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

94–907 PDF 2016

S. Hrg. 114–437 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 29, 2015 

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 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

DAVID S. LUCKEY, Director of Homeland Security 

WILLIAM H.W. MCKENNA, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

GABRIEL S. SUDDUTH, Senior Professional Staff Member 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN. Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN R. VIN ̃ A, Minority Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

SUSAN B. CORBIN, Minority U.S. Department of Homeland Security Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 2 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 9 

Senator Ernst .................................................................................................... 12 

Senator Sasse .................................................................................................... 14 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 16 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 19 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 21 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 23 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 25 

Senator Paul ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 33 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 35 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015 

Hon. Jeh C. Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

APPENDIX 

Chart referenced by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 51 

Statement from the American Immigration Council ............................................ 53 

Statement from the National Treasury Employees Union ................................... 58 

Response to post-hearing questions submitted by Secretary Johnson ................ 62 

(1) 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m., in room 

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

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

Ernst, Sasse, Carper, McCaskill, Heitkamp, Booker, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. We want to welcome the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), Mr. Jeh Johnson. Thank you for appearing, Mr. Secretary, and for your service to this country. I know this 

is a really big job, and I know you are working hard to succeed in 

your mission, which is basically encapsulated in your mission statement: ‘‘The vision of homeland security is to ensure a homeland 

that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards.’’ 

It is interesting because, working with Senator Carper here, we 

also developed a mission statement for this Committee. It sounds 

pretty similar. Ours is pretty simple. It says: ‘‘To enhance the economic and national security of America.’’ And, we really have two 

Committees in one here: Homeland Security on one side and Governmental Affairs, like the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 

When we developed that mission statement, we also developed a 

set of priorities which also is very close to your set of priorities. 

Your Department’s core missions are to prevent terrorism, enhance 

security, secure and manage our borders, enforce and administering our immigration laws, safeguard and secure cyberspace, 

and ensure resilience to disasters. The priorities we set were: border security; cybersecurity; protecting our critical infrastructure, 

including the electrical grid; combating violent extremism; and the 

fifth priority—and hopefully this has your support—is we really are 

dedicated to doing everything we can as a Committee to help you 

succeed in your mission. And I think we finally got Russ Deyo confirmed. That is certainly one of the things we can do as a Committee, is to make sure that you can staff your Department. 
2 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

I do have an opening statement that, without objection, I would 

like to enter into the record.1

We do have a hard break here for the address to the Joint Session of Congress by the Prime Minister of Japan, so without further ado, I will turn it over to our Ranking Member, and just realize for all Members, we are going to have to have a hard break 

here, somewhere between 10:20 and 10:30. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, great to see you. Thanks for your service and the 

leadership that you are providing. We are grateful to the Chairman 

and all the Members of our Committee here encouraged the Republican and Democratic leadership in the Senate to move the nomination of Russ Deyo. We think he will be a great addition to your 

team. I am glad that you recruited him, and I am glad that he is 

on the payroll. I hope we can replicate that success with the President’s nomination of Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger as our next Administrator for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), 

a critically important position. With John Pistole, he has a tough 

act to follow, as you know, but I think you picked a really good candidate. So we are going to do our best to move him quickly. 

As we know, the President has requested a little more than $41 

billion dollars in discretionary funding for the Department of 

Homeland Security. For the first time in several years, we are talking about an increase in discretionary spending over the previous 

year. And I support the President’s budget request for DHS and am 

pleased that he has recognized the need to provide the Department 

with an increase in funds. I believe it is truly needed if we expect, 

Mr. Secretary, for you and your team to effectively and efficiently 

carry out the many vital missions that you have. 

For example, this budget request makes a sizable investment— 

I think it is over $800 million dollars—in cybersecurity, and these 

funds will help DHS to better secure our financial institutions, our 

electric grid, as well as many Federal agencies from cyber attacks. 

It also includes our recent investments in border security. This 

year, for example, the President is requesting roughly $845 million 

more than last year for Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This 

funding would maintain the current record level of staffing for the 

Border Patrol and make targeted investments in force multiplying 

technology and equipment. For our colleagues who are eager to 

pass a border security bill, I respectfully suggest that supporting 

the President’s budget request is a very good place to start. 

I was also very encouraged to see a proposed increase in funding 

for the ongoing consolidation of the Department’s Headquarters at 

St. Elizabeths. Completing this project will ultimately save the taxpayer more than $1 billion dollars over the next 30 years by cutting 

down the number of costly leases that DHS has all over this town. 

Research that my staff and I have done indicates that funding the 

DHS project will not only improve operations but it will also improve employee morale at DHS. 
3 

1The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 37. 

All of these needed investments and many more, however, may 

disappear if DHS is required to absorb the deep funding cuts proposed by our colleagues in the House. I understand the House has 

just established its high mark for DHS discretionary spending in 

fiscal year (FY) 2016 at a little more than $39 billion. That is $350 

million less than the Department is working with this year, and it 

is almost $2 billion dollars less than what the President has proposed. Cuts this large could hurt our security and stall many initiatives at the Department. The threats we face as a country are just 

too great and too complex to fund DHS below what it received in 

2015, and even below what was received in 2014. 

I understand some of our colleagues are willing to spare the Department of Defense (DOD) from cuts and even to increase defense 

spending. While defense spending is certainly important—we know 

it is—we must remember that the Department of Homeland Security is also a vital part of our national security efforts. We need to 

work harder together to find a fair and responsible solution for the 

budget challenges facing all of our essential government agencies. 

I look forward to hearing from the Secretary about the impacts 

that budget cuts considered in the House would have on our security, as well as the potential impact of sequestration on DHS, 

should it kick in. 

In closing, again, we want to salute the brave men and women 

that you lead in the Department and thank them for all they do 

to keep us safe. Their work is important. We think that we are 

making progress. Thank you so much. Thanks for joining us and 

for your leadership. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you would please rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear that 

the testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, 

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Secretary Jeh Johnson is the fourth Secretary of Homeland Security. Prior to joining DHS, Secretary Johnson served as General 

Counsel for the Department of Defense, where he was part of the 

senior management team and led the more than 10,000 military 

and civilian lawyers across the Department. Secretary Johnson’s 

career has included extensive service in national security, law enforcement, and as an attorney in private corporate law practice. 

Secretary Johnson. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. JEH C. JOHNSON,1 SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have my 

prepared statement. I will not read it. I will say one or two things. 

One, I appreciate the leadership that many Members of this 

Committee in particular showed in getting us a fully funded DHS 

for FY 2015. I believe that the FY 2016 budget submission is a 

strong submission that funds our vital homeland security missions. 
4 

I would like the Committee to know that this year in particular 

I have made management reform one of my New Year’s resolutions 

and top priorities to make for a more efficient and effective Department of Homeland Security. 

I am very pleased at the support we have received from this 

Committee in particular in filling the vacancies in DHS. We have 

had 12 Senate-confirmed Presidential appointments to the Department, including myself, since December 2013, the last one being 

our Under Secretary for Management, Russ Deyo. I hope that the 

Senate will move quickly on the nomination for our new TSA Administrator, Vice Admiral Pete Neffenger. 

As Members of the Committee know, we have moved forward 

with our Unity of Effort initiative. We have realigned a number of 

major headquarters functions. We are working to get off the Government Accountability Office (GAO) high-risk list, and, indeed, 

GAO has singled DHS out as a model for how to resolve all the 

issues that DHS has. We have moved forward on acquisition reform, and we are addressing aggressively the various personnel 

issues in terms of transparency, hiring, promotion opportunities 

that a number of Members of this Committee have written to me 

about. So we are moving forward on a number of fronts there, and 

I will be pleased to answer questions about our different missions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We like short 

and sweet. 

I will start out with the questioning here. Let us start, because 

I am getting these questions all the time. We had the gyrocopter 

incident, and I do not want to get into any kind of details other 

than to talk about the penalties or right now the crimes, the felony 

and the misdemeanor that Mr. Doug Hughes is being charged with. 

And to what extent do you believe that is a deterrent or not a deterrent? And is this Administration at all taking a look at strengthening those penalties? 

As I am aware, he is being charged with operating an unlicensed 

aircraft. That is a felony with a penalty of up to 3 years’ imprisonment. And the violation of the airspace is a misdemeanor with only 

a 1-year potential penalty. I think I have that correct, but to me 

that is completely inadequate based on the extent that Mr. Hughes 

put other lives in jeopardy. I have stated repeatedly that Mr. 

Hughes is very lucky to be alive, and anybody else that is contemplating such a stunt should realize that Mr. Hughes is very lucky 

to be alive, and I would just like to have your comment on that and 

what we can do to deter future actions such as that. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, unauthorized intrusions into 

the airspace of the National Capital Region I think is something 

that, in terms of the criminal penalties, we ought to look very seriously at enhancing. Fence jumping at the White House in the absence of any aggravating factors is also just a misdemeanor. And 

I believe it is something we should seriously look at. It constitutes 

a diversion of significant government resources to address the particular incident. It constitutes a threat to public safety, not just to 

the intruder but to those on the ground. And I believe that as a 

deterrent, we should also consider looking at enhancing the penalties for those types of offenses. 
5 

Chairman JOHNSON. I will certainly support you in those efforts. 

Let us hop over to border security. That is a top priority of your 

Department as well as of this Committee. We have held multiple 

hearings, roundtables, and if we can put up the chart of the current situation, the year-to-date figures of unaccompanied children. 

I realize we are not at the full crisis levels we were last year, but 

we are still far higher than we were, for example, in 2011 or even 

the beginning of 2012 when President Obama announced the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals. 

It is interesting to note that in 2005 we had a similar surge from 

illegal immigrants coming in from Brazil, and according to a news 

report, an article that was published in September 2005, the number of illegal immigrants coming from Brazil was 3 times higher 

than previous years, and it was exceeding 30,000. So Secretary Michael Chertoff employed an initiative called ‘‘Operation Texas Hold 

’Em,’’ and he said that, ‘‘The word spreads surprisingly swiftly. 

Within its first 30 days, the operation had already begun to deter 

illegal crossings by Brazilians. In fact, the number of Brazilians apprehended dropped by 50 percent. After 60 days, the rate of Brazilian illegal immigration through this sector was down 90 percent 

and is still significantly depressed all across the border. In short, 

we learned that a concentrated effort of removal can actually discourage illegal entries by non-Mexicans on the Southwest border.’’ 

The facts were that Brazilians illegally entering the United 

States dropped from 31,063 in 2005 to 1,460 in 2006. 

Now, I really want to talk about what the policies have been, 

and, again, it is better than it was last year, but we have not even 

begun to solve this problem. Or we have maybe begun to solve it, 

but certainly not to anybody’s satisfaction. 

Can you tell us, Mr. Secretary, how many of the children that arrived last year—and that number was, I believe, over 51,000? Is 

that a correct figure? How many of those children have been returned to act as a deterrent? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, the unaccompanied 

alien children (UACs) who came into the country in FY 2014 are 

in removal proceedings. Those proceedings, particularly when they 

assert asylum claims, tend to be pretty time-consuming. We have 

prioritized those cases to put them at the top of the stack. But I 

suspect that the number of those actually sent back at this point 

is nowhere near the 51,000 that you have cited. 

Chairman JOHNSON. It is extremely small, isn’t it? Somewhere, 

less than 5 percent, somewhere in the 2-percent range, 2 or 3 percent? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Because of the time it takes to go through 

a deportation proceeding of a minor who is asserting an asylum 

claim, it is, I am sure, nowhere near 51,000. 

Chairman JOHNSON. The information I have is that the current 

court dates set for those notices to appear for a court date currently 

are in the year 2019. Is that pretty accurate? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not know that to be true. I do know that 

the Department of Justice (DOJ) along with our immigration enforcement attorneys prioritized those cases to put them at the top 

of the stack. So I do know that. That was a decision we made last 

summer. 
6 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 51. 

Senator MCCAIN. So he has no idea. 

Chairman JOHNSON. As we are trying to grapple with a border 

that is not secure—and, by the way, that was our first hearing. We 

had four witnesses. There was no planning between witnesses— 

very strongly in their written testimony made the point that the 

border is not secure. We have talked about the drug cartels, 

transnational criminal organizations, the potential nexus with Islamic terror. This is an enormous problem. 

But, I keep coming back to the fact of what do we have in our 

own laws that incentivizes illegal immigration. I think one of those 

is, again, we have this lengthy adjudication process for illegal immigrants coming here from countries other than Mexico and Canada. Is that a policy that this Administration would be willing to 

take a look at so that we can be as effective as we were in addressing the Brazilian surge as we take a look at what is happening 

with the people coming here from Central America. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, you mentioned the Brazilian surge and 

Secretary Chertoff. Last year, when these numbers started to go 

up, I brought in Secretary Chertoff and consulted him about the 

Brazilian surge, and he told me basically what you said, that it is 

a very market-sensitive environment, and you have to show the 

population in Central America that you are sending people back. 

And so we dramatically reduced the repatriation time for the 

adults from something like 33 down to 4 days. We ramped up the 

flights. We established expanded family unit detention space. A lot 

of people did not like that, but we did it, and I was very public 

about that. And we embarked on a public messaging campaign, and 

we also cracked down on the smuggling organizations. 

So we did a number of things that in one way or another contributed to a pretty dramatic dropoff in the UAC numbers and in the 

overall numbers, beginning June 10, 2014. That was the peak, and 

then it started to decline. And the numbers have remained low 

ever since, but I am interested in keeping those numbers low and 

making them lower, which is reflected in our budget submission. 

Without a doubt the process for adjudicating an asylum claim in 

this country is a time-consuming one. It is more complex and more 

complicated when you are dealing with a minor. And it is something that could be made more efficient. Part of our budget submission is to add enforcement attorneys to the process so that we can 

devote more resources to it, and I know DOJ is interested in doing 

that as well with the judges. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Well, just real quickly, in closing, when 

you take a look at that chart,1 I would dispute the fact that the 

numbers are low. They are lower than they were, but they are still 

not low. And I have a number of questions, more detailed budget 

questions, that we will submit for the record. But we also have a 

lot of requests for information from the Department. For example, 

how many children have been returned? What are those court 

dates set? So I hope and I encourage the Department to work with 

us very closely to answer those questions, because without information, you simply have no chance of starting to solve these problems. 

So I want to work closely with you to get that information so we 
7 

can take that first step that solving any problem is admitting we 

have it. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I am not an expert on Brazil, but my recollection 

was that the Brazilian economy was not especially robust in the 

years around 2005, and they had an incredible surge of their own, 

an economic surge that helped convince people who had been ready 

to bail out on their country and come to this country to say, well, 

maybe they should just stay at home. And I think there might be 

a lesson there, just as there is a lesson from Plan Colombia. There 

might be a lesson if we want to slow and reduce the flow of unaccompanied minors, families with children. We may want to do 

something to help facilitate their economic recovery in Honduras, 

Guatemala, and El Salvador. 

We had an excellent meeting with General Kelly the other day, 

who has explored with us his views on that area, and I would just 

ask your reaction to that thought. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do believe that part of addressing the overall phenomenon is addressing the push factors in the Central 

American countries. I know that in our FY 2016 budget request— 

I think this is through the State Department—there is something 

like $1 billion requested for the three Central American countries 

to deal with the underlying issues there around poverty and violence. And so very definitely the push factors contribute to illegal 

migration from Central America. it is the motivator for them leaving the country in the first place. 

Senator CARPER. I want to go back to the rightful concerns raised 

by our Chairman about the flow of particularly younger people into 

this country. One of the things we have endeavored to do, as my 

colleagues know, is to change the messaging so that instead of the 

coyotes being able to message the families in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador that they can, for a couple thousand dollars, 

get their kids up to the United States and they will have legal status, quite a different message has been spread. Would you explain 

just a little bit about maybe how the messaging has changed over 

the last year to the folks in those three countries? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, we were getting anecdotal evidence 

from talking to the migrants that the coyotes were putting out the 

message that there were ‘‘permisos’’—free passes—in the United 

States if you make it across the border. And that was an inducement to pay the coyotes whatever the fee is, $6,000, $8,000. It is 

like a sale that expires at the end of the week and you have to take 

advantage of it now. 

We put out a pretty aggressive public messaging campaign, some 

of which came under my own name, that the journey is dangerous 

through Mexico, especially for a child; it is dangerous to hop on top 

of a freight train; and that our policies are not such that the border 

is open; and that you will be put into a removal proceeding if you 

come here. 

We believe that that contributed to the downturn in the numbers, along with a number of other factors, and the information 

that we are getting now is that people in Central America are no 

longer being told by the coyotes the story they were being told last 

summer. And they know that our borders, given the investments 
8 

we have made over the last number of years, 10, 15 years, have 

more resources now than they did before, and there are still, as the 

Chairman points out, a number who are crossing daily. But the 

numbers are, in fact, lower, and we think that the misimpressions 

that the coyotes put out last summer are not being spread as widely this summer. 

Senator CARPER. Good. I want to ask you to just comment on the 

budget request from the President, the level that the House appropriators have set discretionary spending for your Department. I 

think the Administration has asked for about $41 billion. 

Secretary JOHNSON. 41.2 

Senator CARPER. A slight increase from current year funding. I 

think the House appropriators have set the spending levels at $39 

billion. 

One of the things that you indicated we needed more of was attorneys to represent these kids that come here seeking asylum, and 

one of the reasons why it takes—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. Actually, I meant that for the immigration 

enforcement. 

Senator CARPER. All right. One of the reasons why it takes a 

while to process these claims and get people moving is because we 

do not sufficiently fund this particular area. So I would just ask 

that we keep that in mind. 

Just talk to us more generally about the $2 billion—how you are 

going to take care of a $2 billion cut if we ultimately end up having 

to accept the House appropriations level of $39 billion. Where does 

that money come from, out of what hide, what program? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, in my judgment, that would represent 

a significant step backward in our homeland security/border security efforts. If we have to work with the $39 billion level, I suspect 

that the funding for the headquarters would be in jeopardy. But I 

also believe that the additional funding we seek for border security, 

for detention capability, for aviation security, for the enhancements 

we need to make for the Secret Service, the hiring of additional Secret Service personnel, would be in serious jeopardy. 

Do not forget that there are a number of personnel-related costs 

tied to inflation that we have to fund no matter what. And so everything else we would have to take a very hard look at, and a lot 

of our missions are missions that I know Congress wants us to 

fully fund, for border security, aviation security, counterterrorism. 

And so it would be an ugly process to have to try to fund the Department at that level. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

I mentioned to you before the hearing started that I met with 

Andy Ozment over breakfast this morning from your cyber team. 

We talked about the two bills over in the House on cybersecurity 

information sharing. They have been merged together. The House 

is sending them to us. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CARPER. We have a couple of different approaches: a bill 

reported out of the Intel Committee, currently legislation that I introduced, in part mirroring what the Administration has suggested 

with respect to information sharing. And we will be taking up on 
9 

the floor—my guess is in May—cybersecurity information-sharing 

legislation in the Senate. 

Any thoughts you have on what we ought to consider and keep 

in mind as we take up or move toward taking up that legislation? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We have some what I will characterize as 

‘‘minor concerns’’ about the legislation moving forward. But, overall, I think that the two bills are a good piece of work. I believe 

that the McCaul bill, as between the two, is a better bill. I think 

that legislating information sharing between the private sector and 

the government is the overarching objective that we ought to try 

to achieve. I think that the single portal, primary portal concept, 

setting up DHS as the primary portal for information sharing is 

something we ought to try to legislate. 

I believe that limitations on civil and criminal liability for those 

who share information with DHS is something we ought to try to 

legislate as well. 

So, overall, I am very pleased to see that Congress is active in 

this area, and I support the idea of legislating cybersecurity. I 

think it is something we really need to do. 

Senator CARPER. Good. We look forward to working with you on 

that. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Do 

you believe that the President’s Executive Orders (EO) on immigration are constitutional? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, I do. 

Senator MCCAIN. You do. You said the numbers of these apprehensions are down, and that is good news? Down from 19,000 to 

9,000, if these numbers are accurate? That is really good news? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The numbers are down from 2014 as well as 

2013. If you are focused on the overall numbers, those numbers are 

lower than they have been in a couple of years. But I am not suggesting—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Than they have been in a couple of years? 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. This constitutes victory. 

Senator MCCAIN. In 2013, there were 7,000, according to this. So 

it is just a little lower than last year—or somewhat lower than last 

year and higher than any other year. 

Look, we are not going to argue, but the fact is you are being disingenuous when you say that the things are really a lot better. 

Nine thousand eight hundred is not satisfactory to anybody in my 

State. 

So do you know the percentage of the number of young people 

who have met their court dates for appearances once they have 

showed up on our border? Do you know the percentage that have 

showed up for the dates they are supposed to? 

Secretary JOHNSON. If you are referring to unaccompanied children—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Yes. 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. I do not know the number offhand, sir. 
10 

Senator MCCAIN. I wonder why you do not. I wonder why you 

would not know that number. I think the American people and this 

Committee need to know that, because you and I know that the 

percentage is very small, somewhere around 10 or 20 percent. So 

the intent of the law was that children were supposed to be able 

to come to our border in order to get a fair and unbiased judgment 

about their need for asylum in the United States. So the law is 

being perverted. When you only have 10 to 15 or 20 percent of the 

children who show up on our border who show up for their court 

date, then the law is not being implemented, because the intent 

was to give them the benefit of the judicial system here in the 

United States, and they are not showing up for it. So obviously the 

law is not being implemented in the way that it was intended. 

Are you aware of the percentage of the young women who are 

brought by these coyotes—and all of them now are brought by 

coyotes for thousands of dollars. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. Do you know the percentage of young women allegedly who are raped on the way? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have not seen a percentage of those who 

have been sexually assaulted. 

Senator MCCAIN. You have heard that there is a sizable number. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I know it is a sizable number because 

that—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Doesn’t that concern you, that a sizable number of young women are raped on their way up to this country? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Of course it does, Senator. Of course it does. 

Senator MCCAIN. Then why do you support—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have spoken to—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, then, why do you support legislation and 

a policy that encourages such a thing then if you do not like it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, Senator, I think that I support and encourage and am working toward a policy that discourages illegal 

migration from Central America, particularly among women and 

children. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, certainly it does not discourage illegal migration if we have a law that says that if they show up on our border, they can stay here and only 10 to 20 percent of them are meeting their court dates. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Senator, I have been in enough processing 

centers to talk to pregnant 15-year-olds to be utterly disturbed and 

upset about that. Do not mistake—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, then you would think—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. Please do not misunderstand that. 

Senator MCCAIN [continuing]. If you were utterly upset and disturbed about it, then you would think you would want to bring a 

halt to it. And the halt to it is to set up consulates and expand our 

embassy capabilities there to handle these cases there. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, that is exactly what we have done. 

Senator MCCAIN. Rather than have them subjected to the cruelties of the coyotes, and then once they get here, they do not show 

up for their court dates. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is exactly what we did, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. You did what? 
11 

Secretary JOHNSON. We set up in-country processing in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. 

Senator MCCAIN. Then why are 9,802 showing up at our border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, the number is considerably lower than 

what it was last year—— 

Senator MCCAIN. That is acceptable, 9,800 is considerably lower? 

That is good news? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not consider that good news. I do know 

that—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, the way you are portraying it, you act 

like it is. And it is not. And what is happening to these young people, including young boys as well as women, is something that you 

would want to bring to an abrupt halt. Instead we see this continued flow and treatment of these young people that is beyond cruelty. And so you are happy with the fact that there has been a reduction, and there are only nine thousand—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. You are mischaracterizing what I have said, 

sir. May I be allowed to comment? 

Senator MCCAIN. Sure. 

Secretary JOHNSON. The numbers are considerably lower in every 

sector, including the State of Arizona. I have said repeatedly in my 

public statements that I am not declaring, ‘‘Mission accomplished.’’ 

We need to strengthen border security. 

In reaction to last summer, we did a number of things to reduce 

the repatriation time, to surge resources, to establish family unit 

detention capability, much to the objection of a number of advocacy 

groups. I am being sued in the city of Washington, D.C., for that, 

but we did it because I thought it was necessary and appropriate. 

We have done a number of things to prioritize prosecuting the 

coyotes. We have prioritized the deportations of the kids, though it 

is a time-consuming process. So I do not want there to be any misunderstanding that, in reaction to last summer, we have done a 

number of things that I want to maintain on the Southern border. 

Senator MCCAIN. Of course, there has been no reduction in the 

activities of the coyotes. How many of the coyotes you say you have 

captured and prosecuted? 

Secretary JOHNSON. It is in the statement I released last week. 

The number is right here. I can take the time to look for it, but 

it is in this statement, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. So you have really made a dent in the activities 

of the coyotes? Of course not. So the fact is that we now have still 

a larger number, according to these numbers, of unaccompanied 

children, larger than it has ever been, with the exception of last 

year, and you are acting like that is some kind of achievement. 

I will not even talk about, because my time is up, General John 

Kelly’s assessment on our border, who said, ‘‘Terrorist organizations could seek to leverage those same smuggling routes to move 

operatives with intent to cause grave harm to our citizens or even 

bring weapons of mass destruction into the United States.’’ That 

was General Kelly, the Commander of Southern Command 

(USSOUTHCOM). 

So, Secretary Johnson, I do not see how you could sit there and 

act like you have achieved something when only 10 to 20 percent 

of the young people who have come to this country actually show 
12 

up to plead their case to be able to remain in this country. And as 

far as I know, the information that I have, the activities of the 

coyotes have certainly not been impacted by any action that you 

have taken since they do not—so I am deeply disturbed about the 

fact that my Southern border of my State is still not secure, that 

we are still seeing a record number, with the exception of one year, 

of unaccompanied children showing up at our borders who are 

being subjected to unspeakable things on the way up, which does 

not seem to enter into your calculations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCain. Senator Ernst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 

Johnson, for being here today. I do appreciate the fact that you are 

working with your Department to streamline it, make it more efficient, and more effective for our citizens. So thank you for doing 

that and for your efforts. 

I do want to reference Senator McCain, and he had asked about 

President Obama’s Executive actions on immigration. I would just 

like to know the impact and how you are implementing that departmentwide. What actions have been taken? What are the implications to your Department? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, there were nine Executive actions that 

I signed out on November 20 that the President announced. One 

of them is Deferred Action for Parenthood Arrivals (DAPA) and the 

expansion of the criteria for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

(DACA). That is the subject of the Texas litigation. 

There are a number of other things that we did. We directed the 

Southern Border Campaign Strategy, which is bringing to bear on 

the Southern border all the resources of my Department DHSwide—Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), CBP. Up until now we have 

been too stovepiped in the history of my Department. So one of the 

things we directed was the Southern Border Campaign Strategy. 

We also directed pay reform for our immigration enforcement 

personnel. They are on a pay scale that tops them out at GS–9, and 

so we want to get them to GS–13. 

We announced the end of the Secure Communities Program. A 

lot of people have questions about why the removal numbers are 

lower this year than in years prior. One of the big reasons, if not 

the big reason for that, is because so many State and local jurisdictions were passing laws and ordinances limiting their ability to cooperate with us in the Secure Communities Program, so that it 

made it harder for us to get at the criminals that we want to deport. And so we as part of our Executive actions created something 

called a ‘‘Priority Enforcement Program,’’ which I believe resolves 

the legal and political controversy of the old Secure Communities 

Program. And the outgrowth of that is that I and other senior leaders of the Department are now going around the country talking 

to Mayors and Governors who have passed these laws and ordinances to say, ‘‘We have a new program, and we want you to cooperate with us in our enforcement efforts to get at the convicted 

criminals.’’ And so far we have been getting a pretty good reception 
13 

to that, but it is an effort at public safety. It is all for the purpose 

of public safety and prioritizing criminals. 

Refocusing our efforts on prioritizing criminals is another one of 

our Executive actions, and then there are some others that we also 

issued out to facilitate issuing green cards in the high-tech sector 

and a few others. 

But on the immigration enforcement side, on the CIS side, we 

are doing a number of things to try to reform the system. 

Senator ERNST. And the impact to the DHS budget as far as the 

Executive actions are concerned departmentwide, I am assuming 

that has created an increase in the budget. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, a lot of our policies, our new policies, 

are, in fact, reflected in the budget submission. So we are 

prioritizing border security and that is reflected in our budget submission. Detention space is expensive, and we want to expand it. 

It is expensive. 

More immigration enforcement attorneys to get at enforcement 

against threats to public safety is also reflected in the request for 

added numbers of attorneys there. So those are two such examples. 

Senator ERNST. Great, and great segue, because you mentioned 

that detention is expensive. What about alternatives to detention 

for those that are low risk? I know that the use of GPS-enabled 

ankle bracelets has been discussed in the past. That is just one example. And it runs a lot less, of course, than detaining somebody 

in a facility or detention center. And can you just visit a little bit 

or inform us, is the Department moving toward those types of alternatives? Thoughts on that? Just finding alternatives that would 

work for us that are less costly to our taxpayers. 

Secretary JOHNSON. The answer is yes. There is a large single 

item in our budget submission for alternatives to detention. I believe it is larger than in years prior. It is something that we would 

like to move toward for those that are considered not to be a risk 

of flight. And as you pointed out, there are some pretty sophisticated ways, through ankle bracelets and otherwise, to track these 

individuals. Ankle bracelets have been around for a while now, 

from my days as a prosecutor 25 years ago. And so there is a separate line item for alternatives to detention, and it has increased, 

as I recall, from years prior because it is something we would like 

to do where we think it is appropriate. 

Senator ERNST. OK. So, some pros there where it is more costeffective. Are there any disadvantages to using that type of system 

that we might not be aware of? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, Senator McCain is right in that the 

number of people who report for their deportation court dates is 

not where we would like it to be. So it should be higher, and my 

hope is that through a good, robust alternatives to detention program, we can get that number up. We can track these individuals 

better. 

Detention is appropriate in many circumstances, in my judgment, but it is not right in every case, and it is usually expensive. 

Senator ERNST. OK. Well, I appreciate it. My time is expiring. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Ernst. Senator Sasse. 
14 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SASSE 

Senator SASSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 

Johnson, for being here. 

DHS was created in large part to be the Nation’s first line of defense against domestic terror attacks, and obviously nuclear weapons are our greatest threat. In 2012, the Department announced its 

fundamental shift from a resource-based to a risk-based approach, 

and I wonder if you could just talk us through two or three of the 

concrete ways border security looks different because of the new 

risk-based approach and what kind of metrics you use, please. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Sure. The best example of a risk-based strategy most visible to the American public is TSA. We have, for example, TSA Precheck. TSA Precheck is an illustration of a risk-based 

strategy in that through a background check you get a certain 

number of people that you know more about that go through the 

shorter lines. There are also determinations made at the airport 

about who can go through the shorter line so that we can focus 

more of our resources on the population we know less about, the 

riskier population. And I think it is pretty effective. It is popular 

with the American public. The lines move quicker. But we also are 

seizing more weapons. Last year, we seized more weapons in carryon luggage at airports than in the years prior. A lot of them, something like 80 percent of them, were loaded. 

Border security between the ports also is moving toward a riskbased approach, more surveillance, more technology. That enables 

us to monitor where the migrants are moving, so we focus on those 

areas. They are pretty discrete. For example, last summer, in the 

Rio Grande Valley, a lot of the kids were all migrating to a very 

discrete point in the Rio Grande Valley, and we were able to see 

that through our surveillance and detection capability. 

In terms of detecting any potential nuclear threats or threats at 

ports, we now have very sophisticated scanning devices, and there 

are sophisticated judgments made based off of manifests and other 

indicators about what should be considered higher risk and, therefore, subject to higher levels of scrutiny. And so that is the overall 

direction we are headed. I think it is an efficient and effective way 

at border security at the ports, in the airports, on land. 

I will note as an aside that I have your letter. 

Senator SASSE. Thank you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. It is a very thoughtful, detailed letter. I 

would like to endeavor to take a number of those questions for the 

record and get you some thoughtful responses. 

Senator SASSE. That would be great. Thanks. Could you just give 

us a ballpark sense of when we would have a response? I know we 

just sent the letter 2 days ago, so I am not pushing yet, but curious 

as to how long you think a response will take. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Probably about a week, I think. I just made 

my staff gasp. 

Senator SASSE. We will take it. I actually saw the gasping. It was 

on both your right and your left. 

Secretary JOHNSON. As you know, Senator, I think in the legal 

profession, my favorite saying is: ‘‘I do not need more time. I just 

need a deadline.’’ 
15 

Senator SASSE. Fair enough. The Department has argued that a 

100-percent operational control objective is imprudent, and I understand some of the argument for why that is because you would be 

devoting certain kinds of resources in places that might be lowerrisk threats, and if you build a matrix of how to think about where 

we want to make those investments, what we are trying to do is 

to deter catastrophic events before all else. 

Could you tell us whether or not you think you have 100-percent 

situational awareness of the border? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We are certainly moving in that direction. 

Every time I have looked at this exact issue, on the Southern border in particular—and I think I have seen analysis for the Northern border as well—our situational awareness is getting better. But 

it gets better by virtue of surveillance technology, surveillance capability. And there is a lot of that reflected in our budget request— 

more mobile surveillance, more aerial surveillance—and the more 

we have, the more situational awareness we have. 

Senator SASSE. So would you say that it is the Department’s objective to have 100-percent situational awareness? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The Department’s objective is certainly to 

have 100-percent situational awareness in at least certain sectors. 

I do not know whether that would be absolutely true for every single sector of the border. In general, it ought to be. But the immediate term, I know that the percentage of border land for which we 

have situational awareness is increasing all the time. 

Senator SASSE. Do you think we will have 100-percent situational awareness during your tenure? 

Secretary JOHNSON. During my tenure? Probably not during my 

tenure. My tenure is growing short. I would like it to be over at 

a certain time. I do not know that we will be able to achieve that 

before the end of this administration, if that is your question. 

Senator SASSE. It is. And so I think back to the post-9/11 moment and heading toward the election of November 2004, there was 

great fear that terrorists would seek to exploit the period of lame 

duck status if John Kerry had beat George Bush at that point. 

There was a view that those next 60 to 75 days would be particularly precarious. Do you share a view that Administration change 

is a uniquely risky time? And if so, and if we are not going to have 

100-percent situational awareness, who in the Department owns 

that strategic risk assessment? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, it is principally Customs and Border 

Protection, and I will certainly commit to Congress that during a 

transition period to the next Administration, I do not intend to pull 

back or take my foot off the gas in terms of homeland security. 

Senator SASSE. Thank you. I am nearly at time, and I appreciate 

your commitment on my letter, so most of what I would like to talk 

about in these Government Accountability Office reports I will 

leave to a followup to the letter. But I would like to ask you one 

particular one here. 

A covert GAO investigation in September looked at how the CBP 

could ‘‘detect and interdict’’—their words—nuclear materials at 655 

ports and checkpoints. While most of the report was classified, it 

did find in a public way differences in the rates of success for interdicting smuggled nuclear and radiological materials. In your view, 
16 

does that mean that CBP was unsuccessful at detecting nuclear 

materials in the GAO test? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I do not know two things. I know that 

we are generally very good at the ability to detect nuclear materials at the ports. We have 100-percent scanning at the ports. I also 

know—and I believe this is true—that CBP has accepted the recommendations in the GAO report and is moving forward on them. 

Senator SASSE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Sasse. Senator 

McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, on your budget, there is an awful lot of talk and rhetoric 

about how border security is about national security and how important it is in terms of our fight against terrorists that you be adequately funded. And I mean this in all seriousness. I think you 

ought to make a request to the leadership of the House and the 

Senate that you be included in the overseas contingency operating 

budget. That is going to be used as a form of a slush fund this year. 

They are upping the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund 

without—and they are not going to pay for it, so it allows them to 

escape some of the angst they have within their party about everything being paid for. But, clearly, they are going to try to use that 

to address ongoing budgetary needs of the Defense Department, 

writ large. 

And so I think the time has come, if OCO is going to be used 

in a fairy tale-like fashion to do what should be done in the base 

budget, I would think it would be time for you to discuss with the 

President and the leadership at the Defense Department that you 

have every justified right to be in OCO. If we are all going to talk 

about the border being about our defense, then it seems to me we 

have to make sure you are in that slush fund, too, because if you 

get cut because you are not part of the Defense Department, it does 

not make any sense to me. 

Let me go through a summary first. In the Obama Administration, has illegal immigration gone up or down? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Apprehensions, which are an indicator of illegal immigration, have gone down over the last 15 years, including 

in the Obama Administration. 

Senator MCCASKILL. All right. And what about deportations in 

the Obama Administration? Have they gone overall up or down to 

the previous administration? 

Secretary JOHNSON. They have gone up, and now they are going 

down. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And DACA does not apply to illegal immigrants coming to this country after it was signed. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is correct, yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And so the coyotes are lying to these families in Central America. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Is there anything we can do to stop the 

coyotes from lying about what the President’s policies are? 
17 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, and I think we have. We put out a very 

aggressive public messaging beginning last summer, including 

statements I have issued in Spanish, that you can see posted, for 

example, at bus stops in Guatemala City. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So perhaps one of the reasons we are seeing 

a downturn is the coyotes no longer have open space to lie about 

what the policy does and does not do. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe that, yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. And while we have seen an increase 

that is now going the other way of these apprehensions of unaccompanied children of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, isn’t it 

also true that, besides DACA being announced, the homicide rate 

in Guatemala at the same time period had gone up by 20 percent, 

the homicide rate in El Salvador had gone up by 50 percent, and 

that Honduras has the highest murder record in the world? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I know that the levels of poverty and violence and the levels of violence in particular are still very high, yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So if you are a mother in those countries 

and you have a coyote telling you that you can keep your child safe, 

I just think it is important that that go on the record, because this 

is not about people sitting around and making a political calculation in these countries. This is about mothers trying to save children. Correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Now, on immigration detention—oh, 

and by the way, one of the things I have been yelling about since 

I got here, since the day I got here, even with your predecessor, Mr. 

Chertoff, was when I arrived in the Senate in 2011, your Department could not tell me how many businesses had been prosecuted 

for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. And, in fact, that has been 

a huge magnet in this country, that we were never going after the 

businesses that were knowingly hiring. Not those who were accidentally hiring, but those who we could prove easily. And as a 

former prosecutor, Secretary Johnson, that these cases would not 

be hard to make if you have five people using the same Social Security number. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is knowingly. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And what we were seeing up until a few 

years ago is we would see photo op round-ups of businesses and deportations, but no criminal action taken against the employer. Can 

you tell me how many employers as of today we have put in prison 

for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is a knowable number. Sitting here, I 

cannot tell you, but I suspect that is a knowable number. And the 

point you are making is one of the reasons why I support mandatory E-Verify. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, and that is one of the things I think 

we ought to talk about, is those numbers, because when I asked 

this question of Secretary Chertoff back in 2007, not only did he 

tell me they did not know, the person in charge of ICE at the time 

said they could not even figure it out how many had even been arrested. So we were trying to keep track of what was going on at 
18 

the border, but we were keeping no track of, in fact, shutting down 

the magnet, that is, many people in this country looking the other 

way because it was cheap labor and it was not a priority to go after 

the businesses that were not playing by the rules, that were unfairly competing with other businesses. 

And so I would really appreciate it if you would give this Committee a brief of where we are in terms of going after the businesses that are knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, which is, in 

fact, against the law. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I can do that, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Finally, on immigration detention costs, I 

want to echo what my colleague from Iowa said about the costs of 

immigration detention. While I do not agree with the statistic that 

Senator McCain used about who is showing up, we do know that 

when these juveniles have a lawyer and they know what is going 

on, they have had a translator, over 90 percent of them are showing up. We do know that. And we know that it is costing $300 a 

day to detain them. 

Are you thinking about, along with ankle bracelets, trying to 

make sure that we have enough lawyers who can speak Spanish, 

who can address these families that are being held so that we get 

a much higher rate of appearance at these hearings? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. That is something that both the Attorney General and I have undertaken to do, and we have undertaken 

to do that with the bar associations as well. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I would like some kind of information 

on that, because I think if $300 a day—I admit we can probably 

get lawyers for a couple of hours for that. And a couple hours 

might be all it takes for someone to really understand what is expected of them, where they have to be when and so forth. And I 

think that might be much cheaper than what we are doing now 

with these detention centers. And my time has expired. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Chairman, could I make one brief point in 

response to Senator McCaskill’s point about sequestration? 

Chairman JOHNSON. Sure. 

Secretary JOHNSON. The Department of Homeland Security, it 

must be remembered, is not just border security. By any means 

possible, I want Congress, I am urging Congress to avoid sequestration for my Department. It is border security, it is port security, 

it is aviation security, it is maritime security. It is the Secret Service, it is the protection of our national leaders, it is cybersecurity. 

So it is not just border security we are talking about here that is 

in jeopardy if we have to function at sequestration levels. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Make a request for OCO funds. I am telling 

you, it is the Promised Land. [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I do think it is 

important to note, seeing as people are chiming in here, that regardless of what DACA actually says, the letter of that memorandum, as long as the reality is that if you are a child from Central America and you get into this country and 95 to 98 percent are 

still in this country and they are staying, that is the reality that 

is going to drive the actions of parents in Central America. Again, 

I think the public relations campaign probably has had some kind 
19 

of effect. But, again, if the reality is you get here, your court date 

is set for 2019—again, I want that verified. I want to find out what 

the facts are. And that is part of the problem. We do not know the 

information. 

And so that is the first step, that we have to start getting better 

information to find out exactly what is happening. But, again, the 

reality is going to drive action. 

Our next questioner is Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Johnson, for appearing here today and for your testimony. 

I would like to take a moment to ask a little bit about infrastructure and staffing at our ports of entry (POEs), an issue that you 

and I have discussed before at some length. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator PETERS. As you are well aware, our ports of entry are 

essential for supporting trade and tourism, and how efficiently they 

operate can make or break our competitiveness, particularly in 

Michigan, along an incredibly busy corridor of business. We ask the 

Department of Homeland Security to do two things: keep us safe 

and not slow us down as we cross the border, particularly when it 

comes to just-in-time delivery, and agricultural products. 

I offered an amendment to the budget last month, which was cosponsored by Chairman Johnson, to create a deficit-neutral reserve 

fund to support increased trade and travel, including conducting 

construction and increased staffing at ports of entry, and I am glad 

that amendment was adopted, and I look forward to continuing to 

work with the Chairman to support the economic growth and efficiency at our ports of entry. 

Secretary Johnson, as you saw when you visited Michigan last 

year—we were together in the city of Detroit, and you headed up 

to Port Huron after that meeting—we have two of the five busiest 

land crossing in the country in terms of value of shipments in Detroit and Port Huron. These two crossing are critical for manufacturers, as I mentioned, for just-in-time delivery. Our agricultural 

sector, which is highly diverse in Michigan, requires safe and efficient transport across the border. And I appreciate the agreement 

reached, which you worked on with the Canadian Government earlier this year, on the New International Trade Crossing which will 

have Canada fund construction of the bridge as well as the customs 

plaza. And I appreciate your commitment to make sure that that 

plaza is fully staffed with CBP personnel. And I look forward to 

seeing that project move forward. 

I also strongly support the preclearance agreement that was 

signed last month between the United States and Canada, which 

will lead to expansion of preclearance locations for all modes of 

transportation. I think this is a very important step in realizing another one of the goals of Beyond the Border Action Plan that we 

had in 2011. 

But I do have concerns about the lack of action on another item 

from the Beyond the Border agreement, and that is upgrading the 

physical infrastructure at key border crossings, and one of those 

key border crossings where infrastructure improvements have not 
20 

occurred is in the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron. The Blue 

Water Bridge desperately needs expansion of its customs plaza, 

and it is ready for construction of that plaza. This is the fourth 

busiest land crossing in the country. It is the second busiest border 

crossing on the Northern border. In fact, the city of Port Huron was 

prepared, had assurances from the Federal Government that this 

plaza was going to be expanded and enhanced. They acquired property. They demolished property, which had an impact on their tax 

base as they prepared the land for that expansion. And yet the expansion has not occurred. The land continues to sit idle, and it continues to be an economic drag on Michigan, on the city of Port 

Huron, and it is really unjustified, in my mind. And, unfortunately, 

there is still no funding in this year’s budget for the Blue Water 

Bridge plaza modernization. 

Mr. Secretary, could you please tell me and the Committee here 

what the DHS and CBP’s plan is for the Blue Water Bridge customs plaza expansion? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, as you probably know, Senator, I have 

been to Port Huron myself, in addition to going to Detroit. 

Senator PETERS. Right. 

Secretary JOHNSON. And I have seen the backup of tractor-trailers over the bridge because of the few lanes open for the customs 

capability. I do know that a couple of years ago, or maybe even 

more recently than that, we added some stacking in the toll plazas 

to try to expedite the traffic across the bridge. And I have seen 

what the town did to prepare for the expanded customs plaza 

space. They literally demolished buildings to prepare for the expanded area, and for lack of funding, we are not able to get there. 

I think that the case for expanded customs capability at the Blue 

Water Bridge is clearly there, and we have to prioritize, and I am 

pleased that we are funding the personnel for the new customs 

plaza in Detroit for the new bridge there. That is clearly a very 

compelling case. 

The Blue Water Bridge is also something that I would like to 

eventually see us expand our capabilities there. You and Representative Miller have in a very compelling way made that case. 

Senator PETERS. Well, how do we proceed to the next step to 

make that a reality? What do we do to move this forward? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, we have to prioritize it, and I think 

that building the customs plaza for the second bridge in Detroit 

has to be a key priority. Ultimately, I do want to get to the Blue 

Water Bridge, and that is something we ought to take a look at 

perhaps in next year’s budget. 

Senator PETERS. Well, I would appreciate that if we could elevate 

that, sir, because certainly the bridge in Detroit is still a few years 

away. It is not built yet. That will not be coming online until 2020, 

and certainly it is significant. But we have a project ready to go, 

and I do not want to get into a situation where it is Port Huron 

versus Detroit. We have the No. 2 busiest border crossing in the 

country and the No. 4. When you have two of the five, we need to 

do both, and Port Huron is ready to go now. So I would certainly 

appreciate your comments and hope that we can push that to the 

top of the list as a border crossing in desperate need, has the volume, is ready to go; the land has been cleared. And that can be 
21 

done, and then we focus on Detroit, of course, when 2020 comes, 

which is an incredibly significant infrastructure project, not just for 

Michigan but for the whole country. 

So I appreciate your efforts on that. I appreciate you coming out 

to Michigan, and I appreciate your comments today that you would 

like to make that a priority in next year’s budget. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Peters. Senator 

Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A couple questions. First off, on 100-percent situational awareness, obviously that would involve not only the Southern border 

but also the Northern border, and the Deputy Secretary was out 

and spent a couple days with us on the Northern border. Grateful 

for the visit. He did a great job there. 

Has the Department ever prepared a budget or prepared a plan 

that would give you 100-percent situational awareness? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Senator, I do not know the answer to that 

question. Let me look at that. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think that when we are talking about it, I 

think all of us, every person in this country, probably wishes for 

100-percent situational awareness. And my concern on the border 

has been, as we have beefed up and amped up the security and the 

awareness at the ports of entry and within distance of the ports of 

entry, you are pushing a lot of that traffic to rural America that 

is ill equipped to handle it, especially the first responders, because 

they literally are 40, 50 minutes away from a 911 call in many 

places in my States, and I have spent a lot of time on the Southern 

border and have seen it there. 

And so I would like to see a budget and a strategy for 100-percent situational awareness on the border, and until we have that, 

I do not think, this is just pie in the sky, and we are punting back 

and forth. Let us try and kind of find out what the numbers are, 

do the cost-benefit on it, figure out if there is a way to resource it 

so that we can actually get it accomplished. 

My other concern has been for firefighters. Obviously, with the 

situation of crude oil on the rail and trains presenting some new 

challenges, especially for rural fire departments, we have paid very 

close attention to this. The President’s budget requested about 

$670 million for firefighter assistance grants. In North Dakota, we 

are retooling and preparing for the new challenges. 

Your reduction of $10 million in both programs for rural assistance may not sound like a lot of money in real dollars, but for those 

rural fire departments, it is a huge opportunity. I would like you 

to just tell me what the strategy is to have a country that has a 

vibrant network of first responders as we lose more and more volunteers and as the funding for those rural fire departments becomes even more and more difficult and critical. Why would you 

guys suggest less resources for firefighters? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, obviously, firefighters as first responders are key. Senator, I think you made a reference to rail oil spills 

earlier. I actually read your bill and will have some thoughts on 

that. 
22 

We provide, between State and Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants, something like $2.2 billion a year for various different things, including firefighters. In some jurisdictions, we are 

helping to pay the overtime for firefighters. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I would like you to address the rural component of that. We have firefighters who tell us, volunteer chiefs, who 

spend 200, 300 hours filling out grant applications, to get rejected 

because they have not done it right or to basically get a very small 

amount of money. And so we are obviously very concerned about 

this in rural America. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I do know that we are in a position to 

help somebody with the application process. I also know that I 

have encouraged my staff—and I have not seen this in your State, 

ma’am, but I do know that there are other jurisdictions where the 

application was not very well filled out, but I said, folks, try to look 

past that and let us look at the real need here. And so I do not 

want to see a grant denied because of the application process. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Just to give you an example, for those jurisdictions who apply for assistance from the Forest Service, it is a 

one-page application. Yours can take as much as 200 hours for 

pretty skilled folks to fill out. They are hiring grant writers. And 

so just take a look at that, I think that to the extent that you can 

streamline that process, especially for rural firefighters. 

I want to also talk about border—back to the rural borders. We 

have an extraordinarily difficult time keeping employees, Federal 

employees, in North Dakota. The cost of living has increased. I 

think this has had a very dramatic effect on Customs and Border 

Protection and on Border Patrol, especially in remote outlooks. I 

am wondering what additional steps your agency can take to recruit and retain and reward these folks for living in places where 

other people would not maybe want to live—I think they are beautiful, but other people may not want to live there—just so that we 

can maintain that situational awareness in remote outposts. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is a good question. I am sure that there 

are some sorts of incentives we provide to encourage our CBP personnel to serve in all parts of the country. I have to believe your 

State in particular is a great place to live. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you. It is. 

Secretary JOHNSON. But let me look at that question, Senator. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think anything that you can do that would 

be helpful to address the concerns of rural America as it relates to 

homeland security. And I am not just talking about borders, but 

obviously interior-wise, I would challenge you to take a look at 

what is happening with the volunteer fire departments. Volunteer 

fire departments are losing volunteers. It is harder and harder to 

recruit new members. We are aging in place. I cannot give you the 

exact statistic, but I think about 80 percent of the land mass in 

this country is protected, probably over that, by volunteer firefighters. 

And so sometimes we think, as bad things happen in major cities 

and as people focus on population centers, we leave behind some 

of the challenges of providing first responder readiness, situational 

awareness in rural America, and I would just challenge you, along 

with the Deputy when he was out there, to give some special atten-
23 

tion to our first responders and rural America. They are a huge 

part of our protection. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I wanted to ask you, I come from the proud State of New Hampshire, the Live Free or Die State, and one of the things that we, 

I think, put a premium on in our State is privacy and issues of personal protection. And we are in a situation where on the 2005 

REAL ID Act, there are some provisions of it we have complied 

with, 32 of those, but our legislature on a bipartisan basis has really spoken for the people of New Hampshire and their reflection on 

prohibiting compliance with certain parts of the REAL ID Act. So 

I guess I have a question for you. We also wrote you recently—I 

do not know if you have seen it—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have. 

Senator AYOTTE [continuing]. Myself and the entire delegation, 

because we have not been granted an additional extension where 

some other States have been in terms of the compliance with the 

REAL ID Act. But I just need to understand for the people of New 

Hampshire—and I support their concerns, by the way. I think that 

this is legitimate, and I think that people in New Hampshire, we 

are a State that certainly values protecting our national security 

and the public, but we are also a State that has a long, proud tradition on a bipartisan basis of protecting privacy and people’s concerns. 

I just want to understand, starting in 2016, since we have not 

yet been granted this extension, will this Administration essentially prohibit Granite State families from getting on a commercial 

airline with a valid New Hampshire license? Because that seems 

to me the implication that we have 1.3 million people in our State, 

and I want to understand what happens if you have not granted 

us an extension, like you have other States, and we have valid concerns with this law that I think that many other people share. And 

you know what? I support my constituents on this. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Senator, the REAL ID Act was passed by 

Congress in 2005 or 2006, and my Department is charged with implementing it. We have done so on a very deliberate timeline. I did 

receive your letter, and our assessment is that it would not be very 

difficult for the State of New Hampshire to put itself in a position 

where we can give you an extension. There are a majority of States 

out there that either have complied or have been granted extensions, and I recall from the discussion with my staff that it would 

not be that difficult for the State to put itself on the path to an 

extension, and I would certainly encourage you to encourage State 

officials to do that. It is a law that I am charged with implementing. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, Mr. Secretary, I think the issue is it 

would not be that difficult if we do what the Federal Government 

wants us to do, and I think that happens a lot in terms of, basically 

States being told what to do. And this is one where my State feels 
24 

really strongly about it. I hope that you will look at our letter seriously again, and I think that this has been an issue that New 

Hampshire has spoken loudly and clearly on. And I hope that you 

will look again at the letter. But when you say it is easy for us to 

comply, I think that translates to, yes, if we do what the Federal 

Government asks us to do. And so, again, I hope you will go back, 

look at the letter, because this is a real issue for people in New 

Hampshire, and it is an important issue for them. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I certainly do not want to see 1.3 million 

people in your State have an issue at airports. And so our folks 

want to work with State officials to avoid that. 

Senator AYOTTE. Good. I do not either, and I also respect their 

rights to exercise their viewpoints and the importance that they 

place on issues like privacy as well. 

I am really pleased that yesterday the President announced the 

formal nomination of Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger to become TSA 

Administrator, because I know that is a very important position 

that needs to be filled, and I am looking forward to us moving 

quickly on that. And I am also Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, 

so it is important. 

With regard to TSA Precheck, as we try to increase the population participating in the program, which has been a very good 

program, I think it is important that we delineate between those 

who have been vetted and those who have received expedited 

screening through other avenues, such as managed inclusion. And 

I recently had a chance to sit down with Inspector General John 

Roth, and while I cannot get into the details in this setting, what 

is your assessment of the Precheck program? What is your assessment of the role of managed inclusion, to the extent you can comment on that here? And are we sufficiently screening the population and really separating those who should be in the program 

and who should not? 

Secretary JOHNSON. My assessment of TSA Precheck is that it is 

a good program. It is popular with the American public. And in this 

public setting, I will say that I think we have to manage managed 

inclusion very carefully and not overdo it. 

The original intent of TSA Precheck was that people who have 

been vetted go through the shorter lines. And so, I have said to 

TSA I want to be sure that when it comes to the managed inclusion 

facet of the program, that we look at that and we manage that very 

carefully. 

Senator AYOTTE. I am glad to hear that, and, in my other role 

as Aviation Chair, I look forward to working with you on that. I 

think it is important. I think Precheck is a great program, but we 

need to make sure that this program is managed carefully on the 

inclusion issue. 

One final question. Manchester-Boston Regional Airport, Secretary Johnson, this airport is the largest in my State. It serves a 

lot of folks in the New England region, including Boston and New 

Hampshire, of course. It is a user-fee airport with limited access to 

Customs and Border Protection services. How is port of entry defined? And are there instances where port of entry encompasses 

more than one physical or geographic location? And is this an issue 
25 

I can work with you on to address some of the concerns that Manchester-Boston Regional Airport has raised on port of entry? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. I would really appreciate it. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not know the answer to the question 

you asked about how to define port of entry, but I am happy to 

have further dialogue about that. 

Senator AYOTTE. I would appreciate it. Thank you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. OK. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Secretary Johnson, thank you. It is good to 

see you again, and I want to say thank you again publicly to you 

for being in Oklahoma City on April 19 when we were remembering the Murrah Building explosion 20 years ago and for 

your—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I was really pleased to be there, and I 

thought it was a great day. 

Senator LANKFORD. It was. That is the day that Oklahomans 

continue to remember and the Nation continues to remember, and 

thank you for coming and being part of that. Your words were spot 

on. So thanks for being there as well. 

I have a whole litany of issues, so I am going to run through 

them fairly quickly. One is dealing with the flood mapping issues 

with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Obviously, we have a $1 billion cost here to redo the flood maps when 

Congress just changed with the Biggert-Waters bill how we are 

going to actually grandfather in a lot of those policies—which, by 

the way, I disagree with that whole decision, but that is a conversation for another day. At the end of it, we have a $1 billion cost coming down from 

FEMA to remap when those maps will not actually be used for revised flood costs for the risk insurance. Is that a good use—is there 

a better time to do that—of those other dollars? Why put it in this 

year and at this time? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, we need new flood maps. I think it is 

time to do that. We need new flood maps, and it is not inexpensive, 

very clearly. I am interested in a solvent Flood Insurance Program 

that is affordable for the insureds, for your constituents and others. 

And so it is time for new flood maps. It is something we need to 

do. 

Senator LANKFORD. I am, too. Well, we can talk about that further. One of the things I would challenge as well is in many areas 

of my State, through the initial mapping that was done and the 

way that it was done, many areas were looped into flood space that 

were not traditionally flood space. When they went back to an engineer that was local and an engineer actually shot it locally and 

then did the challenge, over and over again those were being overturned. And I do not know what the rate is nationally, but the stories over and over again are coming back, if they come back and 

challenge it and can show documentation, they are getting it overturned. But it is costing each of these homeowners about $1,000 to 

$2,000 to come and have someone physical shoot it rather than do 
26 

that from satellites. So there are some challenges that we are going 

to have to work through the process to make sure it does not increase the cost for the individuals while we are dealing with flood 

mapping as well. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I hear you on that. 

Senator LANKFORD. Let me go through a couple other things as 

well. I know DHS has some protocols in place on this, but I want 

to be able to just reaffirm on the budget issues, protocols or memorandums of understanding (MOU) in place with other agencies to 

ensure there is not duplication of effort. Obviously, there are multiple grants; there are multiple efforts that DHS does that other 

entities also do. I just want to make sure that actively DHS is 

working to have those memoranda of understanding in place so we 

are not duplicating effort with other agencies. Do you feel comfortable we are at that spot? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, that is a priority of mine. Yes, sir. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK, great. We will followup on that. 

OK. This is just a personal pet peeve. We are going to go off the 

rails for a minute. 

Secretary JOHNSON. OK. 

Senator LANKFORD. This is something that has been there for 10 

years that I would like to see shift at some point. 

Secretary JOHNSON. OK. 

Senator LANKFORD. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) questionnaire in the civics test, the oral test, has in 

it one of these things: What are two rights of everyone living in the 

United States? And then it lists out six different things: freedom 

of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to 

petition the government, freedom of worship, the right to bear 

arms. 

Now, this has been around for a decade. I would love to see ‘‘freedom of worship’’ actually shift to ‘‘freedom of religion.’’ We in the 

United States actually have freedom of religion, not freedom of 

worship. Worship confines you to a location. Freedom of religion, 

we have the right to express. We have this unique ability in America not to say that our government limits us to worship in this spot 

and you can do anything you want. It is to be able to live your 

faith. Again, that is previous conversations on it, but love for you 

to be able to take a look at that again. 

Let me also affirm something. Right after the Federal judge put 

a stay on the policy change on immigration late last year, you publicly came out quickly and said DHS will follow the Federal judge. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. That what they have stated, we are going to 

stop and we are going to follow the Federal judge. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. So thank you for stepping up to be able to 

do that. Here is the challenge and where I have had some back and 

forth on it, because the Subcommittee that I chair also has the 

Federal workforce in it. As you know, DHS has had some challenges just on worker morale with the Federal agencies. Again, 

that has been there for a long time. You have walked into it. But 

that is a great responsibility that you have, is to be able to reinforce some absolutely fantastic people that serve with DHS around 
27 

the country, that literally put their lives on the line for Americans 

every single day, quietly, behind the scenes, and do great work. So 

we are incredibly grateful for the work that they do all the time. 

But when you made that statement, and then a week later the 

President during a town hall meeting in Miami made the statement—when someone challenged him and said, ‘‘Are we going to be 

deported during this time period since this judge has made this 

statement?’’ he responded back, ‘‘There will be consequences for 

any ICE agent that does not follow my policy.’’ 

Now, I am not asking you to be able to repeat back the President. That is not fair to you. What I am asking is: I started getting 

responses back from DHS folks saying, ‘‘We do not know which way 

to go. The Secretary said we are going to follow it. We feel like the 

President just said there are consequences if we do not follow his 

new policy. And we are in a bad spot.’’ 

The challenge is: How are you managing that within the entity 

to be able to communicate back to people there will not be consequences on individuals if they follow the law and if they follow 

a judge’s order? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, let me be very clear about something. 

What was enjoined was implementation of a new program called 

the Deferred Action for Parenthood Arrivals. 

Senator LANKFORD. Correct. 

Secretary JOHNSON. As well as the expanded criteria, certain 

very specific criteria that expanded upon the DACA program from 

2012. Those are the two things that are the subject of the litigation. 

Senator LANKFORD. Correct. 

Secretary JOHNSON. What is not a subject of the litigation are 

the new revised priorities for how we focus our removal resources. 

That is a separate policy, which I issued out on November 20. 

Senator LANKFORD. Correct. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Which is not subject to the litigation. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. Aware of all that. 

Secretary JOHNSON. And that has been trained to the workforce, 

the ICE workforce, the CBP workforce, and that is going forward 

and should be going forward. I believe in training the workforce. 

I believe in educating the workforce. From my time at the Department of Defense, I know that that is essential. And, Senator, if you 

believe that there are elements of my workforce in your State that 

have some doubt about it, then I would be happy to work to clarify 

it. 

Senator LANKFORD. What can be done from your office to reinforce back to the workforce both that they are protected, if they 

have an issue, they can still be a whistleblower, that they do not 

have to live in fear, that they can still follow policy that is clear 

policy and clear law, and they have the sense that I can still do 

my job and what I have done for a long time without retribution? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I have encouraged people repeatedly, 

again, if there is a particular field office of any one of our components where we think that there is some confusion or doubt about 

that, I am happy to focus on that like a laser beam to make sure 

that there is clarity. I think clarity in how we train, how we edu-
28 

cate on new policies is critical. I know that from my DOD experience. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Paul. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL 

Senator PAUL. Thank you, Secretary Johnson, for your testimony. 

Do you believe the Fourth Amendment applies to third-party 

records? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am not sure what you mean by third-party 

records, sir. What do you mean? 

Senator PAUL. Telephone company records. 

Secretary JOHNSON. You are asking me a legal question. 

Senator PAUL. It is a pretty big question. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, I am sorry, Senator. I am not sure I 

know how to answer that. 

Senator PAUL. Do you believe the government has the right to 

have bulk collection of records from millions of individuals without 

a warrant? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Ah, I see. I respectfully say that is beyond 

my competence as the Secretary of Homeland Security to answer 

in any intelligent legal way. I would not want to hazard a legal 

judgment on that. 

Senator PAUL. Here is the problem, though. Your agency is in 

charge of cooperating and being part of this. And that is the whole 

debate we have in our country, is over whether you should do this. 

In your testimony, you complain about encryption. Why do you 

think that companies are choosing to go in the direction of more 

encryption? It is because they feel you are taking our information 

without a warrant. 

So I would hazard that and I would propose that there is no person named ‘‘Verizon,’’ so you do not have an individualized warrant 

under the Fourth Amendment when you say to Mr. Verizon we 

want hundreds of millions of records. And this is a debate, and it 

is an important one, and if we are going to complain about 

encryption or we are going to complain about individuals wanting 

privacy, we really need to have a thorough discussion and understanding of the Fourth Amendment and the complaints by many of 

us that you are doing something without a warrant. 

The other thing I would say is with encryption, I am one of the 

biggest civil libertarians there is, but if you have a warrant, I am 

fine with you getting and unencrypting data from people. I am also 

fine with you going 20 hops into the data. I do not care how deep 

you go into it. Just call a judge. 

What we need to do is have a system where judges are on call 

24 hours a day, but still there is a judge. The reason we separated 

the judiciary from the police is a very important one. The civil 

rights era, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people were spied upon in our country. War protesters were spied 

upon in our country. The reason we separated the judiciary from 

the police is to try to prevent the possibility of bias. And people 

say, ‘‘Oh, the government is good.’’ But look at the times when the 

government was not so good. The Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) Director recently pointed back and talked about the times 
29 

when Martin Luther King was spied upon. That is why we want 

these procedural protections. 

And so I think as you look forward and as you talk about this, 

just realize that when you have your doubts about encryption, 

think back to the times in our history when we did not do so good 

a job. Those of us who want to try to protect privacy are trying to 

make sure that no sort of institutional bias could enter into our 

legal system again. And I think it is a very big question, and there 

are some of us who say by all means get all the information you 

need on terrorists, but get a warrant with someone’s name on it. 

If it does not work well, put more judges there and have them on 

the phone 24 hours a day. We do it for the police. The police do 

not go into a home unless there is a commotion going on or imminent danger. The police stand on the curb at 3 in the morning, and 

they call a judge. We should do the same for American citizens, 

and we really should not be collecting their data in bulk. That is 

why we are mad, and that is why people are attempting to encrypt 

information, is to prevent the government from doing illegal 

searches of our records. 

Secretary JOHNSON. May I respond? 

I gave a speech to 3,000 people at a cybersecurity conference last 

week where I brought up the subject of encryption. I was not real 

popular for doing that. The problem we have is that the marketplace is demanding deeper and deeper encryption into places where 

the warrant authority of the government does not extend. So the 

analogy I used last week in that speech was imagine after the advent of the telephone, the warrant authority of the government 

only extends to the U.S. mail. 

Senator PAUL. I am not sure I understand that. Why would the 

warrant authority not extend? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Because with encryption there are communications that records of which are simply not being maintained because of the added security that is being put in place because of 

the privacy demands that exist in the marketplace. 

Senator PAUL. Which is a response to the government collecting 

all of our records. See, you have to realize that the real culprit is 

government. You have been so overzealous in vacuuming up all of 

our records without a legitimate warrant that everybody around 

the world—it is costing the United States billions of dollars in the 

sense that people in Europe and around the world do not want our 

stuff. They do not want any of our hardware embedded in any of 

their computer code because they are worried that the government 

is going to stick stuff in there and that you will have back-door access and you are demanding access, so no one wants to buy our 

stuff. So it has been a big problem for our companies selling things 

worldwide, but it is a response to a government that did not have, 

I think, a real sense of decency toward privacy. The companies are 

in response to your behavior. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, look, I am in favor of a balanced solution to the problem. In fact, it is now harder for law enforcement 

to detect criminal activity out there. And I think it is something 

we need to address one way or another, and I am in favor of a balanced approach that takes account of the privacy interest of the 

American public. 
30 

1The statements referenced by Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

Senator PAUL. But you think it is a balanced approach to collect 

all of the phone records and store them in Utah without an individualized warrant? You think that is a balanced approach? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not have a particular comment or specific view about the past. I am concerned about the future and the 

direction we are headed and the effect it is having on our ability 

to detect crime and potential terrorist activity. 

Senator PAUL. But here is the question. See, the question—the 

President’s own Privacy Committee recommended that we quit collecting these. He has the power to stop it at any point in time, and 

yet he is not doing a thing. His own Privacy Committee that he appointed said that you have gone too far in the bulk collection of 

records, and the President has done nothing to stop it, although 

this is an Executive Order program that he could stop at any point 

if he chose to. I do not think that is a balanced approach to continue doing what his Privacy Committee specifically said exceeds 

the bounds where the Constitution intended. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think we are looking forward for Congress 

to act in this area. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thanks, Senator Paul. I did assure the 

Secretary that I would get him to the Prime Minister of Japan’s 

speech on time, so we will close out the hearing. I know the Ranking Member have some statements that he would like to enter in 

the record and may offer some more. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, I do. Just briefly, if I could. Again, our 

thanks to you for being here with us today and for your leadership. 

The issue raised by Senator McCain, I just want to give a brief, 

two-sentence clarification. This comes out of the Office of Immigration Review’s Statistical Yearbook for Fiscal Year 2014: ‘‘Rates of 

appearances for unaccompanied children and families compare favorably to appearance rates for the general immigration court population. in completed cases in FY 2014, 66 percent of all non-detained immigrants appeared according to the Executive Office of 

Immigration Review’s Statistical Yearbook. When minors are represented by counsel, that rate goes up to 90 percent or higher.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, for the record to include in our statement and our hearing materials this piece of work 

from the American Immigration Council dated July 2014.1

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Sure. 

Senator CARPER. And I have a number of questions that I want 

to ask you for the record, if I could, and I would just look forward 

to your responses. Thank you so much. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Without objection. 

I guess my final closing comment is that we have talked about 

100 percent situational control of the border. I think you appropriately answered that is not going to happen within this Administration. 

I guess I would just encourage this Administration to look at a 

step-by-step approach. I know it has been said that it has to be 

comprehensive. We need to start increasing the level of security at 

our border. There are dozens of things that we need to do. 
31 

So, Mr. Secretary, I just would really hope that the Department 

will work with this Committee, work with this office, and let us 

start taking that step-by-step approach. I come from a manufacturing background. Continuous improvement. You are not going to 

solve the entire problem overnight. You are not going to solve the 

entire problem with some comprehensive approach. So if you could 

just provide me that assurance you will have an opinion mind and 

at least look at the individual step-by-step approach so we can 

start increasing the security on the border, it would be appreciated. 

There will be, I am sure, a number of additional questions for the 

record. The hearing record will remain open for 15 days until May 

14 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:37 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
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 

Æ