U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

34–313 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. Hrg. 115–465 

AUTHORITIES AND RESOURCES NEEDED TO 

PROTECT AND SECURE THE UNITED STATES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 15, 2018 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

DOUG JONES, Alabama 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

DANIEL P. LIPS, Policy Director 

MICHELLE D. WOODS, Senior Professional Staff Member 

M. SCOTT AUSTIN, U.S. Coast Guard Detailee 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

J. JACKSON EATON, IV., Minority Senior Counsel 

CAITLIN A. WARNER, Minority Counsel 

HANNAH M. BERNER, Minority Professional Staff Member 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BONNI E. DINERSTEIN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 2 

Senator Hoeven ................................................................................................. 10 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 13 

Senator Hassan ................................................................................................. 16 

Senator Harris .................................................................................................. 18 

Senator Daines ................................................................................................. 21 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 25 

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

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 31 

Prepared statements: 

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

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 48 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2018 

Honorable Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

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

APPENDIX 

UAC Apprehensions Chart ..................................................................................... 61 

Apprenhensions Chart ............................................................................................. 62 

Letter to TSA ........................................................................................................... 63 

DHS OIG Report ...................................................................................................... 66 

Statements submitted for the Record: 

Church World Service ...................................................................................... 90 

National Treasury Employees Union .............................................................. 91 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: 

Ms. Nielsen ....................................................................................................... 96 

(1) 

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

AUTHORITIES AND RESOURCES NEEDED TO 

PROTECT AND SECURE THE UNITED STATES 

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Hoeven, Daines, 

McCaskill, Carper, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. This hearing will come to order. I want to 

welcome Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. Thank you for your service. I 

did read your press release on National Police Week and I think 

it is fitting and proper that we pay tribute to the law enforcement 

officers killed in action, and just, really, honor the families for their 

service as well. 

According to the National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial 

Fund, since 1791, 21,541 law enforcement officials have paid the 

ultimate price, sacrificed their lives. Last year, 129. Year-to-date 

this year, 53. So I think it would be fitting and proper if we just 

recognized a moment of silence to honor those and their families. 

[Moment of Silence.] 

Thank you. 

I would ask you to consent to my written statement be entered 

into the record.1

This title of this hearing is Authorities and Resources Needed to 

Protect and Secure the United States, and I know, Secretary 

Nielsen, you have testified before the Appropriations Committee, so 

obviously the Senators can ask any questions they want. But from 

my standpoint, because we are the authorizing Committee, I really 

want to concentrate on the authorities part of that hearing title. 

And, I would like to go down the list of things that are certainly 

on my mind, and hopefully yours as well. 

But I think this Committee did a very good job and we are kind 

of known for a very bipartisan, nonpartisan approach to trying to 

find areas of agreement. And we did exactly that with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Authorization Act, which I am 

hoping we can pass through the Senate as quickly as possible, 

marry up with a House bill, to provide you the authorities that 
2 

have basically become obsolete, in many cases. I know in the omnibus, Section 72, the flexibility of reorganizing parts of your Department was actually taken away, which is important when we take 

a look at National Protection and Programs Division (NPPD), turning that into the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Act 

(CISA). 

These are the things that you need to do to do your job to keep 

this Nation safe. In cooperation with your Department we are 

working with a number of Members. I see two of them that are cosponsors right now, to the Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 

2018, which a big part of that is really addressing countering unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), which is a growing threat. It is a 

real threat and it is confusing. There are conflicting authorities, no 

authorities from your standpoint in terms of addressing those, 

being able to take those out of the air. Again, it is a complex situation. 

And, of course, I think it is just crucial that we fix our completely 

broken immigration system. The fact that we have laws, legal 

precedent, loopholes that, because you follow the law really prevent 

you from deterring additional illegal immigration. 

A classic example of how that would actually work was in 2005. 

Under Secretary Michael Chertoff, we had a flow of illegal immigrants coming in from Brazil because they had a visa waiver system with Mexico. So we had over 30,000 Brazilians come in 2005, 

and Secretary Chertoff, by utilizing his authorities, apprehended— 

I think they called the program ‘‘Texas Hold ’Em’’—apprehended 

those Brazilians, held them in detention until their case could be 

adjudicated, and then returned them. By the following year, less 

than 2,000 Brazilians came in here. 

So the goal of his actions were to reduce, if not stop, the flow, 

as opposed to, right now we have—unfortunately, you are forced to 

apprehend, process, and disperse, and that is a huge incentive for 

additional illegal immigration. 

So those are the types of authorities that I want to hopefully discuss during this Committee. Those are the types of authorities I 

want to provide you, as Secretary of Homeland Security, so you can 

actually fulfill your mission of providing greater security for our 

homeland. 

So with that I will turn it over to my Ranking Member, Senator 

McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Secretary Nielsen, for being here. 

I would like to talk about DHS’ budget authorities and policies 

in two important areas today, and one is on the border as it relates 

to Border Patrol staffing. I am concerned about Border Patrol staffing. I think the men and women of the Border Patrol do an amazing job. I think they are brave and courageous and hard-working, 

and this is Law Enforcement Week in Washington and I think it 

is important to recognize all of the men and women in uniform 

across this country who protect us. 

But it is interesting because when you look at the diagram of the 

staffing, it has been on a downward trajectory since President 
3 

Trump took office. In September 2016, there were 19,828 Border 

Patrol Agents along the borders, and in April 2018, it is actually 

down 400–500 staff, and that is in spite of the fact that there is 

an authorization for many more, as you are painfully aware of, I 

am sure. We have an authorization for 21,370. 

So we are hundreds and hundreds lower than we were when 

President Trump took office, and we are many more under for what 

we are authorized, and we keep debating additional authorizations 

as if that is somehow going to solve the problem. And we have 

talked about this in various hearings, and I know everyone wants 

to point it to the polygraph, but it does not seem reasonable to me 

that that is the only reason. You cannot keep up with attrition 

right now. You cannot hire, and we have some outrageous contracts 

for recruitment. 

One of the things I want to talk about today is, are we missing 

the boat here, in terms of improving pay and working conditions? 

I mean, many times people leave a job because they do not feel that 

they are getting adequate pay, or they are not being asked to perform in ideal working conditions. And I know that it is impossible 

to make this work always ideal, because in law enforcement you 

have to take what comes. But there is a real problem that clearly 

we are not getting at, and that is one of the things I want to talk 

about today. 

The other thing I want to talk about today is the difference 

between Border Patrol Agents and Border Patrol Officers, and I do 

not think most Americans understand that we use those terms— 

and for most people, they probably think they are the same thing. 

I do not know how that happened. I do not know how we named 

them that way, but it is terribly misleading, because, of course, the 

officers are the ones that are the port of entries. The agents are 

the ones along the border. 

Unlike Border Patrol Agents, we are not authorizing significantly 

new port officers. It is very clear, in a report I released from the 

minority staff of this Committee what is happening. We found that 

88 percent of all the opioids seized over the past 5 years were 

seized at ports of entry (POEs), not along the border. So close to 

90 percent of what is being seized, in terms of dangerous opioids, 

is happening with our border patrol officers at ports, not along the 

border, not in the desert, not along the river, not, as has been described sometimes by people in this Administration, that this is a 

problem of people trying to enter illegally with drugs. It is actually 

coming in through the ports. And the fentanyl seizure increases on 

two fronts are in the ports of entry on the Southern Border and in 

mail facilities, and in both instances you are also woefully understaffed. 

So these are the areas I want to talk about, because your staffing 

demands are clearly not being met. We have to figure out this 

problem, because people can give speeches and talk about turning 

back illegal immigrants, and say that there are too many illegal 

immigrants coming across, and nobody is disagreeing with wanting 

to secure the border. But when you cannot hire the people you 

need, and when the people you hire are leaving more quickly than 

you can hire replacements, there is a more fundamental problem 
4 

1The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 48. 

2The prepared statement of Ms. Nielsen appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

here than just adding more personnel, and I would like us to see 

if we could get to the bottom of that today. 

And I would ask that my written statement be made part of the 

record.1

Chairman JOHNSON. Without objection. 

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

you will stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is the sixth Secretary for the Department of Homeland Secretary and the first former DHS employee to 

become the Secretary. Prior to joining the Department, Ms. Nielsen 

served as the Deputy Principal White House Chief of Staff to President Trump. Secretary Nielsen also served as the Chief of Staff to 

then Secretary John Kelly at the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary Nielsen served in the Bush Administration as a Special Assistant to the President, and Senior Director on the White 

House Homeland Security Council from 2004 to 2007. She holds a 

bachelor’s degree from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and a JD from the University of Virginia School of 

Law. Secretary Nielsen. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN,2

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you. Good afternoon Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and other distinguished Members 

of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today and I would like, if I could, to submit my full written testimony for the record. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Without objection. 

I want to begin by thanking you. As the Chairman mentioned, 

we greatly appreciate your advancing the DHS Authorization Bill 

earlier this year. As you know, we have not been reauthorized since 

our creation 15 years ago. This results in critical gaps that affect 

our ability to protect the American people. 

I also wanted to thank you, in general, and to the full Committee, for being strong supporters of DHS, for listening to our 

analysis of emerging threats, and listening to what we need to do 

our jobs. 

A lot has changed in 15 years. The threats have evolved, our enemies have adapted, and our adversaries are resurgent. In the 

meantime, our authorities have not kept pace. So today I want to 

highlight several areas where DHS requests your support in order 

to help us better secure our country, including achieving border security and closing immigration loopholes, transforming our cyber 

agency within DHS, authorizing the Countering Weapons of Mass 

Destruction (CWMD) Office, providing authorities to help us 
5 

counter unmanned aerial systems, and supporting the President’s 

2019 budget proposal for DHS. 

First and foremost, border security is national security. And 

while we have made vast improvements, make no mistake—we do 

face a crisis. We see unacceptable levels of illegal drugs, dangerous 

gangs, criminal activity, and illegal aliens flowing across our 

Southern Border. That is why last month we deployed the National 

Guard to our Southern Border. Anyone who thinks this is a stunt 

should look at the stats. Our officers have apprehended more than 

2,000 people attempting to illegally enter our country, and they are 

interdicting drugs that would likely otherwise have gone undetected. 

At the same time, my message to smugglers, traffickers, and 

criminals is clear: if you try to enter our country without authorization, you have broken the law. The Attorney General (AG) has declared that we will have zero tolerance for all illegal border crossings, and I stand by that. Anyone crossing the border illegally or 

filing a fraudulent asylum claim will be detained, referred for 

criminal prosecution, and removed from the United States, as appropriate. 

But our National Guard deployment, zero tolerance policy, border 

wall construction, and other actions will only get us part way there. 

We urgently need Congress to pass legislation to close the legal 

loopholes that are fueling this crisis in the first place. 

Those coming illegally know it is easier to get released into 

America if they claim asylum. They know that it is easier to get 

released if they are part of a family or if they are unaccompanied 

children. So it should come as no surprise that we are seeing a 

spike in all of these categories. Word is getting out. Asylum claims 

are up 200 percent in the past 5 years, family unit apprehensions 

are up nearly 600 percent compared to this time last year, and unaccompanied alien children (UAC) apprehensions are up more than 

300 percent. In fact, 5 years ago, apprehensions of families and 

UACs were less than 1 out of every 10 apprehensions. Now they 

approach almost half, 40 percent. 

Some say these increases are the result of spreading crime or 

failing economies in source countries, but in those places we are actually seeing economic growth and lower homicide rates. The reality is not that their economies are cratering, it is that ours is 

booming. America is the land of opportunity, and that is a pull factor for anyone. 

But if we have a legal system of immigration for those who want 

to come here for economic reasons, they should do so legally. Asylum is for people fleeing persecution, not those searching for a better job. Yet our broken system, with its debilitating court rulings, 

a crushing backlog, and gaping loopholes allows illegal migrants to 

get into our country anyway, and for whatever reason they want. 

This gaming of the system is unacceptable. We need urgent action 

from Congress to close these dangerous legal loopholes that are 

making our country vulnerable. 

I would also note, and it is important—I try to say this at every 

opportunity—that the journey itself to our borders is risky. It endangers the illegal aliens themselves, the communities they pass 

through, our agents at the border, and U.S. communities in our 
6 

homeland. To be clear, human smuggling operations are lining the 

pockets of transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). They are 

not humanitarian endeavors. Smugglers priorities have profits over 

people, and when aliens pay them to get here, they are contributing $500 million a year, or more, to groups that are fueling greater violence and instability in America and the region. 

There are other options. If migrants have a legitimate need to 

flee, they should seek protection in the first safe country they 

enter, including Mexico. They should not subject themselves to a 

long and dangerous journey. 

This is not, and should not be a political or partisan issue, and 

I hope that we can discuss real solutions today. The past four 

Presidents have pleaded with Congress to act on this security challenge, but this Administration is tired of waiting. So, in the meantime, we are doing everything within our authorities to secure the 

border and enforce our laws. 

Turning to the cyber domain, I want to make clear today that we 

have reached a turning point in cyber threat evolution, where digital security is converging with personal and physical security. 

Cybersecurity can no longer be relegated to the information technology (IT) department and thought of as a nuisance. Now it is a 

matter of preserving our lives, our livelihoods, and our American 

way of life. 

One of the most critical parts of the DHS Authorization Bill is 

its elevation of our cybersecurity and infrastructure security resilience mission. Transforming the National Protection and Programs 

Division, into a new operational component, the Cyber-security and 

Infrastructure Security Agency, is imperative to our success on the 

front lines of the digital battlefield. It will be a clearer focal point 

for our interagency, industry, and international partners. It will 

help DHS recruit and retain employees with critical skill sets, and 

it will clarify DHS’s role as national risk manager for cybersecurity 

and critical infrastructure security. I ask and thank for the Committee’s continued support in the transformation of this component. 

I also want to take this opportunity to mention the Department’s 

cybersecurity strategy, which is being rolled out today. The strategy is built on the concepts of mitigating systemic risk and 

strengthening collective defense. Both will inform our approach to 

defending U.S. networks and supporting governments at all levels 

in the private sector in increasing the security and resilience of 

critical infrastructure. I do look forward to discussing that with you 

further today. 

I am also seeking your support to confront another category of 

evolving threats, weapons of mass destruction. From the chemical 

attacks in Syria to Russia’s brazen assassination attempt against 

a UK defector, we have seen the damage that these agents can do, 

and we know that terrorists are not only using them on the battlefield but are working to incorporate them into Western attacks. 

In December, I announced the establishment of a DHS Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, which is now leading 

our response to these threat streams and incidents. But the office 

still lacks critical authorities. While we currently have the ability 

to responds comprehensively to nuclear threats, we lack comparable authorities for chemical and biological threats. I ask this 
7 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 61. 

Committee and all of Congress to work with me to permanently authorize this office, and to equalize the authorities we possess across 

all threat vectors. 

Further, our enemies are exploring other technologies as well, 

such as drones, to put our country in danger. Islamic State of Iraq 

and Syria (ISIS) has used armed drones to strike targets in Syria, 

and we are increasingly concerned that they will try the same tactics on our soil. We have also seen drones used to smuggle drugs 

across our borders and to conduct surveillance on sensitive government locations. 

So today I would like to particularly thank Chairman Johnson, 

Ranking Member McCaskill, Senator Heitkamp, and Senator 

Hoeven for responding to our request and introducing a bill to help 

DHS counter the growing threat posed by UAS. DHS needs clear 

legal authority to identify, track, and mitigate drones that could 

pose a danger to the public and to DHS operations. 

Our proposal, and your bill, would authorize DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to conduct limited counter-UAS operations for a narrow set of important and prioritized missions, all 

the while importantly protecting privacy and civil liberties. We are 

grateful for your leadership on this and look forward to working 

with you as the legislation moves forward. 

Finally, I would like to ask for the Committee’s support for the President’s 2019 budget. The budget for DHS requests $47.5 billion 

in net discretionary funding and an additional $6.7 billion for the 

Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) for response and recovery to major disasters. This budget sustains and strengthens our most critical programs and capabilities. It emphasizes protecting our Nation from 

terrorism and countering threats, securing and managing our borders, enforcing our immigration laws, preserving and upholding the 

Nation’s prosperity and economic security, security cyber space and 

critical infrastructure, and strengthening homeland security preparedness and resilience. 

Throughout all of these missions, the budget also prioritizes my 

goal of putting our dedicated employees first and maturing DHS 

operations. I ask the Committee to support this budget, to continue 

supporting our employees and our missions, and to continue to help 

us make our country more secure. 

I thank you very much for your time and I look forward to your 

questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Secretary Nielsen. Before I turn 

questioning over to Senator McCaskill, I do want to put up and 

draw everybody’s attention to a couple of charts. The first one is 

UAC Apprehensions.1 The reason I am doing this is to make the 

point that regardless of what a particular law says, we, within our 

laws, our precedents, our legal loopholes, create incentives for people to come to this country illegally, and I think the first example 

was the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA). 

Take a look at the number of children coming in here from Central America in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. It was relatively minimal. And in June 2012, we had the Deferred Action on Childhood 

Arrivals, and you can see what happened afterwards. I do not have 
8 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

the figure year-to-date 2018, but I think we are on pace for an increase again over 2017. 

The next chart1 has 51⁄2 years of apprehension history at the border, and again, nothing is definitive. This is not scientific. But it 

is pretty indicative that when President Trump came into office, 

obviously dedicated to securing our border, and Secretary Kelly, I 

think, said all the right things in terms of being dedicated and giving U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) the authority to enforce the 

law, there was a dramatic drop in apprehensions, which indicates 

the number of people coming in illegally. 

Unfortunately, the reality of what our laws are has gotten into 

the fabric of people’s consciousness, and the result being people realize that they can still go up to the border, as an unaccompanied 

child, we apprehend them, we process them, we disperse them. We 

have only returned 3.5 percent of unaccompanied children from 

Central America, I believe, if my numbers are right, and, of course, 

we still have the issue of people walking up, claiming credible fear, 

and going through a similar type of process, not showing up for 

their hearings, that type of thing. 

So that is the reality of our law. And so a deterrent fact worked 

for about a year, but until we actually change those laws, I think 

we are going to have a real tough time actually deterring illegal 

immigration. 

With that I will turn it over to Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, first I would not call the DACA recipients, the unaccompanied minors, ‘‘apprehensions.’’ The vast majority of unaccompanied minors are walking across and saying ‘‘help 

us, please.’’ I think ‘‘apprehension’’ is a weird word to use. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Well, that is precisely my point, though. 

They can just walk in and turn themselves in. 

Senator MCCASKILL. The second point I would make is that 

DACA was wiped off the books by this Administration in March of 

this year, and since March, the number of people coming across the 

border has increased, not decreased. So DACA is gone, it is no 

longer the law, and we went from having 36,000 people apprehended at the border in February to 50,000 in March, and then almost to 51,000 in April. So if DACA was the magic thing that was 

causing this, it seems to me we would see a decrease. And, by the 

way, DACA does not even apply to these kids. None of them are 

qualified for DACA, none of them. 

So I think we have problems securing our borders and I do not 

want to argue about that because I think we all agree that we have 

to secure our borders. 

I want to focus in on this—once again, in your opening statement, you talked about the drugs at the Southern Border. Ninety 

percent of the opioids that are being seized are being seized at the 

ports of entry. Correct, Secretary Nielsen? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do not have that exact figure, but yes, the 

majority—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. We got it from you. 
9 

Secretary NIELSEN [continuing]. The majority of drugs that we 

see are coming through the ports of entry. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, about 90 percent. Eighty-five percent 

of the fentanyl, which is killing all of our constituents every day, 

85 percent of it is coming in through the ports, not across the 

Southern Border. So this talking point that it is the people coming 

across the Southern Border that are bringing all the drugs, it is 

like fingernails on a blackboard, because it is just not accurate. 

And here is the thing I do not get. There has been zero requests 

for additional port officers, zero, last year or this year, to be used 

at these critical places. You did ask for 60 this year, but it was all 

for a training center, not for actual deployment into these ports. 

And according to your own staffing studies, you are short by over 

4,000 officers at these ports. 

Our citizens are dying from fentanyl every day. Our emergency 

rooms are overloaded. There is not a week that goes by that I do 

not talk to a parent in Missouri who has lost a child to a fentanyl 

overdose that is coming in, in this manner. 

Can you explain why we are continuing to ask for more agents 

along the border when we cannot hire enough, but there are no requests for this critical need in our country? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. Senator, first I would just like to say it 

is a huge problem. It is one that we take seriously, the full Administration. Let me give you a short answer and a long answer. 

The short answer is, it is not just the people at the ports. So 

what we have done is we have asked for additional technology. As 

you know, we have now trained canines at every port of entry to 

actually find the drugs. What we find is, far and away, the best 

way to detect the drugs coming through the ports is through nonintrusive technology and through canines. So we have increased 

that and we continue to ask for additional resources. 

What we have also done, though, is taken the approach to try to 

push the borders out. So rather than waiting for the drugs to come 

here, we are working much more in a forward-deployed fashion, 

through Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), through what we 

have in Key West, which, as you know, Joint Interagency Task 

Force South (JIATF-South) is a multi, 20-, 30-country effort to 

identify and track the drugs before they ever reach our shores, before they ever reach the ports of entry. You mentioned in your 

opening remarks the vast increase in mail. We thank you for the 

International Narcotics Trafficking Emergency Response by Detecting Incoming Contraband with Technology (INTERDICT) Act. We 

are working with you on the Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose 

Prevention (STOP) Act. We need to do more there, absolutely, because that is the other way that fentanyl is getting in. So we are 

trying to look at it as a system of systems, in other words, what 

are all the different interdiction points that we can best get after 

this. 

Another one we have asked for budget on are our cyber capabilities within ICE and U.S. Secret Service (USSS), because most of 

these drugs in marketplaces are on the dark web. So we have increased our capability to take them down, to track the TCOs to 

their source, and to turn off not only their market but their ability 

to get the drugs. 
10 

So, yes, we have to continue to do more, but we are trying to do 

it in a layered approach so it is a system of systems approach. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Is there a good answer as to why there were 

zero requests for additional port officers when you are 4,000 staff 

members under your staffing model, and yet there were 750 additional agents requested along the Southern Border, even though 

you cannot combat the attrition that you are having now? Is there 

a good reason as to why there would be that dichotomy? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The good news I will mention quickly is that 

the attrition is down and we can talk more about hiring, because 

I know that was a concern of yours, in general. But I am happy 

to come in myself, or have folks come and walk you through the 

model. 

The other part about drugs that I did not mention is what we 

tend to see is the drugs themselves will be smuggled through the 

ports of entry—again, we use the technology and canines—but the 

people, the actual TCO member who will then sell the drugs, come 

in between the ports of entry, because they know if they come in 

at the port of entry they will be stopped. So, we need to stop the 

people and the drugs. 

But in terms of the staffing model that you are discussing, I am 

happy to come talk to you about it in detail. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes. If you look at your staffing in the 

United States, in terms of mail facilities, it is even worse. You have 

17 officers covering two shifts in Cincinnati, screening almost 46 

million import shipments in one year. I mean, that is just overwhelming. 

I just think somebody has to get off the political speeches and get 

to the problem, and be pragmatic. All of us want to support what 

you need along the border. But this notion that if we can just say, 

‘‘Look over here. Look over here. It is all about people coming 

across the border,’’ and totally ignore the biggest public health crisis this country has ever faced, by not adequately staffing the 

places where the drugs are coming in, is just heartbreaking to me. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Ma’am, I am not saying that. What I am suggesting is that what we find is the best way to identify those drugs 

is through technology and canines, and that is what we are increasing. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But you have to have people to run both 

technology and canines. Every dog has a handler. 

In fact, more than one handler. 

Secretary NIELSEN But there is no suggestion that we have a 

lack of people to work with the canines or run the machines. So 

again, I am happy to walk you through, but I do want to make 

clear we are attacking the opioid crisis from many levels, with 

many capabilities. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I have questions about the air marshals but 

I will hold those until the next round. Thank you, Secretary. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hoeven. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, and thank you, 

Secretary, for being here today and for the important work that 

you are doing every day. 
11 

I am going to follow up on some of the things we talked about 

at our DHS appropriation hearing, which you were at recently. I 

am pleased to co-sponsor legislation with this Committee’s leadership that will give you authorities at DHS in regard to addressing 

some of the challenges with making sure that, in our airspace, we 

mange the UAS, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and systems adequately, not only to protect privacy but also security. That is very 

important work. 

And my first question is, while we are working with you to provide those authorities to track and disable threatening unmanned 

aircraft, and as you develop these counter-UAS capabilities, do you 

have a plan in place to identify promising technologies from the 

private sector and get them validated by the Department so that 

you can use them in this effort, and how will you go about testing 

and evaluating counter-UAS technologies? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you. So we have learned quite a few 

lessons from the Department of Defense (DOD), which, as you 

know, has this authority already and uses it in theater. So we are 

looking at their testing models. The approach would absolutely be 

to go to the private sector. It often is at DHS. It does not make 

sense to reinvent the wheel when something already exists that 

could fill a need. So we are specifying out the requirements, making sure we understand what it is we need to do, and then work 

in conjunction with the private sector. As you know, there are 

many centers of excellence, particularly those, as well, in your 

State. We are doing a lot of work there with the university as well, 

everything from intern programs to other capability-building exercises, to help get both the people and the technology. 

Senator HOEVEN. So you hit the nail on the head there. That is 

where I am going. We are working with you on a time to get you 

out this summer to see what we are doing in counter-UAS, not only 

from the military standpoint but customs and border protection, as 

well as the private sector. And as you develop that plan, we think 

we can be very helpful in terms of you seeing some of the things 

that are being done and then leveraging some of that technology 

development for DHS. 

When Secretary Jim Mattis was in front of our Defense Appropriations Committee we also talked about it in terms of the military, and in same way they are both seeking authority and developing some of these counter-UAS technologies. 

So we appreciate your willingness to engage in that. We think it 

will be very helpful and productive. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Well, thank you again for the bill. 

Senator HOEVEN. You have an incredible Ops Center in California that is managing your unmanned aircraft along the border. 

And so I guess my question, does that Air and Marines Operations 

Center have sufficient capacity to handle all these far-flung 

UAS activities, and do you have backup? So both capacity and 

backup—that is another, I guess, area that I know you are going 

to continue to develop and grow. How is that going? Can we be of 

help there? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. Thank you. As you say, the Ops Center 

in California allows us to deploy, to understand and track where 
12 

we are using, and to help us with a model for when we need to use 

and where we need to use them. 

At DHS we are trying to use a task force unity-of-effort approach, so we borrow help, if you will, from other parts of DHS that 

either have the technical capability to fly, and to have the flight 

hours to use the UAS, but also in terms of other models. 

As you know, we use UAS for a variety of things. We use them 

on the border but we also use them for disaster response, to understand what it looked like before the hurricane, what it looked like 

after, to determine public assistance. So there are quite a few areas 

within DHS that we use it. We will continue to use this center. As 

you mentioned, redundancy, what we are looking at in addition to 

the underlying capability is making sure that we do have that redundancy. That is sort of that next phase that we are in now. 

Senator HOEVEN. There is an incredible pilot shortage, both for 

manned and unmanned aircraft, and actually, I want to commend 

you, and Commissioner Kevin McAleenan with Customs and Border Protection, for developing the Pathways program, which we 

have at Grand Forks, which, in essence, provides jobs for young 

people that are getting their training in aviation at the University 

of North Dakota. So not only does CBP get a quality employee, a 

great young person, and, of course, they need the manpower, as we 

have talked about, but it also helps them get an education because 

they are working for CBP. Great program. I think it is a great way 

to help with the pilot shortage in the aviation industry, both 

manned and unmanned, so I want to commend you on that. 

And then I want to kind of switch gears for a minute and ask 

about, for, when you do detain, apprehend unaccompanied children 

coming across the border, as well as others, what are you doing to 

try to address the adjudication process, which is such a bottleneck, 

in terms of trying to address this issue? I know you are short there. 

What can you do, and what are you doing to try to adjudicate these 

individuals? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So as I continue to find out every day, our 

immigration process is very complex. As you well know, it involves 

many departments. What we have tried to do is look at it from an 

end-to-end approach. So in the example you just gave there are actually about three or four different processes that those groups 

would undertake. In some cases we need additional immigration 

judges. DOJ is working on that. In some cases we need additional 

processes and agreements with other parts of the interagency family. We have done that, for example, with the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), to make sure that we are appropriately taking care of UACs in their custody. 

And then there are other parts who, depending on if they are referred for prosecution we hand them over to the marshals. We 

want to make sure that that is a process that works. And then in 

some cases we use alternates to detention. As you know, rather 

than detaining them we will have check-ins, in some cases ankle 

bracelets, but other ways to make sure that we have them detained 

while they are awaiting their removal. 

Senator HOEVEN. Is that working? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It does work. So it is a good combination. We 

do it on a case-by-case basis. There are lots of criteria that we look 
13 

at to determine when that is appropriate and when that is not appropriate. But again, I think it is some of the opening remarks perhaps the Chairman made, if you look at UACs, 66 percent of those 

who receive final orders, receive the final orders purely because 

they never showed up for court, and we find that we are only able 

to remove 3.5 percent of those who should be removed, who a judge 

has said has a final. So if we can track them, it is a much more 

efficient process while we wait for the final adjudication. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and thanks for 

the work you are doing. I know it is challenging work. We appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Again, Secretary Nielsen, welcome. 

Thank you for joining us today. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you, sir. 

Senator CARPER. We have a couple of recovering Governors here 

on this panel, and I still think like one. And one of the things I 

focus on is I do customer calls in my State. I visit businesses, large 

and small, throughout the year, and our Governor and I visited 

yesterday a fairly large financial services company in the northern 

part of our State. 

Last week I was down in the southern part of our State where 

we do a lot of agriculture. And I do not care where I go, I hear employers, large and small, talk about how difficult it is to find people 

who will come to work and actually do a job. And I do not care if 

it is landscaping, I do not care if it is food processing, I do not care 

if it is someone working in financial services, but they are having 

a hard time getting people who actually come, can pass a drug test, 

who have the skills, and will come to work. 

And you and I have talked a bit about how to address at least 

part of this challenge. In fact, I read a letter, I think, about a couple of dozen Senators who wrote to you and urged you to use the 

authority that we granted in the spending bill for the balance of 

this fiscal year (FY) to go ahead and issue additional H–2B visas. 

And I think the legislation we passed we authorized a doubling of 

that cap, to maybe another 69,000. 

And I guess my question, this is not going to solve all of our 

problems, for all of the employers, as you know, but you have this 

authority. We hear, literally, this week, from companies and they 

are afraid they are going to lose their business because they do not 

have people come to work and do the jobs. They are seasonal jobs. 

So let me just ask, what is the timeline for releasing additional 

H–2B visas and when will you announce the decision? How may 

additional visas does the Department plan to release? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you, sir. It is in final interagency 

process. As you know, it involves regulation, so the regulation 

should be ready here shortly. 

Senator CARPER. Can I just say something? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. I do not mean to be rude. 

Secretary NIELSEN. No. 
14 

Senator CARPER. I do not mean to interrupt you. That is not good 

enough. I mean, these companies, they are highly seasonal. They 

need the folks now. They needed them a month ago. And whenever 

I talk to you about this it basically we are working this, we are 

going through the process, and so forth. They need the workers 

now. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. I understand that. 

Senator CARPER. And if they were here they would tell you. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I have been collecting evidence. I have asked 

everyone I talk to to give me examples so that I can, in turn, package it and send it back to Congress to say, next year, please put 

the ceiling in law. There is no need to tie it to an appropriations 

bill. 

Senator CARPER. We gave you the authority to basically double—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. I understand, but—— 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. The number of visas you can issue. 

Secretary NIELSEN [continuing]. If you all are—— 

Senator CARPER. You have the power. This Administration is not 

reluctant about using executive power. 

Secretary NIELSEN. If you all are wanting to help the companies, 

which I know you are, the best thing that we can do is give them 

stability and predictability. Putting them into a situation each 

year, where we wait on appropriations cycle and we wait on whichever secretary is secretary to make a determination, does not give 

them the ability to plan and keep their businesses open. 

So I would respectfully request, again, that Congress work with 

us to put this in law. We know it is a need. Let us just put it in 

law, and then everybody knows what it is, and the businesses can 

plan. 

Senator CARPER. We put it in law. We said there are 69,000 visas 

that could be issued, now additional visas, and all you have to do 

is do it. There is plenty of need. 

Secretary NIELSEN. But, sir—— 

Senator CARPER. Use that authority. 

Secretary NIELSEN [continuing]. If you wanted 69,000 additional 

just put it in law and then there is no discretion and there is no 

timing, if it is already in law and everyone can plan to it. So as 

we discussed—— 

Senator CARPER. That is very disappointing—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Well, it should not be, because I think we 

both want to help the companies, so I am telling you, in my experience, this is the best way to help them is to give them some predictability and not tie it—— 

Senator CARPER. If our roles were different and you were the 

Senate and I was the Secretary of the Department, we would issue 

those 69,000 visas. We would put a lot of people to work, and I will 

say, frankly, save a lot of businesses from going under. 

Let me ask my second question. Thank you. 

The decision to extend or terminate Temporary Protected Status 

(TPS) lies with the Secretary of Homeland Security, as you know, 

in consultation with the State Department. Your predecessor and 

former deputy, Elaine Duke, declined to end TPS for Honduras 

only 4 months ago, in November. Did you speak with Ms. Duke or 
15 

other former administration officials prior to terminating TPS for 

Honduras? Did you speak with Jim Nealon, our former Ambassador to Honduras? 

Secretary NIELSEN. At the time, before Ambassador Nealon and 

then Deputy Secretary Duke left, yes, I did talk with them. 

Senator CARPER. And can you give us some idea what was said? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No. I cannot, sir. Those are predeliberative 

conversations. 

Senator CARPER. Former Secretary Kelly also said, in an interview on National Public Radio (NPR), I think it was last week, he 

said, ‘‘I think we should fold all the TPS people that have been 

here for a considerable period of time and find a way for them to— 

a path of citizenship.’’ And those are his words from last week. Do 

you agree with General Kelly’s remarks? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I have said the same under oath. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

We talked in this room, often times, about root causes, why people come here from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and other 

places. They come here because their lives are not just difficult, 

their lives, in many cases, are horrendous. We contribute directly 

to that. 

In the last Administration there was a fair amount of discussion 

about root causes. We put in place—Congress passed the Alliance 

for Prosperity, sort of like a Central American version, as you 

know, of Plan Colombia. I have not heard much about what is 

going on there lately, and maybe you can bring us up to speed. As 

you know, Plan Colombia has taken a long time, 20 years, but over 

time it has become very successful. And what is going on with Alliance for Prosperity and how are we doing there? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So as I understand it, sir, the State Department is distributing funds, but as you know that is a State Department program. What we are doing at DHS is we worked in conjunction with State, and the governments of Mexico, Spain, Canada, others, last year, to host a conference with the Northern Triangle to talk about this issue and talk about how to increase their 

prosperity in addition to security. 

We plan to host such a conference again next month. 

Senator CARPER. When and where? 

Secretary NIELSEN. In D.C., and we do not have the exact date 

because it will be around the Organization of American States, so 

it is a bit up to them as to which date works, so we are still finalizing a date. 

But we are working on some interesting programs to help in the 

same way. One that I have found to be very interesting is one with 

El Salvador, where it is micro-competition and the company who 

wins receives about $27,000 equivalent, which is the amount they 

would otherwise pay a smuggler to come to the United States. So 

it allows them to stay in the country and open up a business. 

So we are working on creative ways to try to help. I agree with 

you. We have to help the countries as well with the push-and-pull 

factors, and, of course, as you and I have talked about before, we 

also have to increase our overall drug demand here so that we do 

not have that pull factor. 
16 

Senator CARPER. All right. As they say at Home Depot, ‘‘You can 

do it. We can help.’’ They can do it. We have an obligation, I think, 

a moral obligation to help. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hassan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Ranking Member McCaskill. And Secretary Nielsen, thank you for 

appearing before the Committee. 

Just a couple of weeks ago I traveled to the U.S. Southern Border to meet with Border Patrol Port Officers and ICE Detention Officers. We know that people are dying on both sides of the border 

as a result of the drug cartel’s narcotics trafficking efforts. In 2016, 

drug overdoses killed more than 60,000 Americans, while in 2017, 

Mexico hit a record of nearly 30,000 homicides, the vast majority 

of which resulted from the drug trade violence. 

These numbers go hand in hand. The drug cartels use violence 

and money to dominate their smuggling route, killing many innocent Mexicans and migrants. The cartels’ success means that more 

and more drugs make their way into the United States, where 

Americans are dying from overdoses at unprecedented rates. 

I was impressed by my visits to El Paso and McAllen, Texas, to 

see the robust screening effort conducted by CBP of incoming traffic from Mexico. In fact, in El Paso, just before I arrived, they had 

seized 25 pounds of cocaine because we have vigilant, excellent 

CBP port officers, as I know you know. 

However, stopping the drug cartels is not solely a matter of securing traffic coming into the United States. We have to attack the 

cartels’ business model. That means stopping the flow of both drug 

money and weapons that travel southbound into Mexico from the 

United States. 

Unfortunately, as I saw on my trip, our southbound screening effort for traffic leaving the United States for Mexico pales in comparison to CBP’s screening of traffic entering the United States. We 

are in a system that our officers refer to as ‘‘pulse and search,’’ so 

intermittent checking of southbound traffic. We were told by CBP 

officials that they need expanded facilities, more personnel, and updated technology in order to try to strengthen our ability to stop 

the flow of guns and money back into the cartels’ hands. 

So are you satisfied with the current state of southbound inspections along the Southern Border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No. 

Senator HASSAN. And what more do you need and what actions 

will you take to address these shortfalls? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So the ports, as you know, are very different—— 

Senator HASSAN. Right. 

Secretary NIELSEN [continuing]. The infrastructure. So part of 

what we are doing is, I have had multiple conversations with the 

Government of Mexico on this exact issue. I have committed to 

them that we will decrease the flow of guns and money headed 

their direction. But part of the agreement with them is to how we 

can restructure the ports so that we have those secondary lanes so 

that we can pull people over when we suspect. 
17 

Senator HASSAN. Right. 

Secretary NIELSEN. So we are doing more. We are working on 

agreements back and forth, and then we are working on some modeling and data that would lead us to a resource request to come to 

you. 

Senator HASSAN. Well, that would be excellent. What I heard, 

loudly and clearly, from our wonderful subject matter experts at 

the border was that they need more people, and I think that echoes 

what you heard from Senator McCaskill. We need more people at 

the ports of entry. We need them southbound as well as northbound. And I also know there were some infrastructure issues for 

those second lanes of traffic and the like. But I would look forward 

to working with you on that. 

I also wanted to touch on another issue that we heard about on 

the border. As you know, last year, Congress passed the INTERDICT Act which requires DHS to increase the number of fentanyl 

screening devices available to CBP officers. The officers have faced 

a shortage of these devices, which are essential to identifying correctly fentanyl and other drugs, as well as keeping CBP officers 

safe from these toxic chemicals. 

Despite the passage of the INTERDICT Act, the port personnel 

I spoke with made clear that the devices were still in short supply. 

When I spoke to them about the INTERDICT Act legislation and 

its mission, they were encouraged by the possibility of more devices 

heading their way but they had clearly not received the benefits 

that intended when we passed this bill and when the President 

signed it into law. Now that was, I think, in December. 

So why are not the devices getting into the hands of these port 

officers, what accounts for the delay, and what are our plans to get 

more devices there? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Well, first of all, that is unacceptable, so you 

have my commitment to look into it and get back to you this week. 

I am not aware that they do not have the devices. They need to 

be trained. 

Senator HASSAN. Yes. 

Secretary NIELSEN. They need the protective gear to, as you 

know, touch packages, and they also need the devices. 

Senator HASSAN. Right. I saw one of the devices. The issue is 

they just do not have enough for them all to use, and I think our 

intent was to get—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Absolutely. I will look into this. 

Senator HASSAN [continuing]. This technology to our personnel as 

quickly as we could. 

And then another issue that came up, because I went from the 

border then down to Mexico City. And in my meetings with U.S. 

Embassy personnel in Mexico City, and with key Mexican government officials, we discussed how Mexico has to significantly grow 

its Federal police force if it is going to have success against the 

drug cartels. While the Mexican government has to find the resources and the will to expand the Federal police force, the United 

States can certainly play a key role in helping to train and professionalize the police force. 

In a meeting with the National Security Commissioner Sales I 

conveyed how every law enforcement officer in the State of New 
18 

Hampshire attends the same training facility in order to standardize and professionalize their training, and I also shared how 

DHS runs the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), 

in order to integrate and standardize law enforcement training for 

over 90 Federal law enforcement units. 

Has DHS considered working with its Mexican counterparts to 

help provide trainings to Mexican Federal law enforcement? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Absolutely, and we actually do. We have 

graduated some already from training facilities. We are continuing 

to expand that. We also work with Semar and Sedena, parts of the 

military, which, as you know, play a huge role. We have done a lot 

of training with them. We do a lot of joint operations back and 

forth across the border. But yes, this would be a priority for us. 

Senator HASSAN. And so when you say a lot of joint training, do 

we open up parts of FLETC to our Mexican counterparts? Can they 

come over and train? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We do offer courses for Mexican counterparts, yes, ma’am. I will get you the locations. I believe it is at 

FLETC, but if not it is a DHS-owned facility. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. Well, thank you very much. I will have 

more questions for a second round but I am happy to yield now. 

Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you, Secretary Nielsen. 

As I sit here today I am extremely concerned about the Administration’s repeated attacks on some of the most vulnerable communities, and, in particular, children and pregnant women, as it relates to the work of DHS. And, in particular, under your leadership, DHS has rescinded the DACA program, and under the leadership of the Administration, predating your arrival as Secretary. 

DHS has rescinded the DACA program, putting 700,000 young people at risk of deportation. It has separated 700 children from their 

parents at the border since October 2017, including more than 100 

children who are under the age of 4. 

The agency has released a directive that allows for more detention of pregnant women to immigrant detention facilities. The 

agency has instituted a new information-sharing system between 

the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and ICE that is likely to 

have a chilling effect on sponsors who otherwise would be willing 

to come forward to provide care for unaccompanied minors, and instead of allowing those children to remain in detention. The agency 

has dramatically increased enforcement actions that have left an 

untold number of both immigrant and U.S. citizen children without 

one or both parents, leaving some of those children in the child 

welfare system. 

And then just last Wednesday, the Washington Post reported 

that you are considering undermining the Flores Agreement, an 

agreement that ensures standards of care for immigrant children, 

such as the provision of meals and recreation, and that they are 

placed in a least restrictive setting as possible. 

In the course of carrying out these actions, the Administration 

has routinely provided misleading information to this Committee, 
19 

1The information requested by Senator Harris appears in the Appendix on page 129. 

2The information requested by Senator Harris appears in the Appendix on page 134. 

and has even gone so far as to claim that policies such as routinely 

separating families are carried out in the best interest of the child, 

which many consider to be cruel. 

So my question to you is, last Thursday, when the New York 

Times reported that the President has directed you to separate parents from children when they cross into the United States as a way 

to deter illegal immigration, is that correct? Have you been directed 

to separate parents from children as a method of deterrence of undocumented immigration? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I have not been directed to do that for purposes of deterrence, no. 

Senator HARRIS. What purpose have you been given for separating parents from their children? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So my decision has been that anyone who 

breaks the law will be prosecuted. If you are a parent or you are 

a single person or you happen to have a family, if you cross between the ports of entry we will refer you for prosecution. You have 

broken U.S. law. 

Senator HARRIS. At an April 26th hearing, I asked Under Secretary James McCament to provide me with what percentage of 

cases exist in your agency where a child has been separated from 

a parent or guardian since October 2017, wherein the case resulted 

in trafficking charges. I have not been given that information. Can 

you provide that to me? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do not have it now but, yes, I will provide 

it to you.1

Senator HARRIS. OK. Can you do that by the end of next week? 

Secretary NIELSEN. If we have the information, yes. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. I also asked that I be provided with 

what training and procedures are being given to CBP officers as it 

relates to how they are instructed to carry out family separation. 

I have not received that information. Do you have that today? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No. You have not asked me for it so I do not 

have it, but I can give it to you.2

Senator HARRIS. No, I asked you for it. OK. So again, by the end 

of next week please. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Can you explain a little more what you are 

looking for? 

Senator HARRIS. Sure. So your agency will be separating children 

from their parents, and I would—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. No. What we will be doing is prosecuting parents who have broken the law, just as we do every day in the 

United States of America. 

Senator HARRIS. I can appreciate that, but if that parent has a 

4-year-old child, what do you plan on doing with that child? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The child, under law, goes to HHS for care 

and custody. 

Senator HARRIS. They will be separated from their parent. And 

so my question is—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Just like we do in the United States every 

day. 
20 

1The information requested by Senator Harris appears in the Appendix on page 135. 

Senator HARRIS. So they will be separated from their parent. And 

my question, then, is, when you are separating children from their 

parents, do you have a protocol in place about how that should be 

done, and are you training the people who will actually remove a 

child from their parent on how to do that in the least traumatic 

way? I would hope you do train on how to do that. And so the question is, and the request has been, to give us the information about 

how you are training and what the protocols are for separating a 

child from their parent. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am happy to provide you with the training 

information. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. And what steps are being taken, if 

you can tell me, to ensure that once separated, parent and child, 

that there will be an opportunity to at least sustain communication 

between the parent and their child? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The children are at HHS, but I am happy to 

work with HHS to get you an answer for that.1

Senator HARRIS. And I would like it to be broken down between 

what you doing for children over the age of 4 and what you are 

doing for children under the age of 4. 

On May 4th, the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement on behalf of the organization, stating that 

he is appalled by a new policy by the DHS that will forcibly separate children from their parents, and went on to talk about that 

they will create stressful experiences like family separation, which 

can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child’s brain architecture, 

affecting his or her short-and long-term health. And these findings 

are generally shared by the American Medical Association (AMA) 

and many child welfare advocates and professionals. 

Last Tuesday, before Senate Appropriations, you testified that 

you are ‘‘working with the community to understand the science as 

it relates to the impact of such separation.’’ Do you dispute that 

separating a child from their parent will create and cause trauma 

for that child? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I believe the question that was asked to me, 

if I was aware of the information, and what I said is I would be 

happy to look into the studies. Again, we do not have a policy to 

separate children from their parents. Our policy is, if you break the 

law we will prosecute you. You have an option to go to a port of 

entry and not illegally cross into our country. 

Senator HARRIS. Secretary Nielsen, we do have a policy in this 

country, as a general matter in the justice system, that if someone 

breaks the law they will be prosecuted. We also have protocols 

about what is allowable and not in connection with an arrest, in 

connection with detention in a jail, in connection with how many 

hours a day with which we can bring charges or not. So to suggest 

that the only law in this country relates to what you do at the end 

is really misleading. 

Secretary NIELSEN. But that is not what I just said, ma’am. If 

you are asking if we train and we take care of them and we work 

with HHS, we now have a memorandum of agreement (MOA) so 

that we can make sure that the children go to people who are actu-
21 

ally family members and who are not traffickers and who will not 

abuse them. 

Senator HARRIS. Right. So those are the policies I would like to 

see. 

Secretary NIELSEN. OK. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Before I go to Senator Lankford, I think is 

a good time, actually, Senator Daines, I see you showed up. This 

would be a good time to explain a little bit more. When you say 

that we do this every—prosecutors, law enforcement, local law enforcement does this every day. So let us consider maybe a drug 

dealer, single parent, with children in the home. That drug dealer 

is arrested. Is there any difference, really, in terms of how DHS 

handles somebody that you are going to prosecute, that you are 

going to detain, somebody who has entered the country through 

other than the ports of entry, is there any difference in terms of 

how DHS would handle that situation, those children, than what 

local law enforcement, other than different jurisdictions may have 

different rules? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Right. So, broadly speaking, not to my knowledge. The idea here is to make sure that the now unaccompanied 

children, or the children whose parent is incarcerated because they 

broke a law, are cared for. So we transfer those to HHS, and as 

I just mentioned, we have now worked on a memorandum of agreement to ensure that those children are not being, in turn, placed 

in the hands of traffickers, criminals, etc. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, I want to underscore, that only applies to family units, a parent, that crosses illegally, between the 

ports of entry. If they show up at the port, claim asylum, those 

family units are kept together because we have a process for that. 

Secretary NIELSEN. In current policy, yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Senator Daines. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Nielsen, it 

is good to see you again. Thank you for your service to secure our 

homeland. I am thankful for the leadership you are showing, in 

terms of deploying National Guard resources to secure our borders, 

building the first border wall in 10 years, establishing a national 

vetting process to better target those with criminal intent who seek 

to enter this country. As a father of four children myself, I sleep 

better knowing you are leading and securing our homeland. Thank 

you. 

I want to switch gears and talk about flooding in my home State 

of Montana. We had a tremendous snowpack this winter. The skiers were thrilled. As a fly fisherman, I cannot wait once the, as we 

say, the rivers blow out. They clear up, we get on the rivers. But 

in the meantime we have flooding going on in Montana. We are 

facing severe flooding due to rapidly melting snowpack in our 

mountains, combined with some recent heavy rainfall. Surging rivers and streams affect our communities across our State, forcing 

families from homes, schools, businesses. Roadways are closing. In 

fact, Montana has declared a statewide flooding emergency and mo-
22 

bilized State resources, but more flooding is yet to come and Federal aid is going to be needed. 

How is DHS assisting these affected communities in Montana 

now, and how can your department provide support in the coming 

months as we deal with additional flooding, as well as, believe it 

or not, the upcoming wildfire season? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. I cannot believe we are there again already, between that and hurricane season. 

So what we are doing at the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) is we are trying to increase the capability and capacity, in general, toward resilience. So, in part, that means we are 

using things called integrated management teams. We are pushing 

people out into the communities to help them build their capacity 

for instant management. We have conducted various reviews on 

alert warning. We are reviewing the equipment needs and requirements, and then, as you know, in certain cases, once the thresholds 

of the Stafford Act are met, under a national disaster, there are 

funds available from the Disaster Relief Fund. So it is a combination of on-the-ground capacity-building exercises, etc., and then 

funding, of course, when the thresholds are met. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, and I know we will be in touch with 

your team as we continue to, excuse the metaphor, navigate 

through these difficult times right now in Montana. 

I want to switch gears now and talk about the National Guard 

on the Southwest Border. As you point out in your testimony, there 

is probably no issue more important for DHS right now than border 

security and immigration. According to CBP, Southwest Border migration numbers for April, the number of illegal border crossers 

more than tripled in April 2018, compared of April 2017. Securing 

our borders is crucial to protecting the American people and upholding the rule of law. 

I am grateful to hear from you today in response to some of the 

questions. It is about the rule of law. It is what sets this great national apart, is freedom and the rule of law. You are doing an admirable job and I know you and your workforce are working tirelessly to get the job done. 

More resources are needed, however, and I support President 

Trump’s call last month for the deployment of the National Guard 

to enhance CBP’s capacities out at our Southwest Border. 

My question for you is, what further steps will be taken by the 

Administration to mitigate illegal activity at the border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Many things, as much as we can do within 

the law. So we are changing regulationss to the extent that we can 

to clarify particular issues. We are doing all this in the protection 

of UACs, like the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that I just 

mentioned. We are working with the border Governors. As you may 

know, I have had lots of conversations and I talk with them monthly—Governor Greg Abbott, Governor Doug Ducey, Governor Susana 

Martinez, Governor Jerry Brown—not just on the deployment of 

the National Guard but what else we can do with local communities, with border sheriffs, to make sure that when we identify 

criminal aliens that we can apprehend them and remove them. 

We also are working through some pilot projects with Mexico on 

ways that we can prevent the flows that do not have a legitimate 
23 

claim to come to this country. Again, I encourage all migrants, if 

they have a need to flee, to seek shelter in that first safe country 

that they encounter. So we will continue to do all we can on our 

side. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. The issue of children came up in the 

last line of questioning and I want to probe that a bit more with 

you. I have introduced legislation with my colleague from New 

Hampshire, Senator Hassan. It is called the Homeland Security for 

Children Act, which would simply ensure that DHS includes input 

from organizations representing the needs of children when soliciting stakeholder feedback and developing policies. 

The question is, do you believe it is important to identify and integrate the needs of children into the policies and activities of the 

Department? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I think it is our duty to protect them, to keep 

them in a safe environment, to provide for them when they are in 

our care, and to make sure that within that 48-hour period when 

we transfer them to HHS that we do all we can to help HHS then 

take care of those children. Yes, I do. 

Senator DAINES. One thing I have seen, and I appreciate your response there, is I think we need to make sure that the necessary 

steps are in place so that children are kept safe during emergencies. We think about preparedness. Sometimes we do not always remember in the policies the importance of children and 

thinking about their unique needs. 

Last, I want to talk about border wall contractors. A number of 

State and local governments are considering legislation that would 

require them to discriminate against companies involved in the design or construction of any extension of the wall along our Southern Border. Further, some cities are targeting contractors that provide database services supporting Federal immigration priorities. 

This type of legislation could obstruct the Federal Government’s 

lawful functions and cause private companies contracted with the 

Federal Government to hesitate in fulfilling the critical roles asked 

of them. 

My question is, what is the position of the Department on this 

issue, and how do you plan to respond? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So we continue to work with border Governors and government officials. I would just say that border security is the most basic and necessary requirement of a country to 

protect its citizens, so I do worry that the either intended or unintended consequence of this would be that the Federal Government 

cannot do its most basic duty to protect its citizens. But we are also 

trying to work with them to explain and find out what the real concern is, because it is not always clear on its face what the concern 

is, other than they just do not agree with us enforcing the law. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Secretary Nielsen. Thanks. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator McCaskill has a question for you 

real quick. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes. I just want to clarify something. The 

Chairman wanted to equate the process by which children are separated from their parents to a similar process when someone is arrested. Let us just take a community where I was the elected prosecutor for years. When a child is left without a parent because of 
24 

breaking the law, in the State system, the police handed them over 

to the social service agency, who then has primary responsibility, 

through social workers, placement, and a child abuse hotline. They 

are always in contact with the State authorities until there is some 

kind of permanency to their legal situation. 

Let us compare and contrast what happens with DHS. DHS 

keeps the children for maybe 48 hours, and hands them off to 

HHS. HHS then tries to put them somewhere, and rarely does 

household visits for sponsors. And then they are done after they 

find a sponsor. There is no handing off to the State social service 

agencies. That is why nobody is showing up for the hearings, Secretary. It is because it is not like the State system. 

I can assure you that if a child was supposed to show up somewhere that was in the State’s care, the phone would ring, or the 

child abuse hotline would ring, or a teacher would be required to 

call in. That is not happening with these kids. That is why they 

are not coming to court. Nobody is paying any attention. 

So I just could not let it pass that we were equating those two 

systems, because having a great deal of experience in one of them, 

having handled child abuse cases for a number of years, nothing 

is further than the truth. And there is still not a joint concept of 

operations (CONOPS), which was promised to Senator Portman 

and I at a hearing in 2016, as to how we are going to alleviate this 

problem. 

So once you start taking these children, I do not think any record 

should reflect that somehow we are—you are confident, or anybody 

is confident that they are being placed in a safe and secure environment and being appropriately managed. Because, frankly, if 

they were, they would come to their hearings. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Could I just respond to that? 

Senator MCCASKILL. Sure. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I think the comparison I was trying to make 

was in the separation of families. It is not something unique we do 

with illegal aliens when someone has broken the law. 

Senator MCCASKILL. There is no question, you have to separate 

children from families when there has been a violation. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, ma’am. But having said that, I just 

want to say I could not agree with your concerns more, period. We 

are working with HHS. We have done this MOA. I will look into 

the CONOPS. I do know that we have revised it, because we now, 

in conjunction with HHS, are requiring various checks be made to 

ensure that the sponsor truly does have a custodial relationship 

and is not a traffickers or an abuser. And, as you know, we have 

terrible instances of that occurring. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Terrible. 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is not acceptable. 

Senator MCCASKILL. The fact that there is not a CONOPS, the 

fact that there is no joint concept of operations, and we are upping 

the number of children we are taking from families is outrageous. 

Secretary NIELSEN. So there is a CONOPS. What I am suggesting is—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. [Off microphone.] 

Secretary NIELSEN [continuing]. Yes, and I appreciate that and 

we will get it to you. We are updating it because we now have this 
25 

MOA with HHS that requires both of us to share information so 

that we can vet the sponsor who appears to take the children, especially when that sponsor is not a parent. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It is not being done now. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, so this is why we just signed this MOA. 

I could not agree more. We have to do more. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I would completely agree the State is going 

to be better than the Federal Government in just about anything 

it does, and the point I was making, in terms of DACA—I mean, 

I completely understand that that does not apply to current arrivals, but they do not know that, that DACA was used as a spark. 

They were told, once they get there they can stay. By the way, they 

have. 96.5 percent of unaccompanied children from Central America have stayed. They use social media. That is communicated 

down to Central America and more come. So it is that flood into 

a Federal system that has created the crisis. So again, the goal of 

policy ought to be to reduce the flow, like Secretary Chertoff did, 

in Brazil. Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. I do not think I can let that go without 

at least some comment. 

DACA, if you say it was a magnet that pulled people because 

they are so connected, they certainly are connected enough to know 

that the program has been terminated. So we know that Central 

America presents a unique problem as it relates to unaccompanied 

minors, because of a law that was passed by the U.S. Congress. So 

the wringing of hands about what is, in fact, the draw into this 

country, it is critically important that we look at this from what 

is driving the factors below. And you and I have had long conversations about the need to work with the other countries in the region 

to allow people to refugee in place, to allow people to live with their 

families in a safe location, somewhere within the region. 

We are on the verge of having a very anti-American government 

elected in Mexico. It is going to make your job even harder. And 

so we can talk about why that is. I think we should just recognize 

it is going to happen. So we have to prepare for a relationship 

change that we are going to have, that is going to create an even 

greater problem. 

But we have to be humanitarian about how we deal with this, 

especially as it relates to children. Now we all sat at this dais 

about a month ago, and I think I said we are the worst foster parents in the world. We do not keep track of these kids. And we are 

begging you, if, in fact, this is going to be the outcome, where we 

are separating children, in some cases, infants, from their parents, 

we need to know where these kids are. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I could not agree more. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Well, that has not been—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Again, in the last Administration there was 

no MOA to even screen or vet sponsors. I have put that in place. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I am not talking about politics here. 

Secretary NIELSEN. No. I am not either. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I am talking about change. 
26 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am saying what we have done to improve 

the situation, because you are exactly right. We owe more to these 

children to protect them. So I am saying I agree. We have taken 

steps and we will continue to strengthen what our partners do to 

protect these children. They are not in our custody but I take it 

upon myself to work with my interagency partners to do this. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And I would share Senator Harris’ concern 

about making sure people are trauma-informed and traumatrained, because what you are doing to children when you take 

them away from their parents is the most trauma-impactful thing 

you can do to a child. So let us be good people and good Americans 

as it relates to how we treat children. 

But I do not want to use my whole time. I want to talk a little 

bit about the Northern Border strategy. You probably figured this 

is going to come up. You are 5 months late in getting me the plan. 

When is that plan going to happen? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It should be out this week. 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. Thank you. I will look forward to seeing 

it and thank you again. I think, again, we have such a hyper focus 

on the Southwest Border, a hyper focus on the open areas of the 

Southwest Border, and as Senator McCaskill pointed out, a lot of 

the drug traffic is coming through the points of entry. We know 

that that is a problem that we need to address. 

And that brings me to the second thing I want to get at, which 

is technology, and understanding what that technology, what is 

available, what we are doing right now to train, what we are doing 

right now to provide resources. I want to associate myself with the 

remarks of my senior Senator, Senator Hoeven. We appreciate the 

work that is being done to train pilots. I think that we have a great 

resource in North Dakota with the co-location of Customs and Border Protection, air and marine, along with the airbase, along with 

a training center for training pilots, along with a lot of great law 

enforcement folks who are working to try and figure out how we 

can embed and use new technology. So I again invite you to come 

up to North Dakota to take a look. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. I am looking forward to it. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes. And I think you will find some very interesting things up on the border. 

One of the unique problems that we have in North Dakota, as 

you know, is hiring and retention. That is not just a problem in 

North Dakota but it is a problem across the agency. Senator 

McCaskill, I think, made a great point on retention. What do you 

think is going to improve retention and how do we get a better answer on how we can deal with the attrition challenge that you 

have? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. This is, for obvious reasons, all the ones 

that Ranking Member McCaskill mentioned and you did as well, 

important, but it is also important just for basic morale, right? It 

is important for us to be able to do our job. So I do take this very 

seriously, and of my six priorities one is what I call Employees 

First, and this is a big chunk of that. What it is we can do to make 

them willing to continue to serve. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Why do you think they are leaving now? 
27 

Secretary NIELSEN. I think, one of the things that we have found 

over the last year is the system was not built for mobility. So if 

you are in rural—it is not even rural—if you are in an area where 

there is just not a lot of infrastructure, particularly on the Southern Border, if you are a young CBP agent you might be willing to 

do that for a few years, but if the system cannot allow you to move, 

you might just decide to leave. So one of the things we have built 

in is that mobility. We have also built in cross-training. We find 

that particularly in some of the areas, what you were trained to do 

is not necessarily what you do, because of the limited—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. One of the pieces of advice that Senator Tester used to provide, and I used to follow up on, is there are people 

who live up there. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Absolutely. 

Senator HEITKAMP. There are people who live on the northern 

tier. They like it. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Senator HEITKAMP. That is home. They hunt. They fish. They 

know exactly what they are doing. They have friends and family. 

We need to do better recruiting from the local people who live 

there, who have lived that lifestyle, because if you move someone 

in from Tennessee, let us say, and then an ICE position comes open 

in Tennessee, we will lose them from Border Patrol. And so we 

have seen this. We have talked to the folks up there. Very much 

would like to see you look at recruiting within the area, because 

those are folks who are used to that lifestyle. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Really quickly on that one, we found that we 

were not very good at that, which is partly why we are working 

with Accenture. And I know the Ranking Member had some concerns that she mentioned at the front. I am happy to come and 

speak to you both about that. But part of the concept of that 

Accenture contract is to go into those areas and recruit there, for 

people that we need there, because of exactly what you are saying. 

Senator HEITKAMP. No, I think you would be more successful in 

terms of retention, and I am out of time. I will probably submit 

some additional questions for the record, and you probably know I 

am concerned and aware of some challenges we have with the border sheriffs. That is a critical relationship, both in the Northern 

Border and the Southern Border, and we want to follow up on some 

of the issues that we have had with the local law enforcement. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, and Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I just 

respond to that quickly? 

Chairman JOHNSON. No. Fine. 

Secretary NIELSEN. You and I had a brief conversation. I could 

not agree more. I spoke with the sheriff in Cochise County. I have 

met with a variety of sheriffs when I was in Texas. I met with the 

National Sheriffs Association last week. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Good. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I will continue to meet with them. But yes, 

we look to their expertise, their experience. They are a very important part of understanding the needs. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And they can be an incredible resource for 

you in terms of intel if you have a relationship with them. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. I agree. Thank you. 
28 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. No, I just want to offer clarification. I think, 

Senator Heitkamp, you said DHS does this to the children or families. When a parent brings a child illegally into this country, between the ports of entry, DHS is responding, reacting to that illegal 

act. I hate to give advice but if those parents want to do it legally 

they can go right up to the port of entry, claim asylum, and then, 

basically have to make the case. But they are coming across illegally because they do not want to have to go through that process, 

the legal process. 

So Secretary Nielsen, DHS is enforcing the laws, and if we do not 

like the laws we are going to have to try and change them. But 

again, it is not what DHS is doing to them. DHS is forced to react 

and is forced to follow the law. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Nielsen, 

thank you for being here. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Good afternoon. 

Senator PETERS. Secretary Nielsen, I think you are well aware 

that probably the most significant threat that we have to our national security comes from cyber attacks, and we are seeing these 

cyber attacks increase in frequency as well as in sophistication. 

And as this Committee has discussed this issue on numerous occasions, we always talk about a whole-of-government approach, 

that we have to bring all of our resources to bear in order to thwart 

this threat. And yet often times we operate in silos. Different agencies are doing their own thing and there is not any kind of communication between them. So there has been a pretty concerted effort 

to try to harmonize the responsibilities as well as understand those 

whole-of-government capabilities that may exist across the breadth 

of government. 

And I know that DHS, along with a number of other civilian and 

military entities, have certainly made some significant progress in 

this area, but we also need to have leadership from the White 

House to make sure that this actually happens. And that is why 

I was disappointed to hear reports that National Security Advisor 

John Bolton is considering eliminating the White House Cyber Coordinator position within the White House. 

What impact would this change in leadership have, do you think, 

on the national cyber mission? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So I have not had a conversation with Ambassador Bolton about that particular issue. What I would suggest, 

at least from a DHS perspective, we have strengthened all of our 

relationships with the silos that you referenced, to make sure that 

we are bringing all to bear, not just through sharing of capacity 

and capabilities but clarifying and reclarifying our roles and responsibilities from policy efforts. 

So your underlying point is valid. It is top-of-mind for me, because no one entity has all the authorities, capability, and capacity 

to address this, so we have to bring everything we have to bear. 
29 

Within DHS, I find that we have pockets of excellence within the 

Secret Service, within ICE, within the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), 

within the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), and, of course, 

within NPPD. So we are trying to knit all that together so that we 

have best-in-class services through that collective defense model. 

Senator PETERS. So you mentioned you were not aware of 

this—or statement that John Bolton made. Could you tell me a little bit about the kind of coordination that goes on between DHS, 

cyber leadership, and the White House, in relation to 

cybersecurity? Is there ongoing communication coordination? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Since Ambassador Bolton has come onto the 

job, he and I speak regularly. We spoke over the weekend about 

events that were emerging in Tennessee, for example, in the alleged cyber attack. So we continue to work together. If there are 

any issues that we ever have that we need to raise to their attention we do so. We are working hand in glove on the national 

cybersecurity strategy. We released the DHS Cybersecurity Strategy today. We did that in close coordination with the National Security Council (NSC). 

Senator PETERS. It has been reported that the United States may 

see increased cyber attacks from Iran in the coming weeks and 

month. Has the Department seen an increase in Iranian cyber attacks in the past week? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We have not but we are looking. We have 

something, a posture that we call Shields Up. We are in close coordination with State and local governments, private sector critical 

infrastructure owners and operators, and the intel community, constantly asking and assessing to see if we see any uptick in activity. 

Senator PETERS. So you are anticipating it may be a reality. 

Secretary NIELSEN. We are anticipating it is a possibility and, 

therefore, we will be prepared. 

Senator PETERS. I would discuss the Northern Border, pick up on 

Senator Heitkamp, coming from a Northern Border, up in Michigan. We have two of the Nation’s busiest border crossings in Michigan, one up in Port Huron, with Canada, and Sarnia down in Detroit. We have had a number of issues in terms of staffing and capacity. Those border crossings are particularly important from an 

economic standpoint, and I know the difficult balancing act that 

the Department has to keep us safe, at the same time making sure 

that commerce moves efficiently across those borders. 

Right now we are in the process of building a second bridge in 

the Detroit-Windsor, which is one of the top crossings in the country, North America, the Gordie Howe Bridge. In fact, it has been 

funded by the Canadian government but looking for resources from 

the United States to make sure that our Customs plaza is fully 

funded. Do I have your commitment that that will be fully funded 

and properly staffed so that we can achieve that twin goal of keeping us safe while, at the same time, allowing commerce to move efficiently across that border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. We would like to facilitate legal trade 

and travel, as you know. I am not as familiar with this but, yes, 

we would want to make sure that it allows legal trade and travel 

and facilitates that. 
30 

Senator PETERS. Well, I would like to have a further discussion 

with you—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Happy to. 

Senator PETERS [continuing]. Or your staff as well. This is a critical issue for us, and I can appreciate you may not be fully up to 

speed on this particular one, but it is one that I think we need to 

pursue, and I would love to have that conversation. 

And it goes, actually, with the other border crossing, which is the 

Blue Water Bridge, which is between Sarnia and Port Huron. That 

is a border crossing that needs to be expanded. In fact, the government came in and condemned a number of houses with eminent domain, cleared out land because of a Customs expansion that should 

have taken place years ago. It still has not occurred. It is an incredibly problematic situation, to say the least, for the city of Port 

Huron. And it is a piece of critical infrastructure. Do you have any 

idea when that plaza will be completed, and is that something that 

you are prepared to talk about today? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, but we will get you an answer this week. 

Senator PETERS. Well, I would appreciate that as well. We will 

follow up. 

The other final piece of major infrastructure in Michigan is the 

Soo Locks, which connect Lake Superior with the rest of the Great 

Lakes system. DHS reported, in 2016, that if the Poe Lock, which 

is the major lock that can allow the large freighters to move 

through there, if anything happens to that lock, within a matter of 

weeks the entire U.S. economy would go into recession. You would 

have production facilities shut down, factories, mines. Auto parts 

would have difficulty being constructed. So it certainly fits the definition of critical infrastructure in no uncertain terms. 

We had President Trump in our State recently, who made a 

statement that we are going to fix the Soo Locks, we are going to 

construct the additional lock that we have been looking for, for 

some time. Could you give us an update on that? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. So what we have done at DHS is look 

at the modeling, because, as you say, it is a concentrated point of 

dependency, and some might even argue it is a single point of failure when it comes to trade. So we are doing the modeling and then 

we are also working with our counterparts in Commerce, the Council of Economic Advisors at the White House, to make sure that we 

understand all the consequences. 

It is critical infrastructure. We treat it as such, so we are continuing that voluntary relationship to make sure that we have the 

redundancy and resiliency built in. But I am happy to come give 

you more detailed brief about what specifically we are doing. 

Senator PETERS. Well, I would like a brief on what has happened 

since the President’s statement. We have the report from DHS, 

which clearly states that it is critical infrastructure—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Senator PETERS [continuing]. That could lead to recession. The 

Army Corps of Engineers are finishing a study that we expect to 

see shortly, that will also come to what I believe will be a similar 

conclusion. But it is something that we need to focus on, and look 

forward to meeting with your folks to talk further about it. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you. 
31 

Chairman JOHNSON. I agree, Senator Peters, on that one. Senator Portman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary 

Nielsen, thank you for—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Good afternoon. 

Senator PORTMAN [continuing]. Being here today, and for being 

here at a critical time. You are in the process of putting your own 

imprint on a massive organization that was created by Congress 

some 16 years ago, and has never been reauthorized since. And I 

appreciate the fact, Mr. Chairman, that you and the Ranking Member, Senator McCaskill, have worked hard on an authorization bill, 

again, for the first time in almost two decades. It is overdue, in my 

view, and I think there are a lot of positive things in that bill. 

So we appreciate your working with us. I asked you earlier 

today, in a conversation, what you thought about it, and I think 

you are generally supportive of it. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN. And I hope you will work with the Chairman 

and Ranking Member to get that not just to the Senate floor for 

a vote but to get that signed into law. 

There are a number of provisions in that bill that I feel strongly 

about. One is some of my provisions to strengthen security for nonprofit institutions, focusing research on some emerging threats, as 

was talked about earlier, in the cybersecurity space, also in chemical weapons, as well as some important requirements to combat 

the illicit opioids that are coming into our country. 

We here, in my State of Ohio, have had epidemic levels of opioid 

addiction and overdoses and deaths, starting with prescription 

drugs and heroin, and now it is this synthetic heroin, or synthetic 

opioids, including fentanyl, carfentanil, and others. It is now the 

big problem. I mean, we had 60 percent of the people who died in 

Ohio last year, our worst year ever, died because of fentanyl. Locally, in Columbus, Ohio, they just issued a report from that county, Franklin County, that two-thirds of their deaths last year were 

attributable to fentanyl. 

It is coming in through the U.S. mail system, primarily. That is 

what all the experts say, including testimony before the Committee 

and before our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI). 

So our own United States mail system is providing the conduit for 

this poison. It is not coming over land from Mexico, as heroin was. 

At least the vast majority of it is not. Most of it is coming from 

China. We know where it is coming from. We know how it is coming. 

And we know that the post office, unbelievably, does not require 

the same information on packages as other private carriers have to 

in order for law enforcement to identify those packages. So the post 

office has about 900 million packages a year, by far the most, more 

than FedEx, UPS, DHL combined. Again, those private carriers 

have to give law enforcement, including your good folks at Customs 

and Border Protection, the information. They can then find these 

packages that are suspect, where it is from, what is in it, where 

it is going. 
32 

The post office, for the most part, does not have that, because we 

do not have a requirement on them. The requirement was put in 

place on the other carriers right after September 11, 2001 (9/11), 

and the thought was that the post office would do it also because 

we required that they do a study of it. They said it would take 

them some time. It has been 16 years and they are still studying 

it. 

So our legislation, that many Members of this Committee have 

strongly supported—I see Senator Hassan here, for instance. She 

has been a big advocate for this, as have others—is just to say let 

us make the post office also give your people what they say they 

need, and they have testified before us here that they need it and 

need it badly. 

Senator Carper, who was here earlier, and I conducted a yearlong investigation into this issue through the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. We were able, by using some undercover folks from your Department—thank you for lending them to 

us—to find out some really shocking news, which is that people are 

selling this stuff online, freely, not worried about the enforcement 

side, and saying if you send it through the post office it is guaranteed. If you send it through a private carrier, it is not. 

And the bottom line is in this authorization legislation, we have 

some good things about helping with regard to working with the 

Chinese government, through information sharing, but the central 

issue here, the real gap in our defenses against this drug coming 

in, is the delivery method. 

So I hope you will work with us. What your people will tell you 

is it is like finding a needle in a haystack if you do not have this 

information. If you have it, at least you have a fighting chance of 

both stopping some of this poison from coming in, that is the most 

powerful, potent drug ever, 50 times more powerful than heroin, 

but also increasing the price of the drug just by reducing some of 

that supply, because one of our problems right now, in my State 

and others, is the fact that this is not only readily available, it is 

relatively inexpensive. 

You are aware about the legislation because we have talked 

about it, the STOP Act. You are aware of the fact that we are trying very hard to get this through the process right now, not just 

this Committee, which has done, I think, a very good job on doing 

the research, but the committee of jurisdiction. 

I guess my question to you would be, are you willing to help us 

to get this done, and, in particular, we have heard rumors that the 

House may move on something that is a watered-down version. 

They, by the way, have 270 cosponsors of our bill, and yet the committee there, the Ways and Means Committee, apparently is talking about giving the post office more time to do this, not having 

a requirement, ultimately, because there would be no penalties associated with it. 

I guess I would ask you, are you willing to work with us and 

stick with us to ensure that we can require the post office to provide this information to your law enforcement folks so that we can 

stop more of this deadly poison from coming in? 
33 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, absolutely. You have my commitment 

and I know, as you know, you have that of Commissioner 

McAleenan as well. 

Senator PORTMAN. And the Commissioner has been great as Acting and now as Commissioner. We appreciate it. Well, I thank you. 

We want to work with you on it. 

With regard to the H–2B visa program, let me just read you one 

email that I got last week from a landscaper in Ohio. You and I 

have talked briefly about this issue. He says, ‘‘Rob, we have $8,000 

in revenue per day. We are not able to capture over $250,000 a 

month. We will close $2 million under our budget for the year 

which means we will lose close to $1 million this year.’’ This is a 

small landscaper. This is just because he cannot rely on the labor 

force that he has relied on in the past. 

Can you just tell us briefly what your commitment is—you and 

I have talked about this—with regard to the H–2B rule, getting it 

through on B, and then what you think ought to be done in terms 

of a legislative visa cap? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. The difficulty with the regulation process is it is the regulation process. I will just be honest. We go as 

fast as we can but the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires us to do certain things that take a while. What we have 

tried to do is mimic the rule from last summer, so that it can go 

as quickly as possible. The more changes, if we had made them, to 

that underlying regulation, the longer it would take, and I completely understand that time is of the essence. So what we chose 

to do is do something as quickly as we can under the APA. 

What I had mentioned to you earlier, and I mentioned earlier in 

testimony, was that the best way to fix this is to take all of the 

information that the members have, which I am gathering—everyone I have talked to, and you as well, I said, ‘‘Please give me examples of companies that are going out of business because of either 

the problems with the seasonality or because there are not enough 

to package it up, give it back, and just put it in law.’’ That will give 

the companies predictability, they will understand how many visas 

will be available, and they will understand when. 

Right now, as you know, it is tied to the appropriations process, 

which it is anyone’s guess when we can get that through. So it is 

very difficult on businesses. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, I would agree with your approach. My 

time is coming to an end. Just to say that meanwhile, right now, 

we need relief. 

And then, finally, with regard to unaccompanied kids—and I do 

not have time to go into it—but we have information now from you 

all, as of 10 days ago, that on July 30 you will have a new deadline 

to deliver the Joint Concept of Operations, which we really need, 

both for the sake of these kids not to be trafficked or abused, but 

also to be sure, as Senator McCaskill said, these kids actually show 

up at their court proceedings, and that is not happening now for 

a lot of kids. So the memorandum of agreement is good. We want 

to get this joint operations concept in place in order to ensure these 

kids are protected. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
34 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 61. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Portman, before I go into the second round of questions I kind of want to walk through. I will, by 

the way, reinforce what Senator Portman talked about, the H–2B 

visas. There is not one manufacturing plant in Wisconsin, not one 

dairy farm, not one resort that can hire enough people, so that 

really is a pressing need. And I understand the problems you have 

with the rules and regulations. 

I do want to give you the opportunity—I just put my UAC chart1

up there—that, again, I think kind of shows that DACA sparked 

it. But I want you to go through three different examples, and talk 

about the laws that you have to follow, that, in the case of UACs, 

resulted in only 3.5 percent being returned, which, again, from my 

standpoint, when you come and you get to stay, that is a huge incentive for more to come. 

But I want you to cover an example of UAC, family units, and 

then an adult that claims credible fear, all under the backdrop, according to my calculations, and this is an estimate, since 2013, 

about 750,000 unaccompanied children and a parent and one child, 

in terms of numbers we have, have entered this country illegally, 

and most of them are still probably in this country. 

But just go through exactly what is the process—UAC show up, 

and let us say they do it legally. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. So a UAC, if they are unaccompanied, 

they come and they are put—OK, let me back up. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, I want—the laws, the precedents, 

that actually—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. I understand. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. Force you to do what you do. 

Secretary NIELSEN. So if they are Mexican children, of Mexican 

origin, we can put them into expedited removal, if they had no 

legal reason to be here. So that means they have not claimed asylum, they do not have a legal visa, they are not part of the legal 

immigration system. 

If they are other than Mexican, which is the phrase in the 

law—so that is, normally we talk about the Northern Triangle 

countries—we do not put them in expedited removal. In any case, 

we only keep the child for 48 hours. After 48 hours, we turn them 

over to HHS. We now have this process by which we will help HHS 

vet the sponsors to help place the child in a safe place and safe 

care. So that is the UACs. 

The UACs, though, important to know that, overall, under current court cases, we can only hold UACs for 20 days, which does 

quite a few things. It puts a lot of pressure, time pressure, on making sure that we find, as a community, a suitable sponsor, but it 

also serves as a tremendous pull factor, because they will only be 

apprehended for 20 days, even if there is no valid reason to be 

here. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Just quick talk about the laws, the legal 

precedent. DHS has to give up an unaccompanied child within 48 

hours to HHS, and then HHS can only hold them for 20 days. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. So that is under the Flores Settlement, 

the combination of the Flores Settlement and the Trafficking Vic-
35 

tims Protection Act. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act is, in part, why we give them over to HHS. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Now family units. 

Secretary NIELSEN. So family units, if they are claiming asylum 

we do all we can to keep them as a family as they go through the 

process. I mentioned earlier sometimes they are detained. If we do 

not believe they are a risk, on a case-by-case basis, we do other 

methods such as, we have an alternatives-to-detention process. The 

difficulty there is the backlog. So we have a 600,000-person backlog. We have had an increase of 1,700 percent in asylum claims 

over the last 10 or 15 years. 

So what that means as they go through the system, is 80 percent 

of the people coming in pass that initial credible fear, but only 20 

percent are actually granted asylum by a judge. So our concern is 

that there is just a lot of fraud. It does not mean that you made 

a fraudulent claim. It could just mean that you believe that you 

can seek asylum, for example, for family reunification, but our laws 

do not allow you to seek asylum for the sole purpose of family reunification. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But of the family units that have come here 

since 2013, how many have been returned because they do not 

qualify for asylum? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Again, if they are with the children we have 

to release the children, so that often means we release the parents 

as well. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So a vast majority are still in this country. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Now an adult with credible fear. 

Secretary NIELSEN. So adult with credible fear, we process—well, 

it is interesting. We have ongoing litigation that prevents us, in 

some cases, from detaining them. In some cases we must let them 

go on parole. There are certain exceptions to that, but we do not 

have the ability to detain until we can process them and determine 

if they need to be removed. If they claim asylum they go into the 

asylum bucket. Again, the problem with the asylum bucket is the 

backlog, and it is very heavily abused by those who actually do not 

seek asylum there by putting those who need asylum in jeopardy 

of not receiving it in a timely manner. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. First of all, I think you are really working 

hard at trying to address some of the shortcomings, in terms of 

these children, and oversight, sometimes, is unpleasant. But it does 

not mean that any of us up here do not respect how difficult your 

job is. 

I am really worried about a case involving a whistleblower at 

TSA, and what is really upsetting to me about this particular case 

is that, as you know, there has been a lot of coverage about morale 

at TSA and problems of drugs and drinking and inappropriate behavior. These are actual complaints that were investigated by the 

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at Homeland Security, and 

this activity predated you, so I want to be clear about that. 

But following this investigation by the Inspector General (IG), 

four charges were brought against a Senior Executive Service 

(SES) employee, including poor judgment for maintaining an inap-
36 

1The OIG report referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 66. 

2The letter referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 63. 

propriate relationship; basically lying about an intimate and sexual 

relationship during the investigation; inappropriate conduct 

through violation of hiring practices, and there are more details 

there; unprofessional conduct by forwarding an email to a subordinate employee in which he referred to an assistant administrator 

with inappropriate language I will not use in this hearing. 

So what was really most concerning about this OIG report—and 

I have the report here and I would like to make it part of the 

record,1 just so we have it, Mr. Chairman, without objection, I 

hope. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Without objection. 

But what is really scary about this review is that they found a 

series of deviations from standard policy, in terms of how this was 

handled, allowing the employee to receive unusually favorable 

treatment. And as you know, one of the biggest problems you have 

with morale is that the rules have to apply to everybody. 

OIG specifically identified three members of senior leadership at 

TSA that interfered with the disciplinary process in a way that promoted favoritism. This was the Deputy Administrator, the former 

Assistant Administrator of the Office of Professional Responsibility, 

and the current Chief Counsel. 

So, imagine my surprise when I find out that we are working on 

this, and who is in charge? The Chief Counsel. And, by the way, 

the table of penalties required that this SES be removed, according 

to the table of penalties at TSA. Instead, they offered a suspension 

and permitted the employee to continue to receive the same salary 

that he was receiving. 

The Chairman of this Committee, and I sent a letter2 to you, in 

February, asking about what disciplinary actions have been taken 

against this senior leadership, that interfered in a disciplinary 

process involving a complaint by a whistleblower that has been investigated by the IG and found to be valid. And I am particularly 

worried that we have put the fox in charge of the henhouse if this 

Chief Counsel that was part of the problem, as cited in this report, 

is in fact the one that is supposedly now helping making sure this 

does not happen again. 

So you are welcome to take this for the record, Secretary, if you 

do not have an answer for today, but this is why you have bad morale. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would like to get into more detail of it on 

the record—or excuse me, to return—to get back to you. But let me 

just say this. Whistleblowers need to be protected, period. The IG 

needs to be listened to. The IG serves an extraordinarily important 

function, particularly at a department the size of DHS. I would say 

that if a policy is such that a person who is part of the complaint 

is then put in charge of rectifying the situation, that is totally inappropriate, I will for sure look into that. You are right, that is not 

acceptable. 

And accountability. You have heard me say it many times before. 

The vast majority of people, men and women, who work at DHS 

are dedicated professionals. When something like this occurs we 
37 

need to all hold them accountable as a community. It is as simple 

and as complicated as that. It needs to be done. 

I am not as familiar with the particular one, but I can guarantee 

you I will look into it and get back to you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I would love that, and I should just tell you 

that the staff of this Committee has been talking to a number of 

whistleblowers from the Federal marshal program. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Oh, I see. OK. 

Senator MCCASKILL. These are all the air marshals. And you 

have trouble there. There are inequities that are occurring, there 

is favoritism that is occurring, there is abusive behavior that is occurring, and we have a string of whistleblowers that have been 

coming to us about various problems. 

So if you would get back to us specifically on this case involving 

an investigation by the Inspector General, as it relates to the Federal air marshal program, and I would like your take on, now that 

you have been there a short period of time, but, nonetheless, long 

enough, I would like to know what your view is of the Federal air 

marshal program and whether or not it is being utilized effectively, 

and whether or not we are putting marshals on the right flights, 

or if we are putting marshals on too many flights. I have always 

questioned some of the procedures, because flying back and forth 

to D.C. on commercial airlines as often as I do, for many years it 

was really obvious who the marshals were. They were the two guys 

in jeans that got on first. And so if there was some effort to have 

them intermingle and be effective at detecting and shutting down 

threats it did not work. 

It was like, OK, everybody is standing in line at Southwest, all 

of us. We were waiting to be herded on, standing by our stanchion. 

Well, there goes the marshals. They are going to load us pretty 

soon. And then I would say something, ‘‘Have the marshals gotten 

on yet?’’ and everybody would look at me like I had said a dirty 

word. They said, ‘‘Oh, what are you talking about?’’, like it was 

some secret. 

So it has always worried me that we are not staying on top of 

what is the most effective way for us to put security in the air, and 

I would love your take on that, from your view, as the Secretary 

of Homeland Security. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. I appreciate that. What we are in the 

process of doing with the Administrator right now is actually looking at that full program. How should it work? Does it make sense? 

Is the modeling right? The example that you are using, at least as 

I understand it, was a procedure under the belief that deterrence 

was the most important. So, to some extent, if the marshals were 

obvious as to who they were there would be a deterrent value. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Should not they give them uniforms then? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am not disagreeing. I am just explaining as 

I understand it. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes. 

Secretary NIELSEN. But your point is valid, which is as long as 

we are resourcing this way, we want it to be effective. 

So the Administrator and I are happy to come talk to you about 

it, our initial findings, and what we are looking at, but yes, it 
38 

needs to be looked at, from soup to nuts, to make sure that it is 

effective. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And we will be glad, at the appropriate 

time, to share with you some of the whistleblower investigations 

that are ongoing, but I would like your specific response to that IG 

investigation where people in the highest levels of management 

were skewing the process in favor of somebody that was SES, as 

opposed to someone who had been abused. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hassan. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you very much, and again, good afternoon, Secretary. I wanted to touch on homegrown terrorism for a 

minute and our efforts to prevent it. According to the President’s 

budget request, the Office of Terrorism Prevention Partnerships 

currently is staffed by 12 people. Its predecessor office, the Office 

of Community Partnerships, had 16 positions, and through a reprogramming of appropriations requested by then Secretary Johnson, was able to use support staff to build an outreach team that 

could build relationships with community groups, with civic leaders, and law enforcement throughout the country. 

According to the budget request for fiscal year 2019, the Office 

of Terrorism Prevention Partnerships is ‘‘dedicated to the mission 

of countering violent extremism (CVE) and the building of community partnerships necessary to support countering violent extremism efforts.’’ That is the quote. 

So given that the budget and personnel for this office is smaller 

but the overall mission is still the same, it would seem that this 

office would be hard pressed to build partnerships across the country with no field staff. Has DHS budgeted for field staff for this office? 

Secretary NIELSEN. There is some field staff. I am happy to get 

you the specific numbers. 

Just more broadly, very quickly, what we have done is we have 

put the office within the larger Office of Public Engagement, so we 

have actually force-multiplied the office-—— 

Senator HASSAN. Right. 

Secretary NIELSEN [continuing]. If you will, to make sure that we 

do, as a whole group, as a whole part of DHS, look to build those 

community relationships. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. Well, I would love to have our offices follow 

up—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Happy to. 

Senator HASSAN [continuing]. And get full information about 

that. 

And as a follow-up to that, DHS co-leads the Interagency Task 

Force on Countering Violent Extremism, along with the Justice Department. The task force was created to help coordinate the government’s ability to tackle home-grown terrorism. In 2015, this 

task force was staffed by representatives from 11 different departments. 

Can you tell me how many different Federal agencies currently 

provide staff to this interagency task force? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do not know the specific number but happy 

to get back to you this week. 
39 

Senator HASSAN. OK. I would appreciate that greatly because, 

obviously, especially when it comes to home-grown terrorism, the 

name of the game is coordination and communication—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Absolutely. 

Senator HASSAN [continuing]. Among agencies and with local authorities and State authorities. 

I also wanted to touch on a New Hampshire-specific issue. In my 

State, we have a significant Indonesian community, many of whom 

came to New Hampshire fleeing religious persecution against 

Christians in Indonesia. They have become members of the community, they have worked jobs and paid taxes, and they have raised 

their families in the Seacoast area of New Hampshire. 

Now, after many years of them living in this country, the Department of Homeland Security has prioritized them for deportation, a 

decision that could put their lives at risk if they return to a country 

where violence against religious minorities remains a serious issue. 

Last week you publicly pledged to my fellow New Hampshire 

Senator, Jeanne Shaheen, that you would take another look at this 

issue. When you went back and looked again at this issue, what 

did you find? Have you asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement for review and reconsider their efforts to deport members of 

this community? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We have asked them to review it. On the face 

of it, we do not have an instance—but I would love to work with 

both of you to get some actual facts—we do not have an instance 

that they have moved in any way from prioritization. Again, our 

prioritization, as you know, is criminals. We do not prioritize 

groups, nationalities, religious groups. So, yes, we are looking at it. 

We are particularly concerned, as you know, given the recent terrorist events in Indonesia, against Christians, Catholics, and in 

particular cases. 

Senator HASSAN. And let me just be clear that these are people 

who regularly went in for their check-in at ICE on a regular basis, 

and all of a sudden, last year, they got tickets, leave, and if were 

not for a Federal District Court telling your Department that they 

could not deport these people, they would be deported. And these 

people are not criminals, so if there was some level of new 

prioritization there that has put this community at risk, and I 

think there is a strong feeling in New Hampshire, and I am glad 

to hear your response, that we need to get some predictability and 

sustainability here for these people, and they really do face persecution back home. And so we would love to work with you on that, 

and it would be really good if you could make a commitment to finalize an answer on that—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Senator HASSAN [continuing]. In the near term. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. Thank you. 

Last, I know there has been a lot of discussion, while I was at 

another hearing, on the issue of not only unaccompanied minors 

but families with minor children. I will just add my support to the 

line of questioning you heard from Members of the Committee 

about our concerns about this. When we had a hearing just a couple of weeks ago about the handling of minors, especially as they 
40 

went to sponsors, sponsor families and the like, it was very clear 

that the Department does not, neither DHS or HHS, they do not 

coordinate at all with local authorities and with the States as we 

look at how we are going to address the needs of children, generally, who come to this country and are unaccompanied or separated from their families. 

And do not support the separation of these children from their 

families. I will add my comments in support of what you heard 

from my colleagues on that issue. But if children are placed away 

from their families I think it is imperative that the Department 

and HHS work with the States. States have interstate compacts 

about how to protect children who are not with their families. It 

is important for local school districts, for instance, to know to expect these children at school, not only for the local districts’ planning purposes but so that if these kids do not show up there is 

somebody, somewhere who knows to go look for them and find out 

what has happened to them. 

So I just think to echo what you have heard from both sides of 

the aisle this afternoon, we need to see planning and we need to 

see a better system for addressing the needs of children who come 

to this country. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Harris. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. Secretary Nielsen, how many children have been separated from their parents at ports of entry since 

January 2017? 

Secretary NIELSEN. As I understand, you have referenced 700 before, which I believe was an HHS number. Our figures are not the 

same as theirs, but we are happy to give you our numbers and explain why they differ. 

Senator HARRIS. OK, great. And can you submit that by the end 

of next week, with the other information? 

Senator MCCASKILL. Would you share that with the Committee? 

I think I have something—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Of course. 

Senator MCCASKILL. If you guys have different numbers of children, that is something that, just on its face, is rather alarming. 

So I would like to figure out why that is. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. I think it is, in part, because when HHS 

does the interview they do not ask the child why they are unaccompanied, so their numbers are different than ours, if you are asking 

at the border, for example. So it is not necessarily that they conflict. It is just they are asking different questions. But, yes, of 

course, we will provide that—— 

Senator HARRIS. Thanks. 

Secretary NIELSEN [continuing]. And explain that. 

Senator HARRIS. And again, I have asked these questions of 

Under Secretary McCament before so perhaps everyone is working 

on it and I would expect that we should get it by the end of next 

week. 

And can you also give us information about what the average 

length of separation has been between those children and those 

parents? And that would be that number that you are now going 

to bring to us. OK. And also, what timelines, in terms of the policy 

that you have, exist to establish a parental relationship, or to re-
41 

1The information requested by Senator Harris appears in the Appendix on page 137. 

unify families. I am hoping, and will assume, that your protocols 

would have such a goal in mind, or at least a timeframe. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, ma’am they do. Part of it is a voluntary 

DNA test, if it is a family member. The concern that I have with 

that—and we do offer that—but the concern, of course, is you could 

still have a custodial relationship and not be a blood relative, so 

it is not dispositive to an appropriate custodian. 

But, yes, of course, that is our goal. 

Senator HARRIS. And then as it relates to the number of children 

who have been separated from their parents at points of entry, 

again, I would like also, for the Committee, information on how 

many of those cases resulted in trafficking charges. 

Regarding detention conditions, Secretary, are you aware that 

multiple Federal oversight bodies, such as the OIG and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), have documented medical negligence of immigrants in the detention system, and, in particular, 

that ICE has reported 170 deaths in their custody since 2003? Are 

you familiar with that? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, ma’am. 

Senator HARRIS. Are you aware that they also found that pregnant women, in particular, received insufficient medical attention 

while in custody, resulting in dehydration and even miscarriages? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do not believe that is a current assessment 

of our detention facilities. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. Can you please submit to this Committee 

a current assessment—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, I am happy to. 

Senator HARRIS [continuing]. On that point? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We provide neonatal care. We do pregnancy 

screening from ages 15 to 56. We provide outside specialists, should 

you seek it. We do not detain any women past their third trimester 

or once they enter their third trimester. We provide them separate 

housing. So, yes, we are happy to detail all of the things that we 

do to take good care of them. 

Senator HARRIS. And did you submit that to the OIG in response 

to their findings? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We have been, yes, of course, working in conjunction with the OIG. I am not sure exactly what the date is of 

the OIG report that you are referencing. But I will look into it after 

this. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. And then also between fiscal year 2012 and 

March 2018, it is our understanding—before I go on, the OIG report is from December 2017, so it is very recent, 5 months ago. 

Also, between fiscal year 2012 and March 2018, ICE received, according to these reports, 1,448 allegations of sexual abuse in detention facilities, and only a small percent of these claims have been 

investigated by DHS OIG. Are you familiar with that? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am not familiar with that number, no. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. Can you please provide to this Committee 

an analysis of what is going on and what plan you have to investigate those cases of sexual abuse,1 and what is the protocol in 

place in terms of what is being done to allow the victim to be in 
42 

a safe place during and pending any investigation, what kind of 

services are these victims getting in terms of treating their trauma, 

much less any medical attention they may need as a result of what 

might be the sexual abuse? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I will. What I have done is I have talked to 

the International Committee of the Red Cross and I had them visit 

some of our detention facilities. I am sure they would be happy to 

come brief you on that. But their determination is that they saw 

nothing but appropriate detention, and, in fact, much better detention they, in their experience, have seen in other areas. 

Senator HARRIS. I am sorry. Is this in response to the concern 

that you have received 1,448 allegations of sexual abuse in detention facilities? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, ma’am. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. 

Secretary NIELSEN. This is in response to my wanting to ensure 

that the detention centers are taking appropriate care of anybody 

who is detained. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. Well, obviously, sexual abuse would not fall 

into that category. 

Secretary NIELSEN. It would not. 

Senator HARRIS. Yes. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I guess what I am saying is that just happened. I do not know when these results are that you are talking 

about, so I will look into them, of course. 

Senator HARRIS. Fiscal year 2012 through March 2018, this year. 

Secretary NIELSEN. We will look into it. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

And regarding your treatment in facilities of pregnant women, in 

December 2014, again, in this report, ICE issued a new directive 

that terminated a previous policy of presumptive release for pregnant women which were apprehended or transferred to ICE. ICE 

adopted a policy for presumption of release in August 2016, in recognition of the clear health risks that detaining pregnant women 

in jail-like conditions pose. 

I was alarmed, frankly, Secretary, by your statement to Senator 

Murray before the Senate Appropriations Committee last Tuesday, 

that pregnant women in ICE detention were receiving ‘‘much better 

care than when they are living in the shadows.’’ 

So are you aware that this statement contradicts the views of the 

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American 

Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatricians, who are all criticized the harmful effects of immigration 

detention on the medical and mental health of pregnant women? 

Secretary NIELSEN. What I do know is that if you cross between 

points of entry you will be detained and prosecuted. I also know 

that of the only 35 people that we have currently in detention who 

are pregnant, 33 are statutorily required to be detained. I also 

know that we go above and beyond to provide them adequate 

health care. The questioning was whether or not they received adequate health care. I was saying yes, they do, and it is paid for. So 

if they are coming here and they are fleeing persecution and they 

do not have adequate funds and they are trying to get equivalent 
43 

care in the shadows, it was my discussion that we were providing 

care within the detention centers. 

Senator HARRIS. So is it your intention to continue with ending 

a program that allowed for presumptive release for pregnant 

women? 

Secretary NIELSEN. If you are in your third trimester, you will 

be released, but if you break the law you will be detained. 

Senator HARRIS. So when, in the third trimester, exactly? 

Secretary NIELSEN. When it begins. 

Senator HARRIS. At the beginning of the third trimester? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HARRIS. And is there a directive that has gone out? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Senator HARRIS. Will you supply that to the Committee, please? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. It is the same policy we have always 

had. The only thing we are doing now is we are no longer exempting classes of people from the law. If you break the law, you will 

be prosecuted. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. As long as we are talking about UACs, still, 

and you are going to be providing some data, I have just got a couple of requests. In terms of family units, the best numbers I can 

come up with since 2013, about 225,000 family units. If you just 

take the minimum, one child, that is basically 450,000 additional 

individuals. You are saying about 700 we have seen separations of 

parent from is that from that 2013, or is that just currently in detention? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I believe the HHS number was a year-long 

number. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Year? OK. So, yes, I would kind of just like 

all that data together. As long as you are also providing that, I 

would like to know which of those separations are due because you 

simply are not aware—is that really the parent? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Understood. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Is there some question? So you are really 

taking that step to protect the child so we are not dealing with a 

human trafficking situation. 

We had a whistleblower in May 2017, refer to a—I think it was 

in 2014, 18 self-admitted MS–13 members were apprehended and 

just released. At that PSI hearing, I brought some more information. I do not have it right here but it is actually a rather alarming 

number of MS–13 members that have been captured, and some of 

them have been deported. 

Do you have DHS, or are you keeping more accurate figures on 

MS–13? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, we are, in conjunction with the Department of Justice. One of the other loopholes, that I would just mention quickly, is a court case called Zadvydas. Zadvydas requires us 

to release criminal aliens back into the communities after 6 months 

if their country is not willing to take them back. Many countries, 

such as China and Cuba are not willing to take them back. The 

criminals go back into the community. It was 1,700 released last 

year. 
44 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. I was going to—that just—so that 

is—that was last year. Do you have that information going back a 

number of years? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Happy to. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. I would like that type of data. 

Working on a piece of legislation, in terms of authorities on unidentified aircraft systems, this is a really complex issue. It really 

is. I guess I would just kind of like to give you the ability to just 

kind of describe the complexity of it, where you are constrained. I 

mean, I think we are so far behind the curve on this thing, as these 

drones have become far more prevalent and are a real danger, and 

they are being used in the battlefield, and they are dropping— 

again, I really do not want to put any ideas in people’s heads. 

But can you just talk about what you want to do? In working 

with DHS I was trying to at least get into discussion, kind of a 

more robust response, and again, I realize there is jurisdictional 

issues, that type of thing. But I just wanted to have you talk a little bit more of the complexities of the issue, and baseline, what you 

are asking for in terms of authority, what you absolutely need. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. So right now we do not have the ability 

to interdict or monitor, or actually, in some cases, identify in a traditional sense. The Department of Defense has such authority. So 

what we have done is we have mimicked our request and then the 

bill this Committee has introduced. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, real quick, name the facilities the Department of Defense has. Is it just around their facilities? I mean, 

how limited is their capabilities? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Theirs is limited as well, yes. So in, I would 

not say all of their—I defer to the Department of Defense, of 

course, but it does not cover all of their facilities, so it is very specific and limited cases, yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So we have sports stadiums and we have a 

number of venues that simply have—there is no authority whatsoever—not local, not State, not Federal. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. 

Secretary NIELSEN. So soft targets is a big concern, and then, of 

course, the border. So we are already seeing them being used. I 

also do not want to put any ideas in people’s minds, but we already 

see them being used in nefarious ways on the border. 

Chairman JOHNSON. The Department of Energy has some authorities as well? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Department of Energy does. DHS and DOJ 

are the two departments that are currently lacking any authority. 

In terms of what we are doing, you are right. Because we lack 

authority, we have limitations on testing, we have limitations on 

research and development (R&D), we have limitations on purchasing and using. That would be in the bill that you both have 

introduced—would go a very long way in helping us to get on top 

of this threat. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I want to continue to work with you. I think 

this is absolutely crucial. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I just need to correct something for the 

record. In a section of my books I had a whole section on the mo-
45 

rale and whistleblower issues at the Federal marshal’s program. 

Then I had a separate section on the IG report where there were 

problems with an SES employee that was manipulated by senior 

management. That was TSA. 

Secretary NIELSEN. OK. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So I wanted to make sure we did not close 

the hearing without me explaining that I got them conflated as we 

were talking about it. I wanted to clarify that before we closed out 

the hearing. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Not a problem. 

Let us quick turn to election security. We have held a briefing 

on this. We have certainly talked about this in other venues, during other hearings as well. From my standpoint there are three 

areas that are at risk. It is affecting the voter tally, I mean, the 

actual vote. Then you also have affecting the voter file. And then, 

finally, just because of the disruption, the public not having faith 

that it was a legitimate election. 

It is my understanding, first of all, that the Department has all 

the authorities you believe you need to address all three. Is that 

correct? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, that is correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Voter tallies, because election machines are 

not tied into the Internet, although there are some with Wi-Fi, they 

are disabled. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Right. Our best practice that we recommend 

is do not connect to the Internet. 

Chairman JOHNSON. They really are not, unless it is done 

through nefarious means or something. Correct? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So it would be really very difficult to change 

the vote tally, for an outside actor, through cyber attack or something, to actually change the vote tally. Is that your understanding? 

Secretary NIELSEN. That is my understanding. I think what is 

more likely is the counter-influence question. Would they change 

the minds of Americans through propaganda, etc? So that is something the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has lead on, and 

we are working on that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. That would be the Facebook, where they 

are—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. OK, basically illegally campaigning. Voter files, that is a concern, but again, we have different 

controls and things in place. We know that. It would be disrupting 

an election and then that would turn it into, is this a legitimate 

election? 

Secretary NIELSEN. What we recommend there is redundancy. If 

you do not use a paper ballot, then make sure that you have an 

audit function so that, at the end of the day, we can all assure ourselves that Americans have voted and their vote counts and it is 

counted correctly. 

Chairman JOHNSON. One of the reasons I am pointing this out, 

and then I will be finished, is I think that the biggest threat, really, is just the public perception—is this a legitimate election? And 
46 

if we overstate the ability of a bad actor to both affect the voter 

file or the vote tally, we actually do the maligned actor’s job for 

them. So I think it is very important that we are very honest in 

terms of what is the threat, in terms of the first two, so we do not 

affect the third. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, I agree with that. What we are doing at 

DHS, as you know, the responsibility, first and foremost, belongs 

to State and local election officials. We are working with them. We 

are hosting a meeting for all Members of Congress—I understand 

the Senate might not be able to attend on Thursday—but to answer any questions, talk about what DHS is doing, talk about the 

threat. We will do it again for the Senate. I think it is very important that everyone understands what we are doing, but also what 

the States are doing and, in some cases, they need to do, to make 

sure that they assure their public that they are doing everything 

they can. 

Chairman JOHNSON. But again, you believe you have the authorities and resources—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. We have all the authorities we need. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. To counter this? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator McCaskill, do you have any further 

questions? 

Well, then we will close out the hearing. Secretary Nielsen, 

again, thank you for your service. We certainly appreciate you taking the time here and your forthright answers to our questions. 

The hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until May 30, 

at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(47) 

A P P E N D I X 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 

Æ