U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–766 PDF 2018

S. Hrg. 115–141 

NOMINATION OF JOHN F. KELLY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOMINATION OF JOHN F. KELLY, TO BE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

JANUARY 10, 2017 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

DANIEL P. LIPS, Policy Director 

BROOKE N. ERICSON, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

ANNA E. LAITIN, Minority Senior Advisor 

SARAH R. GARCIA, Minority Senior Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BONNI E. DINERSTEIN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 3 

Senator Enzi ..................................................................................................... 17 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 23 

Senator Daines ................................................................................................. 26 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 28 

Senator Harris .................................................................................................. 30 

Senator Paul ..................................................................................................... 33 

Senator Hassan ................................................................................................. 35 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 37 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 39 

Senator Hoeven ................................................................................................. 42 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 47 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 49 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2017 

Hon. John McCain, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Hon. Robert M. Gates, Former Secretary at the U.S. Department of Defense .. 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Hon. Thomas R. Carper, a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

General John F. Kelly, USMC (Ret.), to be Secretary, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 66 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 84 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 87 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 157 

Letters of Support/Opposition ......................................................................... 186 

APPENDIX 

Charts submitted by Senator Johnson ................................................................... 205 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF JOHN F. KELLY 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:32 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, Paul, Lankford, 

Enzi, Hoeven, Daines, McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing of the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is called to order. 

I want to welcome General Kelly. His family, his wife, daughter, 

and son-in-law are here, and I will not steal your thunder. I will 

let you introduce them in your opening remarks. 

I would certainly like to welcome Secretary Gates, it is a real 

honor and privilege to have met you and to have you introducing 

General Kelly. 

I do want to welcome our new Members. They are not all here, 

but we do have Senator Hassan from New Hampshire, Senator 

Harris from California, Senator Hoeven from North Dakota, and 

Senator Daines from Montana have joined our Committee. I really 

want to welcome all of you. 

I want to welcome the members of the audience, which is a good 

time to issue a warning. I know in our first confirmation hearing 

earlier this morning there were disruptions. Those will not be tolerated. I want to remind the audience members that disruption of 

congressional business is not just unfair to those who wish to 

watch this hearing, it is a violation of law and a criminal offense. 

The Capitol Police are authorized to immediately remove any individual who disrupts these proceedings, and we will restore order. 

So, again, that is the fair warning. I want the audience members 

and I want everybody here in America to witness these confirmation hearings and certainly the display of a fine American. 

We have Senator Harris from California. Welcome. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is an honor for me to preside as Chairman of this Committee for my second Congress, and certainly this 

is the first hearing of the full Committee of the 115th Congress. 

This Committee has a history of bipartisanship. When I joined the 
2 

Senate 6 years ago, Senators Lieberman and Collins provided that 

leadership. Then it was Senator Carper as Chairman and Senator 

Coburn. Last Congress, it was myself and Senator Carper. And 

now I am happy to welcome my new Ranking Member, Senator 

McCaskill from Missouri. 

Just as an example of our bipartisan cooperation, in the last Congress this Committee passed 83 pieces of legislation out of the 

Committee; 56 of those pieces of legislation were passed out of the 

Senate, and 49 were signed into law—and some relatively significant pieces of legislation. The way we have done that is by concentrating on areas of agreement. And what we first and foremost 

agree on as Members of this Committee, I think members of the 

audience as Americans, we all share the same goal. We all want 

a safe, a prosperous, and secure America. And in this Committee, 

we established a mission statement. It is pretty simple: To enhance 

the economic and national security of America. 

We established four goals for the homeland security side: 

Border security. We held 19 hearings. 

Trips. One down to Central America where General Kelly escorted us in Guatemala. 

Cybersecurity. Protect our critical infrastructure. 

Combating Islamic terror. 

And the fifth goal really was working with Secretary Jeh Johnson to make sure that he could fulfill his mission of keeping this 

Nation safe. And, of course, the Quadrennial Review completed in 

2014 for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) mirrors 

those goals and those priorities, those missions. 

So that is why we have been able to cooperate and achieve those 

kind of bipartisan results, and that is certainly what we are looking forward to. 

General Kelly, I know you have some extraordinary people here 

that are going to be introducing you, so I will not steal their thunder, but just to say that I think, you are just an extraordinary individual, a great American who has served faithfully and sacrificed 

mightily for this Nation, you and your family. It is a family affair, 

and we recognize that, four star general, a Gold Star parent. Your 

experience as head of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) with 

the threats this Nation faces, our unsecured border, you fully understand what the causation of that is, what the root causes are. 

As head of Southern Command, in many respects you served as 

America’s chief diplomat to the region, and you did a splendid job. 

And so I cannot think of a more qualified individual at this point 

in time to serve as the fifth Secretary of Homeland Security. So I 

just want to personally thank you for your past service, your past 

sacrifice, and your willingness to answer the call one more time for 

America. 

So, again, thank you. I think it is incumbent on this Committee 

and I think it is incumbent on the U.S. Senate to recognize how 

important it is for any President to be able to set up and establish 

their national security team from day one. It is certainly what happened in 2009 with Secretary Janet Napolitano. I think that is exactly what should happen with General Kelly, the Senate hopefully 

will confirm General Kelly on the first day of the Administration. 
3 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

2The additional statements referenced by Senator Johnson appear in the Appendix on page 

186. 3The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 49. 

There are a number of written statements provided to this Committee which I would ask to be entered in the record together with 

my written opening statement,1 without objection.2

I will also say, because I am sure we will have great attendance—we have Senator Hassan here, I appreciate you certainly 

joining this Committee—I could either go 5-minute rounds to 

quicken it, or we can go a full 7—I think I will go a full 7, but we 

want to really discipline that. So watch the time, be asking questions not beyond that. And General Kelly has also agreed to look 

at the clock, so every Senator can have a chance at asking questions. 

With that, I am happy to turn it over to and welcome my new 

Ranking Member, Senator McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL3

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. 

Today’s hearing is the first full Committee hearing of the new 

Congress and the Committee’s first hearing on one of Presidentelect Trump’s nominees. I welcome a working relationship with 

you. We have worked together before on a Subcommittee, and I 

know we have many areas of agreement and just a few of disagreement. But I am confident we can work past those and do some good 

work on behalf of the American people, and especially in the area 

of aggressive oversight of our government. 

As Members of this Committee and the Senate, we have a constitutional obligation to review the nominations made by the President and consent to their appointment. We are not here to participate in a partisan or a political exercise; we are here to fulfill the 

Senate’s constitutional obligation as part of the orderly transfer of 

power to a new Administration. 

General Kelly has answered all of the Committee’s advance questions and has provided all the information required for us to hold 

this hearing. I cannot say how grateful I am that that occurred. It 

was going to be an awkward moment when I was going to have to 

object to this hearing because the Office of Government Ethics or 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) check had not been completed. But I am pleased to report that all was completed, and I 

have had a chance to review all of that information, and I am very 

appreciative of that, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, General Kelly. Thank you for your service to this country and, most importantly, thank you for being willing to serve 

again. It is very important that people stand up when their country 

calls, and I appreciate your willingness to do that. 

You have been asked to serve as the fifth Secretary of Homeland 

Security. The Department of Homeland Security has the tremendous responsibility to protect our homeland, its people, and its infrastructure. 

At this moment in our history, I cannot emphasize enough the 

need to protect our critical infrastructure—whether that is electric 

grids, public transportation, or power plants. We need to under-
4 

stand what steps you will take to defend that infrastructure 

against intrusion and harm. 

Our intelligence community (IC), of which DHS is a vital part, 

is among the finest in the world. I would argue it is the finest in 

the world. It is made up of dedicated public servants, including 

members of our military. In order for these people to do their job 

of protecting Americans in an increasingly challenging environment, they need the support of our government, all the way to the 

top. I want to understand whether you will take intelligence seriously and engage with the people whose job it is to give us good 

information so that we can make better decisions and so that the 

President-elect can make better decisions. 

In your answers to the Committee’s questions before this hearing, you said that drug demand in the United States is causing 

much of the violence in Central and South America, and that this 

violence is the major reason for the large number of people moving 

illegally from that area into the United States. The issues underlying border security are complex, but one thing is clear: Many of 

the people coming across the border are not trying to sneak in 

under the fence or evade the Border Patrol; they are seeking refuge 

from the incredible violence in their home countries. I know that 

your experience at SOUTHCOM will help you in developing a comprehensive, inclusive approach to addressing immigration and border issues. 

I was also encouraged to see you discuss the necessity of engaging law enforcement, medical treatment and rehabilitation, and 

local communities in a comprehensive drug demand reduction campaign that includes the opioid epidemic as a big driver of heroin 

use. If you are confirmed, I hope that this will remain at the top 

of your priority list. 

Another major component of protecting the homeland is the Department’s counterterrorism efforts that you are very familiar with, 

with your experience as an important leader in our military. In today’s environment, effective counterterrorism efforts require using 

existing and new technology, as well as other tools, to counter 

evolving adversaries across shifting geographic borders. I plan to 

ask how you will address this challenge in new and innovative 

ways. I also hope that you will employ the same thoughtful and 

multifaceted approach to counterterrorism as in your proposal to 

address the challenges at our border. 

Recent events have shown us that terrorism has many faces. We 

have to get at root causes of extremism and also must ensure that 

people in our communities feel empowered to report concerns. I 

hope to hear from you today that you understand that our fight 

against violent extremism is not singular in its focus, and that you 

will fight against any narrative that encourages committing crimes 

against any Americans based on hate or country of origin. 

As Members of this Committee, we also have a Constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of taxpayer dollars. This is one of 

my favorite areas. I can tell you right now that if you are confirmed, when you come before Congress to seek funds, you have to 

be prepared to answer some tough questions. I particularly am 

going to continue to be interested in contracting and cost-benefit 

analyses. I am going to want to see Independent Government Cost 
5 

1The prepared statement of Senator McCain appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

Estimates, performance plans, and real metrics. Decisions must be 

made on facts and data. 

I expect someone with your experience to be a strong leader. But 

even the best-managed Federal agency has waste, fraud, and 

abuse. I believe that whistleblowers are essential to good government, and I have made it one of my missions to expand and enhance protections for them. I want to make sure that you understand that open lines of communication, responsiveness to employee concerns, and a swift response to retaliation are things I expect from agency leadership. I also encourage any whistleblowers 

to contact my office if they have information to report. 

I believe you will also take seriously the role of congressional 

oversight in your new role. I am glad that you have already agreed 

to work with me as Ranking Member of this Committee because we 

have a lot of work to do. If you are confirmed, I will look forward 

to building a strong working relationship with you. 

Our country is facing a difficult time, and we have difficult problems to solve. The Department of Homeland Security needs good 

management and strong leadership. In your responses to the questionnaire and in our meeting before this hearing, you said that one 

of your greatest strengths as a leader is ‘‘speaking truth to power.’’ 

General Kelly, I cannot tell you how that was music to my ears. 

I believe very much in that principle, and I think that we all anticipate that you will need it in your next job, where you will have the 

responsibility and the obligation to speak truth to the Commanderin-Chief, who has used some of his most extreme and divisive rhetoric about issues under the Department of Homeland Security’s jurisdiction. Given your experience, I expect you to be up to that 

challenge. And if I think you are backing down, you will probably 

hear from me. 

I thank you for being here today, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

We have three distinguished individuals making introductions of 

General Kelly. We will start with Senator McCain, who needs no 

introduction. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. But he enjoys it. [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. I did not have anything written up. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN MCCAIN,1 A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

McCaskill, and Members of the Committee. It is an honor to say 

a few words in support of General John Kelly’s nomination to be 

the next Secretary of Homeland Security. He is an excellent choice, 

superbly well-qualified for the position, and a person of the highest 

integrity. The American people are fortunate that a man of his caliber is again willing to serve them in an important office after having already devoted many decades of his life to the distinguished 

service of our country. 

When he retired from his last command, Commander of the U.S. 

Southern Command, General Kelly was the longest serving Marine 
6 

Corps general still on active duty, having worn the uniform for almost half a century. He was the longest serving active duty general 

in Marine Corps history, I believe. In fact, I think he was the second longest serving general officer in the entire Armed Forces. 

Only the late General John Vessey, also an officer of the highest 

integrity and selfless devotion to duty, served longer, 46 years to 

General Kelly’s 45. 

When he was nearing the end of his tour as SOUTHCOM commander and approaching retirement, he said in an interview that 

his ‘‘greatest fear was that I would be offered another job.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt whatsoever that General Kelly’s 

statement was entirely sincere. Those of us who have had the privilege of knowing General Kelly for a while, who have heard him testify before our committees, and paid attention to his answers to our 

questions know that John Kelly says what he believes to be the 

truth, always, no matter the inconvenience it might cause him. 

Speaking truth to power is something he is renowned for, and no 

less so for his respect for the chain of command. 

Secretary Gates, who is here, one of our great leaders, will mention his relationship with him when they served together. 

If anyone has earned a peaceful retirement from public duty, it 

is General Kelly. But he is a patriot always. And like Jack Vessey, 

his peer in length of active duty service, he does not refuse his 

country’s call. President Reagan called General Vessey out of retirement to serve as his special emissary to Vietnam to get an accounting for America’s missing from the war. President-elect 

Trump has asked General Kelly to lead the Department of Homeland Security and help keep the American people safe from those 

who wish us harm. It is work he is obviously well qualified for. 

He served three tours of duty in Iraq and was a key figure in 

helping sustain the Anbar Awakening that, with the surge, turned 

around a war that we were near to losing. In that role, he learned 

the value of developing local relationships based on mutual respect—a lesson that served him well in future commands. 

As SOUTHCOM commander, General Kelly was highly regarded 

for the skill and success he had developing close working relationships with the civilian and military leaders of Latin America and 

the Caribbean. Many of those leaders consider him a friend. They 

all respect him. 

Even more important for his pending assignment, General Kelly 

has extensive experience with many of the challenges that await 

him as Homeland Security Secretary: the threats to our security 

posed by drugs and violence that make their way into our country 

across our Southern Border, and the potential for developing 

strains of Islamic extremism in the hemisphere to foment terrorist 

attacks here. He is the right man to meet these and the many 

other challenges awaiting him. 

General Kelly is not, I am sorry to say, a graduate of the United 

States Naval Academy. It might surprise the Committee that I do 

not find that lack of credential disqualifying. I barely graduated 

from the place myself. But he has more impressive credentials. He 

enlisted in the United States Marine Corps (USMC). 

General Kelly came from modest beginnings, as do most enlisted 

men and women in all our armed services. He is the proud son of 
7 

his working-class family and the great city of Boston. In conversations with me, he has recalled the childhood friends he has lost to 

the scourge of drug abuse. 

Before he went to college, he volunteered to risk his life and limb 

in an infantry company in the 2nd Marine Division. He was a sergeant when he left the Corps and a second lieutenant when he returned to it 4 years later. What followed was an exemplary career, 

with many challenging assignments, and quite a few very dangerous ones, to which he gave every measure of his talent, discipline, courage and love of country. 

General Kelly has sacrificed a great deal for his country. More 

than most. And in every day of his service, he knew and respected 

and remains in awe of the courage and dedication of the men and 

women, enlisted and officers, who stand in harm’s way so that the 

rest of us can pursue our aspirations and live our peaceful lives 

without fear of the terrors they face for our sake. 

Should he be confirmed, as he deserves to be and I am confident 

he will be, he will be entitled to the appellation ‘‘The Honorable.’’ 

Few cabinet secretaries will have deserved it more. I endorse his 

nomination wholeheartedly, with gratitude for his willingness to 

serve and for the honor of introducing him to you today. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Our next distinguished guest offering an introduction will be 

Senator Carper, who also needs no introduction. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to Secretary 

Gates. In fact, I would like to do that, if you do not mind. Thank 

you for the courtesy. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Our next guest then is Secretary Robert Gates. Secretary Gates is the former Secretary of Defense and 

former Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Secretary 

Gates led the Department of Defense (DOD) from 2006 to 2011. 

Prior to this, Secretary Gates served as the president of Texas 

A&M University from 2002 to 2006. Secretary Gates began his career as an officer in the United States Air Force (USAF) and joined 

the Central Intelligence Agency in 1966. He served 26 years at the 

CIA and is the only career CIA officer to rise from an entry-level 

employee to Director, the position he held from 1991 to 1993. 

Secretary Gates has earned numerous honors and distinctions 

during his career, including the National Security Medal, the Presidential Citizens Medal, the National Intelligence Distinguished 

Service Medal twice, and the Distinguished Intelligence Medal, 

which is the CIA’s highest award, three times. 

Welcome, Secretary Gates. It is an honor to have you here today 

to introduce General Kelly. Secretary Gates. 
8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Gates appears in the Appendix on page 58. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT M. GATES,1

FORMER SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. GATES. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member 

McCaskill, distinguished Members of the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Government Affairs. It gives me great pleasure to introduce my friend and former colleague, John F. Kelly, as the 

President’s nominee to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security. 

In today’s world, the Department of Homeland Security is much 

like a combat command, perhaps the most complex such command 

defending our Nation and our people. Among its diverse responsibilities are protecting us from terrorism, guarding our borders 

and coasts, deciding who gets into the country, protecting our 

transportation networks and infrastructure, defense against cyber 

attacks, and providing help when disaster strikes. I can think of no 

one more qualified, more familiar with these threats and challenges, or better prepared to lead our homeland defense than John 

Kelly. 

The Department of Homeland Security, as this Committee well 

knows, is a complicated mix of multiple agencies and organizations 

with different cultures and histories. Yet, as commander of Southern Command, General Kelly successfully managed relationships 

and partnerships with seven different Cabinet departments and in 

all more than 20 civilian organizations. Leading a combatant command these days requires managing multiple domestic and foreign 

relationships, and General Kelly did so with great skill and success. I am confident he would do so, as well, as Secretary of Homeland Security. 

In addition, as Senior Military Assistant to two Secretaries of 

Defense, John successfully helped lead the largest and most complex organization in the country. He was invaluable to me and to 

Leon Panetta in helping break down bureaucratic barriers to cooperation and in holding senior officials accountable for decisions 

and for performance. And the needs of the troops on the front lines 

were always foremost for him. 

Of special importance to this Committee, John Kelly was twice 

assigned as Marine Corps liaison to the Congress, the second time 

as the Commandant’s Senior Legislative Assistant. As a result, he 

has a deep understanding of the legislative process, and especially 

of the need to be responsive to Congress and to have a relationship 

of openness and trust. 

In terms of skills and experience, General Kelly is, in my view, 

superbly qualified to serve as Secretary. But it is John’s character 

and values that truly set him apart. To put it quite simply, he is 

one of the finest people I have ever known. I would trust him with 

my life, and, indeed, many others, mainly young Marines, literally 

have done so. And how often is it that a tough commander genuinely is beloved by his troops? 

Integrity in word and deed is the source of moral authority, and 

it is moral authority that moves people to follow a leader even at 

personal risk and sacrifice. John Kelly is a man of great moral authority. If he is confirmed, the professionals throughout the Department of Homeland Security will realize that their new Secretary 
9 

1The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 56. 

cares about each and every one of them, and that he will do everything in his power to protect and support them and to get them 

what they need to do their jobs—protecting all of us. 

I commend the President-elect for nominating General Kelly for 

this position because, as I know firsthand, John is a straight-talking, candid, courageous leader who will say exactly what he thinks. 

His values are a reflection of America’s best values, and he will not 

disappoint. 

Over a military career spanning more than 40 years, John Kelly 

and his family have sacrificed much serving our country, and yet 

here he is willing to serve again. It is with great pride that I introduce him to you today. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Secretary Gates. Senator Carper. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS R. CARPER,1 A 

UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations to our new Ranking Member, Claire McCaskill. And to see 

all of my colleagues from this point of view, it is good to see you 

all up there. 

It is a privilege to join Senator McCain, with whom I served during the Vietnam War, and I would just say from my vantage point, 

John, you are a hero, and I am proud to have served with you and 

proud to know you today and to sit with you today. 

Secretary Gates, you are one of the finest Secretaries of Defense 

we have ever had, and I am honored to be with you today as well. 

We are introducing a man, as you know, who needs little introduction to this Committee, General John Francis Kelly, and welcoming him and his wife, Karen, and their daughter, Kathleen, and 

her husband, Jake, sitting behind us, to this confirmation hearing. 

Karen, I said to your husband yesterday, given all the years that 

he has served and you have allowed him to serve, for you no purgatory, straight to heaven. So thank you for continuing to share with 

us an extraordinary man. 

Created about a dozen or so years ago, the Department of Homeland Security’s 240,000 employees get up every day. They go to 

work. They go to work to protect our homeland and all of us who 

are privileged to live here. Almost every month for the past 4 

years, I have gone to the Senate floor, as some of my colleagues 

know, to talk about the remarkable work that they do for all of us. 

They respond to devastating hurricanes, saving lives, and helping 

people put their lives back together. They protect us from cyber attacks and help secure thousands of miles of our country’s borders 

to the north and to the south, and or shorelines to the east and to 

the west. 

They expedite the movement of billions of dollars of commerce 

every day while intercepting drugs and disrupting human smuggling and trafficking rings. They keep us safe when we fly the 

sometimes not so friendly skies of this country and this world. 

They protect Presidents and Vice Presidents and their families as 
10 

well as candidates for these offices and the leaders of scores of 

other nations who come here. They do all of this and a whole lot 

more, oftentimes without a word of thanks. 

General John Kelly is an exceptionally well qualified nominee to 

lead the Department of Homeland Security, as you have heard. If 

confirmed, he would succeed another exceptional leader—Secretary 

Jeh Johnson. Jeh, with the help of his leadership team, this Committee, and Congress, has begun, I think, a remarkable transformation of the Department that was badly needed and is much 

welcomed. 

I have found over my lifetime that the key to success of any organization, whether it is military, government, business, or whatever, 

the success of any organization I have ever been a part of or witnessed is almost always enlightened leadership. John Kelly is a 

leader. He is humble, not haughty. He has the heart of a servant. 

He understands that his job has been and will be to serve, not be 

served. 

He leads by example. With General Kelly, it is not, ‘‘Do as I say, 

but do as I do.’’ He has the courage to stay out of step when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune. He surrounds himself with 

the best people he can find, and when his team does well, he gives 

them the credit. And when the team falls short, he takes the 

blame. He does not believe in raising himself up by pushing other 

people down. He is a purveyor of hope and consistently appeals to 

people’s better angels. 

Throughout John Kelly’s 45 years of military service in the Marine Corps, he has sought to do what is right, not what is easy or 

expedient. He embraces the Golden Rule, treating other people the 

way he would want to be treated. He looks at adversity and sees 

opportunity. He believes that everything we do, we can do better. 

He is tenacious. There is no quit in this man. And when he knows 

he is right, he does not give up. 

When we met in my office yesterday, General Kelly spoke of the 

importance of addressing the root causes of some of the problems 

and challenges that we face as a Nation, not just the symptoms of 

those problems. As an example, he cited the transformation of Colombia from an almost failed nation 20 years ago to a far different 

one today and a valued ally and trading partner of ours. 

He also spoke of our addiction to drugs and how that is the root 

cause of much of the violence and lawlessness in countries like 

Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. And while he spoke 

thoughtfully and creatively of ways to better secure our Southern 

Border with Mexico—for example, he understands that those steps 

need to be coupled with others embodied in the Alliance for Prosperity adopted by Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, supported by the United States, much as we have supported Plan Colombia for two decades. 

And, finally, General Kelly understands the importance of working cooperatively with the Congress, and Secretary Gates has given 

us a couple of explanations of why that might be, the case with two 

of your tours here on Capitol Hill. But I think you understand the 

importance of working especially with this Committee. 

And General Kelly may not always tell us what we want to hear 

in this room, or outside of it, but he will always tell us what we 
11 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly appears in the Appendix on page 64. 

need to hear. And when it is needed, he will remind the people he 

leads at the Department of Homeland Security to, ‘‘Just use some 

common sense,’’ the way my dad used to remind my sister and me 

when we were young. 

In short, he will provide the leadership that will enable the Department of Homeland Security to continue the transformation it 

has begun. In doing so, he will make us safer as a Nation, even 

as he makes us prouder as a country of the team that I hope he 

will be confirmed to lead. 

Thank you for your willingness to do this and to my colleagues 

for welcoming him and for giving me this opportunity to speak 

truth to power. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

General Kelly, it is the tradition of this Committee to swear in 

witnesses, so if you will please stand and raise your right hand. Do 

you swear that the testimony you will give before this Committee 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

General KELLY. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. General Kelly. 

TESTIMONY OF GENERAL JOHN F. KELLY, USMC (Ret.),1 TO BE 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

General KELLY. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCaskill, and 

distinguished Senators of the Committee, please accept my thanks, 

my deep appreciation for considering my nomination to lead the 

men and women of the United States Department of Homeland Security. 

Senator McCain, Senator Carper, and Secretary Gates, thank 

you for taking the time to be here on my behalf, and for your very 

kind words. 

My wife and family have already been introduced, but I will say 

it again. My wife, Karen, is with me here today. She is my hero. 

She has put up with more in our 40 years of marriage than you 

could ever imagine. And my daughter, Kathleen, is here as well 

and her recent husband, Lance Corporal, United States Marine 

Corps, Retired, Jake Fox, another American hero. I thank them for 

their service and for their sacrifice. 

Over the past 45 years, I have been privileged to serve my country as both an enlisted Marine and an officer. I have led platoons 

through divisions and corps, held senior command positions in Iraq, 

served as the Combatant Commander of the United States Southern Command, and as Secretary Gates mentioned, as the Senior 

Military Assistant to two of my heroes, Secretaries Gates and Panetta. I have worked across the interagency. I have worked with 

our allies, the private sector, and independent experts to identify 

innovative and comprehensive solutions to current and emerging 

threats. 

These assignments—while varied—shared the common characteristics of working within and leading large, complex, and very di-
12 

verse multi-missioned organizations while under great pressure to 

produce results. 

I am humbled to once again be called to serve, this time with the 

wonderful men and women of the Department of Homeland Security. As a Nation, we are reminded almost daily that the threats 

to our homeland have not receded in any way. The challenges to 

our way of life have not diminished. 

As I solemnly swore before my God when I entered the Marine 

Corps, if confirmed, I will faithfully support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic—every second of every day. 

I believe in America and the principles upon which our country 

and way of life are guaranteed. I believe in respect, tolerance, and 

diversity of opinion. I have a profound respect for the law and will 

always strive to uphold it. I have never had a problem speaking 

truth to power, and I firmly believe that those in power deserve full 

candor and my honest assessment and recommendations. I also 

value people that work for me speaking truth to power. 

I love my country, and I will do everything within my power to 

preserve our liberty, enforce our laws, and protect our citizens. I 

recognize the many challenges facing the Department, and should 

I be confirmed, I look forward to partnering with you to protect the 

homeland. 

Sir, I look forward to discussing the future of the Department 

and answering the Committee’s questions. Thanks so very much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, General Kelly. 

Again, I want to remind the Members I am going to limit questions to 7 minutes, and I am going to be very disciplined in maintaining the 7 minutes. 

There are questions that I will ask, and then I will reserve the 

rest of my time and defer to Senator McCain, who I know has limited time. But let me start with three questions. 

General Kelly, is there anything that you are aware of in your 

background that might present a conflict of interest with the duties 

of the office to which you have been nominated? 

General KELLY. There is nothing, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably 

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

General KELLY. There is nothing, Senator. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you agree without reservation to comply 

with any request or summons to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

General KELLY. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. General, as you know, we passed legislation on 

the defense bill prohibiting torture, including waterboarding. Do 

you intend to follow that law? 

General KELLY. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. And what is your personal view of 

waterboarding and other forms of torture? 
13 

General KELLY. Senator, I do not think we should ever come 

close to crossing a line that is beyond what we as Americans would 

expect to follow in terms of interrogation techniques. 

Senator MCCAIN. Would that be basically the Geneva Conventions? 

General KELLY. Absolutely. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. there is an epidemic in this country, and it is opioids, and it is manufactured in Mexico. And, regrettably, according to information that I have, a lot of it is coming 

across the Arizona-Mexico border into Phoenix, Arizona, and being 

distributed nationwide. And as you well know, we are experiencing 

a dramatic increase in deaths from overdose, and that is taking 

place amongst many older Americans that have turned from 

OxyContin and other substances. In fact, the former Governor of 

New Hampshire will testify here, I think, on the really severe aspects of this, what many have called an ‘‘epidemic.’’ I am very interested in your views and taking in the fundamental economics 

that if there is a demand, there is going to be a supply. But what 

is your view of that situation, General? 

General KELLY. Senator, I think I would start off by saying it is 

amazing to me, but I just found out very recently that an old 

friend—who is not so old, 62 years old—after a very successful life, 

just overdosed on heroin. And I think to your point, it is cheaper, 

more available in many ways than some of the opioids, since she 

could not apparently get a prescription for what she thought she 

needed. 

But the point is that most Americans do not realize it, but an 

awful lot—100 percent of the heroin that we consume in the United 

States is, in fact, produced in Mexico, and it is creeping down now 

into Central America. They have responded, the cartels, the networks have responded to the demand. So instead of Asia and South 

Asia, it now is all produced here in the Western Hemisphere. Poppies are grown in countries as far south now as Guatemala, a little 

bit in Colombia, although they are getting after it. But it is all produced here. 

An awful lot of the opioids, what looks like pharmaceuticals, are 

actually produced, again, in Mexico and then pirated up here 

through the border. And, of course, part of the problem, and this 

I think would be outside my particular area, if confirmed, but part 

of the problem is we are a very overly medicated society. Huge 

amounts of opioids are prescribed legally for things that in the past 

would probably not receive that level of medication. 

So the point is, a huge problem, getting worse, and the profits 

are just unbelievable to the cartels that control the whole marketing and transport. 

Senator MCCAIN. There has been a great deal of conversation 

about building a wall, and it has been my experience that we need 

to have barriers. But building a wall is not the way to prevent the 

flow of drugs or people illegally across our border. I think it requires ranging from drones to towers to use of some of the technological advantages that we have. 

If you would, just very briefly tell us what you think is necessary 

to have a secure border. 
14 

General KELLY. Yes, Senator. A physical barrier in and of itself, 

certainly as a military person that understands defense and defenses, a physical barrier in and of itself will not do the job. It has 

to be really a layered defense. If you were to build a wall from the 

Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, you would still have to back that wall 

up with patrolling by human beings, by sensors, by observation devices. But as I have said to many of the Senators present, and I 

have said I think for 3 years, really I believe the defense of the 

Southwest border really starts about 1,500 miles south, and that 

is, partnering with some great countries, as far south as Peru really, that are very cooperative with us in terms of getting after the 

drug production, transport, very good with us—to include Mexico. 

We could have better partnerships. I think we can work closer with 

them. We can give them more of what they need. We certainly 

share information with them now. We have legal attaches in many 

of our embassies, and they developed unbelievable amounts of—— 

Senator MCCAIN. I do not mean to interrupt—— 

General KELLY. I am sorry. 

Senator MCCAIN [continuing]. But is it not technology that would 

help us secure the border as much as anything else? And I am talking about surveillance; I am talking about capabilities to intercept, 

but not to just sit there—in other words, frankly, the kind of border 

security that we see in Israel. 

General KELLY. Technology would be a big part of it, yes, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. And that technology would that be drones? 

General KELLY. Observation devices. 

Senator MCCAIN. Towers? 

General KELLY. The aerostats, observation devices mounted in, 

certain terrain features, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for sure, 

sensors in places perhaps that the wall cannot be built or will not 

be built anytime soon in terms of the immensity of that project, but 

yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. Finally, the morale of our Border Patrol is not 

real good, and I think you know from your leadership experiences 

that if the morale of your force is not good, then it is hard to get 

the mission accomplished. And I know you are aware of that, and 

I hope you will spend some time with these really outstanding men 

and women who are doing arduous work, sometimes under very 

difficult conditions. It gets very hot on the Sonora-Arizona border, 

as you know. So there are morale problems there. A lot of it has 

to do with they think they are not given the capabilities to do their 

job as they think they can do it most efficiently. And I know you 

will be focusing a lot of attention on that. 

General KELLY. I will, Senator. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. General Kelly, on Friday, the Office of the 

Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released a declassified report on the assessment of Russian activities and intentions in our 

recent election. I am going to quote from the report for the record: 

‘‘Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election 

represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order. But these 
15 

activities demonstrate a significant escalation in directness, level of 

activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. 

‘‘We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election. 

Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her 

electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and 

the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.’’ 

General Kelly, do you accept the conclusions of the Intelligence 

Community regarding Russian interference in our election? 

General KELLY. With high confidence. 

Senator MCCASKILL. On border security, I think that Senator 

McCain covered a lot of this. I want to point out that the budget 

we now have annually on border security equals the combined 

budgets of FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Secret Service, U.S. Marshals, plus the entire New York Police Department 

budget. That is $19 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2016. And in fiscal 

year 2016, we had 331,000 people apprehended at the border. Almost 50 percent of those turned themselves in. In other words, all 

the border security agents in the world, all the fences in the world 

would not have made any difference because they said, ‘‘Hey, take 

us. We are here. We want asylum.’’ 

So I guess my question to you is: Do you have it on your agenda 

to examine the spending priorities of that $19 billion and look at 

the efficacy of every place we are spending that money? And, most 

importantly, how will you address the fact that almost half of the 

people coming to the border right now that we are apprehending 

are not trying to evade detection; they are just trying to find someplace safe? 

General KELLY. On the first question, Senator, anytime I have 

ever taken over a new organization, certainly I go top to bottom 

and look real hard at how we are doing business. Clearly, people 

that would have come before me, if I am confirmed, all did a great 

job, Secretary Jeh Johnson and others. But my typical approach is 

to do a top-to-bottom assessment, and I certainly will do that. 

On the asylum issue, I believe, I am confident that most of the 

people that are coming up here from certainly Central America are 

coming here for two reasons, or three probably: 

One, first it is very unsafe. They are some of the most dangerous 

countries on the planet, and that is unfortunate; not only because 

of that, but a lot of social issues or lack of economic development; 

and then, finally, they are very confident, if they pay the money 

and get on the network, they will get to the United States, and 

they will be—in their view at least, unlikely that they will be going 

back to Honduras, Guatemala, or other countries like that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I will look forward to your assessment, and 

I know we talked in my office about the drug cartels and what big 

role they have in the people showing up seeking asylum, because 

most of the violence is attributable to that, as opposed to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrials (DACA) or any other pronouncements or policies of the Obama Administration. 
16 

The last thing I want to mention to you is the enhancements on 

the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). I think 

people do not realize—I am aware of a situation recently where because of the electronic enhancements, we were able to stop someone from coming to America that was coming from a visa waiver 

country to South America and then was planning on coming to 

America and doing us harm, and we were able to stop that travel. 

In fact, since February 2016, 40,000 individuals have been denied 

visa-free travel due to the enhancements that have been put in 

place. 

Along with that is we have tried to do preclearance in various 

countries around the world so that we are checking people before 

they get on the plane with, maybe somebody would call it, ‘‘extreme 

vetting.’’ That is now going on across the globe. 

Have you had a chance to look at that? And do you believe 

that—I mean, because that is really the border that I am most worried about in terms of our safety. Are people traveling here from 

visa waiver countries with an eye toward doing our country harm 

and our ability to stop them? 

General KELLY. Senator, I think that the visa waiver countries 

clearly are countries that have at least law enforcement and information systems in place that we have confidence in. Nothing is perfect. Many other countries, as you know, do not have nearly that 

kind of system in place, and, consequently, we would not have the 

confidence there. But nothing is perfect. Many countries, again, a 

high degree of confidence that their citizens that come here will not 

cause problems. But, ever vigilant. And in those countries that do 

not have the systems in place, I think we somehow have to convince ourselves that everyone coming here, we have a reasonable 

expectation that they will not do us harm, whether it is crime or 

terrorism. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Some of the enhancements that have been 

put in place are: Are you a member of the Global Entry Program? 

Have you traveled to or been present in Iraq, Sudan, Iran, Sudan, 

Yemen, Somalia, or Libya on or after March 1, 2011? Other questions that are part of this. 

Do you believe it is important that we expand this program, the 

enhancements and the preclearance program? 

General KELLY. I think it is a good idea. I do not know exactly 

the details of it, but it would appear to me that it is a good idea. 

But, again, we have to have confidence in the information that we 

are getting onsite to prevent people that would come here to do us 

harm. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator McCaskill, I notice our next new 

member has shown up, so, Senator Hoeven, welcome to the Committee. We appreciate it. 

I gave up my questioning slot to Chairman McCain. I know 

Chairman Enzi also is managing some activity on the floor, so I 

will defer to Chairman Enzi. And then we will get back on schedule. 
17 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ENZI 

Senator ENZI. I thank the Chairman. I do need to go back to the 

floor, and I do appreciate the chance that I had to meet with General Kelly. In my early days here in the Senate, there was a change 

in the makeup of the majority, and we became the minority, and 

it created a little problem of a vacancy in the Foreign Relations 

Committee, and I happened to get that Foreign Relations Committee spot. And they had to redo all the committees, and there 

was one committee that apparently nobody wanted because I became the Ranking Member on it. Now, that was just shortly before 

9/11. So right after that, I had a lot of people saying, ‘‘So how did 

the new guy get the anti-terrorism committee?’’ I was even on a 

United Nations (U.N.) committee that was supposed to find the bad 

guys, and I guess it was fortunate, or maybe unfortunate, that just 

about all of us were accountants. So what we did was follow the 

money, and we got 130 countries involved in it. And several of 

them found the bad guys and prosecuted the bad guys, and in some 

cases executed the bad guys. And it was effective until they figured 

out what we were doing. 

You are going to have a huge role in the anti-terrorism area. I 

think we spend $46 billion on your budget, and we have to be sure 

we are finding the bad guys, and I would be interested in any approaches that you would be doing to effectively spend that money 

and develop policy that will help us. 

General KELLY. To the degree that I am familiar with what is 

going on already, I think anytime that we can work with partners 

overseas—and, again, we have representatives—‘‘we’’ meaning the 

United States law enforcement agency people, intel people, in most 

of the most important countries in this regard around the world in 

our embassies, and they have very good relationships, generally 

speaking, with the local law enforcement, local intel people. 

I think anything we can do to, get into that level of—I know in 

Southern Command, as an example, the most useful intel I got, I 

used, tended to come from not the CIA, but FBI and the DEA representatives in our embassies. But anything we can do to kind of 

enhance the information sharing within the law, of course, between 

other countries and ourselves, and certainly within our own interagency, we have gotten much better at it since 9/11 in terms of information sharing. 

One of the things I definitely will get into, if confirmed, is to find 

out how well that is going domestically because the Department 

has some responsibilities in terms of information sharing. We have 

an awful lot of great systems in place. I am not sure, because I do 

not know if they are all talking to each other and sharing in the 

way that they should be. 

Senator ENZI. I am glad you mentioned that because one of my 

pet peeves has been that for people coming into the country legally, 

that we check them in on a series of computers, and we check them 

out on a series of computers. But I am not sure that we ever get 

the computers connected so that we could know who was here and 

who was not here. I think the most effective enforcement is if we 

find them as soon as their visa runs out. So I hope that you would 

put that on your list of things maybe to do. 
18 

Recently, I was flying back to Wyoming, and the person sitting 

next to me was a member of the Border Patrol, and he did not 

know that I was a Senator, but I was very curious about how 

things were going. He had just been to a training session, and he 

had been doing it for quite a while. And he was pretty depressed, 

I would say had low morale, he told me that they could do a lot 

of things, but because there is rampant law breaking along the border, and he felt that orders from Washington kind of tied his 

hands, that they could not respond effectively. 

As a commander, I know you relied on your officers and your 

troops and you developed plans and you executed missions, and in 

some very difficult situations for keeping the morale of the people 

that were under you going. 

Have you developed any plans for how you are going to check on 

the Border Patrol and see if there are some morale things that 

could be changed? 

General KELLY. Yes, sir. One of the things I have always done, 

learned from some of the finest leaders, I think, certainly in the 

U.S. military, you have to get out and about. You have to get out 

and, figuratively speaking, kick the tires, look around. Interesting 

you should make that point. Just prior to my leaving active duty, 

because I worked so closely with Homeland Security and law enforcement, even though Mexico was not in my area of interest, I 

took a trip up to El Paso in uniform and just went to the port of 

entry (POE) and then met with some officers there, just to thank 

them and to tell them from my position in the south they were 

doing a great job. I met with some of the Border Patrol folks, same 

thing. And when you say things like, ‘‘Listen, just how are things 

going?’’ You pull out a tape recorder, because you are going to find 

out. And that is, I think, a very important way to find out about 

things, encourage people to speak truth to power from the bottom 

up. And certainly anytime a whistleblower calls in and makes an 

accusation or makes a comment, it is very definitely worth listening. 

So that is how I do business. Sometimes you get an earful and 

wish you had not asked the question, but you should always ask 

the question. 

Senator ENZI. I appreciate that. I used to be in small business, 

and sitting in an office did not solve all the problems. You had to 

get out and see what was happening. 

Thank you for your answers, and my time is about to expire. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Enzi. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Thanks so much. A quick one. We 

talked a little bit about this when you visited with me in my office 

this week, but there is a unit within the Department of Homeland 

Security that goes by the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). And we talked about people say, ‘‘Well, what is 

that? Or what does that represent?’’ There is a lot of confusion and 

not much understanding. As it turned out, it refers to cybersecurity 

and it refers to infrastructure protection. And it is an agency that 

is supposed to do both of those. But just by hearing the name, you 

would never know. Any thoughts on that? 
19 

General KELLY. Well, when I looked at the organization chart, 

maybe one of the first questions I had was: What does that block 

do? So I agree. I think a name change is not always important. It 

might be in this case. It has been brought up to me, Senator, a 

number of times. You did, obviously, but other people within the 

organization, and not within Homeland Security. I have not spoken 

to anyone in Homeland Security right now because of the memorandum of understanding (MOU). But people have brought it up to 

me, past employees of Homeland Security. So as we talked in your 

office, we will take a look at that up front. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thanks so much. 

When I was in the Navy, I was stationed for a while in San 

Diego and would venture down into Mexico. And there was a time 

when people went back and forth between Southern California and 

Mexico rather easily. And there was a time when there was a huge 

amount of illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States. 

I am told that today there are more Mexicans going back into Mexico than there are Mexicans coming into the United States. 

Why do you suppose that is? And are there any lessons from that 

development that might be applicable for the emigration of people, 

large emigration of people from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador? 

General KELLY. That is a great question. I have a great deal of 

experience in Central America, and I hold the people to ourselves 

in very high regard. And I understand, I think, and empathize with 

their problem. They for the most part do not want to come up and 

leave their homes, their families, but there is not an awful lot of 

economic opportunity for them there, and there is certainly a level 

of violence that in our country we could not imagine. 

Honduras is an example. When I took over in Southern Command, it was the most violent planet by U.N. numbers—most violent country on the planet, 91 deaths per 100,000. By contrast, our 

country is about 5. Through a lot of good work down there, not always perfect but the President has taken that down by a third. 

Still horrific levels of violence. But my point is they most of the 

time do not come here for any other purpose than to have some 

economic opportunity and to escape violence. 

I stated this for 3 years when I was at Southern Command, and 

certainly when I testified before this Committee in April. My view 

is if we can help them by reducing our drug demand, which is the 

fundamental problem of many of their problems, by reducing our 

drug demand, at the same time helping them improve their police—their militaries are actually pretty good. Human rights is very 

much a part of the way they operate. And if we improve the situation of violence, then my belief is investment would come, and so 

there would be economic opportunity there. The three countries in 

the Northern Tier—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—have 

banded together and developed their own approach called the—the 

name escapes me, but— 

Senator CARPER. Alliance for Prosperity. 

General KELLY. Alliance for Prosperity that we helped them develop, and so they are putting their own money against it. And 

they really seek foreign investment, not money from the United 

States but investment maybe from the United States. So I think if 
20 

we were to do that for them, there would be a lot—and, frankly, 

they will tell you, as long as the migrants leave Honduras or wherever and, generally speaking, get into the United States easily, 

safely, and do not come back, there is going to be a draw. So we 

have to get our arms, I think, around those three factors. 

Senator CARPER. When we were together the other day, we 

talked about Colombia and how 20 years ago a bunch of gunmen 

rounded up the supreme court of Colombia. They took them into a 

room and shot them all to death. And, today, Colombia is not a perfect nation, but it is a much different nation, and a strong partner 

of ours, strong trading partner of ours, and a fairly vibrant democracy. None of us are perfect. 

Then we have Plan Colombia, which a number of people worked 

on, certainly President Clinton; Joe Biden was then, I think, the 

Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I describe Plan Colombia and also the Alliance for Prosperity, which was developed 

by Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, I call it ‘‘The Home 

Depot’’ plan. You know, Home Depot, in their advertising, they say, 

‘‘You can do it. We can help.’’ In this case, Colombia, they can do 

it, we can help, and we have. Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, they can do it, we can help. In this case, we are committed 

to do that. We have committed so far one year of funding, and 

President Obama has asked, Vice President Biden has asked for a 

second tranche. 

Do you have any thoughts along those lines? 

General KELLY. Senator, anytime someone tells me—and a lot of 

people have told me; I reference back to my time in Southern Command—that the Central American republics cannot be helped, 

parts of Mexico cannot be helped, I say, ‘‘Look at Colombia.’’ Colombia was in the exact same place 20 years ago, looking into the 

abyss. They made some fundamental changes to how they did business, how they allowed their military to operate, and they are what 

we called when I was in South America ‘‘exporters of security.’’ And 

by that I mean they go out and help other countries in the region, 

particularly in the Central American isthmus, help them help 

themselves. They are our best friends, in my view, in Latin America, and they are already stepping up to help and would like to do 

more. 

The Alliance for Prosperity, when we were helping them, my 

original thinking was, well, let us call this ‘‘Plan Central America,’’ 

like Plan Colombia. And Plan Colombia really came out of this institution, out of the Congress, and then the Clinton Administration 

picked up on it, and it worked. Four cents on the dollar, U.S. 

money, and all the rest of it was paid for by the Colombians. 

But back to the Plan Central America, there were people in the 

interagency that did not think that we should do that, so we went 

up with the Alliance for Prosperity. A rose by any other name. It 

is kind of the same thing. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks so much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator Portman. Just for other Senators, it is going to be 

Portman, Tester, Daines, Peters, Harris, Paul, Hassan, Lankford, 

and I believe it is Heitkamp and Hoeven, but we will figure it out. 

So that is the order. Senator Portman. 
21 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Kelly, first let me echo the comments of others to thank 

you for your remarkable four and a half decades of service to our 

country and the sacrifices your family has made. I am particularly 

appreciative of your wife, Karen, who apparently told you that you 

had to answer the call once again. And we have seen with your introductions today that you are likely to be confirmed, and I am just 

delighted you are willing to serve. I do have three areas of inquiry 

I would like to touch on, and we talked about some of this in our 

meeting. 

The first is your management challenge. You said you had been 

a member of some large, complex organizations. This will be the 

most complex and the largest. It is 240,000 employees. When you 

look at it, there are probably, 20 major offices or departments within it. And as you know, I was part of the Select Committee in the 

House to put this together after September 11, 2001, knowing that 

the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. We had 

to protect the country, but, frankly, I have been frustrated by the 

lack of progress in having the Department work as one. And it has 

been mentioned, the morale problems, but there is a lack of coordination in many people’s eyes, some inefficiencies. 

So the first question I would ask you really is a management 

question: What are the three things that you would intend to do 

to help make the Department work more effectively to protect us? 

General KELLY. The first thing, I am sure you are aware, I know, 

that the unity of effort that Secretary Jeh Johnson has embarked 

upon, taking a look around at the other bureaucracies—and I do 

not mean that in a negative way at all—the way that other departments work, I know the Senate is very aware of the fact that the 

Department of Defense is a better place today than it was 30 years 

ago before Goldwater-Nichols. And people of my rank—that was 

not my fault at the time, but people of my rank fought tooth and 

nail against the Congress for 30 years. Ultimately, laws were 

passed, Goldwater-Nichols, and we have become a better place because we have knocked down a lot of the rice bowls, got people 

talking to each other. The Marines still are the best, but the other 

services are pretty good, too. [Laughter.] 

But, we all have our traditions and ways of thinking and doing 

business, and we did not have to give that up when we went to 

jointness. I think there is a place for that, and I know that Secretary Jeh Johnson has already done that, and I am going to get 

smart about that as fast as I can. I think as much as we can 

draw—I mean, the mission is homeland security. That is a mission 

I believe everyone can get behind. Just like DOD, the mission is 

to defend the Nation abroad, primarily. 

I do not know if there has been enough of that, but I believe even 

though there are very separate groups within Homeland Security, 

if everyone can understand first and foremost we protect the Nation, and then we do that in different ways, much like DOD, I 

think it would go a long way to bringing the Department together, 

much as Secretary Johnson has begun. 

And then there are just other things. I mean, some of the Senators and others have recommended to me some organizational 

changes, personnel changes, not individual people but, why has 
22 

this person got this many Under Secretaries or Assistants, take a 

look at all of that. To Senator McCaskill’s point, there are probably 

efficiencies there and there is savings there, and I commit to the 

Committee for sure I will look at that. 

Senator PORTMAN. We would appreciate that, and a top-down review I think is always a good idea when you come into a new place, 

but particularly with an agency as complex as this one. 

Let me ask you about intelligence. I am also concerned about 

redundancies in our Intelligence Community. There are 17 intelligence agencies in the government, if you count them all. Two of 

them reside at the Department of Homeland Security: one is Coast 

Guard intelligence, but the other is this Office of Intelligence and 

Analysis. Again, I have not been as impressed as I had hoped I 

would be with their mission, which is really to fuse intelligence 

from all the different sources together to be able to better protect 

the country, including a private sector liaison to help with infrastructure. They are supposed to track terrorists and their networks, assess risks and so on. 

What is your sense of that entity? And do you think it could be 

improved? 

General KELLY. I think everything can be improved, and what I 

have learned—and once again, Senator, I have been restricted from 

actually dealing with Homeland Security, but what I get from the 

transition team and others that have worked at Homeland Security 

is that that could be better, the information sharing within the organization, and even out to law enforcement. But, again, it is way 

up on the list in terms of things I will look at. 

Senator PORTMAN. How about fusion centers? In all of our States 

we have fusion centers now. Are they effective? Are they redundant? Should they be wound down? Should they be reinforced? 

What is your sense of how the fusion centers are working? 

General KELLY. Depending on who has talked to me about them, 

they are effective and they are redundant. So again—— 

Senator PORTMAN. And I think, frankly, even within our States 

we might find that some are more effective than others. I would 

hope you would also in your top-to-bottom review take a look at 

those fusion centers—— 

General KELLY. Yes, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN [continuing]. And be sure they are doing the 

job they should be doing. My sense is they were also supposed to 

compile information and intelligence. Sometimes because classified 

intelligence is difficult to compile if you are not deeper in the community, sometimes it is being done by other entities, and there is 

not information being provided to some of our first responders. But 

I would love to have your assessment of that once you have had 

a chance to be on the ground. 

The final question I have is about the drug issue. As you heard 

earlier, this is an epidemic. You and I have talked about it. I loved 

your testimony before the Committee last year. I talked to you 

about that, and I have complimented you in the Committee since 

then on that, because you focused on the demand side, and I am 

a strong believer that until we deal with prevention and education 

better, and treatment and recovery, it is going to be very difficult 

to stop this flow of drugs, and they will find other ways to do it. 
23 

On the other hand, almost unimpeded now across the Southern 

Border, as you say, almost all the heroin that is consumed here is 

produced in Mexico, as well as many of the drugs. So two questions. 

One, what would you do to increase that apprehension? You 

mentioned interdiction earlier and pushing back beyond the border. 

And, second, we have legislation called the ‘‘STOP Act’’ which is 

intended to deal with this issue of fentanyl and carfentanyl, which 

is a synthetic heroin, really the next wave we are seeing in our 

communities. That mostly comes by mail, and some of it actually 

from Mexico, it also comes from China directly, then sometimes is 

mixed with heroin in Mexico and brought back in a drug form. But 

it is not taken by packages across the border physically. It goes 

through the U.S. mail system. We tried to work with Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) on this as well as DEA, and I just wondered if you had any sense of that issue, what you would do, and 

just your general thoughts on interdiction. 

General KELLY. I believe interdiction starts—and you can talk 

cocaine or whatever. It starts really where it is produced. The Colombians, to use that example again, do tremendous work in terms 

of eradicating coca and destroying labs and that kind of things, tremendous work in taking huge tonnages off the flow, with very few 

naval assets, and I use the Coast Guard there as well, very few 

naval assets. My information is at least a year old or right at a 

year old, but SOUTHCOM gets a couple hundred tons a year. And 

the beauty of it down there is you get it in 1-ton, 2-ton, 3-ton lots. 

Once it gets ashore and starts, it is right up the network. A big 

take at the Southwest Border of, say, cocaine or something like 

that might be 5, 10, 15 kilos. So I think if we could do more with 

our partners. Again, not to harp on the demand thing, but if we 

were to block the network so nothing could get through the Southwest Border, the so-called balloon effect, they would find other 

ways around it. The profits are so outrageous. That is why I believe 

it is all about the demand. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, General. I appreciate it. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

McCaskill. And, General Kelly, thank you for being here, and 

thank you for putting yourself up for this. First things first, 

though. I want to thank your family for sharing you with us one 

more time. I very much appreciate your guys’ commitment to this 

because it is oftentimes not easy and these jobs are oftentimes not 

easy, and this is one of those jobs that is not easy. So thank you. 

And, General Kelly, thank you, as Senator McCaskill said, for 

getting your ethics report in, your background complete, your prequestionnaire, and your financials. I appreciate that very much 

also. 

Your job is a big one, and I know from our meeting in my 

office—and I want to thank you for your direct answer of the questions we talked about there and today, too. We talked about border 

security. We hear a lot about the Southern Border, which is critically important. The Northern Border, with a 540-mile border with 
24 

Montana alone, with one national park bordering Canada, and an 

Indian reservation bordering Canada and three Indian reservations 

within 100 miles of Canada, it adds to the complexity. But I think 

you have a grasp of that. 

I am going to start out a little parochial, but I am going to take 

it to the bigger issue. We talked about a port north of Plentywood 

that DHS wanted to close, a 24-hour port. It was my belief that 

this port was critical for border security on the Northern Border 

because it was a port with a long distance between the other two 

24-hour ports on the east and the west. 

What is your view with border security as it applies to not only 

the folks that are on patrol but the folks who are in the ports? 

General KELLY. Well, Senator, I think, it is clearly a balance. We 

cannot stop the normal flow of commerce and just legal people. By 

the same token, we have to do better at closing the border to the 

things that we do not want to come in. 

I am not as familiar nearly, as we discussed, with the issue of 

the Northern Border. But as I promised you in your office the other 

day, I will be very quick to come up on that and perhaps even during the summer visit your State. 

Senator TESTER. I will take you up on that. [Laughter.] 

And we will make sure we do not get you into North Dakota because they will give the wrong impression. And we will follow up 

on that, but there are grants like Operation Stonegarden grants 

that are critically important. There are efforts to be made with the 

local farmers and ranchers that live on that border, and I need to 

get you there so actually you can talk to those folks, because I 

think they are not paid by you or us but still are an important part 

of the overall structure of homeland security. 

I want to talk about immigration for a second. When you were 

in my office, you said what I have thought for a long time, and that 

is that we make folks jump through hoops to get the visa, and then 

after they come into the country, we never tell them to head home. 

How do you anticipate to make it work when those visas expire, 

to be able to notify those folks that it is time to head back? 

General KELLY. To the degree that I have been in discussions on 

this point, apparently we do not have a particularly good system 

to kind of alert when—the day after someone’s visa expires, we do 

not have a very good system to say this person’s visa expired and 

to share that information, whether it is within the Department for 

sure and then local enforcement. And it is not until, as you know, 

Senator, people get caught doing something wrong, speeding or 

something like that, that they get caught and we say, OK, this person—— 

Senator TESTER. That is right. 

General KELLY. So the discussions I have had is that we have 

to do better with systems, first of all, alerting us that someone has 

stayed past, and then as appropriate, perhaps send someone to 

their house or their last known residence and ask them why they 

have not departed yet. 

But the other issue, as I have been briefed—and this is kind of 

hard, but, as you know, when non-citizens come in, we record 

them. When they go out by commercial air we record them leaving. 
25 

What we do not do very well at apparently is at the ground entrances, so I will look into that as well. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I appreciate any work you can do on that 

because I think that would help solve not all but certainly a fair 

amount of the problem. 

REAL ID is something that has been of controversy in the State 

of Montana since my days back in the State legislature, which is 

over 10 years ago now. For the time being, DHS has waived part 

of the law requiring construction of a linked nationwide database 

required by the law. I know Senator Paul is also concerned about 

this. 

What are your plans to implement the REAL ID issue as it applies to States like Montana that do not really want to see this nationwide database? 

General KELLY. Well, as the Senator knows—— 

Senator TESTER. And still keep our country safe. A tough nut to 

crack. 

General KELLY. As the Senator knows, it is in the law. It is my 

understanding that the Secretary has some elbow room in terms of 

waiving it. I would like to think that—and I am not completely, 

kind of conversant with it, but I would like to think that in the 

small number of States that have not met the point at which they 

have safe ID cards, I would like to absolutely work with the States 

to find a way ahead, what we can do to come to an agreement. 

There is always the possibility of additional time waivers, but I 

would like to work with the States on that, Senator. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Thank you. In your particular case, this is 

a big Department; it has a lot of different arms sticking out there. 

And your Deputies are going to be really important. 

General KELLY. Right. 

Senator TESTER. What are you going to be looking for in your 

Deputy Secretaries? 

General KELLY. For anyone that works, I think, for the Federal 

Government, but certainly at the senior level, people that, first of 

all, know what they are doing, understand the importance of following the law, and understand the importance of taking care of 

their people. To Senator McCaskill’s point again, people that will 

listen to their subordinates when there are suggestions of how to 

do business better, listen to their subordinates when there is more 

serious problems and not retaliate against anyone when they come 

up and raise issues. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Last question very quickly. What is your 

highest priority when you are considering anti-terror efforts? 

General KELLY. Stopping them somewhere well away from our 

country. 

Senator TESTER. Very good. Thank you, General. 

General KELLY. Sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

One thing you will notice, General Kelly. The Northern Border 

is very well represented on this Committee. [Laughter.] 

Sometimes in duplicate. 

Next is Senator Daines. 
26 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Kelly, it was truly an honor to have you in the office 

yesterday. Thank you for considering coming to Montana. We will 

take a look at that Northern Border. As the Chairman just mentioned—I just counted heads here, Mr. Chairman—7 out of 15 

members on this Committee actually have a Northern Border, just 

two have a Southern Border. And that is not to say the Southern 

Border is not important, but this Committee will also not forget 

about that important Northern Border. 

I also want to thank your family. As the son of a Marine, my dad 

would be very proud, if he were here, knowing that we are having 

this conversation. So thank you for your service. My family sleeps 

better at night knowing that a four-star general, a Marine no less, 

is leading the Department of Homeland Security. So thank you, 

and thank you very much, Karen, and to the rest of the family for 

allowing the General to continue to serve our country. 

General Kelly, as we discussed yesterday, I spent 28 years in the 

private sector before I came to the Hill, 10 years with a global 

cloud computing company. We faced cyber threats daily. The customers expected their data to be secure. We delivered. Our data 

was never compromised. 

And then I came to the Federal Government, became an employee of the Federal Government, elected to the Congress in 2012, 

and lo and behold, you got the same letter that I got in terms of 

our information being compromised as Federal employees because 

of a cyber breach. 

The Internet is a great tool for creativity, for communication, for 

commerce, but it has also become a tool for bad actors engaging in 

fraud, identity theft, piracy, terrorist propaganda, espionage. 

As Secretary, how will you counter these cyber threats to protect 

our Nation and our families? 

General KELLY. Well, obviously, Senator, if confirmed, I will get 

deep into it. In my job as a military person, I understand cyber out 

there and know what our capabilities are, U.S. capabilities out 

there. I also know that 3, 4, 5 years ago, we talked about the 

United States would not have a peer competitor in cyber for 20 

years or 25 years. Now we know that we have some pretty darn 

close to peer competitors. 

I was watching something that Secretary Ash Carter started 

when he first took over at the Defense Department. He started to 

reach out to the commercial world, Silicon Valley, that kind of 

thing, to engage them or at least to get a report card on how we 

are doing within the Federal Government to develop. But there is 

obviously unbelievable talent out there in the civilian sector, and 

I think at this point in time, everyone realizes that it is in everyone’s interest—whether it is personal security or corporate security, 

certainly U.S. security, everyone realizes, I think, that working together makes an awful lot of sense. 

There are clearly privacy issues and those kinds of things and 

the law would always have to be followed. But I think just more 

cooperation amongst the private sector and in the Federal sector 

and the State sector, I think that would go a long way to it. But, 
27 

again, I think Ash Carter was onto something in a big way when 

he started to reach out to the commercial world. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. I want to turn attention back to 

that Northern Border discussion we had earlier. Agriculture is our 

largest economic driver in a State like Montana. Canada is our 

largest export market. We want to make sure our farmers and 

ranchers do not have disruptions as they go north and south, as it 

relates to commerce. 

But this 5,500-mile-long border that we have on the Northern 

Border, we know there are a lot of bad actors out there. They view 

that Northern Border as very much a soft underside. And, frankly, 

with the current Administration, we have had some challenges 

with insufficient staffing to make sure that we are protected there 

to the north. 

As the Secretary, how would you increase Customs and Border 

Protection officer recruiting, retention, and mitigate some of the 

staffing shortages without reducing services? 

General KELLY. Senator, I think in the world I came from, there 

was a time back right in the Vietnam period where we could not 

recruit or retain good servicemembers, mostly because of the morale, mostly because of when other young men and women talked 

to their brothers, older brothers, saying, ‘‘Should I join the armed 

forces? ’’ ‘‘No, it is not worth it.’’ So an awful lot of the retention 

and recruiting problem comes as a result of the morale problem 

within the Department. 

I was just talking to a couple of gentlemen a little earlier who 

said that they have been lifelong members of the Federal law enforcement world but would not recommend their sons or daughters 

join up. I have a very good friend—well, I will end it there and just 

say the best recruiters in any organization are the people that are 

already in the organization. If they value or have a sense that people value what they do, that there is a future, that there is upward 

mobility, that you get a fair shake no matter who you are in terms 

of advancement and all, that turns recruitment and retention 

around. 

What I hear mostly is, ‘‘We are not appreciated,’’ and, ‘‘We are 

not allowed to do our job.’’ So I will take a long, hard look at that 

right away. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, General Kelly. 

Yesterday, we discussed the government earning the trust of the 

people. DHS’ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 

play a critical role in vetting refugees—this has become a topic of 

conversation across our country as well as in Montana—long before 

they reach U.S. soil, interviews, background checks, collecting biometric data abroad and so forth. How can the American people regain trust that any future refugee will not be a risk to our families? 

And what will you do to ensure that there are comprehensive background checks completed? 

General KELLY. One of the problems, I think, with many of our 

refugees is they come in from countries obviously that are dysfunctional. And I think many American citizens feel that if you are taking in people from a country that simply has no law enforcement 

bureaucracy—they clearly do not have things like the FBI and 

Homeland Security—how can you guarantee? There is no guar-
28 

antee. You cannot guarantee 100 percent, and if you are taking in 

large numbers of people—or any people from places where you really cannot vet them very well, I guess you do the best you can. 

Senator DAINES. And, lastly, you talk about telling truth to 

power. How has this integrity served you in making tough decisions as a leader? 

General KELLY. It has made it easy, actually. As Secretary Gates 

said, it is a moral responsibility. It is what you do. I have found 

if you do not, organizations like the U.S. Senate and House figure 

out very quickly that what they are getting from a witness is not 

straight, and it certainly kind of marginalizes you. So I think truth 

to power is the way to go. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, General Kelly. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Kelly, wonderful to have you here, and I will join everyone else in thanking you for your service, and certainly for your 

family’s service as well. It is truly a family affair, public service, 

particularly for your many years in the U.S. Marine Corps. So I appreciate your patriotism and sacrifice. 

I also wanted to say it is good to see you again. I had the privilege of being with you in Guatemala probably mid-year last year 

as part of the Committee trip and had the benefit of your briefings 

and actually had the benefit of being on the border between Guatemala and Mexico and talking about some of the issues related to 

immigration from that country and from Latin America as well. 

And it is certainly very refreshing to see a nominee for the Secretary of Homeland Security as someone who has been on the front 

line in dealing with those issues. 

I also appreciate from your briefings the fact that you understand that this is an incredibly complex issue. It cannot be solved 

simply by building a wall. It requires a much more thoughtful approach. And I am confident, based on your experience and your 

statements, that you bring that to the office. 

I wanted to pick up on what Senator Daines talked about in regard to cybersecurity. As we talked about in our previous conversation, I believe that without question the number one national security threat to us is cyber, not only the Russian attacks, which you 

have addressed earlier in the hearing here, but attacks that are occurring on a daily basis. And as you know, a person or entity trying 

to use cyber to attack us often looks for the weakest link, and that 

weakest link tends to be entities like small businesses or perhaps 

local governments or State governments that do not have the same 

kind of cyber protections that we may have at the Federal level, 

although that is certainly open for attack as well, as we have seen 

from the past. 

But last Congress, I joined Senator Vitter in introducing the 

Small Business Cyber Security Improvements Act—and it was part 

of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and it is 

now law—that will require the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) and the DHS to develop a Small Business Development Center for Cyber Strategy. And I just kind of wanted your thoughts on 
29 

your support of that endeavor and how you see the DHS working 

particularly with the small business owners who do not have the 

resources to have elaborate defenses to protect themselves as well 

as protect larger networks. 

General KELLY. Well, Senator, as you know, part of the mission 

is to protect the dot-gov of DHS, protect the dot-gov nets, and to 

work with the commercial world since it is part of the mission. 

Again, I do not know the level of effectiveness. I suspect, I know 

Secretary Jeh Johnson, a good friend, has this on his scope. I do 

not know the degree how successful we are being, but he started 

for sure this process of outreach, and I will continue it. 

Senator PETERS. Right, well, I appreciate that. 

There is another area that I have some direct questions that I 

would like to ask that are very important to folks in my State. As 

we spoke about earlier, I represent a very large Arab-American, 

Muslim-American community in the State of Michigan, one of the 

largest communities outside the Middle East, largest community in 

the United States. Based on comments made by the Presidentelect, I will tell you there is a great deal of fear in the community, 

a great deal of unease about what the future means for them under 

the new Administration. And, certainly, the Department of Homeland Security is a place where they have particular anxiety. I am 

curious as to your position on a couple things. 

First off, do you agree that putting mosques under generalized 

surveillance and establishing a Muslim database, two proposals 

that were discussed by President-elect Trump, would raise serious 

constitutional issues under the Free Exercise Clause of the First 

Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendments? 

General KELLY. I am not a lawyer, but to the degree I understand those laws, yes, sir. 

Senator PETERS. Will you commit to ensuring that religion does 

not become a basis for U.S. counterterrorism or law enforcement 

policy, particularly as it relates to the targeting of individuals with 

ancestry from Muslim-majority countries? 

General KELLY. I do not think it is ever appropriate to focus on 

something like religion as the only factor, so yes, sir. 

Senator PETERS. And do you believe that non-citizen Muslims, 

people of Arab or people of South Asian descent should have to register with the government? And if so, for what purpose would the 

program be used? 

General KELLY. I know there was some program some years ago 

where they had this on the books. I know it is no longer on the 

books, and unless—obviously, it would have to be legal, but unless 

there was some really compelling reason, so yes, sir, I would agree. 

Senator PETERS. I think the program is the National Security 

Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program that you are 

talking about. 

General KELLY. Right. 

Senator PETERS. That began in 2002, and it was supposedly to 

catch terrorists. It existed for a number of years and never had any 

impact whatsoever. So it sounds as if you would not be supportive 

of bringing that back. Good. 
30 

The last question is the Supreme Court case, Korematsu v. the 

United States, was a landmark case addressing the constitutionality of Executive Order (EO) 9066, which ordered JapaneseAmericans into internment camps during World War II, regardless 

of their citizenship. Do you agree that the Supreme Court decision 

in Korematsu does not provide a legitimate precedent for internment or special registration of individuals who are Muslim or with 

ancestry from Muslim-majority countries? 

General KELLY. I do. I do not agree with registering people based 

on ethnicity or religion or anything like that, so I think I would 

agree with the Supreme Court. 

Senator PETERS. Great. 

General KELLY. Again, I am not a lawyer here, so—— 

Senator PETERS. Right. I understand. Well, I appreciate those responses, and maybe just in follow-up—and I know we talked about 

this in our meeting earlier, but if you could let the Committee 

know how do you approach communities in this country who are 

made up primarily of Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans. From 

your past experience, how do you see your role as Homeland Security director in reaching out to those communities and making 

them part of a solution? 

General KELLY. Very briefly, as we discussed in the office, Senator, our success in Iraq, certainly my time in Iraq, was because 

I outreached with people across the spectrum of society, all of 

whom were Muslim, followed the Islamic faith. Obviously, the men, 

the clerics, the communities, the way we won certainly in my part 

of Iraq was we outreached to people, convinced them that we were 

there for good, not evil, we were there to protect them and to help 

them, and overnight, almost, with the Awakening and other things 

that I will not go into—but, I mean, it was the thing that gave us 

success, outreach to the community and touching everybody in the 

community and gaining their trust. I know Secretary Johnson does 

that, and I certainly will continue that, look forward to continuing 

that. 

Senator PETERS. Well, I appreciate those responses, General. And 

if confirmed, we would love to host you in the Detroit area with a 

community that would be very eager to meet you and certainly 

needs reassurance from someone in that position. 

General KELLY. I look forward to it, Senator. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Ranking 

Member McCaskill. 

General, thank you for your longstanding service and sacrifice, 

and to your family as well. 

I would like to ask you a few questions, starting with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Hundreds of thousands of 

DACA recipients around the country are afraid right now for what 

this incoming Administration might do to them and also what it 

might do to their unauthorized family members. In order to receive 

DACA, these young people submitted extensive paperwork to the 

Federal Government, including detailed information regarding 
31 

themselves and their loved ones. They also had to qualify, as you 

know, for the program, and in qualifying, each person’s case was 

reviewed and determined on a case-by-case basis. 

The young person must have not been convicted of a felony or a 

significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors. The 

young person must also not be deemed to pose a threat to national 

security or public safety. The young person must currently be in 

school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from 

high school, have obtained a General Education Development 

(GED) certification, and/or have been honorably discharged as a 

veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States. 

Among other things, DACA applicants must submit proof of identity, proof of time and admission in the United States, proof of relevant student school completion or military status, and biometric 

information. 

As part of the DACA application process, we conduct biometric 

and biographic background checks against a variety of databases 

maintained by DHS and other Federal agencies. 

If a DACA applicant knowingly makes a misrepresentation or 

fails to disclose facts in an effort to obtain DACA, it is a felony, and 

the applicant will be treated as an immigration enforcement priority to the fullest extent permitted by law and be subject to criminal prosecution and/or removal from the United States. This means 

obviously that applicants to DACA know that if they are not giving 

us the whole truth about their story, they are putting a target on 

their own backs. 

At the time, the Department of Homeland Security assured them 

that it would follow its longstanding practice of not using such information for law enforcement purposes except in very limited circumstances. These young people are now worried that the information that they provided in good faith to our government may now 

be used to track them down and lead to their removal. 

So my question is: Do you agree that under DACA we have and 

those young people—hundreds of thousands of them have relied on 

our representations? Do you agree with that, that we would not use 

this information against them? 

General KELLY. The entire development of immigration policy is 

ongoing right now in terms of the upcoming Administration. I have 

not been involved in those discussions. If confirmed, I know I will 

be involved in those discussions. I think there is a big spectrum of 

people who need to be dealt with in terms of deportation—— 

Senator HARRIS. I am speaking specifically of DACA. 

General KELLY. And those categories would be prioritized. I am 

not part of the process right now. I would guess that this category 

might not be the highest priority for removal. I promise you, Senator, that I will be involved in the discussion. 

Senator HARRIS. I would like that you would read or become familiar with a document issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, its Frequently Asked Questions brochure. Question No. 20, the question is: If my case is referred to Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for immigration enforcement purposes or if I receive a notice to appear (NTA), will information related to my family members and guardians also be referred to ICE 

for immigration enforcement purposes? The answer, according to 
32 

this document, is that if the case is referred to ICE for purposes 

of immigration enforcement or they receive an NTA, information 

related to their family members that is contained in their request 

will not be referred to ICE. Are you willing to maintain that policy 

of not referring that information to ICE? 

General KELLY. I will definitely look very long and hard at the 

document. I am not familiar. I do not know right now where the 

upcoming Administration is going in this. I will be part of that. I 

can tell you, Senator, I promise you that I will keep a very open 

mind as we look at this topic. 

Senator HARRIS. Are you familiar that under your predecessors, 

the director of Homeland Security made the decision and issued the 

information to the troops? It was not the President. Are you familiar with that? 

General KELLY. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. And do you agree that many of these young 

people were brought here as children and only know America as 

their home? 

General KELLY. Many of them are in that category. 

Senator HARRIS. And do you agree that they are now studying 

at colleges and universities and graduate schools across our country, some are working in Fortune 100 companies, major institutions, and businesses, both small and large? 

General KELLY. I am aware that some are, yes. 

Senator HARRIS. And do you intend then to use the limited law 

enforcement resources of DHS to remove them from the country? 

General KELLY. I will follow the law. But, again, I go back to we 

have a limited capacity to execute the law, so we would certainly 

look at the highest priority activities and—but I will follow the law 

to the extent that I can execute the law, if that makes sense. 

Senator HARRIS. Well, I know as a career prosecutor—I was formerly Attorney General of California and before that a district attorney elected to two terms in office—that we in law enforcement 

have limited resources. I am interested in knowing from your perspective where the students and the young people who applied for 

and were eligible for DACA, where they would fall on your list of 

priorities in terms of the limited law enforcement resources that 

you have, or would have if confirmed. 

General KELLY. I think law-abiding individuals, in my mind, 

with limited assets to execute the law, would probably not be at the 

top of the list. 

Senator HARRIS. And would you agree that State and local law 

enforcement agencies are uniquely situated to protect the public 

safety of their own communities? 

General KELLY. I would agree with that. 

Senator HARRIS. And are you aware that State and local law enforcement leaders across the country have publicly stated that they 

depend on the cooperation of immigrant communities to protect 

criminal activity and to come forward as witnesses to crime? 

General KELLY. I have read that. 

Senator HARRIS. And are you aware that there has been—in the 

past, when the government has applied indiscriminate immigration 

sweeps, many local law enforcement agencies have been concerned 
33 

and have complained that there has been a decrease in immigrants 

reporting crimes against themselves or others? 

General KELLY. I was not aware of that. 

Senator HARRIS. Will you make it your priority to become aware 

of the impact on immigrant communities in terms of their reluctance to report crimes against themselves, their family members, 

or others when they are concerned that DHS may direct sweeps 

against entire immigrant communities? 

General KELLY. You have my commitment I will get briefed on 

this. Again, I fall back on really the law will guide me, if confirmed, in everything that I do. 

Senator HARRIS. And I would encourage that not only the law 

but how it will practically apply in the streets in terms of the perception of the interpretation of the law to those immigrant communities and what we all want to do ensuring that all victims of 

crime, regardless of their documented status, are protected and 

that they receive justice in a court of law. 

General KELLY. I acknowledge that. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Harris. 

Senator Paul. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL 

Senator PAUL. General Kelly, congratulations, and I want to join 

in also thanking you for your service and your family’s sacrifice in 

defense of our country. 

The position you are up for, Homeland Security, is obviously to 

defend the homeland, to defend the country. But the oath you take 

is actually to defend the Constitution. That is the oath we take. It 

is the oath you also took in the military as well. And I think that 

is an important distinction because it does not mean we want security at all costs. We want security in order to have our liberty. So 

liberty is an important part of this. 

There have been times in our history when I think we let fear 

overcome our ability or our desire to defend the Constitution. In 

the Civil War, we suspended habeas corpus. We kept people in detention without trial, without legal access. We arrested 3,000 editors during World War II. A hundred thousand Japanese were detained. We let our fervor or our fear somehow replace our oath to 

defend our liberty, to defend the Constitution. 

We have on the books and we passed about 5 years ago a law 

that says that an American citizen can be indefinitely detained. 

Not an American citizen overseas, not someone captured in Syria 

on a battlefield, but someone captured in the United States and accused of terrorism can be kept indefinitely. They could be sent to 

Guantanamo Bay, or they could be sent a variety of places. It has 

never been used, and this President has said he would not use it. 

But he signed it anyway, much to the chagrin of some of us. But 

it is on the books. And I guess my question to you would be: Do 

you think we can adequately arrest people in our country who are, 

somehow a threat to our homeland security? Do you think the Constitution could be good enough, that due process in our courts of 

law in our country would work? Or would you think there are going 
34 

to have to be times when we are just going to have to detain people 

without trial? 

General KELLY. I am pretty committed to the Constitution. I was 

not aware of the law. It surprises me. But I think we have enough 

laws to help us out in that regard. 

Senator PAUL. I think it is important, and, obviously, the future 

is unknown, but you and I have talked about in the office if something terrible happens, we need people in places of leadership that 

do not let us succumb to our emotions and our fear, whether they 

are irrational fears of others or whatever they are, that the law is 

incredibly important, and that is what our soldiers sacrifice so 

much for. 

With regard to how we collect data on people to protect ourselves, once again it is this idea, well, are we so fearful we are 

going to collect data on everybody? There have been instances 

when we have. For example, we have had bulk collection of everyone’s phone records. Now, some will argue a technical part of the 

Fourth Amendment is, oh, well, your phone records are not really 

protected. Some of us will argue, well, they should be protected. 

But it is this debate we are having. But it is also a debate about 

sort of how you come to security in our country. Can we come to 

security by individually going after suspects or people whom we are 

suspicious of? Or should we have blanket surveillance of everyone, 

which means we have to give up, according to some of us, liberty 

and privacy? 

I will give you a specific example of this, because this comes from 

Homeland Security. A couple of years ago, they decided they would 

use license plate screeners, and apparently they are very rapid, 

and they can collect hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of license plates an hour. But they decided they would go to a gun 

show. Why this particularly concerns me is you could also conceive 

of people at a gun show as exercising some sort of freedom of 

speech or some sort of ideological belief by being at a gun show, 

not just wanting to buy a gun but actually defending their Second 

Amendment right to buy a gun. 

What alarms me is that if we are going to scan license plates at 

a gun show, we might go to a pro-life rally or a pro-abortion rally, 

depending on who is in charge. I do not want the government scanning people’s license plates. I do not want them covering and getting all of our data just so we can possibly be safe someday from 

something. I want the individual to be protected. But I am not 

against Homeland Security going after individuals and digging as 

deep as you want with the proper process. 

So what I would ask you is your opinion on how do we defend 

the country. Can we do it with the traditions of looking at individuals for whom we have suspicion? Or are we going to have to collect all of this data and give up our privacy in the process? 

General KELLY. Senator, I would go with the traditional route. 

The scanning of the license plates, I mean, there may be a reason. 

I cannot think of one right now. But I am not for the collection or 

the mass collection of data on people. I would go the other way. 

Senator PAUL. And this is an amazing amount of information we 

can look at. If you had all of the information of everyone’s visa purchases in the country, there is no end. But realize that this is a 
35 

big part of what your job is, people are going to be coming to you 

saying, ‘‘Protect us. We want to be safe.’’ But at the same time, 

what are we willing to give up? Can we keep what we actually believe and what we are as a people, the freedom that you were committed to as a soldier? And I hope you will keep that in mind. 

General KELLY. Yes, sir. 

Senator PAUL. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Paul. Senator Hassan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN 

Senator HASSAN. Well, thank you, Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member McCaskill. I look forward to working with both of you. 

And, General Kelly, thank you so much for being here today, for 

your service. To your family, I echo the thanks you have heard 

today for your service and sacrifice. We are very grateful. 

I wanted to just start by asking a question on cybersecurity that 

has hit my neck of the woods a little bit in the last couple of weeks. 

Two weeks ago, the Washington Post reported that a hacking group 

connected with the Russian government managed to infiltrate the 

Burlington Electric Power Company in Vermont. And New Hampshire and Vermont, as you know, have many shared utility connections along the border between the two States. I think we all agree 

that foreign infiltration into our utility infrastructure, into any of 

our infrastructure, is unacceptable. And with DHS being responsible for securing our critical infrastructure from both physical and 

cyber attack, I am just curious about what steps you think DHS 

needs to be taking to prevent cyber attacks on critical infrastructure and confronting foreign nations’ cyber espionage efforts. 

General KELLY. The best thing we can do, obviously, is just outreach to everybody, whether it is power plants or other commercial 

interests. The problem, as we discussed, is just it is constant, it is 

relentless. 

Senator HASSAN. Right. 

General KELLY. It is from nation-states. It is from Mafia-type organizations. And it is just from vandals. But I think the solution 

is, A, outreach to offer the protections that exist now. And then the 

threat changes so rapidly, we cannot keep up with it, and we have 

to find a way, I think, to keep up with it. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. There has been a lot of discussion 

among Committee Members about the opioid, heroin, and fentanyl 

crisis, which is devastating all of our States, but New Hampshire 

has been particularly hard-hit. And there has been excellent discussion, I thought, about issues on the Southern Border concerning 

the fentanyl crisis in particular, too, because that is really changing the way drug dealers are operating, the ease with which 

fentanyl can be made, the profit margins are huge, and the addictive nature of fentanyl is even greater than other opioids. 

But one of the things that I am heartened by is your focus on 

the demand side of this crisis, and it would be, I think, heartening 

to the people of my State and our country if you can commit on behalf of DHS, should you be confirmed, to partner with this Committee, with Governors around the country, to really look at the 

overprescribing of opioids in this country and treat it as the secu-
36 

rity threat that it is. Is that something you can work with us on 

and commit to? 

General KELLY. I look forward to that, Senator. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. Thank you. 

I will add to the Northern Border chorus, by the way, just to say 

do not forget us. 

General KELLY. Forget, no. 

Senator HASSAN. And, last, I wanted to focus on one other issue 

concerning terrorism. Certainly, we are all concerned about the terrorism that is a threat from faraway places. Earlier in your testimony, you indicated that one of your goals would be to keep the 

terrorists as far away from United States soil as possible. But the 

nature of the threat is always changing, always evolving, and of 

late I think we all agree that there has just been a disturbing rise 

in homegrown terrorism. And no matter how secure our borders 

are, terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda certainly we know use 

the Internet to encourage and inspire troubled Americans to carry 

out violence at home. 

So how do we go about tackling that particular challenge? And 

what partners will be most valuable for DHS and the American 

people in this fight? 

General KELLY. A tough problem, to say the least. And as I have 

discussed with a number of Senators, I think it really does start 

with families and with churches, synagogues, mosques. The homegrown, if you will, terrorists, not just ISIS inspired, I mean, there 

are some pretty grim other groups of other nationalities, if you will, 

white supremacist, that kind of thing. But I really do believe it 

starts with people, parents, understanding what is going on in the 

bedroom when the son or daughter is in there on the Internet all 

the time. We kind of worry about that they are on inappropriate 

porn sites or something. But the fact is that I think that is where 

it starts in many ways. Who knows why they get disaffected with 

the country? But they get on those websites, and it poisons their 

mind, I think. 

I think in the churches, synagogues, whatever, people hear them 

talking and should turn them in or should at least be concerned, 

talk to their parents. 

I am reminded of a young—I think it was a young woman down 

in the South who was getting radicalized clearly, and her parents 

noticed it and turned her in to the police. By the same token, there 

are other examples to where people knew that people were getting 

radicalized—I think the San Bernardino couple, but people were 

afraid to raise a red flag because they thought, A, ‘‘Maybe they will 

do something to me,’’ and, B, ‘‘Maybe I will be legally held accountable’’—legally in the sense of a lawsuit or something like that. But 

it starts there. Clearly, our law enforcement professionals then 

serve a role, but it is a really tough nut to crack. 

I think to the Senator’s question about engagement with some of 

the parts of America that have a lot of Arab-Americans, IslamicAmericans, so that they feel as though they can report and not be 

afraid. But I think if we are going to get at this problem at all, it 

is really energizing communities and families to keep an eye out 

for the telltale signs and then to seek help before it gets out of 

hand. And as I say, in that case that I know of in the South, just 
37 

before it really got out of hand, they turned the daughter in. It is 

an act of love to get her help or to get them help. So that is where 

I am on it, Senator. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you very much. And, again, thank you 

for your service. 

General KELLY. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Hassan. You may not 

have been here quite when I welcomed everybody, but, again, welcome to the Committee. I certainly enjoyed our phone call, and I 

look forward to working with you. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. General Kelly, thanks again for your service. 

You have done a remarkable job in your career for the Nation, and 

I appreciate you stepping back out again. And for your family and 

for all that step out with you, it is a tremendous asset to the Nation. 

You know full well, when you were asked by the President-elect 

to do this, that every time there is a problem at an airport, every 

time there is a shooting, if there are two people who cross the border, whether north or south, somebody is going to call your phone 

and say what is not working. So I appreciate you engaging to do 

that. 

Let me give you a couple other optimistic pieces as well, as you 

scan what is happening. We release every year a report and try to 

identify different areas, and as you know, DHS has been a major 

area for morale. That has been discussed several times. 

Let me give you a couple other pieces of good news. The Government Accountability Office (GAO’s) 2015 review of 22 major acquisition programs at DHS found that only 2 of the 22 were actually 

on track. The Inspector General (IG) at DHS in their report found 

that DHS’ major acquisition programs continue to cost more than 

expected, take longer to deploy than planned, and deliver less capability than promised. 

DHS was also identified and has been identified by GAO now for 

13 years not getting up to speed on its human resources programs. 

We have now spent $180 million over 13 years just to get an 

human resource (HR) program working at DHS. 

While we have all talked often about some of the issues at the 

border, which are serious, there are some internal things that are 

undone. And so while you are focusing on some of these other 

areas, I would encourage you to assign a Deputy to finish the unfinished product of how we handle acquisitions, the cost overruns, 

and how we handle HR within DHS. 

General KELLY. If confirmed, I have my work cut out for me, obviously. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes, sir. 

General KELLY. There are some great people in the organization. 

I hope to retain some of them or to hire others that have been involved in Homeland Security. And I think this is also part of Secretary Jeh Johnson’s unity of effort. He has looked into other parts 

of our bureaucracy and said: How do they do it? No one is perfect, 

but how do they do it? We have to build probably an acquisition 

force in DHS. We do not have the same kind of acquisition capa-
38 

bility as, say, DOD does. Not perfect, to say the least, but yes, sir, 

you have my commitment. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Let us talk about a couple of 

things that have been touched on a little bit before. There is an ongoing conversation, obviously, about cyber and cyber attacks into 

the United States, so two specific areas I want to bring up with 

you. One is jurisdictional. This Committee obviously is very engaged in cyber as a homeland security issue. Armed Services is obviously very involved in that and what is happening with cyber 

issues, as well as Intel. 

What I am looking for is some cooperation in a sense of this is 

not going to be a jurisdictional fight and so no one does it, but how 

do we actually build a sense of teamwork and cooperation between 

Armed Services, Intel, and DHS, and so we can build a real sense 

of a cyber doctrine. A cyber doctrine and how we are going to respond to cyber attacks has been discussed now for a decade, and 

it has been met to death, basically, in one meeting after another, 

but no set of decisions on that. Help me understand how we get 

to a decision and move on in cooperation with other entities. 

General KELLY. I think I would agree, Senator, the worst thing 

that this city oftentimes deals with is the stovepipe mentality and 

the rice bowls, and people, in my view, if confirmed—and it has 

been the way I have operated. I have no rice bowl. If I have to give 

something up or, go across town to someone else’s meeting, I will 

do that to improve whatever it is we are trying to improve. There 

is unbelievably talented people in the U.S. Government, across the 

bureaucracies. But my sense is that there is just not enough interaction. Obviously, we cannot do certain things because of laws, but 

laws can be changed if need be. But I think 10 years ago when we 

started talking about this, we were probably a little bit ahead of 

the problem. And 10 years later, we are behind the problem now. 

I think probably now is the time to act. 

I think we very easily could suffer a catastrophic, seriously catastrophic cyber event because we did not do our jobs as the U.S. 

Government, and I think probably right now there is an awareness 

that it is time to sit down and work these things out. And, again, 

I think the commercial world, the civilian world is as much a player in this as the Federal Government is. 

Senator LANKFORD. And I would say this Committee is eager to 

have a partner in that to be able to discuss it, what needs to be 

done legislatively. There are times we will have administrative witnesses here that will say, ‘‘I cannot really give a recommendation 

to you,’’ when we know the Administration officials deal with it all 

the time, they know the barriers and the issues they face. We need 

some good cooperation from people to be able to sit down with us 

and to say, ‘‘Here is what we are bumping up against.’’ 

Two other quick areas on this. One of them is working with cities 

that do not want to cooperate on the issue of immigration, the 

sanctuary cities that have determined we do not want the Federal 

Government dealing with individuals that are clearly in the United 

States illegally and have a criminal record. What are your thoughts 

on this? 

General KELLY. Well, I think as a public servant, if confirmed, 

I do not think I have the authority to pick and choose what laws 
39 

need to be followed. I think it is in a lot of ways dangerous to think 

that you can pick and choose which laws. I understand maybe the 

perspective of some of the local leaders, but I do think the law is 

the law, and I think the law has to be followed. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes, sir. I would agree. 

Let me bring up one last thing with you as well, and it is something you and I have talked about before, and that is the Northern 

Triangle and our good relationship with El Salvador, Honduras, 

and Guatemala and some of their leaders that are really doing a 

remarkable turnaround. We spoke about Guatemala and the new 

president, Jimmy Morales, and Thelma Aldana, the attorney general there, and the remarkable work that they are doing. 

What practically can we do as a Nation to help them? As we deal 

with cocaine use, for instance, around 90 percent of the cocaine 

that comes to the United States touches soil first in Guatemala. 

General KELLY. Right. 

Senator LANKFORD. So what can we do to be able to partner with 

them to deal with interdiction efforts? 

General KELLY. Stop the demand. 

Senator LANKFORD. That is a big one. 

General KELLY. If we stop the demand, this would—and you are 

never going to get to zero. We have talked about this, obviously. 

You never get to zero. But stopping the demand, and we just do 

not have and never have had a truly comprehensive demand reduction that goes to everything from law enforcement, treatment, rehabilitation, interdiction of large amounts of drug as it is in the flow, 

working with our partners down south. We have never had a real 

serious public campaign here in the United States. 

I testified in this room in April, you had some real experts up 

here about behavior modification, tobacco, Mothers Against Drunk 

Driving-type campaigns. You never get to zero. But we have to reduce the amount of drugs used. Forty-seven thousand Americans 

died last year from drug overdoses. It cost America $250 billion. 

We have to do something. 

Senator LANKFORD. I would agree. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Lankford. 

Now back to the Northern Border, Senator Heitkamp. [Laughter.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. I deserved that. There are a lot of critics of 

the Northern Border here. 

I am going to just rapidly go through a number of things that 

you and I talked about that you know are of great interest, and I 

think Senator Tester hit on the recruitment, so did Senator Daines. 

Absolutely critical. We think that DHS has begun a process that 

can actually result in some successes. Please stay on top of that. 

We absolutely have to give these folks help. And it is not fair what 

is happening to a lot of our Border Patrol agents, Customs and 

Border Protection, who are told literally they cannot move home to 

other parts of the country or transfer. You are going to lose those 

folks to other Federal agencies who will, in fact, give them an opportunity to move. So it is critical that we pay attention to the 

workforce on the Northern Border, pass the bill, sign the bill. We 
40 

look forward to your analysis, putting your touch on the Northern 

Border, challenges and issues, and I am greatly interested in how 

that whole thing comes out. 

Cybersecurity—I join Senator Lankford in saying we hear it coming at us from all different directions. I think historically the Intel 

Committee has kind of taken a little jurisdiction there, and we do 

not want a stovepipe or rice bowl—I think you were saying rice 

bowl. That is a new one to me. We do not want to silo these issues. 

We want DHS to assert their important role in cybersecurity. 

Human trafficking—we just did a hearing this morning for the 

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations with Backpage. It is a 

scourge. Obviously, that the Blue Campaign is working to train officers, and has been absolutely a critical resource for people in my 

State as we confront the area of human trafficking. Please look at 

that program. I think there are improvements that can be made, 

but I will tell you that your officers and investigators within DHS 

have been critical in advancing the cause of protecting children in 

this country. 

Something that I do not think has been raised here, which is 

first responders. I challenge you to take a look at what is happening with volunteer fire departments. For the vast majority of 

area in this country, the fire protection comes from volunteers. 

Maybe there is a professional or a paid staff person, but the volunteers provide that service. They are having a hard time recruiting 

volunteers. Some of that goes to equipment. Some of that goes to 

just losing a culture of volunteerism. Somebody else is going to do 

it. 

I think it is critical that you assert your role, and I am going to 

ask that you pay attention to our RESPONSE Act which just 

passed that would take a look at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA’s) role in training people, especially as it relates to hazardous and flammable material on the rails. 

I think Senator Hassan was hitting on something very critical on 

the anti-radicalization. Have you had a chance to visit with the 

folks within DHS who are working on that program and evaluate 

what you think of that program and how you would change the 

current program that they have? 

General KELLY. I have not. Because of the ingoing/outgoing 

MOU, we cannot directly touch. 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. 

General KELLY. But I am in there, if confirmed. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I really believe that it is critical that you 

bring the expertise of your service historically to that effort. I think 

that it is a little late in coming, but I think it can be a force for 

good and I think critically important. There are also some local 

grants to communities who want to bring a collaborative nature, 

bring people together, build those relationships that hopefully will, 

number one, prevent radicalization but certainly report it as a 

front-line effort. The motto, ‘‘See something, say something,’’ if the 

community does not feel appreciated, respected, or is afraid to report something for fear that it will come back to them, you are not 

going to get the intel that you need. 

I want to spend just a little bit of time talking about the Northern Triangle. I like to tell—and I think I should tell your wife, the 
41 

excuse he gave me is you no longer wanted him underfoot. [Laughter.] 

I do not know. But we are extraordinarily grateful, and you must 

be extraordinarily proud, both his daughter and his wife. This is 

a remarkable public servant. But one of the reasons why I believe 

that DHS won the Cabinet lottery—and you can tell from perhaps 

this love fest that we are having with you today—is that you have 

such a breadth of experience in an area that is very challenging to 

our Southern Border and really our entire border security. Your 

work at SOUTHCOM is critical. You told me that very many of 

those Latin American leaders called you and were very excited. 

That gives us a real opportunity. 

But one of the things that I think we have missed as we look at 

the rush of the children to the border is the opportunity that we 

have to work with organizations like the Organization of American 

States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

(UNHCR), who are trying to deal with the people fleeing violence 

in those communities and in those countries and refugee in place, 

by helping Belize, by helping Nicaragua, by helping Southern Mexico, by helping Costa Rica, who has taken a fair number of these 

refugees into their community. 

Have you had a chance to take a look at those efforts regionally 

to look at helping people out of violence but also then stabilizing 

communities? And are you at all concerned about blanket statements about nation building and whether that is going to restrict 

or in any way hamstring your ability to bring a different perspective to the Northern Triangle? 

General KELLY. Senator, the first thing I would offer, when in 

SOUTHCOM and for my entire career, every discussion really 

began and ended with human rights and a discussion of human 

rights. I had a very good relationship up here in Washington, and 

every country—every time I visited a country, I would make it a 

point to meet with the local human rights groups because you get 

a far different view of what is needed, what the real conditions are, 

from the local human rights people. 

I would make the same comment about the churches, church 

leadership in that part of the world. Of course, it is overwhelmingly 

Roman Catholic with a very sizable Evangelical Christian. I 

worked, met with those people. Oftentimes, maybe most of the 

time, the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and organizations like that have a better view and, a way ahead that is worth 

listening to. I spent an awful lot of time with them. So I am totally—but at the end of the day, really, to use an overused term, 

it is really improving the security on the ground, and investment— 

not just more money—investment monitored in the right way by 

the right organizations. The Inter-American Development Bank 

(IDB) is a particularly good one in that part of the world. I am not 

suggesting we give them money. I am suggesting we rely on them 

to tell us how to invest that money. 

But it is a tough problem, and it comes back to the incredible 

profits that flow out of our country because of the use of drugs. The 

average American who uses drugs say recreationally does not think 

there is anything wrong with it. The Latins will tell you because 

of your recreational use or your abuse, thousands and thousands 
42 

of Latins die every year that should not die. And I just wish we 

had a campaign to make people understand that there is no such 

thing as a nonviolent use of drugs. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you so much, and, again, thank you 

so much to your family and to you for your long service and your 

continued service to our country. 

General KELLY. Thank you, ma’am. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hoeven. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was presiding on the floor from 3 to 4, so one of the good things 

about coming late is that we get to hear all the testimony and the 

answers to the questions. One of the bad things is you end up last 

in line. But, again, I want to add my thanks to you for your service, 

for your service to the military and for your willingness to serve 

again, and your family, too. And you bring great experience. 

Thanks for coming by the office today and engaging in conversation 

about this important position. 

I kind of want to start off, I come from the funding side. I 

chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee for Homeland Security 

for the last 2 years, and particularly in terms of results. So talk 

to me, if you would, for a minute about how do we make sure that 

we have secured the border and that we are measuring results so 

that we know exactly what is going on and that we communicate 

those results to the people of the country so they understand what 

is going on. 

General KELLY. Well, Senator, I think the two ways to measure 

it would be—and my law enforcement friends tell me that in the 

case of drugs that come in—frankly, I am not arguing for legalization of marijuana here. I am just saying that the only drugs that 

I really ever concerned myself with at SOUTHCOM were the three 

hard drugs. All the marijuana flow that we saw was coming from 

some of the Caribbean islands south. So I just focused on the hard 

drugs. 

They will tell you that if you have an effective law enforcement 

strategy, I would argue border strategy, you will start to see the 

cost of drugs go up. They are dirt cheap now, but kind of a supply 

and demand thing, if you can reduce the availability, and that is 

one way to the street price of drugs. It is interesting, a kilo, a retail 

kilo, not street value cut down, but a kilo in Washington, D.C., 

here costs about $40,000. A kilo in most of the rest of the world 

costs about a quarter of a million dollars, and that is because of 

the business aspect of the movement. But the point is the law enforcement people say if you see the price going up, then you are 

doing something right. 

And in terms of the illegal movement of people, fewer people 

come in. In a way it is anyone’s guess how many—there is a certain number that we pick up, but it is anyone’s guess how many 

actually get through. But, I think there are some pretty good 

metrics that you could use, a range of people that get through, a 

range of people that are being processed in the legal deportation 

route. But I think those two things: how many you are actually 

grabbing at the border would be one metric, internally how many 
43 

people are apprehended and enter the process of deportation or at 

least the legal process, and then the price of drugs. I think those 

would be pretty good metrics. 

Senator HOEVEN. So are you willing to commit to provide those 

metrics so that we truly have an understanding of what is going 

on at the border, both the Southern Border and the Northern Border, but then also our international airports and seaports. 

General KELLY. Right. 

Senator HOEVEN. The issue of visa overstays, the work we need 

to do to make sure that E-Verify is mandatory so we truly have an 

understanding of who is coming, who is coming in, who is being detained at the border, and what is the resolution of someone that 

is detained. Are you committed to providing those statistics so we 

all have a common understanding of what is factually going on? 

General KELLY. I am certainly committed, Senator, but I think 

also, if confirmed, I am going to get into how accurate the numbers 

are in the first place. We are working with numbers. If you talk 

to people about the amount of cocaine, as an example, that is produced in the three countries that produce it, the spectrum is like 

this [indicating]. I am told that, 200 tons at the most, but I got 200 

tons my last year at SOUTHCOM. The Colombians got 158 tons or 

something like that. So there is wild estimates as to what the numbers are, whether it is people, whether it is drugs. 

So, yes, the commitment is there, and also a commitment to try 

to get—much of this data comes from DEA, FBI—to try to clue this 

together and come up with better numbers so we really know what 

we are dealing with. But, yes, sir, you have my commitment. 

Senator HOEVEN. How do you make sure you secure the border? 

Talk in terms of the wall, in terms of technology, in terms of people. How do you make sure we have a secure border? 

General KELLY. Perhaps the most important thing right now, as 

I have heard—and, again, this is not briefed out of Homeland Security. We are not talking to them right now. But, anecdotally, it is 

allowing the great men and women that are in the law enforcement 

business at DHS, particularly down on the border, allow them to 

do the job according to the law. 

I had an interesting experience. Just a few months ago, I was 

down on the border in El Paso, off active duty, working for the Department of Defense down there looking at some things. And I was 

talking to some Border Patrol men and women, five of them on the 

border. Maybe 200 yards down, there was a big fence there, call it 

a ‘‘wall.’’ I mean, it is pretty substantial. It is not a chain-link 

fence. It is 18 feet tall and pretty seriously constructed. But I saw, 

half a dozen or so people jump over the fence. And I am standing 

there just expecting the officers to jump in their cars, put their 

lights on, and dash down there. And they said, ‘‘What is the use?’’ 

I was surprised. That is not good for morale. 

So I think the number one thing right now would be, in accordance with the law, let the people who are tasked to protect the border do the job. 

Senator HOEVEN. So the need to really empower the people, Customs and Border Patrol—— 
44 

General KELLY. The laws are there, as I understand it. No one 

says the laws are not there that I talk to. Again, very anecdotal, 

kicking the tires. But we ought to be allowed to do our job. 

Senator HOEVEN. Touch for a minute on unmanned aerial systems (UAS), both in terms of using them on the border as part of 

the technology effort, but then also counteracting them, defense in 

terms of, other countries or penetration by other technologies. 

General KELLY. Well, I think, the beauty of the UAS is they are 

low maintenance, relatively low cost, and they do not get tired, 

they do not complain. There is no one riding them around. It is 

pretty good stuff. 

One of the things I did in Central America was encourage—they 

thought they needed air forces. They do not need air forces. They 

cannot afford them. And we got them going down the route of looking at UASs. It is a relatively cheap solution for observation purposes. 

The other part of your question about the opposition—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Counteracting. One of the things we have done 

is set up test sites to develop UAS. We are using them on the border. We need to do more of that. But then we also need to have 

the ability to counteract any type of UAS coming in or penetrating 

our system or creating a security breach. 

General KELLY. Well, one of the things—I have not been briefed 

in any way or any discussions on their use, say the cartels’ use of 

UASs, but they do use the ultralights to cross the border. That is 

another problem. They are very hard to detect. But, again, there 

are ways to pick these things up. I am not completely conversant 

on the technologies that they use to go after these ultralight aircraft, but will be if confirmed. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very 

much. And, again, General, thanks to you for your service and for 

your willingness to serve again. 

General KELLY. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Senator Hoeven. And, 

again, welcome to both you and Senator Harris. I appreciate you 

asking some great questions. 

I think what you have just witnessed here, General Kelly, is 

what certainly I have experienced in my 6 years on this Committee, a Committee of people that, again, we share the same goal, 

as you do. We share your mission, keeping this Nation safe and 

prosperous and secure. And we do not do show trials here. We treat 

witnesses with respect. 

I reserved my question time, but the Committee Members asked 

a lot of great questions, so I will not hold you any further. Just the 

last couple points. 

Every one of these hearings that we hold from my standpoint is 

all about laying out a reality, try and describe a problem, try and 

go to the root cause, just lay out the reality of the situation. I think 

the reality that we exposed in this hearing is that, as Senator 

Heitkamp alluded to, we have the pleasure, the privilege, the honor 

of holding a hearing to confirm an extraordinary American, somebody that we are all incredibly appreciative of the fact that you are 

willing to answer the call one more time, your family is willing to 

support you. So, again, I want to thank you. I want to thank 
45 

1The information referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 66. 

Karen, Kathleen, Jake, and your son John, who could not attend. 

Just thank you for serving. 

Our commitment to you is we want to help you succeed in your 

mission. We made that same commitment to Secretary Jeh Johnson. I want to wish him well. I think we all had a great deal of 

respect for the job he did. He led the effort, unity of effort, and I 

appreciate the fact in your answers you also are committed to that 

unity of effort. I think it is extremely important. 

I just spoke with Senator McCaskill. We would kind of like to see 

a unity of your responsibility reporting to Congress as well. I know 

it is a real snarl here, all these agencies with different committees. 

We will do what we can to try and at least streamline that so you 

can concentrate on your important mission of keeping this Nation 

safe and secure. So, again, I just want to thank you for your willingness to serve. 

General Kelly has made financial disclosures and provided responses to biographical and pre-hearing questions submitted by 

this Committee. Without objection, this information will be made 

part of the hearing record,1 with the exception of the financial 

data, which are on file and available for public inspection in the 

Committee offices. 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing will remain open until 5 p.m. 

tomorrow, January 11th, for the submission of statements and 

questions for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:52 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(47) 

A P P E N D I X 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 

Æ