U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

88–283 PDF 2016

S. Hrg. 113–778 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 13, 2014 

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 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Acting Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

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

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

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

DANIEL P. LIPS, Minority Director of Homeland Security 

SCOTT M BEHEN, Minority U.S. Government Accountability Office Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 4 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 11 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 14 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 18 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 20 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 37 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

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

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 45 

(1) 

THE HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT’S 

BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

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

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, McCaskill, Coburn, McCain, Johnson 

and Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER 

Chairman CARPER. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. 

Secretary Johnson, nice to see you. I have not seen you in a 

while. And, how are you today? 

We are happy that you could come by and visit. 

I understand you have not had a chance to testify yet on the 

budget, the President’s budget for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and so this is a unique opportunity. 

What is this? One of four? 

Secretary JOHNSON. This is three of four. Each opportunity is an 

opportunity to say something new. That is how I look at it. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. We will be looking for consistency 

in all of those different budget appearances. 

I like to say, if it is not perfect, make it better. Well, you have 

had an opportunity to make it better each time. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am happy to be here. 

Chairman CARPER. And we are delighted that you are here, but 

our thanks to you for joining us today. 

We are pleased that in recent weeks we have been able to help 

you at least begin to put together a talented group of people around 

you, and I am very grateful to Dr. Coburn for the work that he has 

done with his leadership to help make that possible. 

In fact, last week, we scored something like a hat-trick by confirming individuals, good people, to three key positions at the Department including Suzanne Spaulding as Under Secretary of National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), John Roth, to 

be the Inspector General (IG) at the Department of Homeland Security, and Gil Kerlikowske as the Commissioner of Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP). They are ready to go, anxious to go, and 

some of them have actually been there working for a while. 
2 

And we still have more to do. We are going to try to—as Dr. 

Coburn says, we are going to try to do an off-the-floor markup for 

Reggie Brothers as well. 

Providing strong and steady leadership is critically important to 

the Department and the security of our Nation. Providing adequate 

funding for the Department to carry out its mission is also vitally 

important and a central part of our job here in Congress, as you 

know. 

The President’s request for $38 billion in discretionary funding 

for the Department makes some very tough choices and cuts the 

Department’s discretionary budget by $1 billion, or almost 3 percent below 2014 appropriated levels. 

Many other departments, including several without national security missions did not see these kinds of cuts. In fact, they saw 

some increases. 

If you factor in the requested, and much deserved, one percent 

pay raise for Federal employees in this budget, DHS will receive 

about $100 million less than it did after sequestration reduced its 

fiscal year (FY) 2013 appropriation. 

As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported, the sequestration cuts had a real and negative impact on 

DHS. For example, operations were scaled back at some components, and first responder and preparedness grant funding was reduced, resulting in canceled training and hiring freezes across the 

country. 

While some of the impacts of sequestration were immediately 

visible, many of the negative effects may not be felt for some years 

to come. Some DHS officials have expressed concern that if funding 

levels were to be further reduced the Department’s ability to meet 

mission priorities may be affected as well as employee morale. 

The fact that the budget request for DHS is below the sequestration level of funding is just, frankly, concerning. I am concerned 

that these reduced funding levels will negative impact the ability 

of the Department to effectively carry out all of its missions. 

In recent years, we have had a number of incidents that remind 

us of just how important that mission is—the attempted airline 

bombing on Christmas Day in 2009, the attempted terrorist attacks 

in Times Square a year later, the devastation wrought by Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and the tragedy in Boston less than a year ago. 

When we factor in the growing cyber threat and the threat we face 

from foreign fighters gaining experience in places like Syria and 

perhaps traveling here to do us harm, it is easy to understand why 

this budget request raises both concerns and questions from Congress. 

That said, we all know we are facing extremely difficult budgetary times and we must be diligent to ensure the taxpayer funds 

are well spent. 

I have said it before, and I will certainly say it again, all Federal 

agencies and departments, including DHS, have to shift from a culture of spendthrift to a culture of thrift so that we can assure 

American taxpayers that their hard-earned money is being spent 

responsibly and effectively. 
3 

Our new Secretary seems to have taken this message to heart, identifying $200 million in cost savings in the proposed budget, and 

we welcome that. 

It is also good to see that this budget proposes much needed 

funded for cyber security. However, I will be carefully examining 

this proposal—we will be carefully examining this proposal to determine whether the funding request is sufficient to support the 

Department’s efforts to help companies adopt the cyber framework 

that has been released by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). 

Of course, resources are low and are not going to get the job 

done, and that is why passing bipartisan legislation to complement 

the President’s cyber security Executive Order (EO) remains one of 

my highest priorities this year. And, as I say, I think that is a priority that is shared by our Ranking Republican. 

I also welcome the Administration’s continued commitment to 

the security of our Nation’s borders demonstrated in this budget. 

The budget maintains the current record level of staffing for the 

border patrol and makes targeted investments in what I call force 

multipliers—technologies such as advanced radars, cameras, and 

ground sensors. And these efforts will build on the tremendous 

progress that has been made in securing the border over the past 

years. 

The President’s budget request includes proposals to help pay for 

these smart investments, in part, by raising the fees that Customs 

and Border Protection charges for inspecting passengers and goods 

at our airports and seaports. This new revenue would be used to 

deploy some 2,000 new officers at our ports of entry. 

Let me say that again—2,000 new officers at our ports of entry. 

That would be a positive development for both our economic and 

national security. 

The budget also includes a proposal to raise fees to continue efforts to secure our aviation system against potential attacks. 

I like to say that if something is worth having it is worth paying 

for, and I support these fee increases. 

I am not the only Member of Congress who supports these types 

of fee increases to cover the cost of providing critical government 

services. Republican Congressman and Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said this last December, when speaking about authorizing new aviation security fees. This is quoting Chairman 

Ryan. He said, ‘‘If you use a government service, pay for the government service. If you use airport security, pay for the airport security.’’ 

I could not agree more. If we want more officers expediting travel 

and trade at our airports, border crossings and seaports, and if we 

want more secure airplanes—and I think we do—then we ought to 

be willing to pay for it, just as Congressman Ryan suggested. 

If Congress does not support the requested fee increases, either 

the Department will have to cut about a billion dollars in additional funding from a budget that is already stretched thin or Congress will have to increase the discretionary funding it provides to 

the Department. 

Speaking of smart, strategic investments, I am encouraged to see 

the increase in funding for the consolidation of the Department 
4 

headquarters at the St. Elizabeths campus. The funding request 

will help move this project along. Completing it is critical to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of operations and management of the Department. I think it is also critical for enhancing the 

morale of the members of the Department. 

And I also welcome the President’s request for $45 million for the 

modernization of the financial management systems at the Department. That is a key investment to ensure that DHS can sustain its 

recently obtained clean audit. 

Again, we applaud that progress on the audit side. It is something Dr. Coburn and I have focused on for years, and it leaves one 

outlier now. That is the Department of Defense (DOD), and you put 

them on the spot. 

And my hope is that Tom and I and our colleagues can have a 

hearing here in a couple of months where we invite the Army, 

Navy, Air Force, and Marines, maybe somebody from the Coast 

Guard, and say, if they were able to do it over in the Coast Guard 

and Homeland Security, now it is your turn, and maybe get a little 

bit of interservice rivalry going on for a good cause. 

But, with that said, I am concerned about some of the budget’s 

significant cuts to other key Homeland priorities. For example, I 

am troubled by the proposed cuts to the homeland security grants 

that DHS provides to State and local governments. As we saw 

clearly in response to the Boston Marathon bombing and the severe 

winter storms this year, State and local officials are the ones who 

will inevitably be on the front lines, responding to a terrorist attack 

or a natural disaster. 

While acknowledging that our approach to grant funding must be 

risk-based—and I would underline that, must be risk-based—we 

want to make sure that the Department is able to continue to adequately support State and local responders to respond effectively 

where the risk is the greatest. 

Now let me turn to Dr. Coburn for whatever comments he wants 

to make. 

Again, welcome this morning. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a formal opening 

statement, but I would like to say for the record how much I appreciate the service and sacrifice that the Secretary is willing to make 

in fulfilling this position. 

The other thing I would like to say is that it is such a breath 

of fresh air to have real leadership installed at Homeland Security, 

and I think the morale problem is going to go away under your 

leadership regardless of all the other problems that are going forward. 

So I would just like to personally thank you for both your leadership and your service, and I will have plenty of questions. Thank 

you. 

Chairman CARPER. You bet. 

Secretary Johnson, your whole statement—in fact, I understand 

from Senator Landrieu, at whose Appropriations Subcommittee you 

testified yesterday, that you do not actually use a formal state-
5 

1The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 40. 

ment, that you had entered it for the record. We are happy to do 

that again. And she said you summarized and did a very nice job. 

So, however you want to proceed, please do. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEH C. JOHNSON,1

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Dr. 

Coburn, Senator Johnson, and Senator Ayotte. 

Let me just say I do have a prepared statement for the record, 

which has been submitted. Let me just make a few comments myself. 

First of all, I want to thank the Members of this Committee for 

your support and your courtesy. It means a lot to me, personally. 

It is a reaffirmation for me to work with terrific colleagues in the 

Legislative Branch on our common mission, and I very much appreciate that. 

I also very much appreciate the three confirmations of our DHS 

leadership last week—Mr. Kerlikowske for CBP; Suzanne 

Spaulding, our new Under Secretary; John Roth, our new IG. 

And we have three awaiting confirmation now, who I believe 

have been through committee—General Frank Taylor for Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), Dr. Brothers for Science and Technology (S&T) and Leon Rodriguez for Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (CIS). 

You probably can, but perhaps you cannot, appreciate how important it is for the morale of the Department to have new leadership, Senate-confirmed new leadership, coming into the Department. It injects new energy, and I think it is going to do a lot for 

morale. 

Mr. Chairman, you are correct that this budget submission reflects hard choices in a time of fiscal constraints. Not everyone is 

happy with our budget submission. We requested some cuts in certain places and some increases. 

I think given the environment which we are in this budget request adequately funds the Homeland Security mission. 

In terms of our counterterrorism effort, we make a number of requests for grant authorization and aviation security. 

We devoted right now a record amount of resources to border and 

port security. We are maintaining 21,370 border patrol agents at 

the borders. We have, with this request, a request to take our number of CBP officers up to 25,775. That is a record number. 

We have requested $90 million for surveillance at the border, 

which I think is particularly important. Surveillance technology 

aligns with what our agents on the front lines tell me when I visit 

the border, what they believe they need for added border security. 

So I am glad that the request includes $90 million for surveillance 

technology. 

In terms of cybersecurity, as you know, I am determined to make 

real progress on behalf of this country in the world of 

cybersecurity. Overall, across DHS, we have requested $1.2 billion 

for cybersecurity, which includes law enforcement efforts by the Secret Service. It includes our cybersecurity efforts at headquarters. 
6 

It includes the system that we are about to fully deploy to protect 

the ‘‘.gov’’ world. 

We have requested funding for the new national bio and agro facility in Kansas. 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Precheck, which is 

popular with the American public—I think it is an effective, efficient use of taxpayer dollars in that it both adds to our security 

and it is user-friendly, so to speak, because it shortens lines at the 

airports for those who conduct background checks. 

We are moving forward with our recapitalization of the Coast 

Guard fleet. We have requested funding for the eighth National Security Cutter (NSC). We have requested funding to move forward 

with the selection for the design phase for the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC), and we have requested funding for two new Fast Response Cutters (FRC). 

You are correct that we are asking for a restoration of the aviation infrastructure fee restoration to $420 million, and for the aviation security fee we have asked for an increase from $5.60 to $6. 

I agree with your observation that these requests reflect the general philosophy that if you use it you should pay for it as opposed 

to having the taxpayer in general pay for it. 

Someone like me, when I was in my private law practice, would 

fly frequently for business reasons. Other Americans do not. And 

so the budget submission reflects the request that for those who 

use aviation more often than those who do not, some emphasis 

ought to be on us paying a little bit more. So that is what is reflected here. 

I do believe that in these current fiscal times I am obligated to 

look for inefficiencies across the Department, and I believe we are 

doing that. 

We are creating a budget process—first time in the history of 

this Department—that is mission-based. It will start from a headquarters-level review of what our strategic missions ought to be. 

We then identify resources. And we then give the components overall guidance in terms of what they should be requesting of us and 

of the Congress rather than simply having it stovepiped, coming up 

from the components. 

We are also building a better acquisition process along the same 

lines that begins with an overall strategic review of what we think 

we need and an acquisition process which is more headquarterscentric, with an eye toward looking for inefficiencies and duplication. 

You are correct that for the first time we have a clean audit opinion. I would like to take credit for that, but I cannot. That reflects 

a number of years of hard work by our management personnel to 

get to that point. I do enjoy, however, being ahead of the pace of 

the Department of Defense in that regard. 

Again, thank you for your support and your friendship, and I 

look forward to your questions. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thanks. Very nicely done. 

I want to start off with the last point that you made, and that 

is the clean audit. It is the kind of thing you have to continue to 

earn every year. 
7 

Jane Holl Lute, who was our previous Deputy Secretary of the 

Department, testified before our Committee just before she left, 

and she talked about how she would literally go meet with Gene 

Dodaro who testified here yesterday—He is the head of GAO. 

And she would go meet with him almost monthly to literally go 

through the high-risk list. This Department has been on GAO’s 

high-risk list since its inception. 

And she would go meet with Gene and say, OK, what do we have 

to do to get off the high-risk list in this area, and they would hammer it out. 

And she would take it back for action items and help make sure 

that what was needed was done. 

I would strongly encourage our new deputy to do that. 

And I would urge you, if you have not had a chance to work with 

Gene—he is a very strong and capable leader, and I would urge 

you to spend a little bit of time with him when your schedule allows. 

You mentioned TSA Precheck. I had the opportunity to use it 

this year, and also, Global Entry. 

I was in El Salvador to try to figure out how do we reduce the 

amount of illegal immigration coming from El Salvador, Honduras 

and Guatemala, 2 weeks ago, and I had a chance to use Global 

Entry. Those are really smart ideas. 

Dr. Coburn and I, and you, and others on our Committee, focus 

a whole lot on risk-based decisions. We have limited resources to 

spend. Let’s just send those resources to where the risks are the 

highest. 

And I think TSA Precheck and Global Entry are smart approaches, and we commend those who are coming up with those. 

I want to go back to the borders. I know you have been down 

along the border. 

I was privileged to go last year with Senator McCain to the borders in his State, and also, I was joined for a little bit of time there 

by your predecessor, Janet Napolitano and had a chance to talk to 

a bunch of your people in Arizona. 

And then later I went over to Texas and had an opportunity to 

visit the South Texas border, which I believe you have already visited as well. 

I was struck by the high morale, of the folks in the green uniforms that we met with. They are proud of the work they do. I 

would say it is challenging work; it is not easy work, but it is important work. And I think they sensed our appreciation. 

Among the things that I learned about, or I came away with, is 

the idea that we do not need to add a whole lot more people in 

green uniforms between the ports of entry; we need to add people 

in blue uniforms at the ports of entry. The need to facilitate the 

movement of commerce and expedite trade is critical for our economy, and I think certainly helpful for the Mexican economy. 

With that in mind, would you go back and talk again about the 

user fees? 

As a former Governor, I used to call for, from time to time, an 

increase in the gas tax so that we could actually build roads, highways, and bridges in our State and support rail transit. And I do 

believe the things that are worth having are worth paying for, but 
8 

it is a hard sell around here to convince folks to raise user fees, 

even from $5.60 to $6. 

And so I am going to ask you and give you another shot to make 

the case. And, know that it is something I support. I just want my 

colleagues to hear it again. 

Secretary JOHNSON. The 9/11 security fee, my understanding is 

that the increase to $5.60 last year was the first increase we have 

had in years. I think it was half that before then, and we just could 

not bring ourselves to increase the fee. And we did it last year by 

doubling it, essentially. 

This year, we are asking for a relatively modest 40-cent increase 

to $6. 

I agree with the basic philosophy that a user fee—a fee increase 

targeted at the people who use it, is generally a good thing. 

And the way I would make that case, politically, is rather than 

all of your constituents in general paying through general income 

tax for aviation security, why not place some emphasis on having 

those who use it more often bear a little more of the price tag for 

it? 

If I am a corporate lawyer in business, as opposed to being the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, I would not mind paying a little 

more each time I get on an airplane, which is in my private life 

probably once or twice or three times a month, versus having your 

constituent in Delaware, who may not fly nearly as often, share 

that cost with me. 

So I do not have a problem making that case, and I think that 

when you look at the overall scheme the fee increases we are asking for are relatively modest ones. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thanks very much. 

Let’s go back to the border for just a minute. I was talking about 

my view. I do not want to put words into the mouth of my 

compadre here, Dr. Coburn, but if you look at the Senate-passed 

immigration bill, we put huge increases in there for border patrol. 

I think we basically doubled the number of human beings we have 

between the ports of entry. 

That is not what we need to do. In my view, we need to add more 

people at the ports of entry, not between the ports of entry. 

And what we do need to do—and this budget does it to some extent—is provide funding for what I call force multipliers, where we 

can use technology to enhance the abilities and the capabilities of 

the men and women in the green uniforms, the Border Patrol. It 

could be handheld devices. It could be land-based radar. It could 

be air assets, including tethered dirigibles, which we used to great 

effect in Afghanistan. 

In one area of the budget I was very concerned about, I think 

they zeroed out funding. They may have zeroed out funding for 

aviation assets between the ports of entry. 

And I want us to come back. There may be a mistake in there, 

but I want us to come back to the idea that we have these drones 

and we do not have the resources to fly them. 

We have these drones, and we do not have the resources to actually put in the vehicle and dismount exploitation radar (VADER) 

systems that are highly sophisticated, very effective radar systems 
9 

that enable the drone at 25,000 feet to see at night, to see during 

the bad weather, to see in dust storms—you name it. 

Instead of doing that, we are sending out these drones with people with binoculars. 

I spent some time in the Navy P3 aircraft, doing search and rescue out in the ocean and looking for people in lifeboats. And doing 

that from 25,000 feet in a drone or 500 feet in a Navy P3 aircraft— 

that does not work. 

And I would just ask us to consider as we go forward, how do 

we invest money into force multipliers to better enable the people 

between the ports of entry to do their jobs? Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Can you talk a little bit about your desire to 

consolidate the grant programs, one? 

And, No. 2, one of the things that concerns me about your proposal is the fact that you take a stakeholder contribution requirement away from that, which I think is a very good inhibitor in 

eliminating wasteful requests for grants, and just talk about—this 

is the second year we have heard this proposal. 

As you know, I am highly in favor of consolidating this, just 

through the efficiency and effectiveness that would occur because 

of it. But, could you talk a little bit about that so that my colleagues can hear that and, also, discuss specifically why you would 

take the participation requirement and eliminate that as you consolidate those programs? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am sure everybody here is familiar with 

the booklet—maybe Congress does not participate in this—the 

Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), the book that gets passed 

around and the listing of all the potential grant recipients. 

And one of the things that is always listed is the percentage of 

your dollar that is going to go to overhead versus going to the ultimate intended beneficiary. In some charitable organizations, it is 

3 percent. Sometimes the overhead is higher; it is 10 percent. 

The theory behind the grant consolidation request is that it is 

our judgment that if grants are consolidated that makes for more 

efficient oversight at the Federal level and at the State level, at 

both levels, on the level of the grantor and the level of the grantee, 

therefore, leaving more of that dollar for the intended beneficiaries. 

It also reflects our judgment that if the grants are consolidated 

it enhances oversight—how the money is used. 

I know Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Craig Fugate, for example, whose judgment I have a lot of 

respect for, is a big believer in this, and he is the one that manages 

these programs on behalf of the Federal Government. 

So I believe that he is correct, that this is a good idea. There are 

significant concerns about the proposal, but we in the Administration think it is a good idea. 

I think when you talk about grants we need—grants are becoming more and more important from where I sit, from my counterterrorism/natural disaster preparedness seat. Because of the nature of 

how the terrorist threat is evolving, I think grants to State and 

local governments are important. 

In terms of the risk factors and the various stakeholder requirements, we are where we are. I am a relative newcomer in how I 

evaluate the risk factors and the criteria that we use, Senator, and 
10 

1The response to Senator Coburn’s question appears in the Appendix on page 79. 

it is something that in future years, in connection with next year’s 

request, and the year after that, I intend to take a close look at 

to make sure we have it exactly right. There is probably always 

room for improvement. 

Senator COBURN. Was the elimination of the cost-share requirement put in there to try to balance the loss of parochial benefit to 

members of Congress because what we have done is legislated that 

a certain percentage has to go to everybody, whether there is a risk 

there or not, or even whether there is a need there or not? 

I mean, is that the thinking behind this so that those that get 

it—so here is the balancing act between a parochial concern that 

25 percent of all this money has to go out on a population basis, 

and we are going to eliminate cost-share so that we can offset that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would like to take that question for the 

record because I suspect I could give a better informed answer to 

that if I took it for the record, if you do not mind, sir.1

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Let’s talk about TSA for a minute, if we could. Precheck is going 

to collect about $14 million in fees for Precheck this year. It will 

continue to grow. 

I think you estimate about $100 million in savings in terms of 

costs associated with Precheck, which should grow as well. 

So why is it that the budget is needing to increase in TSA if, in 

fact, your fees are going up already and your costs are going down? 

Why is it that we need to have a fee increase? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I suspect it is to fund other aspects of TSA’s 

operations, and I suspect the answer is just an answer of basic 

math. 

I know where we would like to be in terms of TSA Precheck. And 

you are correct that the more people who enlist, the fees go up; the 

costs ought to go down. 

But, in terms of the overall request, I think the answer is basic 

math. I do not have the answer sitting here for you. 

Senator COBURN. It loosens up money for other areas, correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Plainly, yes. 

Senator COBURN. OK. All right. 

I do want to have a discussion with you, but we cannot have it 

in an open setting, on Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), and so 

I will have a discussion with you at an appropriate time on that, 

on some criticism on the budget on that. 

The request for Federal Emergency Management Agency preparedness grants last year—I think you are requesting a billion 

dollars in grant money for this year, and $5.7 billion right now 

going back to 2007 has not even been spent, including 95 percent 

of the $1.6 billion from last year. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. Why don’t we just do a timeout for one year 

and get caught up and make sure the grants are going where they 

need to go and that we are managing them right? 

That is 7 years’ worth of grant money that has not gone out, and 

we are requesting more grant money. To me, I do not understand. 
11 

I understand the need for preparedness grants. I think it is more 

a State responsibility than it is a Federal responsibility, essentially, since I have done a ton of oversight and seen how this has 

not been well spent, and I think you are aware of a lot of that. 

Why request more preparedness grant money when, in fact, we 

have in excess of almost $6 billion sitting in the pot that has not 

gone out? 

Secretary JOHNSON. You are correct; it is multiyear money. 

And we have to keep the ball rolling—new challenges, new disaster preparedness each year. 

We have a policy of strongly encouraging grantees to spend down 

what we give them. And I have personally been on the phone with 

disaster response officials and local governments to say, all right, 

I am going to give you this extension, but this really has to be the 

last extension, and you have really got to spend this down because 

we need to move on. 

So we have a policy to encourage grantees to spend it down, and 

I am committed to enforcing that and encouraging them to spend 

it. 

Senator COBURN. But that begs the question—No. 1, in the long 

run, is there ever a time in which we get disaster preparedness 

done? 

And No. 2 is if we are having to beg them to spend it down, it 

obviously is not a high priority in their minds or they would have 

spent it down. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I understand that. 

Senator COBURN. So it says to me we have way too much money 

in the pipeline for what we say we need to do, and we spent billions in the past on preparedness, and we are going to ask for another billion dollars. 

And my worry is it is not being spent well—I think you and I 

have had discussions about that—or it has been spent on low priority that is not risk-based. 

So my thought would be may we take a timeout and not give the 

billion dollars this year and then prioritize for next year what are 

the real needs in the States for preparedness grants rather than 

continue to feed money that does not get well spent. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have seen enough instances and examples 

of where preparedness grant money has been used very effectively, 

and I believe that we need to continue to fund this program to prepare for the unanticipated and for the real disasters. 

So I understand that concern. I guess I would hesitate to take 

a complete timeout. I think we need to keep funding this. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Welcome to our colleague, Senator 

Ayotte. You are up next, followed by Senator Johnson, Senator 

McCaskill and Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking 

Member. 

I want to thank you, Secretary Johnson, for the important position you hold and for your leadership. 
12 

1The response to Senator Ayotte’s question appears in the Appendix on page 106. 

I wanted to followup. Senator Coburn and I have inquired about 

the after-action lessons learned report on the Boston Marathon 

bombings that I know your Department has been preparing. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. So I wanted to know what the status was of 

that report. I think all of us are anxious to understand what lessons we can learn from the Boston Marathon bombings to ensure 

that those types of events do not happen again, to ensure that the 

right communication is happening among all the different agencies. 

So, if you can give me an update on when we may expect that, 

and then, in turn also, I am interested in knowing what other reports or investigations are being conducted beyond that report, the 

after-action lessons learned, that we will receive to understand that 

we are conducting a full analysis, which I hope we are, of what occurred and what we can ensure that if there are lessons to be 

learned, which I think that there will be, that we incorporate those 

in protecting the homeland. 

Secretary JOHNSON. In terms of the Boston after-action report, 

we are almost done, and we need to do a little more scrubbing, and 

then we will get it to you in the short term. 

In terms of other reports, particularly those that are due to Congress, I have directed my staff to be far more diligent in getting 

these things done in a timely way and in particular the reports 

that we owe Congress. So we are playing catch-up in that regard 

as well. 

But, on the Boston after-action report, I am told we are almost 

done. 

Senator AYOTTE. Great. We look forward to receiving it. 

Just to clarify, it is my understanding that in addition to the report that you will provide our Committee, that there are in fact 

other reviews going on beyond DHS with regard to the Boston 

bombing. Can you give us any insight just so that we get a full picture, so we can understand this may not be the sole report, afteraction report, so that we can make sure we are looking at the full 

picture? 

Secretary JOHNSON. OK. I have to take that for the record, and 

I will inquire, Senator.1

Senator AYOTTE. I really appreciate it. Thank you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. OK. 

Senator AYOTTE. One of the things that I have been troubled 

about is testimony that we have had before the Senate Armed 

Services Committee fairly recently from Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Clapper and General Michael Flynn, and the testimony has really been about how al-Qaeda is not on the run, how 

we have seen al-Qaeda morphing, metastasizing, that we have seen 

the proliferation of al-Qaeda in Africa and now even your own testimony, I believe, that the threat of al-Qaeda in Syria actually presents a potential threat to our homeland, including the over 7,500 

foreign fighters that are now in Syria. 

So I would like you to give us an assessment of how you view 

that threat, how you believe we are addressing that threat of increased presence of al-Qaeda and potential new threats to our 
13 

homeland and how, in your position, you think we are prepared to 

meet those threats, to the extent that you can. Obviously, some of 

that you may not be able to discuss in a public setting. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Sure. I believe that through our efforts in 

both the Bush and Obama Administrations, we have put core alQaeda on the path to strategic defeat. We are not at a point of strategic defeat. I think core al-Qaeda is still active, largely as an ideological center and leader. 

In my time at the Department of Defense from 2009 to 2012, our 

focus on al-Qaeda affiliates was a large part of our counterterrorism effort in the military. And, by that, I mean al-Qaeda in the 

Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which then and probably now was the 

most active al-Qaeda affiliate in terms of attempts of attacks on 

the homeland. We made some progress there, but we have more 

work to do. 

And the al-Qaeda affiliates are becoming more splintered and are 

probably multiplying in ways that are sometimes hard to surmise 

because there is sometimes sort of a generic affiliation to al-Qaeda, 

without a strict command and control affiliation there. 

In my view, some of the seminal attacks that we have seen that 

represent this evolution—the underwear bomber on December 25, 

2009—that was an al-Qaeda affiliate, AQAP. 

Benghazi is an attack of a different nature. In that, you have 

several groups who came on the compound at once, and there was 

no clear leader, no clear command and control of the type we had 

seen before. 

And then the terrorist threat that in many respects most concerns me is the domestic one because it is the hardest to detect in 

my view, represented by the Boston Marathon bombing last year. 

I think we have to be vigilant on all of these, from my homeland 

security perspective. With the concern about the domestic threats, 

it is particularly important that the Federal Government establish 

solid working relationships with State and local law enforcement 

and first responders, as evidenced by the Boston Marathon attack 

last year. 

And a lot of the preparedness grants, a lot of the grants that the 

Department has issued, went to some of the emergency response 

equipment that was used that day in Boston, which is one of the 

reasons I think our grants are so important. 

But it is an evolving threat, and we have to be vigilant against 

all of it. 

I read the intelligence reports every morning. It is probably the 

most important part of my day. There is a lot of noise that you 

have to sometimes discount, but we have to stay vigilant on a number of fronts, Senator. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

I think we could have a whole hearing, and I am sure we will, 

on this particular issue. 

One followup. So I have it in my State, and I know it is not 

unique to New Hampshire; across the country, we have a heroin 

epidemic right now. And so today in the Armed Services Committee, we have the commander of U.S. Southern Command 

(SOUTHCOM) and the commander of U.S. Northern Command 

(NORTHCOM). 
14 

And I wanted to get your assessment of how your agency is 

working with those agencies on the defense level, on, obviously, the 

drug trafficking issues, but also how are we coordinating with 

State and local officials on this epidemic. As you know, these drug 

trafficking networks also support a whole array of other criminal 

activities, including human trafficking, including terrorist funding 

as well. 

So this heroin epidemic—I do not know if you are hearing about 

it, but we are seeing it in my own State, and I think that it is unfortunate. It is something that we have to get a hold of and better 

coordination among all the agencies on it. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I agree with that, and one of the virtues of 

having worked in the Department of Defense for 4 years is I am 

very familiar with NORTHCOM/SOUTHCOM leadership. I know 

General Jacoby and General Kelly well. I have already had conversations with them about this exact subject. 

A big part of our mission is counternarcotics, and we have to attack the networks. I believe that. 

Senator AYOTTE. All right. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

Next, Senator Johnson, please. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Johnson, 

welcome. 

You mentioned homegrown terrorist threats. 

I was alarmed a couple weeks ago when I was back from Wisconsin. I had a constituent come up to me, reporting that it was 

either her cousin or niece was a nurse in a hospital and she was 

reporting multiple times where Arab women were coming into Florida, having babies, paying cash, getting the birth certificate and 

going home. Is that something you have heard about? 

It sounded like an alarming trend. It was not just a one-off. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Not that specific scenario, no. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I would like you to followup on that and 

just see if that is something more widespread. I would like to go 

back to what Senator Coburn was talking about in terms of spenddown. 

My wife, when she first became an Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) agent, she learned two government terms right off the bat— 

‘‘good enough for government work’’ and then ‘‘use it or lose it.’’ 

Can you describe the spend-down policy and whatever happened to 

‘‘use it or lose it?’’ 

Secretary JOHNSON. We have a 2-year spend-down policy. We can 

grant extensions. And I intend to be pretty vigilant in enforcing 

that. 

There are various reasons why a grantee may not be able to 

spend it down within the allotted time. And so on the one occasion 

where I granted an extension, I personally got on the phone to the 

emergency response official and the grantee and said, you have 

really got to—like 85–90 percent of it had been spent already, and 

there was a little bit left. 
15 

And I wanted to personally emphasize to the recipient that you 

have really got to spend this down. Go tell the mayor you have 

heard that directly from the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

Senator JOHNSON. By spent, is that defined as obligated, or is 

that like money actually out the door? Can they commit to multiple 

year purchasing projects, that type of thing? Is that considered 

spent? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is a good question. Let me get back to 

you on that. That is a good question. 

Senator JOHNSON. Can you enlighten me about what happened 

with Malaysia Flight 370 in terms of the passport issue—the stolen 

passports not being detected right away? Can you describe what 

gap in the system that represents, and can you tell us anything 

about that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, what I can tell you is that—because I 

asked the same question. 

What I can tell you is that at least with the U.S. Government 

we do a pretty good job of checking the Interpol database for stolen 

passports. And the assessment I received in terms of U.S. domestic 

flights and in terms of flights out of this country and into this 

country, we do a pretty good job of detecting and stopping anyone 

who is trying to fly on a stolen passport. 

Senator JOHNSON. Can you describe pretty good? I mean, is it instantaneous? 

The passport is scanned. It is a unique number, I would think. 

Is that immediately compared to a database? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, that is my understanding. 

Senator JOHNSON. So it should actually be instantaneous, correct? 

I mean, that would have been—in the age of computers, that 

would have been my assumption, that airport security had gotten 

to the point where you are scanning a passport and there is—I do 

not know how many millions or billions of passports there are 

issued, but still, within computer technology, I would think it 

would be instantaneous. So, for us, it is instantaneous? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is my understanding, Senator. And 

other nations do not quite have the same capability, and we need 

to focus on this more globally. 

Senator JOHNSON. Now there are direct flights from Malaysia 

into the United States, correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. I cannot say I have flown one. 

Senator JOHNSON. So would it be your understanding that the 

check-in point for flights to China would be handled differently 

than check-in points directly to the United States? 

Secretary JOHNSON. It is probably a different airline. 

I am not sure of the answer to that, but I am told that flights 

from last points of departure airports to the United States—we are 

pretty good at picking up stolen passports. 

Senator COBURN. We have TSA in most of those major airports 

on direct flights here, and people on the ground. 

Senator JOHNSON. Good. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. One of my ongoing questions in terms of just 

the creation of the Department of Homeland Security is cobbling all 

these agencies together. 
16 

Again, when you consolidate that in business, you take a look for 

efficiencies and where there is duplication of departments and efforts. I am not so sure that has been the case with Homeland Security. You say you just completed an audit. Is that something you 

are looking at? 

Can you render any opinion in terms of the efficiencies of the 

overhead of all these agencies? Are we going to be gaining efficiencies? Have we gained efficiencies? Is that one of your management priorities? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, definitely. First of all, when we talk 

about merging all these entities together in 2003, you have to remember where they were before. We had what are now DHS components spread across the Department of Agriculture, Department 

of Energy, Department of Treasury, Department of Justice (DOJ), 

including departments that did not have homeland security law enforcement as their core mission. 

I have already seen the symmetry and the advantage of having 

aviation security, port security, maritime security, border security, 

all at one conference table, when I focus on the counterterrorism 

threat—the terrorist threat to this country. So I have seen that 

symmetry. 

Now, out of that merger, are there inefficiencies, duplications of 

headquarters, effort? I would be doing you a disservice if I tried to 

make the case that there is not, and I suspect you would wonder 

about my judgment. 

Senator JOHNSON. I just want to make sure you are looking at 

that and trying to—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, we are. 

One of the things we are doing is developing a budget process 

that starts at the headquarters level with the essential mission, the 

overall mission—counterterrorism, border security. You start from 

there. You develop your resource requirements, and then you inform the components of what you expect to see from them in terms 

of a budget request rather than just a straight stovepipe. So that 

is a process we are building to get at this exact question. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK, two-part question because I am running 

out of time. 

Both Senator McCaskill and I have been certainly investigating 

the problems in the IG’s office. We have some resignations. We 

have a new IG. I want to make sure that is a top priority, to take 

a look at that. I think that is an office that has really got low morale and is incredibly important from that standpoint. You also 

mentioned we have confirmed a number of positions. 

So, two-part question—talk to me about your dedication and 

what you are going to be doing in terms of the IG’s office, and then 

second, how many other key positions do you need to fill? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, IG’s office, I am very pleased that we 

have new leadership there. I think that is going to go a long way 

toward boosting morale. My model for the relationship a department leadership should have with its IG is from my DOD experience, which is the IG has to have a good deal of autonomy and 

independence. The IG has a level of oversight directly from Congress. 
17 

I know and I believe that the Secretary, for example, cannot direct the IG to conduct an investigation. I think that that is something that should be a matter of discretion for the IG. I should not 

direct the IG, go interview these 20 people and report back to me. 

I do not think that is the proper relationship. 

I do, on the other hand, want to be mindful of the IG’s overall 

priorities, overall strategy. There might be instances where I want 

the IG to go conduct an audit to look for inefficiencies and the like. 

So I think we have some work to do there, and I intend to work 

on improving the function of that office and its reputation. 

In terms of the senior leadership positions, we have three awaiting Senate confirmation right now. We have somewhere around 

five or six more Senate-confirmed positions that we need to fill. I 

spend at least a part of every single day, recruiting, working on 

getting these people through the vetting pipeline. I have at least 

one candidate for every single vacancy right now that I am working 

on. 

Chairman CARPER. Before I recognize Senator McCaskill, a 

former State auditor, I would just note that I think there are some 

symmetries here, or parallels, between the role that the State auditor played in my State and the role that the IG plays in the various 

departments. 

We look at the State auditor, who was a Republican in my State 

when I was a Democratic Governor, we did not have an adversarial 

relationship. We felt the role that the auditors play is an important 

role, and we looked to them to help us figure out how to do our 

jobs better. 

I think John Roth is a very impressive guy. Dr. Coburn and I are 

very impressed with him. The Committee is very impressed with 

him. I think he will do us proud. 

But I would urge you to just establish right from the start that 

kind of cooperative relationship. 

And, in response to Senator Johnson’s questions. I am very proud 

of the work we have done on this Committee in expediting the consideration of the President’s nominees to fill the many vacancies in 

DHS. We are going to try to do a markup probably off the floor 

today and have our first vote on Reginald Brothers for the Under 

Secretary for Science and Technology. 

We have a vacancy in Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

That is a big one. We have no nominee, and we need a nominee. 

That is a big vacancy. We have DHS Under Secretary for Management. We have no nominee. We have DHS Chief Financial Officer. 

We have no nominees. 

So those are three instances where the Administration needs to 

get their act together and get us some nominees. We are getting 

to be pretty good at moving them along if they are good nominees. 

General Francis Taylor has cleared the Committee. He has been 

through our Committee. He still needs to be cleared by the 

Inteligence Committee. He is good to go, I think, for the floor. 

And Leon Rodriguez has been before the Judiciary Committee for 

3 months. He has not had a nomination hearing. I would urge you 

to reach out to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. And Tom and I, we, should do the same and urge 

them to get going. 
18 

All right. Thanks. Senator McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. Welcome. 

I am concerned about the decrease in the budget for acquisition 

personnel. You are cutting 18 full-time employees, all of which will 

come from the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, about a 

$729,000 cut. 

The number of contracting officers has decreased by approximately 45 full time equivalents (FTEs) since you began working at 

DHS 3 years ago. At the same time, S&T has requested and gotten 

a million dollar increase in its management and administrative account. 

In my questions today, I want to emphasize that I think you 

have it backward. I think that it is worrisome to me that we think 

we can oversee contracts. And you and I have had discussions 

about the level of contracting that occurs at DHS. It is worrisome 

to me that we continue to increase the number, size and complexity 

of contracts, but the contracting workforce continues to shrink. 

That is a recipe for disaster. It is a dangerous path. 

Does your chief procurement officer get any guidance on what 

the proper workload for a given contracting officer is in terms of 

number of contracts they have to oversee, dollar amount and complexity of the contract they are supposed to be managing; do you 

know, Secretary? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That specific question I would like to take 

for the record. 

I understand the phenomenon from my Department of Defense 

experience of larger, more complex contracts and a smaller workforce to try to manage it, and I agree that that is a problem that 

should be addressed. I want to work with this Committee to make 

sure we have that balance exactly right. 

With regard to the specific funding request in this year’s budget, 

I want to work with you to make sure we get that exactly right. 

Senator MCCASKILL. The decision was recently made in May of 

last year that fundamental documentation requirements were 

waived for 42 of DHS’s most expensive acquisition programs. These 

are the documents that allow us to do cost-benefit analysis in a 

way that is accurate. It allows us to track what the original scope 

of the contract was supposed to be. 

The excuse that has been made is that these programs are all 

in the sustainment phase; so why go back and retroactively create 

these foundational documents? Well, that brings up another question. How in the heck did they get to the sustainment phase without the foundational documents? And maybe it is because we keep 

cannibalizing the acquisition workforce. 

I think I would encourage you to revisit that decision about 

foundational documents. I think it is another recipe for disaster. 

Now let’s compare and contrast S&T. I think you know that 

there are issues there. Nearly all of S&T’s work is based on technology foraging—taking things other Federal departments or the 

private sector have made and tweaking them a little bit to make 

them applicable to DHS. 
19 

1The response to Senator McCaskill’s question appears in the Appendix on page 63. 

What is even more concerning, which gets back to my concern 

about lack of cohesion at DHS, is S&T is supposed to be managing 

all of DHS’s research and development (R&D) work. That is just 

not true. 

GAO found that other components continue to do as much as $255 million of R&D activities on their own. And if you ask the National Labs, and we have, they will tell you they continue to get 

a lot of work from other DHS components. 

Not too long ago, there was an S&T project where we had spent 

a lot of money and then all of a sudden they abandoned it, and the 

reason they abandoned it is because they had to acknowledge that 

the commercial sector had outpaced them, that what they were 

looking at had already been done in the private sector. 

Do you believe that the scope of responsibilities given to S&T is 

too broad, and do we really need to be spending a billion dollars 

for a standalone directorate doing just technology foraging? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I think it is important that we have 

an S&T function to do additional research in the area, for example, 

of cybersecurity, and there is a request in the S&T part of the 

budget for, I think, $70–72 million. Insofar as cybersecurity is important, I think that is a national priority. 

In terms of R&D, many members of Congress, including Members of this Committee have asked me to look at this exact question, and I have committed to undertake to make sure that we 

identify any inefficiencies in the way we conduct R&D across the 

entire Department of Homeland Security, to make sure that there 

are no duplications and having different components undertake 

R&D or request R&D does not lead to inefficiency. So that is one 

of my commitments to look at, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, that is terrific, and I will be monitoring and following up on that. I think it is really important. 

I do not know why they need another million dollars in management and administration at S&T. I do not think they have done 

particularly a stellar job up to date. And getting another million 

dollars while at the same time you are taking away 18 FTEs in acquisition for less than that price—I would love to see those flipped. 

I would love management and administration in S&T to stay flat 

and you restore those funds, and I will be talking to appropriators 

about that—restore those funds on acquisition personnel. It is not 

a good idea. 

Why do we need two separate stockpiles of medical countermeasures? Why do we need a separate stockpile at DHS from the 

national stockpile? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Let me get back to you on that, Senator.1

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And then, finally, the senior executive service (SES) workforce. I went back and did some research on—I was 

not here, but when the senior executive staff workforce was created, it sounded really good. 

It sounded like what we were going to do is develop executivelevel leaders, and they were going to move through the govern-
20 

ment, and it was going to allow cross-pollination of excellent executives as it relates to government. That cross-pollination would be 

very important because the Federal Government is a large endeavor and having some kind of rotating superior executives that could 

help with government management issues sounded like a great 

idea. 

Well, that is not what happened. What has happened is these 

folks have burrowed in at the agencies they work, and they never 

go anywhere. The vast majority of the SES personnel, and we are 

up to 7,000 of them, have stayed in the same position and in the 

same organization for the entire SES portion of their career. Do 

you know what percentage of the SES employees at DHS have 

worked for more than one DHS component in their career? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I do not. 

I can tell you from my own personal experience working with 

SES-level civilians that they bring real value in terms of their level 

of sophistication and talent and their knowledge base in a particular area, like fiscal law, acquisition, environmental issues. I 

have worked with SESers who I am sure were the foremost experts 

in their particular area of what they do, and I was very pleased 

to receive their advice. 

I understand there is an overall goal to move people around 

within departments, but I think there is also value in having an 

SES talent pool that is devoted to a particular—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. That knows the subject matter. 

Secretary JOHNSON. That knows the subject matter. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I agree with you. 

They are highly compensated, and in many agencies of the government they get automatic bonuses no matter what. No matter if 

they have had a good year or a bad year, and many times those 

bonuses are five figures. 

So I just would like you to take a look at whether or not we 

should go back and acknowledge that the original goal of this was 

a wrong goal and we want to burrow in and get expertise and look 

at it from a departmentwide situation because you probably have 

a huge number of SESes at DHS. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am sure we do. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Thank you very much, Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator McCaskill, thanks. Thanks so much 

for the questions. Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing before us. 

I had not planned on mentioning it, but your response concerning 

al-Qaeda is, of course, one of the sophistry that ‘‘core al-Qaeda’’ has 

been defeated—that could be, but let me just remind you in the 

second battle of Fallujah we lost 96 soldiers and Marines, 600 

wounded, the bloodiest battle of the War in Iraq, and now the black 

flags of al-Qaeda fly over the city of Fallujah. 

Now, whether they are core al-Qaeda or not, it is a fact that the 

Iraq-Syrian border has become a base for al-Qaeda moving into 

Syria. They cannot be denied. And, when we look at ‘‘affiliated al- 
21 

Qaeda’’ throughout North Africa, throughout the Middle East, on 

the increase, and we still stick to this language—well, we have defeated core al-Qaeda—who cares? Al-Qaeda is on the move. AlQaeda is spreading. 

I travel to the region all the time. Every single one of those leaders in the Middle East will tell you that the threat of al-Qaeda is 

increasing, not decreasing. And it grows a little frustrating—well, 

we have defeated core al-Qaeda. What is core al-Qaeda? Is that because they live on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border? 

So I wish that you would look at exactly what al-Qaeda is doing. 

Whether they are core or affiliated, every expert that I know of 

says that they are on the rise, and therefore, sooner or later, pose 

a threat to the United States of America, which brings us to your 

responsibilities. So it just grows wearisome. 

Mr. Secretary, I just came from a hearing where General Kelly 

and General Jacoby, commanders of NORTHCOM and 

SOUTHCOM, and I discussed with them a couple items that are— 

and I know you work very closely with them. 

In South Texas now, 82 percent of those who are apprehended 

crossing our border are other-than-Mexican (OTM), and I asked 

both the witnesses—that is a very significant change. 

And I asked both the generals of SOUTHCOM and NORTHCOM, 

doesn’t that mean that sooner or later—although a lot of these new 

other-than-Mexican obviously come from Central America, where 

the economic conditions are terrible, there is still a large number 

of people from all over the world that are landing in Central America, being in contact with the human smugglers, who are also drug 

smugglers. 

Isn’t it just a matter of time before someone who is not coming 

for a job but wants to do something bad to the United States of 

America would find it a likely way to get to the United States of 

America? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Senator, as you and I have discussed, I, too, 

am very concerned about third-country nationals who are coming 

into this country through South Texas. 

That 82 percent number that you quote and cite is absolutely accurate, and I personally have observed that phenomenon in our detention center in South Texas. We are talking about, on the particular day I visited, 30 different nationalities from across the globe 

coming through a specific path into South Texas. Most of them are 

from smuggling organizations. 

And I believe that it is a Homeland Security imperative that we 

address that phenomenon. I agree with you, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you. 

And, by the way, I would like to express my appreciation for the 

abundance of information that you provided me and other Members 

of the Committee and staff concerning what we need to do to establish an environment on the border that comports with the requirements of the comprehensive immigration bill that we passed 

through the Senate. 

It is my understanding that the effectiveness rate varies, obviously, in each of the nine sectors. Does this budget move us toward 

the requirements of the bill that we passed through the Senate, of 

90 percent effectiveness and 100 percent situational awareness? 
22 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe that with the resources that have 

been requested in personnel and technology it moves us in the 

right direction. 

I also believe that the comprehensive immigration reform bill 

passed by the Senate would give us much more resources to get toward that goal, and the experts that I talk to have told me that 

if we got comprehensive immigration reform along the lines of the 

Senate bill we could probably get to what most people would consider border security, yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. And, without that, it would take a longer period of time, would you agree? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That is absolutely correct. 

Senator MCCAIN. I hope that some of my colleagues would listen 

to what you just said. 

Also, in the hearing that I just left, General Kelly, Commander 

of SOUTHCOM, said that he is watching drugs being transported 

into the United States. He says, I am watching, but I am unable 

to apprehend because of lack of resources. 

We also had a chart that showed a reduction in flight hours, in 

surveillance, et cetera. 

So he made a strong argument that because of sequestration and 

other cuts—sequestration is one of the factors—that we are really 

unable to even intercept drugs that we know are being transported, 

and that, I think, is rather disturbing. 

One, I would like your comments on that. And, second of all, I 

am not sure if that is the situation as he describes it, why we see 

the single largest decrease in the budget request be in the Coast 

Guard, which obviously is a major element of drug interdiction capabilities. 

Secretary JOHNSON. First, on our anti-narcotics efforts, the budget reflects some hard choices, absolutely. 

We have better technology when it comes to aerial surveillance. 

So some people have noted the decrease in flight hours. That is because we have better technology in terms of surveillance. 

I believe that the key here is to go after the cartels, go after the 

networks that engage in smuggling. Almost every narcotic shipment, almost every individual who comes into this country illegally, 

is the result of a smuggling organization. They do not freelance. 

There is no freelancing going on. 

So I think we need to attack the networks. I have spoken to General Jacoby and General Kelly on this. I think, they agree with me 

on that. 

I am concerned about the phenomenon that General Kelly described to you. I have talked to him about that myself. I am as concerned as he is. 

In terms of Coast Guard recapitalization, and again, this reflects 

hard choices—but I am dedicated to recapitalizing the fleet in all 

three classes of the cutters, where we are trying to make that effort—the National Security Cutter, the Offshore Patrol Cutter and 

the Fast Response Cutter. 

Given the realities of the fiscal situation we were in, we did not 

ask for as much as we would have liked to get to where we want 

to be as fast as we would like to be, but we are maintaining each 
23 

of the three lines of effort and trying to move forward on all three 

fronts. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the 

time. 

I would just add to it; I understand we certainly technologically 

made great advances that have been experimented and proven in 

conflicts overseas, but if the commander is saying that he is watching, then I think we ought to at least give him the capability,. 

And, by the way, I agree with your premise that you have to go 

to the source, it is the cartels and all that, and how complicated 

that situation is. But, if he is watching drugs being transported 

and does not have the capability to intercept, I think at least we 

ought to try to make sure that that is not the case. And I know 

you agree with that. I thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman CARPER. Senator McCain, thanks for those questions. 

Let me just mention something, if I could. 

I was in El Salvador, as I said earlier, a couple weeks ago, and 

the Ambassador there and some of her people took me to an air 

base not far from San Salvador. I was not sure why they were taking me there, but I said, well, let’s see what they have to show 

me—a Navy P3 squadron. 

Senator MCCAIN. I think one of the most problem areas—and the 

Secretary might want to respond—is Honduras, where there has 

really been a takeover of that country. It is really a lawless country, and that is one of the reasons why we are seeing this increase 

in OTMs, because of the horrific economic conditions that exist in 

those Central American countries. And I am glad you are going. 

Do you have a comment on that, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am going back to Mexico next week. I have 

had three conversations now with my Mexican counterpart. Next 

week will be the fourth, on a variety of subjects, and this will be 

one of them. 

I believe that we need to address the situation of third-country 

nationals coming into this country as a matter of our border security, our homeland security. I am concerned, like you are, about 

this situation, and I also think that the Mexicans are concerned as 

well. We have a shared interest in addressing this situation. 

Senator MCCAIN. And the Southern Border of Mexico is an issue 

you have been discussing with them? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Their border security is an issue that I have 

been discussing with them; that is absolutely correct. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. You bet. 

One of the reasons why the net migration of Mexicans coming 

into the United States has pretty much leveled out—my understanding is it is actually a somewhat greater number of folks going 

back into Mexico from the United States than actually coming into 

America. 

One of the reasons I am told this is happening is because the 

economy is stronger in Mexico. There is an emergence of a middle 

class. And, while they still have problems with narco drug lords 

and so forth, we are really the root cause of that because we buy 

the drugs and send weapons down there. So we are a big part of 

that problem. 
24 

But there is a strong, vibrant economy and I think more effective 

governance in Mexico. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Can I add one more thing, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman CARPER. Please. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Senator McCain, I was in Arizona a couple 

weeks ago to talk about the border situation there. I met with a 

number of your constituents. I asked to meet with the ranchers. I 

do not mean to dime out my staff, but my staff said, you do not 

do that; it might get kind of contentious. And I said, no, I need to 

hear what they have to say. And I have to say that they were wonderful, courteous people. We had a very productive conversation. 

They asked me to come back, and I agreed to come back again. 

Senator MCCAIN. I am very grateful you met with them. It 

meant a lot to them, and I am sure you understand some of their 

concerns. Many of them still have people crossing their property at 

night. And I am very pleased that they were courteous to you. I 

cannot tell you how much they appreciated the fact that you met 

with them. I thank you for that. 

Chairman CARPER. Yes, when I was down there last year, Senator McCain was good enough to take me to meet with a lot of the 

same people, and that was my experience as well. 

I want to come back to we are pretty good at addressing symptoms of problems. We have a lot of people coming across the border. 

We put more Border Patrol there. We have a lot of people coming 

across our borders illegally. We try to go after the employers to say, 

if you hire illegals here, we will fine you; we will put you in jail 

if we need to do that. 

We address these symptoms of the problems. 

The reason why I am convinced that so many people come up 

from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala is because some of 

them are living lives where it is a hell hole. 

And there are wonderful people there, but there is so much 

crime. People are fearful to go out at night. The opportunity for 

work, to actually make a living, is diminished. 

If all we do is strengthen our borders, or even strengthen the 

borders between Mexico and those countries, that will not solve the 

problem. It has to be a more comprehensive approach. 

And I would just ask if you have any thoughts along these lines. 

I think we cannot just focus on symptoms of problems. We have to 

focus on underlying causes as well. But, any thoughts you have on 

that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I agree with that, and economic pushes and 

pulls have a lot to do with it. We saw a decrease in apprehensions 

at our border over the last 10 years or so. I suspect some of that 

has to do with our economy. 

And we have seen a more recent modest spike upward again in 

border apprehensions, and I suspect that too has something to do 

with our economy as our economy improves. That is a good news 

story. The Mexican economy is a good news story as well for them 

and for us. 

But these are contributing factors to overall migration, legal and 

illegal. 

Chairman CARPER. We are told that the adoption of a comprehensive immigration reform bill, getting it done and actually 
25 

saying to the folks south of us, if you are thinking of coming in, 

forget it because you are not going to be able to obtain any kind 

of legal status if you come across after a certain date. 

Correct me if I am wrong, Dr. Coburn, but I think in the legislation that we passed on immigration reform last fall, that the cutoff 

was the beginning or near the beginning of last year. 

So we are trying to send a message to say, if you are in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico or any of these places, and 

you are thinking about coming north, forget it because if you do the 

door is already closed. You are not going to be able to get on the 

road or a road map to a legal status. 

I want to come back to force multipliers again and the areas between the ports of entry along particularly Texas and the Arizona 

portions of the Mexican border. You have had a lot of experience 

in your old job with drones. 

I mentioned earlier we have drone assets down there. My recollection is we had about four of them, I think. On any given day, 

a couple of them could fly. They could fly maybe 16 hours a day, 

5 days a week. And there were days when they could not get into 

the airspace, the controlled airspace, in Arizona because it was 

used by military aircraft. 

We see in the Administration’s budget, as I recall, not an increase in resources for flight hours for the drones, but I am not 

sure we see an increase in the kind of sophisticated detection systems, surveillance systems called VADER, that are available, I 

think, off the shelf. 

With the drones we have there, my recollection is we have one 

that is actually in a drone, and it is borrowed, I think, from DOD. 

That just seems foolish to me. Your thoughts, please. 

Secretary JOHNSON. The decrease in requested flight hours reflects a judgment that because of improved technology we can do 

the job more efficiently with fewer flight hours. I think we are 

going from 100,000 to about 73,000. That reflects a judgment that 

with the technology we have, we can do the job more efficiently. 

I believe that aerial surveillance is very important to border security, coupled with adequate privacy protections. And one of the 

things I have discussed with both you and Senator Coburn, and 

one of the things that I am working on with our staff, is improving 

and sharpening the privacy guidelines we have with regard to use 

of aerial surveillance. But I agree that aerial surveillance is very 

important. 

And added surveillance, new surveillance technology, is something that people on the border, our border patrol agents, have told 

me is particularly important. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. I do not pretend to be an expert on 

these things, but I can tell you a drone flown with somebody with 

binoculars as opposed to a drone that has VADER and a VADER 

operator with it is a whole different ball game. 

And the other thing I would say is when we were in South Texas 

we were with a bunch of your people there in the green uniforms, 

and they said to us—I think they had about 10 different helicopters 

that were available to them to use. 

And they told us if they would send this one particular helicopter, they were happy to have it because it was reliable and had 
26 

the equipment on it that was needed and helpful. They were going 

to send in the other nine. We just said, basically, keep it. 

And we got a taste of that ourselves when we were going to go 

for a helicopter tour of that part of the border, and our helicopter, 

before it even left the ground, had to be grounded, and we ended 

up scurrying to get onto another helicopter. 

I would just urge you to take a look at that. The other thing I 

would urge you to take a look at is the tethered aerostats, the dirigibles. We have used them to great effect in Afghanistan, I think 

as you know, in Kabul and other places. And they do not chew up 

any flight hours. They get up in the air, way up in the air. They 

can be up there for a long period of time. 

And, if we are interested in trying to do a better job of understanding how many people are trying to get across our borders, 

how many turn back before they get to the borders, how many are 

stopped and apprehended at the borders, and try to figure out how 

to get to a 90 percent effectiveness rate, the air assets can actually 

be very helpful in enabling us to better estimate when we have 

reached those goals. 

Let me yield to Dr. Coburn, and then I want to come back and 

talk to you about cybersecurity and the funding that is requested 

to enable you guys to do the followup on the framework that has 

been adopted. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. We continue to see reports of tunneling across 

the Southern California border discovered—and most of it is for 

drug trafficking rather than human trafficking. 

For years, I have sent information to Homeland Security and gotten nothing back on the use of the technology that is available in 

the energy industry. There is no reason to allow one tunnel to come 

into this country because we have both the sonar and seismic capability in the energy exploration industry to identify any tunnel that 

comes across that border. 

So what that would mean is once a week you sweep across the 

Southern Border with technology, and you identify every tunnel. I 

mean, it is not hard, and yet, we still do not see any of that technology being applied—because you can stop it all. And it is not 

hard. It is hard in rough terrain, but it is not hard in the terrain 

in Southern California. 

So I just have that one for a note for you to take. 

In your response yesterday for the appropriators, you were asked 

about the EB–5 program. Your statement was EB–5 is a worthwhile program for job creation, but DHS has to be mindful of security concerns. 

I do not disagree with the second part of that. Where is the basis 

in fact for the metrics to know that it is an effective program? 

Secretary JOHNSON. My understanding is that it has contributed 

to job creation in this country. I believe there is data to support 

that, which I am happy to provide, but—I do not talk about the 

EB–5 program, Senator, unless I talk about the other half of my 

answer. 

Senator COBURN. I understand that, but the point I am trying to 

make is we have been trying for 2 years to find any metrics to 

evaluate that program and nobody can give them to us. So, if you 

can supply that, I would very happily receive it. 
27 

Secretary JOHNSON. OK. 

Senator COBURN. I would note that Canada used to have a program similar to that and disbanded it because the economic benefits versus security risks did not fly. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, that is a balance that I think we continually need to evaluate. 

Senator COBURN. Well, if we cannot see the top part of the program in real time in terms of job creation, it is worrisome. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I will not argue with that. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Let me just get to my other questions here 

for a second. 

The President’s budget includes a separate fully paid for $56 billion program called the Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative (OGSI). FEMA has included the OGSI in their budget request 

where it would support $400 million in additional pre-disaster 

grants and $300 million for the consolidated national grant program. 

What is the effect of the OGSI on the current pre-disaster mitigation program? What is the plan? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, you are correct that we are requesting 

that part of the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) be funded by the Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative. 

I think there, again, the way this is structured reflects hard 

choices. Consistent with the bipartisan budget act, there is a top 

line that we have to adhere to. And so we went through, and we 

selected the 500 or 700 or so highest priorities of the Department 

to stay within that top line. And then there were others that we 

also regard as important that we highlight for you, and we say if 

we are able to close certain loopholes, bring certain efficiencies to 

the budget, we can fund these things, too. 

So what you see is the end result of that. 

Senator COBURN. I have the same high regard for Administrator 

Fugate that you do. 

We have this problem called the per capita damage indicator, 

which in effect allows small States like mine to receive, relative to 

large States, disaster monies at a much lower level of damage as 

compared to the same thing in the larger States. And it is my feeling that we have an imbalance on how we treat the States on disasters. 

Any thoughts on how we approach that and make that a fairer 

process? 

I think Oklahoma had 35—maybe it was 25—last year, and it is 

because we only have 4 million people, whereas a State that had 

exactly the same damages, the same incident, would not qualify. To 

me that seems inherently unfair to the taxpayers of this country, 

that we are helping the smaller population States and not helping 

those that are larger. 

Secretary JOHNSON. First of all, I never regarded Oklahoma as 

a small State. 

Senator COBURN. Well, relative to Texas, they would tell you differently. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Right. 

Chairman CARPER. In Delaware, we think they are huge in Oklahoma. 
28 

Secretary JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator COBURN. Well, we have 4 million people and Texas has— 

what? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Understood. 

Let me answer the question this way. I came into office in December. We have a budget request that came out earlier this 

month. There are a number of things that I want to look carefully 

at from the beginning of the budget cycle to this time next year. 

How we devise the formulas for our grants, the risk formulas and 

so forth, are things that I believe I want to take a close look at because people raise issues like this one and say, why are we doing 

it this way? 

I know from dealing with bureaucracies for years that very often 

we do things a certain way and the answer is that is because we 

have always done it that way and it is too hard to change. 

That is not the right answer. In fact, that is the worst answer. 

So situations like this are things that I—every time I hear about 

something like this that you or other Senators or Congressman 

raise in correspondence or in hearings, I take it back, and I say, 

what about that? Why are we doing it that way? 

And I want answers. And I want good answers. Otherwise, I am 

not prepared to defend continuing to do it that way. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Well, thank you very much. 

And, again, we will have some additional questions for the record 

for the Secretary, if we could. 

Chairman CARPER. Fair enough. 

Let’s come back and talk a little bit about the Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), if we can. We talked a little bit about 

it over breakfast today. I think we all appreciate how important 

the work that is done there. 

My recollection is we have no nominee. Am I mistaken, sir? No 

nominee to fill that position? 

Secretary JOHNSON. There is no nominee to be the Director of 

ICE, but it is a top priority of mine to bring you one, for the President to bring you one, and we are actively recruiting and vetting 

people right now. 

Chairman CARPER. Good. I am glad that is a priority. Get us a 

good name, and we will do our part to vet that person and try to 

get him or her confirmed and at work. 

One of the things we saw—I mentioned this to you earlier this 

week. One of the things we saw in El Salvador was that we deport 

Salvadorans that come to this country illegally. We send them 

back. Fly them back into El Salvador. 

They are processed through a facility there. I think it can handle 

about 100 people. There is a proposal to double that space and actually improve the services that are provided by that return center 

for returning detainees to help them reassimilate into their communities and their country, to help them a little bit with their efforts to find a job, to maybe get some of the education they need 

to help them be eligible for the jobs that are there. 

One of the things we learned was for an expenditure of about $2 

million they could double the space from 100 to 200 people. Take 

them anytime with the flights coming back in. They receive flights 
29 

like one flight a day except, I think, Wednesdays they have two 

flights. I think Sundays they do not have any. 

But, meanwhile, we have thousands of Salvadorans that are 

waiting to be flown back, and we have them in beds in this country. I forget what the price is for beds in these detention centers 

in our country, but it is substantial. 

Do you recall what it is? I am thinking it is $100 per person, 

$150 per person for a day. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I have heard $110 a day. That could be 

wrong, but that is the number I have heard. And I agree; it is expensive. 

Chairman CARPER. Anyway, where I am going is for the expenditure of $2 million to double the capability of receiving people back, 

Salvadorans back in their native country, it would reduce significantly our head count of Salvadorans in this country, taking up 

these beds where we spend over $100 a day. 

I think that is an expenditure we ought to figure out to get that 

made, and I would just urge you and your folks to look at that— 

again, going at root causes. So, going back at root causes, this is 

one of them that we ought to look at. 

Also, the Administration—it might actually help us with the 

President’s proposal on detention beds in this country for illegal detainees. I think the budget of the President takes the number of 

beds down from about 34,000, which is what we have mandated in 

the Congress, down to about 30,500. 

I am not sure how we are going to do that unless we take the 

kind of step that I just mentioned. So I urge you to keep that in 

mind. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I would add to that also; there is a 

funding request for $94 million for an alternatives to detention program, which is pretty good. 

Chairman CARPER. Yes. Take a minute and talk about it, please. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, it involves various, different types of 

monitoring of those who are released on bond or parole, and it is 

an effective program. We do not need to detain every single person 

who is in the system in the process. 

And you are correct that in this year and in prior years Congress 

has mandated that we maintain a 34,000-bed capacity. 

Our request this year is for 34.6 based on our best assessment 

that given our removal priorities those who are threats to national 

security, public safety, border security, that is the level we ought 

to be funding. And with an effective alternatives to detention program, we think that is the level and that is the wisest use of taxpayer dollars. So that is our request. That is our submission. 

Chairman CARPER. Yes, we have seen braceletting and that sort 

of thing work in Delaware and in other States in order to bring 

down the head count in our prisons. You have to be careful of the 

folks we select for that kind of treatment, but I think it has real 

potential. 

The important thing is for the Administration to present to us 

in a compelling way, in a convincing way, that these alternatives 

to detention can be highly effective, and I think that is part of the 

solution to getting the Congress to go along. 
30 

The other thing is what I talked about earlier about expanding 

the size of the return facility in places like El Salvador. 

I want to return, if I can, to cybersecurity and the—I mean, your 

thoughts on the work that has been done on the framework by the 

folks at NIST. They spent basically a year working on it and reaching out to a lot of different companies—financial services companies, technology companies, communications, telecoms. 

And, your thoughts in terms of the quality of the work that has 

been done, the result, and what is the next step particularly with 

respect to Homeland Security, and what kind of resources do you 

have and do you need to do it? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The framework stems from the Presidential 

directive and the Executive Order that was issued 13 months ago. 

I think we did a lot of things right in connection with the framework. We worked with the private sector. We collaborated with 

them on a set of best practices, not regulations, but best practices. 

It was an inclusive process. We issued the framework publically 

a month ago, and I am told that it is getting a good reaction in the 

private sector. 

And we want to move forward with that, take any additional 

public comments and have a set of best practices that will work for 

the benefit of the private sector. 

As I have said to you before, I think, Chairman, I think that, for 

us, recruiting the top cybersecurity talent in this country to come 

serve their county at least for a time is critical to our cybersecurity 

future. 

I believe that we need to build trust between the Federal Government and the private sector right now insofar as cybersecurity 

is concerned. I want to position DHS at the center of that role. 

There is a fair amount, and this is unfortunate, of distrust of the 

Federal Government by the American public right now. A lot of 

people believe that the American public does not work for them. 

I want to try to build trust. I have a plan for meeting with those 

in private industry to talk to them about cybersecurity. 

One of the other issues we have is to a lot of people this whole 

topic is impenetrable because of the complexity of our terminology. 

So I would like to try to explain it in very simple, plain English 

terms, what the cyber threat means, to the average American. 

When I was at Georgia Tech a couple weeks ago, they have terrific cybersecurity talent like I know we do in other parts of the 

country. But a large university like Georgia Tech, or others, faces 

hundreds or thousands of cyber attacks almost daily that they have 

to address. So the young people in this country get it and understand it, and I think we in national leadership need to be in the 

same place. 

You and I have talked about various legislative proposals that I 

think we need to move on, and it sounds as if, politically, the time 

might be right to kind of re-attack on this issue. I very much support that, and I have laid out what I think would be good. 

And I know, Senator, you are thinking about this and working 

on this, and I want to work with you on that. 

Chairman CARPER. Yes, we had a good conversation earlier today 

with you, Dr. Coburn and myself, and I am encouraged. 
31 

We are talking about billions of dollars in different parts of your 

budget for one aspect or the other. My staff told me that the President’s budget for DHS, with respect to helping industry adopt a 

framework, was a bargain-basement $6 million. For a big threat, 

and for a lot of industry and a lot of business players, that is not 

a whole lot of money, and some folks in industry have actually 

questioned whether that is really enough to be able to get the job 

done. 

I would just ask you to comment on that and the steps that DHS 

is taking to help industry to use the framework. 

It took me a while to get my head around the term, framework. 

You talked about this stuff that is kind of dense. And we used the 

words that we used—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I did not use the word, dense. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Your word, not mine. 

Chairman CARPER. Well, I would. 

We had a really smart guy from the Dartmouth Institute in 

Delaware the other night to talk to us about health care, how to 

get better health care results for less money. He has been very 

much involved in accountable care organizations, and we are seeing 

a rapid growth of accountable care organizations. 

Most people say, what is that? And, is that something for accountants? No, it is not. It is actually a way of how we coordinate 

and collaborate in the delivery of health care to get a better result 

for less money, but it is just misnamed. 

And, a framework—I said to someone, why do they call it a 

framework, and what is it really? 

I was told it is really a road map. It is really like a blueprint. 

And when I hear that technology, well, I can identify with that. 

I can sort of understand that. 

But, in terms of having the financial resources, human resources—to help industry use that road map, to use that blueprint, 

to strengthen their defenses and enable them to turn back those 

who are trying to hack in and create harm, any further thoughts 

you can give us along the line of the resources that we need? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am sure if Suzanne Spaulding or Phyllis 

Schneck were here, they could spend the rest of the day answering 

that question. 

I think we are on the right path. I think that the key is establishing a set of best practices that is disseminated publically by the 

U.S. Government, that is a set of practices that private industry 

agrees with, embraces, helps to create, so that everyone else in private industry knows what the best in private industry considers to 

be the best practices. 

And I hope to be pretty visible myself in talking about 

cybersecurity, building on that framework, because this really is a 

national priority. And $6 million may be bargain-basement, but at various points 

along the way we will be asking Congress for more because this 

really is a national priority—$6 million is for that particular piece 

of the overall effort. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Well, I think the point I am trying 

to make is we just want to make sure that the budget that we ulti-
32 

mately adopt and put into place supports the cyber activities of the 

Department and does so effectively. 

One last point I would make, and then I am going to ask you just 

to give us just a short closing statement and kind of wrap up 

things, if you will. 

I want to go back to an issue raised by Senator McCaskill, who— 

I describe myself as a recovering Governor. She is a recovering 

auditor, and she chairs our Subcommittee that focuses on acquisition within this Committee. 

In your opening statement, you reported that you have initiated—I think you called it—a top to bottom review of the governance processes for the Department’s acquisitions. 

As you know and as Senator McCaskill has referred to, the challenges that the Department had in managing in acquisition is a 

major reason that DHS’s management remains on GAO’s high-risk 

list. 

If you look closely at GAO’s analysis of the Department, you will 

see that GAO reports the Department has taken a number of positive steps, that when fully implemented should get better results 

for the money that the Department spends on major acquisitions. 

And an example or two—the Department is putting more effort 

into developing cost estimates, assessing the risk that might cause 

programs to go over budget or beyond schedule or not perform well. 

And we were told that the Department is developing a departmentwide approach to planning investments so it can do a better job of 

prioritizing spending and—one of Dr. Coburn’s favorite things— 

eliminating duplication. 

That having been said, the Department still has some ways to 

go to mature these processes. 

Let me just ask a couple of questions. One is, can you tell us a 

bit more about what your review of the acquisition structure will 

look at? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The overall goal is an efficient, competitive 

process that manages to the right priorities. 

So every time I talk about acquisition in the Department of 

Homeland Security, I ask myself, well, where was the Department 

of Defense in 1958, in its 11th year, in this whole thing? And we 

need to do better than that. 

I am sure that as DOD came along the acquisition process got 

more and more mature. And we are in the same place, but we have 

a lot of lessons that we can learn from other Federal agencies. 

So sometimes we bristle against a centralized process because 

sometimes a centralized process can micromanage at levels that do 

not make a lot of sense in the field. But this is an area where I 

think if we have a more centralized process in terms of defining the 

priorities of the Department, defining what our resource needs are 

and go from there, we can, with the components, build a more efficient process. 

With some of the staff that I have hired over the last 3 months, 

that is the mission I have given them, and we are spending a lot 

of time on that. 

And when I leave this job, I would like to leave that process, in 

particular, in a better place. 
33 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Going back to DOD, when were 

they created? That was 1947? 

Secretary JOHNSON. 1947. 

Chairman CARPER. The year I was created and one of my favorite 

years. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think that was a Brooklyn Dodgers year, 

too. 

Chairman CARPER. Maybe so. 

Gene Dodaro was just in here the other day, testifying. That was 

yesterday. And GAO tells us in terms of their high-risk list that 

they give us every 2 years, that major weapons systems cost overruns have actually grown in DOD from a couple hundred billion 

dollars to, I think, about $400 billion. 

So you can do better than that. And they can, too. And we want 

to make sure that you do. 

I know I have urged you to talk to a variety of different people. 

Again, one of the people I would urge you to just establish a good 

working relationship with, you and Ali Majorkas, your deputy, is 

with Gene Dodaro and the folks at GAO. They are not in the 

gotcha business. They have their heads and their hearts in the 

right place. 

I would urge you to consult with Gene Dodaro and maybe some 

of his folks and to get maybe some of their views. Just make sure 

you have their views on some of the specific initiatives or policies 

that ought to be part of your review when you look at the acquisition reforms that you all are going to adopt. 

The last thing is this; the key—and I have said this a number 

of times as I try to encourage my colleagues to move nominations 

through the Senate. 

We have had an Administration—five years into this Administration, it looked at the beginning of this year still like Executive 

Branch Swiss cheese. So many openings, so many holes, especially 

in the higher levels of the Department of Homeland Security. 

We have made real progress and continue to make, hopefully, 

progress. Again, Dr. Coburn has been a great partner in doing that, 

and our Committee has been very helpful. And we hope to fill—at 

least move one more nomination today with the Under Secretary 

for Science and Technology. 

The Administration needs to send us good people. I will be sending that message to the folks at the White House, and they need 

to hear that from us all. 

Secretary JOHNSON. And I believe there is no shortage of good 

people in the country, who want to serve their country. 

Chairman CARPER. Yes, there are also a lot of people coming out 

of the military that are looking for jobs, and they have been warriors for us across the globe. A bunch of them would like to be 

cyber warriors, could be cyber warriors. 

You need resources. We need resources in the private sector and 

the public sector all across the country. So we have to make sure 

we are taking advantage of those opportunities. 

I want to say I think you are off to a good start. I think you are 

the key to any organization doing well. 

In my experience, I do not care whether it is a military organization, if it is a business, if it is a school, if it is a government unit. 
34 

I do not care what. The key is leadership. There is nothing that is 

more important than that. 

And I think you are providing that kind of leadership, and your 

deputy is providing that kind of leadership. You need to make sure 

you have the team around you, and that is a shared responsibility. 

But any closing thoughts that you would like to share with us? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I guess two things, Senator. And thank you 

for the opportunity to comment, and thank you for your comments. 

One, when I first heard that DHS was on the GAO high-risk list, 

I went back and read the report myself, and I agree with your assessment that the GAO notes in a number of places the progress 

that DHS has been making to get off the high-risk list. So we are 

definitely moving in the right direction, and I think that reflects 

a lot of hard work by a lot of people in management. So that is a 

good thing. 

The last thing I would like to say is something that I did not 

fully appreciate until I got into this job. I knew it intellectually, but 

now I fully appreciate it, even after 3 months. 

When you are Secretary of Homeland Security, you are not only 

the guardian of this country’s homeland security; in a very large 

respect, the Secretary is also the guardian of a lot of our American 

values. 

So there are ways to achieve perfect homeland security if you devote the resources to it, but we would also be sacrificing a lot of 

our values. I could build you a perfectly secure structure, but it 

would look like a prison. 

In this country, we cherish privacy, freedom of movement, liberty. We celebrate diversity. And those are things that I feel as 

though I am responsible for as well. 

So homeland security is something that we have to be vigilant 

about, but it always is striking a balance between—and we talked 

about this at my confirmation hearing—the places that Americans 

should be allowed the freedom to go publically. 

If you want perfect security in this building, you would keep 

every private citizen out, without a lot of screening. But that 

should not be the case. This is a public building, and your constituents, the American public, ought to be able to come see their representatives in Congress with the relative ease of movement. 

So homeland security, any type of security, is always a balance 

between the safety of the American public and the safety of the 

things that we cherish in this country. So thank you very much. 

Chairman CARPER. That is a great note to close on. 

I gave blood last Friday in a town just north of Dover, in a town 

called Smyrna, and when I walked in I had to go fill out some paperwork and do a questionnaire. As I was walking in there to actually give blood, I walked by the canteen where people were recovering, not really recovering, but they were having something to eat 

and something to drink before they let them leave or go out on 

their own after giving blood. 

And this one woman looked at me, not with a smile, but she said 

to me just very abruptly; she said, get the government out of my 

life. That is what she said. Get the government out of my life. I 

said, well, good morning. How are you, ma’am? I started to walk 

away. I said, well, thank you for that. 
35 

I started to walk away, and then I went back, and I said, ma’am, 

if you had any idea the threats that our Nation faces from within 

and without on a daily basis, you would probably want the government to be in some ways more involved in your life. 

But there is tension here. As you point out, there is a tension between trying to make sure that we are secure but also to make 

sure that we are protecting our privacy and our civil liberties. 

I think some people in our country today believe that all their 

e-mails are being read and all their phone calls are being listened 

to. We do not have enough cyber warriors in the National Security 

Agency (NSA), Homeland Security, or any other place to begin to 

do that. 

And the key for us, again and again and again, is to figure out 

where the risks are, where do we face the risks, to the best of our 

ability, and make sure we have the kind of resources to address 

them. The higher the risk the more the resources, human and otherwise. 

Again, being as respectful as we can and ought to be for our civil 

liberties and our privacy, but to make sure at the same time that 

we are more secure. Not an easy job. It is a tough job. And it is 

a shared responsibility for you and your team. 

For the Navy, the P3 squadron, in El Salvador, flying drug interdiction, the people on the border, all kinds of folks that are working 

for our country—shared responsibility. 

And we are encouraged that the Department of Homeland Security is in good hands, and we very much look forward to making 

sure you have your team and making sure that we work together 

and you have the resources that you need but also making sure 

that you do not have the resources you do not need. 

All right. With that having been said, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days. That is until March 28, at 5 p.m., for the 

submission of statements and questions for the record. 

This has been a good hearing. We are grateful for your presence 

and your preparation, and we look forward to working with you. 

Thank you so much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(37) 

A P P E N D I X 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 

Æ