U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–634 PDF 2014

S. Hrg. 113–427 

NOMINATION OF HON. JEH C. JOHNSON 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOMINATION OF HON. JEH C. JOHNSON, TO BE SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

NOVEMBER 13, 2013 

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 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

BETH M. GROSSMAN, Chief Counsel 

DEIRDRE G. ARMSTRONG, Professional Staff Member 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

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

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

ANDREW C. DOCKHAM, Minority Chief Counsel 

DANIEL P. LIPS, Minority Director of Homeland Security 

SARAH BETH GROSHART, Minority Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 4 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 6 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 9 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 19 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 21 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 24 

Senator Begich .................................................................................................. 27 

Senator Paul ..................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 43 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 45 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2013 

Hon. Cory A. Booker, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey .................. 1 

Hon. Robert Menendez, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ............... 3 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 52 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 76 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 79 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 155 

Letters of Support ............................................................................................. 191 

Information provided for the Record by Senator Coburn ..................................... 146 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF HON. JEH C. JOHNSON 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SD– 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Levin, McCaskill, Tester, Begich, 

Heitkamp, Coburn, McCain, Paul, and Ayotte. Also present: Senators Menendez and Booker. 

Chairman CARPER. The hearing will come to order. Thank you. 

Before Dr. Coburn and I give our opening statements, I just want 

to welcome Mr. Johnson, I want to welcome his family, and we will 

have an opportunity, I think, to meet a couple of them here in a 

few minutes, but you all are good to come. We are happy that you 

are here. 

Senator Menendez is going to be joining us shortly. But I think 

it is fitting, since Cory Booker is a new kid on the block, that we 

let him go first. We are happy that you are here, literally and figuratively. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman CARPER. Welcome. Thank you. Have you done this before? Is this the first time you have introduced a witness? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CORY A. BOOKER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. This is my first time introducing a witness, and 

it is appropriate that I should introduce somebody of such extraordinary caliber. So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, you giving me 

the opportunity, and obviously in deference to the senior Senator 

of New Jersey, Senator Menendez—Senator Coburn, obviously it is 

good to see you as well and thank you for this opportunity. 

I am really thrilled today to have the chance to join Senator 

Menendez in introducing someone who I have known for quite 

some time, who is well-known in the State of New Jersey, and the 

opportunity to support the nomination of this fellow New 

Jerseyian, Jeh Johnson, as the next Secretary of the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS). 

But out of deference, as I see the senior Senator from New Jersey walk in—who is instructing me to continue, so I shall do what 

I am told. 
2 

Chairman CARPER. He is on a roll. You do not want to stop him. 

Go right ahead, please. Welcome, Senator Menendez. 

Senator BOOKER. So I know all of the Senators here have seen 

many of letters urging the Senate confirmation of Jeh Johnson. 

They were penned not only by me, but by many others, many of 

the most respected men and women in the military intelligence 

communities. I am thrilled to see people like former Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs, Mike Mullen; former Secretary of Defense, Bob 

Gates; and three previous DHS Secretaries, Tom Ridge, Michael 

Chertoff, and Janet Napolitano. 

Those letters reflect the respect and admiration of people who 

have worked long hours with Jeh, often on difficult and very complex issues. But the support that caught my eye comes from America’s police organizations. They say something really important 

about Jeh. 

I may be new to the Senate, but as a former Mayor, I know that 

there are difficult issues facing our country, and specifically, we 

have a nation that has been targeted by terrorists. Indeed, the city 

that I represented for 7 years had some specific facilities targeted 

by terrorists. We are in a State that also has been hit by one of 

America’s most costly natural disasters. And we have a region that 

remains a key node for immigration. 

I know how vitally important close coordination between Federal, 

State, and local agencies are. As a former Mayor, I can provide 

firsthand testimony to the strength of that coordination in recent 

years. We have made a lot of progress. 

I have spent time with Jeh and I know this is something that 

he gets, the urgency, the importance, the critical nature of this coordination and these partnerships. He understands that to keep 

community safe, the relationship between Federal law enforcement 

and local cops, first responders, and elected officials is crucial. 

That is true for DHS’s counterterrorism mission where intelligence must be shared between cops on the beat and agencies at 

the Federal and State level. It is true for its work enforcing our 

Nation’s immigration laws as well. And it is also true for its role 

in preparing for and responding to disasters. 

I witnessed that during Hurricane Sandy. During the response to 

that disaster, it was officials working together at every level that 

helped to limit the loss of life and to begin the recovery process. 

There is still a long way to go, as I discussed last week with Administration officials. But with Jeh at the helm of DHS, I am confident that New Jersey and communities all over America will have 

another partner and advocate here in Washington. 

I am proud to introduce Jeh today, as you learn more about him, 

about his strengths, about his character, about his ability to lead, 

and about his love of country. He has a true commitment to keep 

American communities safe and strong. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you very much. One former Mayor follows another. A lot of people know Robert Menendez is a former 

Congressman, currently a Senator. Not everybody remembers you 

were a Mayor, and so, you bring me out to that perspective as well. 

We are delighted that you are here. 

Mr. Chairman, please proceed. 
3 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT MENENDEZ, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to distinguished Ranking Member and distinguished Members of the 

Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to join Senator Booker in 

introducing a gentleman from Montclair, New Jersey, to be our 

next Homeland Security Secretary. He is a constituent, a friend, 

and a highly qualified former chief Pentagon lawyer who would, in 

my view, be as effective in his new role as he has been in every 

role he has taken on in the past. 

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House of Representatives, I 

sat on the Select Committee that created the Department of Homeland Security. I was the author on the House floor of implementing 

the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations in its totality. 

My memory is seared by the fact of the 700 New Jerseyians who 

lost their life on that fateful September day. I know what this Department means to our country, and I would not come before you 

to support a candidate, even if he was from my State, if I did not 

think he had the intellect, the analytical ability, and the management capacity to ultimately run the Department that is so critical 

to the Nation’s security. 

That is why I strongly support Jeh Johnson for the position of 

Secretary of Homeland Security. Jeh has been an acclaimed attorney at the Defense Department where he oversaw 10,000 lawyers, 

and all of the case management that flowed from that. So when we 

talk about organizational ability, he clearly has that in a department as large and as diverse as the Department of Homeland Security. 

He is a former chief counsel as well for the U.S. Air Force, an 

Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. But 

beyond his extensive and impressive paper credentials, he has 

taken on the difficult issues at critical times. He has earned the 

trust of everyone who knows him, worked with him, seen him in 

action. 

His intellect and his deep analytical thinking skills, I think, will 

be critical to a department as large, as complex, and as important 

as this. That is why Secretary Gates and Panetta have been so 

supportive of his nomination. He developed very close relationships 

with them in the roles that he played and they came to rely upon 

his abilities. 

He is a leader who is not afraid to make his unvarnished opinions known and to make tough but intelligent decisions, and he has 

always exercised his best judgment. I have no doubts whatsoever 

that he will do the same as Secretary of Homeland Security. 

Jeh has had a long and illustrious career in and out of government. I think he will bring a profound sense and sensibility about 

national security issues to the table. I think the Associated Press 

summed up the essence of his qualifications to lead the Department of Homeland Security saying simply and clearly, Jeh Johnson 

has spent most of his career dealing with weighty national security 

issues as a top military lawyer. What better combination of qualifications, what better experience, I would say, is there for a potential Secretary of Homeland Security? 
4 

So I strongly support Jeh as someone who would oversee the 

240,000 employees who help this Nation secure itself from many 

threats that we face, and I am very thankful to the Committee for 

the opportunity to introduce Jeh Johnson, and I urge a unanimous 

vote for his confirmation. 

Chairman CARPER. Mr. Menendez, thank you very much for joining us. Senator Booker, you are welcome to stay for as long as your 

schedules permit. I know you have a lot going on as well and your 

other obligations, so feel free to leave when you need to. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER 

Chairman CARPER. Today we meet to consider the nomination of 

Jeh Johnson to serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland 

Security. As we all know, the President has asked Mr. Johnson to 

take on a difficult and demanding job. The Department is comprised of 22 distinct agencies spread across various locations 

throughout this greater Washington, D.C., area and, indeed, 

throughout the country. 

Although progress has clearly been made in bringing these 22 

agencies together, 10 years after its creation, the Department of 

Homeland Security still lacks cohesion and a strong sense of team. 

Employee morale at the Department of Homeland Security remains 

perhaps the lowest among major Federal agencies. 

Moreover, the Nation’s fiscal challenges and the effects of sequestration mean that DHS will face even more obstacles that make 

working toward getting better results with fewer Federal dollars 

even more important. All in all, even on a good day, serving as the 

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is a really hard 

job. 

Fortunately for Mr. Johnson, there are few better places to learn 

how to manage a complex national security bureaucracy than at 

the Department of Defense (DOD). Mr. Johnson has been confirmed by the Senate twice before, once as the Air Force’s top lawyer and once as the top lawyer for the entire Department of Defense. 

In part because of his experience in these positions and other demanding roles, Mr. Johnson is prepared to face the challenges that 

will await him if he is confirmed by the Senate. For 4 years, he 

was a major player in running the Defense Department. He provided key advice to not one, but two exceptional Defense Secretaries, Bob Gates and Leon Panetta, both of whom we know and 

respect. They have given him invaluable experience for the huge 

task to which he has been nominated. 

Mr. Johnson has received high praise from many. The Committee 

received a joint letter of recommendation, just in the last day or so, 

from the three individuals who have actually held this position before, Tom Ridge, Judge Chertoff, and former Governor Napolitano. 

Each of them touted Mr. Johnson as, quote, an eminently qualified 

nominee, and urge the Committee to quickly approve his nomination. 

Here is what former Defense Secretary Gates, a strong manager 

himself, said about Mr. Johnson and his time at the Department 

of Defense. This is a quote. Take my word for it. Jeh Johnson has 

successfully managed an array of major initiatives across the big-
5 

gest bureaucracy in the government, and in so doing, won the esteem of virtually everyone with whom he worked. Those are Bob 

Gates’s words. 

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Admiral 

Mike Mullen, has also expressed his deep confidence in the nominee. Here is what he had to say about Jeh Johnson. Jeh is as fine 

a person and professional as I have ever met. I am confident in his 

choice, and that he will succeed in leading this most complex organization at a critical time in our country. 

In a similar letter, former U.S. Attorney General Michael 

Mukasey, added, Jeh Johnson will bring to the Department of 

Homeland Security not only experience, but also a frame of mind 

that should be a source of assurance to anyone concerned with the 

security of this country. He understands both the issues and the 

stakes and will make an excellent Secretary. 

Mr. Johnson has also received encouraging words of praise from 

Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security Advisor to President 

Bush, as well as from former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta; 

General John Allen, the former Commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan; and a number of law enforcement groups. 

Mr. Johnson, of course, will not be alone in his task of leading 

DHS. It is critically important Mr. Johnson be allowed to surround 

himself with a capable leadership team. We can help. Indeed, we 

need to. Currently at DHS there are 13 Presidentially appointed 

positions that are without a permanent replacement. Of these, nine 

require Senate confirmation. I describe this as Executive Branch 

Swiss Cheese. 

As we consider Mr. Johnson’s nomination, we must remember 

that protecting the homeland is a team sport, and those of us in 

the legislative branch are critical members of this important team. 

Once Mr. Johnson is confirmed, we need to do our part to expeditiously vet and hopefully confirm his leadership team as well. 

Before I turn to Dr. Coburn for his remarks, let me again offer 

to Mr. Johnson the same advice publicly that I shared with him 

when we met in my Senate office recently. I said to him, eagerly 

seek the counsel of former DHS Secretaries. Talk to Tom Ridge, 

Michael Chertoff, Janet Napolitano, as well as former Deputy Secretary Jane Holl Lute. Spend a lot of time with the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) Comptroller General Gene Dodaro. 

They want you and the Department to succeed. Ask for their 

help. Do not be shy about asking for their advice again and again. 

The same should hold true for reaching out to former DOD Secretaries Bob Gates and Leon Panetta. They hold you in very high esteem, obviously. They also know what you are up against. Lean on 

them. Their collective advice will prove invaluable to you as you 

take on the role and the tasks that lie ahead. 

In closing, let me reiterate my strong support of Mr. Johnson’s 

nomination and my appreciation for his willingness to serve the 

people of this country in this new role. I want to call on my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, to join me in voting to confirm him as soon as possible. 

Mr. Johnson, if you are fortunate enough to be confirmed, I look 

forward to working with you in the coming months and years to 

better protect our homeland and its people. 
6 

1The information provided for the Record by Senator Coburn appears in the Appendix on page 

146. 

And I would just say to your family, who is gathered here today, 

your wife and your two children, a sister or two, others in your 

family that I suspect you will probably acknowledge when you 

make your comments, I just want to say especially to your immediate family and to your parents—your parents especially, thank 

you for raising this man. Thank you for instilling in him the values 

that we need in leadership roles in our country. 

And to his immediate family, his wife and children, thank you 

for sharing with our country once again a very good man. 

Dr. Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a 

lengthy opening statement and I apologize for that, but I think it 

is necessary in this case. 

Mr. Johnson, welcome. We have had great visits. I thank you for 

being here today. I personally want to thank you for stepping forward to fill this position. I think it is the most difficult position of 

all the Cabinet Secretaries. I can not think of one that comes anywhere close to it, because of the difficulties, but also because of the 

responsibilities. 

It is clear to me that you are an honorable man, from all the people that I have heard from, also from my encounter in terms of 

your intelligence. It is far above mine and most of the Members of 

Congress, which is exactly what we want. I have appreciated your 

commitment to being transparent with us and working with our 

Committee to address the fiscal and structural issues that are facing the Department of Homeland Security. 

And when you are confirmed—I am not going to say if, I think 

you are going to be confirmed—I surely hope we can work together 

through the upcoming years to fix the Department of Homeland Security, where it is broken, and to make our Nation much more secure. 

Some people may consider the nomination process a series of formalities, but it is important for us to understand one’s experience 

and qualifications. I am extremely disturbed by the responses to 

the questionnaire because the staff, either the legislative staff or 

the White House, has cut and pasted the identical answers to 23 

questions in your response, identical responses to that of other 

nominees before this Committee. 

So they are not your answers; they are their answers. And the 

shoddy work associated with that does not serve the Committee 

well. I would like to enter these into the record now to show the 

duplications and the exact words that have been thrown before this 

Committee before, and the whole purpose for the questionnaire is 

for us to get your thoughts, not legislative assistants’ thoughts at 

Homeland Security or somebody at the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) but your thoughts.1

So until those are corrected and we actually have Mr. Johnson’s 

response, I will not consider that his questionnaire has been completed. 
7 

Chairman CARPER. Without objection. 

Senator COBURN. That does not serve Mr. Johnson well and that 

is one of the problems at Homeland Security, is sometimes the Secretary is not served well by their staff. So I look forward to our 

hearing today, but I also look forward to hearing those responses. 

And by hearing your own responses and views about the Department and, there is nothing wrong with an ‘‘I do not know,’’ because 

we cannot expect you to know everything now. 

There is nothing wrong with that and that is the kind of footing 

I want to start out with. We certainly do not know a lot of answers 

and we could not expect you to know all the answers until you get 

into it. You stand to be the fourth Secretary of Homeland Security. 

The three previous were highly intelligent and dedicated public 

servants with significant experience. 

If they were here today, I would expect they would be the first 

to admit they have not adequately fixed all the known challenges 

that face the Department of Homeland Security. Through oversight 

work of both this Committee and others, we have identified a series 

of problems at Homeland Security’s programs that I would like to 

bring to your attention and ask that you focus on if you are confirmed. 

We may not be right in our assessments, but as you and I have 

spoken privately, it is important for you to get input from all 

sources. And so, I have prepared a binder for you, which I will give 

to you today. I do not expect you to read it in the next week or two, 

but it is a different viewpoint than what you are going to hear inside the organization. 

I can tell you, for us to be successful in Congress in getting 

Homeland Security what it needs and the resources it needs, there 

has to be confidence in Congress on a lot of these problems. But 

let me just highlight a few of them. 

Establish the proper balance between freedom and security. That 

is a real issue at Homeland Security. The American people understand that we cannot achieve 100 percent security without sacrificing some of their freedoms and Constitutional rights. But our 

goal and our responsibility is to strike the right balance. 

DHS has committed to working, in its Office of Privacy and Civil 

Liberties (OPCL), but our oversight work has found that it is often 

unable to do so. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) owns ten 

cutting-edge drones and surveillance equipment for them. 

As required by law, before putting those in the air, they were 

supposed to do individual civil liberties protections and have a plan 

for those. None of that was done. It still has not been done and if 

it has been done, it has not been communicated back to the Committee. So that is a balance between law and responsibility that the 

Department has failed on. 

Evaluate what DHS is spending on counterterrorism and intelligence programs. We had a terrorist attack in 2001. Everybody 

knows that led to the creation of the DHS. But after 10 years, it 

is not clear that DHS’s intelligence and counterterrorism initiatives 

are making this country measurably safer. 

The preparedness grants, the fusion centers are all areas that 

have highly questionable effectiveness in terms of preventing further terrorism. 
8 

The third area is to prove to the American people that the Department of Homeland Security can secure our borders and enforce 

our Nation’s immigration laws. And I understand that one of your 

priorities, if confirmed, is to prepare DHS to handle its responsibilities if comprehensive immigration reform were to pass. Frankly, 

the best way we could do that would be to prove to the American 

people that DHS is capable in securing the border now and handling the responsibilities that they have now, which they are not. 

Over the past 10 years, we have spent $90 billion on border security; yet, we know that our Southern Border is not secure. 

An independent analysis from the Council on Foreign Relations 

estimated the apprehension rate at the Southern Border was 40 to 

55 percent, versus DHS’s own numbers of 75 to 80. We know that 

millions of people are living here in violation of our immigration 

laws, having overstayed their visas and some of those are in violation of our current criminal laws as well. Yet, DHS has done little 

to address that problem. 

And frankly, we have heard from frontline personnel that DHS 

is not actively enforcing our immigration laws or deporting people 

who are known to be a risk to public safety right now. 

The fourth area, the Department needs to prove that it can work 

with the private sector and provide value in addressing key threats 

like cybersecurity before expecting new responsibilities. And I will 

not go into the details of that and I will try to hurry, Mr. Chairman. 

The fifth area that DHS has not managed effectively is major acquisition programs. There are many areas that we have made inquiries on that and we have yet to get a response. One of the 

things that encourages me in our conversations is the commitment 

that you will be responsive and transparent to us. And yet, we 

have waited months, and sometimes years as the Committee of jurisdiction, to get answers to our questions. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Disaster 

Declaration process needs to be fixed. One of the areas that we 

have seen marked improvement is in FEMA, and I congratulate 

the Department. Another one of the areas we have seen marked 

improvement is the Coast Guard, which I congratulate the Department on. 

To be clear, being Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is one of the most challenging positions in our government, 

and I believe you will be confirmed. 

But my hope is, that you will, in fact, renew your commitment 

to the Committee and to me personally that you will run a transparent shop, being responsive to us and our concerns, not only giving us an opportunity to have education from you on what the facts 

really are, but also to receive information, in turn, on what we are 

seeing in the respective areas across the country. 

There is too much at stake for us not to work together to fix the 

Department of Homeland Security. As Senator Carper noted, morale is at the lowest level, by the surveys done by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), of any department within the Federal 

Government. That is a function of leadership, and I think you have 

those qualities to instill that, to rebuild this organization, and to 

put it in a place where it needs to be. 
9 

The American people are counting on us, but they are going to 

be counting on you, and there is simply too much at stake for us 

to fail. I hope that you will earn this Committee’s trust. You have 

earned mine thus far and I look forward to working with you in 

this very important job. 

Chairman CARPER. Let me say to my colleagues, as you know on 

this Committee, we work under the early bird rule and after the 

Chair and the Ranking Member have given statements, we turn to 

the witnesses to testify, and then we recognize the Members in 

order as they have come in to ask questions. 

Ms. McCaskill was the next one here, and Senator Tester, Senator Heitkamp, followed by Senator McCain. Others may come as 

well. 

I just want to say just a quick followup to Tom’s comments. We 

take seriously the opportunity to engage with you and really to understand you better as a human being, your priorities and really 

your values and how they were developed, and your approach to 

managing a big department like this. 

I want to say thank you for your willingness to meet with all of 

us who serve on this Committee. I understand you have tried to 

meet with Senator Paul and, I think, Senator Portman, and not 

been able to get onto their schedules yet, but I appreciate your trying and I hope you will continue to do that. I am sure you will. 

I am told by our bipartisan staff—that you spent some 2 hours 

or more in meeting with them privately and answering, as I am 

told, every question that they asked. And you stayed until the last 

man or woman standing and answered all their questions. Some 

very well, maybe some not so well, and we would not expect you 

to know everything, that is for sure. 

We will have the opportunity today to ask you questions and we 

will stay here, basically, until we run out of questions and you run 

out of endurance, and I do not think it will take too long. 

But if you would, I think, it is not uncommon for—I think you 

had over 100 questions to answer and a lot of those questions are 

multi-part. Some of those questions, I do not expect you to be able 

to answer, and it is not surprising that you would not rely on, to 

some extent, on the folks who are at the Department and their job 

is to help the nominees. 

I would just ask that you go back through the information, the 

questions that Dr. Coburn is going to send to you. Go through them 

and edit them, just mark them up, and give them back to him 

promptly and we can move forward. 

Senator McCaskill has to run and I am going to ask, if my colleagues do not mind, just to let her go out of order. If you would, 

just go ahead. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it, 

Mr. Chairman. I will just take a minute. I actually have to leave, 

Mr. Johnson, to go to the outside panel within the DOD that we 

appointed to look at the problem of sexual assault in the military, 

and they are having a technical session today and the complexities 

and the technical nature of that problem is one that I feel com-
10 

pelled to go over and address them on, so I cannot stay for the duration of the questioning of you and your testimony. 

I just want to briefly put in the record the five areas that our 

Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight has worked 

on the most in terms of issues at Homeland Security, and those 

will be ones that I would hope to work with you to address continuing serious problems that plague DHS. 

The first is right-sizing DHS and balancing the contractor and 

Federal workforce; the ability of DHS to function as a single cohesive department; the role of DHS Science and Technology Directorate and whether or not it is a pass-through or whether it is an 

effective organization based on what its mission was intended to 

be; the role of DHS in the procurement of bioterrorism countermeasures; and finally, the inability of DHS to obtain a clean audit. 

Those are the five areas that we will continue to work on in our 

Subcommittee and continue to work with your agency to see if we 

cannot do much better. There is a lot of room for improvement. I 

think we are thrilled that you are willing to continue to serve your 

government. You have done so in an honorable and competent, in 

fact, stellar fashion for many years. And I also want to thank your 

family for making the sacrifices necessary for you to lead this important agency, and I look forward to working with you after confirmation. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Senator McCaskill, thanks for joining us. And my thanks to our colleagues for indulging her in those 

remarks. 

I think the next thing I want to do is to introduce our witness. 

It will just take a minute or two. As I mentioned in my opening 

statement, Mr. Johnson has been confirmed by the Senate not once, 

but twice before. In October 1998 in the Clinton Administration, 

Mr. Johnson became the General Counsel of the Department of the 

Air Force following nomination and confirmation by the Senate. Do 

you recall what the vote was on your confirmation? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am sorry? 

Chairman CARPER. Do you recall what the vote was on your confirmation? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I suspect it was, voice vote. 

Chairman CARPER. Nail biter. By voice vote, it probably was. In 

February 2009, you became General Counsel of the Department of 

Defense following nomination and confirmation by the Senate. In 

this capacity, he served as the chief legal officer of the Department 

of Defense and the legal advisor to the Secretary of Defense, indeed 

to two of them. 

Mr. Johnson’s previous public service included serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. The 

nominee has also been and currently is a successful attorney at the 

law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. 

Mr. Johnson, you may proceed with your statement and introduce your friends and your family that are with you here today. 

Again, thank you for being here. 
11 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 49. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEH C. JOHNSON,1 NOMINATED TO BE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Coburn, Senators of this Committee. Thank you for scheduling this hearing to evaluate my nomination. I want to thank Senators Menendez and Booker for taking the time to be here to offer 

their remarks and I appreciate their generous words. 

I would like to introduce my immediate family: my wife, Dr. 

Susan DiMarco; my daughter, Natalie Johnson; my son, Jeh 

Charles Johnson, Jr.; and my sister, Marguerite Johnson Crocker 

of Birmingham, Alabama. I am pleased that they can be here. I 

think the public officials in the room will appreciate and know that 

the burdens of public office are made lighter by the support and engagement of your family. 

I am honored by the trust and confidence that President Obama 

has placed in me by nominating me to be Secretary of Homeland 

Security. I appreciate the letters of support addressed to this Committee from the law enforcement organizations, retired senior military officers, former officials of both the Bush and Obama Administrations. 

I respectfully submit that I am ready, willing, and able to lead 

the Department of Homeland Security. I have experience in law enforcement. As a Federal prosecutor in New York, I worked with law 

enforcement officers of the Secret Service, what was then called the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA), and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. 

I have experience as a key member of the management team of 

a large and complex government agency. For 27 months, I was part 

of the senior management team of the Department of the Air Force. 

For 4 years I was part of the senior management team of the Department of Defense. During that time, I sat at the right hand of, 

learned from, and supported two outstanding Americans in Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. At the same 

time, as the senior lawyer in the Department of Defense, I led a 

legal community of over 10,000 civilian and military lawyers. 

During the 4-years of President Obama’s first term, I was at the 

center of the development and execution of many of this Administration’s counterterrorism policies. Last year I worked closely with 

Secretary Panetta as he coordinated the Department of Defense’s 

contributions to the response to Hurricane Sandy. 

The missions of DHS are to prevent terrorism and enhance security, secure and manage our borders, enforce and administer our 

immigration laws, safeguard and secure cyberspace, and ensure resilience to disasters. If confirmed, I will vigorously pursue all of 

these missions. They represent the most basic and important services a government can provide for its people. 

If confirmed, I will work to reinforce, among all the women and 

men of the Department, the common unifying mission that binds 

them together, homeland security. If confirmed, I pledge to be a 
12 

champion for every man and woman of the Department of Homeland Security and their families. 

I will mourn the death of any man or woman in the Department, 

including those killed in the line of duty like the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) Officer Hernandez on November 1. 

Those at the Department of Defense know that I worked hard to 

earn the respect of all the men and women in uniform from the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our four-star combatant commanders, to the more junior officers and enlisted personnel who 

risk their lives in special operations. 

My family and I spent Thanksgiving 2010 at a military hospital 

in Landstuhl, Germany. I spent Thanksgiving 2012 with the troops 

at a remote command outpost in Afghanistan in the mountains 

near Pakistan. I was honored when an elite team of Navy SEALs 

attended my farewell at the Pentagon. 

If confirmed, I will devote time and attention to the management 

issues that I know DHS faces. As this Committee knows, there are 

leadership vacancies within DHS of alarming proportions. As I 

speak, the department of government charged with the vital mission of homeland security has no Secretary, no Deputy Secretary, 

and a number of other senior positions are vacant. If confirmed as 

Secretary, my immediate priority, starting the day I take the oath, 

will be to work with the White House and the Senate to fill the remainder of these key leadership positions. 

The other management challenges faced by DHS are also well 

known to this Committee. If confirmed, I intend to continue the 

progress toward unqualified audited financial statements. I will 

work to get DHS off the GAO high-risk list. I will be a hawk when 

it comes to identifying fraud, waste, and abuse in the use of taxpayer dollars. 

If confirmed, I pledge not to shrink from difficult or controversial 

decisions. Those at the Pentagon and in the field know my track 

record in this regard, ranging from politically charged matters of 

personnel policy to the legality of lethal force. 

If confirmed, I will work to implement all legislation enacted into 

law. Like President Obama, many in Congress, the business community, and most of the American public, I support comprehensive, 

common sense immigration reform. If reform is enacted into law, 

I will work to prepare DHS to administer the changes in law and 

ensure that DHS has the staff resources and capability to do so. 

If confirmed, I intend to be transparent with the American people about our efforts on their behalf. While the senior lawyer for 

the Department of Defense, I made the extra effort to publicly explain and defend U.S. national security policies, including in 

speeches at the Heritage Foundation in October 2011 and the Oxford Union in November 2012. I supported the declassification of 

the military’s counterterrorism efforts in Yemen and Somalia in the 

War Powers Report submitted by the President to the Congress in 

June 2012. 

And if confirmed, I pledge transparency and candor with Congress. Those of you from the Armed Services Committee know that 

these are not just words from me. Here again I have a track record. 

From Secretaries Gates and Panetta, I learned that a little bipartisan candor goes a long way and promotes goodwill among all of 
13 

us who came to Washington for the common purpose of serving the 

Nation. 

I have tremendous respect for the U.S. Senate and its prerogatives. Thirty-five years ago, I worked in this very building as a 

summer intern for Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. I was an impressionable 20-year-old college student then. All summer I sat in 

a back office with the Senator’s press secretary, Tim Russert, clipping press, literally, running errands, and researching legislation. 

The experience was exciting and formative and it did much to inspire my public service. 

There is another thing that motivates me to leave private life one 

more time to accept this particular assignment. In my family photo 

album is a childhood picture of me and my sister standing next to 

my dad’s red 1966 Buick convertible in what was then the public 

parking lot in front of the U.S. Capitol. The most striking thing 

about the photo is that our car is parked just a few feet away from 

the steps to the Eastern front of the Capitol building. I look at the 

photo today and realize that it captures a period in our history that 

is probably lost in my lifetime and perhaps forever. 

September 11 and the other terrorist attacks here changed all of 

that. As I said in the Rose Garden on October 18, I am a New 

Yorker and September 11 happens to be my birthday. I was 

present in Manhattan that day and was an eyewitness to the 

events of that day. I know the shock and the potential for death 

and destruction that a breach of our homeland security can cause. 

I also recall the sinking feeling of guilt and uselessness that I personally felt in the face of that tragedy because I had left public 

service at the Pentagon just 8 months before. September 11 

changed me, it changed millions of us, it motivates me to answer 

this call to lead the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Thank you for your time and attention and I look forward to your 

questions. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you very much for that testimony. I 

read the testimony going home on the train last night and got to 

the last part and it was very moving, still is very moving. 

Our Committee rules require that when you answer our questions you need to be under oath. You have done this before a time 

or two, so I am going to ask you to stand and I will administer this 

oath and then we will jump right into the questions. Would you 

please stand? 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? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do. 

Chairman CARPER. Please be seated. 

I am going to start our questions with the three standard questions that we ask of all nominees, and if you would just answer 

each one after I have asked that question. First question, is there 

anything you are aware of in your background that might present 

a conflict of interest for the duties of the office to which you have 

been nominated? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir. 
14 

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

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir. 

Chairman CARPER. And finally, do you agree, without reservation, to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify 

before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Take just a minute and talk to 

us about your parents. Tell us, if you will, specifically about the 

values that they instilled in you, and maybe your sister, but the 

kind of values that they instilled in you that have enabled you to 

have, I think, a remarkable career today and have prepared you 

that might even help you in the days that lie ahead of you if are 

confirmed. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you for that question. My parents could not 

be here today. They are in my hometown, Wappinger Falls, New 

York. They live in the same home that they and I have lived in for 

almost 50 years. I am sure they are watching right now. 

Chairman CARPER. I thought they might be. 

Mr. JOHNSON. They are, I am sure, if my dad could find the right 

C–SPAN channel. 

Chairman CARPER. Maybe we will have a lot of reruns. 

Mr. JOHNSON. From my dad, stability, I think the right values 

set. My mother, a positive outlook, never give up, never accept limitations on your own abilities. She encouraged me to do that when 

I was a C and D student in high school. My guidance counselor told 

her, your son should go to a 2-year college. She refused to accept 

that and continued to push me harder, and I have tried to do the 

same with my own kids. 

Chairman CARPER. Dr. Coburn and I had a chance to meet them 

and I would say you have imparted some pretty good values in 

them as well. 

The Department of Homeland Security just turned 10 years old 

this year, and although the Department has certainly experienced 

growing pains, clearly it has come a long way in improving our 

homeland security and maturing the Department. 

Let us talk a little bit about vision. If confirmed, what is your 

vision of where you want to take this Department in the years to 

come? So what is your vision? Where do you want to take the Department? What would be some of your key priorities? And finally, 

what do you think are the most significant challenges that you 

would face? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Every time I have accepted a public service position, my overriding goal is to leave the position a little bit better 

than I found it. I believe you are correct that DHS has had some 

growing pains over the last 10 years, this is a very large bureaucracy, 22 components with rather different missions. My first priority will be to work to fill the remainder of the management vacancies, if I am confirmed. 

The substantive priorities are well known. I hope to be vigilant 

with respect to counterterrorism, border security, the effective ad-
15 

ministration of our immigration laws, responding to natural disasters. I also believe we need to move the ball forward on 

cybersecurity. Cybersecurity is something I became acquainted 

with at DOD. 

The other management issues that are well known to this Committee I recognize I must devote time and attention to. I would like 

to see DHS get off the GAO high-risk list. I read that report. I have 

read much of Dr. Coburn’s writings on DHS, on management efficiency. I agree with much of it. I agree with what he had to say 

about the Pentagon, for example, in many respects. 

So the management issues are things that I expect to devote 

time and attention to. But we need to be vigilant in respect to 

Homeland Security. I recognize the issues with morale. I saw the 

most recent report. I hope to be a visible leader, remind people of 

the importance of the overriding unifying mission of Homeland Security, and I will work very hard, all my energy, to pursue all these 

missions, because I do believe that homeland security, protection of 

public safety and the American public is the core mission of the 

U.S. Government. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. As I mentioned earlier, 

and others have alluded to it, you are the former General Counsel 

to the Air Force, the Department of Defense as well. You have had 

the privilege of advising and working closely with some outstanding leaders and very gifted managers. Bob Gates and Leon 

Panetta are among those. You have also had the honor of working 

alongside literally thousands of brave men and women who put on 

the uniform every day and go out there and serve our country. 

Could you just share with us some of the lessons that you have 

learned about in those years, particularly working closely with Bob 

Gates and Leon Panetta, especially some of the lessons you have 

learned about leadership, some of the lessons you have learned 

about managing a large organization, and some of the lessons you 

have learned, maybe, about public service that will help better 

equip you to lead this Department? So leadership, management, 

and public service. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Secretary Gates and Secretary Panetta had, in my 

view, two distinct styles of management, which were both very effective in their own respects. DOD is larger that DHS, but it is 

very different in certain respects. I thought that they were both 

very disciplined, very focused, delegated when they needed to, focused on certain issues closely when they needed to. I expect to follow that model. 

Being able to monitor the events of what is going on in a very 

large bureaucracy with a lot of different components is a challenge. 

I recognize the importance of regular communication with component leaders. I also recognize, and I hope this goes to some of Dr. 

Coburn’s questions, I recognize that sometimes the bureaucracy 

can be totally wrong. 

I recall in particular receiving—it was a personnel action that 

was very old and everybody up the chain said, coordinate, coordinate, coordinate, coordinate, coordinate, and I took a look at it myself, read the file very carefully, and concluded, Well, I just do not 

think this is right. 
16 

And I remember bringing together, around my conference table, 

everybody who had coordinated, let us do it, on this particular action and challenged a lot of the assumptions that had been gone 

into this issue literally for years. And after the meeting, everybody 

who had coordinated on it before said, Gee, maybe we ought to take 

a second look at this. And whether it was that kind of thing or 

some of our counterterrorism operations, every once in a while I 

felt like it was 11 to 1 and I was the one, and said to myself, this 

is why the President put you here. 

So I recognize that even with the large staffs that we have 

around us, that we surround ourselves with, every once in a while 

you have to take an independent look at something and not be 

afraid to realize that maybe the bureaucracy has this wrong and 

you happen to be right. I did that on a number of occasions at the 

Pentagon. 

Chairman CARPER. As I prepare to yield to Dr. Coburn, I am reminded—we have all heard many definitions of leadership. One of 

my favorite—what you just said reminds me of it and it goes something like this: Leadership is the courage to stay out of step when 

everyone else is marching to the wrong tune. Leadership also requires some folks to lead and to help you lead the Department. 

My colleagues and I know, as you said earlier, this position has 

been vacant for months. The deputy position, Deputy Secretary, 

has been vacant for, I think, over half a year. And there are a number of other positions that need to be filled. The Administration has 

an obligation to nominate good people, to vet them, and we have 

an obligation to act on them. 

I hope that we will move promptly to confirm you and then I 

hope we will move promptly to making sure you have the team 

around you that you need. Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Well, thank you, and again, welcome and thank 

you for your willingness to serve in this position. This Committee 

and my office have struggled to receive timely responses from the 

Department of Homeland Security to our inquiries and to reports 

that the Department is mandated under law to provide to us. 

For example, Congress passed a law in March requiring DHS to 

turn over certain reports to our Committee. They are just now complying with that, but only after I threatened to hold every nomination. So here is a law written on the books and yet, no compliance 

until we have to use a bigger stick. 

What I am wanting to know is, will you publicly commit today 

to give us your word that under your leadership, you will require 

the Department to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely 

fashion? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. And specifically, let me just detail a couple of 

them that I am asking for because I do not want there to be any 

surprises. We have requested mission logs for CBP’s use of drones 

within the United States. Are you willing to provide those to the 

Committee? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am generally sympathetic to that kind of request 

and I will take a careful look at it. I would be inclined to respond 

to your request, Senator. 
17 

Senator COBURN. We have requested data on the Department’s 

use of grants to fund State and local law enforcement purchases of 

cell phone intercept devices, license plate readers, and more. Are 

you willing to provide that to the Committee? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will, if confirmed, promptly take a look at it and 

be inclined to get you what you request, yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. We have requested internal reviews and other 

information about the United States Citizenship and Immigration 

Service (USCIS) Investor Visa Program, which appears to raise 

alarms along criminal and national security weaknesses in the program. Are you willing to provide those documents to us? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Same answer. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. We have requested contracts, incident logs, 

project plans, and other documents showing how DHS conducts its 

cybersecurity programs. Are you willing to provide those to the 

Committee? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Same answer. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. We have asked the Department, for a sector by 

sector border security plan. As a matter of fact, the former Secretary promised to get me that within 2 days of a breakfast meeting Senator Carper and I had with her. We are still waiting on 

that. Our inquiries have been met with stiff resistance. Are you 

willing to provide those to the Committee? 

Mr. JOHNSON. If confirmed, I will take a prompt look at that request. I would be inclined to give you what you need. 

Senator COBURN. We are still waiting for responses to questions 

from the record from several hearings that we held several months 

ago. Are you willing to insist that members in your organization respond to the questions for the record? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, emphatically. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. In your prehearing questions, I 

asked you if you had used or read DHS’s intelligence products and 

whether you thought they were valuable. You mentioned that you 

did not recall specifics about any of the DHS intelligence products 

that you may have read. 

You also wrote, if confirmed as Secretary, you intend to personally assess the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) products 

and that you would provide your feedback. Many of us on this 

Committee have questions about DHS’s intelligence initiatives. 

Will you commit today to provide your assessment of DHS’s intelligence products as well as DHS intelligence programs, including 

the fusion centers, within 6 months of taking the helm of the Department? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. On border security and comprehensive immigration reform, you said that one of your priorities, if confirmed, is 

prepare for DHS’s possible new responsibilities if that reform becomes law. However, many of us and many of the American people 

have questions about whether DHS is effectively managing its current responsibilities and currently upholding our Nation’s immigration laws. Will you commit to reviewing the status of DHS’s border 

security and immigration enforcement programs? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 
18 

Senator COBURN. And specifically, all of the programs and report 

to us within a reasonable time—I know you are going to be loaded, 

so 90 days to 6 months. Would you give us your word that you will 

give us your assessment on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. The other thing that I am impressed with you is your background in the field of law, specifically 

national security and counterterrorism from your time at the Pentagon. I know you have been getting up to speed on Homeland Security issues and the Department’s program. As you prepared for 

this hearing, did you identify any programs that you think were 

unnecessary within the Department? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have some questions about our Intelligence and 

Analysis component, and I would want to be sure that we are 

not—— 

Senator COBURN. I am not going to ask you for a commitment on 

specific programs today, but the fact that you are looking at them 

and will take the input. I think it is important to have you do an 

analysis of that from where you stand with your experience and 

then get back to us within 6 months on what your thoughts are. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Happy to do that. 

Senator COBURN. That will help us. I have a whole lot of other 

questions. I think I will ask this question in a question for the 

record rather than spend time, and it has to do with the EB–5 Visa 

Program. I am very worried about that program, both from a national security standpoint and from an effectiveness standpoint. So 

I will ask that question to you for the record. I have about a 

minute and 20 seconds left. 

DHS has been given the significant responsibilities for 

cybersecurity, including working with critical infrastructure owners 

and operators and helping Federal agencies secure their networks. 

But the latest DHS Inspector General (IG) reports have raised 

questions about whether DHS has been effectively managing its 

own cybersecurity programs. 

For example, last week, a DHS Inspector General report identified several problems at DHS’s Cybersecurity Center, including 

weak or nonexistent information sharing and lack of specialized 

training, poor communication and performance during a cyberemergency simulation. 

And the DHS Inspector’s most recent audit of DHS’s compliance 

with Federal Information Management Security Act (FISMA), 

standards found many problems, including that DHS components 

and headquarters office of DHS were not adhering to DHS’s own 

guidelines on FISMA, including the installment of patches in a 

timely fashion or fixing known security threats. 

So it raises the question, if Homeland Security cannot apply the 

very rules to itself it is asking other agencies to comply with, what 

authority can they have in executing cybersecurity at other agencies if they do not even follow their own rules for their own agency? 

So that is a big issue and it is one of competency and confidence. 

What I want to do, under your leadership, is to see that competency and that confidence restored. 

You have some great people under you in that area, and what 

we have to do is we have to make sure Homeland Security is doing 
19 

it well before we ask everybody else to do it well. Will you commit 

to working with us to make DHS an example of good cybersecurity 

before seeking new authority? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. I am over time and I guess we will have a second round, so I will pause with that and come back. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Before I yield to Senator Tester, obviously 

you have just committed to doing a whole lot of stuff. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I know. Somebody is taking notes. 

Chairman CARPER. And this guy will make sure you do it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Chairman CARPER. And you need some help to actually deliver 

on what you have committed to doing, and we have to help you get 

that team around you. So I would just again remind my colleagues 

that there are a lot of vacancies in this Department. Deputy Secretary is one of them. 

I just want to say, Dr. Coburn mentioned the EB–5 program, 

which most people have never heard of, but it is a way to enlist 

foreign investment for projects in this country that hopefully create 

a bunch of jobs. I think the program was reauthorized about a year 

ago, I think the leads on it were Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley. 

They did not include some of the program integrity recommendations from your Department that Mr. Mayorkas, I think, had championed. That did not end up in the reauthorization language. That 

did get into the Immigration Reform Bill, which has passed the 

Senate and is pending in the House. But we will have more conversation, I am sure, about that program, but I just wanted to 

mention that. 

Mr. Tester, you are on. Thanks very much. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

Ranking Member Coburn, also, and, Jeh, thank you for being here 

and thank you for being willing to serve again. 

You are taking over an agency that is barely 10 years old, 22 different agencies. Dovetailing on the question that Senator Coburn 

talked about, my guess is, when it was established, it was established for two reasons, to increase effectiveness and to get the biggest bang for the buck. 

I think it is critically important that you go back, set turf aside, 

and make sure that the agencies and the departments that are 

there minimize overlap so that there is a bigger level of accountability. I am confident you will do that. So I thank you for your 

willingness to take a look at that. 

Also, I will say that I think it is important that we do find a balance between securing the borders, defending the homeland, and 

civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. That will be something 

that will be front burner, hopefully, for a long time to come. 

What I want to talk about with you now is morale. You have 

talked about repeatedly reforming DHS management would be 

your No. 1 priority. I think that should be a top priority. In recognizing that there is a high rate of attrition right now in DHS, what 
20 

ideas do you have to help cultivate future leadership at all levels 

of the agency? 

Mr. JOHNSON. In my experience, if people are excited about the 

mission, people believe in the mission, the importance of the mission, they are willing to make a change, possibly leave the private 

sector, possibly leave more lucrative positions in the private sector 

to come serve the country. 

And I was fortunate when I was at the Pentagon to have some 

really capable people working around me who were Rhodes Scholars and Ph.D.s that I was able to recruit that helped with the overall effort, and I would hope to be able to do that at DHS. 

When it comes to morale, in my experience, you remind people 

of the importance of the mission, you remind people that they are 

serving the Nation. These are things that I think touch a lot of people at their core. I also recognize from experience that morale is 

driven in large part by just basic economic issues. 

When somebody has not had a pay raise in a long time and they 

are threatened with sequestration or government shutdown, that it 

takes its toll. So I expect to address morale, but there are limits 

to what you can do without giving people some basic relief. 

Senator TESTER. This is an understatement. This is a huge agency and one thing that I think impacts morale is people thinking 

what they are doing is really worthwhile, that they are actually 

being effective in their job. Any ideas in that particular realm, how 

you can give folks a sense of responsibility so that they know what 

they are doing really does make a difference? 

Mr. JOHNSON. In my experience, complimenting people for a job 

well done, cannot say thank you too many times when somebody 

deserves it, making them feel good about their work goes a long 

way. 

Senator TESTER. Senator McCain and I recently introduced a bill 

to reform the pay structure for Customs and Border Patrol agents, 

make the borders more secure while allowing more consistent 

hours overtime potentially could save a billion over 10 years. The 

Border Patrol currently uses an antiquated pay system that is over 

40 years old. I do not know if you have had a chance to take a look 

at this legislation. Have you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have not yet, no, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I would just say this, and you have 

enough commitments with Senator Coburn, but I would hope that 

you get a chance to take a look at the legislation and work with 

Senator McCain and myself to make sure that this pay reform happens, because I think there is a lot of money that is being wasted 

at this point in time. You do not have to make a verbal commitment on that. I think it is common sense. 

DHS, like DOD, makes huge investments in enterprisewide technologies, billions of dollars in just one system. You have mentioned 

that the use of technology in managing our borders, whether it is 

with low-level radar, fiber-optic cables, the list goes on. 

How will you work with CBP, DHS, science and technology, and 

the private sector to ensure that we are utilizing technology at the 

Northern and Southern Borders? Me, living on the Northern Border with little emphasis on northern, to aid where human resources either are not effective or not cost-effective? 
21 

Mr. JOHNSON. First of all, I have learned a lot about the Northern Border in the last couple of weeks. Thank you. And as we move 

to more advanced technology, I think we also need to be sensitive 

to privacy, civil liberties concerns that people who live along these 

borders may have. I think that is important. 

And as the border security professionals talk to me about riskbased strategies, I want to be sure we do not have any blind spots, 

that we are constantly vigilant in identifying where the high risks 

are and where we need to focus our technology. 

Senator TESTER. I want to talk about the private sector and I 

want to talk about contracting in the private sector for those kind 

of technologies. Something that has been very frustrating for me— 

and if you have a different opinion on this, please let me know— 

is that oftentimes when it comes to contracting, we assume the big 

companies have all the good ideas and the little guys are cut out 

of the system. A lot of the little guys have some incredibly good 

ideas, especially as it applies to regional problems. 

What are your thoughts about improving competition and opportunities for the little guy, the smaller people within the Department, or is that a priority for you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. In my experience, competition generally leads to 

a better result for the taxpayer and for the agency. In my personal 

experience, sometimes the big guy on the block can also be the 

most complacent guy on the block. It is sometimes good to find 

somebody who is kind of up and coming, a little hungrier and a little more innovative. So bigger is not necessarily better. 

Senator TESTER. So the question is, and I do not want to categorize, but I will. In the past, the big guys have pretty much gotten the contracts. The little guys have not. How do you fix that, 

if you think that is a problem, which you have indicated you do? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Encourage competition. Encourage people to put 

forward their request for proposals (RFPs). In my experience, when 

there is a competition, it will depend upon how you write your 

specifications, how you write your requirements. 

Senator TESTER. Correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. There are ways to write requirements such that 

only one company in America can put forward an RFP. 

I am not an acquisition expert. I do not live in that world. There 

are people who are. But I do know that a lot of times it depends 

on how you write the specifications for the job. 

Senator TESTER. And that is a very good point, and I will tell 

you, you might not be an acquisitions expert, but you are probably 

going to be heading this Department up and your philosophies 

should be able to filter down through all the different sectors of the 

agency. Thank you very much for being here. 

Senator COBURN. [Presiding]. Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR McCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, I have known you for 

a number of years and I am very pleased that you will be taking 

on these new responsibilities, and I view you as an outstanding 

public servant, and I am confident that your nomination process 

and confirmation will be very smooth. 
22 

I want to talk about the border with you. Your predecessor stated 

frequently, the border is more secure than ever, citing the reduction and apprehensions as a proof of that progress being made, and 

she said it for a number of years. Do you agree with that statement? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I have seen the same numbers. I noted 

that the numbers are going down. There might be a recent trend 

upward, but one of the things, if I am confirmed, I want to look 

at is exactly how we should define border security and whether 

those numbers are an accurate reflection of border security. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, in reality, over the last 2 years, there has 

been a 20 percent increase in apprehensions along the border. Now, 

when your predecessor made those statements, I used to just get— 

I cannot tell you the frustration that I felt because I knew, and 

those of us who are familiar with the border, that the real reason 

why those apprehensions went down was because of the economy. 

And now that the economy is getting stronger, apprehensions are 

up. So if they are up 20 percent, that means that the border is less 

secure. 

Now, as we work—the eight of us—to complete this comprehensive immigration reform, which is stalled, as you know, in the 

House, and one of the major reasons why it is stalled is because 

of the lack of confidence in border security of not only Members 

here, but of Members of the House of Representatives. So now, for 

years, the Secretary of Homeland Security said, Well, apprehensions are up so that the border is more secure because there was 

a reduction in apprehensions. Now the apprehensions are up. 

And so, here we are faced with a situation where the border is 

still not secure. When we were trying to develop this legislation, we 

went time after time to the Department of Homeland Security to 

get what was needed to get the borders secure, what measures 

were needed to be taken. We never got that from the Department 

of Homeland Security, never. 

We had to go directly to the Border Patrol and got some very 

good information which we included in the legislation, specific sector by sector the technology that was needed. Can you tell this 

Committee that you will not repeat what happened to us and the 

frustration that we experienced? 

And I want to know what, from you, what is required for us to 

have 90 percent effective control of the border. Can you assure this 

Committee of that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I will commit to you to working with 

you—— 

Senator MCCAIN. No, I am not asking you to work with me. I 

want to know if you will give this Committee the exact metrics that 

are needed, sector by sector, so that we can obtain 90 percent effectiveness on the border. Not working with me. Answer yes or no, 

please. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am inclined to give you what you need. 

Senator MCCAIN. I am not asking for your inclination. I am asking for a yes or no answer. I do not think that is a lot to ask. We 

have our responsibilities here, and one of them is to have a secure 

border. Unless we get the right information from you and your bu-
23 

reaucracy, we are not able to ascertain how we can secure our border. 

So as much as I admire and appreciate you, unless you can tell 

me that you will give the information which this Committee has 

the right to have, I cannot support your nomination. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am really inclined—— 

Senator MCCAIN. I am not asking for—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. To give you what you need, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. So let the record show you will not give a yes 

or no answer. Therefore, I will not support your nomination until 

I get a yes answer. This Committee and Members of Congress, particularly those of us who are on the border, have the right to have 

that information. It is our responsibility and our obligation to our 

constituents. 

I have constituents in my State who every night there are people 

who are crossing their border illegally. I have constituents that 

every day, drug smugglers are going across their property and their 

homes. So they certainly have the right, as citizens, to know what 

measures need to be taken in order to have a 90 percent effective 

control of the border. 

I ask you one more time. Will you or will you not give that information to this Committee? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have been through this process enough to know 

that a Senator asks a question like that and somebody afterward 

is going to tell me six reasons why I should not do it, and in those 

instances, I have said, Senator, and I think you know this from me, 

Well, the Senator really needs it, we are trying to get to the same 

place, let us give it to him. 

So before I commit unequivocally to your question, and part of 

me very much wants to do that, I think I need to talk to people 

at DHS to better understand the issue. I have read the letter you 

wrote in February and I am strongly inclined to give you what you 

need, Senator, and I think you know that from me from my track 

record at Armed Services. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, sir, again, I have an obligation to the citizens that I represent. Right now, in their view, our border is not 

secure. Without your cooperation as to informing the Congress as 

to what measures need to be taken in order to assure 90 percent 

effectiveness, then I cannot serve my constituents and I hope you 

understand that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, you will have my cooperation, I promise 

that. 

Senator MCCAIN. I am not asking for cooperation. I am asking 

for information. 

Chairman CARPER. [Presiding]. Senator McCain, do you yield 

back your time? OK. Let me just make a suggestion. Months ago, 

earlier this year, Senator McCain was good enough to host me in 

his State, and we spent a lot of time meeting with his constituents, 

traveling along the border, talking with the folks from the Department of Homeland Security, the Border Patrol. 

I would urge you, early in your tenure, if confirmed, see if you 

cannot head down there and spend some time, especially in Arizona and in the eastern part of Texas. I thought it was illu-
24 

minating for me, very helpful, and I think it would be for you as 

well. 

Senator MCCAIN. Could I thank the Chairman for traveling down 

there? I thank Dr. Coburn who also has traveled and spent extensive time down there. And both of you understand very well the 

frustration that my constituents feel when they live in an environment where nightly people are crossing their property, where 

ranchers have been killed. This is not an academic exercise. 

And it seems to me that an obligation to the Congress of the 

United States would be to provide us with information that we 

could not get when we were putting the comprehensive immigration reform together and we had to go direct to the Border Patrol 

to get the required information. 

Now, I was told that was because the White House had said that 

the Department of Homeland Security should not provide us with 

that information. But how can we carry out our functions of oversight if we do not get the kind of information we need to make the 

decisions that this Committee is responsible to make? 

Senator COBURN. I would just say that it would relate to the fact 

that when we were promised information and did not get it by the 

former Secretary. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thanks, Mr. McCain. Senator Levin. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator Levin and then Senator Begich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, let 

me thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your answer to the call to public 

service again, and for the answer being yes, and to your family. We 

thank them for the support which is so essential to all of you who 

have taken these jobs with such responsibility. 

You and I have talked in my office about a number of things, and 

one of them I want to get into some detail on this morning has to 

do with the fact that we have about two million corporations that 

are created every year in the United States by our 50 States. That 

is more than the rest of the world combined. 

The States approve these incorporations without ever asking who 

the real owners of the corporations are, who are the beneficial owners of these corporations. Some of these corporations get involved 

with Medicare fraud, tax evasion, terrorism, smuggling, drug trafficking, and other wrongdoing. 

Now, just a few months ago, in June, at the Group of 20 (G20) 

summit, 20 leaders, including President Obama, reached the consensus that it was time to stop creating corporations with hidden 

owners. All 20 leaders, including President Obama, committed to 

changing the way they do things in this regard. 

And in response to that international commitment, President 

Obama, in June, issued what is called, quote, a national action 

plan, which, among other measures, calls for enactment of Federal 

legislation to require our States to include on their incorporation 

forms the one question asking for the names of the real owners of 

the corporation being formed. 

Now, that is very different from the owners of record, which are 

too often simply shell corporations themselves, in secrecy jurisdic-
25 

tions. But this is a need for the beneficial owners who actually control and benefit from the corporation. Senator Grassley and I have 

introduced a bill which would do that, and we have been fighting 

for enactment of this bill for years. 

President Obama was an original co-sponsor when he was in the 

Senate. Law enforcement is the biggest supporter. Groups that 

have endorsed this bill include the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, 

Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI, and so forth. 

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which represent 

26,000 Federal law enforcement officers, explained their support 

for the bill this way, quote, suspected terrorists, drug trafficking organizations, and other criminal enterprises continue to exploit the 

anonymity afforded to them through the current corporate filing 

process. Hiding behind a registered agent, these criminals are able 

to incorporate without disclosing who the beneficial owners are for 

their companies, and this enables them to establish corporate flowthrough entities, otherwise known as shell companies, to facilitate 

money laundering and narco-terrorist financing. 

So our bill, the Levin-Grassley bill, is endorsed by huge numbers 

of law enforcement, public interest groups, good government 

groups, and I will put the list in the record if that is agreeable with 

our Chairman. 

Now, Mr. Johnson, right now in the United States it takes more 

information to get a driver’s license or to open a U.S. bank account 

than to form a U.S. corporation. And what I am asking you is, 

whether or not, in light of the President’s national action plan calling for legislation that would require States to request beneficial 

ownership information and the impact on our homeland security, 

that the negative impact that exists when we do not have that information and law enforcement does not have it, will you support 

the Levin-Grassley Incorporation Bill, Senate Bill 1465? 

Chairman CARPER. If I could just interject, I love Carl Levin. But 

the legislation that he has been championing is opposed by most 

of the States, and I would just urge you to be careful in your response. 

Senator LEVIN. I would urge you to be careful in your response 

as well. [Laughter.] 

The President of the United States wants beneficial ownerships 

listed. The only opposition we have is from a whole bunch of secretaries of State. At any rate, we will not debate that here. I have 

asked you to become familiar with this issue and I want to know 

whether or not you have become familiar with it and whether or 

not you will support it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, after my visit with you a couple weeks 

ago, I began to look at this legislation. I am impressed by the number of law enforcement organizations and public interest organizations that support it. I am sympathetic with the law enforcement/ 

homeland security interests. I would want to understand, if the 

States and the business community have objections to it, what 

those objections are. 

Senator LEVIN. Not the business communities, a number of Secretaries of the State and I think their association. 
26 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be interested to hear their views. I would 

be interested to hear the business communities’ views. 

Senator LEVIN. Will you get back to us after you have done that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator LEVIN. Promptly? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. The report of the GAO called border 

security, enhanced DHS oversight, and assessment of interagency 

coordination is needed for the Northern Border. It said that DHS 

reports that the terrorist threat on the Northern Border is higher 

than it is on the Southern Border given the large expanse of area 

with limited law enforcement coverage. 

I am glad you have become familiar with the Northern Border, 

as you suggested a few minutes ago, and we obviously are very 

much concerned with the problems on the Southern Border, which 

Senator McCain has mentioned. But my question, as a Northern 

Border State is, will you keep the needs of all of our borders in 

mind after you are confirmed? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, absolutely. 

Senator LEVIN. I have a statement about helicopters and the 

need of helicopters in a number of our Coast Guard Air Stations. 

I will have that for the record. My time is up, so I will ask you 

that for the record. There has been a commitment to an upgrade 

of helicopters in Traverse City, one of our Coast Guard stations, 

that has not yet been kept. So we will try to get you to put some— 

place some attention on that long-standing commitment. 

Hopefully you will be confirmed soon and that will occur after 

that confirmation. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. We need those Coast Guard helicopters. 

Senator LEVIN. Yes. You have already got yours, I understand. 

Senator COBURN. Landlocked. 

Senator LEVIN. Yes. 

Chairman CARPER. Before I turn to Senator Begich and Senator 

Ayotte, I will just go back on a quick P.S. on the issues that Senator Levin has raised. Dr. Coburn was the ranking Republican on 

the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations with Carl Levin for 

a number of years, and I have had the pleasure of serving with him 

for over a dozen years. He is tenacious. He is a dog with a bone. 

And on the issue that he has raised, there is real validity to the 

concerns that he has raised. What we have tried to do is to encourage the States, particularly the Secretaries of the State, to work 

with law enforcement to see what can be worked out in a way that 

the States can administer it or are agreeable to doing that. 

They have been having some meetings. I am told that they are 

actually good exchanges. And we are going to continue to nurture 

that and hopefully facilitate something so that we can get it done. 

I can sit next to this man, whom I love, and arm in arm resolve 

this issue with him. And then we can turn our attention to spring 

training, our beloved Detroit Tigers returned to Lakeland, Florida, 

and we are again friends. 

Having said that, let me turn to Senator Begich for any questions. 
27 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very—— 

Senator COBURN. What is your ball team’s name? 

Senator BEGICH. We have many. We believe in all of America’s 

teams because we do not have one. But I will say that, just as they 

mentioned, I will get into my Arctic issue in a second, but they may 

need helicopters, I need helicopters, ships, and a few other things 

in Alaska for the Arctic. So we will get to that in a second. 

Let me, if I can, we have a very specific issue I want to put on 

your radar screen. It is with the CBP and it is regarding a request 

that was made by a tourism company, a pretty large, significant 

company to move folks from Fairbanks, Alaska to Dawson City, 

which is in Canada. It obviously requires Customs and Border Patrol approval. They denied it. In their answer, the reason they denied it, was inefficient use of our existing resources. 

Here is what is troubling about this. First off, it could bring 

about 19,000 visitors to Alaska. The fees alone that the Customs 

and Border Patrol would get would be about $144,000. The cost to 

do the service is about $120,000. In other words, they would make 

money on this opportunity, excluding all the other revenue streams 

that might come to the Federal Government through other types of 

expenditures, those almost 20,000 visitors. 

So they denied it based on inefficient use of their resources. Well, 

first off, they do not have the resources. That is why if this was 

in place they would have $140-plus thousand dollars to actually 

purchase those resources, and Homeland Security would make—I 

will carefully use this word—about a 20 percent profit on it. 

So it seems if this was a business, it would make a lot of sense. 

So their idea was, ‘‘Well, why do they not just re-jigger the flights, 

do them from Anchorage to Dawson,’’ which makes no sense because part of the trip is to go to Denali Park. It would add 400- 

plus air miles and cost to the traveler. 

I know it is a big issue, and I know they pay a lot of attention 

to the Southern Border, but actually, Alaska has a border, too, and 

we have actually good cooperation with Canadians in regards to 

our border. So I just do not think CBP understands the logistics 

of this and how large Alaska is. 

I know sometimes everyone puts Alaska in a little box off the 

coast of California, but they forget it is one-fifth of the size of this 

country. And so, I would hope that you could look into this. I think 

you would make a very good Secretary. And I think, because you 

come from a variety of fields, but also, from my conversation that 

we have had, and others, you are practical. You look at these 

issues. 

It just seems they have given what I would call a classic bureaucratic response, inefficient use of resources, despite the fact when 

you do the numbers, it actually makes them money and puts more 

people on the payroll to do a service that grows our economy in 

Alaska. So if you could look at that, we would be happy to share 

information with you at a certain point, but the office is clearly 

aware. 

We have written a letter last week and made it very clear this 

is good for our economy, good for Alaska, and good for Homeland 

Security, and it is a good relationship builder with our great ally 
28 

of Canada. So I would hope that you would put that on your radar 

screen. 

I do not know if you have a quick comment on that. I know it 

is under appeal so you cannot say anything legally, but would you 

at least look into this if the opportunity arises? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Let me also go to the issue of the Coast 

Guard on the Commerce Committee. I chair the Subcommittee on 

Oceans, which has oversight on the Coast Guard, and as we move 

toward the Arctic and as more Arctic development occurs, with oil 

and gas, tourism, shipping, science, research, all that requires the 

Coast Guard to be a partner there in the sense of security and safety, not necessarily oil spill technology, but really the whole issue 

around safety on the water and what could happen. 

My worry is this, that we will just shift resources around, kind 

of move the chairs on the deck around the country with the Coast 

Guard, when in reality what we have to do is look at what is needed in the Arctic and the Bering Sea, which has now an enormous 

amount of traffic moving through there, international traffic. 

Can you give me your thoughts in how you would address this 

situation that we have within the Coast Guard of limited resources, 

but a huge, growing, new area of responsibility that will be significant for our country? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think we need to be agile in terms of evolving 

needs with the resources we have. I know the Coast Guard is undertaking a recapitalization program which I have begun to learn 

about. I have talked to the Commandant about that. I have also 

talked to him about your part of the world, Senator. I think the 

Commandant himself agrees that this is an area of the world 

where the Coast Guard needs to be vigilant. 

I agree with you—and I agree with him—that this is a part of 

the world where we need to pay attention to and it is one I expect 

to do so if I am confirmed. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Let me move to another issue and 

that is, as you know, more and more domestic drone activity is 

being considered, both private and public sector, and I guess my 

question would be, how do you see the Homeland Security Department engaged in that in the sense of policy or otherwise? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As we move to a more risk-based strategy, which 

is what the professionals who deal with border security have told 

me about, technology is an important component of that. Surveillance technology is an important component of that. As we rely 

more and more on it, I think we also need to be very concerned 

about the privacy and civil liberty issues associated with that. 

DHS has an office, two offices dedicated to this. I think we need 

to further develop and refine our policies as the technology moves 

further along. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. And as you move forward, assuming 

your appointment, you will share that and continue to work with 

the Committee in regards to that policy? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. One last question. This is a very specific one. 

I just had a hearing here. I chair the Subcommittee on Emergency 

Management in this Committee in regards to Hurricane Sandy and 
29 

the devastation that occurred, we just passed the 1-year anniversary, and one of the issues that came up is some complaints I have 

received regarding houses of worship that are unable to access certain grants, even though non-profits can access them. Let me give 

you an example. 

Let us say you are a house of worship, but you ran a day care 

center or you leased it out to someone who ran a day care center. 

The day care center was wiped off the face of the earth. They get 

no capacity to go after grants, but yet, a day care center down the 

street that may be run by an independent non-profit that has a different lease with a private sector landlord can get those grants. 

There seems to be an imbalance there. Recognizing that the 

house of worship, it is not about the house of worship, it is about 

the facility that was being used. I know as a former mayor, we 

worked with a lot of these Camp Fire, for example, was doing afterschool programs within some of these facilities because that was 

the only place and location we could do it. 

What I am asking you is, would you be willing to look into this 

issue, assuming that you receive confirmation? I think it is important to provide the services needed and not put people at risk because where they put the facility or the service they are providing 

to the community. Does that make sense, that question? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to look into it, yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. Fantastic. Thank you. I will end there, and 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. I am not sure if the issues that Senator 

Begich is raising is one—I think the legislation has actually been 

introduced in the House—— 

Senator BEGICH. That is correct. 

Chairman CARPER [continuing]. That would allow houses of worship to receive directly, I believe, Federal grants for damage done 

to those houses of worship. We had the constitutional scholars look 

at that legislation carefully and there are questions that are raised, 

as you might imagine, about the separation of church and state. 

So while we want to be supportive of whether it is a day school 

or a soup kitchen or something that is faith-related and has been 

damaged, we want to be supportive in that regard. I think we have 

to be mindful of separation concerns that are raised by that legislation. 

Senator BEGICH. And I will just add, if I can, Mr. Chairman, I 

do not disagree with that, but I will tell you as a mayor, there are 

many times in communities where the facility is only available in 

a house of worship, run by, for example, Camp Fire. So I understand. 

I am not a lawyer, never want to be one, to be frank with you, 

no disrespect to lawyers. We have plenty in this body. I am more 

interested in trying to figure out solutions to a problem. But I just 

want you to look at it and give me your response. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. I am trying to get out of the legal business, too. 

Senator BEGICH. I know, and I like that you are going into public 

service. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Sometimes Senator Begich and I refer to ourselves, he as a recovering mayor and me as a recovering Governor. 
30 

You can become a recovering lawyer. That will be good. All right. 

Speaking of recovering attorneys general. 

Senator AYOTTE. I was going to say, exactly, Mr. Chairman. I am 

a recovering attorney general. 

So thank you, Mr. Johnson, for being here, and I want to obviously thank you for your willingness to step forward to serve the 

country again, and your family. 

So we have made some significant progress in taking out members of core al-Qaeda. Yet, we certainly have now factions and affiliates that are growing over a very large geographic region. I 

mean, when you look at al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), 

al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), al-Qaeda in Iraq to alNusra and al-Shabaab. 

So what kind of threat do you believe that these groups pose to 

the homeland? Is the threat growing? Where do we stand with 

that, and which al-Qaeda affiliate do you believe is the biggest 

threat? And then as a subsequent question I have for you as well, 

how big a threat do we face from home-grown violent extremists to 

our nation? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I have to preface my answer by saying 

that I have been away from the intelligence for almost a year now, 

and I know from my experience that threat streams can evolve 

week to week. 

Senator AYOTTE. I understand the caveat, but I know you also 

had substantial involvement—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE [continuing]. With this issue. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would characterize it this way: I agree with you 

that we have had considerable success in taking out core al-Qaeda. 

I think during my time at the Department of Defense, we saw the 

rise of affiliates like AQAP, AQIM, the AQ-affiliated elements of alShabaab. We have had some success with respect to those affiliates. 

And I believe that the way I would characterize it, we are moving to a third phase where the terrorist threat is becoming even 

more diffuse and we are seeing more lone wolf activity, more selfradicalization. Somebody reads a publication and they are not affiliated with AQ in the traditional manner of accepting formal command, direction, or training at the camps, but they are committing 

equally dangerous acts of terrorism. 

Those types of threats are, in my view, harder to detect. And so, 

I think that this ties in with the Homeland Security mission. I 

think that as we see more of a rise of that kind of threat, we are 

going to have to be vigilant on the civilian side, in law enforcement, 

border security, and so forth. 

Senator AYOTTE. And how do you envision—I mean, one of the 

issues, obviously, communication is key. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. So from your prior experience at DOD, what 

would be your biggest priority when we look at preventing that 

threat to our country, which, by the way, you would agree with me 

is still a very real threat? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. I think working with, communicating with 

State and local law enforcement, first responders, is key. It is going 
31 

to be even more significant, I think, in the years ahead. I believe 

DHS is situated in that regard with vertical sharing of information, 

intelligence, and analysis, and the first responders are going to 

have to be in a position to deal with these kinds of situations. 

Senator AYOTTE. One of the issues that you and I have talked 

about at length from your prior position and now that you are 

going to be in a very important position as the head of Homeland 

Security is this issue of interrogation. 

How important is it that when we do capture a terrorist? For example, Ayman al-Zawahiri, if we get him tomorrow, how important 

is it that we are able to conduct a vigorous and sometimes lengthy 

interrogation of these individuals in terms of intercepting attacks 

and information about their networks? 

Mr. JOHNSON. In my experience, interrogation of a terror suspect, 

somebody who is part of one of these groups, has been a gold mine 

for us in terms of what we learn through national security interrogations. That has been my experience in the first 4 years of this 

Administration. 

Senator AYOTTE. So one of the challenges we face that is not directly under your purview now, but I think that given the important role you face, that you will certainly, I would imagine, be 

sought after for advice on this is, how do we deal with this issue 

in a civilian context of the challenge of, if we capture al-Zawahiri 

and if you bring him in, right into our civilian court system, then 

we have things like Miranda Rights, speedy presentment, which 

can interfere with the length of interrogation that you might need 

to find out what someone knows to make sure that we are getting 

everything we need to protect our country. 

I feel like we are sort of in limbo-land right now where you and 

I talked about it in our meeting. Let me hear what you think about 

this issue and what are the challenges we face and how can we 

have a policy that allows us to gather information, while, obviously, 

I understand, we need to preserve future prosecution? But I am 

deeply concerned that we have a huge gap right now. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As you and I have discussed, I believe there is currently legal authority for a national security intelligence interrogation pre-Miranda, pre-presentment when you have somebody who 

is in the category of a national security threat who is captured or 

arrested. 

I also think that the Executive and the Congress ought to look 

at codifying some of this into law to reflect the practice, because 

I think it is going to become an increasingly important practice and 

there will be an increasing need for this type of interrogation. I 

think the authority exists already, but it might be a good idea to 

try to codify it. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate your 

insight on that, and I think right now we are in a place where we 

do not have really a detention and interrogation policy to address 

the situation where if tomorrow we capture the head of al-Qaeda, 

where is he detained and how long will he be held for interrogation? I look forward to working with you on this issue because it 

is one, I think, that is going to continue to present itself, as you 

have raised. 
32 

I want to ask you as well, just in terms of issues that you will 

be asked to address, there are many issues of waste, fraud, and 

abuse that I know Dr. Coburn and certainly Chairman Carper have 

asked you about. I look forward to working with them. One that 

has been raised recently has to do with overtime issues, and that 

is employees abusing the administratively uncontrolled overtime 

pay system, and therefore, amassing millions in unearned pay. It 

is an issue I have been interested in. And how would you go about 

addressing that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is obviously an issue of concern. I have read 

about it and I have had it explained to me. I know the Acting Secretary has undertaken a review, and if I am confirmed, I would be 

very interested in the results of that. I worry that it could be a systemic problem, and it is obviously one that should trouble whoever 

the head of DHS is, should trouble Congress, and trouble the taxpayer. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Senator Ayotte, thanks for those 

questions. Senator Paul, nice to see you, welcome. You are recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL 

Senator PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your testimony. I 

was wondering, do you think the Fourth Amendment applies to my 

Visa purchases? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not have a legal opinion on that, Senator. I 

think that there may be a privacy interest there, but I do not have 

a legal opinion for you right now. 

Senator PAUL. I hope you will think about it and I think it is 

something we all need to think about. And I think the current Supreme Court law actually probably says no. I think it is a tragedy, 

but that is the way the law has gone. With my Visa bill, you can 

tell what books I read, what magazines I read. You can tell whether I go to a psychiatrist. You can tell what medicines I buy. You 

can tell virtually everything about my life because everything I buy 

I put on my Visa card. 

People say, I do not have any expectation of privacy because it 

is a third-party record. I gave it up to someone. I think this is a 

big issue for us and, frankly, the Administration has not been very 

supportive of the Fourth Amendment and we are going to press 

these issues. But I want you to know that we will be watching and 

those of us who believe in the Fourth Amendment will be continuing to watch. 

Do you think that a single warrant can apply to millions of 

records and millions of individuals? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand that may be an issue with regard to 

certain surveillance programs. I do not have a legal opinion on that 

for you, Senator. 

Senator PAUL. Pretty important issue. It is going to be one of the 

biggest issues, and hopefully it will get into the Supreme Court. 

Do you think that it is due process to have a court trial where 

only one side is represented? Do you think that is due process 

where only one side would have a lawyer? 
33 

Mr. JOHNSON. In the context of a litigation, or a courtroom proceeding, no. 

Senator PAUL. We do have a court. That is where we are deciding 

now Constitutional questions, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

Act (FISA) court. There is no advocate on the side of the Constitution. There is no adversarial proceeding, and I think there could be 

no justice. There is also reviewing of Constitutional questions done 

in secret. Do you think we should decide the scope of the Fourth 

Amendment in a secret court? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think we in the Executive Branch and in the 

FISA court need to be skeptical. We need to have robust discussion. 

I have been a part of that in making certain use of force decisions. 

And I am skeptical of simply a lot of yeses in the room and I believe somebody needs to ask the hard questions. 

Senator PAUL. And I do not doubt, and I am not questioning your 

integrity, but what I would say is that due process is not a bunch 

of people, good people in a room, discussing whether we should kill 

people with drones or something. The President has mistakenly 

said that is somehow due process. That has nothing to do with due 

process. 

It may be a good idea, but it is not due process. Due process is 

in a court and it is debate back and forth with both sides being represented and with, hopefully, an impartial justice or impartial justices deciding this in an open court. So there is a lot of things going 

on in our country which really do not meet due process. 

And frankly, whether you are a good or bad person or whether 

you are in a room discussing this or whether you give vigorous debate, is not due process. It is important that this be said over and 

over again because we are making important decisions, which gets 

to my next question. 

Do you think we should target American citizens overseas for 

killing who are not involved in combat? I am thinking of propagandists, other people who may have committed treason but have 

not been charged or convicted. Do you think that a bunch of lawyers in a room from one Administration, from one political party, 

can decide the guilt or innocence of American citizens? These are 

ones who often, if not always, are mostly not engaged in combat. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As you pose it, I think my answer would be no. 

Senator PAUL. But you realize that a lot of the drones are directed against people just walking down the street or eating or 

doing something. I do not have any problem, if an American citizen 

is over there fighting and they are in the middle of a war and they 

are shooting at our soldiers, by all means use a drone or whatever 

other means you have to kill them. But we are killing people sort 

of walking down the street. 

So what I am arguing for, and nobody really seems to be making 

the point that I am, is that, for example, Adam Gadahn. We indicted him. He probably has committed treason. You probably 

would convince me if I were on the jury to convict him of treason. 

Why not? Why not go ahead and try these people for treason? AlAwlaki, we had him listed for years and years. 

If you have to redact some testimony or go into private session, 

do it. Give him a chance if he wants to come home. My guess is 

he was not coming home to be tried for treason. But go ahead and 
34 

try him for treason. And then I think you at least have due process, 

because then you have a real court, a real process. 

You would probably have a lawyer on both sides. I mean, the 

whole idea that justice comes about through representation and 

through a court trial and through a jury is something too important—and I know this is an unusual circumstance, we have only 

had like three or four citizens killed—but the principle of it is pretty important. 

And I think we should all be aware that there were times in our 

history when we did not do justice to a lot of people for various reasons, for race, the Japanese-Americans. Imagine what happened to 

them when they did not get processed during World War II. 

Also imagine what happened to—or what would have happened 

to an African-American in 1910 in the South accused of a crime. 

So I think there are all kinds of reasons that a lot of us should be 

a little more concerned about due process and not be so careless 

about this. 

So I just hope you will think about these questions, the scope of 

the Fourth Amendment, but also what due process is, and that if 

you are head of Homeland Security, you and a bunch of lawyers 

getting together and deciding it is fine to collect data on every 

American through one warrant, that is a Constitutional question 

and it is also not due process. 

And I hope that you will be somebody you will facilitate getting 

Constitutional questions into a real court and not a mock court. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, Senator Paul. Let me turn, if I 

can, I mentioned earlier in my comments on GAO, and Dr. Coburn 

and I have used GAO’s high-risk list. Most of it is a to-do list for 

a subcommittee that we used to take turns leading, and also for 

this Committee as well. Every year GAO promulgates its high-risk 

list. People say to me, what is a high-risk list? It is high-risk ways 

of wasting money, our taxpayers’ money, which is in short supply 

as you know. 

One of the things that Jane Holl Lute, who was the last confirmed Deputy Secretary, used to do, she used to go over to the 

GAO. I do not know if she went every week, but she went pretty 

often, and would meet with Gene Dodaro, the Comptroller General, 

meet with others who worked for him, and say, Let us go through 

your high-risk list and let us see what we have to do to get off of 

it. They made a whole lot of progress. 

And hopefully, later this year, the Department of Homeland Security will complete a clean audit and leave us only one large department, and that is the Department of Defense, that has not actually received a clean audit. 

But I want to urge you, and when we get a Deputy confirmed, 

hopefully soon, to take to heart what Jane Holl Lute used to do, 

and I am sure Janet Napolitano, as the Secretary, did it as well. 

With that having been said, let me just ask you what you believe 

to be some of the major management challenges in the Department. What do you see your role as the Secretary in addressing 

those management challenges? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I have read the GAO report. I saw the 

31 issues that GAO identified. I was pleased to see that according 
35 

to GAO, DHS is moving in the right direction with respect to these 

issues and resolving a number of them. In terms of management 

issues, there are vacancies, ensuring an efficient procurement process, getting an unqualified audited financial statement, and dealing 

with some of the internal control issues that lead to an unqualified 

opinion. 

I also think that with six different accounting systems, we need 

to be sure we have what the financial people call business intelligence so you can identify things like unobligated funds across 

your bureaucracy. And I think DHS is moving in the right direction, but it is only going to continue to move in the right direction 

if somebody is pushing it, and sometimes making people feel uncomfortable about deadlines and about the status quo. 

I understand that is good leadership and I understand that a bureaucracy is a large, sluggish aircraft carrier that will, if you let 

it, just kind of chug along in a certain direction. I think good leaders need to push it, sometimes in different directions which can be 

uncomfortable for a lot of people. 

Chairman CARPER. Good. Well, when you have the opportunity 

to bring new people onto your leadership team, who will have, in 

some cases, a lot of direct contact with GAO and the work that 

GAO is doing or has done, I would urge you to sensitize them early 

on what your expectations are. 

Our expectation as an oversight Committee is to make sure that 

Federal departments throughout the Federal Government do not 

ignore the work that GAO is doing. So I would ask you, do you 

fully subscribe to that as well? 

Let me just turn and talk a little bit about State and local stakeholders. As you know, a lot of the work that the Department of 

Homeland Security does involves partnerships, it involves cooperation with State and with local governments and with non-profits 

like the Red Cross. 

In fact, our Nation’s homeland security is dependent on these 

partners. I am reminded every time I talk with our Red Cross folks 

in Delaware and our emergency responders, because they are sometimes first on the scene to respond to disasters and try to help people in some tough situations, making sure that these relationships 

work is an important responsibility of the Secretary. 

And if confirmed, let me just ask you, what are some of the steps 

that you would take to make sure the Department continues to 

work ever better with its State and local partners? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I recognize the importance of this. Given the nature of the DHS mission, given the nature of the homeland security 

mission, working effectively with State and local law enforcement, 

State and local governments, the private sector in the border security, national security, homeland security, cybersecurity realms are 

important. I have been struck by the emphasis that people up here, 

people within DHS have placed on it. 

And the attention that, if I am confirmed, they would want me 

to pay to it. It is pretty apparent to me that it is part of the mission. When I was a Federal prosecutor, I worked a lot with the 

New York City Police Department, not just the Federal law enforcement agencies, and some of my most enduring relationships 

from those days are with the cops, New York City Police Depart-
36 

ment that I worked with building narcotics cases. So I think I get 

that. 

Chairman CARPER. OK, good. One more and that involves the 

tragedy that occurred out at Los Angeles International Airport 

(LAX) a couple of weeks ago where three transportation security officers, Gerardo Hernandez, James Speer, and Tony Grigsby, were 

all shot, as you will recall, during an attack at the airport. And 

sadly, Mr. Hernandez died. He left behind a widow and two children. 

We are deeply troubled by reports that the shooter specifically 

sought out TSA employees during the attack. I know it is not possible to protect against every threat, every Department of Homeland Security front line agent, but a bunch of them do face threats. 

But I believe we should carefully review this incident and see if 

there is anything more we can do to protect TSA employees. 

Let me just give a shout out to TSA. I know they take criticism 

from a lot of folks. It is a hard job. It is a job that they have a 

good leader in John Pistole. They are working hard to try to do it 

better, so they need a little bit of support and some sympathy for 

the loss of one of their colleagues and we extend that. But I want 

to say to the folks out there at TSA, under John Pistole’s leadership, that are working hard, trying to do the right thing, trying to 

improve every day the work that they do, we appreciate that effort 

and we urge them keep it up. 

But if you are confirmed, what will you do to mitigate the risk 

that a TSA or a Department of Homeland Security employee could 

be the target of an attack like the one visited on Officer Hernandez 

and his colleagues? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, I read something about that attack that 

was really upsetting, which was that apparently, allegedly, the 

shooter shot Hernandez, left, went up an escalator, and then came 

back when he realized he was not dead and shot him again. That 

is really bad. 

And I think that given the visibility of these people, their interaction with the public, we need to look at how to provide for their 

safety. I do not know that the answer is screening everybody that 

comes into an airport. That would be a very long line. But I think 

we need to look at better ensuring their safety one way or another, 

and it is something I expect I will be focused on if I am confirmed. 

Chairman CARPER. I think in this instance, the family in New 

Jersey knew that something was wrong with their son and tried to 

reach out, I believe, to the authorities in the Los Angeles area. I 

think someone—the police may actually have gone and visited this 

person’s apartment and he was gone. He had already left and was 

apparently on his way to the airport. 

And it just reminds me, we do not always agree on gun-related 

issues, but I think one of the things we can agree on first is we 

do not want guns to be in the hands of people that are mentally 

unstable or are likely to use them to harm other people. I think we 

can all agree on that. We need to do a better job on background 

checks and get the correct answer, fast answer, but the right answer. 

And the second thing that comes to mind here is the adage, if 

you see something, say something. Folks, when you see your room-
37 

mate or a member of your family is in this kind of situation, this 

kind of condition, you have to say something, you have to speak up, 

and not just ignore it or brush it aside. If that had happened 

maybe sooner, this perhaps could have been averted. Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. I would add my congratulations to 

John Pistole. I think he has made remarkable improvements. We 

have a long ways to go, but there is progress being made there. 

I will address Tom’s other issue, our problems with mental illness in this country. We are not handling it. We are limiting practicing physicians’ ability to notify. Through the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) laws, we are forbidden 

to do that when we know, in fact, somebody is dangerous. So that 

is an area I agree we can work on and we are negligent that we 

have not addressed that as a Congress and as a country. 

One of the questions that has surrounded a lot of Homeland Security spending is whether we spend the money on risk or we 

spread the money out. It is my feeling that the vast majority of our 

monies ought to go where the risk is the greatest. What are your 

thoughts on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think I agree with that, Senator. 

Senator COBURN. So we ought to be risk-based. We have spent 

$37 billion on grants, which is another high-risk program, for Department of Homeland Security, and probably less than 25 percent 

of that has gone to the highest risk areas. And part of that is the 

parochial bent of Congress that wants to make sure we get our fair 

share for each parochial representative. But it is a real problem. 

The President proposed, and I actually agree with this—not very 

many Members of Congress agree—of consolidating all the grant 

programs at DHS. I think that is a wise thing to do. And then to 

base it on risk. What are your feelings about that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is an issue that a number of people have raised 

with me, how we dispense grant money. It is taxpayer money. I 

used to be on the board of a community trust that did nothing but 

give out grants, and an important part of the job of that fiduciary 

responsibility was ensuring that once we gave out the money, the 

recipient is making effective use of the money. 

I think that in general, the professionals who I have consulted 

over the last couple of weeks seem to feel that we need to move 

in the direction of a risk-based approach to homeland security. And 

that probably entails focusing our grant money in the same direction as well. 

So I would be inclined to agree with you, if what you are saying 

is we need to make efficient use of our taxpayer dollars for purposes of homeland security. 

Senator COBURN. The other part of the grant program that is not 

present at Homeland Security is performance metrics and followup 

and elimination of grants on people who do not perform. The GAO 

has done a lot of work in terms of the unspent fund, the bogus expenditures, and the inappropriate expenditures. We have actually 

highlighted them. 

I am sorry Senator Ayotte is not here because New Hampshire 

and one of its small towns has a Bear Cat for its Pumpkin Festival 

paid for with a DHS grant, $80,000 that could have made a real 
38 

difference somewhere else with a higher risk. And they know I am 

critical of it. But that is the kind of lack of control we have. 

Grant reform is a big deal to me because I think with the dollars 

that we are going to spend, ought to be spent to actually reduce 

risk rather than to satisfy or make a politician look good. I know 

that is antithetical to some of my colleagues, but that is what we 

are charged to do. 

I do not care if Oklahoma never gets another dollar of Homeland 

Security grants as long as the dollars that are spent are spent on 

high-risk areas, and that is the way it should be. Will you work 

with our Committee to reform the grant program? And will you answer my question as far as the President’s proposal of consolidating 

all the grant programs? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. I want to study that issue and I will answer 

that. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. There was one other thing that 

came up in your staff interview about which I had some concerns, 

and I have not had a chance to visit with you about this personally, 

but it was brought to my attention. In your questionnaire responses, you stated, I believe, that one of DHS’s many counterterrorism priorities should be to better detect what the experts call 

broken travel outside the United States. 

We must do a better job and partnership with foreign governments of tracking the foreign travel of suspicious individuals before 

they return to the United States. When you were asked about this, 

you were asked if you meant DHS should track individuals under 

investigation or high-risk watch list individuals, and your response 

was, I am not necessarily referring just to suspicious individuals. 

Later you added, I would like know more from a Homeland Security perspective, where you have gone while you are away. Can you 

state for this Committee what role you envision for DHS in tracking the travel of U.S. persons, at home or abroad, that are not on 

a suspicious list or on a high-risk list? What do you mean by that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, first of all, I may not have—I probably did 

not state it as artfully as I could have in the staff interview. I think 

that there are some real privacy and civil liberties concerns associated with travel and I appreciate that. I do recognize that we have 

a problem when it comes to suspicious individuals laundering their 

travel. That is a problem. It is a fact. 

I saw it happen on my watch at DOD. I think it is a blind spot. 

I am not necessarily saying we therefore need to insist that we 

track the travel of every person who leaves this country. There are 

real privacy interests associated with that, and I suspect we would 

have a real uproar if we tried to do that. 

But I think this is a blind spot. I think it is a real problem, but 

getting to a better place, obviously, involves a balance. So I recognize that. 

Senator COBURN. All right. You have some significant experience 

with acquisitions. As a matter of fact, you alluded to Senator Tester you know how the game is played. If you want a certain vendor 

to get it, you write the RFP so only that vendor can get it. We have 

problems across the Federal Government because some of our most 

experienced acquisition specialists have retired or are retiring. 
39 

What do you envision trying to install at Homeland Security to, 

No. 1, improve our acquisition process; No. 2, hold it accountable; 

and No. 3, also in terms of information technology, which is a problem across all the Federal Government, 50 percent of what we buy 

we waste. It is two and a half times worse than that in the private 

sector. 

Can you comment at all on what you would envision of firming 

up our acquisition protocols and our capability, and also holding 

people responsible for when they flub up? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think it starts with quality personnel. At the Department of Defense, I saw a statistic that suggested that we were 

losing quality personnel in the acquisition community there, and it 

was reflected in some of the results we had. So I think quality personnel for starters. 

Information technology is a world we are getting into with increasing frequency and we have some issues there across the entire 

Federal Government. I recognize the importance of an efficient 

quality acquisition program and quality acquisition community for 

the benefit of the taxpayer, and so, I know it is something I am 

going to have to focus on. I have read enough about some of the 

problems DHS has had over the last 10 years, Senator. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. I am through. I will have a couple 

of questions for the record. 

Chairman CARPER. One of our colleagues who was unable to be 

with us today is Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, whom I 

know you have met with. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Chairman CARPER. She is chairing a hearing on the Small Business Committee at the same time. She had hoped to be able to 

come and ask some questions and express her support for your 

nomination. 

Two issues that we really have not drilled down on, one of those 

is cybersecurity, and it is a very important issue. And it is one I 

am not going to drill down into a great extent today, but I talked 

to you earlier about Homeland Security as a team sport. I used the 

term sport loosely, but it is a team effort. 

Cybersecurity is as well. It is not just the government, it is not 

just the Federal Government. It is the private sector. It is State 

and local as well and for us as individuals. But the Department of 

Homeland Security does play on that field, as you know, has real 

responsibilities. We are working with the Administration, working 

with the private sector to try to charter a path forward. 

I think one of the smartest things the Administration did when 

the President promulgated his Executive Order on cybersecurity almost a year ago now, was to put in charge the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST), in charge of the Department 

of Commerce to actually reach out to the private sector, and especially with those that are dealing with critical infrastructure and 

say, What are your best ideas? What do you think the best practices are for protecting especially our critical infrastructure? 

The private sector has been concerned that the government is 

just going to come in and tell them what to do and mandate best 

practices. The private sector, for the most part, is not interested in 

that. They want to be fully involved as partners, and I think NIST 
40 

is doing a very nice job of that outreach. They are working on their 

framework, as you probably know, and even the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce, which earlier proposed last year comprehensive 

cybersecurity legislation says the Department of Commerce, 

through NIST, is actually doing a good job. 

There are things that the Department of Homeland Security 

needs to do. Dr. Coburn and I and our staffs have been working 

literally for months on issues including the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), on issues involving the ability 

of the Department of Homeland Security to track the kind of 

skilled and talented employees they need in this arena, the kind 

of investments that we should be making in terms of research and 

development to better defend ourselves in the cybersecurity space. 

And also, just, how do we do a better job of sharing good ideas 

and making sure that we are prepared should there be an attack 

on our electric grid, on our utility systems, on our telecommunication systems, financial services systems? How do we better protect those critical infrastructures? The Department of Homeland 

Security plays in all those arenas. 

So, once you have a chance to get confirmed, get your feet wet, 

Dr. Coburn and I will probably want to spend some time with you, 

especially to talk about that, and even though we did not today, it 

is real important, as you know. 

The other thing you raised a little bit, and I think in one of your 

comments, you talked about lone wolves. I worry about al-Qaeda, 

I worry about their affiliates, we all do. I also worry about the folks 

that become radicalized, are home-grown right here, and then go 

off maybe to other countries, or maybe do not, and then they come 

back here and visit real horrors on our people. That is a tough one. 

That is a tough one to deal with. And so, that is one of the balls 

we need to keep our eye on. I am glad you have. 

Usually when I conclude a hearing like this, I will ask the witness if they have a closing comment that they might like to make, 

something that has come to mind. You have been asked questions, 

you have had a chance to reflect on what we have not asked, and 

if you would like to just make not a long closing statement, but a 

relatively short one, I think this might be a good time to do that, 

and then I will say some words I am supposed to say at the end 

of a hearing. 

And if Dr. Coburn does not have anything else, we will call it a 

day. But just say any closing thoughts you would like to share with 

us. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, thank you for your time and attention. 

Working with your staff to get to today has been a real pleasure. 

All the staff of this Committee have been very professional. I have 

learned a lot from the courtesy visits I have had with the Members 

of this Committee and their staffs. 

Some people think this process is a formality, it is a burden. I 

actually believe in this process because, for the benefit of the nominee, you learn the issues that Congress is concerned about, what 

is on your mind, what your priorities are. Occasionally you are able 

to extract from the nominee certain pledges, which is probably a 

good thing. You have my attention. 
41 

And if I am confirmed, I pledge to have a very open, transparent 

relationship with the Chair and the Ranking Member and the 

other Members of this Committee. I look forward to working with 

you, and I will dare to predict that after my tenure, the people on 

this Committee will say that Johnson was somebody that worked 

well with us and in a bipartisan fashion. 

So I hope you will vote to confirm me. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. I just have two final comments. One of the 

things I have noticed in my years in Washington is when we get 

somebody great in a position, as soon as we have an Administration turn over, we lose them. And so, one of the things I would like 

for you to think about, and your family to think about is, as you 

get into this role, as I know you will, and you become excellent at 

it, is the very well consideration of staying there when, in fact, 

there is another Administration come 2016 so that we do not lose 

all this tremendous experience and gray hair and have to retrain 

another leader. 

I do not expect you to make a commitment to that, but I want 

to put that in your mind to think about. When we see quality people in quality positions, it should not matter what party they are 

in if they are doing an effective job. We ought to take advantage 

of what they have learned and their leadership. 

The second comment I would have for you, I told you I would 

have an alternative viewpoint for you and I am going to present 

what I think it should be, your reading, to hear some of our 

thoughts on what is going on, and it is a countervailing view. Some 

of it you have probably already read, but I would appreciate it if 

you would take a look at it, and it is what we have looked at on 

Homeland Security through the last 6 years. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am happy to—— 

Senator COBURN. So I have a present for you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. On your 

first point, at this point, that is all them. That is all up to them. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. I was watching your wife’s lips carefully as 

Dr. Coburn suggested a second tour, and I thought she was saying, 

don’t you dare. I remember when we were having a confirmation 

hearing for Lisa Jackson at the Environmental Protection Agency 

a couple of years ago, I said to her—she had children just a little 

younger than your son and daughter. And I remember I said to 

her, at the end of the hearing—her husband was with her, too, and 

their two children. 

I said to her, take a good look, Lisa. Take a good look at your 

children because this is the last time you are going to see them 

until Christmas. And they kind of blanched and I said—I told her, 

I was just kidding, but they were not sure. You will see them before Christmas. You will hopefully see them well before Thanksgiving. 

But this is, as we know, a demanding job, a really important job. 

Dr. Coburn leaned over to me early in the hearing and he said, I 

think he has the potential of being the best Secretary for this Department we have ever had. That is saying a lot, because you fol-
42 

low some very good people. And Tom Coburn does not always say 

that about the people who appear before us. 

After we get you confirmed, I am encouraged that we will be able 

to—you need to go to work, we need to go to work to get the team 

around you that you need. And given to deal with stuff like this, 

to read and all these requests that you have gotten from my colleagues, you are going to need all the help you can get just to keep 

your word on the pledges and promises that you have made. So 

there is a lot to do and a lot to do beyond all of that. 

Again, if your mom and dad are out there watching this, tell 

them they done good in raising their kids and we are grateful to 

them and to you for your family to be here with you today. It is 

just great to meet all of you. We look forward to working and doing 

good things for our country for the security of our homeland, but 

really for security of our people. 

The last thing, the people who work at DHS, morale is not good. 

We are going to work hard to make sure it gets better, and when 

they do a good job, to make sure they get some credit for that and 

see if we cannot do a little better job, a better job in consolidating 

folks. We have people spread out all across the place, in Washington and across the country. We want to try to get some of them 

on the same campus so they actually can feel more like a team, too. 

Mary Landrieu, I mentioned. Mary is not here. She chairs the 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. She is a huge 

piece of this and the idea of maybe you and Dr. Coburn, Senator 

Landrieu, and myself meeting together from time to time just to 

see how we are doing, see what we can do better, I think that 

might be of great value to you and the folks you lead in our country. 

Mr. Johnson has filed responses to biographical and financial 

questionnaires, answered prehearing questions submitted by the 

Committee, and had his financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will 

be made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the financial data which are on file and available for public inspection in the 

Committee offices. 

Without objection, the record will be kept open until noon tomorrow for the submission of any written question or statement for the 

record. Unless, Dr. Coburn, you have anything? 

Senator COBURN. I have a present to give him. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. I know it is not Christmas yet, and 

you will get other presents. Maybe ones that you will welcome even 

more than this one, but there is probably some good in this one, 

too. 

Dr. Coburn, thank you very much. Mr. Johnson, good luck and 

God bless. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(43) 

A P P E N D I X 
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 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 

Æ