U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–901 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

STRENGTHENING THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF 

OUR NATION: THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 

2019 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 26, 2018 

Serial No. 115–63 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

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


Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

WILL HURD, Texas 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

RON ESTES, Kansas 

DON BACON, Nebraska 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York 

J. LUIS CORREA, California 

VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, California 

BRENDAN P. SHIELDS, Staff Director 

STEVEN S. GIAIER, General Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

HOPE GOINS, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Security: 

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

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

The Honorable Lou Barletta, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Pennsylvania: 

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

The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Pennsylvania: 

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

WITNESS

Hon. Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

FOR THE RECORD

The Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., a Representative in Congress From 

the State of New York: 

Letter ..................................................................................................................... 41 

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

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

Security: 

Letter ..................................................................................................................... 61 

E-mail .................................................................................................................... 62 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairman Michael T. McCaul for Honorable Kirstjen M. 

Nielsen .................................................................................................................. 65 

Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Honorable 

Kirstjen M. Nielsen .............................................................................................. 66 

Questions From Honorable Lou Barletta for Kirstjen M. Nielsen ...................... 67 

Questions From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee for Kirstjen M. Nielsen ............ 67 

Questions From Honorable John Katko for Kirstjen M. Nielsen ........................ 67 

Questions From Honorable James R. Langevin for Kirstjen M. Nielsen ............ 68 

Questions From Honorable Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. for Kirstjen M. Nielsen ..... 68 

Question From Honorable William Keating for Kirstjen M. Nielsen .................. 69 

Questions From Honorable John H. Rutherford for Kirstjen M. Nielsen ........... 69 

Question From Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman for Kirstjen M. Nielsen .... 70 

Questions From Honorable Kathleen Rice for Kirstjen M. Nielsen .................... 70 

Question From Honorable J. Louis Correa for Kirstjen M. Nielsen .................... 71 

(1) 

STRENGTHENING THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR NATION: THE PRESIDENT’S 

FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET REQUEST FOR 

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Thursday, April 26, 2018 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 

HVC–210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Michael T. McCaul (Chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives McCaul, King, Rogers, Barletta, Perry, 

Katko, McSally, Ratcliffe, Donovan, Gallagher, Higgins, Garrett, 

Fitzpatrick, Estes, Bacon, Thompson, Jackson Lee, Langevin, 

Keating, Payne, Watson Coleman, Rice, Correa, Demings, and 

Barraga ́n. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Committee on Homeland Security will come 

to order. Committee is meeting today to hear from the Secretary 

of the Department of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, on the 

administration’s priorities for the Department. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Our homeland faces threats on multiple fronts. International terrorists seek to attack our country and kill Americans. Human traffickers, drug smugglers, and gangs like MS–13 are crossing our 

borders and infecting our neighborhoods. Nation-states and hackers 

are engaged in cyber warfare. The next natural disaster can strike 

at any moment. We cannot let our guard down. 

We need a budget that matches these most pressing needs. Fortunately, the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget request addresses 

many of these concerns. The $1.6 billion for a border wall and additional funds to hire more ICE officers and Border Patrol agents will 

help curb illegal immigration. 

Securing our borders continues to be one of my top priorities. 

That is why I introduced legislation to get the job done. My bill authorizes $18 billion for the construction of a border wall, ends funding for sanctuary cities, closes dangerous loopholes, and puts more 

boots on the ground. 

It also secures ports of entry, authorizes the National Guard to 

provide aviation and intelligence support, and targets visa 

overstays, and also provides for strong technology which is desperately needed down there. 

2 

This administration has been a strong supporter of these solutions, and I commend the recent decision to deploy the National 

Guard to the border. I am pleased to see that $713 million requested for cybersecurity operations at NPPD was requested. Cybersecurity is one of the most important missions of the Department as the Secretary knows. 

As Americans become more reliant on cyber space, we are all targets. This committee has a strong bipartisan track record on this 

issue. We passed bills that expedite hiring at DHS and enhance 

cyber threat information sharing. We also recently secured $26 million to support election infrastructure. 

In January, the House approved our landmark bill to create a 

stand-alone organization to elevate the cybersecurity mission at 

DHS. I am hopeful that the Senate will get this bill to the President’s desk very soon. 

Another area of concern for me is aviation security. I have been 

very disappointed, I have to be honest, at the slow pace of installing computed tomography scans in our airports. However, I was 

pleased to see that we secured $65 million in the omnibus for TSA 

to begin installing this technology immediately. 

These CT scanners provide 3D imagery to help stop IEDs and 

other threats from boarding airplanes. Compared to the technology 

we have now, it is a difference between an X-ray and an MRI. The 

fiscal year 2019 budget request also requests an additional $71.5 

million for CT, which will certainly help. But I do not believe that 

is enough to mitigate the threat landscape that we have currently. 

Many terrorists are only one plane ride away from the United 

States and our aviation sector is still the crown jewel of targets. 

DHS must fight through all bureaucratic hurdles so CT scanners 

are in our airports and last-point-of-departure airports for inbound 

flights as soon as possible. 

Some parts of this budget request will help DHS carry out its 

mission, but others I believe miss the mark. The $473 million cut 

to FEMA grants for State and local first responders is a major step 

backward. Many parts of the country, including my home State of 

Texas, were devastated by natural disasters last year. I personally 

toured the devastation after Hurricane Harvey and our first responders played a key role in saving lives. 

Last week, our committee reviewed the lessons learned from both 

the Boston Marathon bombings and the recent bombings in my 

home town of Austin. Our first responders were crucial in both cities and they need our support. I hope today’s hearing will shed 

light on why these grants are targeted for cuts. 

Protecting our homeland must be a unifying cause. Partisanship 

should end at the water’s edge. Last July, the House passed the 

first-ever comprehensive reauthorization of DHS with overwhelming bipartisan support. This reauthorization reasserts Congress’ authority to write laws, streamlines redundant programs, 

protects taxpayer dollars, and supports America’s front-line defenders and first responders. 

Unfortunately, our friends in the Senate have yet to pass our 

bill. I strongly urge them to do so without further delay. Madam 

Secretary, in this Congress alone, our committee has passed 82 

3 

bills through the House and 6 were signed into law. Politico named 

us as the hardest-working committee in Congress. 

A strong DHS is our goal, and we are here to support you. All 

of us are grateful for your service and for the hardworking professionals, the men and women at DHS. We all look forward to working with you in keeping our homeland safe. 

[The statement of Chairman McCaul follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL T. MCCAUL

APRIL 26, 2018 

Our homeland faces threats on multiple fronts. International terrorists seek to attack our country and kill Americans. Human traffickers, drug smugglers, and gangs 

like MS–13, are crossing our borders and infecting our neighborhoods. Nation-states 

and hackers are engaging in cyber warfare. And the next natural disaster can strike 

at any moment. 

We cannot let our guard down. We need a budget that matches these most pressing needs. Fortunately, the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget request addresses 

many of these concerns. The $1.6 billion for a border wall and additional funds to 

hire more ICE officers and Border Patrol agents will help curb illegal immigration. 

Securing our borders continues to be one of my top priorities. That is why I introduced legislation to get the job done. My bill authorizes $18 billion for the construction of a border wall, ends funding for sanctuary cities, closes dangerous loopholes, 

and puts more boots on the ground. 

It also secures ports of entry, authorizes the National Guard to provide aviation 

and intelligence support, and targets visa overstays. This administration has been 

a strong supporter of these solutions and I commend the recent decision to deploy 

the National Guard to the border. 

I am also pleased to see $713 million requested for cybersecurity operations at 

NPPD. As Americans become more reliant on cyber space, we are all targets. This 

committee has a strong bipartisan track record on this issue. 

We passed bills to expedite hiring at DHS and enhance cyber threat information 

sharing. We also recently secured $26 million to support election infrastructure. 

In January, the House approved our landmark bill to create a stand-alone organization to elevate the cybersecurity mission at DHS. I am hoping the Senate will get 

this bill to the President’s desk very soon. 

Another area of concern for me is aviation security. I have been very disappointed 

at the slow pace of installing Computed Tomography (CT) scans in our airports. 

However, I am glad that we secured $65 million in the Omnibus for TSA to begin 

installing this technology immediately. 

These CT scanners provide 3D imagery to help stop IEDs and other threats from 

boarding airplanes. Compared to the technology we have now, it’s the difference between an X-ray and an MRI. 

The fiscal year 2019 budget request for an additional $71.5 million for CT will 

certainly help, but I don’t believe it is enough to mitigate the threat. 

Many terrorists are only one plane ride away. Our aviation sector is still their 

‘‘crown jewel’’ of targets. 

DHS must fight through all bureaucratic hurdles so CT scanners are in our airports and last points of departure for in-bound flights as soon as possible. 

Some parts of this budget request will help DHS carry out its mission. But other 

parts miss the mark. The $473 million cut to FEMA grants for State and local first 

responders is a major step backwards. Many parts of the country, including my 

home State of Texas, were devastated by natural disasters last year. 

I personally toured the devastation after Hurricane Harvey. Our first responders 

played a key role in saving lives. 

Last week, our committee reviewed the lessons learned from both the Boston Marathon bombings and the recent bombings in my home town of Austin. 

Our first responders were crucial in both cities and they need our support. I hope 

today’s hearing will shed light on why these grants are targeted for cuts. 

Protecting our homeland must be a unifying cause. Partisanship should end at the 

water’s edge. Last July, the House passed the first-ever, comprehensive reauthorization of DHS with overwhelming bipartisan support. 

This reauthorization reasserts Congress’s authority to write laws, streamlines redundant programs, protects taxpayer dollars, and supports America’s front-line defenders and first responders. 

4 

Unfortunately, our friends in the Senate have not yet passed our bill. I strongly 

urge them to do so without further delay. Madame Secretary, in this Congress 

alone, our committee has passed 82 bills through the House and 6 were signed into 

law. Politico named us the ‘‘hardest-working committee in Congress.’’ 

A strong DHS is our goal and we are here to support you. All of us are grateful 

for your service and for the hardworking professionals at DHS. We all look forward 

to working with you to keep our homeland safe. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking 

Member, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Madam Secretary. Today is your first appearance before the Committee on Homeland Security, 4.5 months after your 

swearing in as Secretary. 

I have served on the Committee of Homeland Security since its 

establishment, and have been fortunate to work with all five of 

your predecessors from both political parties. Each of them, including your former boss, Secretary John Kelly, stopped by to establish 

a working relationship within days of being sworn in to the position. 

That did not happen with you, which is a shame. Just like you 

met some of the Republicans on this committee this morning, 

Democrats stand ready, likewise, to meet with you. Perhaps next 

time, another 15 minutes from your schedule and you can stop by 

and meet some of the wonderful Democrats who love America too 

and want to do all they can to continue to keep America safe. 

While we fundamentally disagree with many of the Trump administration’s policies, I can assure you that Democrats on this 

committee are just as committed as our Republican counterparts to 

keeping our Nation secure while upholding our most important values. 

Chairman McCaul has said, even in his opening statement of 

this committee, perhaps if others in Congress did as we do, we 

could in fact have a better situation. Eighty-two pieces of legislation passed by this committee is no small feat. I would say to him, 

however, that it is not Democrat’s fault that the legislation had not 

been signed. So we will try to fix that too in time. 

I hope that in the future, Madam Secretary, you will make more 

of an effort to conduct outreach to Members of the Democratic side 

on the committee. We have former chiefs of police, county commissioners, members of the legislature, district attorneys, everyone you 

can name, and they all love this country. The American people expect no less that we engage each other in these important issues. 

Indeed, this is a critical time for the Department of Homeland 

Security. America faces threats from the troubling rise of domestic 

terrorism, mass shootings, and foreign terrorists organizations that 

seek to do us harm. 

Russia and other actors are likely to continue their interference 

in our election systems including the upcoming mid-term elections. 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are still devastated by 

Hurricane Maria and Irma and another hurricane season is just 

weeks away. 

Meanwhile, the Department is dealing with problems of President Trump’s own making. His Muslim travel ban, his decision to 

terminate the DACA program, his Executive Order on immigration 

5 

enforcement and border security which seeks to make us a Nation 

of immigrants no more. 

No longer the Department’s chief of staff but now its Secretary, 

you, its leader, the buck stops with you, Madam Secretary. I am 

concerned that since becoming Secretary, you have not always been 

forthcoming on certain matters. You testified before the Senate 

that you do not specifically remember whether President Trump 

used a slur to describe African countries during a White House 

meeting. 

You claim ‘‘I actually do not know that’’ when asked at the Senate hearing whether Norway is a predominately Caucasian country 

after the President questioned why we could not have more immigrants from Norway. Most recently, you declined to explain the 

President’s tweet referring to a breeding concept in sanctuary cities 

in California. 

If this is an indication of how you, as Secretary, interact with the 

White House on Homeland Security policy matters, there may be 

cause for concern. Your recent statements on Homeland Security 

matters have been less than encouraging. 

Based on your press release this week, you would think the most 

important Homeland Security problem facing the Nation is a handful of Central Americans moving through Mexico. That does not 

make it so. We know who they are. We know where they are. We 

know they generally do not attempt to evade the Border Patrol, but 

rather present themselves to the agents and officers upon arrival. 

But—fear about this so-called caravan gets airtime on certain 

media outlets and plays well with elements of President Trump’s 

political base. Better to distract the American people from the real 

issues facing the Department and perhaps from the President’s 

own problems, too. 

Likewise, we have heard a lot in recent days about so-called loopholes in our immigration system as it relates to children. These are 

not loopholes. They are basic humanitarian protections enacted by 

Congress to protect vulnerable children and ensure that those who 

have legitimate asylum claims are heard, and those who do not are 

returned home safely. 

We need only to look at some of the terrible cases that occurred 

within this legal framework which implemented to know why Congress acted. Politicizing and demonizing children should be beneath 

the Department, and Congress must not go down that path. 

As you know, Madam Secretary, the mission of the Department 

of Homeland Security is to safeguard the American people, our 

homeland and our values. I appreciate this and understand that it 

is no easy task, and that we are living in challenging times in more 

ways than one. I hope that the Department, under your leadership 

and with over 240,000 employees strong, live up to that. 

With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

APRIL 26, 2018 

Today is your first appearance before the Committee on Homeland Security, fourand-a-half months after your swearing-in as Secretary. I have served on the ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:31 Oct 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\18FL0426\18FL0426 HEATH
6 

mittee on Homeland Security since its establishment, and have been fortunate to 

work with all five of your predecessors from both political parties. 

Each of them, including your former boss, Secretary John Kelly, picked up the 

phone or stopped by to establish a working relationship within days of being sworn 

in to the position. That did not happen with you, which is a shame. 

While we fundamentally disagree with many of the Trump administration’s policies, I can assure you that Democrats on this committee are just as committed as 

our Republican counterparts to keeping our Nation secure while upholding our most 

important values. 

Chairman McCaul has said this committee, perhaps unlike some others in Congress, prides itself in its ability to come together where we can to enact legislation 

in the interest of the American people. I agree. 

I hope that in the future you will make more of an effort to conduct outreach to 

Members on this side of the aisle. The American people expect that we engage each 

other on important issues. 

Indeed, this is a critical time for the Department of Homeland Security. America 

faces threats from the troubling rise of domestic terrorism, mass shootings, and foreign terrorist organizations that seek to do us harm. Russia and other actors are 

likely to continue their interference in our election systems, including the upcoming 

midterm elections. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are still devastated by 

Hurricanes Maria and Irma, and another hurricane season is just weeks away. 

Meanwhile, the Department is dealing with problems of President Trump’s own 

making. His Muslim travel bans, his decision to terminate the DACA program, and 

his Executive Orders on immigration enforcement and border security, which seek 

to make us a Nation of immigrants no more. 

No longer the Department’s chief of staff, but now its Secretary, its leader, the 

buck stops with you. I am concerned, however, that since becoming Secretary you 

have not always been forthcoming on certain matters. 

You testified before the Senate that you do not ‘‘specifically remember’’ whether 

President Trump used a slur to describe African countries during a White House 

meeting. 

You claimed ‘‘I actually do not know that’’ when asked at that Senate hearing 

whether Norway is a predominantly Caucasian country, after the President questioned why we could not have more immigrants from Norway. 

Most recently, you declined to explain the President’s tweet referring to a ‘‘breeding concept’’ in ‘‘sanctuary cities’’ in California. 

If this is any indication of how you, as Secretary, interact with the White House 

on homeland security policy matters, there may be cause for concern. 

Your recent statements on homeland security matters have been less than encouraging. Based on your press releases this week, you would think the most important 

homeland security problem facing the Nation is a handful of Central Americans 

moving through Mexico. That does not make it so. 

We know who they are. We know where they are. And we know they generally 

do not attempt to evade the Border Patrol, but rather present themselves to your 

agents and officers upon arrival. But fomenting fear about this so-called ‘‘caravan’’ 

gets airtime on certain media outlets and plays well with elements of President 

Trump’s political base. 

Better to distract the American people from the very real issues facing the Department and perhaps from the President’s own problems too. Likewise, we have 

heard a lot in recent days about so-called ‘‘loopholes’’ in our immigration system as 

it relates to children. These are not loopholes. 

They are basic humanitarian protections enacted by Congress to protect vulnerable children and ensure that those who have legitimate asylum claims are heard, 

and those who do not are returned home safely. 

We need only look at some of the terrible cases that occurred before this legal 

framework was implemented to know why Congress acted. Politicizing and demonizing children should be beneath the Department, and Congress must not go down 

that path. 

As you know the mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to ‘‘safeguard 

the American people, our homeland, and our values.’’ I appreciate this is no easy 

task, and that we are living in challenging times in more ways than one. I hope 

that the Department, under your leadership and with over 240,000 employees 

strong, is up to it. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman yields back. Other Members are 

reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. 

[The statements of Hon. Barletta and Perry follow:] 

7 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE LOU BARLETTA

Secretary Nielsen, thank you for coming before this committee today to discuss 

the importance of the security of the United States, and for your service to this 

country. 

I am encouraged that President Trump has put a priority on enforcement and 

that the American people finally have a partner in the White House with their best 

interests at heart. 

The United States is a compassionate country, but we are also a country of laws. 

We as a Congress have failed by not enforcing the laws of our land and refusing 

to put the safety and well-being of the American people first. 

That is why I am a cosponsor of the Securing America’s Future Act. This legislation is a common-sense solution that secures our borders, improves interior enforcement, and provides relief for those that came here by no fault of their own. I am 

hopeful the House will vote on this bill soon. 

Immigration to the United States has quadrupled from 250,000 per year in the 

1950’s, to more than 1 million annually since 1990. America is the third most-populous nation in the world with over 330 million people. We cannot simultaneously 

sustain high levels of legal immigration while millions of illegal aliens continue to 

cross our borders. 

My city of Hazleton had an illegal immigration problem. Our population grew by 

50 percent, but our tax revenue stayed the same. With the spike in illegal immigration came gangs, drugs, theft, and other crimes that left our police force undermanned and overwhelmed. 

Hospitals and schools were pushed to their breaking point, as over-crowding 

moved public resources from tax-paying Americans and legal immigrants, to illegal 

aliens. 

I have sat at the tables of Pennsylvanians who have lost loved ones to the violent 

acts of illegal aliens, and it is those people for whom I have compassion. 

It is time to secure our borders, enforce our Federal laws, and put America first. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE SCOTT PERRY

APRIL 26, 2018 

Earlier this spring, our Nation’s Federal debt surpassed $21 trillion for the first 

time in history. This staggering milestone is a reminder of the troubling fiscal realities facing our Nation and a legacy of years of irresponsible spending under the 

Obama administration. In February, testifying before Congress, the director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, labeled the skyrocketing Federal debt a ‘‘dire threat’’ 

to our National security. 

In this fiscal environment, as the Federal Government seeks to cut its expenditures, homeland security must remain a top priority. Our Nation faces an unprecedented array of threats, from the continuing menace of the Islamic State to the increasingly sophisticated cyber capabilities of our adversaries. I am therefore pleased 

to see that the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget request prioritizes funding the 

important missions carried out by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS’s fiscal year 2019 budget request would fund the Department at $47.5 billion 

dollars (net discretionary funding). The budget request calls for increases in funding 

for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE), and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), and provides 

$1.6 billion for border wall construction on the Southwest Border and $2.8 billion 

for additional ICE detention beds. 

While I commend the Department’s request for addressing some of the most challenging issues facing our Nation, I do have several reservations. 

The Department’s budget request proposes to cut the DHS Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) budget by nearly $6 million from fiscal year 2018 enacted levels. 

As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency, I 

have seen first-hand the importance of maintaining the Department’s transparency 

and accountability to Congress and the American people. OIG is instrumental in assisting Congress in its oversight role over DHS and I am concerned that proposed 

cuts to OIG’s budget will impair the Inspector General’s ability to properly audit the 

Department’s operations. 

I am also concerned about the Department’s $231 million request in new funding 

for DHS headquarters consolidation at the historic St. Elizabeths campus in Southeast Washington, DC. Earlier this month, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency held a hearing to continue oversight over the St. Elizabeths 

project. The subcommittee learned that headquarters consolidation continues to face 

8 

schedule delays and that DHS and the U.S. General Services Administration are 

working to release an updated plan forward for the project by the end of the year. 

Given the track record of failure at St. Elizabeths, I urge Congress to exercise caution in any funding for new construction until an updated plan is finalized. 

Congress is charged with both the responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars and 

helping to ensure the security of the American people. DHS’s fiscal year 2019 budget request is an important step in fulfilling both of these responsibilities. I want to 

thank Secretary Nielsen for appearing before the committee this morning and I look 

forward to learning more about the Department’s mission priorities in the upcoming 

fiscal year as reflected by the President’s budget request. 

Chairman MCCAUL. On December 6, 2017, Kirstjen Nielsen was 

sworn in as the sixth Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. This is also the Secretary’s first appearance before our committee, and we thank you for being here today. Your full statement 

will appear in the record. The Chair now recognizes the Secretary 

for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NIELSEN. Try that again. Thank you. 

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members of the committee, it is a privilege to appear before you today. I am honored to present the President’s 2019 budget request for the Department of Homeland Security and discus 

how that budget will help keep America safe. 

Let me first take a moment to thank this committee for its sup- port for the $48.2 billion provided to the Department in the recently-passed Consolidated Appropriations Act. The support of this 

committee is critical to advancing the many DHS missions, and I 

truly thank you for your continued support. 

I would also like to thank you for your support for our reauthorization. As you know, it is critical that the men and women of the 

Department have the tools, resources, and skill sets that they need 

to further the mission of this country. 

The President’s 2019 budget builds on the fiscal year 2018 and requests $47.5 billion in net discretionary funding for the Department of Homeland Security. It also includes an additional $6.7 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund for response and recovery to major 

disasters. 

Today, I would like to outline several core missions empowered 

by this budget. First, securing and managing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. No. 2, protecting our Nation from 

terrorism and countering threats. No. 3, preserving and upholding 

the Nation’s prosperity and economic security. No. 4, securing 

cyber space and critical infrastructure. No. 5, strengthening homeland security preparedness and achieving resilience. 

Within all of these missions, we are aiming to put our employees 

first and empower our front-line defenders to do their job. This will 

help mature the Department, and more importantly, help us better 

secure the homeland. 

For border immigration, first, we are focused on securing and 

managing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. While, 

we have made vast improvements in border security over the last 

15 months, we continue to see unacceptable levels of illegal drugs, 

dangerous gang and transnational criminal organization activity, 

and illegal immigration flow across our Southern Border. 

9 

The current statistics for last month tell a dangerous story. Overall, the number of illegal aliens encountered at the border increased more than 200 percent when compared to the same time 

last year. Perhaps more troubling, the number of unaccompanied 

alien children encountered has increased over 800 percent, and the 

number of families encountered increased over 680 percent. 

We also saw a 37 percent increase in drug seizures at the border 

in March, and I am sad to report we have an increase in 73 percent 

in assaults on our border agents. This is unacceptable and it must 

be addressed. We must do more to secure our borders against 

threats and illegal entry and close dangerous loopholes that are 

making our country vulnerable. 

We have been apprehending gangs, TCOs, and aliens at the border with historic efficiency. But illicit smuggling groups understand 

that our ability to actually remove those who come here illegally 

does not keep pace. They have discovered and continue to exploit 

legal loopholes to avoid detention and removal, and have shown no 

intention of stopping. 

These legal loopholes are strong pull factors that entice those 

looking to circumvent our laws. For border security to work, violation of the law must have consequences. 

As I have said many times, interdiction without the ability to 

promptly remove those who have no lawful basis to enter or remain 

is not border security. It undermines our National security and we 

must work together to close these loopholes. This budget would invest in new border wall construction, technology, and infrastructure to stop this illegal activity. 

I would be remiss if I did not say that one of our greatest investments is in our people. Recruiting, hiring, and training additional 

U.S. Border Patrol agents, additional U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement officers, and additional support personal to carry 

out these vital missions. 

Second, we must continue to protect our Nation from terrorism 

and decisively counter threats. This is the reason the Department 

was created and it remains a cornerstone of our work. 

Terrorists are adapting. They are taking an all-of-the-above approach to spreading violence. That includes promoting attacks on 

soft targets, using homemade weapons, and weapons they can 

bring in a bring-your-own-weapon style approach. 

It includes crowdsourcing their violence through on-line 

radicalization, inspiration, direction, and recruitment. But they 

also remain focused on conducting sophisticated attacks including 

using concealed weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and modifying new technologies such as drones into deadly weapons. 

This budget ensures that our defenses keep up with the innovation of our enemies. For instance, it allows TSA to deploy advanced 

tools to detect threats. It funds new CBP initiatives to identify 

high-risk travelers. It ramps up our defenses against WMD, and it 

provides vital funding to protect soft targets from concert venues 

to schools against attack. 

Third, we are focused on preserving and upholding the Nation’s 

prosperity and economic security. On an average day, the Coast 

Guard facilitates the movement of $8.7 billion worth of goods and 

commodities through the Nation’s maritime transportation system. 

10 

Each day at our Nation’s 328 air, land, and sea ports of entry, 

CBP welcomes nearly 1 million visitors, screens more than 67,000 

cargo containers, arrests more than 1,100 individuals, and seizes 

nearly 6 tons of illicit drugs. Annually CBP facilitates an average of more than $3 trillion in 

legitimate trade while enforcing U.S. trade laws and processing 

more than $2.4 trillion in international trade transactions every 

year. 

The President’s budget helps provide critical resources to these 

efforts to keep our country competitive and to advance the prosperity of our people. The budget also will help continue efforts to 

keep foreign adversaries from stealing our trade secrets, technology, and innovation. 

Fourth, we must secure cyber space. This is one of my personal 

priorities as there is much to do in this area. Our networks are 

under attack constantly from all corners of the physical world. 

That is why DHS is taking historic strides to address systemic 

cyber risk, secure .gov networks, and strengthen the security and 

resilience of critical infrastructure. The budget would enable DHS 

to support State and local election officials in defending the integrity of our election systems. 

As you know, the Department’s mission is to provide assistance 

to election officials in the form of advice, intelligence, technical support, and instant response planning with the ultimate goal of building a more resilient and secure election enterprise to investing in 

hardware, software intrusion detection and analytical capabilities, 

we are better able to secure the digital ecosystem that makes our 

American way of life possible. 

Fifth, and finally, it is a core mission of DHS to strengthen 

homeland security preparedness and achieve National resilience. 

Last year, according to NOAA, our country experienced one of the 

most costly and damaging seasons for natural disasters in its history with a cumulative effect costing $3 billion. 

Through the FEMA and in cooperation with State, local, Tribal, 

and territorial governments across the country, we will devote the 

resources and attention needed to ensure recovery. But we must 

also help communities across the Nation create a culture of preparedness to be more resilient to disasters. 

A culture of preparedness is a National effort to be ready for the 

worst disasters at all levels. This budget helps us with these efforts 

and supports the DRF which is necessary to help State and local 

governments respond and recover. 

In conclusion, we need to empower the men and women of the 

Department to carry out these five missions and many others by 

giving them the resources they need. In addition to the various 

areas I mentioned today, I am also firmly committed to maturing 

the Department and putting our employees first. 

It is an honor to serve along the men and women of DHS who 

work tirelessly each day to secure our country and who are often 

unrecognized. I thank them for this service. 

I thank this committee to support our budget, in supporting our 

employees, supporting our missions and helping to make our Nation more secure. Thank you for your time and I look forward to 

your questions. 

11 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Nielsen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

APRIL 26, 2018 

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and distinguished Members of 

the subcommittee: It is a privilege to appear before you today to discuss the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) crucial missions and to present the President’s 

fiscal year 2019 budget request for the Department. 

The men and women of DHS are exceptional and dedicated professionals who are 

on watch 24 hours a day, 365 days a year protecting Americans from threats by 

land, sea, air, and in cyber space, while also promoting our Nation’s economic prosperity. They work tirelessly to strengthen the safety and security of our Nation from 

persistent and emerging dangers, including terrorists, transnational criminal organizations, rogue nation-states, and natural disasters. 

The fiscal year 2019 budget request provides funding to advance core DHS missions. It sustains and strengthens our most critical programs and capabilities and 

places emphasis on protecting our Nation from terrorism and countering threats; securing and managing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws; preserving 

and upholding the Nation’s prosperity and economic security; securing cyber space 

and critical infrastructure; and strengthening homeland security preparedness resilience. DHS will also build a culture of efficiency on the foundation of agency reform 

efforts to ensure accountable, effective, and efficient operations. The fiscal year 2019 President’s budget for DHS requests $47.5 billion in net dis- cretionary funding and an additional $6.7 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) 

for response and recovery to major disasters. 

This budget would make crucial investments needed to secure our borders against 

threats and illegal entry. The request includes recruitment, hiring, and training of 

750 additional U.S. Border Patrol Agents, 2,000 additional U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) law enforcement officers, and more than 1,500 support 

staff needed to more robustly execute the Department’s border security and immigration enforcement missions. It also funds construction and renovations at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers to meet increased training requirements for 

DHS. 

Investments in our layered defense at the border would include 65 miles of new 

border wall construction in the highest-traffic zones along the Southwest Border, as 

well as priority tactical infrastructure, border security technology improvements, 

and aircraft acquisition. The administration also reiterates the unfunded wall requests from the fiscal year 2018 budget in addition to the investments outlined in 

the fiscal year 2019 budget. These investments ensure DHS law enforcement personnel are supported with effective surveillance technology and equipment to improve their ability to detect and interdict illegal activity. 

The fiscal year 2019 President’s budget includes funding for 52,000 detention 

beds, including 2,500 beds reserved for family units, to ensure that apprehended 

aliens who are subject to removal from the United States—such as illegal border 

crossers, criminal aliens, and National security threats—are detained in safe and 

secure detention facilities pending their removal. For apprehended aliens who are 

not considered a threat to our communities, but who may pose a diminished flight 

risk, the President’s budget would fund ICE’s Alternatives to Detention Program to 

provide intensive supervision for up to 82,000 average daily participants through a 

combination of home visits, office visits, alert response, and electronic monitoring. 

Proposed funding for removal operations will facilitate the complex coordination required to return aliens safely and expeditiously to their home countries and pay for 

transportation costs. 

Unfortunately, some of these critical missions are impeded by jurisdictions that 

refuse to cooperate with DHS in the enforcement of Federal law. This makes it more 

dangerous for Federal agents and officers to do their jobs. It creates a greater threat 

to public safety, and results in greater expense to American taxpayers. I hope the 

committee will work with DHS to help make sure jurisdictions around the country 

do not harbor criminal aliens or put the men and women of DHS at risk while they 

are doing their jobs to protect the public. 

The budget gives our front-line operators the tools and resources they need to 

more aggressively disrupt and dismantle transnational threats. It would advance 

the administration’s efforts to block terrorists, criminals, and other nefarious actors 

from reaching the United States and exploiting our immigration system. It would 

further integrate intelligence into DHS operations to make sure rapid changes in 

the threat environment are met with a near-real-time change in our response. And 

12 

it proposes funding across the Department for initiatives that will help us keep pace 

with adaptive enemies and new threats. 

For example, the budget focuses on bolstering DHS activities to counter 

transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). TCOs are facilitating the illicit flow of 

opioids and other deadly substances into America. The drugs and violence they import are a threat to the homeland, which is why we are focused on ramping up 

counter-TCOs activities. The budget bolsters the capacity of ICE/HSI special agents 

to conduct transnational criminal investigations, and it provides funding to support 

law enforcement hiring and workload growth consistent with this mission, including 

$105 million for critical training, IT, facility support infrastructure, and wiretaps associated with ICE’s proposed increased staffing and workload. 

The budget proposes essential funding to implement the President’s Executive Orders to intensify vetting of U.S.-bound travelers and individuals in our immigration 

system. Since the beginning of last year, DHS has undertaken historic efforts to improve every phase of the vetting process so that we can be more confident in knowing who is coming into our country—and more capable of identifying nefarious actors. This includes making applications more rigorous, deepening background 

checks, tightening travel and arrival screening, and enforcing foreign government 

information-sharing requirements. The budget will facilitate the stand-up of the 

newly-announced National Vetting Center (NVC), which will become a central U.S. 

Government hub for fusing intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security 

data to enhance the vetting process. A detailed implementation plan is currently 

under development to identify NVC capacity and operational needs that will inform 

future budget requests. 

Additionally, DHS is seeking to provide critical resources to the U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) to better defend the Nation against transnational threats and support the 

response to natural disasters. The USCG secures our maritime borders by operating 

up to more than 1,500 miles offshore to extend the Nation’s security and to enforce 

laws. During the 2017 hurricane season, the USCG, working alongside the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was prepared and immediately responded 

to the needs of our citizens and partner nations. Their unique blend of statutory 

authorities combines civil law enforcement, response, and prevention with military 

service capabilities, resulting in an extremely agile force capable of responding to 

any significant event or emergency. The fiscal year 2019 President’s budget requests $1.9 billion for the recapitalization of USCG assets. This funding provides for a new Offshore Patrol Cutter, four 

Fast Response Cutters, and the Nation’s first new heavy Polar Icebreaker in more 

than 40 years, providing an advanced command, control, and communications platform capable of operating in the harshest environments. It also provides for timely 

and necessary sensor and service-life extensions to aircraft and improvements to 

shore infrastructure. These are the investments we need to be making to defend our 

territory, and I hope the committee will support our requests. 

We are also seeking important cybersecurity enhancements. This committee 

knows that the dangers we face on-line are serious, and they emanate from hackers, 

TCOs, nation-states, and other nefarious actors. DHS is on the digital front lines 

of this fight and is undertaking historic efforts to safeguard the Federal Government’s civilian information technology systems and to work with all levels of government, international partners, and business sectors to share cybersecurity information and build resilient systems. 

The President’s budget would continue investments in cybersecurity initiatives 

that protect Federal networks and address identified vulnerabilities. More than 

$644 million is requested for DHS’s Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program 

and the National Cybersecurity Protection System program, commonly referred to 

as EINSTEIN, which provide network monitoring tools, intrusion prevention, intrusion detection, and analytical capabilities that strengthen the cybersecurity of Federal civilian departments and agencies. 

The threat is real, and we know that a sophisticated adversary can put the foundations of our democracy at risk through cyber attacks, which is why our request 

for fiscal year 2019 would also make sure DHS is positioned to counter foreign meddling by supporting State and local election officials in defending the integrity of 

election systems. The budget also would provide $158 million to secure the Nation’s 

interoperable emergency communications capabilities that enable first responders 

and Government officials to continue to communicate in the event of natural and 

man-made disasters. 

Moreover, DHS is seeking to ramp up ‘‘soft target’’ security efforts. From terrorist 

attacks to school shootings, we have seen public areas continue to be struck by violence. Our National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) is helping to lead 

the charge on soft target security. The President’s budget would provide almost $12 

13 

million for the establishment of the Soft Target Security Program which would expand NPPD’s capabilities to reduce the risks to these locations through a mix of 

technology integration, targeted threat information sharing, training, and improved 

standards for security. This program will provide a more comprehensive, innovative, 

and coordinated approach to address threats to soft targets—including schools, entertainment venues, major events, and public spaces. 

Our wider transportation system also faces persistent and emerging threats, as 

terrorists adapt their tactics to target airlines, airports, and other transportation 

hubs. The President’s budget was built to confront these challenges. It would add 

687 TSA screeners and 145 additional computed tomography systems in order to 

stay ahead of our enemies, especially by helping to better detect concealed explosives, threat devices, and suspicious passengers. This budget would also provide an 

increase of nearly $27 million for CBP’s National Targeting Center to improve our 

capabilities to identify high-risk individuals and cargo both entering and leaving the 

United States in the air, land, and sea environments. 

Similarly, we are seeing an evolution in the danger posed by chemical, biological, 

radiological, and nuclear agents. That is why in December I announced the establishment of a DHS Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD). I call 

on Congress to permanently authorize this Office and to ensure we have the authorities needed to protect Americans against such deadly agents. Already, CWMD 

has been at the forefront of driving the Department’s response to recent threat 

streams and incidents. The President’s budget supports CWMD’s efforts to mitigate 

security vulnerabilities, and includes $75 million for the acquisition and deployment 

of nuclear, chemical, radiological, and biological systems to support operational customers, including enhanced Radiation Portal Monitors and other programs to support scanning of cargo entering the Nation. In addition, it includes $65 million for 

capability building, including outreach efforts necessary to ensure Federal, State, 

local, Tribal, territorial, and international partners are enabled to support the WMD 

detection mission. 

The President’s budget recognizes that homeland security is central to economic 

security. It would provide funding to ensure DHS components are able to facilitate 

lawful trade and travel, mitigate threats, hold violators accountable, counter foreign 

economic aggression, and advance America’s economic interests. For instance, the 

Department is focused on maintaining a level playing field for the $2.4 trillion dollars of imports crossing our border each year, which is why the President’s budget 

includes funding to enhance the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and to 

put more attention on high-risk imports while facilitating smaller, legitimate shipments more quickly. The request also includes funding for additional attorneys, 

trade specialists, and financial specialists to provide adequate support for trade facilitation and enforcement activities. 

The men and women of the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) also protect our Nation’s 

financial infrastructure, and the fiscal year 2019 budget supports the USSS in its 

use of advanced technologies and task force partnerships to enforce counterfeiting 

laws and to safeguard the payment and financial systems of the United States from 

financial and computer-based crimes. The agency also protects our highest elected 

officials, visiting foreign dignitaries, select Federal facilities, and major events. The 

request would allow for an additional 450 USSS agents, officers, and professional 

staff and would fund critical protective infrastructure and technology upgrades. 

Last year our country experienced one of the most costly and damaging seasons 

for natural disasters in recent history. DHS is committed to helping our communities in the wake of these catastrophic events, and FEMA will devote the resources 

and attention needed—in cooperation with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments across the country—to ensure we recover. The President’s budget supports 

the DRF, which sustains FEMA’s response and recovery efforts and funds a variety 

of Federal assistance programs that enable State and local governments to prevent, 

protect, respond, and recover from incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic 

events. The budget also focuses on other efforts that will help create a ‘‘culture of 

preparedness’’ Nation-wide and make our Nation more resilient to disasters. 

The 2019 President’s budget is committed to ensuring that every American dollar 

is spent wisely, and DHS continues to identify efficiencies to meet this goal. The 

budget funds the construction of a new headquarters building for FEMA at the St. 

Elizabeths campus, which will consolidate a wide range of DHS entities in a common location when complete. This will not only foster integrated decision making 

and collaboration, but it will provide for more efficient use of shared resources 

across the Department, while also reducing the Department’s rent costs. 

Ultimately, the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget request recognizes current fiscal realities, as well as the persistent and evolving dangers we face. We have outstanding men and women working at DHS committed to protecting our homeland 

14 

and the American people. You have my commitment to work tirelessly to ensure 

that they are equipped and empowered to do their jobs. And I appreciate your support in doing so. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and for your continued support of DHS. I remain committed to working with Congress, and I look 

forward to forging a strong and productive relationship to secure our homeland. 

I am pleased to answer any questions. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I now recognize myself for questions. First, let me just say this committee passed a historic border security bill providing $38 billion in funding for the wall, technology, personnel, joined Chairman 

Goodlatte and his legislation to close legal loopholes. But I think 

before we get to that, I think you have to justify that need, it is 

important to look at the threats that we face from the Southern 

Border. 

Your predecessors, both General Kelly and Acting Secretary 

Duke, talked about transnational criminal organizations providing 

a potential means for transferring weapons of mass destruction to 

terrorists. There are reports today that this caravan is on its way 

to Tijuana. Can you tell us a little bit about the threats that we 

face as a Nation and why border security is so important? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. So I think the way to think about 

it is any threat that we face as a Nation, if it can and will—if I 

can get across our border, our adversaries will do all they can to 

bring it across the border. 

So what we look at is everything from drugs to the transnational 

criminal organizations you mentioned to smugglers and traffickers 

who smuggle all kinds of illicit things, not just people, but weapons, potentially weapons of mass destruction, other illicit technology. They avoid our trade regulations putting our economic prosperity at risk. We see increasing violence on the border. 

I would also point out that we have seen ISIS in written materials encourage ISIS followers to cross our Southwest Border given 

the loopholes that they also are aware of. So we have a multitude 

of threats. We have emerging threats as you know. We are probably likely to talk about UAS at some point today. But UAS is yet 

another form of threat that we are beginning to see more and more 

at the Southwest Border. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes. I recall being briefed on ISIS sort-of 

bragging about the ease with which it would take to bring a weapon of mass destruction into the United States. I have to take that 

seriously as they appear to be warning us of their intentions. 

When we talk about closing legal loopholes, you know, the first 

bill I ever filed in Congress 14 years ago was to end the catch-andrelease program, and here we are 14 years later still dealing with 

this problem. I am very frustrated as I know you are. Can you tell 

me why this is so important? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I can. So the way that I think about this is 

in terms of home security. If you have an alarm in your home and 

you catch a burglar and you call the police and the police come, 

and in fact it is an illegal entry into your home. But the police then 

tell you that they have absolutely no ability to detain or remove 

those criminals, and the criminals stay in your house, you would 

not tell me that is home security. That is what we face at the border. 

15 

We stop people, we interdict them, but we do not have the authority given the loopholes in many cases to detain and remove 

them. We are forced to release them back into the communities 

after they have committed crimes. 

We have eliminated the administrative use of catch-and-release, 

which was popular in the last administration. We do all we can to 

enforce the rules that you have passed. But given some of the court 

cases and some of the legal loopholes, we are unable to do that in 

all cases. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I think to most Americans, they just do not 

understand that, how that could possibly—you can detain but you 

cannot deport them, and then they get released into our society in 

the United States. This so-called described caravan as I understand 

it maybe already in Tijuana. In your opinion, if they cross into the 

United States, which is their full intention, what will you be able 

to do? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Well, I think we have made quite clear—first 

of all the attorney general has made quite clear, we have a zero 

tolerance for illegal entry. But we have advised in every way we 

possible, that we are aware of, to let those participating in this socalled caravan know that participating in a caravan does not give 

you any additional legal rights. 

If you illegally enter our country, you will be referred for prosecution. If you file a false asylum claim, you will be referred for 

prosecution. If you aid and abet or coach someone to break our 

laws, you also will be referred for prosecution. So we are very clear 

about this. We will enforce our laws. It is an unfortunate situation 

that there is a belief that by coming in groups, it affords you some 

sort of legal protection that is not otherwise afforded under our 

law. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Well, my concern is with the legal loopholes, 

which is really Congress’ role to act. Under Article I we have the 

authority under the Constitution to pass immigration laws. If we 

fail to act on these legal loopholes, my concern is they will be released. 

You will have the same problem with this caravan. Once they 

come to the United States, they will be detained and then released 

into our society, and that is Congress to blame, Madam Secretary, 

not you. That is why it is imperative I think Congress act on this 

bill that we have before us. 

My final question has to do with aviation security. As you have 

received the threat briefings, I can say everyone on this committee 

has received the threats to our aviation sector, the briefing involving computer laptops and poisonous gases. 

I think I speak for everybody on the committee, we are very 

alarmed by this. We want to do everything in our power to make 

sure the American people are protected on flights, both domestic 

and international. 

We appropriate in the omnibus $65 million to move this forward. 

We will complete that full appropriation September for 300 CT machines so that your men and women can properly screen at airports 

to protect Americans from explosive devices that may not be seen 

today. 

16 

My question is how quickly how can these machines be deployed? 

Then finally, I think the highest risk are the last-point-of-departure airports, coming in from Istanbul and Cairo and Riyadh and 

places I have been to where the airport security is not as good as 

ours. What is your plan to make sure this technology is also at 

those last-point-of-departure airports? 

Secretary NIELSEN. As you said in your opening statement, sir, 

unfortunately, the terrorists continue to see this as a crown jewel 

if you will of attack vectors. We also remain very concerned about 

aviation security, and in particular how quickly the adversary is 

advancing tactics and techniques and weaponry to bring down an 

airplane. 

So the CT machines, we thank you for your support. They are 

critical in our—very critical in our ability to detect these emerging 

threats. As you know we are testing the machines as well as the 

algorithms that go with them that enable us to detect these new 

threats this summer. We look forward to the appropriation in 2019 

so that we can in fact cover down over the United States in terms 

of protecting Americans here. 

Last points of departure are another type of threat area that obviously a plane comes from a last point of departure to the United 

States. What we have done there is, you know, last year we substantially raised the bar in aviation security across the world. We 

have a tiered plan. We continue to work with countries to encourage them to adopt the CT technology. 

In exchange for that, we pull back on other requirements that we 

have levied on them. So we have tremendous outreach occurring. 

I met with my G7 security ministers Monday/Tuesday. We talked 

about this again. We talk about this almost in every way we can. 

But you are exactly right to highlight the threat and we will continue to focus on it. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Well, thank you. I think it is one of the biggest threats that we face from the terrorists today. It is a spectacular event that they like to talk about, not a one- to two-man operation or a vehicle assault. It would be a major event that we want 

to do everything we can to work with you to make sure it never 

happens. So thank you for being here. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, one of the oversight responsibilities we have 

with DHS is to kind-of see whether or not things are going according to the wishes of Congress and this committee. To that extent, 

there are a number of policy deliverables that are outstanding from 

the Department at this point, and I am going to go through the list 

and try to get some idea on when we will receive them. 

The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review was due December 

31, 2017. Do you have any idea when we might get that document? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir, I believe we have coordinated with 

this committee as well as your sister committee on the Senate side 

to work through the best way to present that information. 

We want to make sure that it is part of a larger National security strategy, counterterrorism strategy. As you know, we have 

other strategies that are due at the Department. So the idea is to 

get the timing right so that they actually work in parallel and we 

17 

do not have one that then is not consistent with another due to 

timing restrictions. So happy to come brief you further on the 

progress and how that nests into many of the larger requirements 

that we have. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam Secretary, it is the law. 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, I understand, sir. So we have worked 

with you on the timing, but I am happy to come brief you, as I said, 

specifically on that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So you do not plan to follow the law on delivering the report? I mean that is all I am asking. It is due. To say 

you coordinated, that is all right. But it is the law you have to 

produce the report. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Respectfully, sir, I did not say that I would 

not follow the law. What I did say is that we are working on it. 

We have told you what the timing is, and I am happy to come brief 

you further if you would like. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I am not necessarily looking for a briefing. 

Secretary NIELSEN. OK. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I need from you, very simple, when you plan to 

follow the law to present—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. We will get back to you. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Beg your pardon? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We will get back to you. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, will you get back to us in writing? 

Secretary NIELSEN. If you would prefer that instead of a briefing, 

happy to do that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I would absolutely prefer it in writing. We have 

also a Department-wide cybersecurity strategy that was due March 

23, 2017. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. So we were out at the RSA conference 

last week. We spent quite a bit of time talking to stakeholders to 

finalize that as a last very important effort to make sure that we 

had stakeholders involved. We will have four pillars of that strategy. We are looking to identify the risks, to reduce threats, reduce 

vulnerabilities, and mitigate consequences. We also have it based 

on five trends—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. I appreciate that, but when can we as Members 

of this committee receive the written report—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Shortly. 

Mr. THOMPSON. That is outstanding? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Shortly, the strategy is—sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. A week, 2 weeks? A month? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It should be within the next 2 weeks, yes sir. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Within the next 2 weeks. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Now the long-awaited update plan 

for the Department’s major headquarters consolidation project, it 

was actually due August 27, 2016. When do you anticipate getting 

that to us? 

Secretary NIELSEN. That one I will have to get back to you, sir. 

I am not as familiar. I know we continued to be in discussions. As 

you know we have had some funding issues as well as some construction delays given the historic nature of the property. So I will 

get back to you on the timing of that. 

18 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, thank you. Those three reports, if you 

would provide in writing the status updates and when we can expect them, I would appreciate it. 

With respect to Hurricane Maria, are you satisfied with FEMA’s 

response to Hurricane Maria as it relates to Puerto Rico and the 

Virgin Islands? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Well as you know it is not over yet. FEMA 

will continue to provide recovery services under its statutory mission until they are complete. We continue to work very closely with 

the Governor and the government officials, mayors in the case of 

Puerto Rico. 

We can always do more. It was a very difficult situation as you 

know given, especially in Puerto Rico, the status of the infrastructure before the storm. FEMA prepositioned more than it ever had 

before. We had many people there in conjunction with our interagency partners, and we are going through the formal lessons 

learned process now. But recovery is on-going so we should have 

the findings from the initial response shortly. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So your testimony, you are not satisfied with it 

or you are? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It was a big storm, sir, I think FEMA went 

above and beyond in performing its statutory mission, but we always learn lessons and we always make it better for next time. 

Mr. THOMPSON. What systems have you put in place so that 

whatever shortcomings occurred with Hurricane Maria will not 

occur again? 

Secretary NIELSEN. One of them is the administrator is deploying 

Federal integration teams. The concept here is to send steady-state 

people out into the field who are experts in incident management 

preparedness prevention mitigation to help different areas and jurisdictions be able to prepare for an event. 

So what we are trying to do at this point is push resources to 

left of the event. As you know, recent studies have shown for every 

dollar of mitigation we save $6 in—excuse me, $1 in prevention 

and mitigation we have $6 saved in terms of response and recovery. So what we are doing is relooking at all of our systems so that 

we can build those cultures of resilience and preparedness. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Madam Secretary, on January 16, 

you testified before the Senate that 90 percent of unoccupied alien 

children released never show up for court. Can you provide this 

committee with how you came up with that 90 percent figure? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. When we encounter a UIC, we register 

them. As you know, we, at the Department, turn them over to the 

Department of Health and Human Services. So we have the numbers, then we—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, what I am saying in writing? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Oh, OK. Sure. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman yields. 

Chair will recognize Members who were present at the start of 

the hearing by seniority on the committee according to the rules. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

19 

Madam Secretary, thank you for your testimony here today and 

thank you for your service. I have basically two questions. I will 

ask them together so you have more time to answer them. 

First is on the issue of grants, Homeland Security grants. I live 

right outside New York City. New York City, Nassau and Suffolk, 

Westchester County are the No. 1 terrorist target in the country 

by all accounts. There is more than well over 1,000 police officers 

work full-time on counterterrorism and intelligence. 

We have subways carrying over 5 million people a day, a thousand entrances and exits. We have commuter lines, Long Island 

Railroad and Metro North with hundreds of thousands more. Yet 

in the budget, your—grants are being cut—grants are being cut. 

To me, and you have maybe some other alternative plans, but 

the fact is these police departments and these fire departments and 

these emergency service units in these locales, and I am not disparaging any other part of the country. They can fight and they need 

it too. But yet we have been attacked many times, twice just in the 

last 6 months. There has been over 20 attempted attacks against 

New York besides the two attacks on the World Trade Center. 

So I would just, again, ask you to reconsider and look at how 

that money is being distributed and why we have cuts at a time 

like this when, again, in many ways the threats are more than 

they were before 9/11. They may be not at the same magnitude as 

9/11, but as far as numbers and the metastasizing of Islamic terrorists, there is more threats today than there were then. That is 

my question is on that, an easy one. 

Second one is on MS–13. MS–13 is to a large extent focused on 

my district. We have had over 25 murders in the last 2 years. They 

are right now digging for bodies within a mile of my house. This 

goes on continuously. But let me commend both HSI and ICE for 

the work they are doing. They are working very closely with the 

local police, with the local district attorneys, with the FBI. So 

progress has been made. 

But one of the deficiencies we have, and this is not really your 

Department’s responsibility, but I think you have a say in this. 

This is on the question of the unaccompanied minors. It was 

brought to my attention last year both by Federal intelligence and 

also local police that many of these minors who come across, I do 

not say many, maybe 5 or 10 percent, whatever the number would 

be, are actually sent here by MS–13 in El Salvador. 

When they come to the border, they are apprehended by the Border Patrol but then turned over to HHS, and then HHS places 

those kids with families around the countries. A disproportionate 

amount are going to Brentwood and Central ICE up in my district. 

Intelligence, as I understand, is showing that the families who 

are asking for these kids are either in many cases or too many 

cases are either supporters of MS–13 or they have relatives back 

in El Salvador being threatened by MS–13. In the most recent 

murders, of the 11 people indicted for the murders, 6 of them were 

unaccompanied minors that came across the border within the last 

2 or 3 years. 

When I talked to the school superintendents, they talk about how 

the unaccompanied minors, a number of them are recruiting within 

the schools. Yet, HHS, the Office of Refugee Resettlement does very 

20 

little as far as notifying the local police when these children, unaccompanied minors are being placed in the community. 

I would ask if you will get the administration to work with HHS 

and your own Department to better coordinate this so the local police are told who these kids are, where they are coming from. Also 

a better job of vetting the families that they are being placed with, 

and also a better job of vetting the families they came from. So 

those are my two questions. Thank you. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you, sir. As you said, our grants are 

not an easy conversation. The way we are looking at this, and we 

would love to work with you further, we have put out, as you know, 

about $50 billion in grants since 9/11. 

The idea there was to help State and locals build capacity to 

threats that they had not necessarily had to address before. It was 

very important at that time to make sure that the State and locals 

had what they needed to protect their communities. 

As the threat environment quickly changes, what we are trying 

to do is find ways to have grants, not just maintain and help State 

and locals continue the capacities they have built, but enable them 

to focus on the new and emerging threats. So what this budget proposes is a new $525 million program, preparedness program, to 

focus on emerging threats. 

So it is not—I understand the question, but I just want to make 

the point. What we are trying to do is use the grants holistically 

in a way that we can cover down on the known, the threats that 

we know we have, but also the threats that are emerging. So it is 

important—— 

Mr. KING. I was just saying that the threats—I realize there is 

new threats, but again, large amounts of this money are spent on 

surveillance, on programs which are on-going, the threat is ongoing. 

It is not as if that you always need new equipment. Sometimes 

they do. But it is also they have to have the training and the constant work that goes on. When you have 1,000, 1,500 working on 

it, and they are working full-time, you know, whether or not the 

threats changed, those 1,000 or 1,500 still have to work. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. So we need to balance the maintenance 

and sustainment with the idea of the grants to begin with, which 

is to build capacity, to build new threats. But I did want to just 

take a few minutes to answer your other question. 

MS–13 does continue to be a problem as you know better than 

most in this room given the violence that has occurred in your 

area. Through Operation Matador and others, as you say, HSI does 

play a very active role. 

We continue to work very closely with our colleagues at the Department of Justice to attack this from a network perspective 

which means going all the way back to where they are originating, 

watching their travel patterns, attempting to stop them at the border of course. But should they enter, make sure that we understand where they are and where they are headed. 

Happy to work with HHS to make sure that that referral process 

works better and more effectively. I would also say that one of the 

loopholes that I often talked about is that fact that we cannot 

based on gang affiliation alone prohibit somebody from entering the 

21 

United States. It is not a legal criteria in and of itself for inadmissibility. So we also need to look at inadmissibility and removability 

when it comes to gangs, that we can make sure we can remove 

them. 

The final point I would say on the UACs, we are working with 

HHS to better vet the sponsors and the family members so that we 

can understand where the children, for the children’s safety, are 

going and who will take care of them. But also so that we can identify other issues that might occur. 

As you say, we see recruiting from the gangs in New York all the 

way down to Central America, and we see the push from Central 

America to send UACs who are gang members into the United 

States. 

Mr. KING. Again, let me emphasize that Homeland, HSI, ICE are 

doing an excellent job working with the FBI and local police in—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. KING. Nassau and Suffolk. Thanks. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman yields. 

Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much, and 

thank you for this hearing along with the Ranking Member. 

Let me welcome you, and I do not often make this comment, but 

I think the Ranking Member made a point that I quickly want to 

say, and that is that I had the tragic privilege of being on this committee shortly after—the beginnings of this committee shortly after 

9/11, and was able to go to Ground Zero during the long extended 

period of the recovery of remains. So there is nothing more precious 

than the security of this Nation, and I think it is bipartisan. 

I do want to acknowledge Tacala and Madison; I brought them 

here today. They are Take Your Daughters to Congress, and they 

are in the room today, and I wanted to acknowledge them. 

I am going to put a series of questions on the record and then 

I am going to ask which ones that I would like you to do in writing 

or I will indicate. I want you to tell me how many African Americans do you have in your immediate circle of staff. I do not see any 

in the room that seem to be with you today. So I would be interested in that and your efforts on that. 

As it relates to the wall, I would be interested in knowing whether Mexico is going to pay for the wall, and so how the wall is going 

to proceed, as well as the 4,000 National Guard. You mentioned, 

and certainly I want to respond to the assaults on Border Patrol 

agents. I think we should respond to that in whatever recommendations that you may have. 

But the 4,000 National Guard as I understand it coming from 

Texas being on the border, they will be unarmed and I see no way 

that they will have an impact on the protection of Border Patrol 

guards that are there now, and so what is the purpose of the 4,000? 

Did you have input into that selection? 

We know that there is a recent court decision that indicts that 

the DACA structure right now and the President’s removal of 

DACA status is illegal, and frankly, there has been no placement. 

We have a number of bipartisan bills to be put on the floor. 

Would you and the President ask and demand that Paul Ryan 

put these bills on the floor for us to be able to vote for them? Then 

22 

secondarily, would you instruct your Border Patrol agents to not 

treat DACA-eligible and/or DACA-status individuals unfairly at the 

border by stopping them at the border and not allowing them to 

come back and forth? 

The other question is that I have been working extensively on a 

young man from El Salvador who lived in this country more than 

half of his life, two American children, citizen wife, manager of a 

paint store. 

I have repeatedly asked the Homeland Security Department to 

address the question of Jose Escobar who was, I would say, duped 

into doing what he always does, is reporting to the ICE office and 

precipitously being deported to a place that he has no knowledge 

of. We have not gotten one answer regarding the ability for him to 

have humanitarian parole to come back to this country and to address his status because he is DACA-eligible. 

TSA is in definitive need of retention programs and salary programs because in your major airports, and I do not know if you 

have been to all the major airports, there is a constant rotation or 

departure of TSOs and that needs to be fixed. 

FEMA needs to be fixed in terms of bifurcating recovery as opposed to rescue. In Houston, the reimbursement, and I want to 

thank FEMA and their staff, they are dedicated persons, but reimbursement monies have not yet come to schools and other facilities 

and people in desperate need. 

Two other points: Domestic terrorism, the Mark Anthony Conditt 

did kill other people in Austin but he also killed two African Americans initially, and I think it was appropriate for many of us to 

think of his inclination and call it domestic terrorism. We heard 

nothing from the Department of Homeland Security. 

Finally, the President has gone to Mar-a-Lago 1 day out of every 

week that he has been President, and 110 times he has played golf. 

I want to know your response to the Secret Service’s long hours. 

So let me ask you to answer the African American question, all 

the others I want in writing. The TSA retention question and the 

domestic terrorism, and you can just do quick sentencing. Secret 

Service in terms of payment and the responsibility of taking Secret 

Service to these joyful places and the long hours that they have to 

do. TSA retention—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. TSA—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you working on that? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, ma’am. That is a very—throughout the 

Department, as you know, we do have some attrition problems that 

remain. It is a priority of mine as part of maturing the Department 

to become much more innovative. So we are looking at mobility 

programs. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am going to let you—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. OK. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Go quickly. Domestic terrorism. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Domestic terrorism, we have created an Office of Terrorism Prevention partnerships as you know to take very 

seriously all forms of terrorism in this country and work on—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Did you speak about the incident in Austin, 

Texas in terms of potential of being domestic terrorism? 

23 

Secretary NIELSEN. I can speak to it only to say we are working 

with State and local law—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If you had anything in writing on that, I 

would appreciate it. I just want to go forward. Mr. Escobar, would 

you look up Mr. Escobar? I have joined a bill with Mr. Green asking for him to be able to return. But more importantly this can be 

handled administratively by Homeland Security. Will you look at 

the point of Mr. Escobar from Houston, Texas? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We will look at the case, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Secret Service and the many trips of the 

President to places beyond Camp David, which is an appropriately 

beautiful place, and the extra hours and the tiredness of Secret 

Service and the need for extra staff. How are you handling that 

burden? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We are working on hiring initiatives. We are 

working on cross-training. We thank Congress for recently passing 

a bill that allows the Secret Service to be paid overtime. That will 

help very much with attrition and morale. We also in that case are 

looking to cross-train and give them more ability to move within 

the Secret Service to reduce some of the burden that they have. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. African Americans in your staff? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do not have the exact number in front of 

me. We do have diversity programs. We take that very seriously. 

Happy to get you specifics on that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you have any on your immediate staff? 

Secretary NIELSEN. My immediate staff is rather large, but I do 

not know. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In your office? 

Secretary NIELSEN. In the personal front office, we do not. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. All the other questions I would appreciate it if you would more extensively answer in writing, and I 

do want to just conclude by emphasizing the treatment of DACA 

status individuals. 

What is the Department’s position since most courts have indicated that DACA is a legitimate status to indicate to your employees that they should not be treated precipitously and disrespectfully and detained, which is what is happening? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We are complying with all court orders. So 

what that means is if you are a currently-registered DACA recipient, you will not be deported. If you have applied for recertification 

as a DACA individual, you also will not be deported. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you will take new applications? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We are not taking new applications right 

now, no, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. If you could give me answers to all 

the rest including why you are not taking new—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is not required at the moment so—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. As you know we ended the program because 

it was an inappropriate—an inappropriate use of Executive power. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I understand. If you could just put that in 

writing since the courts have indicated your ending of the program 

was incorrect, why you are not taking new applications. 

24 

Secretary NIELSEN. OK. So just to be clear, though, the courts 

have not said that. What the courts have said as of recently in the 

last couple days is they have asked the Department within 90 days 

to come and provide them additional information. Should they find 

that that information is not sufficient, they reserve the right to 

take additional action. No court has ordered me to allow new 

DACA recipients. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I disagree with you, but I would prefer if you 

would submit that to me in writing along with the other questions 

that I did not specifically get. 

I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, you are recognized. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being here and thank you for 

your service to our country. 

On a parochial note before I get to my questions, I want to personally invite you, now that you are settled in, to come and visit 

the Center for Domestic Preparedness in Alabama. 

As you know, it has done a stellar job since 9/11 in training first 

responders all around the country, hospital personnel. It has the 

only live agent training facility for biological and chemical agents. 

So I think you would find it interesting. The last Secretary to be 

there was Janet Napolitano, and I am sure you will be as impressed as she was. 

But in your written testimony you stated that, ‘‘Investments in 

our layered defense at the border would include 65 miles of new 

border wall construction in the highest traffic zones along the 

Southwest Border.’’ 

Yesterday, we had the CBP commissioner testify before the 

Transportation Security Subcommittee, and he talked about in addition to the wall itself, the importance of technologies associated 

with it to give us situational awareness at those borders. Can you 

describe for us what you see as your idea of a border wall system, 

and meaning not just the wall itself, but what would that system 

be compromised of? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. So a border wall system is the infrastructure which is important for the impedance and denial capability. It is in the technology, which among other things helps us 

with the domain awareness, situational awareness. It is the sensors technology. It is also at the ports of entry, the non-intrusive 

technology that helps us detect drugs and illegal entrants. 

It is personnel, mission readiness, and making sure we have a 

work force who is trained. The last is access and mobility, so it is 

very important that the Border Patrol is able to get to parts of the 

wall where there are areas—parts of the border where there is a 

wall or there is not a wall to be able to interdict. So it is a combination of all of those things. 

Mr. ROGERS. Have you been able to ascertain what percentage of 

the cost associated with the border security system is actually the 

wall, and what is the rest of that system that you just described? 

Which is substantial, the technologies and personnel are substantial. 

25 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, in fact, we had asked for $1 billion alone 

for some of the technology when we were talking about the $25 billion total number for the wall system. I can get back to you on 

that. It changes, frankly, as we work with Congress and we are appropriated money. 

Then as you know in the last omnibus bill we had some specific 

restrictions on how we could build the wall and where we could 

build it. So we are reprioritizing and reorganizing some of those 

funds that were given to us by Congress. So happy to give you specific figures. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, I would like to get a proportion—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Happy to. 

Mr. ROGERS. Because, you know, one of the things that we have 

heard is a lot of the critics of securing the Southwest Border talk 

about the numbers being unreasonably high per mile for this wall, 

and in fact, we are not just talking about the wall or the fencing 

itself. We have to help people understand that there is a lot more 

that goes to it than just putting that fencing up, or whether it is 

see-through or concrete or whatever at different points. 

Let me ask this, do you feel like you have enough money right 

now to take on that challenge and secure the Southwest Border in 

its entirety? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Not in its entirety, no, sir. So our goal is 

operational control of the border, that would have those master capabilities I mentioned. We do not yet have funding to secure the 

whole border. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, one of the things that my friend and colleague 

from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, requested information about a little 

while ago was whether or not Mexico or South America is going to 

help pay for the wall. 

One of the things I would draw to your attention if you are not 

aware of it is a bill I introduced called the Border Wall Funding 

Act, which would assess a 2 percent fee on all remittances going 

to South America. 

It would generate right at a $1 billion a year, half of that coming 

from Mexico, the other half from the other South American countries where most of these illegal aliens who are coming to our country are leaving, which would in fact require Mexico to pay for at 

least half of the wall. 

Now granted it is a billion a year, it would not do it all, but I 

hope that you all will look at embracing that as one of several 

funding mechanisms to get us the money we need to secure that 

wall. You also in your testimony said, ‘‘Some critical missions are 

impeded by jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with DHS on enforcement of Federal law.’’ I think you are talking about sanctuary 

cities there? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROGERS. Can you tell us briefly what kind of added expense 

do you encounter when you have to go into an area that is a sanctuary city or a county and they refuse to cooperate? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I will get you the figures, but it is additional 

use of technology. It is certainly an additional use of manpower. It 

is additional planning, additional contingencies that are built in. 

26 

But in essence what it requires us to do is rather than being able 

to take the criminal in a safe environment, which would be the jail, 

we then require our agents to go out in to the community putting 

themselves at risk but putting the community at risk to be able to 

interdict, yet again unfortunately, that criminal to be able to remove them. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, if we can get our heads around that added 

cost, I want this committee to consider legislation that would force 

those sanctuary cities to reimburse the Department for those added 

expenses that they are imposing on you. 

With that, my time has expired. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating, is recognized. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary for being here. You said in your 

opening remarks that you are trying to create a culture of preparedness. In response to Congressman King’s questioning, you 

said you want to build up a greater capability for emerging threats. 

You know we will never know where the emerging threats may 

come from with surety, but we are pretty sure we know where the 

response to those threats are coming from. Those responses are 

coming from our front line. In fact, in my years here on the committee, I often ask, you know, what is the important aspect to our 

homeland security, and the answer almost always is our front-line 

responders. 

That being said, this budget does not reflect that commitment to 

preparedness at all in terms of those responders. There is cuts to 

the State, the Homeland Security Grants that States like Massachusetts, my State, use of $157 million, the Urban Area Security 

Initiatives, which were so critical in the Boston Marathon bombing 

and the response in cities like New York, cut $180 million. 

The Transit Security Grants which is a target of great concern given what has happened in other parts of the world were cut $64 

million. The Emergency Performance Grants, $70 million. The 

funds to our local fire departments, front-line responders have been 

cut. So if you could, tell us how cutting this kind of funding helps 

America be safer? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. So grants are part of a holistic approach to help State and locals prepare as you know. So as I mentioned earlier, it was actually the National Institute of Building 

Sciences that released the report. But $1 on the front end saves us 

$6 on the backend. So that is what we mean by culture of preparedness. It is capacity building. We do a lot of that through programs that are a direct distribution of funds. 

We help with exercises, we help with training. We do have 

money in the budget for equipment through our CWMD office to 

provide detection and training for those particular threats. We 

have money in the budget for NPPD to help State and local officials 

as well as critical infrastructure owners and operators in cybersecurity. We continue to invest in—to provide additional—— 

Mr. KEATING. No, I understand that, Madam Secretary. But, you 

know, why are you cutting where we know with certainty the response is coming from? 

27 

Secretary NIELSEN. So I—— 

Mr. KEATING. Those are wonderful things. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. KEATING. But—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. But those do that. The—— 

Mr. KEATING. But these are the first responders—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Right. But that is what the—— 

Mr. KEATING. That are going to be there. 

Secretary NIELSEN. That is what all those programs do. They 

help local communities and first responders be ready to respond. 

Mr. KEATING. But these are tried and tested. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Exercises and training. 

Mr. KEATING. And save lives. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, they are. 

Mr. KEATING. Those things that I mentioned have all saved lives. 

So with a culture of preparedness with emerging threats, how is 

that greater? How are we safer with that? 

Those are critical monies to police, fire that they cannot do on 

their own. It includes regional kind of preparedness. So I will leave 

it with that. But I am concerned, and I think I am not alone on 

this committee on both of the aisle in terms of that concern because 

we have seen the effectiveness. 

If I could shift very quickly, one other area. President Trump in 

his private life, even though he is President, he continues in his 

private life and his private business life to take advantage of H– 

2B visas for his personal businesses. They are there for him. They 

are not there for everyone right now because of the demand. 

I represent a seasonal area where small businesses really rely on 

this. Under the Bush administration, they merely raised the cap. 

Under the Obama administration, they raised the cap several times 

in the past responding to this demand. 

But you have had the opportunity to deal with it, and the small 

businesses in my district are telling me that the way that rolled 

out last year, the regulations, the uncertainty, the burdens on a 

small business were so great that they did not even dare and they 

were being advised by their own attorneys even not to enter into 

it. 

Now could you tell us the time frame for acting on these additional H–2B visas? The clock is ticking and businesses are losing 

money. American jobs are being hurt by this because by not hiring 

a full complement of workers, they are closing down for weeks that 

they would normally be open. Days that they would be open. So it 

is hurting American jobs as well. 

Why if we are going to roll this out, why could not we just do 

what President Bush did, what President Obama did and just raise 

the cap on returning workers? Those are the safest workers. You 

do not see returning workers overstaying their visas. We have a 

problem with that in other visas. 

But these are people that have a history of working, by the way, 

paying into Social Security, and have a benefits that they are going 

to realize. Going home and then coming back. They are safe. This 

is tried and tested. This is common sense. 

Why cannot the Department simply have the cap raised on returning workers and deal with this in a timely fashion, and not 

28 

leave so many revenues that would be important for our economy 

wasted and lost? Now, it does not affect the President but it is affecting people in my district. Could you—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. So as you know we did raise the cap 

last year. I worked into—— 

Mr. KEATING. Yes, but excuse me. But—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. KEATING. I told you what my businesses are telling me loud 

and clear. Many of them would not even take advantage of it because supposedly a pro-business friendly administration made it so 

uncertain and they would not even dare try. They just shut down 

for weeks. So—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. 

Mr. KEATING. I know you did it last year. I am asking you—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, I—— 

Mr. KEATING. Not to do it the same way this year. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. So the reg is done. The reg actually was 

a result of talking to many Members who have a concern in their 

district, and the concern was that the visas were being given to 

those who are not seasonal workers. We unfortunately have seen 

an increase in fraud, so what the reg was meant to do was to 

get—— 

Mr. KEATING. Again, excuse me. But that is an enforcement 

issue. So the answer to better enforcement—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, no, no, it is not enforcement—— 

Mr. KEATING. Is these are better enforcement is not to scuttle the 

program, not to make it ineffective. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. Right. 

Mr. KEATING. It is to do better in enforcement. You know, the 

clock is ticking. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, I would ask Congress to act. I mean I 

personally worked into the wee hours of night to try to get this addressed in the omnibus. It is Congress’ job to legislate immigration. 

I have asked repeatedly for you to put the cap in law and for you 

to put in law that returning workers that come back—— 

Mr. KEATING. Excuse me, again, if I could amplify that. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. 

Mr. KEATING. Eighty-nine Members, bipartisan Members that 

signed a letter asking the leadership to do that. Now they did not. 

They gave you the authority again as they did before. But within 

that authority, you still have the ability to do it. So—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. So the visas should be—— 

Mr. KEATING. So I am asking you to do it. 

Secretary NIELSEN. The visas should be—— 

Mr. KEATING. And act in a timely way and a way that businesses 

can take advantage of this. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I agree. There is no reason to have a visa 

program that puts Americans’ businesses out of business. That is 

not the intention. 

Mr. KEATING. Well—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. We are working, we should have it—— 

Mr. KEATING. If you could get back to me on that, I would really 

appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I yield back. 

29 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman yields. 

Gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry is recognized. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, you have a tough job, and we appreciate your 

service. I got four questions. I am going to try and ask them all, 

and there is a little narrative with each one for context, and then 

I am going to let you answer and try and be respectful of 

everybody’s time. 

Some cases in the past including Iraqi refugees living in Bowling 

Green were arrested in 2011 and a Saudi immigrant living in Oklahoma arrested in February of this year demonstrate how individuals have been able to make it through DHS vetting despite being 

associated with terror groups. 

In both of these cases, derogatory information was then later discovered in DOD databases showing that the men in both cases 

were linked to al-Qaeda. Ensuring the battlefield data is available 

for DHS vetting is essential for Homeland Security. 

The question is essentially will the proposed National Vetting 

Center created by this administration in February of this year 

prioritize addressing this vetting vulnerability, and how you feel 

about that, if you think that is going to be adequate? 

Question No. 2, what is DHS doing to collect DNA from non-U.S. 

persons being detained under the United States laws, understanding that there is a requirement that the collection of the DNA 

from detainees to send to CODIS for law enforcement purposes? 

Question No. 3, many Americans hope we end the catch-and-release program, but it seems the current ICE parole policy is almost 

a definition of catch-and-release, and that parole policy is not codified in law. That was enacted under the last administration and 

can be un-enacted so to speak under the current administration. 

People with valid claims of asylum should receive it, but those 

who claim it unlawfully should not be paroled into our country 

where we rely on those individuals who were unlawful and dishonest to willingly reappear or appear at a hearing. 

Then question No. 4, I have the privilege of chairing the Oversight Management and Efficiency Subcommittee. As the name 

might suggest, one of the roles is to look into what sort of financial 

waste could be eliminated in DHS. 

In this Congress we have held hearings on the consolidation of 

St. Elizabeth’s campus, integration and updating of financial systems for some of the components at DHS, which is currently, I 

might add, undergoing its fourth iteration and failure. Some of the 

cumbersome character fitness examinations processes that contractors undergo before they can work on some project. 

Here is the problem, ma’am, none of these things are particularly 

headline-grabbing topics. They are not real sexy. While I know that 

the country has, and you have much bigger fish to fry, they remain 

systemic problems year after year. 

I am just wondering, you know, let us just pick like—if we look 

at the individual disparate parts, they all seem to be doing their 

job and doing it fairly well, but the integration component where 

leadership is required to bring them together never seems to somehow come through. 

30 

The question is this, does the agency have benchmarks in that 

regard for Congress to evaluate not only integration but some of 

these other problems and the successes? I stand ready to re-ask 

any of those questions if you have not gotten them. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you. In the National Vetting Center, 

the short answer is yes. That is exactly what it is created to do, 

it is to use both high-side information and information from our allies to help us continuously screen those who seek benefits. As you 

say, unfortunately, sometimes between the initial screening and 

the granting of a status or a benefit, additional information comes 

to light that would necessitate us changing the original determination. So—— 

Mr. PERRY. We know it is hard to be perfect. But we—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. No, that is not—— 

Mr. PERRY. We want to strive for that, right? 

Secretary NIELSEN. You know, we continue to expand so called 

HSPD–6 agreements, which is an agreement with a foreign country 

to provide known and suspected terrorist lists. We have over 60 

now. We continue to work with all of our allies to implement the 

U.N. Security Council 2396, which as you know would include that 

transmission of, you know, passenger name record information. 

The second one, the DNA. So yes, it is required in law, but as 

you also know, a waiver was signed between then-Attorney General 

Holder and then-Secretary Napolitano exempting most of DHS 

from that. 

Mr. PERRY. But don’t we want to side on law enforcement and 

collect that DNA while we have those people? I mean I know there 

is a waiver, but shouldn’t we—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. So we are working with the attorney 

general currently to form a pilot to start doing that, to start collecting the DNA so that we do have—— 

Mr. PERRY. When do you have an expected start date? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We are working on the pilot right now, so I 

can get back to you—— 

Mr. PERRY. Oh, the pilot is occurring right now? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. Well, we are in the planning stages 

and we are doing it in batches. So as you know, some of it is the 

processing, we want to make sure the chain of custody. And—— 

Mr. PERRY. OK. Yes. 

Secretary NIELSEN. But, yes, happy to get right back to you on 

that. 

Mr. PERRY. I want to keep the conversation open on that. 

Secretary NIELSEN. You got it. 

Mr. PERRY. All right? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The third one, ICE parole. So we have eliminated what we call administrative catch-and-release, which I believe is what you are talking about. 

Mr. PERRY. So you come and you claim a credible fear, right? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Oh, I am sorry. OK. 

Mr. PERRY. Yes. 

Secretary NIELSEN. So if you claim a credible fear, you do then 

go into the asylum process. If it is deemed that you have a credible 

fear, you then go through an immigration judge and go through 

the—— 

31 

Mr. PERRY. Right, right. But in the past there was not the parole 

situation, right? So you claimed a credible fear, we detained you to 

determine, really, do you have a credible fear? If you did not then 

it was essentially fraudulent, and then we had the opportunity to 

send you back to wherever you came from because that was erroneous, right? 

But now people know that they can claim a credible fear. We will 

parole you, right? You are released out into our country and then 

we never see you again. We do not know whether you had a credible fear. 

It seems like the current parole policy is actually a magnet. People know that, and they know they can just come and claim it and 

they will be paroled, and they will never have to answer for that 

parole. That is what I think most of my constituents that are interested in ending catch-and-release are concerned about. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Understood. Part of that is detention bed capacity. So if you are not a flight risk, there are a limited number 

of people who are provided essentially monitoring ankle bracelets 

so that we can track them in different systems when we detain 

them and we do not have those beds. 

Mr. PERRY. Do you need more money for ankle bracelets? Is 

that—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Oh, we need more money for detention beds. 

The numbers keep going up and—— 

Mr. PERRY. Can we use the ankle bracelets if you are going to 

detain—if you are going to parole these people? Is that viable? Is 

it not viable? Do they take them off? Or what is the story there? 

Secretary NIELSEN. They can evade them, yes, sir. So it does help 

us. It is not a silver bullet. But in terms of numbers and if we need 

more, happy to get back to you on specific—— 

Mr. PERRY. Yes, ma’am. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Numbers on that. The last one was St. E’s, 

but more broadly integration. You know, Unity of Effort should not 

be a—it is not a destination. It is a constant endeavor. We have 

developed some benchmarks internally. Everything from measurements to performance controls, internal controls to work on joint 

task force to eliminate inefficiencies. Happy to give you more some 

stuff on that. 

Mr. PERRY. Yes, can we get that information? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Happy to. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, ma’am. 

I yield, sir. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 

Jersey, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I apologize, initially, 

I was not sure I recognized. But when they brought up the Norway—you not knowing Norway was a Caucasian country, then I remember. I knew who you were. We have had—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. You know, that is a funny one. I am very 

proud of my heritage but I am an American. All Scandinavian 

countries are not the same. I was not going to, the way the question was asked, testify under oath to something that I cannot guarantee was right. 

32 

Mr. PAYNE. I understand. 

Secretary NIELSEN. So I am not really sure why that became a 

story. I do not know why it would be a requirement of the Secretary of Homeland Secretary to know the racial makeup of every 

country. I do not use screening based on race, religion, or creed. 

But thank you for raising that again, sir. 

Mr. PAYNE. As we have had to do in other committees, reclaiming my time, I would think that it—I just saying how I remember 

who you were and identify related with that. Let me ask you also, 

since we are on the topic, the wall is something that seems very 

important to many people in this country, would you agree? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PAYNE. Who is going to pay for it? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The President continues to ask Congress to 

appropriate, and so we thank you for the funds this year. As you 

know we have $1.6 billion requested in 2019. 

Mr. PAYNE. But during the campaign, who was going to pay for 

it? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I cannot speak to the campaign, sir. But 

right now we have given you are budget request. 

Mr. PAYNE. No, I will tell you. I did not even watch that much. 

Mexico was going to pay for the wall. How much have we gotten 

from Mexico for the wall? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We have, as I said, continued to work with 

you all to request money in the budget to build the wall system. 

Mr. PAYNE. Not Mexico? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We have requested the money from Congress 

through the appropriations process. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Well, I heard a lot about Mexico paying for it. 

I just wanted to be clear. 

You know, there are a lot of issues in TSA with low morale. I 

can see why. What are you doing in terms of looking at this issue 

in your organization, you know, when it comes to employee satisfaction, with their job, their pay, organization, and their willingness to recommend their organization as a good place to work? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I think morale is a multifaceted issue, one 

that we must take very—it is very critical. We must look at it very 

importantly. I think helping to understand the mission and your 

part in the mission is part one of morale. 

Making sure that you have the training, that you understand 

what is available to you for retirement. Understanding the mobility 

that you might have within an organization. These are all things 

that are important. 

Communications from leadership I find to be very important. I 

do not expect employees to learn about things in the news. I hope 

to always keep them in the loop and help them to understand what 

it is that we do on a day-to-day basis. 

Mr. PAYNE. There seems to be question of consistency in training 

new TSA officers, TSOs, as opposed to old TSOs not getting the 

same training, and therefore creating gaps in the system which 

they are working in. 

Also issues around, you know, not enough TSOs that they can 

even take bathroom breaks where I have even had a report of a 

TSO having an accident on herself because they were not allowed 

33 

to leave their post. Now that is going, you know, you know, a bit 

too far where, you know, people cannot do bodily functions because 

they are not allowed to leave their post. That is something I think 

that really needs to be looked into and addressed. 

We have to make this situation where people want to come to 

work. They are on the front lines. They are doing difficult work 

with people that are not necessarily always patient with the processes we have to go through in order make sure that they are safe. 

So there is a lot of stress on these officers, and so we need to 

do what we can to identify ways of making this circumstance a little more palatable for them throughout the course of their shift. 

I see my time is up, and I will yield back. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, if you could provide me the name of that 

employee, I am happy to personally look into that. That is not an 

acceptable situation. 

Mr. PAYNE. Yes, yes. I was shocked by that myself. So I will try 

to get that information to you. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman yields. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Katko, is recognized. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your testimony today and it is good to have you 

before the committee. I do, however, want to echo the sentiments 

of my colleague earlier today, the Ranking Minority Member because it is a problem that preceded you at the agency and that is 

basically ignoring deadlines, both statutory and our Congressional 

deadlines. 

I was a Federal prosecutor for 20 years and I would not dare ignore a deadline set by a court, and I see the same obligation with 

respect to your agency. 

We had a similar problem with respect to TSA, and we have had 

some very frank discussions on my subcommittee, Oversight, of the 

TSA. I dare say that they have improved dramatically with respect 

to honoring deadlines. 

The culture that preceded you nevertheless is under you, watch 

now, and I would implore you to follow the deadlines. I do not 

think they are optional and I do not think responses such as we 

will get back to you are acceptable. I think that that is a bipartisan 

feeling and especially when it is a statutory deadline. That is law. 

I would ask that you treat that with less cavalierly and understand that those are deadlines that should be answered. Now—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, if I could. 

Mr. KATKO. Yes. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I apologize if I misspoke earlier. All I was 

trying to suggest is that I cannot give you today a specific date, so 

I would get back to you on giving you a specific date. I completely 

understand what you are saying and you have my commitment to 

work not only with TSA but throughout the Department to meet 

all statutory deadlines. 

Mr. KATKO. That is all we are asking. Thank you very much. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I understand. 

Mr. KATKO. Now, switching gears, with respect to the border, 

and I have spent a lot of time down there as a Federal prosecutor 

34 

in El Paso going after cartel-level members and I saw the border 

for that sieve that it is. 

But I also spend a significant amount of my time as a prosecutor 

on the Northern Border, and I think it routinely does not get the 

attention that it deserves. About 95 to 96 percent of the Northern 

Border is unsecure. I was just wondering how much time have you 

spent analyzing issue and whether you have had any—whether you 

have taken a look at the Northern Border threat assessment that 

was recently done? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, and as you know, what comes after that 

is the Northern Border Security Strategy which we hope to release 

shortly. We do spend a lot of time talking about the Southwest Border. But we do have issues on the Northern Border. 

I was just in Canada Monday/Tuesday talking to my counterparts there about ways in which we can coordinate better on some 

of the unique aspects on that Northern Border. But, yes, we need 

to keep that in mind always. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you very much. Switching gears again, during 

my oversight at TSA, we have had much discussion with the Chairman here as well as others about having the updated technology. 

We all know the bad guys are getting more advanced with their 

technologies especially with respect to aviation and it is quite concerning. We also believe, and I think you will agree, that the CT 

scanners are a new generation of helping to ameliorate that threat. 

Not only does it help ameliorate the threat, it really would expedite throughput at airports which is always a concern, especially 

coming with the high travel season coming. 

There are about 2,500 X-ray machines Nation-wide, and if you 

replace all those with CTs, what we are doing this year is really 

kind of a drop in the bucket. We have asked TSA, and I do not 

know if they are spoke with you yet, about examining whether we 

should reprogram some of that money from other areas of Homeland Security to plow that into getting more of these CT scanners 

up and running. 

I say that because we saw them first-hand, myself and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here on a delegation to Europe. 

They are already on the front lines there. They are already being 

used there. 

I understand the need to test these things, but there must be an 

expedited way to test them when they are already being used overseas. By the way, they are American companies and they are ready 

to provide these to you. No. 1, the delay. But No. 2, more importantly, the reprogramming of that money, if you can look into 

where you can—about reprogramming from other areas of Homeland Security I think it would be a really prudent thing to do. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Just to answer quickly. So as you know we 

did that in 2017. The current plan is if TSA is working as quickly 

as they can with industry to deploy them, and if in fact they are 

able to deploy the ones that we have appropriated, we will look to 

reprogram as we have done before. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you very much. Last, with respect to TSA, 

there seems to be an on-going practice here, and we have tried 

hard both in this committee and in my subcommittee to try and 

stop TSA from having people go through PreCheck lines when they 

35 

are not PreCheck registered. The PreCheck is a known and trusted 

traveler-type program, and it is there for a reason because you 

minimize a risk because of our involvement in a PreCheck. 

The practice started as managed inclusion, then they had body 

detection officers and they were throwing people into that lane that 

they should not have been. Now that we told them they cannot do 

managed inclusion, they cannot do some of the things they are 

doing, they are just basically calling it by a different name. 

We have made it clear to TSA that we are going to introduce 

some legislation to make it mandatory that you not do that. But 

I just wondered have you had any discussions with the administrator at TSA about this PreCheck problem? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Not this specific problem, no, sir. But 

PreCheck as you say should be reserved to those who qualify for 

PreChecks. I will work with the administrator on that. 

Mr. KATKO. I am very glad to hear that and I thank you very 

much for your time. 

I yield back Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman yields back. 

Gentlelady from New Jersey, Ms. Watson Coleman, is recognized. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, is this budget your budget? 

Secretary NIELSEN. This—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Did you have anything—did you have 

any input in this budget? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We did, yes, ma’am. So the men and women 

of DHS put together their request. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. OK. 

Secretary NIELSEN. It goes all the way up if you will. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So this happened under your watch too? 

Secretary NIELSEN. This—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. All right. 

Secretary NIELSEN. The 2019 budget, well—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So, you know—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. As you know, I joined in December so we 

were already well into the budget—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I think our greatest value statement is 

where we are putting our resources, and I am not just 100 percent 

sure that there is a consistency between where your people or your 

budget applies its resources and its ability to keep this homeland 

safe. 

With regard to land transportation issues, there is a reduction in 

the security grants. There is a reduction in the VIPR teams, there 

is a reduction or elimination of the Law Enforcement Officers 

grants. There is a reduction in the exit lane staffing. TSO staffing 

still is somewhere around 2,500 people short. 

I do not know how that helps us to be more secure in those areas 

where we are supposed to be. I do not understand where we are 

addressing the fact that our subways and our land transportation 

areas are soft targets and are being targeted. 

So I am going to ask that you respond to how this budget, in 

writing to me because I have got a lot of questions, how these particular issues that I raised are a reflection of more security for our 

homeland. 

36 

I want to know the difference or I want to know if there is a difference between refugees and illegal immigrants as far as you are 

concerned. I want to know is there a written statement as to what 

our U.S. policy is on people who are fleeing very dangerous countries, or very oppressive countries, or famine, or whatever versus 

other types of people who are coming over because I get the sense 

that we are locking them together. 

I am particularly interested in this caravan that is reaching our 

borders. I got the impression that we think of them as illegal immigrants who are going to come to our border and then we are going 

to detain them, these are women and children. 

Yet, we know who is in that caravan. If we really wanted to 

know if there is any danger in that caravan, you would have the 

capacity right now to be vetting some of those people. So I want 

to understand what your policy is going to be when it comes to that 

caravan actually coming to our borders willingly acknowledging 

that they are here and why they are here and what they are looking for. So I would like you to answer that in writing. 

I want to understand this policy that we have where since, I 

guess it is December or October 2017, we have taken more than 

700 children away from their families, 100 of those children were 

under the age of 4, and they have been taken from their parents 

in immigration detention. I want to know how that makes our 

country safer and more secure. 

I want to know what our policy is with regards to dealing with 

the trauma that that must inflict upon both these children, these 

babies and these children, and as well as their families. 

I have a question with regard to the Secret Service, I sent a letter asking you all to explain to us the cost associated with protecting the Trump kids going around the world doing Trump business. I need to have an answer to that question. 

I want to associate myself with Mr. Katko because I was up 

there on the Northern Border and a lot of concerns were expressed 

with regard to trafficking as well as drugs, opioids in particular. It 

just seems to me that we think that we have this responsibility to 

the Southern Border and not to any of the other areas. 

I guess the last thing I need to understand from you in writing 

is explain how we are justifying putting additional resources down 

on the Southern Border, particularly in the form of our National 

Guard when all of the data that we have been receiving, even data 

coming from your office is that there has been quite a significant 

diminishment of people coming across the border. 

So what is the justification for putting more people and ramping 

up the Southern Border as opposed to shoring up some of our other 

targets, our soft targets? I mean is there really a rationale? Or is 

this just campaign promises being fulfilled that has absolutely no 

anchoring in logic or consideration of where our tax dollars are 

going? 

I see that I am over my time, so, Madam Secretary, I would just 

appreciate it if I could get the answers to all of my questions in 

writing. 

Then, Mr. Chairman, I just would like to acknowledge that I do 

have two foster daughters here today, Amina and Lauren who are 

observing democracy in action. Thank you very much. 

37 

Chairman MCCAUL. Oh, and welcome to the—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Welcome to the committee to your stepdaughters. Very nice. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. McSally. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Nielsen, good to see you again. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Good to see you. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Earlier this week, Yuma Sector Border Patrol apprehended 61 people who entered the United States illegally. During an initial interview, one of these individuals claimed to be an 

unaccompanied minor. He later admitted he was an adult and a 

part of the MS–13 gang. 

UACs from El Salvador and other Central American countries 

are given different treatment than those from Mexico or other contiguous countries, or Canada, and are allowed to remain in the 

Unites States only to disappear into the shadows. 

We also have some other data points, as you know, that in a joint 

DHS/DOJ MS–13 operation last year, of the 267 gang members arrested, approximately 25 percent entered the United States as unaccompanied minors. In June 2017, a spot check of one of the HHS 

facilities that had 138 teens being held, 39 of them, roughly 30 percent, had ties to MS–13 and other gangs. 

Is it, in your view, MS–13 is actually using the loopholes in our 

law in order to send individuals to the United States? There is 

about 10,000 members of MS–13 estimated in the United States, 

and their motto is to kill, rape, and control. I just want to hear 

your perspective on what is going on with MS–13 and how they are 

using these loopholes in order to further endanger communities 

around our country. 

Secretary NIELSEN. We see them starting in their countries of origin. They recruit young children. They train them. They train 

them how to be smuggled across our border, how to then join up 

with gang members in the United States. 

We similarly see gang presence within the United States reaching back down into countries within Central America and recruiting and also providing instruction. We see smugglers increasingly 

smuggle specific to MS–13. We see all of the resulting effects of 

that from violence in general across the border, but also the drugs 

and other illicit things that go with that smuggling. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you. So I mean, these loopholes we are 

talking about are very real, right, because you are saying the MS– 

13 gang members that are here are recruiting minors and they 

know that they will be able to be let into the United States. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Others, probably that are adults, they either, like 

in this case, try and pretend they are minors or they tell them to 

say the right words, right? I have a credible fear. 

Secretary NIELSEN. That is right. 

Ms. MCSALLY. But then what is happening is they are then being 

released with a future court date that they never show up for, 

right? 

38 

Secretary NIELSEN. That is right, we estimate we only have 3.5 

percent of UACs that are eventually removed because they do not 

show up. 

Ms. MCSALLY. So, you know, closing these loopholes is paramount for security, for our National security, for our public safety. 

The bill that Chairman McCaul and I have that we have been 

working diligently with you on, that I know you support, closes 

these loopholes. 

I just really want to urge our colleagues that we have to bring 

some form of our bill to the floor. This is just one of the many 

issues—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. That we are addressing in that bill to close these 

loopholes. This is not partisan. This is a public safety, local community, and important security issue that we are trying to address 

and specifically highlighting this gang issue. 

So we also saw in California, according to DHS, 100 gang members, many of which belong to MS–13, were recently released from 

October 2016 to June 27 because of their sanctuary policies in California. 

So you have these gang members and other violent felons, violent 

criminals, that because of the dangerous policies of California, 

these individuals are being released back into our communities to 

be a further danger to our communities instead of being handed 

over to Federal authorities in prison where it is safer for the community and safer for your agents. Can you just speak to specifically 

the dangers of that and what needs to be done? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. So sanctuary cities began as a sanctuary 

for victims, as you know. What they have become over time, unfortunately, is a very contorted version of that which is a sanctuary 

for criminals, and we need to be very clear about that. 

Sanctuary city protects criminals. It is not protecting the community. So as I mentioned earlier, what it requires us to do is send 

our agents not moving from a controlled environment back into the 

communities, putting that community at risk and other immigrants 

in that community that are not serious felons and putting my officers and agents at risk. 

It does not make any sense. It is a way in which we are pitting 

blue against blue, Federal law enforcement against State law enforcement where we should all be working together to protect our 

communities. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. Thank you for clarifying that, again, because sometimes this gets misunderstood by people as to what the 

real impact is. Again, cracking down on these sanctuary cities is 

also in Chairman McCaul’s and I bill—in our bill and we look forward to working to move that forward. 

I fully support the National Guard being deployed to support border security at the Southern Border. I represent a Southern Border 

district. Can you just touch on how it is going so far? We would 

love to have you back to Arizona, would love to host you there in 

order to be able to talk to the ranchers, local residents, and see 

how things are going down at the border. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Well, thank you for the invite. I try to get to 

the border whenever I can. It is very important to learn from the 

39 

people there who are on the front lines of what works and does not 

work. 

The National Guard, we have about 1,000 deployed. We have 

around 600 actually active at the, you know, within the border 

communities. What they are doing is they are supporting CBP so 

that we have more badges on the border so CBP can go and do 

their law enforcement mission. So they are helping us with surveillance, intelligence, fleet maintenance, road clearing, all of the enabling functions that helps CBP to do what CBP needs to do. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. Thank you. I am over my time. I yield 

back. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentlelady’s time has expired. 

I did meet with the Orange County Sherriff. It was of interest 

to me with sanctuary cities. While they are barred by their State 

law, they do put the ICE detainees on a website that is then used 

publicly so ICE can make the safe transfer of the prisoner to ICE 

custody without releasing that criminal alien into the streets. I 

think that is very innovative. 

With that, the Chair recognizes gentlelady from New York, Miss 

Rice. 

Miss RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Good morning. 

Miss RICE. I have three questions I will lay out for you and hopefully I am going to do it quickly so you can answer. So my first 

question is what is your personal opinion in your capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security on whether Russia interfered in our 

elections in 2016, and the likelihood that they will continue their 

attack on our democracy in 2018 and beyond? That is No. 1. 

No. 2 is earlier this month, USCIS released internal documents 

pertaining to the decisions and temporary protected status for 

Haiti. The agency’s report stated that many of the conditions in 

Haiti that prompted the 2010 original TPS designation remained 

and that country was still vulnerable. 

So despite this report, Director Lee Cissna wrote to then-Acting 

Secretary, Elaine Duke, that Haiti had made enough progress and 

no longer met the conditions of the TPS designations. So my two 

questions are why did Director Cissna, if you know, make that recommendation which was clearly in conflict with his own agency’s 

internal findings, No. 1? 

No. 2, are there any similar internal reports from USCIS on the 

TPS designation for El Salvador? If so, if you could provide those 

documents to this committee? 

My last question, when you testified before the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee earlier this month, you 

committed to ensuring that, and this is a quote from you, ‘‘Any 

pregnant woman in our care in detention receives adequate care 

based on the recent change to ICE’s policy on detaining pregnant 

women.’’ 

So three questions, which detention facilities currently offer prenatal care? Can you define for me what DHS’s definition of, ‘‘adequate care’’ is, and how you as the Secretary intend to ensure each 

pregnant woman receives it? How will you hold detention centers 

40 

and individuals accountable? Finally, what steps, specifically, are 

you taking to ensure that ICE is meeting the assurances that you 

made? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you. So on Russia, yes, I do not think 

there is any question. Russia did interfere in our election system 

through a variety of means. As you know, they released everything 

from e-mails to foreign influence techniques, used our social media 

to try to manipulate public opinion. They did, in fact, attempt to 

undermine our elections by attacking our election infrastructure. 

I have no doubt they will continue to try to do this. It is a priority of mine. The portion that we play is to protect—help the State 

and locals, they have the primary responsibility in protecting the 

critical infrastructure related to elections, so we will continue to do 

that. 

On TPS Haiti, TPS decisions require us under law to look at, and 

maybe this is what you are referencing, the originating conditions 

that necessitated the designation of TPS. If those specific conditions no longer exist, the statute requires us to terminate TPS because it was meant to be a temporary program. 

So I am not particularly familiar with the backup work that you 

referenced. But I can just say broadly, unfortunately, what that 

means is some countries remain, perhaps unstable and have difficult conditions, but if they are not a result of the originating designation, that designation must be terminated. But—— 

Miss RICE. I would ask if you could just look into that a little 

because it—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Miss RICE. Seemed very clear that the report State—or they say 

many of the conditions. I do not know if one does not exist that 

means that it is over, but that seems pretty arbitrary. So if you 

could just, you know, look for me. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I will. I will. I will look into it. With respect 

to your question for documents regarding to El Salvador, of course, 

we will be happy to provide any relevant ones. 

Neonatal care, so I do take this very seriously. As I mentioned 

in my last hearing, we do screen for pregnancy for women ages 18 

to 56. We put them in a center, if they must be detained, that does 

provide the neonatal care. I will get you the names of the specific 

detention. 

We provide counseling and we provide access to outside experts. 

If they seek additional medical guidance or prescriptions or other 

things they need that we cannot provide, we give them that option. 

In terms of how I am making sure they do that, I have had many 

conversations with the director. We have audits in place. We are 

taking this very seriously. I just would ask, as I did then, if you 

have any concerns or specific examples of when that is not occurring to please let me know and we will take that very seriously. 

Miss RICE. I will do that. Thank you. I appreciate you following 

up as we discussed. Thank you very much for the service. 

I would just like to note that I think I am the only person that 

stayed under 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I appreciate it. 

Miss RICE. Thank you for that, Secretary. 

41 

Chairman MCCAUL. Congratulations. Thank you so much for 

that. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Donovan. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I thank you, Miss Rice. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I would ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter from the Jewish 

Federations of North America discussing the importance of the 

Not-for-Profit Security Grant program, a program that has made a 

big difference to the not-for-profits in my district. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Without objections, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY HONORABLE DANIEL M. DONOVAN

April 25, 2018. 

The Honorable DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. 

The Honorable DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., 

Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 

20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN DONOVAN AND RANKING MEMBER PAYNE: We thank you and the 

members of the Subcommittee, for holding this week’s hearing on the current terrorism threat to our Nation’s high-risk metropolitan areas and the importance of 

FEMA’s Preparedness Grant Programs to these cities and communities. We would 

like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the particular threat concerns of 

the Nonprofit Sector and the importance of the Nonprofit Security Grant Program 

to our security. 

According to the joint statement of Joseph J. Esposito, the Commissioner of the 

New York City Department of Emergency Management, John Miller, the Deputy 

Commissioner of Intelligence and Counterterrorism for the New York Police Department, and Joseph W. Pfeifer, the Chief of Counterterrorism and Emergency Preparedness for the Fire Department of New York City, ‘‘More than any other place 

in the world, New York City remains in the crosshairs of violent terrorists.’’ In describing the terrorist plots targeting NYC since September 11, 2001, they noted that 

major synagogues were targeted. They further testified that while deterrence has 

kept New York City safe, ‘‘the specter of an attack is forever present’’ and the work 

‘‘cannot happen without the assistance and aid of the Federal Government.’’ 

Similarly, Jared M. Maples, Director of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, testified that mass gathering locations are often the primary 

targets of terrorists looking to cause as much harm as possible, and that a whole 

community approach is necessary ‘‘to demonstrably reduce the risk of successful attacks on soft targets.’’ This is not a new threat concern. To his point, in February 

2002, the Associated Press published a translated al-Qaeda training manual that 

was spirited out of Afghanistan. The manual prescribed that special terror units 

should work in areas with large Jewish communities: ‘‘In every country, we should 

hit their organizations, institutions, clubs and hospitals.’’ It read further, ‘‘The targets must be identified, carefully chosen and include their largest gatherings so that 

any strike should cause thousands of deaths.’’ 

Today, the threat picture is no less disconcerting. According to a recent audit conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, there were at least 1,986 anti-Semitic incidents perpetrated throughout the United States in 2017 (many additional incidents 

are presumed unreported). This amounted to an increase of 57 percent over the 

number of incidents reported in 2016, constituted the largest single-year increase 

on record, and was the second-highest number reported since the Anti-Defamation 

League began tracking such data in 1979. Moreover, for the first time in nearly a 

decade an incident occurred in every U.S. State, targeting Jewish schools, community centers, synagogues, cemeteries, museums, public spaces, and private businesses and property. According to the audit, the highest number of incidents took 

place in New York (380 incidents), and the third-highest number of incidents took 

place in New Jersey (208). 

While the majority of religious-bias threats to the Nonprofit Sector continue to 

target the Jewish community, mosques, churches and other faith and communal orVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:31 Oct 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\115TH CONGRESS\18FL0426\18FL0426 HEATH
42 

ganizations are high-value ‘‘soft’’ targets, as well. Along with the Jewish community, 

these other vulnerable communities have too frequently been the victims of arson 

and fire bombing, shooting and mass shooting, attempted bombing, assault, death 

threats, vandalism, property damage, and other incidents that have occurred just 

during the 115th Congress. 

With this overview as a backdrop, we are grateful to FEMA Grant Programs Directorate Assistant Administrator Thomas DiNanno for his testimony, which called 

attention to the significance of the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to its stakeholders, and illustrated the program’s value toward improving the Nation’s readiness in preventing, protecting against, and responding to terrorist attacks targeting 

the Nonprofit Sector. 

In step with the testimony of Assistant Administrator DiNanno and the panel of 

New York and New Jersey counterterrorism experts, the threat picture for faithbased and other communal nonprofit institutions is considerable and justifies 

Congress’s continued strong support for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program as 

a critical component of FEMA’s Preparedness Grant Programs. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views and for your continued support for 

the Nonprofit Security Grant Program. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT B. GOLDBERG

Senior Director, Legislative Affairs. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, I hate to do this to you, but everybody has 

been asking you for questions answered in writing, and I have to 

actually go into the Speaker’s chair in about 4 minutes to open up 

the legislative business. So I would just like to lay out my questions and ask you to do so as well. 

Earlier this week, my subcommittee held a field hearing in my 

district which focused on the importance of Federal counterterrorism support to high-risk urban areas like New York City. 

Witnesses representing law enforcement and first responders in 

New York and New Jersey discussed the importance of intelligence 

information sharing and the homeland security grant programs to 

their operations. We must fully fund these grant programs particularly in light of the evolving terrorist threat. 

Another topic of discussion at the hearing was the difficulty in 

securing mass transit systems. The Transit Security Grant program is vital to those efforts, but the overall focus on surface transportation security programs dwarfs that of aviation security. 

Our witnesses expressed great concern about mass transit security, and that is a concern I share especially in light of the attempted bombing at the New York City Port Authority Terminal in 

December. Can you please speak or write to us to what more we 

can do to enhance the security of this transportation mode? How 

is DHS supporting information sharing when it comes to threats to 

mass transit? 

My other question would be involving the Countering Weapons 

of Mass Destruction Office. The President’s budget request for that 

office proposes changes to the Securing the Cities program, a program that has proven very successful in New York City. 

We are hearing concerns from securing city jurisdictions about 

proposed changes in permissible equipment, to whom the equipment would be provided to, and the impact that would have on the 

jurisdiction’s ability to conduct radiological detection in response 

operations. This committee has long supported the Securing the 

City’s program as it is currently operating, and the House passed 

my legislation authorizing the program just last year. 

43 

My three questions involving that would be what changes is the 

Department proposing to the program? What outreach have you 

done to participating jurisdictions to solicit their feedback? How are 

you addressing the concerns that the Department is receiving from 

securing the city’s jurisdictions? 

I thank you for your service to our Nation. I thank you for answering my question. I thank you for indulging me. I have to run. 

Secretary NIELSEN. OK. 

Mr. DONOVAN. I yield back and, Mr. Chairman, I used less time 

than Rice did. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes. You yield back to, for the record, 2 minutes 15 seconds. That is a record I think. So thank you for that. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Correa, 

who I notice brought in three or four children to the hearing? 

Mr. CORREA. Yes. 

Chairman MCCAUL. I want to welcome them as well. 

Mr. CORREA. Thank you. They are all our children. Those are 

survivors of our veterans that made the ultimate sacrifice—— 

Chairman MCCAUL. Wow. 

Mr. CORREA. Fighting for our freedom around the world. So I 

thought it was important for them to follow us here and shadow 

us. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for pointing them out. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes, and thank you for bringing them. 

Mr. CORREA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for 

holding this hearing. 

Commissioner Nielsen, again, thank you for being here. I wanted 

to follow up on some of the comments made by my colleague, Mr. 

Katko, from New York. I represent California, Orange County, 

California. 

Our Nation’s security is very important to my constituents or the 

constituents to our State. These are issues that are also very important to our taxpayers. Right now, as I travel through our district, which is Democrat and very Republican as well, I do not hear 

much talk about undocumented workers. As a matter of fact, in 

Central Valley, I hear the need for more farm workers. 

Newport Beach area, I do not hear people talking about the nannies that are undocumented. I do not see that as a complaint. Then 

in Disneyland, our area is heavy in tourism, I do not hear a lot of 

people complaining about the undocumented workers, waiters, 

waitresses, and cooks. 

But I will tell you what I do hear complaints about in my district, and I think throughout the country, is this opioid crisis. Some 

numbers have it as high as 500 percent increase in usage throughout the Nation. Deaths have skyrocketed because of the opioids. 

So my question really is according to one of your DHS reports, 

the Northern Border threat, you have more and more fentanyl, ecstasy coming through Canada. What are we planning to do in the, 

you know, Northern Border? 

As Mr. Katko said, 95, 96 percent of that border is essentially 

open. So any thoughts about where we are going in terms of protecting our Northern Border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. So as I mentioned, I just was speaking 

with my colleague in Canada about this, so part of it is the partnership on both sides to make sure that we facilitate legal trade 

44 

and travel, but that we reduce any illicit activity including drugs. 

As you say, opioids continue to be a problem throughout the Nation. 

Mr. CORREA. If I may? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Please. 

Mr. CORREA. What kind of partnerships do we have right now 

with people north and south of the border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. They are strong. They are very strong with 

the Canadians, yes, sir. 

Mr. CORREA. How about with the Mexicans? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The Mexicans, we have a strong partnership 

as well. 

Mr. CORREA. OK. General Kelly, who was in your position here 

a few months back, made some comments, and I agreed on to the 

affect that if anything gets near our border we have essentially lost 

a battle. 

If we are going to stop terrorists, we have to work with not only 

the Mexicans, not only the Canadians, but the Brazilians and some 

Afghanis and some of the others. Are you moving ahead and building those relationships through formalized information-sharing 

agreements? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We are, absolutely. Yes. 

Mr. CORREA. So following up on that, we are looking at building 

a border wall in the Mexican border. I presume we are going to do 

something like that at the Northern Border as well? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Well, we are working with the Canadians, so 

we still need the—— 

Mr. CORREA. Are we going to build a Northern Border as well? 

Secretary NIELSEN. In some places we need impedance and denial, yes, sir. 

Mr. CORREA. So we are going to build a physical barrier as well 

like the one we have seen on TV at the Southern Border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We do not have a current plan right now to 

build an equivalent structure that we have on the Southern Border. 

Mr. CORREA. Let me ask you, and again, coming back to the 

opioid issue, before this committee, this Homeland Security was 

created, 30 years ago we had a lot of our drugs coming into this 

country through Miami, through Florida. This country did a great 

job of stopping those trades of illicit drugs through the Caribbean. 

What we did is we shifted it inland through Mexico. As a result, 

we destabilized the whole country with our money that went to buy 

drugs, weapons, so on and so forth. So as we cut off the Mexico 

side, are they going to start flowing in through Canada and are 

they start going in through our sea ports? 

I say that to you because here, a few months back, our Coast 

Guard commandant told us that a couple years ago they identified 

about 600 known drug vessels bringing drugs into this country, and 

the Coast Guard did not have the resources to stop, to intercede, 

to stop those shipments. 

So again, as a taxpayer, I am running out of time, my question 

is, is the money best spent on a border wall, or is it, you know, cooperating with the nations? Or if you had a dollar, where would 

you spend it? 

45 

Secretary NIELSEN. If I had a dollar? I think it needs to be all 

of the above. I mean, the short answer would be—— 

Mr. CORREA. But if you had a priority, ma’am? 

Secretary NIELSEN. If we have a priority, we have to secure our 

Southern Border, sir. That is where we see the greatest threat between the two borders. 

Mr. CORREA. The threat in terms of? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Drug smuggling, terrorist, traffickers, illicit 

activity, and violence. 

Mr. CORREA. Mr. Chair, I am out of time but I would like to have 

written information on that—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. 

Mr. CORREA. Compared to what is coming through Canada and 

through the ports. Mr. Chair, I yield time. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is recognized. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I appreciate you appearing before myself and 

my colleagues today. Thank you for your service to our country. I 

am concerned about authorization of the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

As you know, this committee crafted in the House of Representatives in July 2017 with overwhelming bipartisan support, 386 to 41 

by vote, passed the full authorization of the Department of Homeland Security, yet we have seen no action in the Senate and this 

greatly concerns me and my colleagues on both sides of aisle in the 

House. How has this lack of action in the Senate injured your ability to serve and protect our Nation, Madam? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Well, first of all, I want to continue to thank 

this committee for your support. It is very important to have this 

reauthorization. So as you know, it would give us some additional 

authorities that we need. It would clarify parts of the law. It would 

clarify our mission sets, and it would give us the ability to more 

effectively manage to the mission by reorganizing within the department. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Centralized command and control, by your definition and by those of us that sit on this committee, we would concur 

that centralized command and control is crucial to the efficiency of 

any operation. Would you not agree? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would agree because we do this based on 

risk. So it has to be a centralized look at risks that we can match 

the mission set and resources accordingly. 

Mr. HIGGINS. So the effect of reauthorization, would you see that 

as allowing your Department to operate, and all the components 

that agencies within your Department to operate more efficiently 

and be better able to serve the Nation and to protect the interest 

of National security? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. Not having reauthorization binds 

my hands and those of the men and women of DHS. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Madam. I hope my colleagues in the 

Senate are listening. 

It has been stated by some Members here of this committee 

today several times regarding the caravan that you know who 

those people are. I find that difficult to believe, Madam. Is that 

46 

true? How is that possible? Have they been vetted? Have they been 

interviewed by your agents? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, sir. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Well, how would you possibly know who they are 

then? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do not know. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you very much for clarifying that. Regarding 

my colleagues’ request for confirmation of your 90 percent number 

for those that have been issued a citation, it is a summons for 

court, is that not? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. A summons for court calls for probable cause 

stating that there has been some criminal act. That criminal act 

would have been illegally entering out Nation. Is that correct? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, illegal entry without inspection. 

Mr. HIGGINS. So these illegal immigrants receive a summons for 

court, and then you are stating that 90 percent do not show up for 

court. I would like to see the demographics of those numbers as 

well because I would be surprised if 10 percent show up for court. 

During the course of my career as a police officer for over a decade, I have had many interactions with illegal immigrants either 

in field interviews or by stopping a car with no registration, expired inspections, tag, et cetera. There is nothing that can be done. 

You stop these guys. They have no driver’s license. Their driver’s 

license is fake. There might be three or four of them in the car. It 

is pointless to give them a citation for a misdemeanor traffic violation because they are certainly not returning for traffic court. 

You cannot tow their car because then they are on foot in your 

jurisdiction. You get phone calls all night. You cannot bring them 

to jail because ICE will not come pick them up. So that is what 

happens to us both, nothing. Whereas an American citizen in the 

same situation would be cited, issued a summons, or perhaps 

brought to jail. 

So I would be surprised if 10 percent of those that are issued a 

summons to American court and Federal court for entering our Nation illegally show up. So I would be interested as well to receive 

the demographics. 

Can you respond at all? Do you have those demographics? Who 

they are, their age, their gender, their nation of origin, whether or 

not they have an anchor family, et cetera? Can you provide that 

information? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We do have much of that, yes, sir. We are 

happy to provide it. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I would appreciate that. I would certainly be interested in looking at it. Thank you, Madam, for your poise and your 

grace during your testimony. Your continued service to our country 

is greatly appreciated. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. The gentleman yields. 

The gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Demings, is recognized. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to our Ranking Member. 

Before I get into my line of questions, Madam Secretary, and 

welcome, it is good to meet you. I just want to follow up on a quesVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:31 Oct 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\115TH CONGRESS\18FL0426\18FL0426 HEATH
47 

tion that my colleague just asked. Your answer was you have no 

way to identify who is possibly in a caravan. I just wonder why you 

did not give that answer to the person who asked you that question? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Because he did not ask. It was just part of 

his speech and I just did not want to interrupt him. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. You did not feel the need to clear that? Because 

that is a major, I think, part. You have cleared up some other 

things this morning. You did not feel the need to kind-of clear that 

up just kind-of for the record? No? 

Secretary NIELSEN. But I was happy to do it just now. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. OK. All right. You know, budgets are certainly, 

I believe, a list of priorities. Many say that they kind-of express our 

values. Of the things we have talked about this morning, we have 

certainly talked about building a wall and even detention beds and 

immigration enforcement. 

When you gave your list of your missions at the Department of 

DHS, it was listed first on your list. So I would just like to know, 

do you consider building a wall or immigration enforcement a higher priority than say restoring or increasing grant funding to local 

communities, local first responders who deal with violent acts and 

other threats every day? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So I think they are both important issues. I 

mean, I would hope that—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Do you consider one a higher priority? Because 

that is the business that you are in. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Right, so—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. It is a tough job. 

Secretary NIELSEN. OK. OK. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Let me finish. 

Secretary NIELSEN. All right. So, yes—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Let me finish. It is a tough job. I just want to 

know, do you consider, based on your knowledge, training, and experience, keeping our country safe and secure is a tough but a big 

job? I certainly believe you are capable of doing that. 

I want to hear from you based on your knowledge, training, and 

experience, do you believe that building a wall or immigration enforcement is a higher priority, because you have to decide how 

those dollars are spent, than increasing or restoring funding to first 

responders to deal with, oh my gosh, just a myriad of threats every 

day? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I think that if we can keep the threat out of 

our country through strong border security, that is the first and 

best way to help those State and locals prepared. So we see 15 terrorists who are known or suspected who attempt to travel or travel 

here every day. Border security is homeland security. If I can do 

my job in keeping them out of this country and thereby helping 

State and locals in—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Can you tell me how many people have been 

killed as an act of violence at the Southwest Border during your 

tenure as Secretary? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I cannot, but I am happy to get back to you 

with that figure. 

48 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Can you tell me how many, if any, Custom and 

Border Patrol officers or agents have been killed at the Southwest 

Border, or even, let me say this, severely injured at the Southwest 

Border during your tenure? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. Two, and then the assaults are up 73 

percent. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. OK. So 2 CBP officers have been killed in the line 

of the duty—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Last year, yes. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Last year. But you cannot tell me overall how 

many persons overall have died at the Southwest Border through 

acts of violence, of course, have been killed during your tenure? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I cannot give you a specific number right 

now, no, ma’am. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. OK. You know, coming from Florida where we 

just had a school shooting, 14 people died. In Orlando a year-anda-half ago, we had 49 people who were killed in what we labeled 

domestic terrorism. 

Then folks who were just trying to go and enjoy a concert in Las 

Vegas died, lost their lives, 58. But you have no idea how many 

people overall died during your tenure at the Southwest Border. 

But you would consider that a greater priority than the 58, the 

49, or the 14, those that are classified as domestic acts of terrorism? With your dollars, you believe that putting them at the 

Southwest Border is a greater priority? How do you justify that? 

Obviously, you do, but please tell me how you justify that? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. I apologize. I am not sure I am following all of the—but what I was saying is border security is a priority. The reason for that is because if we can keep the threat from 

coming in our borders, whether that is drugs, whether that is terrorists, whether that is TCOs or gangs, then we eliminate part of 

the threat environment that the State and locals have to deal with. 

So that is why I was saying border security—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Can you tell me very quickly, because I am from 

Florida, I think FEMA has, gosh, been criticized quite a bit, as you 

know, about their response to Puerto Rico and housing has been an 

issue. You know there are multiple people in hotel rooms. You 

know, a hotel room, 8 people, 2 beds. 

But the program that would assist them has not been utilized to 

assist—the Disaster Housing Assistance Program. Could you tell 

me if you have any plans to implement that program to help the 

victims from Puerto Rico? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. So as you know, under the National 

Disaster Recovery Framework, it is actually HUD that has that recovery function for housing. So we are working very closely with 

Secretary Carson. Actually, Governor Scott from Florida has been 

very helpful in providing lessons learned from Florida and what we 

can apply to Puerto Rico. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. So you are working with the Secretary to utilize 

that program so that we—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Of HUD, we are working with him and what 

he can do within its programs, yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Do you feel like we are going to be able to reach 

an agreement? 

49 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would refer you to HUD, but I am happy 

to commit to you to continue to work with HUD. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Thank you. Gentlelady yields. 

The gentleman from, where am I, Nebraska, the General Don 

Bacon is recognized. 

Mr. BACON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Nielsen, for your leadership. We appreciate 

all the folks that work at Homeland Security and what you are trying to do for our country and keeping us safe. We are grateful. 

I want to just follow up on the statement you just made. You just 

said 15 suspected terrorists try to cross our border every day. Is 

that correct? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Who plan to travel or travel, yes, sir. 

Mr. BACON. Right. Could you just detail for us at the unclassified 

level obviously, how are the Sunni extremists, whether it be ISIS 

or al-Qaeda, what have you seen with them trying to cross our borders? So if you could just—because I think most people in our country do not realize this effort is going on every day. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. Just much more broadly because we 

are at—— 

Mr. BACON. Right. 

Secretary NIELSEN. An unclassified level as you say. Let me just 

say that, you know, we have also seen—I am trying to think of 

what I can say. So we see these numbers in terrorists. We are 

happy to come and brief you on the breakdown. 

What I can also say is ISIS in social media has encouraged its 

followers to utilize our refugee program to come here. They in writing have encouraged people to come across our Southwestern Border. So we do see an uptick in any type of terrorist groups trying 

to come here. But I am happy to come brief you on the specific 

breakdowns. 

Mr. BACON. Well, I think it would be important would be at the 

unclassified level, carefully vetted by you and your team, to put 

this out to our citizens because I think it is an important topic for 

our border wall and border security. 

But I think a lot of our folks think about the immigration issue 

when it comes to the wall and it becomes caught up in political 

controversy. But when you know that there is actual terrorists trying to cross and we have actual data, I think it would help shape 

this debate in a positive way. That would be my—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you for that. 

Mr. BACON. My input. On a different topic, we know the Russians and Chinese are working to infiltrate our energy grid. Indeed, 

you know, the next December 7 will not be zeros with torpedoes 

coming in at Pearl Harbor. It is going to be preceded by rolling 

blackouts and the chaos that follows and some of our bases do not 

have the alternative power. 

Could you tell me what is Homeland Security doing to help build 

that resiliency and protection for our energy grid? How do we defend against this and how can we help? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. So I think you described the threat. I 

agree with your characterization. Unfortunately, itself is persistent. 

50 

They are becoming much more nimble and creative. So what we do 

is we work with a variety of partners. We put out alerts. 

We put out a technical alert, a joint one actually with the United 

Kingdom just last week, about how we have seen nation-states manipulating some of our systems to do some of the things you were 

just describing. We work very closely with State and local operators 

in the Department of Energy. 

We give them best practices. We share information. We have set 

up sector gridding councils with governance structures. We also 

work through fusion centers. But a lot of this is, if you will bear 

with the expression, basic hygiene. 

So we want to make sure that we are raising the level, everything from access control to passwords to basic malware detection. 

We have a system at DHS called the Automated Indicator Sharing 

program. We are encouraging more and more companies and entities to do that. So at machine speed we can advise them of incoming threat vectors. 

Mr. BACON. Thank you. One last question. We are seeing criminal organizations and terrorists using more encrypted data in their 

communications devices. It is very hard to penetrate at times. They 

know what they are doing, and it impacts our law enforcement. 

What can we do to help you with this? No. 2, how do you partner 

with, say, DOJ or local and State authorities? Because they are the 

ones often caught having to deal with this. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. As we all know, this is a tough area of 

how to balance the conversation around encryption. We do work 

very closely with DOJ. DHS, as you know, we have many, many 

law enforcement men and women with particular mission sets that 

require their own use of encrypted data, so we have both sides of 

the debate, if you will. 

Part of this is increasing and going back to human intelligence 

so that we can really track those that we are trying to track, understand who they communicate with, who they are participating 

with. We certainly take that approach in TCOs, for example. So 

some of this is technological solutions and we are working with the 

private sector on that. But some of it is going to good-old, you 

know, back to good-old detective work. 

Mr. BACON. Let us know, too, how we can facilitate or make this 

an easier problem for you all to tackle. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. BACON. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. I am under my five. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Yes, congratulations. Nice job. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Barraga ́n. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, did you testify that 90 percent of unaccompanied minors do not show up to court? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So I believe what has been referenced is my 

testimony in the last hearing. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. What was the percentage you said a minute ago? 

Was it 90 percent? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I had not said that, but I think people were 

quoting me—— 

51 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. Well, I just wanted to correct the record because there is so much false information that comes out of this administration, and this is one of those. My records, which is the Department of Justice Immigration Court’s data, states that 69 percent show up to court. 

When unaccompanied minors have counsel, 95 percent show up 

to court. As somebody who has actually represented an unaccompanied minor in an immigration proceeding, I think maybe that 

sends a message that we should make sure unaccompanied minors 

have access to counsel. 

Your predecessor, Secretary Kelly, he committed to meeting with 

the Congressional Hispanic Caucus regularly. Will you commit to 

meeting with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus regularly like 

your predecessor? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would be happy to. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Great. Hopefully, we can get that scheduled soon 

because I know since you have been sworn in we have not seen you 

come in yet. So thank you for that. 

Back in mid-January, my friend, Senator Cory Booker, had asked 

if you had met with any DACA recipients. At that time, you mentioned you had not. Have you met with any DACA recipients since 

that time? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I have not. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Great. Thank you. 

My colleague earlier, Miss Jackson Lee, had mentioned this recent court decision that came out this week about DACA applications, and I pulled the decision. Just to clarify for the record, the 

order says, ‘‘DHS must accept and process new as well as renewal 

DACA applications.’’ This is in the court order. 

Now, that is the actual court order. The court order goes on to 

say that they are going to have a stay for 90 days so DHS can explain why they ended the program because, you know, the court, 

it was arbitrary and capricious. 

Madam Secretary, you are a head of Homeland Security. Do you 

have a better explanation? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am sorry, for the court’s decision? 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Yes. The court decision said—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. That you had 90 days—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Right. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. To better explain why the program ended because what was given before was insufficient. I am asking you—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am sorry. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Do you have a better explanation? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The explanation is very simple. It was an inappropriate use of Executive power. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Do you have a better explanation? Because the 

court has already ruled that that explanation was insufficient. Do 

you have a better explanation? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sitting here today, we are reviewing the 

court decision, as you know, that just came down and we will be 

prepared to provide the court the requested information. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. So you do not have one yet? Thank you. 

Thank you very much. 

52 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do not review cases—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. I am looking forward—— 

Secretary NIELSEN [continuing]. As you know the Justice Department does, so I defer to the Justice Department on arguing the 

cases on behalf of the U.S. Government as we do with all cases. 

But we—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Correct. But the Department of Homeland Security enforces them and I think the court order is very specific 

that—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. We will comply. We will provide them the information requested. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Great. Madam Secretary, you are responsible for 

more than 240,000 employees at the Department of Homeland Security. Is that correct? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Around that, yes. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Many of those employees have security clearances. Is that correct? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Many of them do, yes. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. Back in March, the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Thompson, and I sent you a letter, this letter that I am holding up 

here, asking you some questions about your handling of security 

clearance. You have not responded to that. So I am going to go 

ahead and see if I can get some answers here today. Were you 

aware of the allegations of domestic abuse by Mr. Porter prior to 

his resignation in February 2018? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Was I aware? Whatever was in the press is 

what I was aware of. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. So you are saying as a deputy chief, as a deputy 

working under Mr. Kelly in the White House that you were not 

aware of allegations of domestic abuse by Mr. Porter? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I was the deputy chief of policy, and so I did 

not review nor access clearance request records or adjudications. 

That was not part of my job. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK, so the New York Times reporting is inaccurate about this, that you as the deputy chief of staff, in November when the FBI had a detailed report that was submitted to the 

White House, you are saying you did not see it and were not aware 

of it? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I did not see any FBI report. No, I did not. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. So you did not take any action at all regarding Mr. Porter’s security clearance? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would not have. That was not in my job description. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. What is the policy at Homeland Security now on 

interim security clearances? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So we look at that very carefully. We restrict 

access. When somebody has an interim, there is particular circumstances which someone might be granted, but mostly it takes 

a long time, as you know, to go through the adjudication process, 

and so we reserve bringing somebody on-board fully in most cases 

until their clearance is fully adjudicated. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Great. Can you commit to responding to this letter of March 5 in writing please? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, I can. 

53 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Great, thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Garrett is recognized. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you Madam Secretary. I want to go quickly first into a 

particular and specific case with regards to USCIS and a constituent of mine whose initials are J.B. I would like to hold up this 

documentation that outlines J.B.’s efforts to adopt a young woman 

from Senegal. 

I think he might have had conversations with some of my peers 

as it relates to this process. I would describe it in the interest of 

conserving my limited time as tragic and ridiculous what this 

woman has been through to include over a dozen trips to the nation of Senegal. 

An order from NBC, the National Benefits Council under USCIS 

that suggests that they cannot complete the adoption of this young 

girl who has known no family but this particular woman in her life 

while she is in the country, thus regarding or creating a circumstance wherein this 6-year-old child needs to be sent back to 

Africa to an orphanage so that we can complete the paperwork? 

I do not take this tone with you to be derisive, but I would ask 

for your specific intention. I presume there are individuals who are 

here with you today who are staffing you. I want to make sure this 

paper gets in their hand. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. And ask for your specific attention. This is a tragedy of bureaucracy that has a human toll and impact. Moving on, 

and so I am going to set it there, please—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, you have my commitment to look into 

that, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. I would genuinely appreciate it, and thank you for 

all you do. I understand that there is 330 million Americans and 

this is but one aspiring American, but this is the right thing to do. 

Moving on there has been some interest expressed by some of my 

colleagues in prioritization as it relates to saving American lives. 

In fact, my good friend and colleague, Ms. Demings, pointed to 

tragedies in Las Vegas, Orlando, and at Parkland. 

Would it surprise you, Madame Secretary, if I were inform you 

that the Federal Government fatality reporting system indicates 

that about 20 percent of all automobile accidents fatalities involve 

illegal—I am sorry, unlicensed drivers and about half of those are 

illegals? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am not familiar with that statistic, but, no, 

that would not surprise me. 

Mr. GARRETT. Would it surprise you with the number of total 

people killed, American citizens on American highways each year 

by illegals is estimated to be in the range of about 3,500? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, it would not surprise me. 

Mr. GARRETT. OK. Would it surprise you to learn that in Federal 

incarceration we have 709,440 illegal people detained? Would that 

surprise you? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No. 

54 

Mr. GARRETT. Would it surprise you to learn that the best estimate of State and local incarceration figures for illegals in this 

country is in the neighborhood of 297,000, thus creating an incarceration of over a million people who were in this country illegally? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No. 

Mr. GARRETT. Would it surprise you to learn that the cost to incarcerate those individuals in Federal and State facilities exceeds 

$31 billion, almost $32 billion dollars annually? 

Secretary NIELSEN. That is a large number. 

Mr. GARRETT. If we had $32 billion dollars annually to construct 

a Southern Border wall, could we keep those people out of this 

country, thus reducing the cost to incarcerate, and also saving upwards of 3,500 lives every single year of Americans who die at the 

hands of people here illegally on U.S. highways? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We certainly could keep most of them out if 

we had a full border system, yes. 

Mr. GARRETT. So if we protected our Southern Border and kept 

these million-incarcerated illegal criminal aliens out of our country, 

not only would we save lives, but we would also, presumably, if 

they were not here, they could not be arrested and incarcerated, 

save about $32 billion dollars a year in 2017 data, if the numbers 

that I am giving you is correct? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. GARRETT. Which would amount to over three-tenths of a trillion dollars in a decade. I just like to do this because I am a publicschool kid, three thousand, thousand, thousand, thousand, million 

dollars, that we could save if we built this wall in the front end. 

OK. 

So if we were able to make this one-time commitment to secure 

our Southern Border would it, in fact, be a net cost-saver paid for 

by, technically, I suppose, the countries from which these individuals come by virtue of the denial of admission of illegal individuals? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It would save lives. It would save money, and 

it would protect our communities. 

Mr. GARRETT. Ultimately, it would be paid for by the folks who 

currently are breaking our laws by virtue of their absence from our 

country, thus reducing the cost, would it not? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. OK. I am just having fun here. I think though that 

these points are points that need to be made. 

As it relates to St. E, and the Homeland facility consolidation 

plan, I would comment that I am as frustrated as anyone. Having 

said that, sometimes I think it is time to start anew. 

I read the OIG report with jaw agape when I read, ‘‘That perhaps too much time, energy, and money was spent on the revitalizing Washington, DC neighborhoods in the St. E. renovations.’’ Is 

it within the mission of Homeland Security to revitalize Washington, DC neighborhoods? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. Is this what the American taxpayer expects their 

money will be spent on when they support Homeland Security’s expenditures in our budget? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I highly doubt it. 

55 

Mr. GARRETT. I do as well. So I would point out, by virtue of 

that, I would confess my self-interest in the front-end facilities like, 

Vint Hill, which are very large former Government facilities located 

within 53 miles of where we sit, where you could come and build 

right now, and we would not have the cost overruns litigation that 

drive costs up. Editorial comment. 

Finally, I know I am running over, Mr. Chairman. We included 

in the authorizing budgetary language the ability to reinstate the 

waiver for returning workers under H–2B, because we wanted you 

to be able to do it. 

So allow me to join my colleague, Mr. Keating, from the other 

side of the aisle in saying, please help. It is not about foreign workers, it is about American businesses that have been around for decades that are shuddering because we cannot create a system and 

circumstance wherein they have reliability and predictability. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I understand, and it should be a sustained 

program. 

Mr. GARRETT. I am not, and again, not to attack you. 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, no. 

Mr. GARRETT. The reason—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. I agree. I asked for your help in passing 

it—— 

Mr. GARRETT. I am all over it. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Through Congress so it is a sustained program. 

Mr. GARRETT. I agree. However, just because we have not done 

our jobs yet, does not mean, given that we have given you the latitude within your executive purview to do this that we are not—I 

am asking you, humbly, to do that. I would point out, finally, that 

a returning worker by definition is someone who has already demonstrated your willingness to go home. Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin is recognized. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being here, and for your testimony here today. 

So in your testimony before the Appropriations Committee 2 

weeks ago, you stated that the Department is diverting resources 

to help secure election infrastructure is certain. I applaud the focus 

on election infrastructure. 

Yet, the budget request included a modest $7 million dollar increase for the organization that carries out this analysis and support. I certainly commend the under secretary designate, Krebbs, 

for his prioritization of election assessments. 

But I worry about the strain on NCATs resources, especially 

since they are responsible for working with other areas of critical 

infrastructure, making them a priority customers as well. So is the 

request sufficient to support important assessments in other areas 

of critical infrastructure sectors? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you for the question, sir. So, what we 

are doing is, we are working—what we did receive in the Omnibus 

was, I believe 380 that went to EAC, that we will, in conjunction 

56 

with them, help State and locals prepare. We also have $26 million 

that went to NPPD, and we will continue to work with that. 

My comments on prioritization were simply that we all, and I 

know you share this, take the election part very seriously. So in 

terms of processing vulnerability assessments, sending teams, 

doing pen testing, providing clearances, we are prioritizing the election’s subsector. 

We will continue to work with our sector-specific agencies that 

also bring funding to the fight so that we can, together, have a holistic approach. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. All right, so what data are you using to make 

sure that the NPPD has the resource it needs to respond to other 

areas of critical infrastructure so that it is not being ignored? Obviously, there is many attack factors that they have to defend—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Against, and how do we make sure those priority 

customers are not going to be ignored at the expense of the election 

security—which I certainly applaud the focus, particularly now, on 

security election infrastructure, but we also need to be focused on 

other areas of critical infrastructure. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. You have my commitment. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK. Thank you. Secretary Nielsen, your budget 

request shifts more than $40 million dollars in cyber research from 

the science and technology director at the NPPD. 

So I want to say up front that I am very concerned about this 

proposal, and I am skeptical about it. So what gives you confidence 

that NPPD, which has become primarily an operational organization, has the right tools and the people to take over this responsibility from S&T? 

Again, because this is an R&D function, for the most part, which 

S&T would be the appropriate place to do this, I worry that the 

high op tempo at NPPD will distract from the R&D work, or that 

the R&D worker is going to take a backseat. 

Secretary NIELSEN. That is certainly not the intention, sir. Actually, it was to more closely align the needs of the critical infrastructure owners and operators in the 16 sectors to an R&D plan. So 

it was meant to make it more requirements-based. It is a priority 

to do so. As you know, the threat continues to evolve very, very 

quickly. 

So, we need to be continuing to do R&D as we operate, innovate 

as we go. So, that was the idea behind moving it to NPPD. But 

happy to work with you on how we make sure that that is used 

in the appropriate way. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK, I just want to be clear. I remain skeptical. 

This is a—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Understood. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Very close and on top of it to make sure that it 

does not become an afterthought or ignored. 

Secretary Nielsen, some of my colleagues have introduced legislation to start a bug bounty program at DHS. Some in your Department have criticized the idea as being premature without robust 

vulnerability triage processes, and I certainly appreciate the concern. 

57 

However, the newly-revised NIST security framework and other 

international standards, point to having a vulnerability disclosure 

program. So with or without a bounty as a best practice. The Department of Defense and General Services Administration, have 

both implemented successful policies. 

What in your mind would prevent DHS from having a vulnerability disclosure program that helps well-intended security researches inform DHS about problems in its own systems? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So first of all, I agree that I think a bug 

bounty program is a very important tool. It is not a silver bullet, 

but nothing is. It is an important tool. We look forward to learning 

the lessons that DOD has learned in their own. 

We are watching the legislation that is going through Congress 

very closely. We will prepare on our side, to have the resources in 

planning that we need to then respond to what we find out through 

the bug bounty program. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK. But we started to talk about two related, but 

different things. Yes, bug bounty program, but also a vulnerability 

as a disclosure vector so that when researches find a vulnerability, 

they can report it to someone. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Right now, there is nobody home. In other words, 

there is the security researchers do not have a way to contact to 

DHS and make sure that DHS will then follow up on that program. 

So bug bounty program is good, I want to say let us do that. But 

why do not you have a vulnerability disclosure program? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yep. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. The Department of Defense does, the General 

Services Administration does, DHS does not. 

Secretary NIELSEN. We do have a way in which they can contact 

us and actually receive calls very frequently within the NCIC or directly to US–CERT. We are formalizing the program. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK. US–CERT helps outside agencies, OK. So if 

someone finds a vulnerability, for example, in medical device. They 

would call US–CERT, and US–CERT can work to make sure that 

they are put in touch with the right person at the company to 

make sure we hear that vulnerability. The problem is, that is not 

the case. US–CERT does not do that for vulnerability disclosures 

within DHS. 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, they pass it to the correct people. I am 

just suggesting the different ways that you can get into DHS to report things like that. But we are formalizing the program. It is 

very important. I do not disagree at all. 

We need to be able to not only notify victims, which we do in conjunction with FBI. But we need to in an appropriate way balancing 

it through the inner agency process, disclose vulnerabilities. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Could you work with us to make sure—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Absolutely. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. We, that they develop this type of a vulnerability 

disclosure program at DHS? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. All right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

58 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman yields. Last but not least, the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe, recognized. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being here today. I very much 

appreciate your testimony that you have given on all aspects of 

how DHS is prioritizing resources to accomplish the President’s 

agenda for safety and security of the American people. 

As the Chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee, I want to 

focus my few minutes with you on this particular area. I will start 

out by saying, with all due respect to your predecessors, who have 

had considerable talents and abilities, I am of the opinion that you 

have brought with you to this office a greater knowledge and appreciation, and are more steeped in cybersecurity than anyone before you. 

I want to help you take advantage of that. I know we share the 

common goal of wanting to improve DHS’s ability to impact the Nation’s cyber posture and defense because I know we also, I think, 

agree that cybersecurity poses one of our greatest National security 

threats right now. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. So in the spirit in wanting to help you be successful, one of my priorities, early in this term, has been to investigate the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation program. We 

have held two hearings, we have had a number of briefings, countless meetings. 

I am of the opinion that CDM is certainly a value-add to our 

Federal cybersecurity, a way to fortify our Government networks 

and systems. So let me start out and ask you if you share that 

opinion? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do. I think it is a very—and part and parcel 

of one of our tools to find out what is on our network, who is on 

our network, and as you know, we are moving now, fourth phase 

toward data. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. So, looking then toward the continued success, 

hopefully, of CDM, help me make the case to appropriators, to 

other Members on this committee, as well as to the administration 

about what we can do to ensure the value of the CDM program so 

that it is reflected in future budget cycles. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. Thank you. So we hope through the 

newest vehicle, as you know, it is called the defend vehicle, we 

hope to be much more agile, and we hope to be able to utilize that 

to not only be up on the emerging threats, but to use it to understand the threat patterns that we can more quickly come to you 

with requests for additional resources and tools. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. One of the other priorities that the Chairman 

and I have spent considerable time on, and we will continue to do 

so, is DHS’s cyber work force. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. In light of the growing cyber threat landscape, I 

think it is imperative the DHS be properly staffed with an essential cyber work force to meet the cyber mission, and to counter 

what are, obviously, some very highly sophisticated cyber adversaries. 

59 

I know you have not been the Secretary for that long, but early 

on, are there programs or initiatives that you have identified as 

being most effective in recruiting and retention? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We have. So the NICE, the acronym NICE, 

program out of NIST and others, which helps us identify the 

unique school—excuse me, the unique skill sets that we need to 

hire, is part of it. 

But the other part is, helping, frankly, folks within the community understand the mission. When they understand the threat and 

they understand the mission, I find that they are much more interested in coming to serve their Government. We cannot pay them 

the same amount, but we can provide them an opportunity to serve 

their country and to serve a mission. 

We are looking at retention, as you know, benefits, different programs, cross-training, what we can do on the back end. We are 

working on some pilots with industry to cross-train or do exchange 

so that we can both benefit from that experience. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. While I appreciate that, Madam Secretary, one 

of the things that we have already done, what Congress did in 

2014, was to provide for some accepted service and expedited authorities to address this cyber shortage, if you will, and, you know, 

the indications are that that really has not been utilized or maximized to the extent that we would hope. Is that something that you 

are focused on? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is, and I do agree that it has not yet been 

utilized to the extent that it should be. So, yes, we are actively 

looking at that. We thank you for that, including the cyber pay 

that went with that. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well again, let me just tell you that I think we 

have a great opportunity under your leadership and stewardship, 

to improve the historical reputation of DHS, particularly as it relates to cyber issues. So I pledge to you that I want to help you 

in that regard to move the needle in a positive and appreciable 

way. So my door will be open to you in that regard. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Well, thank you. I will take you up on that. 

I appreciate it. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. I yield back. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman yields back. You know, I also 

want to thank you for your leadership in cybersecurity. 

Yours, Madam Secretary. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Fitzpatrick. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Good afternoon, Madam Secretary. Thanks for 

being here today, and I think we all would agree that you have a 

very, very tough job. I just want you to know that we do appreciate 

the work. We appreciate the difficulty and the long hours and the 

stress. So keep at it. You are doing all right. 

I want to talk about school safety. I do not know if my colleagues 

have addressed this earlier, but certainly there is a local role to 

play. Certainly there is a State-wide role to play, and the Federal 

Government also has a role. 

What do you view as the responsibility of the Department of 

Homeland Security in helping us get to the point where we can 

keep our kids safe and secure in their schools? 

60 

Secretary NIELSEN. We actually have not discussed it. So thank 

you for raising the question. This is a very important topic and one 

on which we have spent a lot of focus. 

So we have created internal to DHS a task force, a working 

group. As you know, there are many parts of DHS that are part 

of this mission. So we do everything from active-shooter training to 

awareness, to helping States and locals build their alert warning 

capability. 

We have also just released a soft target crowded places plan just 

a couple weeks ago, which goes through best practices on what to 

do and how to respond. But importantly, how to prepare. 

We also are part of the Commission on School Safety that is led 

by the Department of Education, working very closely with the National Governor’s Association and other associations. 

So we are sort-of bringing everything we can bring to bear. Information sharing. We do have suspicious activity reporting, as you 

know. So we are updating that process. Working with the State 

and locals training. So it kind of goes on and on. But, yes, you have 

a full commitment from DHS. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Is there a lack of funding that we need to be 

aware of? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Much of this is what we already do, so it is 

just bringing it to bear and expanding the circles in which we have 

traditionally provided this information and this training, this exercises, et cetera. But if I find any, I will be happy to reach out to 

you and let you know. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Sure. I appreciate it. 

Second, and I know this has been discussed, but I want to raise 

it independently is the aviation security piece. We talked about the 

transition from the AT to the CT screening devices. 

Ideally, I mean, we want these in all of our airports, right? I 

think there is 450 or so in the country—airports that we have. I 

certainly hope that on this committee, that cost is never an issue 

here, because I cannot—with all the tens of billions of dollars we 

have spent on aviation security, I think this is money well-spent. 

My question is, is there any concern about the deployment and 

the time it would take, given that there is only five or so suppliers 

of these types of machines? So even if we had the full financial 

commitment, and the commitment of DHS to implement, are we 

looking at a lag time just based on the pure supply issue and the 

number of machines that we would need? 

Secretary NIELSEN. There is a supply issue. We are working very 

closely with industry to speed up the deployments. But that is 

what I mentioned before. Our hope is that we do deploy the full 

amount that we have asked for in fiscal year 2019, and that we 

come back with a reprogramming request to do more. So part of 

this is not partnership with industry, and helping them in every 

way possible to go faster. It takes both of us together. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Gentleman yields back. I think the Ranking 

Member would like to make some closing remarks. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I have a record signed—for the record a letter signed by a number of Members of this committee, both Democrat and Republican, 

61 

talking about the H–2B visa program, and its speedy implementation of it for this year, in fact you are signatory on the letter to 

the Secretary. I hope we will get some response. 

I have a letter from a constituent who had a business for quite 

a while, utilizing this program and is threatened to be closed because of their inability to access workers for this program. So I 

would like to submit these two for the record. 

Chairman MCCAUL. Now without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

March 30, 2018. 

The Honorable KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. 

The Honorable R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20510. 

DEAR SECRETARY NIELSEN AND SECRETARY ACOSTA: Now that the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act for fiscal year (FY) 2018 has been signed into law, we urge you 

to take decisive action without delay to ensure small and seasonal businesses in our 

states can get the workers necessary for a successful season. Due to the time-sensitive nature of seasonal businesses, we also urge you to take immediate steps to 

re-open the petition process and adjudicate any pending labor certifications that 

demonstrate the requirements set forth in this legislation. We believe your Departments can take these actions, using the authority provided under this law, without 

the need for additional rulemaking. 

Under Division M, Extensions, Title 11, Section 205 of the FY 2018 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act (P. L. 115–141), the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, has the authority to approve petitions for admission under the H–2B Nonimmigrant Temporary Worker program up to the new statutory level set in the bill for the current fiscal year. 

Small and seasonal businesses help our local communities thrive. In fact, small 

businesses across the country often rely on seasonal H–2B workers to help them operate during their peak seasons throughout the year. As you know, the statutory 

allocation for H–2B visas for the current fiscal year was reached on February 27, 

2018. As a result, many small businesses are left unable to get the workers they 

need, leading to potential reductions in operating hours or closures. Under the authority provided by Congress, the Department of Homeland Security can immediately help businesses hire the workers they need and help local economies as they 

head into their peak seasons. 

We encourage you to make efforts to allow for efficient processing of additional 

H–2B visa applications and request that you inform us as soon as possible as to the 

process you will use to issue additional H–2B visas and the number of additional 

H–2B visas you intend to issue. This will not only help to alleviate concerns among 

employers, but it will also reduce the inevitable time-consuming inquiries to your 

agencies. By taking the necessary steps now, your agencies can streamline the process and help employers get their employees sooner. 

62 

Thank you for your attention to this important issue. We thank you for your consideration of this request and urge that you act as soon as possible. 

Sincerely, 

Jack Bergman 

Steve Chabot 

Andy Harris, M.D. 

William R. Keating 

Chellie Pingree 

Ralph Abraham, M.D. 

Mike Bishop 

Lisa Blunt Rochester 

Susan W. Brooks 

Anthony G. Brown 

Ken Buck 

Michael E. Capuano 

Jim Renacci 

Tom Rice 

Thomas J. Rooney 

John H. Rutherford 

Tim Ryan 

Mark Sanford 

Pete Sessions 

Carol Shea-Porter 

John Shimkus 

Bill Shuster 

Chris Stewart 

Steve Stivers 

Scott Tipton 

Dave Trott 

Mia Love 

Frank Lucas 

Tom MacArthur 

Thomas Massie 

David B. McKinley, P.E. 

Patrick Meehan 

Paul Mitchell 

John Moolenaar 

Markwayne Mullin 

Richard M. Nolan 

Erick Paulsen 

Stevan Pearce 

Mike Simpson 

Jared Polis 

Mike Coffman 

Tom Cole 

Chris Collins 

Barbara Comstock 

K. Michael Conaway 

Ryan A. Costello 

Kevin Cramer 

Carlos Curbelo 

Diana DeGette 

Mike Doyle 

Blake Farenthold 

Ed Perlmutter 

Thomas A. Garrett, Jr. 

Bob Gibbs 

Trey Gowdy 

H. Morgan Griffith 

Clay Higgins 

Bill Huizenga 

Bill Johnson 

Filemon Vela 

David P. Joyce 

Adam Kinzinger 

Ann McLane Kuster 

Doug Lamborn 

Leonard Lance 

James R. Langevin 

Robert Latta 

Billy Long 

Fred Upton 

David G. Valadao 

Tom Marino 

Ann Wagner 

Tim Walburg 

Peter Welch 

Brad R. Wenstrup 

Robert Wittman 

Kevin Yoder 

Lee Zeldin 

David N. Cicilline 

Michael T. McCaul 

Claudia Tenney 

Bruce Poliquin 

Tom Emmer 

Steve Knight 

Rob Woodall 

Mike Johnson 

Frank A. LoBiondo 

Andy Barr 

Bill Flores 

E-MAIL SUBMITTED BY RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2018 AT 5:21:59 PM 

Subject: H2B Cap Relief 

Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 2:05:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time 

From: Heather Walker 

To: Henderson, Claytrice 

Hello Claytrice, 

I seriously can not thank you enough for taking my call and listing to the concerns for the H2B program. First, I would like to personally assure you and Congressman Thompson that we would much rather hire US workers since the H2B 

program is such a large expense for a small business. However, after running job 

advertisements in the local paper as well as through the WIN Job center we have 

had ZERO applicants over the past two years! So, we truly have no other option 

but to apply for guest workers through the H2B program! 

We were so excited to see the wording for the H2B cap relief in the Omnibus bill 

signed on March 23rd. We finally thought YES, WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO 

63 

GET OUR WORKERS! However, we quickly learned just because the wording was 

included in the bill didn’t necessarily mean Secretary Neilson would release them. 

The wording in the Omnibus bill for the maximum amount would satisfy the demand for all. As the Spring season advances we are sitting here struggling to keep 

our heads above water. I understand we are just a small business, but it takes all 

the small businesses as well as the larger corporations to keep America and the 

Mississippi Delta going! 

We have been in business for over 21 years, and we have grown our business into 

a business in which we are very proud. We have worked hard for everything we 

have, and now we are at a point where we are going to have to choose which accounts to release due to the lack of workers. This is not fair to us, our customers 

or our US workers. With us having to scale our business back it will also effect the 

economy of our community. We try to buy everything we can locally from equipment, supplies, fuel, parts, etc. Our business provides business to other businesses. 

It is so dishearten to feel as though you have worked so hard for something and 

now it is just slipping away! 

So, my request is to Please, Please, Please ask Congressman Thompson to ASK 

Secretary Neilson to release the VISAs as soon as possible!!! This will be the only 

way we can sustain our business!!!!! 

SINCERELY, 

Heather and Bob Walker 

Chairman MCCAUL. I mean, I am glad you raised that issue. I 

have had a lot of Members come up to me asking about the H–2B 

program. Would you mind addressing that, and what is the current 

status? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. So we have finalized, as you know the 

law requires us to recruit the Department of Labor. We have done 

that. We have met with, and I have talked to a variety of Members 

of Congress, Ranking, who share your concerns. They have very 

specific companies within their districts who are at threat to go out 

of business if they do not receive additional visas. 

So we are very aware. We have finalized our recommendation. It 

is working its way through the process. But we hope that we will 

be able to issue additional visas next month. 

Chairman MCCAUL. OK. Excellent. Let me also mention—I know 

UAS did not come up today, but I know it is a very important issue 

to both of us and in the United States’ security. These drones crossing across the border and domestically, it poses a grave threat. I 

can assure you that we are working on draft legislation right now, 

and working with your staff, Madam Secretary, to accomplish that 

goal. 

So I want to thank you for being here. I want to also thank you 

for your public service. You know, it is a tough job, and I think a 

lot of people look at Homeland Security, and all they think of is 

border and immigration, and yet, it is so many other things, as 

well, that you have on your plate. I want to work with you to make 

your job successful. 

So with that, the hearing record will be open for 10 days if there 

are any additional questions. Without objection, the committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(65) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN MICHAEL T. MCCAUL FOR HONORABLE KIRSTJEN M. 

NIELSEN

Question 1a. Definition and Country List: In general, a Special Interest Alien 

(SIA) is a migrant from a country outside the Western Hemisphere with terrorist 

or security concerns who travels through the Hemisphere to the United States. 

Does the U.S. Government or DHS have an official definition for the term ‘‘Special 

Interest Alien?’’ Do the DHS components utilize a uniform definition? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. Does DHS maintain an official list of countries considered ‘‘special 

interest’’ and what is the context of such a designation? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1c. How does the definition and country list, or lack thereof, impact the 

interagency effort to combat this threat? What are the workarounds, if any? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. Current Threat: Last year, former Secretary Kelly and then-Acting 

Secretary Duke emphasized the threat from SIAs, especially the connection with 

terrorists, transnational criminal organizations (TCO), and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In September 2017, Sec. Duke stated that ‘‘TCOs pose a persistent 

National security threat to the United States. They provide a potential means for 

transferring weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or for facilitating terrorists’ 

entry into the United States. We have already seen aliens with terror connections 

travel from conflict zones into our Hemisphere, and we are concerned that TCOs 

might assist them in crossing our borders.’’ 

Has there been any change to the threat or DHS’s view of the threat? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. Is there anything else you would like to add to your comments about 

the exploitation of these illicit migration routes by smugglers, terrorists, and TCOs? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2c. What is being done at DHS to counter the threat posed by SIAs? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3a. Repatriation: There are numerous security and cost-saving benefits 

to third-country repatriation of migrants, where for example, Panama or Colombia 

is able to repatriate migrants back to their home countries before they even reach 

the United States. 

What is the current status of third-country repatriation? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3b. What can the United States do to improve and support this process? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3c. Is it a funding/resource issue or a capacity issue for these countries? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3d. What are the proper roles of DHS and the State Department in this 

effort? Is there communication between the two? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4a. Information Sharing: As you know, information sharing is an essential component of combatting terrorism and transnational crime, especially the sharing of biometric information. The Biometric Identification Transnational Migration 

Alert Program (BITMAP) and the Biometric Data Sharing Program (BDSP) are two 

critical programs that enable the U.S. Government and partner nations to identify 

such threats. 

What is your assessment of the current relationship between DHS and the State 

Department in identifying SIAs and related threats, especially regarding biometric 

information sharing? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

66 

Question 4b. Besides BITMAP and BDSP, what are other key DHS and State Department programs that facilitate SIA identification? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4c. What is the current information-sharing strategy across the U.S. 

Government to ensure that information is best gathered and shared to counter this 

growing and dynamic threat? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4d. How does DHS work with the State Department and the intelligence 

community in the Western Hemisphere to stop nefarious actors before they reach 

our borders? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5a. Relationships: Efforts to combat terrorism and transnational crime 

often rely on strong relationships with our foreign partners. 

How would you characterize the U.S. Government’s relationship with Mexico, 

Central America, and South America in the identification of SIAs? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5b. How can we improve these relationships? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON FOR HONORABLE

KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

Question 1. Reports indicate that since October, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has forcibly separated more than 700 migrant children from their family members along the Southern Border. More than 100 of those children are under the age 

of 4. How many of the 700 cases since October have proven to be confirmed instances where human traffickers attempted to use children to cross the border and 

gain illegal entry? Please provide relevant information on any such cases. 

Despite Department of Justice statistics to the contrary, you testified that 90 percent of unaccompanied minors never show up for their scheduled court dates. Please 

cite the relevant data and explain in writing how you arrived at this percentage. 

The vast majority of property along the Southwest Border is owned by States, 

Tribes, and private citizens. In Texas, the Federal Government owns just 100 miles 

of the 1,254-mile border. How much land DHS will need to take from private citizens to build the border wall system? What is the expected cost? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. Please provide a status update on the statutorily-mandated delivery 

of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. When will it be delivered to Congress? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3a. On March 19, 2018, The Center for Constitutional Rights and Color 

of Change filed a lawsuit against DHS to release the contents of the agency’s redacted memo entitled the ‘‘Race Paper.’’ 

What were the origins of this paper? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3b. What DHS office produced it? Who signed off on the paper? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3c. Does this paper provide a framework for evaluating the alleged 

radicalization of black activists or the surveillance of protected speech and activism 

of black activists and allies? If so, what is the framework? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3d. What surveillance tactics does this paper recommend, offer, or provide to DHS? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3e. Does this race paper provide classifications of Domestic Terrorists/ 

Terrorism? If so, what are they? How are they determined? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3f. Was the ‘‘Black Identity Extremism’’ report influenced by this ‘‘Race 

Paper’’ or vice versa? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4a. I am concerned about the disproportionate number of lobbyists President Trump has put in political positions and the potential for conflicts of interest 

and corruption, despite his campaign promise to ‘‘drain the swamp.’’ Between 2012 

and 2017, 7 political appointees at TSA had relationships with 27 organizations that 

could trigger recusals under ethics rules. In just over a year since President Trump 

took office, 9 individuals who could have conflicts with 70 organizations have already cycled through TSA as political appointees. 

67 

How have recusals affected the Department’s ability to carry out its mission effectively? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4b. Please provide the names of DHS political appointees and the issues 

from which they have been recused. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE LOU BARLETTA FOR KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

Question 1a. Secretary Nielsen, can you detail why significant investment in border infrastructure is necessary and essential to our National security? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. How will a secure border help enhance the efficiency of immigration 

and save taxpayer dollars? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. On a different note, following the tragic shooting in Parkland, Florida, I called for schools to be classified as ‘‘critical infrastructure.’’ Currently, sectors 

ranging from casinos and concert venues to water treatment facilities and banks fall 

under this designation. 

What steps are the Department taking to better secure our schools? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. Do you believe that schools should be classified as critical infrastructure; if not, what would prevent them from being labeled such? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE FOR KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

Question 1. Please explain what the Department intends to do to address assaults 

on Border Patrol agents. What would you recommend Congress do to support these 

efforts? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. Please provide my office with an update on the Department’s effort 

to reopen and review Jose Escobar’s deportation case. 

A third court ruled against the administration’s decision to rescind the Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in April. U.S. District Court Judge 

John Bates said that the DHS’s legal explanation for its decision to end DACA was 

‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’ If DHS does not come up with a strong explanation for 

the rescission within 90 days, the entire program will be restored. Do you have a 

stronger explanation for the rescission of this program? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE JOHN KATKO FOR KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

Question 1a. Can you describe the current relationship for testing new equipment 

between DHS S&T and TSA? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. Are there any cost-sharing programs that allow both organizations 

to mitigate overall financial exposure? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1c. Is DHS working to improve overall collaboration for research, design, 

testing, and evaluation of new technologies across all DHS components? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. As you may be aware, TSA currently has used a personalized training 

screening tool for X-ray machines. As TSA moves to CT, does TSA have plans to 

adapt these training tools for CT? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3a. You mentioned in your remarks, preparedness programs save approximately 4 times as much money when compared to response programs. As you 

may be aware, up-State New York has been hit with several successive storms that 

fail to reach the designated minimum threshold. 

Does DHS, through FEMA, plan to reassess this minimum? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3b. Does DHS have any plans to support areas that are hit by several 

successive severe weather patterns but fail to reach the minimum about for the 

DRF? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

68 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE JAMES R. LANGEVIN FOR KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

Question 1. You have recently spoken about the importance of maintaining resilience in our Nation’s critical infrastructure. What specific operational role do you 

envision for the Department in building resiliency into our critical infrastructure? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. As you, Under Secretary-Designate Krebs, and Assistant Secretary 

Manfra have all recently testified, the prioritization of risk and vulnerability assessments (RVAs) for election systems has come at the expense of RVAs for other critical infrastructure sectors and Federal agencies. 

How many critical infrastructure and Federal agency RVAs have been delayed as 

a result of prioritization of election-related RVAs? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. What is the expected length of the delays to these RVAs? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2c. What critical infrastructure sectors and agencies have had their 

RVAs delayed? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2d. When do you expect the backlog of RVAs to be cleared? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2e. What additional resources would NCATS require to meet the increased demand from States and localities for RVAs, without this impact to other 

critical infrastructure sectors and Federal agencies? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3a. One of DHS’s key tools in ensuring the cybersecurity of Federal networks is the Binding Operational Directive, of which DHS has released only 6 since 

2015. 

How does DHS go about crafting these Directives? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3b. What—if any—other agencies assist in that process? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3c. What threshold of concern does DHS use to decide a Binding Operational Directive is necessary? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3d. How effective have DHS’s and OMB’s efforts been to hold agencies 

accountable for satisfying the requirements in those directives? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4. Much of DHS’s mission requires close coordination with other agencies, especially with respect to cybersecurity. How has the Department’s ability to 

synchronize its cyber mission with other agencies been affected by the recent high 

rate of turnover at the National Security Council? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 5. You recently spoke about two roles the Government plays to improve 

National cybersecurity. The two roles, which I agree are critical, were equipping 

suppliers to make their products and services more secure, and educating the public 

to become more security-conscious consumers. One role you did not endorse is the 

Government’s responsibility to ensure our critical infrastructure remains secure. Do 

you believe DHS has sufficient authority to hold operators of critical infrastructure 

accountable for implementing adequate cybersecurity controls? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6a. In this year’s FISMA report card, the DHS Inspector General rated 

the Department not effective in 3 of 5 cybersecurity functions: Protect, detect, and 

recover. It would seem important for DHS to have its own cyber house in order before advising others on their security. Given the importance of these findings, 

What specific actions are you taking to correct these deficiencies? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 6b. How frequently are you being briefed on progress? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR. FOR KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

Question 1a. Secretary Nielsen, earlier this week, my subcommittee held a field 

hearing in my district, which focused on the importance of Federal counterterrorism 

support to high-risk urban areas, like New York City. 

Witnesses representing law enforcement and first responders in New York and 

New Jersey discussed the importance of intelligence information sharing and the 

homeland security grant programs to their operations. We must fully fund these 

grant programs, particularly in light of the evolving terrorist threat. 

69 

Another topic of discussion at the hearing was the difficulty in securing mass 

transit systems. The Transit Security Grant Program is vital to those efforts, but 

the overall focus on surface transportation security programs dwarfs that of aviation 

security. Our witnesses expressed great concern about mass transit security, and 

that is a concern that I share, especially in light of the attempted bombing at the 

New York City Port Authority Terminal in December. 

Can you please speak to what more we can do to enhance the security of this 

transportation mode? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. How is DHS supporting information sharing when it comes to 

threats to mass transit? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. The President’s budget request for the Countering Weapons of Mass 

Destruction Office proposes changes to the Securing the Cities Program, a program 

that has proven very successful in New York City. 

We are hearing concerns from Securing the Cities jurisdictions about proposed 

changes in permissible equipment, to whom that equipment would be provided, and 

the impact that would have on jurisdiction’s ability to conduct radiological detection 

and response operations. 

This committee has long supported the Securing the Cities Program, as it is currently operating, and the House passed my legislation authorizing the program last 

year. 

What changes is the Department proposing to the program? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. What outreach have you done to participating jurisdictions to solicit 

their feedback? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2c. How are you addressing concerns that the Department is receiving 

from STC jurisdictions? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTION FROM HONORABLE WILLIAM KEATING FOR KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

Question. Please provide the time frame DHS is using to comply with the requirement included in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus to increase the caps on H–2B visas, 

specifically for returning workers. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE JOHN H. RUTHERFORD FOR KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

Question 1a. We have 14 ports in Florida that bring people and cargo from around 

the world into Florida, including Jaxport and the Port of Fernandina in my district. 

It is vital that these ports are properly staffed to ensure the safety of our Nation. 

Currently across Florida, Customs and Border Patrol agents are working overtime, 

moving between airports and seaports to ensure coverage. 

Are there plans to hire more CBP staff to help secure our ports of entry? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 1b. How long do you expect it to take to resolve this staffing shortage? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2a. As we work to secure our Southwest Border with barriers and technology, people will look for other ways to move contrabands into the United States, 

including by sea. The CBP Air and Marine Operation, stops unlawful cargo and people from reaching our shores. 

What are the current needs for staffing and training in this division of CBP? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2b. What is the outlook for this division; do you think there will be a 

need for increased staffing in this Department in the coming years? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2c. If we are expecting a shortage what resources can we give to help 

bolster this division to try and prevent problems like we are seeing in other parts 

of CBP? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3. In regards to port safety, there was a rule issued by the Coast Guard 

in 2016 that would require certain facilities to begin electronic inspections of Transportation Worker Identification Credentials (TWICs) by August 2018. However there 

have been concerns raised about the viability of these scanners, and the ability of 

people to move easily between TWIC-secured areas of the port and less secure areas. 

Does CBP have plans to address these concerns? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

70 

Question 4a. There has been concern among ports in Florida that as expansions 

happen, valuable space within newly-constructed areas is being used by the CBP 

and Coast Guard for things not related to the immediate security of the port, such 

as gyms and unrelated offices. While I recognize the importance of having a strong 

Coast Guard and CBP presence in close proximity to the port, it is important that 

valuable space within in these facilities are used for port- and security-related activities. 

Are the Coast Guard and CBP able to effectively do their jobs if they are in a 

space outside of port property but nearby with easy access? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4b. Would you support Coast Guard and CBP having two locations, a 

smaller place for necessary port functions on port property, and other ancillary services in a location off property? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTION FROM HONORABLE BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN FOR KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

Question. How does the Department of Homeland Security distinguish between 

asylum seekers and immigrants seeking entry illegally? What is DHS’s justification 

for changing its policy toward asylum seekers, particularly families and children, 

and in light of the trauma separation will inflict? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE KATHLEEN RICE FOR KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

Question 1. You stated before the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee that the law restricts your ability to extend Temporary Protected Status, 

arguing that if the effects of the originating event do not continue to exist then the 

Secretary of Homeland Security must terminate this protection. 

In mid-April, a report produced USCIS in October 2017 was obtained by the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild through a Freedom of Information Act request. This report concluded that underlying conditions that warranted TPS for Haitians have persisted. Yet, DHS chose to terminate TPS for Haiti. 

Can you please explain this contradiction? What additional information or other reason did the USCIS Director have that allowed him to disregard the findings of this 

internal report? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 2. In light of this discrepancy, I request that you provide us with the 

USCIS reports and other used to assess conditions in the other countries with TPS 

and DED status as well as any related memos prepared by Director Cissna. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3a. When you testified before the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee earlier this month, you committed to ensuring that ‘‘any pregnant woman in our care in detention receives adequate care’’ based on the recent 

change to ICE’s policy on detaining pregnant women. 

Which detention facilities currently offer prenatal care? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3b. Can you please define for me what DHS’s definition of ‘‘adequate 

care’’ is and how you, as the Secretary, intend to ensure each pregnant woman receives it? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3c. What steps, specifically, are you taking to ensure ICE is meeting the 

assurances you made? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 3d. What steps are you taking to hold accountable detention centers or 

individuals when ‘‘adequate care’’ for detained pregnant women is not provided? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4a. There have been numerous recent reports regarding poor conditions 

in ICE detention facilities, specifically regarding allegations of sexual harassment 

and assault. Late last year, the OIG published a report that found poor conditions 

in five detention centers that they investigated, including cases of detainee physical 

abuse by staff members. 

Given that ICE is detaining more vulnerable individuals, including the elderly 

and disabled, what additional protections are you putting in place to ensure the 

safety of the individuals detained by ICE and ensure they are not subject to any 

type of abuse by ICE agents, contractors, or fellow detainees? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4b. What has been done to address the concerns raised in the OIG report? 

71 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Question 4c. What steps are you taking to investigate allegations of sexual assault 

while in detention? 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

QUESTION FROM HONORABLE J. LOUIS CORREA FOR KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

Question. Please provide data and any other relevant information on the threats 

to our Northern Border compared to our Southern Border, specifically regarding 

drug smuggling, traveling known or suspected terrorists, other illicit activity, and 

violence. Please provide this information for activity both at and between ports of 

entry along both borders. 

Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication. 

Æ