, protection, response,
recovery, and mitigation activities. Funds may be used to support the
purchase of critical medical supplies including medications and
equipment, training, and exercises to prepare for and respond to mass
casualty incidents. Within FEMA's recently released fiscal year 2014
preparedness grant program funding opportunity announcements, mass
casualty incident preparedness and response was emphasized to stress
the activities that build capabilities surrounding immediate emergency
victim care. This includes:
Improving emergency care to victims of mass casualty events,
including mass shootings;
Improving community first aid training;
Enhancing the integration of local emergency management,
public health, and health care systems into a coordinated,
sustained, local capability to respond effectively to a mass
casualty incident;
Demonstrating how grantees' investments will increase the
effectiveness of emergency preparedness planning and response
for the whole community by integrating and coordinating
activities for vulnerable populations including children, the
elderly, pregnant women, and individuals with disabilities and
others with access and functional needs;
Encouraging collaboration with local, regional, and State
public health and health care partners; and
Encouraging engagement in preparedness efforts across first-
responder community, including EMS for response to catastrophic
events and acts of terrorism.
With support from FEMA's preparedness grant funds, Boston has
purchased tourniquets for all first responders, and EMS units carry the
quick clot gauze. We are aware of plans to have kits that include
multiple tourniquets and quick clot gauze strategically positioned at
special events for quick deployment in the event of an incident.
Question 4. In November, I requested an independent review of
Massachusetts' new flood maps by two coastal scientists affiliated with
the University of Massachusetts--Dartmouth's School of Marine Science
and Technology and Applied Coastal Research and Engineering,
specifically using the town of Marshfield as a test case. Their
findings, detailed in a White Paper, indicated that FEMA used a mapping
method tailored for the Pacific Coast instead of developing one correct
for New England. As a result, FEMA likely over-predicted flooding that
would occur during a 100-year storm for much of the State. The town of
Rockport's recent successful appeal on the basis of demonstrating that
there was more accurate scientific data available is further evidence
that the new flood maps must be fixed. Homeowners have a right to know
that FEMA is using the best available scientific technology when
drawing the flood maps. I ask that FEMA work with us on a plan to fix
the Commonwealth's flood maps utilizing the best available scientific
data that is appropriate for our geographic region or suspend the new
flood maps until a decision is made to amend them. Too much is at stake
for our homeowners and communities to not get this right. Can you
please elaborate on what methods FEMA is utilizing to certify to
communities that these maps are drawn using the best available
scientific models?
Answer. The goal of the coastal Flood Insurance Rate Map updates in
Massachusetts is to provide our communities with credible flood hazard
and risk information on which they can make sound mitigation and
insurance decisions. Throughout the early stages of the coastal Flood
Insurance Study, FEMA engaged community officials and State partner
agencies to ensure the best available local data was used. Engaging
local officials to incorporate locally-available data and using
scientifically-credible methodologies helps to ensure that the flood
hazard information portrayed on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
represents an accurate characterization of local flooding conditions.
Once the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map information is
developed, FEMA releases this information for public review and holds a
formal appeal period during which additional information may be
submitted through the community to refine the preliminary flood maps.
If an alternative methodology is available and meets certain standards,
it can be accepted for use in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. As you
note, the town of Rockport recently submitted modeling that follows an
alternative approach that meets appropriate technical standards. While
this approach does not negate the results determined as part of the
FEMA analysis, we reviewed it and were able to incorporate it into the
on-going update for the town of Rockport.
The Rockport example is a model of successful coordination between
FEMA and local communities because they submitted an alternative
approach in a timely manner; FEMA is actively working through a similar
process with the State and other Massachusetts communities.
[all]