U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–556 PDF 2014

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 13, 2014 

Serial No. 113–56 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

VACANCY

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

DONDALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

VACANCY, Staff Director 

MICHAEL GEFFROY, Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

WITNESS

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

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

APPENDIX

Question From Honorable Susan W. Brooks for Honorable Jeh C. Johnson ...... 39 

Question From Honorable Steve Daines for Honorable Jeh C. Johnson ............ 39 

(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Thursday, March 13, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:29 p.m., in Room 311, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Michael T. McCaul [Chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McCaul, Smith, King, Rogers, Broun, 

Miller, Duncan, Palazzo, Barletta, Hudson, Brooks, Perry, Sanford, 

Thompson, Sanchez, Jackson Lee, Clarke, Richmond, Barber, 

Payne, O’Rourke, Gabbard, Horsford, and Swalwell. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Committee on Homeland Security will 

come to order. 

The committee is meeting today to hear testimony from Secretary Jeh Johnson on the administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget 

request for the Department of Homeland Security. 

I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Today, we convene to take an in-depth look at the President’s 

budget as it relates to protecting the homeland. Budgets are important documents, not just operationally, but because they expose priorities. After a review of the budget, I must say I was disappointed 

that the budget request proposes new entitlement spending, while 

recommending nearly $1 billion in cuts to the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

As continuous unrest around the world makes clear, America’s 

National security does not end at our shores. On-going tensions in 

the Middle East, Africa, Syria, and now in Ukraine constantly remind us that security at home is linked to actions abroad. 

Al-Qaeda and its ideas have grown into a proliferating web of affiliates signaling its escalation and not its demise. As the tragic 

loss of life in Boston last April made all too clear and reminds us 

that this radical ideology continues to threaten us here at home. 

Unfortunately, the realities of growing threats are not reflected 

in the proposed budget. While domestic programs are important, 

now is not the time to create new entitlements at the expense of 

National security. 

The President is calling for $56 billion to fund nonessential programs like climate research, while at the same time reducing funding for the United States Coast Guard and border security mis-
2 

sions, and cutting DHS’s Science and Technology explosives detection research by $15.5 million. 

Last year, after the Boston Marathon bombing, Congress undid 

the multi-year funding decline for the Office of Bombing Prevention 

by providing $13.5 million. This year’s budget request unfortunately drops that amount back down to $11.5 million, nearly as low 

as before the tragic attack in Boston. 

Security must remain a top priority. As the tragic Malaysia Airlines disappearance last week is investigated, we are reminded 

that airlines remain vulnerable to numerous threats whether mechanical or man-made. From our skies to our seas, the Department 

cannot sustain its mission under this proposed budget. 

The proposal reduces the Coast Guard’s acquisition budget by $300 million, just as old assets that should be replaced are retired; 

and proposes a $32 million cut in funding to CBP air and marine 

flight hours along the border, reducing our situational awareness 

of what is coming across. 

At the same time, the administration again is aiming to reduce 

the number of Congressionally-mandated ICE detention beds by 

3,500. This is all while the budget gives over $320 million to GSA 

and DHS to construct access roads in a building to house the Secretary’s office at the St. Elizabeths headquarters—a construction 

project that is now slated to be finished in 2026. 

This means the administration, in my judgment, is putting bureaucracy over the safety and security of our own shores. The Navy 

has already stopped counter-drug missions in South America postsequestration, and now we are retiring a significant part of our 

Coast Guard fleet without replacements on deck. This will allow 

more drugs to make it into our communities. This is particularly 

egregious since the majority of illicit drugs are seized off the coast 

of Colombia and Honduras, not coming across our land border. 

For perspective, last year’s CBP and Border Patrol seized around 

45,000 pounds of cocaine while the United States Coast Guard took 

in almost 200,000 pounds. So it is critical that we maintain a presence in these transit zones. 

While I am concerned about these cuts, I was relieved and 

pleased to see that this request included a $90 million increase for 

video surveillance along the border. Enhanced technology is something this committee has called for repeatedly. 

In addition, funding for the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications has been increased by roughly 1 percent. The increase includes $746 million to secure Federal civilian networks, the dot.gov 

domain, and to help protect the Nation’s critical infrastructure sectors from cyber threats. 

Still, the majority of the cuts to the Department fall under its 

most critical mission areas, and the current budget request is strikingly similar to those we saw under your predecessor. Ultimately 

beyond the cuts today, we must discuss the lack of a new strategic 

planning or vision that this budget proposal reflects. 

DHS was scheduled to submit to Congress its Department review 

in December 2013, which outlines its priorities for the coming year. 

We are now well into 2014 and we have yet to receive such a document. How can DHS determine what funds need to be directed toward what missions when it hasn’t outlined its missions? 
3 

Last month, Mr. Secretary, you came before this committee and 

told us about your vision for the future of homeland security and 

for the Department. We appreciate you being here today. Today, I 

would like to examine how within the parameters of this budget request, your vision for homeland security will be executed. 

[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL T. MCCAUL

MARCH 13, 2014 

Today we convene to take an in-depth look at the President’s budget, as it relates 

to protecting the homeland. Budgets are important documents, not just operationally, but because they expose priorities. After a review of the budget, I must say 

I was disappointed that the President’s fiscal year 2015 request proposes new entitlement spending, while recommending nearly a billion dollars in cuts to the Department of Homeland Security. 

As continuous unrest around the world makes clear, America’s National security 

does not end at our shores. On-going tensions in the Middle East, Africa, Syria, and 

now in Ukraine, constantly remind us that security at home is linked to actions 

abroad. Al-Qaeda and its ideas have grown into a proliferating web of affiliates signaling its escalation—not its demise. And as the tragic loss of life in Boston last 

April all too clearly reminded us, this radical ideology continues to threaten us here 

at home. 

Unfortunately, the realities of growing threats are not reflected in the proposed 

budget. While domestic programs are important, now is not the time to create new 

entitlements at the expense of National security. The President is calling for $56 

billion to fund non-essential programs, like climate research—while at the same 

time, reducing funding for United States Coast Guard and border security missions, 

and cutting DHS Science & Technology explosives detection research by $15.5 million. Last year, after the Boston Marathon Bombing, Congress undid the multi-year 

funding decline for the Office of Bombing Prevention, by providing $13.5 million. 

This year’s budget request, unfortunately, drops that amount back down to $11.5 

million, nearly as low as before the tragic attack. 

Security must remain a top priority. As the tragic Malaysia Airlines disappearance last week is investigated, we are reminded that airlines remain vulnerable to 

numerous threats, whether mechanical or man-made. From our skies to our seas, 

the Department cannot sustain its mission under this proposed budget. The proposal reduces the Coast Guard’s acquisition budget by $300 million just as old assets that should be replaced are retired, and proposes a $32 million cut in funding 

to CBP Air and Marine flight hours along the border—reducing our situational 

awareness of what is coming across. At the same time, the administration again is 

aiming to reduce the number of Congressionally-mandated ICE detention beds by 

3,500. This is all while the budget gives over $320 million to GSA and DHS to construct access roads and a building to house the Secretary’s office at the St. Elizabeths Headquarters—a construction project that is now slated to be finished in 

2026. 

This means the administration, in my judgment, is putting bureaucracy over the 

safety and security of our own shores. The Navy has already stopped counter-drug 

missions in South America post-Sequestration; and now we’re retiring a significant 

part of our Coast Guard fleet, without replacements on deck. This will allow more 

drugs to make it into our communities. This is particularly egregious since the majority of illicit drugs are seized off the coasts of Columbia and Honduras, not coming 

across our land borders. For perspective: Last year CBP and Border Patrol seized 

around 45,000 pounds of cocaine, while The United States Coast Guard took in almost 200,000 pounds, so it is critical that we maintain presence in the transit zones. 

While I am concerned about these cuts, I was relieved to see the fiscal year 2015 

request includes a $90 million increase for video surveillance along the border. Enhanced technology is something this committee has called for repeatedly. In addition, funding for the office of Cybersecurity and Communications has been increased 

by roughly 1 percent. The increase includes $746 million dollars to secure Federal 

civilian networks—the .gov domain—and to help protect the Nation’s critical infrastructure sectors from cyber threats. 

Still, the majority of the cuts to the Department fall under its most critical mission areas, and the current budget request is strikingly similar to those we’ve seen 

under your predecessor. Ultimately beyond the cuts, today we must discuss the lack 

of new strategic planning that the budget proposal reflects. 
4 

DHS was scheduled to submit to Congress its Department Review in December 

2013, which outlines its priorities for the coming year. We are now well into 2014 

and we have yet to receive such a document. How can DHS determine what funds 

need to be directed toward what missions, when it hasn’t outlined its missions? 

Last month, you sat before this committee and told us about your vision for the 

future of homeland security and for the Department. Today, I would like to examine 

how, within the parameters of this budget request, your vision for homeland security will be executed. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking 

Member, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome back, Mr. Secretary. Good to see you again. 

When we last met, you testified before this committee about your 

vision and priorities. The budget request under discussion today 

should provide greater clarity about your vision and priorities. 

The budget request that the President submitted on your behalf 

is not simply a collection of numbers and tables. It is an expression 

of your values and aspirations. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that this proposal was developed in less than optimal 

conditions. The Budget Control Act, which forced sequestration 

cuts, has not only limited DHS’s baseline funding, but may also 

cause DHS operations to be limited. 

The comptroller general reports that DHS took certain administrative actions, including hiring freezes and employment award 

freezes, to help soften the blow of the funding reductions. Even 

with those actions and the reallocation of carryover funding, sequestration took a toll on DHS’s operations, particularly at the 

Coast Guard and ICE. 

It also resulted in reduction of support for terrorism detection 

and preparedness, and response on the local level. GAO found that 

the Coast Guard interdictions of migrants and drugs at sea were 

down by 29 percent and 24 percent, respectively. There were also 

about 6,000 fewer vessel inspections. 

At ICE, training and other core activities were reduced to cover 

the cost of maintaining 34,000 detention beds as mandated by law. 

There were also significant reductions in the Port Security Grant 

Program and the Inner City Passenger Rail Program. The budget 

before us today would inflict deeper cuts to State and local grant 

programs. 

Unless the President’s proposal to close tax loopholes and institute new fees is accepted, there will be a $300 million reduction in 

assistance to State and local governments to enhance cyber capabilities and for university programs. Department officials expressed 

concerns to GAO about the ability to mitigate future potential 

budget cuts and how effectively the workforce will be able to respond to future mission-critical needs. 

While I appreciate the budget addresses a number of key priorities at the Department, including border security resources and recapitalization of the Coast Guard, I am concerned about certain 

proposals. Particularly, I look forward to hearing more about the 

fee increase proposed in TSA’s budget. It is rather surprising, given 

that an increase to the fee was just authorized in December, and 

we would like to see whether we are going to have another one, Mr. 

Secretary. 
5 

Other areas that warrant discussion, including the Department’s 

proposal to consolidate State and local preparedness grants, which 

each Congress has unilaterally rejected in the past, as well as a reduction in university programs. These kinds of programs are essential to building homeland security throughout the Nation. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

MARCH 13, 2014 

Welcome back, Mr. Secretary. It is good to see you again. When we last met, you 

testified to your vision and priorities as the new Secretary of Homeland Security. 

The budget request under discussion today should provide greater clarity about your 

vision and priorities. 

The budget request that the President submitted on your behalf is not simply a 

collection of numbers and tables, it is an expression of your values and aspirations. 

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that this proposal was developed in less 

than optimal conditions. The Budget Control Act—which forced sequestration cuts— 

has not only limited DHS’ baseline funding but may also cause DHS’ operations to 

be limited. 

The Comptroller General reports that DHS took certain administrative actions, 

including hiring freezes and employment award freezes, to help soften the blow of 

the funding reductions. Even with those actions and the reallocation of carryover 

funding, sequestration took a toll on DHS’ operations, particularly at the Coast 

Guard and ICE. It also resulted in reductions of support for terrorism detection, preparedness, and response on the local level. 

GAO found that the Coast Guard’s interdictions of migrants and drugs at sea 

were down by 29 percent and 24 percent, respectively. There were also about 6,000 

fewer vessel inspections. At ICE, training and other core activities were reduced to 

cover the costs of maintaining 34,000 detention beds, as mandated in law. There 

were also significant reductions to the Port Security Grant Program and The Intercity Passenger Rail Program. 

The budget before us today would inflict deeper cuts to State and local grant programs. Unless the President’s proposal to close tax loopholes and institute new fees 

is accepted, there will be a $300 million reduction in assistance to State and local 

governments to enhance cyber capabilities and for University Programs. 

Department officials expressed concern to GAO about its ability to ‘‘mitigate future potential budget cuts’’ and about ‘‘how effectively the workforce will be able to 

respond to future mission critical needs.’’ While I appreciate that the budget addresses a number of key priorities at the Department, including border security resources and recapitalization of the Coast Guard, I am concerned about certain proposals. 

Particularly, I look forward to hearing more about the fee-increase proposal in 

TSA’s budget. It is rather surprising, given that an increase to the fee was just authorized in December. Other areas that warrant discussion include the Department’s proposal to consolidate State and local preparedness grants and reduce University programs. These kinds of programs are essential to building homeland security throughout the Nation. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I thank the Ranking Member. 

Other Members are reminded that opening statements may be 

submitted for the record. 

I am pleased today to welcome, sir, you back to this committee. 

Secretary Jeh Johnson was sworn in on December 23, 2013 as the 

fourth Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to 

that, he served as general counsel for the Department of Defense, 

where he led more than 10,000 military and civilian lawyers across 

the Department. 

He oversaw the development of legal aspects of many of our Nation’s counterterrorism policies; spearheaded reforms to the military commission system at Guantanamo Bay; and was also involved in the raid on the bin Laden compound. 
6 

His career has included extensive service in National security 

law enforcement. As an attorney in both private practice and as an 

assistant United States attorney, which—I share that experience 

with him. Of course, he was in the Southern District of New York, 

which is one of the most esteemed offices in the Nation. 

Mr. Johnson, your entire statement will appear in the record. 

I now recognize the Secretary for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEH C. JOHNSON, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

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

You have my prepared statement for the record. 

I just wanted to, in my 5 minutes, hit a couple of top-line points. 

First of all, you were kind enough to note my—some of the things 

I worked on at the Department of Defense, including the bin Laden 

matter. I have to say that, you know, any time the role of somebody in Washington is mentioned concerning military operations, I 

have to respond by noting the bravery of those who were on the 

front lines for any of our specific military operations, and, you 

know, one of the best parts of the job I had there was working with 

our brave men and women in uniform as my client. 

Last time I was here, I think it was Mr. Horsford who noted, 

‘‘You inherited this. And when you inherit something, that means 

you own it. And when you own it, you are responsible for it.’’ It is 

my responsibility, though I did not have involvement in the early 

parts of the preparation of this budget submission, it is my responsibility to come here and explain it and defend it. That is what I 

intend to do today. 

There is no doubt that this budget submission reflects tough 

choices during tough times—tough fiscal times. The administration—the President had to make some very tough choices in the 

submission which you have here today. I am satisfied that this 

budget submission funds our priorities in the Department of Homeland Security. It funds what I believe to be my priorities and my 

vision for the Department of Homeland Security. and I would like 

to note a couple of things about it. 

First, we are maintaining a record number of Border Patrol 

agents at the border—21,370 with this submission. With this submission, we ask for increase in CBP officers to 25,775, to adequately support our efforts at drug interdiction, illegal crossings at 

the ports, to expedite trade at the ports. 

As the Chairman noted, we are asking for $90 million in mobile 

and remote surveillance. For our Border Patrol, border security efforts, I think that is critical. It is also consistent with what our 

Border Patrol agents on the front lines have told me that they need 

when I visited the border most recently. 

We are moving forward with our continued efforts to recapitalize 

the Coast Guard. We have asked for funding for the 8th National 

Security Cutter. 

We are moving forward with a $20 million request for the design 

feature of the offshore patrol cutter. We have asked for funding for 

the fast response cutter, as well. We are moving forward with recapitalization on all three of those fronts, while decommissioning 

some older assets. 
7 

TSA PreCheck, global entry are key priorities. In my view, they 

represent risk-based security in that they enhance security. At the 

same time, they are a smart use of taxpayer dollars, and also popular with the American public. This submission asks for $1.2 billion across the Department overall for cybersecurity, including 

$377 million for our programs to protect the dot.gov world, the 

third phase of which is about to deploy. 

We ask for funding for NBAF, the bio ag facility in Kansas, 

which is an important priority, in my view. 

Chairman, you are correct that this request includes a request 

for fees or fee increases. COBRA immigration user fees. The aviation infrastructure fee we ask be restored from the fiscal year 2013 

level. The 9/11 security fee—we ask for a 40 cent increase in that 

one. There was a long period where the fee was not increased at 

all. It was increased last year to $5.60. We asked that it be increased to $6. This reflects, in part, the view which I very much 

share that when it comes to aviation, those of us—and I put myself 

in this category when I am a private citizen—you use the system 

more often, then the general taxpayer should foot more of the bill. 

So, when I was in private law practice, for example, I would fly 

perhaps four or five times a month to various different places. In 

my judgment, those of who use aviation—commercial aviation more 

often should foot more than the bill than the average taxpayer that 

you represent here in Congress. 

We are making terrific progress on filling vacancies, as you 

know. Three of our nominees were confirmed by the Senate last 

week. We have three more awaiting Senate confirmation. This injects new energy into the Department. We are making great 

progress there. As I have discussed with a number of Members of 

this committee, we are developing a budget process and an acquisition process to reduce, eliminate inefficiencies and duplications of 

effort. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEH C. JOHNSON

MARCH 13, 2014 

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of this committee: 

I begin by thanking this committee for the strong support you have provided to the 

Department the past 11 years. I look forward to continuing to work with you in the 

coming year to protect the homeland and the American people. 

I am pleased to appear before the committee to present President Obama’s fiscal 

year 2015 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The fiscal year 2015 budget request builds on our accomplishments over the past 11 years 

while providing essential support to National and economic security. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget reflects President Obama’s strong commitment to protecting the homeland and the American people. It supports and continues our focus 

on preserving front-line priorities across the Department by cutting costs, sharing 

resources across DHS components, and streamlining operations wherever possible. 

It will ensure our men and women on the front lines are well-trained, equipped, and 

supported while continuing to maximize Department-wide efficiencies. It will also 

continue to make responsible investments in personnel, technology, and asset recapitalization that are critical to ensuring our future security, while recognizing 

that difficult fiscal choices must be made. 

The basic missions of DHS are and should continue to be preventing terrorism 

and enhancing security; securing and managing our borders; enforcing and administering our immigration laws; safeguarding and securing cyber space; and strengthening National preparedness and resilience. The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget 
8 

request provides the resources necessary to maintain and strengthen our efforts in 

each of these critical mission areas. 

In all, the fiscal year 2015 budget requests $60.9 billion in total budget authority, $49.0 billion in gross discretionary funding and $38.2 billion in net discretionary 

funding. 

The cornerstone of the Homeland Security mission is protecting our Nation 

against terrorist attacks. Through the efforts of both the Bush and Obama administrations, we have put al-Qaeda’s core leadership on a path to strategic defeat. But 

the terrorist threat has continued to evolve. We must remain vigilant in detecting 

and preventing terrorist threats that seek to penetrate the homeland from the land, 

sea, or air. We also must continue to build relationships with State and local law 

enforcement, and the first responders in our communities, to address the threats we 

face from those who self-radicalize to violence, the so-called ‘‘lone wolf’’ who may be 

living quietly in our midst, inspired by radical, violent ideology to do harm to Americans—illustrated last year by the Boston Marathon bombing. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget strengthens the Department’s antiterrorism efforts. It requests $3.8 billion for TSA screening operations to continue improving aviation 

security effectiveness by aligning passenger screening resources based on risk. It 

also requests more than $1 billion for FEMA’s preparedness grants with particular 

emphasis on building and sustaining capabilities that address high-consequence 

events that pose the greatest risk to the security and resilience of the United States 

and can be utilized to address multiple threats and hazards. 

Border security is essential to homeland security. Good border security is both a 

barrier to terrorist threats, drug traffickers, transnational criminal organizations, 

and other threats to National security and public safety, and a facilitator for legitimate trade and travel. We are gratified by the support Congress has provided to 

improve security at our borders and ports of entry. With that support, we’ve made 

great progress. There is now more manpower, technology, and infrastructure on our 

borders than ever before, and our men and women in and around the border are 

producing results. But we must remain vigilant. The fiscal year 2015 budget builds on this progress by providing $362.5 million 

to maintain the necessary infrastructure and technology along the Nation’s borders 

to ensure that law enforcement personnel are supported with effective surveillance 

technology to improve their ability to detect and interdict illegal activity in a safer 

environment. The budget invests $90 million in technology that will improve remote 

and mobile video surveillance systems and $11.7 million to recapitalize non-intrusive inspection equipment. The budget will allow DHS to complete the hiring of up 

to 2,000 new Customs and Border Protection officers, which commenced in fiscal 

year 2014, and an additional 2,000 officers funded by fees in fiscal year 2015, resulting in faster processing and inspections of passengers and cargo at U.S. ports of 

entry, which is projected to add nearly 66,000 new jobs, add $4 billion to GDP and 

result in more seizures of illegal items, such as drugs, guns, and counterfeit goods. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget supports the salaries, benefits, and operating costs for 

21,370 Border Patrol agents and 25,775 CBP Officers. 

With respect to removals and immigration enforcement, we must continue to 

prioritize our resources on those who represent threats to National security, public 

safety, and border security. The fiscal year 2015 budget will provide $2.6 billion to 

support Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities to identify, apprehend, and remove aliens from the United States. The fiscal year 2015 budget also 

includes $124.8 million to continue expansion and enhancement of the E-Verify program. 

We will continue to streamline and facilitate the legal immigration process while 

enforcing U.S. immigration laws through the smart and effective use of resources. 

As I have said many times, we must also take serious steps forward on immigration 

reform legislation and find common-sense solutions to a problem we all know we 

have. I am committed to working with Congress to achieve that goal. 

In addition, we must continue efforts to address the growing cyber threat to the 

private sector and the ‘‘.gov’’ networks, illustrated by the real, pervasive, and ongoing series of attacks on public and private infrastructure. The fiscal year 2015 

budget includes $1.27 billion for DHS cybersecurity activities, including $377.7 million for Network Security Deployment, including the EINSTEIN3 Accelerated (E3A) 

program, which enables DHS to detect malicious traffic targeting civilian Federal 

Government networks and prevent malicious traffic from harming those networks. 

It also includes $143.5 million for the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program, which provides hardware, software, and services designed to support activities that strengthen the operational security of Federal civilian networks. In support 

of Executive Order 13636, the budget will also provide $8.5 million to establish a 

voluntary program and an enhanced cybersecurity services capability. 
9 

DHS also must be vigilant in preparing for and responding to disasters, including 

floods, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, and most recently, chemical leaks like the 

2014 spill into the Elk River in West Virginia that threatened the water supply of 

hundreds of thousands of people. We have come a long way since the days of Hurricane Katrina. We have improved disaster planning with public and private-sector 

partners, non-profit organizations, and the American people. With the help of this 

committee, we have also improved the Department’s emergency response agility 

through important changes to the structure of the Disaster Relief Fund, which 

brings immediate help and resources to our communities in their most dire times 

of need. 

Of particular note, the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget funds production of National Security Cutter 8, as part of the recapitalization of the Coast Guard, and requests $300 million to complete the funding necessary to construct the National Bioand Agro-Defense Facility, a state-of-the-art bio-containment facility central to the 

protection of the Nation’s food supply and security. The fiscal year 2015 budget will provide $10.2 billion to support disaster resiliency, primarily through the grants programs that are administered by FEMA and 

the Disaster Relief Fund. Of this total, $2.2 billion in total grant funding will support State and local government efforts to prevent, protect against, respond to, and 

recover from incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic events. Also included are 

Firefighter and Emergency Management Performance Grants that support local first 

responders in achieving their missions, and $7 billion in DRF funding to provide immediate and long-lasting assistance to individuals and communities stricken by 

emergencies and major disasters. 

Lastly, the budget includes the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative, which provides a roadmap for additional investments to help secure our Nation’s future. Specifically, this initiative funds $300 million for FEMA’s reformed, 

risk-based approach to increase preparedness, mitigation, and emergency response 

to disasters and other threats in communities across the country. The Opportunity, 

Growth, and Security Initiative also dedicates significant resources to help our communities prepare for the effects of climate change, including $400 million to support 

planning and pilot projects for cities and communities through FEMA hazard mitigation assistance and National preparedness grants, and $10 million to help the National Protection and Programs Directorate identify critical infrastructure facilities 

and analyze their ability to remain functional after disasters. 

As Secretary of Homeland Security, I am mindful of the environment in which we 

pursue each of these important missions. The days are over when those of us in National and homeland security can expect more and more to be added each year to 

our top-line budgets. I therefore believe I am obliged to identify and eliminate inefficiencies, waste, and unnecessary duplications of resources across DHS’s large and 

decentralized bureaucracy, while pursuing important missions such as the recapitalization of the aging Coast Guard fleet. Over the past 2 years, the Department has 

found innovative ways to reduce cost and leverage efficiencies, reducing DHS-wide 

expenses by over $2.7 billion during that period. We also reached a major milestone 

last year when the Department achieved its first unqualified or ‘‘clean’’ audit opinion on its financial reporting. These are important steps in maturing the Department’s management and oversight functions, but there is more to do. 

As part of this agenda we are tackling our budget structure and process. DHS currently has 76 appropriations and over 120 projects, programs, or activities, and 

there are significant structural inconsistencies across components, making missionbased budget planning and budget execution analysis difficult. We are making 

changes to our budget process to better focus our efforts on a mission and crosscomponent view. I, along with the deputy secretary, am personally engaged to provide the necessary leadership and direction to this process. I look forward to further 

discussing these ideas and strategies with this committee as we develop ways to refine our planning process and appropriation account structure in order to improve 

how the Department resources its missions. 

As part of a management reform agenda, I am also doing a top-to-bottom review 

our of acquisition governance process—from how we develop our strategies, to the 

development of our requirements, to how we sustain our platforms, equipment, and 

people, and everything in between. Part of this will include the thoughtful, but necessary, consolidation of functions to provide the Department with the proper oversight, management, and responsibilities to carry out this task. This will allow DHS 

to more fully ensure the solutions we pursue are responsive to our strategy, technologically mature, and cost-effective. I look forward to sharing our ideas and strategies with this committee as we move forward in this area. 

In closing, the Department’s fiscal year 2015 budget request recognizes our current fiscal realities and works within them. It is a responsible plan that will 
10 

strengthen our Nation’s security while allowing the Department to continue to 

achieve its core objectives. I thank the committee for inviting me to appear today. 

In the pursuit of our important mission, I pledge to this committee my total dedication and all the energy I possess. I look forward to working with you to meet our 

shared priorities. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I thank the Secretary. We appreciate your 

outreach to not only myself and the Ranking Member, but the entire committee. 

Before I ask a few budget items, I do want to turn to a topic that 

has come up more recently. That is the disappearance of the Malaysian flight. 

Transponders were apparently turned off. There are reports of 

two Iranians on board who had stolen passports. Can you tell us 

what you, sir, and your Department of Homeland Security are 

doing about this matter? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Chairman, the Malaysian government is in 

the lead on the investigation and search for the aircraft. As you 

know, we are not now in a position to make any conclusions at this 

time. I will say that when it comes to the reports about the stolen 

passports, I have asked, when it comes to our own security insofar 

as stolen passports are concerned—you know, where are we in the 

United States—and the assessment, which I share, is that when it 

comes to domestic flights, and when it comes to flights that leave 

the United States, flights to the United States, we have a good system in place for tracking stolen passports such that if someone attempted to use a stolen passport to travel in the United States or 

to the United States, that would be promptly detected. So, I think 

we are in a reasonably good place there. 

But in terms of the loss of this particular aircraft, we are not in 

a position to make any conclusions at this point. 

Chairman MCCAUL. So, any in-bound flights to the United States 

would have been cross-referenced with Interpol? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir. That is my understanding. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Okay. Okay. 

On to the budget items, one thing that I found, and realizing you 

are new to the job, the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I realize that is only going to work for me 

so long. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman MCCAUL. Probably not even for this hearing. The honeymoon may be over. 

But the review was supposed to be done in December 2013. Here 

we are in March. It seems to me that that is kind of putting the 

cart before the horse; that you need to have the benefit of that review and that strategic vision before you put forth a budget. 

I mean, am I missing something? 

Secretary JOHNSON. When it comes to the QHSR, as I think I 

mentioned to you in the past, we are—the statute that requires the 

QHSR also requires that we put it forth from the perspective of the 

entire Federal Government and the homeland security aspects of 

the entire Federal Government, not just the Department. So it is 

a coordinated effort, as are the other quadrennial reports. 

We expect to have it out very soon, perhaps within the next 

week. I have seen drafts and I also wanted to take some time with 

it myself to make sure I was comfortable with the document. After 
11 

I came in in December, and some of it has my own personal work 

on it. So—but I expect you will have it very soon. 

I have seen it in draft form, and I believe it reflects my vision 

and it is consistent with the budget submission. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I appreciate your candor, saying you own it. 

But when this report does come out, is it possible that this budget 

could change pursuant to whatever the recommendations are from 

that report? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would say that Members of Congress 

should carefully study the QHSR when it comes out. It reflects our 

best effort at where we see the Department is going, and be informed by that when you review our budget submission. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I think for me, one of the biggest concerns 

I have is I traveled to the JIATF, the Joint Intelligence Agency 

Task Force, in Florida, and was briefed on the situation in this 

hemisphere as it relates to our interdiction efforts. As you know, 

the Navy now has completely pulled out of this mission, leaving 

only the Coast Guard. Now with this budget request, we are now 

scaling back that Coast Guard mission as well, which I think puts 

this country in greater danger of drug trafficking coming in, violence, corruption. 

The Coast Guard commandant, Admiral Papp, recently testified 

that in his words, ‘‘throwing up roadblocks’’ in forcing the Coast 

Guard to cut budgets that prevent him from meeting his mission. 

This is right in our backyard. It is right in our backyard and it 

makes us very vulnerable, I think. 

As I pointed out, CBP has made—confiscated drugs, but not 

nearly on the scale that the Coast Guard and the Navy has on the 

high seas. So I hope you appreciate that concern that I have. I 

know what your budget states. I don’t—I disagree with that number. But I hope maybe working forward that you and I can help 

them with their mission, which is so critically important. 

Secretary JOHNSON. May I respond? 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes, sir. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think recapitalization of the Coast Guard 

fleet is critical. I am told that it is the oldest fleet of vessels of any 

navy in the world. So we have got to press forward with recapitalization. 

In terms of narcotics interdiction, Coast Guard is important. CBP 

is important. HSI also does a terrific job at this. I see the daily reports of illegal narcotics that they are able to capture. They do a 

fantastic job. I have had conversations with General Jacoby, 

NORTHCOM, and General Kelly of SOUTHCOM about this very 

issue. The three of us have committed to work together on it. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Well, it is good to hear. I will just conclude 

by saying I think HSI and ICE did a phenomenal job just recently 

with the capture of ‘‘El Chapo’’ Guzman. 

So with that, the Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, as I said, Mr. Secretary. 

In your last appearance before the committee, Mr. Secretary, we 

had a conversation about Abu Dhabi. I wish it would go away, but 

it just kind of keeps cropping up. 
12 

In the conversation, you and people who work for you said that 

this was a way of getting to Dubai, which is the highest point in 

that region of the country. Your people who work for you said this 

was the way to go. Well, some of us were concerned because there 

is no U.S. carrier flying in or out of Abu Dhabi. 

Now, we found out this Tuesday that Emirates Airlines, which 

is a state-owned airline, said they have no interest in pre-clearance 

at Dubai. Have you made an analysis of whether or not your people 

were duped into going to Abu Dhabi? Or did they go just because 

they offered to pay the money to come? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, as you and I discussed last 

time, I believe that pre-clearance at a number of airports, not just 

Abu Dhabi, is a homeland security imperative. I think that the 

more opportunities we have to push out our homeland security beyond our borders, in host governments that are willing to accommodate us, the better for our homeland security, the better for our 

aviation security into the United States. 

Abu Dhabi is a starting point, in my view. I don’t have the same 

understanding when it comes to Dubai. I intend to have conversations with a number of governments overseas about establishing 

pre-clearance at their airports. My belief is that we have a very cooperative, constructive relationship with that government. I have 

had conversations with that government. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I appreciate it. What some of us are concerned 

is we went way down the list to get to Abu Dhabi, past a number 

of other airports. Some of us are just trying to figure out what is 

the objective criteria for selection. The only answer we got was that 

this is the way we can get to the airport we really want to get to. 

All of a sudden, they now say ‘‘We don’t want you here.’’ 

So, I just think that we need a better process of selection than 

what some of us have seen. Plus, again, it puts a competitive disadvantage to American-owned carriers who don’t fly out of that airport. So you talk to the good men and women who work for those 

carriers, they are very concerned that our Government decided to 

go there. 

With respect to CFATS, as you know, we are in the process of 

writing up an authorization, a piece of legislation. But in this legislation, we have omitted water facilities. That is a major, major vulnerability that everyone agrees to. 

Would you support legislation that eliminates this security gap 

for water facilities and other critical infrastructure? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, as I have indicated, I think 

that the CFATS legislation that has been proposed by Members of 

this committee is a real positive step forward. I support it. I have 

reviewed it. If there are proposals of the type that you just mentioned, I would be happy to consider them and work with you and 

your staff on that. Overall, it sounds like something that we ought 

to consider. 

Mr. THOMPSON. But—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would like to work with you on that, sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay, and I look forward to it, because everybody we have talked to have indicated that water facilities and 

other critical infrastructure should be on that list, because they are 

vulnerable. 
13 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Johnson, as you know, according to the Federal Register, our refugee policy affects both the budgets of the Department 

of Homeland Security and the State Department. Refugees, of 

course, are those who either apply from foreign countries or show 

up at our airports and claim for any number of reasons a wellfounded fear of persecution back home. If they are granted refugee 

status, they receive taxpayer funds. They receive Government benefits and so forth. So it does have an impact on the budget. 

The President recently announced a change in our refugee policy. 

I believe he changed existing law, which now says no one with any 

ties to a terrorist organization can be admitted as a refugee. The 

President changed that. And now has said that those with supposedly insignificant material support for terrorist organizations 

can now be admitted. 

My question is this: For those individuals to be admitted, a couple of things have to happen. No. 1, they have to have undergone 

a background and security check. How are we going to conduct a 

background and security check in a foreign country, particularly a 

foreign country that might be a terrorist-sponsoring nation, so that 

we know whether these individuals have serious ties or not serious 

ties to terrorist organizations? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The change that you refer to, Congressman, 

relates to those who may have provided very minimal levels of support to—— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. How are we going to conduct background 

checks that are required in the foreign countries where they are 

from? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, we are talking about people who provided support to tier-three organizations. So an organization like 

A.Q. is not a tier-three organization. 

Mr. SMITH. But these refugees have sometimes only been here for 

a few days. Obviously, they are not going to have a record in this 

country. So we are not—we don’t have any real way of checking 

their background in a foreign country. Is that correct? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The proposed change in regulation requires 

a very extensive background check. 

Mr. SMITH. Is that only a background check that is going to occur 

within the United States where they may have only lived for a few 

days? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, that level of detail I would have to get 

back with you on. I know that there are a long list of things that 

the individual has to satisfy before he is given the status. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. I am just saying to you I don’t see how the 

background checks, since they can’t be conducted in the foreign 

country, and since they really have not been here long enough to 

have any kind of a background to check amounts to anything but 

a—almost a ruse there. 

But another qualification is if these individuals have to fully disclose the nature and circumstance of any material support they 

provided to terrorist organizations. They have every incentive to 
14 

lie. What makes you think they are going to suddenly come clean 

and admit it if they do have a strong tie to a terrorist organization? 

You are leaving it up to them, themselves, nobody else, to determine whether they come in as refugees and extended their ties to 

terrorist organizations. 

Secretary JOHNSON. The change is not an exemption by any 

means. The change in the rules still requires very extensive background check. 

Mr. SMITH. I was quoting from the rules. You are leaving it up 

to those individuals to fully disclose the nature and circumstance 

of any material support they provided to the terrorist organization. 

How can you rely upon what they said? 

Secretary JOHNSON. What you just read is in addition to a very, 

very long list of other things that we have to satisfy ourselves concerning before—— 

Mr. SMITH. But if you are leaving that to individuals who have 

every incentive to lie, that is a reckless disregard for the American 

public’s safety, in my judgment, to leave it up to them to tell us 

what kind of ties they may or may not have to organizations, as 

well as the background check. I don’t see how you conduct that in 

any meaningful way. You are welcome to get back to me if you 

want, but that is—I am just reading from the regs themselves. 

My next question is this: Is the administration making record deportations or not? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, if you focus on those removals by ICE, 

the numbers are higher than they have been previously. 

Mr. SMITH. Oh. Okay. Because the administration has been accused by a number of organizations and individuals as being the 

deporter-in-chief because they are making record deportations. So 

you are acknowledging at least by your standards and your account 

that they are making record deportations. Is that right? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The removals by ICE are higher than they 

have been previously. That is correct. 

Mr. SMITH. Something that is higher—that tends to mean that 

is a record, does it not? 

Secretary JOHNSON. It is higher. However you would like to characterize it, the numbers are higher than they have been previously. 

That is correct. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. We will let common sense prevail there. 

Last question is this: When you appeared before us a few weeks 

ago, and we always appreciate your coming, I asked you about the 

tens of thousands of individuals who are being released from detention by the administration, criminal aliens, who then went on to 

commit thousands of serious crimes. I can list the crimes. 

They go from battery, rape, kidnaping, murder, assault, child molestation, child cruelty, lynching, torture, and so forth. Thousands 

of individuals have committed additional crimes who have been released by the administration. 

I mentioned to you that my data was to 2012 and I thought you 

were going to be able to get back to me and update that information and confirm it. I don’t know if you had a chance to do that 

or if you can tell me now what your new data might show. Or do 

you have any data for me yet? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I will get that information to you promptly. 
15 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Great. Particularly looking for 2013 how many 

people released by the administration who could have been detained and what crimes they committed. I thank you, Secretary 

Johnson, and yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chairman recognizes the gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Sanchez. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I appreciate our Secretary being before us. I just have one question in particular. This is a very parochial question. 

Mr. Secretary, the sole commercial airport that we have in Orange County, California where I represent, has applied for U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to be designated as a port of entry. 

In other words, we have international flights, if you will. 

As of now CBP’s presence at John Wayne is under the user fee 

program, which requires that the airport cover the CBP’s cost. As 

a consequence, the airport is paying approximately $2 million a 

year to CBP and the costs continue to rise because we have a lot 

of people that like to go to Mexico and other places, obviously, from 

there. 

Under a port of entry designation CBP’s costs would be covered 

under the Department’s budget. So recently the airport was officially notified that its port of entry designation application was all 

set, everything was in order, et cetera, et cetera, but that processing it internally would take 24 months. 

In the mean time of course we have to charge the passengers because we have to pay to have CBP there et cetera, et cetera. So 

if everything is in line, why would the process take so long? What 

do we need to do to get the Department, if everything is in place 

to agree and to give us—and to start taking up the costs on that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, if it is simply a matter of a review and 

an evaluation of something it is hard for me sitting here right now 

to understand why it should take 24 months. If it also involves construction of certain infrastructure or added security or something 

of that nature, I could understand why it might. But sitting here 

right now it is difficult—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Remember your people are already there. We are 

just paying for them there. So the infrastructure must be correct 

if we are allowing it to happen. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Right. There are about 5 people sitting right 

behind me right now taking notes. We are noting the Secretary is 

concerned that it takes 24 months to get this done. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Great. Thank you so much. I look forward to a response once you look into it. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Understood. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chairman recognizes the former Chairman, 

Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary, it is a privilege to have you here today. I want to 

thank you for the dedication you have shown to the job in the only 

3 months you have been on the job. So thank you very much for 

that. 

Question I have, as I mentioned to you before, is on the Securing 

the Cities program, which right now it is in New York City, it is 
16 

in Los Angeles and I believe a third city was going to be selected 

in the near future. It had been funded at $22 million a year. This 

is I believe a very vital program because it has to stop a—basically 

a nuclear, a dirty bomb attack in cities by having detection devices 

on all the main roads, highways, bridges, and tunnels leading into 

the cities. I think there is a philosophical disagreement at the 

start. 

You know the DNDO would rather have that ultimately be 

phased out and have it administered by the cities. I would say because this is clearly a terrorist attack, which I think should be a 

responsibility of the Federal Government, it goes beyond local 

crime or local breakdown of law and order. It clearly would be a 

terrorist attack, which I think should be funded by the Federal 

Government, specifically DNDO. 

But even if it was going to be a weaning off or a lessening of reliance, to cut it by almost 50 percent in 1 year at a time when you 

now have two cities and you are going to a third city, to me it 

seems like an unreasonable cut and it would have I think a disproportionate impact on what I think would be a very vital program. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, my understanding is that despite the reduction in that specific program we are in a position to 

leverage other programs to make sure that all the cities including 

New York are adequately funded through a number of different 

grant programs. 

As you also know, New York is a city that I take very personally. 

I am a New Yorker. I was there on 9/11. My second day on the job 

I went back to Ground Zero. Before I took this job my daily commute was either the Lincoln Tunnel or the railroad tunnel underneath the Hudson River through either Penn Station or Port Authority Bus Terminal. 

I identify with New York’s security needs and will commit to you 

that as long as I am Secretary New York will be adequately funded 

in this regard. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate that. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chairman recognizes the gentlelady from 

Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much again, Mr. Secretary, 

for your presence here and certainly your diligence. I think you can 

find that there will probably be a great opportunity for collaboration on this committee. We work very well together. 

But there are stark differences. In the neighborhood we sometimes say you are cutting it to the bone. Whenever we hear individuals speak about more deportations we literally have nightmares 

about dragging people out of their homes who happen to be U.S. 

citizens, but they happen to have Latino names. 

I don’t know how much more you can brag about deportations 

when statistics will show that fewer people are even coming across 

the border. I think our focus should be on people who are here to 

do us harm. I would like my line of questioning to go in that direction. 
17 

Frankly, if we could work together on comprehensive immigration reform, I think we would answer all of our colleagues’ issues 

about deportation. 

But I do want to associate myself with Chairman McCaul’s comments on the missing, very tragic and mysterious missing airline. 

Two points I want to make. 

I have written legislation over the years. It is still pending on the 

utilization of air marshals. I frankly believe they are not utilized 

the way they should and I am trying to pinpoint the budget, but 

I will make that another inquiry. I don’t want to—I am interested 

in the increased use of air marshals on international and domestic 

flights. 

The second point is, is that there are only four countries that actually utilize the data system on passports on individuals that 

board planes, and the United States is certainly one of them. I believe it is important for the Department of Homeland Security and 

the administration to engage internationally to ramp that number 

up. 

Obviously those individuals are on the airline because there was 

no match. They happen not to match a watch list, but they were 

not checked at all and I think that is a very important point. 

Let me quickly go to the question of detention facilities that we 

discussed earlier. Unfortunately there is a provision that requires 

ICE to have a quota of detention beds. In that it rejects what is 

now a new and recognized phenomenon of alternative detention for 

civil and nonviolent individuals. 

I noticed that in the 2015 budget $1.3 billion is for detention beds, but only $94.1 million is for alternatives to detention. These 

are individuals, families, these are noncriminal and I would ask 

that you respond to why there is such a little bit of money on that, 

as my time goes. 

Oh, I would like to see that number ramped up versus the large 

number for detention beds. 

Secretary JOHNSON. The fiscal year 2014 number, as enacted by 

Congress, requires us to maintain a capacity for 34,000 beds. This 

budget submission in 2015 is based on our assessment that we 

need 30,600 beds at any one time in the course of fiscal year 2015 

to detain those we regard as the most serious threats. 

In addition, we have asked for $94 million for our alternatives 

to detention program. We think that is a valuable program. We 

think it is a good program. We think we have the right balance 

there. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Could I ask you to just go back and analyze 

that? It seems a very high number. The question is whether or not 

there is that number of individuals. 

I would like to also ask across the board whether there can be 

an analysis. I notice that we are adding an additional number of 

CBP officers. I thank you for that. I don’t believe that Homeland 

Security should be about economic opportunities. But I believe that 

the jobs are very important. 

What I would ask is that we look as well at the salary range of 

our ICE and CBP officers, all of our front-line officers for potential 

increase. I know that there have been some increases, but I frankly 

believe that they are short on dollars. 
18 

But I would like to ask this question about our training CBP officers. It looks as if there was $5.5 million that they have gained 

through seizures. But my question is: Have we funded staff training for human trafficking? All of our, across the board, whether it 

is TSA, TSO Officers, ICE, and CBP, is a budget line item for increased training or in the training dollars would we include the 

ability to perceive potential human traffickers and their—those in 

custody of them? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am sure that there is. Whether there is a 

specific line item for that I couldn’t tell you. But I can state with 

pretty good confidence that part of the training involves training in 

matters of human trafficking. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If you could look at that for me I would greatly appreciate it. 

Finally, let me just say that I appreciate you dealing with the 

Coast Guard fleet. I would also like to see an increase in personnel 

in the Coast Guard. The range of responsibilities that they are engaged in, both in terms of fighting terrorism but also in protecting 

the Nation’s waterways, but particularly our ports, which are targets. I would hope we would have a discussion further on that as 

we go forward in the budgeting process. 

I thank you and I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you. The Chairman recognizes the 

gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I appreciate your service to our country and look forward to getting to know you better 

and work with you. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. ROGERS. This is a very vital Department to our country. I 

know you take that seriously. 

I want to ask you to think back to after the Boston bombing. 

Within the first 24 hours after that bombing the thing that most 

Americans saw on television when they were watching that event 

being recounted was what a great job the five hospitals did in taking those mass casualties in and the first responders and how different it was from 9/11 when we weren’t as prepared. In fact it was 

pretty flawless. 

The thing I took most pride in, in that, is that we as a country 

recognized we need to be prepared for those kinds of mass casualties and to deal with it. But that we had learned from 9/11 to get 

prepared. We were able to perform like we did in Boston. 

I took particular pride in the fact that 8,000 of those first responders in those five hospitals in the police department and the 

fire departments were trained at the Center for Domestic Preparedness. So it was by no accident that we performed so well, our 

first responders did. 

For that reason I want to ask, are you familiar with the Center 

for Domestic Preparedness? Are you committed to its continued 

role in FEMA to make sure our first responders are ready for the 

unlikely, hopefully, event of another attack on our country? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, as I have said several times 

I think given how the terrorist threat is evolving against our coun-
19 

try, working with State and local governments, first responders, is 

becoming more and more important. 

You referred to Boston. I have seen vivid illustrations of in the 

first responses the equipment, the training that was brought to 

bear that day. A lot of it was funded by FEMA grants—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Right. 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. Contributions made by the Federal Government, as you just pointed out. So I am definitely a supporter of the overall mission, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I know Congress always ignores Presidential 

budgets and we are going to ignore this one. But it does give us 

some insight into your thinking and your priorities. One of the 

things I noticed is that you all call for a realignment of the grant 

process. I am really curious as to what is your intent. What do you 

mean by that with the realignment? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The consolidation proposal reflects our considered view that if there is a consolidation, and many people take 

issue with this. But it is our considered view that with consolidation there are increased efficiencies in the grant programs such 

that more dollars reach the intended beneficiary, less overhead, 

more efficiency and oversight. 

So the consolidation proposal is a reflection of that. It is intended 

to get more dollars to the intended beneficiaries. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is there a working document that already outlines 

how that restructuring will manifest itself? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I can—if there is I can get you that, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. I would appreciate that. 

I would also like to invite you to come to the Center for Domestic 

Preparedness. It is located on a former army base. One of the 

things that we have at our disposal there, aside from live basic 

training, the only place where you can get that in this country, is 

a former hospital that has been retooled to train hospital personnel, both ER personnel, administrators, for mass casualties. 

Just it is very high-tech and I think you would, as Secretary 

Napolitano did, you would find it very worth your time to come 

down and take a look at it. So I invite you to come down and do 

that. I hope you will. 

With that I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chairman recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. O’Rourke. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I would like to join my colleagues in commending 

you on these first few months in office. I think the initiatives you 

have undertaken to bring greater transparency to the organization 

are welcome publishing the use-of-force guidelines initiatives to 

make sure that our agents who are serving on the front lines are 

sensitive to the communities in which they serve, sensitive to how 

we can avoid unnecessary violence and death along the border. 

I think those are important first steps. I hope to build on that 

with other Members with a bill that we will be introducing shortly 

to try to provide greater accountability, oversight, and responsiveness on the border, and so we look forward to getting your feedback 

on this legislation, and hopefully ultimately your support. 
20 

Yesterday I had the privilege of attending a Border and Maritime 

Security Subcommittee hearing chaired by Mrs. Miller that looked 

at the Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan. This is, we 

learned yesterday, a plan that will cost the U.S. taxpayer between 

$500 million to $700 million over the next 10 years. 

That will have a series of fixed towers, mobile sensors, infrared 

camera technology, and surveillance technology. Very similar to the 

plan that was initiated with SBInet, the billion-dollar boondoggle 

that after many years and hundreds of millions, in fact a billion 

dollars spent and wasted, delivered very close to zero in terms of 

value to the taxpayer. 

We heard from the GAO yesterday that they have serious concerns about the way that CBP is proceeding with this Arizona Border Surveillance Technology Plan, including no integrated master 

schedule, incomplete testing, lack of performance measures, and 

questions about the life-cycle costs. 

Our Ranking Member on the committee, Ms. Jackson Lee also 

brought up the issue that we are seeing a surge in activity and 

threats in south Texas right now. So I also question the wisdom 

of putting a fixed system in place when the threats that we face 

and the conditions are unpredictable, mobile, and may need greater 

mobility and creativity from us in our thinking. 

So I would like you to—I personally think that we should stop 

this program, take a break and make sure that we resolve the discrepancies between the GAO findings, recommendations, and the 

way CBP is proceeding. But at a minimum I would love for you to 

review those GAO findings and assure yourself and then those of 

us and the American taxpayer that this is a warranted use of precious resources at a time of record debts and deficits. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think SBInet is definitely a learning experience. It is a learning experience for DHS. I also believe that surveillance technology on the Southwest Border in particular is critical. Investments in surveillance technology are critical. It is what 

the folks on the front line tell me they needed. 

I just wanted to make one more comment about accountability on 

the border. Since the last time I was here we publicized the useof-force guidelines. 

Additionally, and I give the chief of the Border Patrol a lot of 

credit for this. He put out guidance last week to address specifically vehicles and rock throwing. That was something the leadership of the Border Patrol undertook to do to clarify. They did so. 

One of the reasons that I counted on him to do that is because 

most of us in Washington have no idea how to patrol the border. 

What happens, what the encounters are like on the border. So I 

think we should all be sensitive to trying to legislate or mandate 

how the Border Patrol does their job every day. 

We got to make sure that they are appropriately protected. I am 

glad the chief took the step he did. I fully support it. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Mr. Secretary, I was also glad to hear you talk 

about not just the threats that we see at the border in your opening statement, but also the requirement to facilitate legitimate 

trade and legitimate flow of people and goods through our ports of 

entry, which are vitally important to economic growth and job creation in this country. 
21 

El Paso is one of five cities recently that stepped up under a pilot 

program to fund CBP officer hours at our ports of entry so that we 

can get more people, more trade, more shoppers, and more goods 

into our economy and create more jobs. 

I want your assurance that as you add additional CBP Officers 

to these ports, those cities like El Paso, one of the poorest cities in 

America, that stepped up to fund the Federal Government’s responsibility are not penalized. That we supplement the efforts there and 

not supplant them. 

In other words, because El Paso has funded these additional officers you might send officers somewhere else. I want you to send 

the officers that would have come there anyhow, even if El Paso 

had not paid for that additional overtime and additional man hours 

there. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think that is a fair point. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Dr. Broun from Georgia. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Johnson, the TSA spends more than $7 billion a year. 

Yet I cannot find one single instance that the agency has stopped 

a terrorist attack. Instead, what I find is story after story of a 

bloated bureaucracy that uses over-the-top tactics to violate Americans’ civil rights and liberties. 

Some particularly disturbing examples include past complaints of 

TSA workers in San Diego administering an invasive pat-down to 

a 95-year-old, wheelchair-bound Air Force veteran and his 85-yearold female companion. During which time they allegedly stole $300 

in cash from the Air Force veteran’s possessions. 

A TSA agent in Kauai, Hawaii forcing a nursing mother to openly demonstrate her breast milk pump in a public restroom to prove 

that it was real. Just 1 month ago TSA workers were accused of 

humiliating a cancer victim who was wearing an adult incontinence 

pad. 

Beyond these accounts, other reports cast serious doubts over the 

TSA’s effectiveness in their mission. For instance, coverage by ABC 

in 2011 detailed a 70 percent failure rate, a 70 percent failure rate 

on gun and knife detection. Failure to detect a simulated explosive 

on an undercover agent was widely reported in March of last year. 

A 2013 GAO report showed that the billion-dollar behavioral detection program is no better than just random chance. Another 

GAO report from last year detailed an outrageous 26 percent increase in misconduct by TSA employees between 2010 and 2012, a 

quarter of which involved screening and security failures, including 

sleeping on the job. 

In my opinion we owe the American taxpayers better than to see 

their money demonstrably wasted in the tax, and the American 

traveler better protection than the proven ineffective techniques 

and technologies employed by the TSA. 

Taking all of this into account, I have several questions. Please 

answer them quickly because I have several. 

Do you believe that the cost of this program is still completely 

justified? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir, I do. 
22 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. Do you believe that the—let’s say are you 

open to expanding the privatization pilot program that has proven 

to be very successful in 14 different airports around the country? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am committed to considering whatever is 

an efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars that enhances 

aviation security. 

Mr. BROUN. For those privatization—I apologize cutting you off, 

Secretary, but I have got, like I said, a lot of questions. Those have 

proven very effective. TSA has held up the privatization program. 

More broadly, considering that airports have the greatest incentive to protect their planes and passengers, it would not be as susceptible to these same lackadaisical security failures and ineffective 

decision making that seems to plague the TSA. Would you be open 

to full privatization of the program? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Of the entire TSA mission? 

Mr. BROUN. Yes, sir. 

Secretary JOHNSON. No, I would not be. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I would like to talk with you about that because I think it would be much more effective to totally privatize 

it. I think it would be a whole lot safer for the American traveler 

and better for the taxpayer too. 

I am going to go back to a question asked by my good friend from 

Mississippi because I believe this idea of the preclearance in Abu 

Dhabi is a bad policy. I hope that you and I can discuss that because I am very, very concerned about that. 

I don’t think it is good policy. I would like your assurance that 

we can work on this because I would like to see that policy change 

to something else happen if we could have that discussion. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am happy to have that discussion with 

you. 

Mr. BROUN. Very good. 

Refugee policy and relocation, in Georgia we are having a tremendous problem with the relocation. I have tremendous questions 

going back to what the Chairman was asking you about the—oh 

no, I am sorry, as Mr. Smith was asking you about the vetting of 

these people. 

We are getting a tremendous number of refugees into my home 

State of Georgia. It is causing a tremendous concern within Georgians. A lot of them are coming within the Atlanta area. I believe 

pose a very real security threat to the people in Atlanta and the 

people in Georgia and the people in this Nation. So, I would like 

to work with you about that too. 

The final question is on the 287(g) program. What is your longterm thoughts about that program? 

Secretary JOHNSON. My long-term thought is we need to do a 

better job of working with State and local law enforcement in their 

support for our Homeland Security mission. In various places in 

the country we don’t have such a good relationship. 

I—through that kind of program, and so working with State and 

local law enforcement through grant programs and other programs 

of a similar nature I think is key given how the Homeland Security 

mission is evolving. 

Mr. BROUN. I would like to see that continue. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you, sir. 
23 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, to go back to what the Chairman alluded to with 

the Malaysia Airlines disappearance, and while we do not know 

what happened to that plane, we do know that two passengers 

boarded the flight using stolen passports. It was encouraging to 

hear that the United States checks travelers inbound and outbound 

to the United States and within the United States against the stolen and lost passenger database that Interpol has. 

What concerns me though is that last year over 1 billion passengers outside the United States were able to travel without having their passports checked against that database. So I have sent 

a letter along with my colleagues on this committee, Mr. Hudson, 

Mrs. Miller, and Ms. Jackson Lee, asking first for reassurances on 

what you said about what is going on in and out of the United 

States, but second whether there is leverage or negotiations going 

on with these countries, including what I understand to be border 

countries of the United States that are not using or checking 

against the Interpol database. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think it is definitely something we should 

look at, sir. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Do you believe we have leverage or have abilities 

to work with these countries to implement the technological capabilities they will need to check against these databases? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I intend to look at that question. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Okay. Does it concern you at all that right now 

that perhaps some of these border countries are not checking 

against the database? 

Secretary JOHNSON. It is a situation that we are looking at. With 

regard to the flight, obviously as I said earlier, we are not in a position to make any conclusions. But stolen passports is a priority 

item. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. With regards to 

FEMA, it currently administers 18 separate grant programs to help 

State and local governments prepare for and respond to terrorist 

events. The administration recently has, and again has proposed 

that these programs be consolidated into one large grant program. 

Congress has rejected this attempt in the past, and it has been 

opposed by outside nonprofit organizations as well as law enforcement agencies and Members of both parties. I understand why the 

interest in consolidation exists in that it could give the Department 

more flexibility. But the experience is that when you consolidate 

that oftentimes important programs are left out. I will give you an 

example. 

We, back home in the San Francisco Bay Area, under the Transit 

Security Grant Program were able to secure $13 million to harden 

the Transbay Tube that connects Oakland to San Francisco, which 

over 100,000 people take every day—or move through. 

Our concern and my concern is that if we consolidate this, the 

Transit Security Grant and other important grants may not receive 

the funding or the attention that they may receive. I was wondering if you would be open or remain open to keeping these individual grant programs so that that doesn’t occur. 
24 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, the administration proposal is to consolidate a number of them, but there are also others that are kept 

discrete and aside. Our assessment is that you enhance efficiency, 

you enhance oversight if you consolidate these grant programs. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Going back to that, we also are hopeful and 

would like to invite you out this fall. We have Urban Shield. We 

were the first Urban Shield to use UASI grants in the country in 

the San Francisco Bay Area under Alameda County Sheriff Greg 

Ahern. So that exercise has taken off across the country. It was 

cited by the Boston police commissioner that his police attended Alameda County’s Urban Shield program, and that that had prepared 

them to respond to the marathon bombing. So we will be having 

that this coming fall. You have an invitation from me and to see 

those funds at use. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman yields back. 

Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Johnson, the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget zeroes 

out funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Now 

that is the program, as you know, that reimburses State and local 

governments for the cost of incarcerating unauthorized immigrants. 

I am very troubled by this because already the program only reimburses a very small amount to the local governments for the actual cost of housing illegal immigrants. Just less than 2 weeks ago 

in our local newspaper on the front page there happens to be a 

story that the prison illegals costing the county of Luzerne $1.7 

million. 

I am quoting from the paper that the county received only 

$130,000 in Federal funding to offset the costs. That is $1.7 million. 

That won’t educate one child. It won’t fix one pothole. It won’t pick 

up one person’s trash. Now if the President gets his way, the local 

taxpayers will foot the entire bill. 

Back in my district already the people in my district are already 

struggling to figure out how they are going to pay their rent, how 

they are going to pay their mortgage, how they are going to educate their children. We want the local taxpayers to pay the cost. 

This is a problem that was caused by the Federal Government. 

It was caused by the Federal Government by not securing our borders. It was caused by the Federal Government by not enforcing 

our immigration laws. Now we expect the local taxpayers to pay for 

it. How can you justify passing this onto the local taxpayers? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Congressman, we have dedicated a record 

number of resources to securing our borders to prevent illegal border crossings. This budget submission reflects tough choices 

and—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. Well, my question is how do we justify putting 

the cost on the local taxpayer? When cities like mine, when I was 

mayor, and wanted to defend ourselves because the Federal Government wasn’t doing its job, or a State like Arizona who also 

wanted to do something because the Federal Government wasn’t 

doing its job, the Federal Government turns around and sues 

them? 
25 

So how do we justify asking the local taxpayer to pay for a problem that was caused by the Federal Government? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe that your constituents, the people 

of the city that you were mayor of, we will—if a particular program 

is—the funding for it is decreased because of difficult choices—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. Well, it wasn’t decreased. It was zeroed out. Basically telling our local taxpayers all around the country that you 

will pay for the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe that if that occurs we can leverage 

other programs to support your—the public safety of your constituents, sir. 

Mr. BARLETTA. So am I hearing that if the President’s budget is 

passed, that there will be another program that will pay for the 

cost or help reimburse the cost? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Something as important as public safety, if 

we are zeroing out a particular program we ought to be able to leverage other programs to compensate for that. 

Mr. BARLETTA. You will make that recommendation to the President? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe that is reflected in this budget submission, sir. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Could you tell me what program offsets this cost 

to the local government? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I can get back to you more specifically—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. So there is something in this budget that would 

offset the cost of incarcerating? I just want to make sure I have 

this right. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Like I said, if we make a choice to defund 

a program because of the fiscal constraints we have and the—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. Let me tell you—— 

Secretary JOHNSON [continuing]. We have—— 

Mr. BARLETTA [continuing]. I know the fiscal constraints here. 

But I also know the fiscal constraints of local governments, too. 

They are bankrupt. The people are also on the verge of bankruptcy 

as well. So I don’t know where they are going to get the money. 

But I just want to make sure because my time is running out. 

There is another program in the President’s budget that will offset 

the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We defund something we hope to leverage 

it—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. So hope is different than there is. Is there something in the budget that actually does that? 

I just want to be able to go home and tell the people back home 

that there is something else that will reimburse the minimal 

amount that the Federal Government was already paying. 

Secretary JOHNSON. On matters of public safety, we will leverage 

it one way or another. My job is to ensure the homeland security 

of your constituents and the constituents of everybody else on this 

committee. If we can’t do it one way, we are going to find a way 

to do it another. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I will tell them—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. It is my job, sir. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Thank you. Yield back. 
26 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Horsford. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here again. 

Last year airports around the country raised serious concerns 

about potential security issues and significant costs associated with 

the TSA’s unfunded mandate that they start providing staff to 

monitor the safety and security of exit lanes at each terminal. After 

we went back and forth and passed some legislation here, it appears that TSA is still continuing to try to push this responsibility 

onto the airports. 

Now based on what I see in the fiscal year 2015 budget it includes funds for TSA staff to monitor these exit lanes at those airports where the agency provides the function. But are you aware 

that the TSA, despite your budget recommendation, is still trying 

to employ strategies to get out of their duty to continue monitoring 

these exit lanes? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I know that our budget submission for fiscal 

year 2015 funds exit lane security in places I believe where we currently do that. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Right, now one of the—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. In other words, status quo. That is my understanding. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Right, now one concern that has been brought to 

me is TSA’s creative interpretation of the law and the fact that 

they are saying that any time that there is a reconfiguration of exit 

lanes that they can then shift that responsibility to the airports 

going forward. You know, for those of us that travel virtually every 

week we know that a lot of the airports have to make adjustments 

based on traffic flow and other things. 

So I would just ask that you look at that, because it is Congress’ 

intent that the TSA continue its function and that the budget that 

you have presented funds that responsibility. So I would respectfully ask that you review that. 

I would also like to bring up, Mr. Chairman, to the Secretary 

that according to the travel industry and the bureau of economic 

analysis international travel is particularly important to the U.S. 

economy as overseas or long-haul travelers spend on average about 

$4,000 per visit. 

Now, one of the areas that we are seeing is significant staff 

shortages within the CBP at airports that cause lengthy and persistent delays for those entering the country. Now efforts are underway to bolster the existing bio-graphic air entry and exit program for foreign travelers with the biometric program. 

This year, your budget reflects 2,000 additional officers, and the 

fiscal year 2014 budget includes a proposal for 2,000 more officers. 

So what is the plan to address the CBP staffing shortages to try 

to address this shortfall? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Part of the reason we requested 2,000 additional CBP officers was to deal with wait times at airports, and to 

facilitate lawful travel. So if we receive the funding for the additional 2,000 we will make an allocation of those additional officers 

at ports of entry across the country, and wait times, I am sure, will 

be a consideration. 
27 

Mr. HORSFORD. Will there also be consideration given to any 

planned biometric air exit program that involves airport operators 

and airlines as stakeholders to ensure that there are not negative 

impacts to the implementation of those new technologies? 

Secretary JOHNSON. That sounds like something that ought to be 

a consideration. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have also learned after the wake of 

the tragic shooting at the Los Angeles International Airport a few 

months ago that law enforcement officers play a key and vital role 

in supporting TSA screening operations. 

What steps are being taken now or are in this budget proposal 

to ensure that airports are reimbursed for the law enforcement 

services that they already provide and will need to provide in the 

future? 

Secretary JOHNSON. The security at airports, like LAX for example, is currently under review. I look forward to the results of that 

review. I have been to various airports and talked directly to airport officials about security at airports. It is something I am concerned about, because a lot of men and women at DHS work at airports. 

So I am waiting for the results of our review and your question 

is something that I will consider at the time. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. If I can just add, this committee will be 

holding a field hearing at LAX Airport the latter part of this 

month. 

So the Chairman now recognizes Mr. Duncan, from South Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary, for being here. I appreciated your comments and your statement about acquisition reform. I am happy to 

report that we dropped a bill today; it is bipartisan. I want to 

thank the gentleman from Arizona for being a primary sponsor in 

H.R. 4228, which deals with acquisition reform. 

I appreciate all the other co-sponsors. I hope the rest of the committee will take a look at that. 

So I know you are with me on acquisition reform, that we need 

to do a few things. So how does the budget that we are talking 

about today strengthen the acquisition framework and capabilities 

of its acquisition personnel? 

What do you envision—when you say you are with us on acquisition reform, what do you envision some of the changes there? 

Secretary JOHNSON. What I envision is a process that is—that focuses on the overall mission of the Department, where we are more 

strategic about our acquisitions. We start at an early phase to identify needs, to identify strategies. We inform the components with 

the overall strategy as they develop their acquisition needs. 

I think there is some learning that can be done from the Department of Defense experience in this regard, though DoD is different 

in many respects from DHS. But I think that if we focus early on 

on the overall mission, the overall strategy, the overall plan for resources, that leads to greater efficiencies. 
28 

I am also interested in assessing your bill on acquisition reform. 

I am very interested in making improvements for the Department 

in that regard. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me just say the Department was involved and 

we incorporated a good bit of the language that they requested on 

it. So it has been a work in progress. I do appreciate that. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I would hope that the Department would include 

some private-sector best practices. I realize the public sector and 

private sector have some differences with regard to acquisition and 

budgets. 

But there are a lot of good private-sector best-management practices that could be implemented. That includes an enforcement of 

the Departmental policies. We have had numerous hearings on this 

issue. One thing that we notice is that the acquisition policies 

weren’t always followed. 

When they weren’t followed, there was no repercussions and that 

sort of thing. So do you see a policy change with regard to how the 

managers actually implement the policies and what happens if 

they don’t? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Let me answer your question this way. I 

have spent most of my professional career in the private sector. As 

part of my daily effort to fill the vacancies in the leadership of this 

Department, I am recruiting people from the private sector with 

private-sector management experience to bring to bear some of the 

very same experiences that you just referred to. 

I think that there is a lot we can learn in the Department from 

private-sector experience, whether it is crafting a budget or an acquisition process. So I hope to bring some very talented people from 

the private sector in to have the approach that you have identified, 

sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. Well, as I said in the first meeting you were 

here, you have quite a job, with all the different components, the 

different things that you are tasked with. I do agree that we have 

got to address as appropriators the Coast Guard fleet, and what we 

do there. 

With regard to acquisition, you know, we are talking about being 

good stewards of taxpayer dollars and best management practices 

from the private sector, you know, I would be remiss if I didn’t 

mention St. Elizabeths, and the fact that I think the Chairman 

mentioned it, you know, the cost overrun, the delays that are going 

to take it to a 21-year project. 

Are we re-evaluating St. Elizabeths? Are you willing to agree to 

drop back and punt maybe on some of those issues to save taxpayer 

dollars and to keep this thing from turning into a true boondoggle? 

Secretary JOHNSON. In our current budget submission, we have 

asked for $78 million to complete the main building at St. Elizabeths, which is intended to be the DHS headquarters. I do believe 

that DHS needs a new headquarters. We have been working out 

of the same building that was always intended to be temporary 

since 2003. 

I can tell you from having worked in other Government buildings, including the Pentagon, that the headquarters function is not 

doing as good a job as it could if it were in a newer facility. 
29 

There are lots of things as the Secretary of Homeland Secretary 

that I would expect to be able to do by way of having Classified 

communications, Classified conversations, and so forth, that I can’t 

do because we are in the temporary facility that we are in. 

I do believe that once we get this last piece done, that is a point 

at which we should assess where we go in the future with the overall project. I am sensitive to costs growing as the project takes 

longer. 

But we have requested funding for the main building. I would 

like to see that get done. At that point, I want to assess where we 

go with the future of the project. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I am encouraged by your comments. I hope 

that as we evaluate St. Elizabeths, we will evaluate some of the 

spending like the hardest wood in the world purchased for the 

decking at the Coast Guard facility or rainwater flush toilets that 

are, in my opinion, a waste of taxpayer dollars. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Let me also commend Mr. Duncan and Mr. 

Barber for your hard work on the acquisition bill. It may not be 

the sexiest issue that we deal with, but it is a very, very important 

issue for the long-term mission of the Department. I look forward 

to working with you on that, sir. 

Ms. Gabbard, from Hawaii is recognized. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome back, Mr. Secretary. I would like to first ask about the 

increase on either taxes or fees that have been tacked on to airline 

travel. You have seen my legislation previously that relates specifically to the TSA fee hikes. 

But just overall I want to express a concern. Obviously we are 

very familiar with the tourism-based economy that relies heavily 

on air traffic, as there are other cities and States in the country 

that similarly rely on this travel. 

Wanting to make sure that we are taking great care as we look 

at these potential tax and fee hikes, and how they are affecting our 

economy as a whole, specifically with the transportation security 

fee with the 40-cent increase in the President’s budget for fiscal 

year 2015, generating an estimated $195 million. 

I am curious because the budget for TSA is decreased by $59 million. The TSO funding is reduced by $100 million. So I am wondering with the increase in this fee, what part of it is going towards increasing efficiency, waiting times, et cetera, at our T.S. 

checkpoints? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, part of our requested funding is for 

TSA PreCheck, which adds to efficiencies, leads to reductions in 

wait times getting on airplanes. TSA PreCheck is, in my view, an 

enhancement of security. 

It is also something that is—it promotes a better and more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. The fee increase that you mentioned 

is a 40-cent fee increase. The fee was increased last year by double 

after not having been increased for a number of years. 

In my view, the fee increase is something that reflects a view 

that those that use aviation should share some of the costs. Those 

of us who use it more often should share more of the costs. 
30 

Now I understand how that could have an adverse impact on 

people who live on an island and therefore depend more on aviation 

to get certain basic places where others of us could take the train 

or drive. 

Ms. GABBARD. Right, yes. 

Secretary JOHNSON. So I am sensitive to that and want to think 

about that. 

Ms. GABBARD. Well, I look forward to working with you on either 

finding an avenue where we can put either a cap or an exemption 

in place for these fees that disproportionately affect places like Hawaii and Alaska. 

My second question is with regards to preclearance. Last time 

you were here there was extensive discussion on the Abu Dhabi 

preclearance. I am curious if there are any plans to expand this 

program, and if so, if you could touch on that a little bit, what that 

is. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe we should expand the preclearance 

program. I think that preclearance is a homeland security imperative. I think the more opportunities with host governments we have 

to expand beyond our borders our homeland security, we should do 

that. 

So I believe preclearance is very important. It is a priority of 

mine. I hope to see it expanded beyond Abu Dhabi. 

Ms. GABBARD. What are the priority criteria as different countries express interest in this? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, we look at airports that are last points 

of departure into the United States. The security measures that 

they have in place tend to vary. So I would want to focus on airports where the security is—could use some supplementation. 

But it also depends on the arrangements we are able to make 

with host governments. You know, we depend on having good relationships with host governments. I am pleased that we were able 

to work out an arrangement along these lines with the government 

in Abu Dhabi. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. This is an area that we will follow up 

with you and your team on, especially with regards to some of the 

gateways that we have in the Asia-Pacific region where we already 

have a tremendous amount of travel and economic trade and opportunity. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Members are advised that we have a vote 

scheduled in the next 15 minutes. So I would ask that we limit the 

time to 3 minutes per questioning. 

Mr. Hudson is now recognized. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You did this to me at 

the last hearing—the 3-minute question. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Timing is everything. 

Mr. HUDSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us again. I appreciate 

your candor. I appreciate the time you continue to give this committee. I think this process is very important. 

I do want to associate myself with Mr. Duncan’s comments about 

St. Elizabeths, the issue I raised last time. Again, I would hope 
31 

that we could come up with another plan that is more reasonable 

to the taxpayer. 

But I wanted to focus more on the committee of jurisdiction that 

I chair, the Transportation and Security Committee. Mr. Horsford 

brought up the issue of airport law enforcement officers and the 

need to continue to have that strong working relationship. 

As I believe you are aware, I will be holding a hearing at Los 

Angeles International Airport on the issue of the shooting that occurred there, and the death of the TSA employee. I think there are 

a lot of important questions that have been raised that, you know, 

I want to look at. 

I do want to applaud Administrator Pistole. I think he is a fine 

public servant. I want to applaud his work on this issue. I think 

he has been very forward thinking in looking at what policy 

changes might need to be affected out of that. But I just wanted 

to say to you that I want to work with you, as we can look at the 

lessons learned from that going forward to try and make sure that 

kind of situation, if it happens again, we are better prepared. But 

certainly, maybe some ways to head that off. 

I want to get to a question here. I apologize for talking, but in 

regard to the TSA’s budget, I would say that I support—I was actually pleased with the TSA portion of the budget. I support the proposed $100 million reductions, based on risk-based security efficiencies. I am a strong supporter of risk-based security. I think 

that is the way to go. 

We have been waiting for years to see cost savings realized there 

as a result of some of the transition away from the one-size-fits-all 

approach to security. This year’s budget represents a positive first 

step, in my opinion. I would, however, caution that TSA still has 

a long way to go. With over 1,200 employees at the headquarters, 

I believe TSA should be able to cut more than six headquarter 

staff, as we look at some of this risk-based security reduction. 

So, the question to you would just be: How much insight and 

input does the Department have in TSA’s plans to move to 

PreCheck, and moving forward on risk-based security? What are 

some of your thoughts on that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. It is part of our—TSA PreCheck is part of 

our overall approach—risk-based—to aviation security, border security. I am very aware of it. I support it. I am open to TSA PreCheck 

centers myself. The one out in Dulles. 

I also commend Administrator Pistole for his leadership. I appreciate your comments about the TSA budget submission. Given your 

work in the transportation area, I appreciate that. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, sir. I look forward to working with you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 6 seconds here. 

Chairman MCCAUL. That is very generous. 

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Barber, is recognized. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for 

being with us, Mr. Secretary. 

I just have to say, it is really refreshing the way you approach 

this job and these hearings. You are straightforward. We know 

what you mean when you say it, and it is greatly appreciated by 

this Member, and I think all of us. 
32 

When you came to Arizona back in January, I was appreciative, 

as I said last time, that you came to listen and see for yourself 

what is going on in the border. 

As you know, I still, unfortunately, have the most porous area of 

the Southwest Border. When you were there, I know you heard 

from stakeholders, you heard from some of your own staff agents, 

how nimble the cartels are. They move around. They have got the 

technology. They got more money than we could ever muster. They 

spend it wisely to make sure they are two steps ahead of us. Back 

in 2012, the Department rolled out a new strategic plan, which was 

intended to be looking at the risks that we saw on the border, that 

were posed by the movement of the cartels and their nimbleness, 

if you will. We learned from GAO that that plan had really very 

little in it. Didn’t have goals, didn’t have management, or evaluation objectives. It didn’t have metrics. 

So, my question, really, Mr. Secretary, is: How is it possible, 

since we still don’t have those reliable and credible metrics, to define what border security progress really means? How can we actually put together a budget—how was this budget put together in 

the absence of those kinds of metrics, which I know are still a work 

in progress? 

Secretary JOHNSON. We are developing metrics. It is something 

that I have spent considerable time with the chief of the Border Patrol on. We look at a number of things, including the effectiveness 

rate, and additionally, the percentage of those with criminal convictions. I would be happy to be talk to you in greater detail about 

this exact issue. 

We do have a series of things that we look at to define low-risk, 

high-risk, moderate-risk, different corridors and sectors. I agree 

with your assessment of the Arizona border. From what I have 

seen, we have got some issues that we need to work on. I personally intend to spend more time in Arizona. 

But I believe that our submission is framed by the chief’s view 

of what we need in the different corridors and different sectors, 

given the evolving challenges and threats that we face there. I 

would be happy to talk to you further about this subject. 

Mr. BARBER. I appreciate that. I just want to draw to your attention, while it hasn’t passed the House or the Senate yet, it is out 

of this committee. Unanimously, the Border Security Results Act 

does require some metrics to be developed, but in consultation with 

people who actually live and work on the ground. 

I will just close with this one, not so much as question as a point. 

I hope that when we look at the increased budget for personnel for 

agents—Border Patrol agents, that we take a look at the increase 

that the Department has proposed to make sure that that can be 

applied to border agent overtime so that we never have a gap in 

the security that they are trying to provide to our border and border residents. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chairman now recognizes the gentlelady 

from Indiana, Mrs. Brooks. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for returning. You may recall that a couple of weeks ago, 

when you were here, we discussed the National Preparedness 
33 

Grant Program. I want to commend you, because it had been a long 

time coming. But finally, we have received the legislative proposal 

for this program with some explanation. While we are still going 

through it, one of the things that was included in it, it said that 

part of this new consolidated program, of which, I am certain that 

you are aware, have tremendous local and State interests in how 

this National Grant Program would be administered. 

Part of it is based on risk and population, but another part now 

says it is based in a—it is going to be competitive—and wondered 

if you knew much about how the competitive portion might work, 

or if you know, if you knew that yet. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, I am aware of our current budget submission. I recall your comments from the last time I was here. 

I dug my—I dug into this process, including how we develop the 

formula for making these allocations with regard to the fiscal year 

2014 money. The good news for fiscal year 2014 is that Congress 

has given us a little more money to work with this year, which I 

think is welcome. 

I always—I believe that, given my exposure so far, how we allocate grants is something that we should continue to reevaluate, 

work on, make sure we have got it right in terms of our risk assessments. It is an evolving world. That is something I intend to 

pay personal attention to when I am in the job over the next budget cycle. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Yes. As I am sure you know, a number of communities were cut off of the UASI funding—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. Right. 

Mrs. BROOKS [continuing]. In the last cycle. So, it feels as if we 

are reading it right—that communities that had previously received that very important funding might now be able to compete 

for such funding. Would that be accurate? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I welcome the fact that we have more money 

to work with this year. 

Mrs. BROOKS. So, you are not certain then if the UASI funding 

will be more competitive this year or not? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I think that UASI funding will have a greater impact this year. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Okay. 

Can you share with us very briefly the BioWatch Gen-3 program 

was not funded in this cycle? Should we take that as an indication 

that the Department doesn’t intend to continue pursuit of 

BioWatch 3, or of the Gen-3 acquisition? Or is the review—the 

analysis of alternatives still on-going for the BioWatch program? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Hold on a second. Hold on. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Sorry. 

Secretary JOHNSON. You are correct that there is no money in 

this current budget submission, but the analysis is on-going, and 

I expect to get it soon. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. We appreciate the Department’s participation in a Classified briefing on bioterrorism threats yesterday. 

Just want to thank you for sending personnel to participate in that. 

Thank you. Yield back. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you. 
34 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke, 

is recognized. 

Ms. CLARKE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you as well, 

Mr. Secretary. You must want to just stand up and take a stretch 

right about now. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I will—I know I am in the home stretch, 

so—— 

Ms. CLARKE. Okay. Well, then—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. This is my fourth time in 3 days, so—— 

Ms. CLARKE. I can imagine. 

Mr. Secretary, I—— 

Secretary JOHNSON. You can imagine what is coming next. 

Ms. CLARKE. Yes. 

I wanted to just circle around to cybersecurity. Because you have 

a 10 percent cut proposed in the Science and Technology directorate. I was wondering whether you believe that DHS can effectively accomplish and enhance its mission in this space, given this 

cut. I realize that only 3 percent of the DHS budget is dedicated 

to cybersecurity efforts, whether you think this is sufficient funding 

for continued education and workforce development, as well as support for the Multistate Information Security and Analysis centers. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe that our funding request for cybersecurity is adequate, given the budget environment we are in. I 

know that insofar as S&T is concerned, our request for cyber research funding is at $72 million, I believe. Last year, it was $70 

million, so there is a slight plus-up there. In addition to our other 

programs and initiatives, I believe that the funding is adequate. 

But we need to keep at this year after year after year. 

Ms. CLARKE. I am just hoping that we can do a maintenance of 

effort and somewhat enhance, as well. Because that area is growing in threats, as opposed to—it is not a static environment that 

you are dealing with, so—I will take you at your word, Mr. Secretary. 

Then I wanted to just circle back to the grants that have historically come through the National Preparedness Grant Program. I 

am concerned about the High-risk Urban Areas Program. I understand that the National Preparedness Grant Program will continue 

to recognize high-risk urban areas, and the Department’s grant 

program consolidates the proposals. However, it is unclear as to 

whether specific funding will be set aside to fund these jurisdictions. 

Does the proposal envision the funding will continue to be set 

aside for high-risk urban areas? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, there are certain grant programs that 

are not being consolidated in our proposal. The idea behind consolidation is to increase effectiveness in oversight, reduce inefficiency, 

and ensure that more grant dollars get to the intended beneficiaries, in high-risk areas, in particular. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. I appreciate your work, and I look forward to your continued success, sir. Thank you. 

I yield back, 4 seconds. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Very generous, once again. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, is recognized. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
35 

Mr. Secretary, it is a privilege to speak with you again. I just 

want to follow up on CPB’s use of unmanned aerial drones. Just 

according to my understanding, according to U.S. Code, the purpose of the drones is for investigating smuggling of U.S. goods or 

goods into the United States, smuggling of goods into foreign countries, seizure and forfeiture of vessels, aviation smuggling, and general authorities. 

I will have a question regarding the use of the drones for—with 

the U.S. Forest Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, although acknowledging that they can be loaned out 

to—the use of them can be loaned out to different agencies. But 

you must understand that I am concerned about an appropriation 

of Federal funds, not knowing exactly what the scope of the use of 

the drones may be. 

You know, with that in mind, we also know that evidence acquired by DHS drones for cases not involving immigration or drug 

smuggling are admissible in the court of law, and in particular regarding a North Dakota Federal judge ruling in the case involving 

cattle. 

That having been said, you know, we have got—DHS has got 10 

of these things. They use the MQ9–Bravo—it has got a wing-span 

of 66 feet, which is—wouldn’t fit in this room. It is three times 

longer than it is this way, and it is longer than it is that way. It 

is $56 million; 50,000 feet is the service ceiling on the thing; and 

can carry a payload of 3,000 pounds. 

The Air Force, generally speaking, doesn’t use this one. The Air 

Force uses one that is significantly cheaper; you know, carries a 

payload that is $20 million; carries 450 pounds. I mean, the camera 

that you are using is about 250 pounds. 

With all that in mind, I am just wondering if you are willing to 

submit to this committee the mission parameters for assignments 

in which the DHS drones have been used by other agencies, and 

if you are willing to submit the flight logs for those missions as 

well. I will just be clear. I will let you know what my concerns are. 

I am wondering if they are being used in areas in the country 

not along the border. I understand that there are some transition 

routes, one across the Gulf, and then across the central portion of 

the country, going from the Northern to the Southern Border; 

whether they are being used for other purposes not related to border security; and the other things already enumerated; and if they 

are being used for environmental purposes. Because my concern is 

that they would be using to spy on Americans or potentially being 

used to spy on Americans. 

If you would also—and if you know now, that would be great as 

well, under general authorities—I listed the things that they are to 

be used for. I also said ‘‘general authorities.’’ Do you know what is 

included under ‘‘general authorities’’? Just curious if you know, because I don’t. 

Secretary JOHNSON. You must be a lawyer. 

Mr. PERRY. I am not; not even close. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, that was pretty good. 

Mr. PERRY. I am trying to get it in. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Look, in my view, the role, the purpose of 

having UAVs is border security. I can envision circumstances 
36 

where we would support a law enforcement mission elsewhere. I 

also believe that we need to have adequate privacy protections in 

place. 

One of my objectives is to advance and refine our current privacy 

protections when it comes to aerial surveillance, because I recognize that is important. A number of people have raised that with 

me. 

Mr. PERRY. Could we get that information that I asked for, 

though? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I will take that under advisement. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Mr. Richmond is recognized. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I will try to be very quick. The Senate appears to 

be poised to approve a flood insurance reform bill that we passed 

out of the House last week, which hopefully will go on to the President, and the President will sign. 

Does FEMA have the resources to implement the changes we 

have made—that we made in Biggert-Waters? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe so. I know that there was an issue 

with the affordability study. I think the issue there was that there 

was not adequate funding to do the affordability study. 

Mr. RICHMOND. I guess the other question would be the resources 

and FEMA’s process of evaluating non-Federally certified levees in 

its mapping process. I can give you an example in my district, in 

one of the parishes where they came in and did the maps. They 

just completely ignored two Federally-constructed levees. So the 

rates were enormous, and requires the community to appeal and do 

all of those things so that they can get accurate and affordable 

rates. 

So the general question is just, in your opinion, do you think 

FEMA is ready to adhere and can quickly implement the changes 

we made so that we can secure home values in areas that may be 

subject to flooding? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I believe so. I would add that in the process 

of developing the maps for setting premiums, there is a built-in 

community consultation and an appeal process. I am encouraging 

people to participate in that process. I am encouraging local communities to participate in that process so we have informed views. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I will yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Mr. Sanford, from South Carolina is recognized. 

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Secretary, thank you for past service to the 

country and your present service to the country. 

We had a subcommittee hearing on a GAO report on basically behavioral observation and its effectiveness. What the GAO said was 

basically the program that we spent $1 billion on, and we have 

over 3,000 officers enlisted in, isn’t working; that it is not effective; 

it hadn’t produced results. 

That being the case, why would it be left in your budget? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Sir, my understanding is that TSA regards 

the program as a valuable one, and one that should be funded. It 
37 

supports aviation security. That is our assessment. I am aware of 

the GAO report. 

Mr. SANFORD. So you would disagree with the GAO report. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. SANFORD. You talked a moment ago about bringing a private-sector perspective to the way that the budget was configured 

within Homeland Security. If that is the case, how many business 

guys would go out there and subscribe to a program wherein results are 50-50 at best? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Our assessment is that it is a valuable program. 

Mr. SANFORD. I have I guess a couple of minutes. So, flat-out disagree with them. Then I would look for other efficiencies. If you 

disagree with the GAO, you have got about a 2.5 percent cut in 

your budget. If you look at the long-term deficits in this country, 

they are closer to 5 percent of GDP, something along those lines. 

So, you know, if we don’t get our numbers right, probably much 

bigger cuts to come. If it is not in programs like behavioral detection, which again GAO has strongly condemned, where would you 

look for cuts? What are two of the least-effective programs within 

Homeland Security based on your understanding of the program 

right now? 

Secretary JOHNSON. Well, just in our discussion this afternoon, 

Members have highlighted places where we have identified areas 

where we think we can work with less money, leverage other resources within the Department. We have identified inefficiencies. 

You know, we have a top line that we must work with. 

So—— 

Mr. SANFORD. I understand. But what would, not the Members, 

but what would your idea of those two programs be? 

Secretary JOHNSON. In our budget submission, we have identified 

many areas where we think there are inefficiencies, including within TSA. We are decommissioning a number of assets in the Coast 

Guard, for example. 

Mr. SANFORD. I am just asking for two. Give me just two. 

Secretary JOHNSON. Decommissioning assets in the Coast Guard 

that we—that are old, that we no longer need; and certain headquarters inefficiencies, sir. 

Mr. SANFORD. Okay. 

Secretary JOHNSON. I am committed to look for others as well in 

the next year’s budget and the budget after that and the budget 

after that, if I am still around. 

Mr. SANFORD. Fair enough, sir. Yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, sir. 

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget anticipates $100 million in savings 

through the reduction of 1,441 screeners. These reductions are purportedly going to result from risk-based efficiencies. How does the 

TSA plan to eliminate these TSA officer positions? Will it be reduction? Will the reduction be a result of attrition or layoffs? 
38 

Secretary JOHNSON. Let me get back to you on that. I can’t answer with any specificity, but I would like to take that for the 

record, sir, and get back to you on that. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. In terms of a lot of discussion around funding 

today, historically grants funded through Homeland Security grant 

programs have been targeted to address the unique threats posed 

by terrorism. Although this committee has supported investments 

that could have an all-hazards benefit, the primary goals have been 

terrorism prevention, protection, response, and recovery. 

The proposed National preparedness grant, as an all-hazards 

grant program, would eliminate the requirement that a portion of 

the funding be dedicated to law enforcement terrorism prevention 

activities. Over a decade after the attacks of September 11, such 

a move appears to reflect the view that terrorism should no longer 

be a focus. In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, this view 

is particularly troubling. 

Can you explain the rationale for that? 

Secretary JOHNSON. I would not want anything in our budget 

submission to be interpreted as a sign that we no longer view 

counterterrorism as a priority. I believe it is the cornerstone of our 

mission and I am personally committed to it. 

If there is a decrease in funding in some respect for an important 

Homeland Security mission, my sense is that it is because we believe we can leverage other programs that we have. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. Well, I would like to explore that topic with 

you further to see what those programs would be. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, let me say thank you for being here today, for the 

second time. We appreciate, again, your communications and outreach to us. You may have additional questions from the Members 

in writing. 

With that, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTION FROM HONORABLE SUSAN W. BROOKS FOR HONORABLE JEH C. JOHNSON

Question. I am concerned that the President’s request includes a nearly $1 million 

reduction for the Office of Emergency Communications, which according to NPPD 

officials will result in a reduction of the number of Technical Assistance offerings 

to State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments. How will requests for Technical 

Assistance engagements that are continued be prioritized? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTION FROM HONORABLE STEVE DAINES FOR HONORABLE JEH C. JOHNSON

Question. The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) allow for various procurement tools that would hold contractors accountable for their performance, preventing significant cost overruns, and bring a greater return on investment of the 

taxpayer dollar. Incentives are key. Would DHS consider contracting mechanisms 

where contractors would be required to put a portion of their contract revenue at 

risk—based on performance incentives (e.g. firm fixed price with incentive fee)? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Æ