U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

27–392 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. Hrg. 115–293 

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 6, 2017 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

REBECCA N. NUZZI, Professional Staff Member 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

JACKSON EATON, Minority Senior Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BONNI DINERSTEIN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

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

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 10 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 13 

Senator Hassan ................................................................................................. 15 

Senator Paul ..................................................................................................... 18 

Senator Hoeven ................................................................................................. 20 

Senator Harris .................................................................................................. 22 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 25 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 28 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 30 

Senator Daines ................................................................................................. 34 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 41 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 42 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2017 

Hon. John F. Kelly Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

APPENDIX 

Chart submitted by Senator Johnson .................................................................... 53 

NTEU statement for the Record ............................................................................. 55 

Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record 

Mr. Kelly ........................................................................................................... 58 

(1) 

1·The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 41. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST 

TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

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

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

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON 

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. 

I would ask consent that my written statement be entered into 

the record.1 Without objection. 

I want to welcome Secretary John Kelly. This is a hearing on the 

Department of Homeland Security’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget. 

This is the third time that Secretary Kelly has appeared before this 

Committee this Congress, the second time as Secretary of the Department, and again, we welcome you and appreciate your service 

to this country, many years of it. 

In lieu of my opening statement, I just want to make a couple 

of comments. By vocation, I am an accountant, so I have gone 

through budget meetings many times. 

First, I want to just talk about the history of the budget of the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We are not quite ready 

for the chart. When you take a look at total budget authority, when 

the Department was first stood up, the first fiscal year was 2004, 

and the Department’s budget was—this is total budgetary authority, mandatory and discretionary—$36.5 billion. 

Now, had that budget just grown by inflation, today’s request 

would be a little under $50 billion—$48.25 billion. Instead, total 

budget authority is $70.6 billion, about a 93-percent increase. 

Now, from my standpoint, that represents on a bipartisan fashion President Bush, President Obama, now President Trump realized that the threat environment that America faces has become 

more severe. It is growing, it is evolving, it is metastasizing, and 

the Department needs more resources to try and keep this homeland safe. 
2 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

2The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the Appendix on page 42. 

And so, as much as I am concerned about the long-term budget 

situation of this country, the $20 trillion we are already in debt, 

we cannot be penny wise and pound foolish. I do not think I have 

seen an accurate assessment of how much economic loss we suffered because of September 11, 2001 (9/11). We have to do everything we possibly can, and let us face it, the defense of this Nation 

and the defense of our homeland is a top priority of government. 

So, I want to be completely supportive of the Secretary’s request. 

Tough budget times, but we need to allocate the resources to keep 

this Nation and our homeland safe. 

The next point I would want to make is just the dramatic change 

we have had in terms of total apprehensions. We have a little 

chart1 here. What I have done, because we really only have 3 

months’ worth of history under the new Administration, I have just 

gone back and had my staff prepare a 3-month moving average of 

apprehensions along the Southwest border, and it is incredibly revealing. 

Prior to the last 3 months, on average we were apprehending a 

little more than 122,000 individuals coming to this country illegally. The last 3 months total, it was just under 56,000. In other 

words we are about 46 percent of the previous 4 or 5 years’ average. That is a pretty remarkable result. Since I have taken over 

this chairmanship and really been on this Committee looking at 

the problem of illegal entry into our Southwest border, I have been 

saying repeatedly that the first thing we need to do is be committed to securing our border and then eliminate the incentives for 

illegal immigration. I would say lack of enforcement of our immigration laws has been a huge incentive for people coming to this 

country. Under the new Administration, under the new Secretary, 

we have obviously committed to securing our border. 

I was a little concerned when people were taking credit for this 

reduction, I think, after 3 months. We will see what happens after 

4 months. I think just that signal alone that we are committed to 

securing this border and we are going to enforce our laws has had 

a powerful effect, and I think we are seeing the results right now. 

So, again, I commend the Secretary for standing strong against severe criticism and actually enforcing the laws of this Nation. 

With that, I will turn it over to our Ranking Member, Senator 

McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL2

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

Secretary Kelly, for being here. You appeared before this Committee a couple of months ago for the first time after being confirmed, and just look at the developments that have occurred in the 

few months since then, where you have had to be all hands on deck 

for serious issues facing the national and homeland security. 

On May 11, you met with the airline industry executives about 

your concern about large electronic device bans in terms of international travel. 
3 

On May 12, we had a ‘‘ransomware’’ cyber attack that struck 

more than 200,000 computers in 150 countries, shutting down auto 

production in France, police departments in India, and closing doctors’ offices in Britain. 

And then, of course, tragically, on May 22, a terrorist suicide 

bomber killed 22 innocent children and adults in Manchester, England. And then, this past weekend, terrorists killed seven in London. 

These are just a few examples of why we are counting on you 

and why we respect the job that you have to do every day and how 

difficult it truly is. 

The importance of your work also speaks to the critical responsibility that this Committee has in providing oversight. I have never 

known of a government agency that worked better with less oversight. Asking hard questions is, of course, the way you do aggressive oversight, and I am really particularly pleased that you are 

not afraid to answer tough questions. It is kind of who you are. You 

have been that way throughout your career. 

In fact, I noticed in the speech you gave to the U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) cadets, and I will quote you here, ‘‘Tell the truth to your 

seniors even though it is uncomfortable, even though they may not 

want to hear it. They deserve that. Tell the truth.’’ 

I know that you will continue to speak truth to power, and I look 

forward to your honest assessment of what we can do to help you 

in that regard. 

While none of the three terrorists who did the attack over this 

past weekend would have been impacted by the President’s proposed travel ban, a lot of discussion in the United Kingdom (UK) 

is now about the Conservative Party’s cuts in police resources over 

the last decade and how many fewer resources there were actually 

on the ground to try to prevent those terrorist attacks. 

I am concerned that the President’s budget plans to cut critical 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) programs at a time 

that we cannot afford to let up on these security measures. A large 

portion of this cut is taken from the Visible Intermodal Prevention 

and Response (VIPR) teams, which are deployed all over the country to provide critical assistance with securing airports, subways, 

and bus terminals—some of the most attractive soft targets for terrorists in our country. The President’s budget aims to cut the VIPR 

teams from 31 down to just 8 teams to cover the entire country. 

The Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), which has been a 

lifeline for major urban areas that have so many soft targets because of the large populations, those also have been cut. 

Additionally, the President’s budget is going to completely eliminate the Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program which 

provides assistance to local law enforcement agencies who help secure our airports. Hundreds of airports across the country take 

part in this program, and particularly for smaller airports, this assistance is critically important. 

The President’s budget will also slash other DHS programs that 

provide critical security to our transportation systems. The Transit 

Security Grant Program (TSGP) will be cut in half. The Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) will be cut in half. The President is 

calling for a complete elimination of the Complex Coordinated Ter-
4 

rorist Attacks (CCTA) Grant Program. I am concerned that these 

priorities are not getting the attention they deserve, especially in 

light of what is going on around the world. I think we may be focused on a shiny object which has come to be known as the ‘‘travel 

ban’’ when instead we need to be focused on how many people we 

have, in your terminology, General, ‘‘boots on the ground’’ in terms 

of being able to identify, track, and prevent these terrorist attacks. 

We are being asked to fund additional Border Patrol agents and 

air and marine officers, but there is no provision in the budget for 

additional Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers. And, the 

difference in terminology is very important because, as you know, 

Secretary Kelly, the majority of drugs and other contraband come 

into our country through the ports of entry (POEs), and the CBP 

officers are the ones responsible for finding them and stopping 

them. We cannot neglect our ports of entry as we try to increase 

resources in terms of Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. 

So, I am glad you are here today, Secretary Kelly. There are a 

lot of important issues before us. I have a lot of questions. I know 

the rest of the Committee does, too. And, I cannot tell you how 

much it means to all of us that you are willing to come here, to 

both Democrats and Republicans, and answer our questions. I hope 

the rest of the Administration follows your example because I think 

you are setting a very good one. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

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

so if you would please rise and raise your right hand? Do you 

swear that the testimony you will give before this Committee will 

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 

you, God? 

Secretary KELLY. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

Secretary John F. Kelly is the fifth Secretary of Homeland Security. Prior to joining DHS, General Kelly served as commander of 

the U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM), where he worked 

closely with U.S. law enforcement and DHS personnel in a coordinated effort to combat the flow of drugs, people, and other threats 

against the homeland into the United States from across the 

Southern border. Secretary Kelly’s career has included extensive 

service in the Marine Corps where he commanded Marine Forces 

Reserve and Marine Forces North and served as senior military assistant to two Secretaries of Defense, Secretary Robert Gates and 

Secretary Leon Panetta. Less than a year after his retirement from 

service, Secretary Kelly returned to serve the American people as 

Secretary of Homeland Security. 

General Kelly is a retired four-star general, a Gold Star parent. 

America could not be more appreciative and more fortunate to have 

you serving in this capacity, and we thank you for your service and 

look forward to your testimony. 
5 

1The prepared statement of Secretary Kelly appears in the Appendix on page 47. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. KELLY,1

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary KELLY. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member 

McCaskill, and distinguished Members of the Committee, every day 

the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security protect Americans from the threats we face, and so it is a great pleasure to appear before you today to talk about the tremendous men 

and women of the Department and the critical missions they carry 

out in service of our America every day and night, 24/7/365. 

I believe anyone who fully understands the fundamental role of 

our government also believes that the Federal Government’s responsibility every day begins and ends with the protection of the 

homeland and the security of our people. No other mission is as important, no other consideration more pressing. None. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget request for the Department will make it possible for us to continue and expand in many 

ways on our ability to protect our Nation and its people. The world 

is a different place today. We can no longer think in terms of defense over there but, rather, must think in terms of the security 

overall of the homeland, across the numerous domains of a potential attack and defense. 

The Department of Homeland Security is making a difference in 

fighting the home game while the Department of Defense (DOD) 

fights the away game. And, together with and because of the dedication and effective interagency integration with the Director of 

National Intelligene (DNI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 

the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI), the National Security Agency (NSA), the 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and over a million State 

and local and tribal enforcement professionals, America today is 

safe, secure, and prepared in a way that most could not have envisioned the day before 9/11. But, the plots to attack the Nation are 

numerous, their perpetrators relentless. But, we need a fully funded budget that matches our mission. No more continuing resolutions (CR). And, I think this budget does that. The President’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget requests $44.1 billion in 

net discretionary funding for the Department of Homeland Security. It also requests $7.4 billion to finance the cost of emergencies 

and major disasters in Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA’s) Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). 

When you are talking about numbers like these, it is easy to lose 

sight of what is behind each dollar. But, when you get right down 

to it, behind each and every dollar are hardworking men and 

women who have dedicated their careers and in many ways risked 

their lives to protect the American people. Every dollar invested in 

the men and women of DHS and every dollar invested in the tools, 

infrastructure, equipment, and training they need to get the job 

done is an investment in prosperity, freedom, and the rule of law. 

Above all, it is investment in the security of the American people, 

and as far as I am concerned, recent events show you cannot invest 

too much in security. The terrorist attacks on innocent civilians in 
6 

Kabul, Cairo, South Asia, Manchester, and now London are horrific 

reminders of the dangers we face globally. 

They also illustrate the need to do everything we can to keep our 

people safe. That means getting better about verifying identity, 

making sure people are who they say they are, and working with 

our international partners to raise their awareness and raise their 

defenses, and force them to do so, if need be, to at least operate 

at the levels that we work at. 

Domestically, one of the most important enhancements to this effort is the REAL ID Initiative, an enhancement passed into law 12 

years ago by the U.S. Congress, one which most of our States and 

territories have taken seriously and have already adopted. Many 

others are working hard at compliance. 

In those 12 years, some elected or appointed State and Federal 

positions who have the fundamental and sacred responsibility to 

safeguard the Nation have chosen to drag their feet or even ignore 

the law passed by Congress. I will not. REAL ID will make Americans safer. It already is. REAL ID will soon be enforced at our airports, land ports of entry, and all Federal facilities. And, it is a 

critically important 9/11 Commission recommendation that others 

have been willing to ignore, but which I will ensure is implemented 

on schedule, with no extension for States that are not taking the 

effort seriously. 

For those States and territories that cannot or will not make the 

January 2018 deadline, they should encourage now their citizens to 

acquire other forms of ID compliant with the REAL ID law, like 

passports, available, of course, from the State Department. 

We need to prevent bad actors, regardless of religion, race, or nationality, from entering our country. In recent years, we have witnessed an unprecedented spike in terrorist travel. There are more 

terrorist hot spots and foot soldiers now than almost at any time 

in modern history. In Syria and Iraq, for instance, we have thousands of jihadist fighters that have converged from more than 120 

countries. As our superb military machine, acting in coalition with 

and leading many other like-minded partners, as they succeed on 

the battlefield in the caliphate in Iraq and Syria, these jihadi fighters are returning home to Europe, South Asia, Southeast Asia, 

Australia, and even the Western hemisphere. And, who knows 

what they are up to? But, we can guess. They are heading to what 

they think are safe havens to continue their plotting and otherwise 

advance their toxic ideology of hate, death, and intolerance wherever they are allowed to hide. We expect that some will look to 

travel to the United States to carry out attacks. 

With this context in mind, the President has issued clear direction in the form of an Executive Order (EO) to the entire Executive 

Branch to prevent the entry of aliens who seek to do us harm. But, 

the current court injunction, of course, prevents us from taking 

steps right now to improve the security of the homeland until we 

see how that court action plays out. While some discuss, debate, 

and argue the name, title, or label that best describes the President’s EO, professional men and women like me are actually in the 

business of implementing the President’s intent to secure the Nation, and we are doing that. We will let the chattering class and 

self-appointed critics talk about the name. I just hope Congress 
7 

sees the wisdom in what the President is trying to do to protect 

America and its people and that Congress is willing to work with 

those of us in the business of securing the Nation. And, it has been 

my experience in less than 4 months on the job that Congress is, 

in fact, committed to that. 

The court’s injunction has prevented us from implementing a 

temporary ban on travel by aliens from six countries that are in 

States of civil war, are State sponsors of terrorism, and are basically failed States. They are the same countries identified by Congress and previous Administration in 2015 as nations of great concern. 

At the time, the expectation was that those in the business of securing the Nation lawfully would focus additional attention on 

these nations and others in similar circumstances for supplementary and accurate vetting. It has nothing to do with religion or 

skin color or the way they live their lives, but all about security 

for the United States and nothing else. 

These are countries that are either unable or unwilling to help 

us validate the identities and backgrounds of persons within their 

borders. I can tell you right now, because of the injunctions I am 

not fully confident that we are doing the best we can to weed out 

potential wrongdoers from these locations. The injunction also prevents me from actually looking into the information that we need 

from each country to conduct proper screening, not just from the 

six countries identified in the Executive Order but from every country across the globe. It also prevents me from conducting a review 

under the Executive Order with the goal of improving the security 

of our refugee program. 

Bottom line, I have been enjoined from doing these things that 

I know would make America safe, and I anxiously await the court 

to complete its action one way or the other so I can get to work. 

The men and women of DHS will do everything we can and always within the law to keep the American people safe. But, the 

delay has prevented us from doing what I and those most familiar 

with the reality of the threats we face believe we need to do to protect our homeland. 

Again, sir, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the 

Committee today, and I thank you for your continued support and 

the Committee’s continued support for the great men and women 

of the Department and the mission we take so seriously. I remain 

committed to working with Congress and protecting the American 

people. I have made changes within the organization since I have 

been the Department head to do exactly that, to increase responsiveness, availability of witnesses, and we have done all of that in 

a big way. 

I am glad to answer any questions you may have, sir. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Secretary Kelly. 

I really appreciate the attendance by my colleagues. I know everybody has tight schedules, so I am going to defer my questioning 

so people have their opportunities, and I will start out with Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the note you ended on, Secretary Kelly, and while 

I condemn the leak and the person who leaked it, we now have in 
8 

the public domain verified information that the Russians made an 

aggressive attempt to access not only a vendor of voter software in 

this country but also a number of States, the voter file databases 

in the month prior to our election. 

In any other circumstances, this would be an earthquake, but because of everything else that is going on, I do not think enough attention has been given to something that is your responsibility as 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, and that is, critical infrastructure, including the election systems. 

I have asked for a number of pieces of information. This is one 

area where we have not gotten a response yet. I do appreciate that 

you all have not frozen us out. Many of my colleagues are being 

frozen out across the government. You have not frozen us out, and 

I am deeply grateful for that. I am anxious to get more information 

about what we know about these attempts. Whether or not they 

accessed the tabulation, it is clear they were trying to get into 

voter files. And, I do not think they were going there to try to just 

hang out. 

Imagine the disruption—we spend a lot of time in this country 

talking about voter ID. Imagine the disruption if thousands of people showed up to vote and their names were no longer on the voter 

files. What would we do? How would we address that in terms of 

fairness and open and free elections? 

So, I guess my question to you is: Are you deferring the investigation of this to the FBI? Or is the Department actually actively 

engaged in investigating the penetration or the attempts to penetrate the voter files in this country immediately before the election 

by the Russian Government? 

Secretary KELLY. Thank you, Senator. You know me, I am not 

going to dodge any question relative to anything that anyone in 

the U.S. Congress asks. I would say, though, up front I would not 

be—because of the allegations and the things that have been allegedly released are so highly classified, I would not want to kind of 

confirm or deny anything in there. I think we just have to wait for 

the investigation. 

I am happy to come over or send people over to talk to you, to 

the level that they can, about what actually took place, and I believe certainly Members of Congress deserve that, given the levels 

of classification. But, I share your concern. I do not disagree with 

anything you said relative to the sanctity of our voting process. 

Clearly, it should be an interagency investigation, and that is taking place. DHS will be part of that. 

As you know, just prior to his leaving, Jeh Johnson went out and 

declared that the voting infrastructure was, in fact, critical infrastructure. I have had a large amount of pushback on that from 

States, many Members of Congress. It was done before I took over. 

We are looking at that, trying to help the States understand what 

that means, and it is voluntary entirely. We are here to help, so 

to speak. But, I am meeting with the State homeland security professionals, I think next week here in the city, and I am going to 

put that question to them. Should we back off on that? I do not believe we should, but should we back off on that? Do you see us as 

partners and helpers in this to help, inside the States and help you 
9 

make sure that your systems are protected? But, there is nothing 

more fundamental to our democracy than voting. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, in following up with that, I just hope 

that you convey—I mean, it would be one thing for the States to 

say we do not want the Federal Government to be—I like that our 

elections are decentralized. I do not think the Federal Government 

should be telling each State how to run their elections or what vendors to use. 

On the other hand, this was Russia. 

Secretary KELLY. Right. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I mean, this was Russia. This was not, some 

hacker at a university trying to screw around with one individual 

State. This was an international attempt to impact the elections of 

the United States of America. So, it really would be, I think, distressing if the United States would then pull back from the ability 

to help States protect these voter files. And, you all are going to 

be in the best position to be able to do that. 

So, is someone from the Department working in the investigation 

over this intrusion into our data files, our voter data files? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, Senator, we are involved. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. The other area I wanted to talk about 

and give you a chance to respond to the things I said in my opening 

statement, about cutting funding for the VIPR Program and for the 

Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program, the Urban 

Area grants that are so important to large cities in this country in 

terms of protecting soft targets for terrorism. Could you address 

those cuts and if you would be OK with the fact that we would 

maybe want to restore those cuts? 

Secretary KELLY. I would like to comment for sure. 

The first thing I kind of referenced it a little bit in my opening 

statement. We are as a Nation in a different place entirely—from 

a law enforcement and local protection point of view, we are in a 

different place today than we were 15 years ago when 9/11 first 

took place. Whether it is New York City and the largest non-Federal law enforcement organization in the country, the New York 

City Police Department, or small towns and counties with very few 

professionals, this kind of thinking, this antiterrorism, counterterrorism is in the Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). We have certainly 

and should have right after 9/11 for years afterwards, I think to 

the tune now of $45 billion in 15 years, helped States, whether it 

was acquire equipment, hire people, DOD has a program where 

they give excess equipment away. You know all of that. 

So, we are in a different place today. New York City Police Department, I was just up there last week and sat with them for several hours getting their concept of how they protect the city from 

a terrorism point of view, and I do not think there is anyone better 

in the world. 

So, in a perfect world, I would love to fund everything, but 15 

years on, we are in a different place locally and federally in terms 

of protecting the homeland. Again, in a perfect world, I would love 

to fund everything. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Well, I understand the point you are 

making; although I will say that I do not think any of us would 

think that the threat of a terrorist attack is less today than it was 
10 

15 years ago. And, I can speak for many of these communities that 

are struggling with enough officers now. St. Louis is a good example where we have a serious crime problem, and in order to have 

the resources they need to cover the airport, to do some of the 

things that this money allows them to do is really important. So, 

I am hoping that we can work together and figure that out. 

Secretary KELLY. Senator, if I could respond, I would not disagree at all, and the threat since 9/11 is, I think—certain types of 

threats are much more than they were during 9/11, much more metastasized, some of it local, some of it potentially from outside the 

country. I am with you 1,000 percent. But, the one fundamental 

difference is we have different State, local, and Federal focus on 

this, and training and equipment. 

Senator MCCASKILL. We do. 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Once again, thank you for being here, Secretary Kelly. I think 

that you have bipartisan support on this Committee because of 

your track record, and you were in front of the Subcommittee on 

Homeland Security here a few weeks back, and I appreciate your 

testimony there. 

Since then, it was reported that the President’s son-in-law, Jared 

Kushner, attempted to establish secret back-channel communications with the Kremlin through Russian ambassador Sergey 

Kislyak. You were asked about these back-channel communications 

with Russia on TV, and you supported Kushner setting up backchannel communications. The White House has been mum about 

these communications. I believe that these communications did 

occur. Whether there was anything classified or not that went 

through, I think this is a big deal because we are talking about 

Russia. 

I looked up your age, and I thought we might be similar in age, 

and to your credit, you are a little bit older than me, but you look 

younger. OK, Mr. Secretary. But, you remember Russia in the 

height of the cold war. I do not trust them any more today than 

I did when I was a first grader in school. And, to have somebody 

this close to the President setting up back channels before they 

were in office through a Russian embassy is very disturbing to me 

if, in fact, this happened. 

And so, have you spoken to Mr. Kushner about this issue? 

Secretary KELLY. I have not. 

Senator TESTER. OK. So, has anybody spoken to him about this 

issue in your Department or to find out if this happened and what 

kind of information was relayed? We just heard the Ranking Member talk about potential impacts on elections. We have talked about 

potential money flowing to the Trump business enterprise. There 

is all sorts of smoke here that we need to get to the bottom of, and 

so I am curious about that. 

Secretary KELLY. I hope no one in my Department has spoken 

to him. That would be inappropriate. I am the interaction with the 
11 

White House as a general rule. He does not work like many of the 

White House staff do not work directly. 

But, if I could, sir, on the back channel? 

Senator TESTER. Yes, go ahead. 

Secretary KELLY. Back-channel communications, I mean, I had 

back-channel communications myself through religious leaders in 

the United States to leaders in, say, Latin America. It is one thing 

if I call the President of a country and have a conversation with 

him. It is different if it comes from another direction. It is just the 

reality of the way things work. I would just offer to you, sir, that 

we have to make the assumption—and I will—that Jared Kushner 

is a great American, he is a decent American. He has a security 

clearance at the highest level, as I understand it. 

Senator TESTER. He did not then, though, did he? 

Secretary KELLY. I believe he should have had. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Secretary KELLY. Now, if he was trying to open back-channel 

communications to pass information through that back channel to 

get to Putin or anyone else over there to say, ‘‘Hey, look, we are 

concerned about this,’’ or ‘‘This is what you might want to consider 

doing,’’ because if it is official, then it is a whole different dynamic. 

Senator TESTER. I got you. But the question is: There are no red 

flags that come up for you at all on this? 

Secretary KELLY. Not at the time. I did not know about it. Since 

it has been reported, back channels are the normal—are in the 

course of normal interactions with other countries. Very common. 

Senator TESTER. Can you tell me if it is also normal to go to an 

embassy of a country that has been our foe since World War II and 

do this kind—is that normal? 

Secretary KELLY. I do not know if that was the case, but if that 

is the case, I am not so sure it is normal, but certainly it would 

be one way to communicate through the back channel. 

Senator TESTER. So, if I were to do that, you guys would think 

that is OK? I have a security clearance. If I were to walk over to 

an embassy and say, ‘‘Hey, look, I want to have a back-channel 

communication, and, by the way, even though it appears that nobody in the United States will know what I am talking about, and 

this is why I did it, it is OK because I am not’’—is that—I mean, 

really? 

Secretary KELLY. Senator, if you went over to—whether you met 

them here in the building or you—— 

Senator TESTER. Went to the Russian Embassy. 

Secretary KELLY [continuing]. Went to the embassy and said—— 

‘‘Let me tell you something, as a Senator from the great State 

of Montana and a Member of these committees, this is B.S., what 

you are doing and you better stop it,’’ or whatever, that is essentially a back-channel communication. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I would just say this: I appreciate your 

faith in the system. I am going to tell you that whether classified 

information was delivered or not, I find this unacceptable. I just do. 

To have somebody who is a son-in-law to the President that goes 

in and sets up with Russia, the country that I was told to hide 

under the desk when the nuclear bombs came—what the hell good 

that would do, I do not know—when I was in first grade. I just 
12 

think if we do not get to the bottom of what is going on and what 

is happening—we have talked about the Russians, we have talked 

about money. There is all sorts of stuff going on here. And, as the 

Ranking Member said, there is so much going on here that we do 

not know which direction to have the investigation happen. If it 

needs to be you, you have the credentials, by the way, and you 

have the respect, I believe, on this Committee and probably in Congress to really find out what the hell is going on, because it does 

not make me sleep better at night, I will just tell you. And, if it 

does not make me sleep better at night, your eyes are probably 

wide open on this. 

Secretary KELLY. Senator, I think, again, I think we have to 

make the assumption that—— 

Senator TESTER. But, do you not think we should ensure that 

that assumption is correct? 

Secretary KELLY. Oh, sure, and I think there are numerous investigations—— 

Senator TESTER. But, nobody is doing that. 

Secretary KELLY. I think there are numerous investigations that 

are looking into this. I mean, I think it is part of the Bob Mueller 

investigation. I think there are a number of Congressional committees looking into it. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Another topic. I just want to echo what the 

Ranking Member said. There have been folks that have been frozen 

out by different agencies. I think that is inappropriate. Whether 

you are on that Committee or whether you are a Member of Congress, oversight is our big job. I appreciate you not doing that, and 

I hope that policy continues. I would assume that that is going to 

be the case, correct? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir. And, if I could comment? 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Secretary KELLY. As I was going through the process of confirmation, those Senators and House Members that gave me the courtesy 

of an office call prior to the hearing, the one single thing I heard 

repeatedly was how nonresponsive this Department, my Department, our Department, was prior to. I would tell you, since I have 

been running the show, to the degree that I think I am running 

it, we have over 37 appearances in Congressional hearings, 57 witnesses, 973 Hill engagements. Prior to that, it was a tiny fraction. 

In fact, I was just talking to Senator Grassley, who was the biggest 

critic of my Department relative to Congressional engagement, and 

I was on an open phone with him and his staff and asked him how 

we were doing, and he gave me nothing but high marks. We are 

going to make that better. 

First of all, we are leaning forward, and whether it is—regardless of who the letter comes from—and it does not have to just 

come from a Ranking Member or Chairman. We will respond to 

any Congressional inquiry. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

Secretary KELLY. If we cannot get to it right away—some of the 

letters, as you might imagine, are lengthy and in need of great detail. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Too lengthy, sometimes. 
13 

Secretary KELLY. My folks will call. If it falls into the category 

we cannot get to it real quick and respond, we will call the staff 

and say, ‘‘Hey, we got it, and we are on it, but it will be some 

weeks or even perhaps months before we can get it to you.’’ If need 

be, we will send a letter, or I will call the Member and say, ‘‘Boy, 

this is a big one. I am going to have to set some people to work 

on this. It will be a while, but we are on it.’’ 

And, I think in every case thus far, certainly in the last 90 

days—60 days, anyways, we are getting high marks. So, I will not 

freeze you out, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I look forward 

to seeing you in Montana. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you, Secretary Kelly, for being here today, and I would like to once again 

thank you for your trip to Detroit. I think it was well received by 

the community, and I appreciate you taking the effort to come out 

to my State. 

Secretary Kelly, I am particularly concerned about some of the 

proposed cuts to several FEMA preparedness grant programs that 

are in the President’s budget. Our first responders in Michigan use 

the Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security 

Program funding to support lifesaving efforts, including bomb 

search and rescue equipment, simulation drills, maintenance of 

local early warning, and emergency response centers. 

The proposed 25-percent cost share matching requirement for 

local governments would prevent a number of these efforts because, 

quite frankly, many of these departments simply do not have the 

money available for that cost share. And, I know you think it is important that there is skin in the game. You have used that term 

frequently, that our local communities have some cash as they are 

in these matching programs. 

But, given the fact that we are facing lone-wolf attacks and a lot 

of changes in how our domestic homeland security folks have to 

deal with situations, do you believe—how are they able to make the 

appropriate investments to make sure that they are equipped for 

these types of attacks? Are there some other alternatives, or are 

there ways that we could perhaps adjust that figure in the budget? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, Senator, referencing a couple of my previous comments in this hearing as well as in the past, our local law 

enforcement—city, State, county, big city, small city—they are in 

a different place today than they were right after 9/11, and we all 

know that. They are just much better at what they do. Their head 

is in the game. They have skin in the game. The grants over the 

years have to a degree caused that to happen because we have 

given additional funding to the various municipalities to improve 

themselves. 

We are at the point now where much of that effort is already accomplished, and we are in the sustainment phase; that is to say, 

States and local governments now need to sustain what we have 

helped them, the points at which and the equipment and all that 
14 

we have helped them get to, that combined with there are not unlimited resources. One of the things you mentioned, lone-wolf attacks, a lone wolf—and you know this, and I beg your forgiveness. 

I do not mean to lecture—not lecture, but to go too low in terms 

of my response. But, the thing we are facing with the lone-wolf attacks is a different dynamic. New York City is at risk. Detroit is 

at risk. Some tiny little town in the middle of Arkansas is at risk. 

Every small town, big town, is at risk from this lone-wolf stuff. 

I do not know, as hard as I have thought about it, if there is a 

way to prevent it, predict it, get our arms around it other than 

local cops and sheriffs getting into people’s business legally, outreach and all of that kind of thing. But, my point is an unlimited 

amount of money parceled out to every big city, small municipality 

in America might prevent a lone-wolf attack. I do not know if it 

will, but it might. But, of course, we do not have an unlimited 

amount of money. 

We make these decisions in many ways based on formulas that 

we receive from the Congress. We plug in numbers and try to 

somehow evaluate what might be a logical target, not necessarily 

for the lone wolfers. They are everywhere. But, a logical target or 

a target that might be at higher risk, say New York City, than another municipality, particularly from an external terrorist. 

Senator PETERS. Well, I understand that, and I appreciate the 

fact that this is a big challenge. We do not have unlimited amounts 

of money. But, I want to just challenge a little bit of the assessment that other communities are adequately prepared for it. Certainly we have come a long way. As you mentioned, we have come 

a long way and provided those resources. But, I am certainly hearing from my departments in Michigan there are still unmet needs 

that they think are pretty critical. Resources are tight for them as 

well, and we still have a ways to go. So, hopefully we can revisit 

some of those matching programs to make sure that those communities that may be at the highest risk but also have a fairly challenging budget situation in that community, that we are able to 

work something out. I would appreciate having further discussion 

in that area. 

Also, Mr. Secretary, the first travel ban Executive Order required 

the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report in 30 days 

that provides a list of countries that do not provide adequate information for vetting, within 30 days of the date of this order, and it 

is my understanding the district court in Seattle did not stay that 

aspect of the order. 

The second Executive Order required the exact same report within 20 days of its effective day, and as you know, aside from Sections 2 and 6, the remainder of the revised Executive Order is not 

affected by any subsequent injunctions. So, that means as of today, 

May 6, 2017, the report required by the first Executive Order is 

overdue by over 60 days, more than twice as much time as required, and a report required by the second Executive Order is 

overdue by about 30 days. 

Mr. Secretary, did you begin the report reviewing screening procedures that the initial Executive Order required? 

Secretary KELLY. Senator, we have been very cautious, extra cautious, in getting anywhere near where the court might consider we 
15 

are not following their instructions. I would have to get back to 

you on exactly where we are on the reports. One of the things 

that—regardless of whether the court has told us not to do, we 

have looked for things that we could do. As an example, thinking 

about other countries but not studying it, and looking at vetting 

procedures, additional vetting, extreme vetting, but not studying it. 

Some of the procedures would be very obvious, some of the countries very obvious. But, if you do not mind, I would like to get back 

to you on the question. 

Senator PETERS. Well, I appreciate it because it seems to me a 

court injunction is not going to limit you from doing your own internal reviews of policies and procedures. That goes—— 

Secretary KELLY. I actually have lawyers telling me, sir, that we 

are too close on some of these issues, not necessarily ones you have 

addressed, but on some of these issues, and it is best just to show 

extra good faith and not getting too close to it. 

Senator PETERS. Very good. Well, I would appreciate further discussions on that as well. 

Secretary KELLY. Sure. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hassan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. And, good morning, Secretary Kelly, and thank you for being 

here. Like all of my colleagues, I appreciate your willingness to 

have this conversation with us. 

Last week, I visited our CBP base covering New Hampshire’s 

Northern border with Canada. The men and women at the station 

are working overtime and on a shoestring budget to secure our 

Northern border, including intercepting human traffickers and preventing narcotic smuggling. 

I think they are doing an incredible job with truly limited resources, but they really need more support. And, while CBP is getting a huge boost in their funding in this budget, we know that this 

funding is not going to be used to shore up the Northern border. 

And, it is not just CBP’s Northern border forces—they are not the 

only ones getting shorted in this budget, as some of the other Members here have indicated. TSA, in charge of protecting our aviation 

borders and stopping terrorists from taking down our aviation system, is facing a sizable cut to some of its key programs and renewed aviation threats. And, the Coast Guard protects our Nation’s 

largest border, but despite its aging maritime assets, rundown and, 

frankly, outdated facilities, the Coast Guard is also getting cut. 

So, this budget tells me that your priority is to secure the Southern border and that fighting off all other threats is secondary. I 

certainly support securing the Southern border and reducing narcotics trafficking, but this budget presents really, I think, a false 

choice. We can and should secure the Southern border and also secure our other land, sea, and air borders as well. 

So, what is your plan for making sure that our Northern border 

forces, TSA, and the Coast Guard get the funding increases they 

so desperately need? 
16 

Secretary KELLY. Well, Senator, the good news is from my perspective, and certainly what I have learned in the last going on 4 

months, is we have two great partners in this effort to secure our 

borders: Canada to the north, obviously, and Mexico to the south. 

The bad news for Mexico and the Southwest border is largely because of our drug demand, an incredibly efficient network has developed that stretches, frankly, from around the world, goes 

through the Western hemisphere, the Caribbean, up the Central 

American isthmus, Mexico, into the United States. So, that is 

where the overwhelming amount of drugs, illegal aliens, special interest aliens come through because of that network. Not because 

Mexico is not a partner, not because they are not great friends, but 

because they are unfortunately astride a network or a land mass 

or a geographical feature that the drug traffickers have decided 

that that is how they are coming. 

Senator HASSAN. And, Secretary Kelly, I am well aware of that. 

I am also well aware of how able, nimble, evolving, and creative 

these cartels and networks are. And so, it just seems to me a totally false choice to leave a border inviting and open, relatively 

open. It may disrupt things on the Southwest border for a time, but 

it does not do us any good if there are other ports of entry. 

You talk to the Coast Guard right now, and they are not able to 

intervene in some of the narcotics traffic on our seas because they 

simply do not have the resources, even when they know that they 

are there. And, that would be a very important aspect of our war 

on this drug epidemic we have. 

Secretary KELLY. Well, you are right on the Northern border 

versus the Southern border. But, for right now, the Southern border is the problem. If we were to seal the Southern border—and 

I believe we can get—I know we will get control of our Southern 

border. That does not mean seal it but control it, go from where 

we were several months ago, almost no control, to some pretty good 

control. They will, given the drug demand in the United States, 

they will figure other ways to get through. We have to watch that 

and react to it. 

Senator HASSAN. And, we also have to keep people in the northern part of our country safe. And so, one of the things—that is not 

a very reassuring answer to the people of New Hampshire or the 

other Northern border States. 

I want to move on to another issue that we discussed the last 

time you were here. I asked you about an innovative way to protect 

DHS’ systems from cyber attacks and the possible application of 

the Pentagon’s pilot program to use hackers to probe the Pentagon’s networks for vulnerabilities. The pilot program was called 

‘‘Hack the Pentagon,’’ and it has been very successful. In the few 

weeks that the program ran, the Pentagon collected 138 previously 

undiscovered vulnerabilities. Since then, the Pentagon has expanded the program, and the General Service Administration 

(GSA) has announced an effort to launch a similar program. 

A little over a week ago, Senator Portman and I, along with others on this Committee, introduced the Hack DHS Act. That bill 

would instruct DHS to hold a pilot program to allow hackers to 

probe DHS’ systems for vulnerabilities and report them to DHS. In 

return, DHS would pay the hackers a small sum of money for each 
17 

vulnerability they discover and report. As my friend Senator Harris 

said, we will fight hackers with hackers. 

So, as you can see, a lot has happened since you were last here. 

At the last hearing, you promised to look into whether the Pentagon’s pilot program would be a fit for DHS. So, I am just asking 

you today that you take a hard look at this bill. There has also 

been a similar bill introduced today in the House by Representatives Lieu and Taylor. And so, would you just commit to taking a 

hard look at those bills and seeing what the Department thinks of 

them? 

Secretary KELLY. Senator, I absolutely will, and probably will not 

wait to see if this law passes. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. Thank you. 

Lastly, I have two more points. I do not want to reiterate everything Senator Peters said, but I will just let you know, as a former 

Governor who is in a State with lots of volunteer first responder 

forces, part-time police departments, and ongoing efforts to keep 

our State and do our part for our country’s national security safe, 

too, the elimination or severe cuts to critical State aid and grant 

programs for everything from airport security to other kinds of security efforts to fight homegrown terrorism, you have to train ongoing. You need ongoing resources. We have an enemy who is evolving, and the notion that just because we have made improvements 

since 9/11 we can absorb this kind of drastic cut I think is just a 

really false notion. And, I would tell you that, having talked with 

my homeland security people in New Hampshire about the myriad 

of threats we are facing, the cuts here are really troubling. 

And last, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I just would encourage—and 

maybe we can talk offline about the President’s Opioid Commission. I understand that the first interim report is due shortly. We 

just have not heard anything about it. I know you are on the Commission, and I would love to talk later about that. 

Secretary KELLY. Well, on that, if I could just have a minute, Mr. 

Chairman, to respond? Myself, Rex Tillerson, you may not have 

seen us with the Mexicans a couple of weeks ago, they are on board 

with our attempts to not only safeguard the Southwest border, 

their Northern border, but also get at the demand problem. I know 

Secretary Tillerson, Secretary Price, myself, and the head of the 

Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), who I have spoken to—and I like to think changed his attitude toward what his 

job is going forward—we will get together and put some real energy 

behind the demand reduction to include, obviously, the opioids. 

But, I think a big part of it, I think you will agree, I think we 

spoke about this, is this overmedicated society that we suffer from 

in the United States that just suggests to people all they have to 

do is put something up their nose, in their mouth, or in their arm 

to solve all their problems. 

Senator HASSAN. And, one of the things that is going to be really 

important and really concerning, obviously, is the Administration’s 

support for eliminating things like Medicaid expansion and requirements that insurance companies treat addiction, which gets at the 

overmedication and the overprescribing issue. So, I look forward to 

talking with you more about it. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Hassan. 
18 

I will again just point out, based on the baseline budget in 2004, it was $36.5 billion. Had it grown by inflation, it would be about 

$48 billion. Instead, it is about $70 billion. So, $22 billion more 

growth in spending for this Department because of those evolving 

threats. So, I just want to point out what the reality is in terms 

of the increase in spending over the last, whatever that is, 13 

years. 

Senator HASSAN. And, if I may—and I appreciate that, Mr. 

Chairman—my concern is that we are only as strong as our weakest link in this country. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, we do not want to be penny wise and 

pound foolish, but we have dramatically increased the resources of 

this Department.Senator Paul. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL 

Senator PAUL. Secretary Kelly, thanks for your testimony. The 

last time you were here, we talked about U.S. citizens coming 

across the border and being threatened with non-entry or detention 

if they did not divulge the contents of their phone, all of the contents of their phone, and your response was, ‘‘I just do not believe 

we are doing it.’’ So, we asked some questions in writing, and we 

are still waiting on the response. That has been about 6 weeks or 

so. But, I thought I would list for you a couple of the public episodes of this happening. 

This year, a NASA engineer and a U.S. citizen was pulled aside 

after coming back from Chile. They demanded the PIN for his 

phone, and they handed him a form that explained how CBP had 

the right to copy the contents of his phone, all the contents of his 

phone. He recalled that the form indicated that his participation in 

the search was mandatory and it threatened detention and/or seizure if he did not comply. The phone, ironically, was already a government phone. It was a NASA phone that they were wanting to 

search. 

Two citizens were stopped on return from Canada. NBC did an 

investigation of 25 different cases of U.S. citizens being told to turn 

over their phones, unlock them, or provide passwords. 

A U.S. citizen was taken off of a flight in L.A., handcuffed and 

released after a Homeland Security agent looked through his phone 

for 15 minutes. 

A U.S. citizen journalist also had their phone taken. 

So, I guess my question is: Is your answer still, ‘‘I just do not believe we are doing it?’’ 

Secretary KELLY. My answer is we do not do it routinely unless 

there is a reason why, so that is a change. We do it whether they 

are citizens or non-citizens coming in. I think of the million or so 

people that come in the country, half of 1 percent is checked. 

Now, typically, the officers—and always according to the law. 

Now, typically, the officers who are engaged in the front-line defense at the ports of entry, in their questioning of individuals for 

whatever has tipped them off, will cause them to have certain conversations, go down certain avenues of—not interrogation but, 

again, conversation. In the event of some indicator that perhaps 

the individual is returning from, sex tourism or something like 

that, we do catch a fair number of people in that regard. But, 
19 

again, Senator, very seldom done and always for a reason and always within the law. 

Senator PAUL. So, the answer now is not, ‘‘I just do not believe 

we are doing it.’’ It is, ‘‘We are doing it, and not that often.’’ 

Secretary KELLY. Right. 

Senator PAUL. The policy they are being threatened with, 

though, is detention? How long will they be detained if they do not 

give you the PIN to their phone? 

Secretary KELLY. It is a relatively short period of time. It is generally called ‘‘secondary’’ where they are follow-up questions. Once 

a decision might be made to put them into some legal justice system, then that is—— 

Senator PAUL. But, to you it is still—you are just fine with the 

policy that arbitrarily takes someone’s phone, says you cannot come 

back into your own country? 

Secretary KELLY. Not arbitrarily. There is a reason why they do 

it, Senator. 

Senator PAUL. Well, no. The thing is it is arbitrary unless there 

are rules as to how you do it. What are the rules? In our country, 

if you want to look at my phone—— 

Secretary KELLY. There are rules—— 

Senator PAUL [continuing]. You call a judge in my country. So, 

this would not necessarily be American jurisprudence if you are 

just saying we might have some internal rules. Have you published 

what your rules are? 

Secretary KELLY. At the ports of entry, whether a citizen or noncitizen, the officers have procedures to follow, but certainly rights 

to check baggage and in this case look into electronics. There are 

procedures. Whether they are published or not, are specific enough 

to publish, I do not know, but I can certainly get back to you. 

Senator PAUL. We would like to see that. We would also like to 

see the form that threatens them with detention and/or seizure if 

they do not comply. 

Secretary KELLY. Sure. 

Senator PAUL. I can tell you I am not happy with the policy, and 

I wish it were different. And, we have actually introduced legislation to try to stop you from doing this and to make you go to a 

court the way we do in our country. Typically, we go to a court and 

you ask a judge, and you have to present evidence. You have to 

specify an individual, and you have to have a reason for doing it. 

Searching someone’s phone, is not the same as searching someone’s 

luggage. 

Secretary KELLY. Would that law also prohibit us from looking 

in bags and things like that? 

Senator PAUL. No, and I think there is a difference. And, I think 

that that is the whole point here, is that looking in someone’s luggage for an immediate threat to the country, to the people, to the 

plane, etc., I think we have decided that that is within the scope 

of your jurisdiction. But, looking at someone’s phone is a much 

more personal and much more extensive look into their life, and we 

just do not think you should be—it sort of horrifies us to think that 

you could not come back in your country, you know? People are 

now talking. There are people giving you advice to not take your 

phone abroad because when you come back home, your country will 
20 

not let you come home unless you let them look at your entire life. 

That does not seem like a fair tradeoff to be able to travel or for 

safety. And, I think there is a point at which we give up so much 

of our liberty to travel that has it been worth it, really? I mean, 

we can live in a secure State if we clamp down and we have no 

freedom to travel, and we give up all of our privacy to travel. I just 

do not think that is necessary. And, I think there can also be two 

different standards, frankly. I think there can be one standard for 

somebody who is coming for the first time from Afghanistan who 

has one name and no background. I am with you. We need to do 

more scrutiny on people coming to our country. But, if an American 

citizen leaves and comes back, I think, for goodness’ sakes, they 

ought to still be protected by the Bill of Rights when they come 

home. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hoeven. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being here and for your good and very important 

work. 

Where are you in terms of this extreme vetting process as far as 

having the procedures in place that you want, and particularly as 

regards the six countries included in the President’s EO? 

Secretary KELLY. I am sorry, sir. Where are we—— 

Senator HOEVEN. Where are you in the process of establishing 

your extreme vetting procedures the way you want to have them 

set up, and particularly as regards to the EO countries? 

Secretary KELLY. Because, again, of my not wanting to get crosswise with the courts in any law, we have been very reserved in 

that. I will tell you that there are two aspects of this. Some of it 

I control, some of it the State Department controls. The State 

Department has recently issued a number of additional questions 

as an example that their consular officers will ask those that want 

to visit the United States on visas. That is a little bit of an easier 

thing because typically those people are coming out of countries— 

well, they would present a passport as an example, and there has 

always been certain questions in place that they would ask. Now 

there will be some additional questions about where they have 

lived and, it could be access to their electronic devices. But, that 

is outside the country. 

In the case of refugees, I think the Senator knows that in many 

cases the refugees that we deal with have no paperwork that we 

can rely on. They have no passports. We have to take their word 

for it. 

The United Nations (U.N.), as hard as they try—and I think the 

last time I was here, or one of the recent hearings, I talked about 

my interaction with the U.N. They are in the same position we are. 

Although they are not in the position of allowing people to come to 

a given country, they themselves, as they do their initial refugee 

screening—they do not do screening. They do refugee registration: 

What is your name? Where are you from? All of that taken on 

faith, good faith. 

And then, it comes to us. In the past we have, I think, exercised 

entirely too much good faith, and I think the things we are looking 
21 

at is, OK, if you do not have a passport, you have no proof of who 

you are, then we need to know some additional facts and figures 

about you. How did you support yourself in a given country? Do 

you have any way to prove that you work for a living so that we 

can kind of prove who you are? What village were you at? Can you 

give us points of contact in a given country that we can call? That 

kind of thing. 

But, in many cases, many of these refugees do not have any of 

that, so it would be very hard for me in good faith to then move 

them into the United States to establish, a home here. 

But, I believe what will give us an advantage is when we start 

to deal with them on their social media accounts, their telephone, 

registrations, that kind of thing. 

Senator HOEVEN. What about the Visa Waiver countries? You 

mentioned earlier that as we inflict defeat on the Islamic State of 

Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in the Middle East, there are individuals who 

have been in the Middle East and returning to other Western European and other countries with which we have Visa Waiver in 

place. What procedures, extra procedures, precautions are you taking to protect them from coming to the United States? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, as I think the Senator knows, there are 

38 Visa Waiver countries. As you might imagine—I know you realize this—they are countries that have more or less what we have. 

They have a working relationship with the United States, to say 

the least. They have a U.S. embassy locally to handle our affairs 

and look out for us. They have kind of an FBI and an Intelligence 

Community (IC) and all the rest with databases that allow us to 

tap into what they do. That is getting better, by the way, and I 

have commitments from many countries around the world because 

of the laptop ban that we implemented in 10 airports about midMarch. 

But, the point is we are in very good shape in those countries. 

We have confidence in their systems and how they interact with 

our systems. Not every country, though, say in Europe is a Visa 

Waiver country because some of them have not got—even though 

they are, Western countries, First World, they do not have what we 

think they need. So, we set the bar very high, and they have in 

most countries—certainly 38 have met that bar. 

But, that said, again, the long pole in the tent is, as Jim Comey 

would say, the database is only good if you are on it. And, not to 

get into it—I do not want to be too open about this in an open 

hearing, but some of the more recent terrorists in England or U.K. 

may not have been on any of those lists, so that had they decided 

to come here—you are exactly right—— 

Senator HOEVEN. That is my question. 

Secretary KELLY [continuing]. Had they come to the United 

States, they would have certainly been able to buy a ticket and fly 

to the United States. Now, their baggage and everything would 

have been subject to the normal protocols, so my sense would be 

that, they would not be getting on the airplane with a bomb or 

something like that, if they got here, hopefully. And, if they got 

here and were trying to do something about that, you know that. 

But, if they got here, then it would possibly be problematic. But, 

the point is there is a certain point where I do not think we either 
22 

have a Visa Waiver Program (VWP) or not. And, I can tell you, the 

38 countries that are on it are committed to it. We are all committed to making it better. Right now I am comfortable with where 

we are on it. 

Senator HOEVEN. But, clearly, we have to react to events and 

take extra precautions, right? 

Secretary KELLY. We do. 

Senator HOEVEN. In regard to Senator Hassan’s comments regarding the Northern border, one of the best tools you have—and 

you and I have talked about this—both at Homeland Committee 

Appropriations as well as this Committee, is the unmanned aerial 

systems (UAS). Kevin McAleenan, your Acting CBP Director, who, 

by the way, is absolutely fantastic, was out in Grand Forks. We 

have 900 miles of border responsibility, all different kind of terrain, 

all the way from Lake Superior all the way throughout most of 

Montana. The UAS is a great tool. You are collocated in the Grand 

Forks Air Force Base. We are looking at new facilities. We are 

working with him. I would ask for your strong support for him in 

that effort. 

And, also, with the technology park we have there at the Grand 

Forks Air Force Base, it is really a unique opportunity to develop 

that UAS tool, which helps you on the Northern border and the 

Southern border. 

So, again, I want to commend him and commend him to you and 

ask for your support for his good efforts. That is a tool that can 

really address some of the concerns that she raised. 

Secretary KELLY. Senator, I agree with you. Thanks for the comments about Kevin. He is really a first-round draft choice. 

Senator HOEVEN. He is an All-Star. 

Secretary KELLY. I cannot wait to get him confirmed, or hopefully the Senate will confirm him. 

Senator HOEVEN. I agree. Thank you for all you are doing. 

Secretary KELLY. Sure. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Secretary Kelly, as a follow-up to Senator Tester’s questions, you 

mentioned that you have in your career had back-channel conversations with foreign governments. Is that correct? 

Secretary KELLY. I had people I could rely on to pass information 

to foreign leaders. 

Senator HARRIS. And, was that in your current capacity as a 

member of the President’s Cabinet? 

Secretary KELLY. That was in my capacity when I was in uniform. I would not hesitate to do it now. 

Senator HARRIS. And, did you initiate any of those conversations 

such that you initiated that they would take place inside the embassy of a foreign government? 

Secretary KELLY. I have gone to embassies both in my current 

assignment as well as in past assignments or met with members 

of the diplomatic corps from other countries, and—— 

Senator HARRIS. Have you initiated back-channel conversations—— 
23 

Secretary KELLY. Can I finish what I was saying? 

Senator HARRIS [continuing]. To occur inside of those embassies 

as opposed to attending a cocktail party? 

Secretary KELLY. I have had conversations with members of foreign diplomats in various places and talked to them about my perception of what they could do better in response to things that the 

U.S. Government would like to see them do. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Secretary Kelly, included in the President’s budget is a provision 

that says, ‘‘The Secretary of Homeland Security may condition a 

grant or cooperative agreement awarded by the Department of 

Homeland Security to a State or political subdivision of a State for 

a purpose related to immigration, national security, law enforcement, or preventing, preparing for, or protecting against, or responding to acts of terrorism. Specifically, the budget authorizes 

the Secretary to condition grants on compliance with any lawful request by DHS to detain an alien for a period not to exceed 48 

hours.’’ 

Are you familiar with that? 

Secretary KELLY. I am fairly familiar with it, yes. 

Senator HARRIS. I am sorry? 

Secretary KELLY. Fairly familiar with it, yes. 

Senator HARRIS. Grants that are subject to new conditions would 

include the Urban Area Security Initiative, a DHS grant that provided California last year with $124 million to help urban areas 

prevent, mitigate, and respond to acts of terrorism. This grant supports more than 100 incorporated jurisdictions in 12 counties in the 

Bay Area of California alone. It supports them to buy equipment, 

enhance systems, and conduct trainings so that localities can prevent, mitigate, and respond to acts of terrorism. Are you aware of 

that? 

Secretary KELLY. That is a good thing. 

Senator HARRIS. Another DHS grant is the State Homeland Se- curity Grant Program that provided California $60.2 million last 

year to support State, local, and tribal efforts to prevent terrorism 

and to prepare the Nation for threats and hazards that pose the 

greatest risk to security in the United States. Is that correct? 

Secretary KELLY. I wish I had the same document I could read 

from as you do. 

Senator HARRIS. Are you familiar with this grant program in 

your Department? 

Secretary KELLY. I am familiar with the grant program. 

Senator HARRIS. And, are you aware that there are a number of 

Federal courts that have imposed civil liability on local governments for complying with ICE detainer orders that were not supported by probable cause? Can you answer the question? 

Secretary KELLY. Am I aware of that? 

Senator HARRIS. Yes. 

Secretary KELLY. I am. 

Senator HARRIS. And, in order then to comply with the 48-hour 

ICE detainer made with no probable cause, would that not force 

the jurisdiction to choose whether to comply with the Federal court 

ruling or forfeit vital public safety funds that are administered by 

your Department? 
24 

Secretary KELLY. I am not a lawyer, but I think that Federal law 

is Federal law as State law is State law, and if we have a different 

view of the impact of some of the State rulings. 

Senator HARRIS. Well, imagine, sir, if you will, that you were a 

local law enforcement leader presented with a choice of either complying with Federal law that means that you may expose your department and your jurisdiction to civil liability or forfeiting DHS 

funds that are designed and intended to help you fight terrorism 

at a local level, would you not agree that puts those law enforcement leaders in—it is almost a Hobson’s choice? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, Senator—— 

Senator HARRIS. How are they supposed to choose? 

Secretary KELLY. Had you not cut me off, I would have said the 

same thing you just said, probably not as eloquently but I would 

have said the same thing you said. I appreciate the fix they are in. 

I appreciate that they get their legal advice from the State and 

locals. And, below the radar, we work with every police and sheriff 

department in this country to the degree that they can and are 

comfortable with. 

Senator HARRIS. Secretary Kelly, what do you mean, ‘‘below the 

radar?’’ They have two choices, and they are accountable—— 

Secretary KELLY. Talk to them on the phone—— 

Senator HARRIS. Excuse me, sir. They are accountable to their jurisdiction, to the bodies that may have appointed or elected them, 

and they have to make choices. What do you mean, ‘‘below the 

radar?’’ 

Secretary KELLY. We talk to them on the telephone, and—— 

Senator HARRIS. And, what are you instructing them to do when 

presented with those two choices? 

Secretary KELLY. And, we tell them to—whatever they can do 

within the law, the interpretation, we are willing to work with 

them. 

Senator HARRIS. So, are you aware that there are local law enforcement—— 

Secretary KELLY. Could you let me at least finish once before you 

interrupt me? 

Senator HARRIS. Sir, with all due respect—— 

Secretary KELLY. With all due respect, Senator. 

Senator HARRIS. Are you instructing local law enforcement leaders that they can overlook a DHS detainer request so they are not 

exposed to criminal liability? 

Secretary KELLY. We talk to them about whatever they are comfortable with, whatever they think they can do within the interpretation of their local Attorneys General (AG), as an example, or local 

lawyers—— 

Senator HARRIS. So, when they are—— 

Secretary KELLY. Could you let me finish once? 

Senator HARRIS. Excuse me. I am asking the questions. 

Secretary KELLY. But, I am trying to answer the question. 

Senator HARRIS. When they tell you, as I know local police chiefs 

are being told, that it would expose their municipality to civil liability if they comply with the detainer request, are you telling 

them that you will not withhold the DHS Federal funding that they 

rely on? 
25 

Secretary KELLY. OK. Before I start to answer, will you let me 

finish? 

Senator HARRIS. If it is responsive to the question, of course. 

Secretary KELLY. We talk to them on the phone and tell them 

whatever they are comfortable with, whatever they can do within 

the interpretation of their local lawyers or legal advisers, we will 

work with them. 

Senator HARRIS. So, are you willing to then not withhold Federal 

funding when police chiefs tell you that they cannot comply with 

the detainer request because they have been told by their lawyer 

that they will expose their jurisdiction or their department to civil 

liability? 

Secretary KELLY. I am willing to work with them in any way I 

can within the law, Federal and local law, whatever they are comfortable with. I do not make threats to people, Senator. 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. My time is up. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Harris. 

By the way, there is actually a very simple fix for this predicament, and it is a huge predicament. Let us pass a law to give those 

local law enforcement officials liability protection against those 

civil suits, because part of Pat Toomey’s sanctuary city law, that 

could clear up this whole difference. So, there is actually a pretty 

simple fix here which I would certainly support. 

Senator HARRIS. And, I would support any fix that would not 

withhold funding for local law enforcement to meet the demands 

that they face around combating terrorism in their local jurisdiction. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Great. So, this could be a bipartisan solution here. 

Senator HARRIS. Potentially. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Let us provide that civil liability protection 

against those civil suits so local law enforcement are not caught between a rock and a hard place in a very difficult situation. So, let 

us work on that together. I would appreciate that. I am sure Secretary Kelly would enjoy working with us on that as well. Senator 

Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us 

today. It is good to see you. 

When I first heard the words ‘‘St. Elizabeths,’’ I thought, Why 

would we spend that much money on creating a campus, if you 

will, a home, a consolidated home for the Department of Homeland 

Security? And, over time I became convinced that one of the ways 

to actually enable the leadership of this Department to manage 

their Department and to improve their performance and, frankly, 

improve the morale of the employees is to actually pursue and implement the plan to create this campus. When Jeh Johnson became 

the Secretary, he had the same kind of misgivings that I originally 

had about the proposal. 

Would you just take a moment and tell us whether you have had 

a chance to get a feel for this and how your Department is so farflung—— 
26 

And, what do you think we ought to do? And, how does the Administration’s budget actually take us in that direction or not? 

Secretary KELLY. Well, Senator, we are in—I cannot count the 

number of locations around the city. Various parts, every part of 

Homeland Security is just spread out over all of Hell’s Half Acre 

here. To bring all or most of it or some of it together over at St. 

Elizabeths makes a lot of sense just from the point of view of time 

management. I mean, first—and money. We spend a huge amount 

of money renting, choice downtown real estate here in the city. We 

could avoid much of that. I think we would realize, if and when St. 

Elizabeths opened, billions of dollars in savings over 5 and 10 

years. 

But, the other issue is time management. I mean, it takes me 

half an hour to get from where I sit most of the time to meet with 

CBP or ICE or whatever, and then, obviously, half an hour to get 

back. Sometimes I do that two, three times a day. It kills either 

my time management or their time management. I do the best I 

cannot to inconvenience the people that work for me. But, it would 

be an advantage to be more or less in one place. St. Elizabeths 

seems to be the locale. But, frankly, as I have gotten smart on that 

particular location, there are some worker issues that we need to 

sort out, and we can do that in terms of transportation, access to 

Metro, that kind of thing. 

But, overall, it would be a cost savings as well as a time savings 

if we were to consolidate much of the headquarters effort in one location—St. Elizabeths. 

Senator CARPER. There are two pieces of funding. One is for 

GSA, and the other is for the Department of Homeland Security. 

I think one is for infrastructure and one is for if you go for a fitout. And, one of them is—I think the GSA piece is funded in the 

2018 budget. The DHS funding is not there, so I would like to follow up with you on that and certainly talk with our appropriators, 

some of whom are on this Committee, I believe. 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. I want to go back down to the Southern border. 

We see some substantial increases in funding for CBP, for ICE, 

money for detention centers, money for a wall. There is also money 

for what I call force multipliers. I am a big believer in force multipliers. I am not a big believer that we need a 2,000-mile wall. 

There are some places where a wall makes sense, but the idea of 

investing these force multipliers that have been demonstrated to be 

effective is good. 

You and I have talked often about root causes, and the root 

causes of why the people continue to come from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador has a lot to do with our insatiable demand 

for drugs. Drugs are trafficked through those countries. They come 

to us. We send them money and guns. And, we set up something 

called the Alliance for Prosperity a couple of years ago. Actually, 

those three countries set it up, and we came in, and as you know 

well—you were there at the creation—to try to emulate what has 

been accomplished in Colombia. 

Do you have a sense for how things are going in those three 

countries with respect to the goals that they set themselves on the 

Alliance for Prosperity? 
27 

Secretary KELLY. A great question and really a great story. Not 

perfect, but a great story. Based on the confidence that Congress 

and the previous Administration put into the three Northern Tier 

countries in helping them out, recognizing that, first of all, they 

have a problem; much of it is generated by our insatiable appetite 

for drugs, that those countries are nearly failed States, much as 

Colombia was 20 years ago and is not today. So, the miracle can 

happen. I mean, Colombia did it. And, frankly, at the time, Plan 

Colombia was put together by the U.S. Congress with a lot of resistance in other places and, as you know, I think, Senator, put 

some American money—I think 4 cents on the dollar, but ultimately it is a miracle that has happened in Colombia. So, when 

people tell me it cannot happen in Central America, I tell them to 

look at Colombia. 

So, that said, the Alliance for Prosperity, the three countries putting their own money into it, then through Congress, the Obama 

Administration, Vice President Biden was a huge help in this, as 

you know, get some additional U.S. funding put against it, controlled in the right way. 

So, what has happened in Central America since we worked on 

the Alliance for Prosperity? Violence is down. Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala used to be the three most dangerous countries on the planet—more dangerous, frankly, than Afghanistan 

and Iraq was at the time. They have cut their murder rates by either a third or more. Still horrific, but cut it a third or more, all 

with human rights in mind, all with the rule of law in mind. 

They have a long way to go, but their economies are starting to 

grow. They have gotten their arms around the corruption. Four or 

5 years ago, when I took SOUTHCOM, everything was going in the 

wrong direction on Colombia—or in Central America. I just read a 

report this morning where they have either stabilized, not getting 

worse, or getting better. That is huge. 

I think you know, in addition to my outreach, back-channel communications in some respects, to the leadership down there, 

through religious organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) so that I do not make it official but they know where 

I am and where I am going on these issues, we have also asked 

them to ask their citizens to not waste the money and head north, 

to not get on that terribly dangerous network that I described before, stay where they are, because if they come here, this is no 

longer an illegal alien-friendly environment. It is a very legal 

alien—and as the Senator knows, 1.1 million people a year. But, 

it is no longer a friendly environment for illegal aliens. Do not 

waste your money. Do not go on the dangerous network. 

What we are doing, we have put together—frankly, the DHS has 

been the energy behind it, although it is not my job. We have 

passed it off to the State Department. So, next week, in Miami, we 

are bringing together as cosponsors of a conference on the Northern 

Tier countries; Mexico, great country, great partner, and the 

United States cosponsoring. We have observers coming in: Canada, 

I think Spain, certainly Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, maybe 

Peru, for a 2-day conference. That conference will be led by the 

Vice President. I will be there; Secretary Tillerson, as well as Secretaries of Commerce and Treasury will be there. 
28 

The point is the first day we will bring together investors to do 

the best we can to stimulate what is going on in those three countries economically, and then the next day will be security issues, 

trying to get at the human trafficking and the drug trafficking. 

And, just last week, I was down in Haiti meeting with the new 

leadership there on another issue. I suggested that maybe the Haitian President come on board for one of those days or at least do 

a cameo-type appearance. 

So, what we are trying to do is help them solve their problems 

at home economically. We have already helped them solve the security—not solved, helped them go in the right direction on security, 

and with a little luck, we might actually be able to help them. But, 

if we do not reduce the drug demand in the United States for heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, this is all a complete waste of 

time. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. Well, I would just say to my colleagues, the 

Secretary said I asked a great question. I thought he gave a great 

answer. And, I think you have made the case for continued support 

for the Alliance for Prosperity. Just like in Colombia, the lion’s 

share of the responsibility rests on these three countries. We did 

not just say to Colombia, ‘‘We are going to come in and solve your 

problems.’’ We said, ‘‘You solve them. You can do it, and we can 

help.’’ And, we said the same thing with these three countries, and 

you made the case for it. 

I am delighted to hear about the summit. I do not believe our 

schedules allow us to go and participate, unfortunately, but my 

thoughts and prayers will be with you on your efforts in this regard. Thanks so much. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Just a moment of clarification. You mentioned 2,000 miles. So, 

there is no confusion, this budget is literally requesting 74 miles 

of fencing—60 new miles of fencing, 14 replacement in the San 

Diego Sector. I was just down there. It is amazing how many holes 

have been cut into that San Diego wall and have been repaired. 

And, the 60 new miles, 32 miles of that is in the Rio Grande Sector, new fence, new wall, and 28 is part of a levee system. So, 

again, we are talking about 74 miles over, 1,700 to 2,000 miles. I 

think that is a pretty reasonable request. Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, welcome, Mr. Secretary. Of course, you know what 

my question is going to be. How soon are we going to see the 

Northern border report as mandated by Federal law? 

Secretary KELLY. I will get back to you today. I do not know, but 

in all seriousness, let me take it for the record. I am sorry. 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. 

Obviously, we had hoped we would see it in June. I think we 

have some reason to believe it is going to be delayed. But, it makes 

my broader point, which is, we need a strategic plan in terms of 

border security, and one thing that we hear about is fencing, and 

I have spent a lot of time on the Southern border. I believe that 

barriers can be enormously effective as they have been in the San 

Diego area. But, again, we know that most drugs—at least the pre-
29 

vious Administration would tell us that most of the drugs that we 

are talking about are coming through the points of entry and not 

walking across the border in remote locations. 

What additional strategies do you have to do additional 

screenings? Where is the investment in more personnel, more 

screenings, more technology at the points of entry? 

Secretary KELLY. In a sense, that is part of the border strategy. 

There is no doubt—and I know a lot about this from my last job 

in particular, but there is no doubt that heroin, methamphetamine, 

and cocaine primarily come through the border in vehicles, primarily. Marijuana is in some cases humped around, through the 

desert. But, for the most part, the three big killers in the United 

States come in, and if Kevin McAleenan—and just a tremendous 

professional, and dedicated, my hope is that the Senate confirms 

him. But, he is already in a role that makes him very valuable. I 

have asked him to look at the technology after next in terms of 

looking into vehicles, tractor-trailers, things like that, to look at the 

voids, as they are called, so we can decide which vehicles get 

searched, broken down, and to increase the number of vehicles. 

The other way to do that—we already do it in Canada. We are 

doing it in Mexico, and that is to work across the border with the 

Mexicans or the Canadians in terms of facilitating movement of 

transportation, looking at vehicles before they are locked and 

sealed on the way north. 

So, it is a multifaceted approach, but if I could—and I will just 

end with—but if we are trying to do this on our border, we have 

kind of already lost. The place to take the tonnages out, working 

with the Mexicans, which we are, to help them locate the heroin, 

the poppy fields which they can destroy, working with the Mexicans to identify, and we are, and they are, destroying the methamphetamine labs—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. And, just to raise a concern there, we obviously have in the past had pretty good relationships with the country of Mexico. We saw in a regional election the ruling party coming very close—in fact, not getting a majority. The last thing we 

need is to not have strong and great relations with the country of 

Mexico. So, I would just ask you and urge you, given your experience in the region, to encourage this Administration to look at the 

entire relationship, whether it is a trade relationship, whether it 

is a border security relationship, or whether it is just respectful 

talk, that that does us no good. I want to just cover a couple—— 

Secretary KELLY. I work at it every day. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I want to cover a couple of quick points. 

I have beekeepers who cannot get seasonal workers in, and it 

just seems like the delays are getting longer and longer for the 

H–2B visas and the H–2A visas, and seasonal workers cannot wait. 

How long do you think is a proper timeframe to get an answer on 

whether we can get workers in the country? And, what are you 

doing to meet the requirements of the law but to expedite especially for seasonal agricultural workers? 

Secretary KELLY. The A workers, I know we already have large 

numbers that come in and have been coming in over the years. 

But, looking on the B side, H–2B, working with labor, this is all 
30 

about—in the current Administration, this is all about American 

jobs versus people that come in and do the work. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Except I have doctors who cannot get in. If 

the Administration wants to send me beekeepers and doctors and 

a whole list of Americans who want those jobs, we will be glad to 

do that in my State. But, we have to recognize that in the meantime, especially as it relates to physicians, it is extraordinarily difficult to recruit physicians to my State. And, we have seasonal 

workers who we cannot—I mean, obviously, we would love to hire 

locally, but that is becoming increasingly impossible. And so, I will 

probably submit a question for the record. 

Finally, because I am running out of time and I want to get 

enough of this in, if you look at local border enforcement, the critical component in States like ours is not just technology, as Senator 

Hoeven talked about, but it is having a strategy and a plan. And, 

that strategy and plan has to involve local law enforcement. You 

have Border Patrol in North Dakota that, when they are patrolling 

the border, they are in radio contact with your people back in your 

points of entry, back where Border Patrol would muster and deploy. So, we know that we have to have that backup. 

One thing that concerns me, and it goes to the FEMA grants, it 

goes to this idea that we can cut grant programs and still provide 

those services. Stonegarden has been an enormously successful program. Really concerned about reductions in the commitments to 

local law enforcement, not just for border security but for safety of 

the personnel who are on the border. So, I would ask you to please 

pay close attention to this budget as it relates to working with local 

law enforcement, local first responders. They are force multipliers, 

and without those resources, they are going to have to cut back on 

resources, and that reduces our readiness. I do not think there is 

any doubt about it. 

Secretary KELLY. OK. I will. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Heitkamp, I would ask you to take 

a look at my State-based temporary visa program. I think it would 

solve an awful lot of that problem right there. 

Then just kind of a comment to majority staff, minority staff, as 

well as the Secretary. We should really have an alert for witnesses 

to be prepared to answer questions on the Northern border. 

Senator MCCASKILL. We have way too much Northern border—— 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. There is not much of the Northern border 

that is not represented on this Committee, so that is always an 

issue. 

Secretary KELLY. That is why I love appearing before this Committee. [Laughter.] 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. So, my Northern border is Kansas, and we 

have had our moments, but we are getting along just fine. 

Let me talk about a couple of other things as well. One is you 

and I have spoken even in the past 2 weeks about REAL ID and 

some of the extensions and the process and the decisionmaking on 
31 

that. At the time we talked before, I said, hey, the deadline is coming up June 6th for that. We were going to try to get back to it 

quickly. There has been a delay on this. So, there are several 

issues that are pending out there for States like mine and others 

that are working through the REAL ID process. For those our legislatures passed issues with REAL ID, working through implementation and such, that has been fairly automatic that if you are 

making progress and you are working through implementation, 

then those extensions are coming. It seems to have delayed this 

time until literally the very last second, and then we are still waiting to be able to determine what is the decisionmaking factor on 

that. So, help me understand a little bit better so we can take that 

back. 

Secretary KELLY. So, the first thing I would say, I had a lengthy 

meeting earlier this week—yesterday—on this because actually 

today was the day that normally I would have made the decision 

to extend or not. Now, I think the Senator knows, I think it is July 

22nd before anything would stop. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Secretary KELLY. So, I have a little bit of time, and I have sent 

my staff back to kind of take a harder look at where—as you know, 

most States are either compliant or getting toward compliant. In 

fact, there is really only one State that is kind of not going to, I 

believe, if all the promises are met, will not make it. But, I have 

asked my folks to go back and start looking at some of the States 

that have not been as active as they maybe should have been over 

the last 12 years to implement. 

They have been in contact with these States, the Governors, the 

Attorneys General, whoever is in charge of this kind of thing. We 

have for the most part commitments from the States to really get 

at this issue. But, I have asked them to just go back one more time, 

if need be, talk to the States about the extension and what it 

means. 

Bottom line—and in that meeting they told me, ‘‘Secretary, 3 

months ago we had States that were not even paying attention to 

this, that were getting dangerously close to not being able to implement before the deadline. They have all got the message,’’ they 

said, ‘‘Mr. Secretary, and with the exception of one State, they are 

all in there doing the right thing, getting close to it.’’ 

So, I know I will make a decision next week, likely will extend 

for 6 months until October, and then we will take a hard look then. 

But, the good news is, with a lot of pushing and shoving and 

gnashing of teeth over the last 10 years or so, most States are on 

board, and I believe all but one will be compliant. 

Senator LANKFORD. So, let me just give you a couple of inside 

pieces on this. When you talk about we have a little bit of time 

until basically late July, let us say that at some point DHS comes 

out and says, no, that driver’s license is not going to be extended. 

Then that means everyone has to get a passport, which in the summertime takes 6 weeks minimum to be able to do. 

Secretary KELLY. Right. 

Senator LANKFORD. Plus you have to contact people and let us 

just start with the military base or a Federal courthouse and to be 

able to tell everyone coming to a Federal courthouse you are going 
32 

to have to have something different. You are going to have to get 

a passport. 

Well, first, you have to identify who is coming to the Federal 

courthouse and be able to contact those folks and give them 6 

weeks of lead time to get their paperwork together to be able to do 

it. We are out of time. Once you get to the June 6 time period to 

know that deadline is really coming up, if drivers that are doing 

deliveries, the people that are refreshing the convenience store in 

a Federal building, the people that are bringing groceries into the 

facility onto a military base, if they have to all have some sort of 

other passport or something, that is going to take a long time to 

be able to get geared up. So, the earlier those waivers can be released, the less anxiety it is in all of those locations, because all 

of them are currently spinning up in each of those States to try to 

figure out how we are going to accommodate around this just to be 

able to get supplies and equipment brought in, or people coming in 

to apply for a job onto a military base as a civilian cannot even 

come and do that without an escort to be able to do it. So, that will 

be a big issue. 

The hiring process we have talked about before for CBP. Any 

progress on that of late? Because we are still talking 460 days for 

hiring. And then, the polygraph issues, have there been any 

changes since you and I have spoken last? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, Senator. A couple of things. One, on the 

polygraph issue we will continue to polygraph, but there are other 

ways to polygraph. I did not realize this, but Kevin McAleenan, 

who is the designate and hopefully will 1 day be confirmed for the 

directorship of CBP, has told me that there are other techniques, 

other questions, things like that, that still maintain the vetting 

process but are faster. There are other parts of the Federal Government, not to mention the State and local, that have polygraphs 

that are a lot less—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Right, so they have a fail rate in the 30s, and 

CBP has it in the high 60s. 

Secretary KELLY. My daughter works for the FBI. She said her 

polygraph was a fairly pleasant experience. It took an hour and 10 

minutes. They asked all the right questions, and she was out of 

there. By contrast, 6 or 7 hours. So I just, when I came in, said 

let us take a look at it. 

Senator LANKFORD. That could be the first time I have ever 

heard anyone say that polygraph was a fairly pleasant experience. 

Secretary KELLY. I love it. [Laughter.] 

Senator LANKFORD. So, let me ask about the entry-exit program. 

Is everything still on schedule for that? We have spoken about that 

before. 

Secretary KELLY. Well, it is like anything. The entry at the airports, we do it well. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. It is the exit. 

Secretary KELLY. Working hard—and entry at the ports of entry. 

But, the exit is—it is not a bridge too far, but it will take some 

time, effort, but we are working toward—— 

Senator LANKFORD. So, the pilot is on track? I guess what I am 

trying to figure out is by the end of next year, we are trying to implement that nationwide. Are we on track at this point to be able 
33 

to implement that at airports nationwide? We still have a long way 

to go on vehicles and other entry-exit points. 

Secretary KELLY. Airports, I think I am comfortable with saying 

yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So, there was an announcement made 

by DHS on temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitians to extend 

it for 6 months, but it basically raised a red flag for them and said, 

‘‘Hey, this is it.’’ The situation has changed in Haiti that demanded 

the temporary protected status years ago. It may or may not be 

there. What I want to ask is: Is this an alert for Hondurans, for 

Salvadorans, for everybody on temporary protected status, that 

DHS is going to look at the situation that started temporary protected status and ask if that situation has changed? 

Secretary KELLY. Senator, it is an alert, but that said, for whatever reason, once someone goes on this status, traditionally or historically they just automatically renew it. 

Senator LANKFORD. Right. 

Secretary KELLY. Some of the Central Americans have been on 

status over 20 years, and they were put on status because of a hurricane that happened over 20 years ago. I can tell you that things 

are going better in Central America, much better over the last 20 

years, in many ways better. But, no one has ever looked at it, and 

I think that we have to do that. There is a law. In Honduras—not 

Honduras, Haiti 7 years ago, and the program was for a specific 

event. In Haiti it was the earthquake. Yes, Haiti had horrible conditions before the earthquake, and those conditions are not much 

better after the earthquake. But, the earthquake was why TPS was 

granted, and that is how I have to look at it. 

Now, that said—and I do not want to get too far out front here, 

and I certainly would not suggest anything hard to Congress, but 

there are about, we do not know, 200,000 to 400,000 people in the 

United States on TPS, the vast majority of them behaving themselves, the vast majority of them have clearly got jobs and all the 

rest of it. They are here more or less legally. A lot of them were 

not, but they were given TPS, so I would make the assumption 

they are here legally. That may be—we may think, you may think 

that a solution to this would be to look at them and say, OK, how 

many of them do we know are here and use that against the 1.1 

million legal migrants with a way toward citizenship. That may be 

a way to solve it. 

I can look at the Haitian situation and say 7 years, it is a long 

time, but it is not so long that some of them—all of them might 

be able to go back. Twenty years, it is kind of hard. But, I would 

like to see this solved in another way, but according to the law, I 

do not have the ability to solve it. But, the word is ‘‘temporary,’’ 

and I think those that have been in my position over the years 

have simply automatically extended it. So, the 6 months—and I 

was down in Haiti last week, spoke with the leadership. I said during the 6 months, you, Haiti, need to start thinking about travel 

documents and how you are going to bring these people, who, by 

the way, are generally better educated, entrepreneurial, would be, 

I think, a boost to the Haitian economy and social function, and by 

the same token those that have been allowed to the United States, 

to remain in the United States under TPS should start thinking 
34 

1The chart referenced by Senator Daines appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

about going back to their homeland, unless they—and if they feel 

as though—and I said this in Miami right after the Haitian trip, 

many of them at this point probably have different immigration 

status anyways in the sense that they have married local men and 

women or whatever. So, they need to get on and consult with an 

immigration expert to find out if they have status. 

But, at the end of it, the word is ‘‘temporary’’ unless we change 

that, unless you change that to permanent somehow. 

Senator LANKFORD. Got it. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Daines. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Kelly, it is good to see you again. Montana recently 

passed a law—and it has been signed by our Governor—for REAL 

ID that I think is going to bring us a solution to the dilemma we 

faced. We still need an extension to get it put in place, but we will 

offer Montanans two IDs. You can get a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license or one that is not and pay a premium for the REAL IDcompliant, but I think we have a path going forward. We will need 

an extension just as we get this system implemented, but the Governor has signed the bill. I think we finally have a path forward 

with the impasse that we have had here for certainly quite some 

time. 

I have to say something here, Secretary Kelly. This chart1 you 

shared showing the reduction in apprehensions across the Southwest border I think is one of the most under-told stories in the 

country at the moment, to think that we have seen a nearly 70- 

percent drop in illegal Southern border crossings under your first 

few months of leadership, and it was accomplished by sending a 

message to the world, and particularly down south, that the United 

States would enforce its laws. Thank you, as we are nation of law 

and not a nation of men that you have led with President Trump, 

and I think we need to get this message out more. I have spoken 

to a lot of my friends and constituents back in Montana, and that 

message needs to get out. So congratulations. 

And, as we have seen the horrific attacks in London—there is 

breaking news now of a crazed man in Notre Dame cathedral here 

in the last few hours. Who knows if it is a terrorist attack or not? 

But, the point is it seems like we are 24 by 7 breaking news with 

these horrific attacks around the world and that we have seen in 

London. Homeland security will remain our top priority and challenge, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure 

you have the resources to keep our Nation safe. 

Secretary Kelly, we have discussed the impact of 

methamphetamines coming from south of the border on Montana’s 

families. In fact, about one-third of the children in the Montana 

foster care system are there because of parental meth use, and 

most of that meth we believe is coming from Mexico. 

Recently, Senator Peters joined me in introducing the Child Protection and Family Support Act. It is going to help these children. 
35 

But, we also need to continue to fight against the flow of drugs. I 

know CBP is requesting an additional $2.9 billion. What will this 

mean for the interdiction of meth at the border? 

Secretary KELLY. I hate to say this. Probably a drop in the bucket. Necessary. And, you and I have talked about this, Senator, and 

made a few comments since this hearing. Really, we have to 

take a much more holistic approach to this: demand reduction, rehabilitation. Certainly law enforcement plays a role in the homeland. The Southwest border plays a role. Our partnership with 

Mexico—and here I think it gets more and more important. Our 

partnership with Mexico, to use the example of heroin and meth, 

as you say, they are cooperative with us. Just recently, within the 

last 60 days, they destroyed two massive methamphetamine labs. 

And, by the way, the reason the production of meth has migrated 

so heavily toward Mexico—and this is the balloon effect we talk 

about. When we do something that is effective, the cartels figure 

out a way to get around it. And, it is a cat-and-mouse game that 

never ends. Right now it is the Southern border, as I mentioned 

earlier. Tomorrow it could be the Southern border or containers, 

depending how effective we are. 

So, the U.S. Congress passed legislation 10 years ago, something 

like that, and restricted the precursor chemicals, the availability of 

the precursor chemicals to make meth. Up until that point, meth 

was made in a million little places in the United States, in tiny little laboratories. And, I use the term loosely there. 

Two things: The Congress reduced the availability of the precursors, and the cartels, as they have become more and more successful and sophisticated, said, ‘‘OK, well, if they were responding to 

a market’’: ‘‘If the United States wants to try to kill themselves on 

methamphetamine, heck, we can do it for them.’’ And so, that is 

why it has migrated. Again, Congressional action in terms of restricting the precursors and then simply the cartels taking it up 

and marketing it. 

So, that is primarily, in my view, the solution to the problem: 

working with Mexico, yes; the Southwest border, for sure; and increasing the amount of take we take there, yes. Internal U.S. law 

enforcement. But, Senator, it really is all about demand reduction. 

We will always have addicts. Studies tell you that, any population 

always included certain people predisposed to being addicted to 

something. But, an awful lot of these people—my personal experience as a kid, an awful lot of people start doing drugs because it 

is cool, there is no argument against it, and suddenly they are 

hooked on something, fill in the blanks, and they cannot get away 

from it. 

We have solved—not solved. I have appeared in this hearing a 

year ago April and talked about this issue of how we have managed 

to convince people over the years: seat belts, smoking, a lot of different things. You never get to zero, but we could do a lot better. 

I think the President has DHS, State, the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) in the lead, ONDCP. So, if we could 

get a comprehensive drug demand strategy put together that just 

is not law enforcement, it is Hollywood, it is professional sports, 

college sports, the President of the United States, the Senate, ev-
36 

eryone out there, the influencers, we can solve this problem or reduce this problem significantly. 

But, back to your original question, we need the money, but it 

is a holistic thing, and it is not just a CBP guy on the border. 

Senator DAINES. Senator Portman and I and a couple of others 

were over in Beijing just a couple of months ago working on getting 

U.S. beef into China. It was one of our missions. We were talking 

to North Korea as well. But, Senator Portman brought up the issue 

with the Chinese Government to stop the flow of fentanyl and 

carfentanil, which you can buy on the Dark Web. Oftentimes it 

comes out of China. So, this holistic approach is certainly the right 

approach, and I will continue to work with you on that. 

I want to shift gears for a time and talk cyber. As the budget request reflects, cyber is a national priority. The requested increase 

for the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) 

would help meet the current cyber threats, but we need to also stay 

ahead of these emerging threats that we see everywhere. 

Back in February, in fact, I introduced a bill, the Support for 

Rapid Innovation Act, which provided the Science and Technology 

(S&T) Directorate direction and authority to leverage limited resources with the private sector and academia to research and develop the next generation of cyber protection capabilities. 

Despite the proposed cuts, Secretary Kelly, how will the S&T 

continue to support cyber research and development (R&D) in fiscal 

year 2018? 

Secretary KELLY. Sir, first of all, I would like to just say a couple 

of words about the effort right now. On the morning that the 

malware was unleashed on Europe—and I went to the White 

House Situation Room, and as we watched that worm its way 

around the world, infecting hundreds of thousands of systems. We 

had FBI, DHS, and, well, everybody. When it first started, ‘‘we,’’ 

DHS, had made notification to those private and public entities 

that we deal with constantly and said something is up, put the 

word out, put the alert out. Other parts, including DHS, started to 

do the forensics on the thing. What is it? What is it doing? What 

is it made up of? Where did it come from? And, I am very proud 

to say that everyone in the room was constantly deferring to what 

is next. What do we do next? This includes NSA with DHS. Not 

that DHS professionals did it all, but we were the central focus of 

it. 

And, I am very proud to say that through the efforts of my predecessors and the U.S. Congress and others, that malware came to 

the United States but was contained to a handful of systems and 

contained within those systems. It is as if it never came across the 

ocean, so to speak, and we helped nations overseas contain it. 

That said, we need to get better because the threat is changing, 

morphing, and this Administration, to pat it on the back, and certainly my Department of Homeland Security are focused on increasing the protections better than they are now, particularly as 

we interact—and we do heavily interact—with private entities, 

Microsoft, people like that. It is one team, one fight, and can only 

get better. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Secretary Kelly. And, I just want to 

thank you again for, when the President asked you to serve in this 
37 

capacity, that you said yes. I am just grateful for your leadership 

and the early results you are already seeing because of your leadership. Thank you. 

Secretary KELLY. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

I have just a couple of closing questions, Secretary Kelly. First 

of all, I am concerned about funding for the Coast Guard. When I 

was going through this, I asked staff, how much—I was hoping the 

Department of Defense made up a fair amount of funding, too, but 

they really contribute only about half a billion dollars per year. So, 

you take a look, since 2009 the funding for the Coast—or the budget was about $9.6 billion, then it was about $10.6 billion, a 10-percent increase. But, with the kind of threats we are facing, can you 

give me any kind of comfort that that is adequate? 

Secretary KELLY. I cannot. I think the Coast Guard, first of all, 

is just an amazing organization. It really came into my view when 

I was in Southern Command. I had seen them sprinkled around 

the world in the Persian Gulf, places like that, but it really came 

into my view in Southern Command about how good they are. Obviously, they are one of the five military services, small, and in my 

opinion, in exactly the right place, DHS. But, the myriad of missions that they execute and the authorities they have just make 

them value-added to say the least. But, it is not big enough. 

The biggest problem with the Coast Guard, I think if the Commandant was sitting right here, he would pat me on the back to 

say we need to recapitalize. They have some brand-new cutters 

coming on, national security cutters, valuable, essential. But, so 

much of the Coast Guard is so old that it just limps along. And, 

I think we have a plan—I would love to add to that plan, but I 

think we have a plan—and all of this is not to mention we have 

to get involved in the Arctic more than we are. We have a couple 

of broken down old icebreakers. We are looking to buy six—three 

heavy, three medium—to work up there in the northern reaches. 

We have to be up there, not to contest anyone’s claims, but to simply work up there, particularly as importantly work in terms of the 

environmental protection of that precious international asset. But, 

it is not big enough, but it is doing yeoman’s work—— 

Chairman JOHNSON. Let us work together with Senator Boozman 

and his Subcommittee. Let us see what we can do on that, because 

I share your concern. 

I was just in Bratislava, and your predecessor, Secretary 

Chertoff, was there. He gave a speech, and he talked about the impact that the Visa Waiver Program had when they were able to expand it to some of these nations. I am highly concerned. I am also 

Chairman of the European Subcommittee on Foreign Relations, 

and I am concerned about the destabilizing nature of Russia, their 

pervasive disinformation propaganda campaign, and if we ignore 

central and southeastern Europe, there is a real concern that those 

nations do not join the West. 

And, Secretary Chertoff made a very powerful comment about 

how that Visa Waiver Program was sort of the stamp that really 

did solidify the fact that these nations that were granted the Visa 

Waiver were going to remain in the West and stay Western-facing. 
38 

I personally think the Visa Waiver Program enhanced our security. There are risks associated with it, but there are safeguards 

put in place to qualify. It just seems like such a political heavy lift 

right now. Secretary Chertoff certainly offered every ounce of help 

he could have. 

Can you just kind of comment on your viewpoint of the Visa 

Waiver Program and expansion? Because, let us face it, every one 

of those nations wants it. 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir, Senator. I would like to expand it to 

everybody. We have set the bar very high, and countries that meet 

that standard, welcome aboard. And, I share your concern with the 

Eastern European countries. 

This is kind of a sidebar comment. When I was working in Mons, 

Belgium, years ago as a colonel, after the Wall fell, the enthusiasm 

of all of those countries—they were falling all over themselves. 

How do we get into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO)? How do we become observers? That has been cooled a little bit for whatever reason. Well, you and I both know the reason. 

So, I think anything we can do to expand it. The good news is 

there are a lot of countries out there that are trying to get up to 

our level of security and satisfy us, and there are some countries 

that are close, some countries that are not so close. 

Chairman JOHNSON. We should kind of review some of those 

metrics. Are they realistic? Can we look at those and still maintain 

the kind of security we are looking for? So, I would like to work 

with you on that. That is kind of a long-term project. 

Just finally, because I think some people may view this with 

skepticism, but I was just assuming, truthfully, that even with this 

injunction in place, the Department would be able to move forward 

with the vetting process and really reviewing that. And, you said 

that, no, that injunction really has inhibited your efforts. I think 

the Ranking Member may want to jump into this, but can you explain in greater detail how that injunction is hampering your efforts at moving forward in terms of how do we properly vet refugees and other people coming in from those countries? 

Secretary KELLY. Yes, sir, we are just being as conservative as 

we can be so they do not—and, frankly, with due respect to Congress, I get an awful lot of phone calls and an awful lot of ugly 

phone calls about how I am not following some law. I learned very 

early on if there is a perception that we are not executing the law, 

then a lot of people get agitated and call. 

That said, we have moved forward, as I mentioned a little earlier, the State Department, some enhanced questions, etc., in terms 

of the normal visa process. In my case, looking very hard—and 

some of this is, by the way, a cultural change. Whether it is my 

people at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 

or the consular people, we are changing the culture to reflect the 

reality of security. That is to say, rather than the idea being bring 

in as many refugees as you can to meet some number set by the 

last Administration or bring in as many visas as you can, we actually now are changing the culture to say, look, if you want to come 

to America, you convince me you are who you are, and you are 

coming here for a period of time, and then you will go home, and 

you will not do anything wrong when you are here. 
39 

In the case of refugees, same thing. I know you are a refugee, 

but you have to prove to me who you are and that you will come 

to the United States for all the right reasons. And, ultimately, if 

you stay, then you will assimilate into our society. 

But, the kind of things, I think, the studies worldwide and the 

studies throughout the regions about what is the best way to do 

this, I think I am restricted in that. But, it does not mean we are 

not thinking about it. 

Chairman JOHNSON. From my standpoint, I do not want you to 

feel constrained. I do not want you restricted. Maybe Senator 

McCaskill is the same way, maybe, at least lend that support from 

two U.S. Senators. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, and I have looked briefly at the decisions, Secretary, and I do not see—I know the State Department 

is moving forward in terms of trying to prepare a report. And so, 

clearly, their lawyers are not seeing what your lawyers are seeing. 

And, specifically, in a couple of the orders, it is clear that you are 

not restricted in terms of moving forward with what I think your 

job is, regardless of a request by the Executive to pause. Really 

what this appeal is about is whether or not he has the right under 

the Executive Order to say certain people cannot come here during 

a period of time that you are preparing underlying policies. I cannot imagine anybody is going to argue with you about the fact that 

you should be preparing policies that will keep this country safe. 

we have now been paused—I mean, there has been plenty of time 

that was envisioned in the Executive Orders for those policies to 

be done. 

So, I would love further conversation with your lawyers that are 

telling you that you cannot begin to give us more clarity about 

what the extra vetting is going to be. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, let us look on a bipartisan basis, working with the Department, and make sure that they are not restrained so they can move forward. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, we would be glad to work with you on 

that. 

Secretary KELLY. At the risk of running through too much of a 

list here, we are doing some things. The examples I would give you 

is enhanced automated screening by USCIS, enhanced interviews, 

enhanced biometrics integration, enhanced data collection. So, we 

are doing some things. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is great. 

Secretary KELLY. And, I could go on if you want, but there are 

more things here. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, well, we can follow up together. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Let us work together on this and make sure 

we—— 

Secretary KELLY. So, we have not stopped. We are just being, as 

I say, very cautious about not getting out in front of the courts 

that, I will genuflect to every day. 

Senator MCCASKILL. If you have done it, then the whole case is 

moot. 

Secretary KELLY. Right. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And, the President could move on and tweet 

about something else. 
40 

Chairman JOHNSON. So, again, great Committee, bipartisanship, 

let us work together and—— 

Secretary KELLY. Best Committee. 

Chairman JOHNSON [continuing]. Make sure that you can do 

your job. 

Again, Secretary Kelly, I think from every Member of this Committee, thank you for your service. It is not a job I envy, but thank 

you for doing it, and to all the members of your staff and the Department. 

This hearing record will remain open for 15 days until June 21 

at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(41) 

A P P E N D I X 
42 

U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 

"The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request" 

June 6, 2017 

Ranking Member Claire McCaskill 

Opening Statement 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Secretary Kelly, thank you for being here today 

and thank you for your service to our nation. 

You appeared before our Committee two months ago, for the first time in 

your capacity as Secretary of one of the largest and most complex departments in 

the federal government. Since that time there have been a number of 

developments that show just how important your job is, not just because of the size 

of your department, but because of your role in protecting our nation from the 

threats we face every day. 

On May ll, you met with airline industry executives about potentially 

banning large electronic devices in aircraft cabins on flights from Europe as well as 

the Middle East, given concerns about potential "laptop bombs" that might get past 

screeners. 
43 

On May 12, a "ransomware" cyberattack struck more than 200,000 

computers in over 150 countries, shutting down auto production in France, 

affecting police departments in India, and closing doctors' offices in Britain. 

And tragically, on May 22, a suicide bomber killed 22 innocent concertgoers in Manchester, England and then on June 3, terrorists killed seven in 

London. 

These are just a few examples of why we are counting on your vigilance, 

and the vigilance of the men and women of your department. We rely on you to 

identifY threats, prevent attacks, and keep America safe. These examples also 

speak to the importance of ensuring that we provide the Department of Homeland 

Security with the resources that it needs to prepare for and prevent these threats. 

The importance of your work also speaks to the critical responsibility that 

this Committee has in providing oversight. I have never-ever-found any 

government agency that worked better with less oversight. Asking hard questions 

is the only way to do that-and as I'm sure you know, I'm not afraid to ask them. 

And I'm glad you're not afraid to answer them. As you said last month to this 

year's graduating Coast Guard cadets, "Tell the truth to your seniors even though it 

is uncomfortable, even though they may not want to hear it. They deserve that. 

Tell the truth." I sincerely hope that you continue to speak truth to power, and 
44 

look forward to your honest assessment of what we can do to help secure our 

nation. 

I want to ask you about your proposed budget. The Administration has 

proposed a $44 billion budget for the Department of Homeland Security. That's a 

nearly 7% increase over the continuing resolution that we passed in December for 

FY 2017. And while I want you to have all of the tools and resources that you 

need to do your job well and to protect this nation, I am concerned that this budget 

lacks a serious consideration of how we can best allocate those resources to do so. 

As I mentioned before, we live in a dangerous world and are facing an 

ever-evolving threat. Mass transit locations and other "soft targets" where large 

groups of people gather have served as prime targets for terrorist activity. In 

addition to aviation security, the TSA helps to secure mass transit and passenger 

rail, freight rail, highways and buses, pipelines, and sea ports. According to the 

TSA, more than 1 0 billion passenger trips are taken on mass transit systems each 

year. We need to make sure we're keeping people safe, no matter how they choose 

to travel. 

I am very concerned that the President's budget plans to cut critical TSA 

programs at a time that we cannot afford to let up when it comes to security 

measures. A large portion of this cut is taken from the Visible Intermodal 
45 

Prevention and Response (VIPR) Teams. VIPR teams deploy all across the 

country to provide critical assistance with securing airports, subways and bus 

terminals. The President's budget aims to cut VIPR teams from thirty-one down 

to just eight teams to cover the entire country. 

Additionally, the President's budget is going to completely eliminate the 

Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program which provides assistance to 

local law enforcement agencies who help secure our airports. Hundreds of 

airports across the country take part in this program, and particularly for the 

smaller airports, this assistance is critically important to help them meet their 

security requirements. 

The President's budget will also slash other DHS programs that provide 

critical security to our transportation systems. The Transit Security Grant Program 

will be cut in half. The Port Security Grant Program will be cut in half. The 

President is calling for a complete elimination of the Complex Coordinated 

Terrorist Attacks Grant Program. Secretary Kelly, I'm seriously concerned that 

these budget cuts will weaken our ability to detect, prevent, and respond to future 

attacks. 

Additionally, I am concerned about some of the things that are not in the 

budget. We are being asked to fund additional Border Patrol agents and Air and 
46 

Marine officers, but there is no provision in this budget for additional CBP officers 

at the ports of entry. The majority of drugs and other contraband come into this 

country through ports of entry, and CBP officers are the ones responsible for 

finding and stopping them. If we are so interested in securing our border, why are 

we completely neglecting our ports of entry? 

And I'm concerned that even though the Administration is asking to spend 

more money on DHS, it's cutting the budget of its watchdog that investigates 

waste, fraud and abuse. In fact, the IG concluded that this budget will substantially 

inhibit him from performing the duties of his office. I don't know why the 

President is cutting OIG when his own budget director, Mick Mulvaney, said at his 

confirmation hearing QUOTE "Congress needs to have those inspectors general 

doing their job .. .I do look forward to making that a priority at OMB." 

So, Secretary Kelly, I'm glad you're here today. There are a lot of important 

issues before us, and I have a lot of questions for you. And I hope we can count on 

the Department being willing to answer them now and in the future. 
47 

TESTIMONY 

OF 

THE HONORABLE JOHN F. KELLY 

SECRETARY 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

REGARDING A HEARING ON 

"THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET 

REQUEST" 

BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFIARS COMMITTEE 

Tuesday, June 6, 2017 

Washington, DC 
48 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and distinguished Members of the Committee: 

It is a great honor and privilege to appear before you today to discuss the Department of 

Homeland Security's (DHS) crucial missions of protecting the homeland and securing our 

borders. 

The men and women ofDHS are exceptional and dedicated professionals who work tirelessly in 

support of our mission to safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values with 

honor and integrity. I am pleased to appear before you to present the President's Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2018 Budget request for the Department of Homeland Security. 

The President's Budget puts America first, and builds on DHS's accomplishments over the past 

14 years. It makes critical investments in people, technology, and infrastructure for border 

security and the enforcement of our immigration laws. It advances cybersecurity programs, 

strengthens our biometric identification programs, promotes the expansion ofE-Verify, and 

supports our new Victims oflmmigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) Office. The Budget also 

sustains the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), our nation's fifth service, to continue its important 

mission of ensuring maritime safety, security, and stewardship. 

DHS is committed to the rule oflaw. Our men and women take an oath to defend the 

Constitution of the United States and uphold the laws of this great country against all enemiesforeign and domestic-and we get it done. We face diverse challenges and adversaries that do 

not respect the rule of law, or our borders. Our government must remain vigilant in detecting and 

preventing terrorist threats, including threats we face from "lone offenders," who may be living 

in our communities and who are inspired by radical, violent ideology to do harm to Americans. I 

remain committed to tirelessly protect our country from threats, secure our borders, and enforce 

our laws-all while facilitating lawful trade and travel, and balancing the security of our nation 

with the protection of privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. 

The President's FY 2018 Budget requests $44.1 billion in net discretionary funding for the 

Department of Homeland Security. The President's Budget also requests $7.4 billion to finance 

the cost of emergencies and major disasters in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 

(FEMA's) Disaster Relief Fund. 

In order to ensure we are stretching every one of these dollars, we are striving to further improve 

information sharing, collaboration, and transparency, all of which are essential to leveraging the 

full value of every dollar DHS receives. We are expanding our cooperation with State, local, 

tribal, territorial, and regional partner nations, particularly Canada and Mexico. These 

partnerships are critical to identifYing, monitoring, and countering threats to U.S. national 

security and regional stability. 

I am also working to improve transparency and information sharing across the DHS enterprise to 

build efficiencies into our intelligence processes. An example of this is my ongoing support of 

DHS's Joint Task Forces, which link the authorities and capabilities of multiple DHS 

components in a unified approach that addresses emerging and priority threats to our nation. The 

magnitude, scope, and complexity of the challenges we face- including illegal immigration, 

2 
49 

transnational crime, human smuggling and trafficking, and terrorism--demand an integrated 

counter-network approach. 

Border security is a high priority, and involves protecting 7,000 miles ofland border, 

approximately 95,000 miles of shoreline, and 328 ports of entry along with staffing numerous 

locations abroad. We appreciate the support Congress has provided to improve security at our 

borders and ports of entry. With that support, we have made great progress, but more work must 

be done. 

The President's Budget requests $1.6 billion for 32 miles of new border wall construction, 28 

miles of levee wall along the Rio Grande, where apprehensions are the highest along the 

Southwest Border, and 14 miles of new border wall system that will replace existing secondary 

fence in the San Diego Sector, where a border wall system will deny access to drug trafficking 

organizations. The Budget also requests $976 million for high-priority tactical infrastructure and 

border security technology improvements for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Under 

the President's Executive Order No. 13767, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement 

Improvements, CBP is conducting risk assessments to the needs of frontline officers and agents 

that will be used to tailor an acquisition strategy going forward. 

While technology, equipment, and physical barriers certainly help secure our borders, we also 

must have more boots on the ground. I remain committed to hiring and training new Border 

Patrol agents and commensurate support personnel as supported by the President's Budget and 

Executive Order No. 13767. Let me be clear, we will maintain our standards, yet we will 

streamline hiring processes. This includes initiatives like waiving polygraph testing 

requirements for qualified Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers, as well as members 

of the Armed Forces, veterans, and members of the Reserves or the National Guard, as 

contemplated by legislation now pending before the Congress. On a broader scale, my Deputy 

Secretary, Elaine Duke, and I are working hard across DHS to attract, retain, and enhance career 

opportunities for our workforce. 

Effective border security must be augmented by vigorous interior enforcement and the 

administration of our immigration laws in a manner that serves the national interest. As with any 

sovereign nation, we have a fundamental right and obligation to enforce our immigration laws in 

the interior ofthe United States-particularly against criminal aliens. We must have additional 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) 

officers to expand our enforcement efforts. The FY 2018 Budget requests over $7.5 billion in 

discretionary funding for ICE to support both the expansion of transnational criminal 

investigatory capacity within Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) as well as ERO's 

expanded targeted enforcement activities, including increases for more than 51,000 detention 

beds to accommodate expected increases in interior arrests of criminal and fugitive aliens, 

associated transportation and removal costs, and an estimated 79,000 participants in ICE's 

Alternatives to Detention Program contract. Included in the request is $185.9 million to hire 

more than I ,600 additional ICE ERO officers, HSI agents, and support personnel. 

3 
50 

Detaining illegal aliens, and deporting them to their countries of origin, does not address the 

needs of members of our public who have been the targets of their crimes. For this reason, the 

Budget also requests an additional $1 million to enhance the current operations ofDHS's new 

VOICE Office, which supports victims of crimes committed by criminal aliens. As I have noted 

before, all crime is terrible, but these victims are unique because they are casualties of crimes 

that should never have taken place. The people who victimized them should not have been in this 

country in the first place. 

To protect the American people, we must continue to improve our identification verification and 

vetting processes. 

E-VerifY is currently a voluntary program administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services that deserves more of our attention. Through E-VerifY, our nation's employers verify 

the employment eligibility of their employees after they are hired, which in turn helps protect 

American workers from unfair competition. The President's Budget requests $131.5 million for 

E-VerifY operations, which includes an additional $15.2 million for expansion of the program to 

support the mandatory use ofE-VerifY nationwide within three years-should Congress provide 

the authority to do so. We appreciate the continued support of Congress for this program. 

Biometrics is another critical DHS identification and verification initiative, and I am committed 

to the pursuit of robust capabilities in this area. The Budget requests $354 million to support 

biometric initiatives. We continue to make progress on the Biometric Entry-Exit System, with 

the goal of making air travel more secure, convenient, and easier. 

The threat to aviation security remains high, and criminals and terrorists continue to target 

airlines and airports. We must continue to improve how we screen the belongings of travelers 

and cargo. We are in the business of protecting lives, and improved screening technologies 

coupled with additional Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Officers working security 

functions at the checkpoints, will help us deter, detect, disrupt, and prevent threats to aviation 

security. DHS continues to prioritize explosives screening, threat assessments, and detection 

capabilities, and the President's Budget includes $77.0 million for research and development in 

this area. The Budget also includes $277.2 million for checked baggage screening and 

explosives detection equipment. 

Currently, TSA Officers screen more than two million passengers and their belongings each day, 

and this number is growing. Additional TSA Officers must be deployed to airport checkpoints to 

meet the increasing volume of travelers. The President's Budget offers a sound, two-part 

approach to meeting this challenge. First, the Budget proposes a much-needed increase in TSA 

passenger fees-only one dollar, changing the fee from $5.60 to $6.60, for each one-way trip. 

While Congress previously denied this increase, Congress must act now in order for TSA to 

continue to meet its mission to protect our nation from ever evolving security threats. 

4 
51 

Second, the Budget proposes that TSA cease staffing airport exit lanes, which will enable 

placement of an additional 629 TSA Officers at the checkpoints. This solution reflects risk-based 

analysis; TSA Officers are specially trained to ensure no metallic or non-metallic threat items 

make it on board planes. Their security screening skills and expertise are not being put to good 

use while staffing airport exit lanes, and this is a waste of taxpayer dollars. 

The President also requests $8.4 billion in operating expenses and recapitalization costs for 

USCG to promote maritime safety and security. Increases to Coast Guard's operating budget 

will ensure the agency keeps parity with the pay and benefits increases provided to the other 

armed services. Additionally, the Budget funds the crewing and maintenance requirements for 

all new ships and aircraft scheduled for delivery in 2018. Within the $1.2 billion request for 

Coast Guard's acquisition programs, $500 million is provided to contract for the Coast Guard's 

first Offshore Patrol Cutter and long lead time material for the second OPC. 

In addition to our physical security and protection activities, we must continue efforts to address 

the growing cyber threat, illustrated by the real, pervasive, and ongoing series of attacks on 

public and private infrastructure and networks. The FY 2018 Budget includes approximately 

$971.3 million for the National Protection and Programs Directorate's cybersecurity activities, 

including $397 million for continued deployment and enhancements for EINSTEIN, which 

enables DHS to detect and prevent malicious traffic from harming Federal civilian government 

networks. It also provides $279 million for our Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation Program 

to provide hardware, software, and services to strengthen the security of Federal civilian ".gov" 

networks. 

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

wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other disasters. The FY 2018 President's Budget reflects 

FEMA's efficient use of taxpayer dollars to improve the nation's resilience from disasters. 

FEMA will prioritize programs that contribute most significantly to its emergency management 

mission, streamline business processes, harness innovative technologies, and better utilize public 

and private sector partnerships. The President's Budget requests $7.4 billion to support disaster 

resilience, response, and recovery, primarily through the Disaster Relief Fund. 

The Budget provides $1.9 billion for FEMA's grant programs that support State, local, territorial, 

and tribal governments to improve their security and resilience posture against risks associated 

with man-made and natural disasters. It represents a continued investment in State and local 

preparedness while spending taxpayer dollars on programs that make the most difference. The 

Budget also proposes a 25 percent non-Federal cost-share for those preparedness grants that do 

not currently have a cost-share requirement. By using a cost-sharing approach, Federal dollars 

are spent on activities that our non-Federal partners themselves would invest in, providing clear 

results in priority areas. 

In addition to protecting our nation's financial infrastructure, under the leadership of our new 

Director Tex Alles, the men and women of the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) protect our nation's 

5 
52 

highest elected leaders, visiting foreign dignitaries, facilities, and major events. Using advanced 

countermeasures, USSS conducts operations to deter, minimize, and decisively respond to 

identified threats and vulnerabilities. The President's Budget includes $1.9 billion to support 

USSS's missions, including investment in of advanced technologies and task force partnerships 

to enforce counterfeiting laws, and safeguard the payment and financial systems of the United 

States from financial and computer-based crimes. The funding also supports 7,150 positionsthe highest staffing levels since 2011, and includes Presidential protection in New York and 

much-needed enhancement of technology used to protect the White House. 

In closing, the challenges facing DHS and our nation are considerable. We have outstanding men 

and women working at DHS who are committed to protecting our homeland and the American 

people. The President's FY 20!8 Budget request recognizes our current fiscal realities, as well as 

the serious and evolving threats and dangers our nation faces each day. You have my 

commitment to work tirelessly to ensure that the men and women of DHS are empowered to do 

their jobs. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and for your continued support 

ofDHS. I remain committed to working with Congress, and look forward to forging a strong 

and productive relationship to prevent and combat threats to our nation. 

I am pleased to answer any questions. 

6 
200,000 

180,000 

160,000 

140,000 

120,000 

100,000 

80,000 

60,000 

40,000 

20,000 

0 

CBP Southwest Border Total Apprehensions and 

lnadmissibles August FY2012 -April FY2017 

.:y"v <::-,:;> ,..'? "' ,:}"' $' "..sx ,..sx I> '>:}"'-; $' ov ,, '?-« 

:y"v' :V' ,;;; ,;:; ,o<; ,, '?-« ~,- t>' 0<; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~ $ 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '<-""" ~o-" '<.e? _ ... : • .:.. i? ~o-" '<.e? k ~: "" '<-" ~"' '<-" if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
30000 

25000 

20000 

15000 10000 

0 

CBP Southwest Border Total UAC Apprehensions 

August FY2012 -April FY2017 

$ ff $ oc..; ,'>"' _'?-q -./'" ,oc..; ,'>"' ,'?-q .,.-'" oc..; ,'>"' _'?-q _..,.::> ,>"' '?-q <o'' ,o" ,o" ,>"' 

p 0 ""0 '<Cf' ""0 '<Cf' '?-""" '?-""" ""0 '<Cf' 
55 

NTEU 

The National Treasury Employees Union 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY M. REARDON 

NATIONAL PRESIDENT 

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 

ON THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET REQUEST 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

June 6, 2017 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, distinguished members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on behalf of the 25,000 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers, Agriculture Specialists and trade enforcement 

personnel stationed at 328 land, sea and air ports of entry (POE) across the United States (U.S.) 

and 16 Preclearance stations currently in Ireland, the Caribbean, Canada and United Arab 

Emirates airports represented by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). 

I am submitting NTEU's comments on the Administration's Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 

budget submission for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a follow-up to my 

testimony before the Committee on March 22, 2017 at the hearing entitled "Frontline 

Perspective: The Need for More Resources at CBP and ICE." 

As of April29, 2017, CBP's Office of Field Operations (OFO) has 22,794 CBP Officers 

onboard at the ports of entry-1,420 short of its FY 2017 target of24,214. The FY 2018 budget 

request supports the filling of the current vacancies to meet the FY 2017 target of 24,214, but 

significantly changes how these new positions would be funded. However, the Administration's 

FY 2018 budget provides no new funding to address the current CBP Officer staffing shortage of 

at least 2,107 additional CBP Officers as stipulated by CBP's own FY 2017 Workload Staff 

Model (WSM) and to fund an additional 631 CBP Agriculture Specialists as stipulated by CBP's 

own FY 2107 Agriculture Resource Allocation Model (AgRAM). 

For these reasons, NTEU is requesting $350 million in additional CBP OFO 

Operations and Support in the DHS FY 2018 appropriations bill. NTEU requests $300 

million to ensure funding for CBP OFO to meet its FY 2017 CBP Officer frontline staffing target 

of 24,214 and to begin funding the hiring of 2,107 additional CBP Officers needed to achieve the 

staffing target of26,300 CBP Officers as stipulated in CBP's own WSM. CBP's AgRAM 

shows a need to fund an additional 631 CBP Agriculture Specialists over the 2,418 currently 

authorized. NTEU is requesting $50 million to begin funding the hiring of these additional 631 

CBP Agriculture Specialists over the 2,418 currently onboard. 
56 

Realignment of User Fees: The Administration's budget proposes significant 

realignment of user fees collected by CBP. Currently, 33 percent ofCBP Officer salaries and 

benefits are funded with a combination of user fees, reimbursable service agreements, and trust 

funds. The FY 2018 budget proposes to reduce OFO appropriated funding by realigning and 

redirecting user fees, including redirecting the Electronic System for Travel Authorization 

(ESTA) fee that will require a statutory change. The FY 2018 budget proposal would redirect 

approximately $157 million in EST A fees from Brand USA to CBP. Rather than redirecting the 

EST A fees to fund the additional 2,107 CBP Officer new hires needed to fully staff CBP Officer 

positions in FY 2018 and beyond, as stipulated by CBP's WSM, the budget would in fact reduce 

CBP's appropriated funding by $157 million. Therefore, while the budget proposes to increase 

the number of CBP Officer positions funded by ESTA user fees by I ,099, it decreases 

appropriated funding by $157 million, and reduces the number ofCBP Officer positions funded 

by appropriations by 1,099 positions. 

The Travel Promotion Act of2009 (P.L. 111-145) created the Corporation for Travel 

Promotion (also known as Brand USA). Under the Trade Promotion Act, successful applicants 

for electronic travel authorization are charged an additional $10 fee to fund Brand USA. 

Notably, Congress will need to enact legislation to eliminate Brand USA and redirect all ESTA 

fees to CBP. 

If the legislation to eliminate Brand USA is not enacted, but the appropriations level for 

CBP Officers in the Administration's FY 2018 budget is approved, CBP will be short $157 

million and will need to reduce the CBP Officer work force by 1,099 positions. In other words, 

there will only be funding in the FY 2018 appropriation to fund 23,115 CBP Officers-1,099 

positions short of the current staffing target. This is why NTEU is requesting $157 million of the 

total $300 million increase for CBP Officer funding to ensure that the number ofCBP Officers 

remains at 24,412. 

If the legislation to eliminate Brand USA is enacted, NTEU urges Congress to add the 

EST A-fee funded positions to the current CBP Officer target of 24,214 positions. By adding 

these 1,100 EST A-fee funded positions, CBP OFO would then have funding for 25,314 CBP 

Officers. The remaining $143 million appropriation requested by NTEU would allow OFO to 

finally fund the CBP Officer staffing level stipulated in the FY 17 WSM. 

CBP Technicians: In the Administration's FY 2018 budget submission, CBP proposes a 

decrease of$9.9 million in OFO pay requirements to backfill CBP Officer positions with 198 

CBP Technicians. NTEU supports the hiring of additional CBP Technicians as long as CBP 

does not seek to replace the number of current onboard CBP Officer with CBP Technicians. 

CBP Technicians cannot simply "backfill" for CBP Officer, because they are not qualified as 

CBP Officers. With an ongoing shortage ofCBP Officers, hiring new CBP Officers should be 

CBP's priority. NTEU supports hiring additional CBP Technicians to give administrative 

support to CBP Officers, but strongly objects to CBP replacing frontline CBP Officer positions 

made vacant through attrition with CBP Technicians. 

OFO Canine Enforcement Program (CEP): The budget proposes a decrease of $3.2 

million to the OFO CEP. Of the 496 specialized canine teams currently deployed, 188 canine 
57 

teams would be retired from locations other than the Southwest border ports of entry. CBP 

Canine handlers for the 188 retired canine teams would be redirected to non-canine front line 

duties. The CBP Canine Program is critical to CBP's mission. The working CBP canine teams 

are one ofthc best tools available to detect and apprehend persons attempting to enter the U.S. to 

carry out acts of terrorism. These canine teams are instrumental in detection and seizure of 

controlled substances and other contraband, which are often used to finance terrorist and/or 

criminal drug trafficking organizations. NTEU does not support retiring nearly one third of the 

currently onboard OFO specialized canine teams. 

Agriculture Specialist Staffing: NTEU is requesting $50 million to begin hiring the 

631 additional CBP Agriculture Specialists to meet the staffing target stipulated in CBP's FY 

2017 AgRAM. Also, NTEU worked successfully with Congress to obtain report language in the 

House version of the FY 2016 funding bill that states: "With CBP's recent release of its riskbased Agriculture Resource Allocation Model (AgRAM), the Committee is concerned about how 

CBP plans to fulfill its agriculture quarantine inspection (AQI) mission with current staffing 

levels. CBP is directed to report back to the Committee within 90 days of enactment a plan to 

address these staffing needs to meet its AQI mission to protect U.S. food, agriculture, and natural 

resources." Despite this Committee's report request, it is our understanding that CBP has not 

yet delivered a plan to fund and hire 631 Agriculture Specialists as stipulated in their FY 2017 

A gRAM. 

CBP Trade Operations Staffing: CBP has a dual mission of safeguarding our nation's 

borders and ports as well as regulating and facilitating international trade. CBP's ports of entry 

are the second largest source of revenue collection for the U.S. government. In 2016, CBP 

processed more than $2.2 trillion in imports and collected more than $44 billion in duties, taxes, 

and other fees. Since CBP was established in March 2003, however, there has been no increase 

in non-uniformed CBP trade enforcement and compliance personnel even though inbound trade 

volume grew by more than 24 percent between FY 20 I 0 and FY 2014. Additionally, CBP trade 

operations staffing has fallen below the statutory floor set forth in the Homeland Security Act of 

2002. NTEU strongly supports the funding of 140 additional positions at the CBP Office of 

Trade to support implementation of Trade Enhancement and Facilitation Act (P.L. 114-125) 

requirements. 

As I stated at the Committee's March 22, 2017 hearing on the need for more resources at 

CBP, delays at the U.S. ports of entry result in real losses to the U.S. economy. Understaffed 

ports lead to long delays in travel and cargo lanes, hurting businesses and consumers, and also 

create a significant hardship for frontline employees. For every 33 additional CBP Officers 

hired, the U.S. can potentially gain over 1,000 private sector jobs. If Congress fully staffed the 

ports with the needed 3,500 additional CBP Officers in FY 2018, 106,000 private sector jobs 

could be created. For every 1,000 CBP Officers added, the U.S. can increase its gross domestic 

product by $2 billion. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement to the Committee on behalf of the 

men and women represented by NTEU at the nation's ports of entry. 
58 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable John F. Kelly 

From Senator Claire McCaskill 

"The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request" 

June 6, 2017 

Question#: I 

Topic: CBP's Congressional Justification 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20 18 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: In testimony on April 5, 2017 you assured me that you would "absolutely" 

provide the Committee with a copy of the requests made by Border Patrol sector chiefs 

regarding where additional infrastructure and technology should be deployed along the 

Southwest border as soon as you received the requests. A month later, in a May 5 letter, 

I again requested "full copies of the prioritized operational requirements for border 

barrier that the Border Patrol has identified." According to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection's (CBP's) Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Congressional Justification, the very same 

document I requested and you assured me you would provide the Committee - the 

Southwest Border Capability Roadmap- was completed by U.S. Border Patrol in April 

2017. According to CBP, the roadmap "identifies updated operational requirements 

needed to achieve operational control of the southern border" and was used to inform 

DHS's decision to spend $2.6 billion on 74 miles of border barrier along the Southwest 

border in addition to high-priority tactical infrastructure and border security technology 

improvements in FY 2018. 

Is CBP's Congressional Justification accurate? 

Response: The Border Patrol Sector input and Capability Roadmap are components of 

CBP's larger requirements planning process. The roadmap is a planning and decision 

support tool rather than a final product or output of a completed process. 

This process provides sector and HQ personnel with a living "lay-down" to support 

resource planning, including the prioritization of Border Patrol's 12 master capabilities. 

The tool also includes a characterization of terrain in order to understand where certain 

capabilities may be most impactful. These capabilities are then combined with analysis 

of operational needs as input to detailed future and deliberate planning, which will 

generate more precise information such as asset numbers, specific asset types, and 

specific asset locations. This prioritization of these detailed operational requirements is 
59 

Question#: I 

Topic: CBP's Congressional Justification 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

currently ongoing and, when completed, will be used to inform the President's 2019 

Budget. 

CBP' s Fiscal Year 2018 budget request includes more than $2.6 billion in border security 

investments, of which $1.6 billion supports construction of 74 miles of border wall 

system. The wall requirements were formulated in parallel with the ongoing planning 

process, and were informed by the operational priorities of the Border Patrol. These 

initial investments are in sectors with known operational needs in the Rio Grande Valley 

where apprehensions are the highest along the Southwest Border and in San Diego where 

the legacy barrier is outdated and frequently breached. 

Question: Was the Southwest Border Capability Roadmap completed in April 2017? If 

so, when will you provide the Committee with a copy of the Southwest Border Capability 

Roadmap? 

Response: On July 10, 2017, CBP had the opportunity to brief your staff on the 

requirements identification and prioritization tool. The Southwest Border Capability 

Roadmap refers to a deliberate planning process that serves as an input to the tool. The 

planning process this effort refers to is complete and has been used to align capability 

gaps to preliminary operational requirements that will inform the President's 2019 

Budget. 
60 

Question#: 2 

Topic: Unacquired Land 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20!8 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURJTY (SENATE) 

Question: As it relates to land at issue in the placement of new border wall identified in 

the FY 2018 budget, how many parcels ofunacquired land have been identified? 

Response: At this stage, DHS cannot state with certainty how many parcels ofunacquired land have been identified for the border wall in the Fiscal Year 2018 budget 

request. DHS is using a portion of the $20 million in reprogramming Fiscal Year 2017 

funds to start landownership research and will not have a definitive answer until that 

process is complete. 

Question: Have the affected property owners been contacted and, if so, how? 

Response: Because DHS has not identified the parcels of land for the border wall 

identified in the Fiscal Year 2018 budget request, DHS has not yet contacted any 

property owners. 
61 

Question#: 3 

Topic: Northern Border 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: In March, an internal CBP memo regarding the hire of an additional 5,000 

Border Patrol Agents referenced plans for staff distribution that were either "Threat & 

Need Based" or for the "Southwest Border Only." While I understand that most new 

Border Patrol Agents begin their careers at the southern border for training purposes, I 

am concerned that this memo contemplates a scenario where no additional new or 

existing agents are deployed to the northern border. 

Has CBP selected either the "Threat & Need Based" or "Southwest Border Only" staffing 

option? Given an additional 5,000 Border Patrol Agents as called for in Executive Order 

13767, how many additional Agents will Border Patrol assign to the northern border? 

Response: USBP has developed a strategy that combines the options originally 

considered. As the question accurately portrays, seasoning of new agents must be done 

on the Southwest border. However, USBP recognizes the need to adjust staffing 

numbers on the Northern and Coastal borders as well. Therefore, USBP will assign all 

new agents to the Southwest border, while increasing staffing on the other borders as 

Transnational Criminal Organization activities and threats require. It is vital to note that 

any number we present is fluid. Every investment in persistent impedance and 

surveillance, and every agent we deploy, will shift TCO activity. USBP's current 

estimate is approximately 1 ,500 positions will be reallocated to the Northern and Coastal 

borders over time. However, that number is fluid and requires validation through our CGap process. We appreciate the support of the Congress in appropriating $25 million for 

USBP's Operational Mobility Program. In addition the President's Fiscal Year 2018 

includes $11 million to continue this vital program. 
62 

Question#: 4 

Topic: Executive Order Reports 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: On March 2, 2017, I requested all reports generated by Executive Orders 

13767, "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements," 13768, 

"Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," and 13769, "Protecting the 

Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" as soon as they are finalized. 

These reports include but are not limited to 90-day progress reports to the President 

regarding implementation of Executive Orders 13767 and 13768, both of which were due 

no later than April25, 2017. To date, no reports required by the executive orders have 

been provided to the Committee. You stated in a letter dated June 9, 2017 that no reports 

have been generated under Executive Order 13769. You explained in your testimony 

that the ongoing litigation over Executive Order 13769 prevented the Department from 

completing these reports. With regard to Executive Orders 13767 and 13768, you stated 

that "DHS will work with the Committee to exchange information in a timely and 

appropriate manner." 

Has DHS generated any reports, including but not limited to the 90-day progress reports 

that were required by Executive Orders 13767 and 13768? If so, for each report that has 

been generated in adherence with Executive Orders 13767 and 13768, please provide the 

date on which the reports were transmitted to the President. 

Will you commit to providing the Committee with copies of all reports that have already 

been generated under Executive Orders 13767 and 13768, and will you eommit to 

providing the Committee with copies of all future reports required by Executive Orders 

13767 and 13768 when they are transmitted to the President? 

Response: Yes, DHS has generated the 90-day progress reports for Executive Orders 

13767 and 13768. DHS cannot commit to releasing these deliberative reports to the 

President at this time, but we will continue sharing with the Committee our progress and 

plans for enhancing the security of our borders and the protection of the United States. 
63 

Question#: 5 

Topic: CBP's Progress 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: On April 12, 2017, The Washington Post published an article citing a draft 

version of the 90-day progress report required under Executive Order 13767. The draft 

report described CBP's, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE's), and U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS's) progress in updating operational 

programs, deploying additional detention facilities, hiring 15,000 Border Patrol agents 

and immigration officers, entering into 287(g) agreements with state and local law 

enforcement agencies, and responding to requests for asylum. 

Regarding CBP's progress in implementing Executive Order 13767, I ask for: 

A description of the initiatives CBP is implementing in order to expedite the hiring of 

additional personnel; 

Response: CBP continues to strengthen all aspects of its recruitment and hiring strategy 

to ensure the entire frontline-both along the border and at every port of entry-is staffed 

in accordance with the expanding complexity and demands of its mission. As such CBP 

is implementing modifications to the administration of the polygraph exam, entrance 

exam, and physical fitness test, all while carefully weighing any associated risks and 

mitigation measures. To be clear, CBP is not lowering its standards. Specific 

modifications are discussed below. 

Polygraph Examination: 

• Test for Espionage, Sabotage, and Corruption CTES-C): 

• In an effort to refine and expedite this phase of the hiring process, CBP sought the 

assistance of the National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) to identify a 

more streamlined testing format which also maintained CBP's high integrity 

standards. The NCCA and CBP collaborated in the development of the Test for 

Espionage, Sabotage and Corruption (TES-C) polygraph format which 

specifically tailored a counterintelligence polygraph format (TES) to suit CBP' s 

needs. 

• In May of2017, CBP commenced a six-month pilot of the TES-C format. TES-C 

retains all of the critical test topics contained in the Law Enforcement PreEmployment Test while providing a more streamlined testing format which 

maintains CBP' s high standards of integrity and is expected reduce the length of 

examinations. 
64 

Question#: 5 

Topic: CBP's Progress 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Entrance Examination: 

• Modification of U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Entrance Exam: CBP is modifying the 

USBP entrance exam to reduce testing time and to make the test more accessible to 

applicants. Spanish language proficiency remains a core requirement of Border 

Patrol Agents, but CBP is refocusing the training and assessment of this requirement 

on the Academy. Since a low percentage (approximately 4 percent) of applicants fail 

the entrance exam solely because of the Spanish Language Proficiency Test or 

Artificial Language Test, little risk is associated with this decision. This modification 

will enable CBP to attract a larger pool of applicants and aligns with the language 

training enhancements to Academy curriculum that commenced in 2014. This 

updated curriculum increases the number of hours spent in Spanish training from 320 

hours to 427 hours (a 33 percent increase). The new Academy curriculum extends 

the total Academy training from 66 to 117 days. 

• Remote Testing: CBP is exploring its ability to administer remote testing for 

applicants to increase the exam completion rate. As of March 2017, CBP allows the 

Candidate Experience Record portion of the exam to be completed remotely and is 

continuing the development of a remote version of the Logical Reasoning Test. The 

remote test will use computer adaptive testing technology that makes the exam more 

accessible to applicants without compromising the exam's standards or integrity. 

Physical Fitness Tests (PFT): 

Removal ofPFT-2 (OFO)!Conversion ofPFT-2 to Non-adjudicative Phase (USBP): 

PFT-2 was first implemented in 2012, when the time-to-hire was much longer. The 

second test was added to ensure that applicants maintained their fitness throughout a 

lengthy hiring process, an initiative that reduced the attrition rate at the Academies. 

Given the implementation of our expedited hiring process, which has significantly 

reduced the amount of time between PFT-1 and PFT-2, the need for a second physical 

fitness test is less critical. By removing/not adjudicating PFT-2, CBP is ensuring that the 

few applicants who do fail-but already passed every other step of the pre-employment 

process-have the opportunity to attend the Academy and receive additional training to 

meet CBP's fitness standards. 

Question: A description of CBP' s plans for hiring additional CBP officers at our 

nation's ports of entry, given the statement in the draft progress report that "improving 

border security to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of 

terror, also necessitates the hiring of additional CBP Officers"; and 
65 

Question#: 5 

Topic: CBP's Progress 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Response: CBP utilizes the Workload Staffing Model (WSM) to ensure CBP Officer 

staffing resources are aligned within the existing threat environments, while maximizing 

cost efficiencies. The WSM is a data-driven model that incorporates the most recent 

year's workload data to determine staffing requirements and consider factors for future 

facility enhancements and projected volume growth in cross-border commercial and 

passenger traffic. Updated WSM results continue to show a need for additional OFO 

capability to fully meet the standards set by statute, regulation, and CBP policies, 

assuming maintenance of current processes, procedures, technology, and facilities. 

At the same time, CBP is continuing work to address 1,345 CBPO positions that are 

vacant as of June I 0, 2017. CBP has worked aggressively over the past several years to 

implement a multifaceted recruitment strategy that improves frontline hiring processes 

and enhances its ability to meet hiring goals. CBP continues to strengthen all aspects of 

hiring, which includes initiatives designed to attract more qualified applicants, expedite 

the pre-employment time line, refine the hiring process to address all potential 

bottlenecks, and reduce the attrition rate of the existing workforce. Staffing the frontline 

with well-qualified individuals of the highest integrity and capability remains a top 

priority for CBP. 

Question: The CBP-wide agency plan to expand the 287(g) program and enhance border 

security efforts with state and local law enforcement agencies. 

Response: Greater security at the Nation's borders is the focus of the 287(g) program 

expansion by identifying operational gaps and vulnerabilities, planning against them, 

conducting targeted immigration enforcement against threat sources, and measuring 

results. Implementation of the 287(g) program expansion requires complex planning 

processes, outside agency assessments, organizational education, training, outreach, and 

new performance measure development. Accordingly, USBP consulted with ICE 

to develop and define CBP-wide support efforts to expand the ICE 287(g) program and 

enhance border security efforts with state and local law enforcement agencies. 

CBP is not currently developing a separate 287(g) program. Rather, CBP is collaborating 

with ICE to support the 287(g) program expansion by providing referrals of viable LEAs, 

rendering operational and administrative insight on border area LEAs during Program 

Advisory Board (PAB) sessions and by supporting 287(g) related law enforcement 

activities in the field. To support the training needed for existing and new partners, CBP 

is reviewing the ICE 287(g) training curriculum to develop informed recommendations 

for notional task force and patrol model 287(g) training programs. 
66 

Question#: 6 

Topic: ICE Progress 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: On April 12, 2017, The Washington Post published an article citing a draft 

version of the 90-day progress report required under Executive Order 13767. The draft 

report described CBP's, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE's), and U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS's) progress in updating operational 

programs, deploying additional detention facilities, hiring 15,000 Border Patrol agents 

and immigration officers, entering into 287(g) agreements with state and local law 

enforcement agencies, and responding to requests for asylum. 

Regarding ICE's progress in implementing Executive Order 13767, I ask for: 

The field guidance ICE issued to each of its operational programs on February 21, 2017; 

Response: Enclosed, please find the February 21, 2017 memo sent to all U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations 

(ERO) employees, entitled "Implementing the President's Border Security and Interior 

Immigration Enforcement Policies." 

Question: A list of each detention facility where capacity has been added since January 

25, 2017, the number of detention beds that have been added at each facility, and the 

name of each entity that operates each detention facility; 

Response: ICE has not added detention capacity since January 25, 2017. 

Question: A list of the 27 potential locations capable of providing 21,000 additional bed 

spaces that ICE has identified. 

Response: Below is the list of30 potential locations that, as of July 13, 2017, ICE 

believes are capable of providing approximately 26,000 additional beds. These facilities 

are under consideration as part ofiCE's expansion efforts. Some of the facilities listed 

below would require construction in order to expand space to allow for additional beds. 

While no physical construction to add beds is underway, some facilities may have the 

ability to provide access to additional beds. 
67 

Question#: 6 

Topic: ICE Progress 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURJTY (SENATE) 

Facility Name Potential Additional 

·. Bed Space 

Citrus County Detention Facility, Lecanto, FL 200 

Denver Contract Detention Facility, Aurora, CO 432 

Jones County Detention Facility, TX 

1,000 

Otero County Prison Facility, Chapanal, NM 

(ICE uses occasionally now) 250 

Crystal Citv Correctional Center, Crvstal City, TX 500 

Diamondback Correctional Facility, Watonga, OK 

2,160 

Glades County Detention Center, Moore Haven, FL 

(currently in use) 300 

Hudson Correctional Facility, Hudson, CO 1,188 

Huerfano County Correctional Center, Walsenburg, CO 750 

Limestone County Detention Center, Groesbeck, TX 1,000 

Maverick County Detention Center, Eagle Pass, TX 600 

North Lake Correctional Facility, Baldwin, Ml 1,498 

Okmulgee County Jail, Okmulgee, OK 

225 

Perry County Correctional Center, Uniontown, AL 

700 

Prairie Correctional Facility, Appleton, MN 1,600 

South Louisiana Detention Center, Basile, LA 

860 

Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility, Tutwiler, MS 2,634 

Adelanto Correctional Facility, Adelanto, CA 

( currentlv in use) 800 

Bossier Parish Sheriffs Office, Plain Dealing, LA 

640 

Eloy Federal Contract Facility, Eloy, AZ 

(currently in use) 760 

Harlingen Staging, Harlingen, TX 

400 

Immigration Centers of America Farmville, Farmville, VA 480 

Imperial Regional Detention Facility, Calexico, CA 

(currently in use) 1,300 
68 

Question#: 6 

Topic: ICE Progress 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Jackson Parish Correctional Center, Jonesboro, LA 1,252 

Otay Mesa Detention Center, San Diego, CA 

(currently in use) 1,408 

Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution at Frackville (SCI 

Frackville), Frackville, P A 1,000 

Pine Prairie Correctional Center, Pine Prairie, LA 300 

Prairieland Detention Facility, Alvarado, TX 

(currently in use) 750 

Willacy Detention Center, Raymondville, TX 

(used previously) 1,000 

Winnebago County Jail, Rockford, IL 500 

Total 26,487 
69 

Question#: 7 

Topic: USCIS Progress 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20 18 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: On April 12, 2017, The Washington Post published an article citing a draft 

version of the 90-day progress report required under Executive Order 13767. The draft 

report described CBP's, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE's), and U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS's) progress in updating operational 

programs, deploying additional detention facilities, hiring 15,000 Border Patrol agents 

and immigration officers, entering into 287(g) agreements with state and local law 

enforcement agencies, and responding to requests for asylum. 

Regarding USCIS's progress in implementing Executive Order 13767, I ask for: 

The revised and unrcvised- instructions on the proper application of the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA); 

Response: To ensure that unaccompanied alien children (UACs) are properly processed, 

consistent with section 11 (e) of EO 13767, the Department of Homeland Security is 

actively considering and working to develop uniform guidance and procedures on 

processing applications for asylum filed by UACs under section 235(d)(7)(B) of the 

William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of2008 

(TVPRA), 8 U.S.C. 1232. The guidance will need to be vetted through the interagency 

process, as it will impact DOJ, and HHS in addition to DHS components. Until new 

uniform guidance can be issued, USCIS continues to follow existing guidance that was 

issued in 2013. That 2013 guidance states that in cases in which either U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) or ICE has already made a UAC determination (usually at the 

time of encounter or processing), Asylum Offices will generally adopt that determination 

without further factual inquiry unless another component or agency has reassessed the 

facts and taken affirmative action to terminate the prior UAC determination before the 

applicant filed the initial asylum application. 

Question: The report on the "vulnerabilities in the asylum program and steps to be taken 

to mitigate/eliminate such vulnerabilities" that was referenced in the draft progress report. 

Response: The final proposed joint USCIS, CBP and ICE vulnerabilities report is 

currently under review. Final steps to be taken to mitigate/eliminate vulnerabilities in the 

Asylum Program are forthcoming upon approval or modification of the report by DHS 

leadership. 
70 

Question#: 8 

Topic: OIG Funding 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY {SENATE) 

Question: The President's FY 2018 budget request would increase DHS's overall net 

discretionary budget authority by $2.8 billion- or 6.8 percent- compared to annualized 

levels contained in the FY 2017 Continuing Resolution (CR) while significantly reducing 

staffing and spending at the Office ofinspector General (OIG). The President requested 

a reduction of $3.2 million- or 2.3 percent- for the OIG compared to the FY 2017 CR. 

Compared to spending levels contained in the FY 2017 omnibus spending bill Congress 

approved in May, the President's request would reduce funding for the OIG by $17 

million - or 9. 7 percent. 

Do you support the President's request to reduce funding for the OIG in FY 2018? Why 

or why not? 

Response: Yes, the Department of Homeland Security fully supports the President's 

request which is a result of balancing funding requirements for the Department as a 

whole. 

Question: Do you believe that when the overall budget authority at DHS increases, the 

budget for the OIG should grow proportionally? 

Response: Various factors need to be considered for any budget decision. Proportional 

budget growth cannot be considered without weighing all the other factors involved. 
71 

Question#: 9 

Topic: Counterterrorism Grants 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The President's budget request would reduce funding by more than $500 

million for DHS programs intended to build state and local resilience to terrorist attacks. 

The proposed cuts include $156.1 million to the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), 

$117.6 million to the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), $70.7 million to the 

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program, $52.2 million to the Port 

Security Grant Program (PSGP), $52.2 million to the Transit Security Grant Program 

(TSGP), $45 million to the Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program, $43 

million for Visible Interrnodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams, $39 million for 

the Complex Coordinated Terrorist Attacks (CCTA) program, and $10 million for the 

Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) grant program. 

Given the number and magnitude of threats facing our country, do you support the 

President's request to reduce funding for these counterterrorism programs in FY 2018? 

Why or why not? 

Response: The Department fully supports the President's Fiscal Year 2018 Budget 

submission. Reductions to state and local grants are proposed in order to: ensure 

adequate funding for core Department of Homeland Security missions, encourage grant 

recipients to share responsibility for the cost of preparedness activities in their own 

budgets, and continue funding those activities that demonstrate the greatest return on 

security investments. 

Reductions are consistent with the President's budget blue print priorities to stand 

prepared for emergency response and disaster recovery, while ensuring that the federal 

government is not supplanting other stakeholders' responsibilities. Despite the 

adjustments to the programs you cite, the President's budget overall is forward-leaning 

on counterterrorism and robustly funds our frontline efforts to protect the American 

people and our country from terror threats. 

Moreover, preparedness is a shared responsibility between federal, state, and local 

governments. Since 2002, the federal government has allocated over $47 billion in grants 

to support state and local preparedness investments. We believe the funds have expanded 

preparedness capabilities. The federal government should now focus on ensuring that 

funding goes toward closing capability gaps and addressing national priorities. 

It is time for state and local governments to contribute more toward their own 

preparedness needs so the federal contribution can be reduced. At the same time, the 
72 

Question#: 9 

Topic: Counterterrorism Grants 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Department will maintain and advance its capabilities to respond to the dynamic terror 

threat environment and to defend our country against those seeking to do us harm. 

Grantees will potentially need to reprioritize funding or funding amounts to address their 

highest priority capability gaps. 

Beyond the $1.9 billion that the Department is requesting for grants to support homeland 

security of1icials, emergency managers, and first responders, FEMA and the Department 

also support responders through other direct support activities including, but not limited 

to, technical assistance, training, and exercises. 
73 

Question#: 10 

Topic: FEMA Grants 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The President's FY 2018 budget request would reduce funding for the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant 

program by $41.1 million. This is a program that supports various initiatives aimed at 

mitigating against natural disasters before they occur, such as retrofitting public buildings 

against hurricane-force winds or seismic damage, acquiring and relocating properties out 

of flood-prone areas, elevating structures that lie within a floodplain, flood-proofing 

public buildings, managing vegetation to mitigate against wildfires, and constructing or 

converting public spaces into safe rooms in tornado-prone areas. Discretionary funding 

for the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP's) Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk 

Analysis Program (Risk MAP) would also be reduced by $189.6 million. Based on 

FEMA's map inventory, 98.8% of the U.S. population is covered by an existing flood 

map; however, many of the maps do not account for recent population growth and 

development and were produced using outdated technology. 

Do you support the President's request to reduce funding for the PDM grant program and 

Risk MAP in FY 2018? Why or why not? 

Response: The Department fully supports the President's Fiscal Year 2018 Budget 

submission. The Fiscal Year 2018 Budget continues to fund Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

through discretionary appropriations and funds RiskMAP through new and existing 

surcharges on National Flood Insurance Program policy holders. 

In the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget, the Administration proposed eliminating appropriated 

funding for flood hazard mapping and transferring the full costs of mapping to 

policyholders. If the legislative proposal for a new surcharge is adopted, the RiskMAP 

program is projected to be at an equivalent level of funding in Fiscal Year 2019 

compared to the Fiscal Year 2017 appropriated budget. 

The PDM grant program supports the Department ofHome1and Security's goal of 

strengthening capacity at all levels of society to withstand threats and hazards. PDM 

accomplishes this by providing federal funding to state, territorial, tribal, and local 

governments for eligible planning and project activities. The goal of pre-disaster 

mitigation is to reduce overall risk to the nation's economic security and public safety 

from future hazard events and to reduce reliance on federal funding for future disasters. 

Research has shown a $4 return on investment for every $1 spent on mitigation. Each 

PDM application cycle, FEMA typically receives an amount of applications three to four 

times what is appropriated for the program. 
Fiscal Inspection Facility Name Requested Amount Funded Amount Commercia

Year 

Warroad, MN $43,628,000 $43,628,000 Yes 

San Luis I, AZ $7,053,000 $7,053,000 No 

Donna/Rio Bravo, TX $0 $23,384,000 No 

co Madawaska $17,160,000 $17,160,000 Yes 

0 

0 Derby Line- 1-91, VT $33,139,000 $33,139,000 Yes 

"' Alexandria Bay, NY $11,676,000 $11,676,000 Yes 

Tornillo-Guadalupe; El Paso, TX $4,290,000 $4,290,000 Yes 

San Ysidro, CA $37,742,000 $199,179,000 No 

TOTAL $154,688,000 $339,509,000 

Portal, NO $15,204,000 $15,204,000 Yes 

San Ysidro, CA $58,910,000 $58,910,000 No 

Noqales West - Mariposa, AZ $199,500,000 $199,500,000 Yes 

Otay Mesa, CA (Cargo) $21,300,000 $21,300,000 Yes 

"' Columbus, NM $2,450,000 $2,450,000 Yes 0 0 Calais- St Steohen, ME $6,300,000 $6,300,000 Yes "' Madawaska, ME $750,000 $750,000 Yes 

Van Buren, ME $39,700,000 $39,700,000 Yes 

Blaine- Peace Arch, WA $30,000,000 $30,000,000 Yes 

Multiple LPOEs $420,000,000 $420,000,000 Yes 

TOTAL $794,114,000 $794,114,000 

Tornillo-Guadalupe, TX $91,565,000 $91,565,000 Yes 

0 ~ Calexico West, CA $9,437,000 $9,437,000 No 

0 Madawaska, ME $50,127,000 $50,127,000 Yes "' TOTAL $151,129,000 $151,129,000 ~

Calexico West. CA $84,359,000 $0 No 

Calais Ferry Point, ME $1,552,000 $0 Yes 

TOTAL $85,911,000 $0 

Shared Drive Response to QFRs from Kelly-2017 -06-06-Part !-Question 10 Attachment A xis 
Alexandria Bay, NY $173,565,000 $0 Yes 

"' Laredo I & II, TX $74,947,000 $0 No ~ 0 Dunseith, NO $35,863,000 $0 Yes "' Brownsville, TX $26,090,000 $0 Yes 

TOTAL $370,063,000 $0 

- ---------------------- ---· 

[2o13]Noprojects submitted (per OMB) I sol sol 

San Ysidro, CA- Phase Ill $226,000,000 $128,300,000 No 

San Ysidro, CA- Phase Ill $0 $97,700,000 No 

:< Laredo Bridges I & II, TX $61,686,000 $25,786,000 No 

0 Laredo Bridges I & II, TX $0 $35' 900' 000 No "' Columbus, NM $0 $7,400,000 Yes 

----------------

TOTAL $28J,686,00() g!5,_Q86,000 

San Ysidro, CA- Phase II $216,828,000 $216,828,000 No ~ Calexico West, CA - Phase I $98,062,000 $98,062,000 No 

0 Alexandria Bay Phase I, NY $105,570,000 $0 Yes 

"' Laredo Bridges I & II, TX $25,000,000 No 

TOTAL $420,460,000 $339,890,000 

Columbus, NM $85,645,000 $85,645,000 Yes ~ Alexandria Bay Phase I, NY $105,570,000 $105,600,000 Yes 

0 Blaine, WA- Pacific Highway $11,930,000 $0 Yes 

"' Laredo Bridges I & II, TX $0 $14,000,000 No 

TOTAL $203,145,000 $205,245,000 

$248,213,000 $0 No 

TOTAL $248,213,000 $0 

4i Alexandria Bav Phase II, NY $132,979,000 Congressional action pending Yes 

co .g' Otav Mesa, CA $121,848,000 Congressional action pending Yes 

o ID San Luis I, AZ $234,000,000 Congressional action pending No 

"' ;l Blaine, WA- Pacific Highway $17,960,000 ConQressional action pending Yes 

Shared Drive Response to QFRs from Kelly-2017-06-06-Part !-Question 10 Attachment Axis 
76 

0 

0 

0 

.. : 

~ 

.,. 

~ 
Yea.rs Since Commercial 2016 Traffic Volumes* Average 2016 Lanes Lanes 

Last Processing Modes Land Border Crossing Name Ownership Year Built Renovated Last Truck Wait Commercial Commercial 

Renovation Trucks Trains Trucks Trains Times, Min.- Inbound Outbound 

Albu S n S, VT GSA 1935 82 Ye• No i,591 1 0 

Albur , vr GSA 1988 29 Ye• No 961 1 0 

Alcan,AK GSA 1974 43 Ye• No 6,294 1 Dual use 0 

Alexandna Bay •. NY ~Thousand Islands GSA 1974 43 Ye• No 205,329 0.97 3 1 

Ambrose. NO GSA 1931 2006 11 Ye• No 7 0 0 

Amistad Dam. TX CBP 1969 2013 4 No No 0 0 

Andrade, CA GSA Ownect/GSA Leased 1958 1992 25 No No 0 0 

AntelOpe Wells, NM CBP 1971 2013 4 No No 0 0 

Antler, NO CBP 1961 2011 6 Ye• No 1,130 0 0 

Baudette. MN GSA 1997 20 Ye• Yes 6,298 2,745 1 0 

Beebe Plain, VT GSA 1937 80 Ye• No 1 0 

Beecher Falls, VT GSA 1932 85 Ye• No 9,552 1 0 

Blaine, WA- Pacific Highwa GSA 1999 2005 12 Ye• No 364.779 3 2 

Blaine. WA - Peace Arch GSA 1978 2011 6 No Ye• 2,175 0 0 

B uillas TX NPS 2013 4 No No 0 0 

Bounda , WA CBP 1978 2013 4 Ye• Ye• 309 1 0 

Bridge of the Amencas BOTA , TX GSA 1967 2003 14 Ye• Ye• 297,611 1,667 22.22 6 1 

Bndgewater, ME CBP 1976 2012 5 Ye• No 7,253 1 0 

Brownsville, TX ~Brownsville and Matamoros B&M GSA 1991 26 No Ye• 763 0 0 

Brownsville, TX - Gatewa International Bnd e GSA 1950 1989 28 No No 0 0 

Bride GSA 1999 18 Ye• No 190,299 11 71 4 2 

Buffalo, NY Peace Bridge GSA Leased 1927 1998 19 Ye• Ye• 605,340 2,198 668 7 0 

Calais ME· Fe Point GSA 1935 2008 9 No No 0 0 

Calais ME - lnt'l Avenue GSA 2009 8 Ye• No 65.065 3 2 

Calais ME - Milltown GSA 1940 77 No Ye• 193 0 0 

Calexico East. CA - lmpenal Valley GSA 1996 21 Ye• No 350,873 633 3 2 

Calexico West, CA- Downtown GSA 1933 1987 30 No Ye• 251 0 0 

Canaan, VT GSA 1933 84 Yes No 515 1 0 

Cannons Comer, NY CBP 1974 2012 5 Ye• No 1 0 

Carbu , NO CBP 1963 2011 6 Ye• No 1,586 0 0 

Cham lain, NY GSA 1967 2009 8 Yes Ye• 312,044 1,118 0.39 8 2 

Chateauga . NY GSA 1932 85 Ye• No 11,428 1 0 

Chief Mountain, MT GSA 1938 1940 77 y., No 1 0 

Churubusco, NY CBP 1968 2012 5 Ye• No 514 1 0 

Cobum Gore, ME GSA 1932 85 Ye• No 20,380 1 

Columbus, NM GSA 1989 28 Ye• No 14,852 3.34 1 0 

Crane Lake, MN GSA Leased 1953 64 No No 0 0 

Dalton Cache, AK GSA 1979 38 Yes No 1,283 1 Dual use 0 

Danville, WA -Carson GSA 1988 29 Yes Ye• 196 1 0 

Del Bonita, MT CBP 1962 2012 5 Yes No 73 1 0 

Del RIO, TX GSA 1967 2009 8 Yes No 74,530 1.03 3 4 

Derb Line, VT • J-91 GSA 1965 2008 9 Yes No 98,281 051 2 0 

Derb Line, VT ~Route 5 GSA 1931 86 Ye• No 97 051 1 0 

Detroit, Ml -Ambassador Bndge GSA Owned/GSA Leased 1964 2006 CarQO) 11 Ye• Ye• 1.856 7.73 13 7 

Detroit, Ml - Windsor Tunnel GSA Leased 1977 40 Ye• No 32,047 2.32 1 0 

Donna, TX GSA 2010 7 No No 0 0 

Oou las, AZ- Raul Hector Castro GSA 1938 1993 24 Ye• No 30,803 3.94 2 0 

Dunseith, NO GSA 1974 43 Ye• No 25,644 1 0 

Ea le Pass I TX Piedras Negras Bridge GSA 1960 2006 11 No No 0 0 

Ea Je Pass II, TX GSA Owned/GSA Leased 1999 18 Yes Yes 160,037 3,076 491 2 2 

East Richford, VT ~Route 105 GSA 1931 86 Ye• No 9 1 0 

Easton, ME CBP 2001 2012 5 Yes No 1,178 1 0 
Eastport. !D I GSA 1989 28 Yes Yes 63,054 1,186 1 1 I 

Ely, MN Forest Service/USDA 1993 24 No No 0 0 

Estcourt, ME~ St. FranCis GSA Leased 1953 64 Yes No 3,458 1 0 

Falcon Dam, TX + CBP 1953 64 No No 0 0 GSA 1936 1980 37 Yes No 999 1 0 

CBP 1965 2013 4 Yes No 1 0 

GSA 1933 84 Yes Yes 1,891 1 0 -,-

1990 27 Yes No 13,632 2 0 

14 No No 0 0 

36 Yes No 5,565 1 0 

13 Yes No 8,028 1 0 

2011 6 Yes No 20,073 1 0 

52 No No 0 0 

MN I GSA I 1965 I 52 Yes No 16,083 1 0 

2012 5 Yes No 844 1 0 

2012 5 Yes No 33 0 0 

2011 6 Yes No 458 0 0 

t 35 No No 0 0 VT GSA I 1997 20 Yes Yes 91,923 338 0.05 1 1 

GSA 1985 32 Yes No 89,436 0.82 2 0 

MN + GSA 1991 2003 14 Yes Yes 17.342 3,703 1 0 

>SA 1963 2010 7 Yes Yes 32,560 257 0.02 2 COV/POV lane 

:eP 2004 13 Yes No 4,925 1 0 

onvent St GSA 1942 1985 32 No No 0 0 

In Juarez GSA 1974 43 No No 0 0 

GSA 1991 26 Yes No 350,844 5 39 B 2 

GSA Leased 2000 17 Yes Yes 1,738,403 3,789 16 77 15 B I 

GSA 1935 1981 36 Yes Yes 9180 154 1 Dual use 0 + 

GSA 1933 1990 27 Yes No 2,405 1 0 

CBP 1979 2013 4 No No 0 0 

·rade Brid e GSA 1992 25 Yes No 27,319 0.52 4 4 ''' 

GSA leased 1964 53 Yes No 2.371 1 0 

GSA 1976 41 Yes No 154 0.44 1 0 lYnden WA GSA 1988 29 Yes No 46,338 1 0 

Madawaska, ME GSA 1959 58 Yes No 16,258 0.74 1 0 

Maida, NO CBP 1961 2011 6 Yes No 1,624 0 0 

Massena, NY GSA 1952 2010 7 Yes No 25,015 3 0 

McAllen Anzalduas GSA 2009 B Yes No 0 1 em tlesonl 

Metaline Falls, WA GSA 1931 86 Yes No 9,496 1 Dual use 0 

Monticello, ME CBP 1970 47 Yes No 50 1 0 

Mooers, NY GSA 1933 84 Yes No 710 1 0 

Morgan, MT CBP 1963 2011 6 Yes No 346 1 0 

Morses line. VT CBP 1934 83 Yes No 329 1 0 

Naco, AZ GSA 1936 1995 22 Yes No 3,303 057 1 0 

Neche, NO CBP 1965 2011 6 Yes No 9,236 0 0 

N1a ra Falls, NY -lewiston Brid GSA Leased 1961 56 Yes No 352,288 2 01 4 0 

Niagara Falls, NY· Rainbow Brid e GSA Leased 2000 17 No No 0 0 

Niagara Falls, NY- Whirlpool Ra ids GSA Leased 1897 120 No Yes 0 0 t 

Ni hthawk, WA CBP 1962 2012 5 No No 0 0 

No ales East, AZ - DeConcmni and Marte Gate GSA 1935 1998 19 No Yes 738 0 0 

No ales West, AZ - Mari osa GSA 1976 2015 2 Yes No 336,378 1669 8 2 

Noonan, NO CBP 1975 2011 6 Yes No 4,179 0 0 

NorthTro , vr GSA 2005 12 Yes No 2.235 1 1 

North ate, NO CBP 2004 13 Yes Yes 11.421 145 1 0 t 

Norton, VT GSA 1932 2007 10 Yes Yes 11.898 216 0.07 1 0 -1- 

•densburQ, NY GSA Leased 2003 '--- ~ 015 2 1 Dual use 
OpheJm, MT CBP 2004 13 Yes No 219 2 1 

onent, ME GSA 1974 43 Yes Yes 402 1 0 

()fOVl!le, WA GSA 2005 12 Yes No 27.381 2 0 

Qt:ayMesa, CA GSA 1984 1994 23 Yes Yes 899,336 300 33.75 10 4 

Overton Comers. NY • Route 276 GSA 1933 84 Yes No 1,114 1 0 

Paso Del Norte. TX - Santa Fe Street Bnd e GSA 1967 2009 8 No No 0 0 

Pemb1na, ND GSA 1999 18 Yes Yes 214,189 1,016 4 0 

Pharr, TX GSA 1996 21 Yes No 561,881 20.58 6 1 

P1ecgan. MT GSA 2000 17 Yes No 1,886 1 0 

Pinecreek, MN CBP 1958 2012 5 Yes No 777 1 0 

PinnaCle Road, VT CBP 1971 2011 6 Yes No 33 1 0 

Prttsbur . NH CBP 1960 2011 6 Yes No 215 1 0 

Point Roberts. WA GSA 1997 20 Yes No 14,477 1 0 

Poker Creek, AK GSA 1999 18 Yes No 116 1 Dual use 0 

Port Huron, Ml - Blue Water Bndg_e GSA Leased 1996 21 Yes Yes 835,129 3.068 3.40 9 2 

Portal, NO GSA 1934 2013 4 Yes Yes 73,477 1,511 2 0 

Porthill, 10 GSA 1967 50 Yes No 8,847 1 1 

Presidro, TX GSA Leased 1988 2001 16 Yes No 7,561 0.01 1 0 

Progreso, TX- B&P Bndge GSA Leased 1982 35 Yes No 4 5 86 1 1 R~!l'lond, MT GSA 2005 12 Yes No 13,251 2 1 

Richford, VT- Route 139 GSA 1932 85 Yes Yes 2,671 142 1 0 

Rio Grande C , TX- Starr-Camar o Bn e GSA Leased 1966 2001 16 Yes No 36,085 0.67 2 2 

Roma, TX - Starr Coun InternatiOnal Bndge GSA Leased 1989 28 y., No 7,531 097 2 0 

Roosville. MT GSA 2002 15 Yes No 10.464 1 1 

Roseau, MN CBP 2004 13 Yes No 6.279 2 0 

Rouses Point, NY St John's Hl hwa GSA 1933 84 Yes Yes 31 1 0 

San Lws I. AZ GSA 1984 33 No No 0 0 

San luis II, AZ GSA 2010 7 Yes No 31.413 0.59 3 2 

San Ysidro, CA GSA 1932 2016 1 No No 0 0 

Santa Teresa, NM GSA 1997 20 Yes No 102,896 1460 3 1 

Sartes, NO CBP 1961 2012 5 Yes No 885 0 0 

Sasabe, AZ GSA 1937 1997 20 Yes No 0 

Sault St. Mane, Ml GSA 2005 12 Yes Yes 41,073 366 1.37 2 Dual use 0 

Scobey, MT CBP 1978 2011 6 Yes No 303 1 1 

Sherwood, NO CBP 1981 2011 6 Yes No 6.802 0 0 Ska a, AK GSA 1976 1994 23 Yes Yes 4,246 316 1 Dual use 0 

St Aurelie, ME GSA Leased 1963 2001 16 Yes No 4,231 1 COV/POV lane 

StJohn, NO GSA 1931 2005 12 Yes No 442 0 0 

St Juste, ME GSA Leased 2004 13 Yes No 5.524 1 outbound 

St. Pam hile ME GSA 1995 22 Yes No 10,398 COV!POV lane 

St. Zachane. ME GSA Leased 2004 13 Yes No 5,773 1 COVIPOV lane 

Stanton Street DCL, TX- Good Ne1 hbor Bnd e GSA Leased 1999 18 No No 0 0 

Sumas, WA GSA 1988 29 Yes Yes 158,527 188 2 1 

Sweetgrass. MT GSA 2004 13 Yes Yes 127,751 357 2 1 

Tecate, CA GSA 1933 2005 12 Yes No 56,511 16.32 2 1 

T1 uana Cross Border E ress. CA Ota -Ti·uana Venture LLC 2015 2 No No 

TX GSA 2015 2 No~~· No 170 2 1 

Trout River NY GSA 1931 66 Yes Yes 1JS14 551 1 0 

Turner, MT GSA 1992 25 Yes No 729 1 0 

van Buren, ME GSA 1965 2013 4 Yes Yes 11,468 445 2 0 

Vanceboro. ME GSA 1964 53 Yes Yes 542 281 1 0 

Walhalla, NO CBP 1962 2011 6 Yes No 8,256 0 0 

warroad,MN GSA 1962 2010 7 Yes Yes 6,467 2.557 1 0 

west Berkshire. VT GSA 1934 83 Yes No 3,272 1 0 

westho ,NO CBP 1974 2011 6 Yes No 11,014 0 0 

Whitlash, MT CBP 1974 2013 4 Yes No 105 1 1 
Wild Horse, MT 

Willow Creek. MT 

Ysleta, TX 

1964 

2004 

1991 

*Traffic volume data is not ava1!ab!e for a!! crossing. The 1nformat!Cll1 1S. f)fOVK:tetf OtJ1Y Where a-V.3tlable 

2011 

13 

1996 21 

••cap does not track watt times at all commercial crossings Tfle mformation IS provtded only tor crossmgs wheffl wait limes am tracked . 

.. *CommerCial process1ng al the Marcellno Sema LPOE has been temporanly suspended due to the lack of demand 

Ye• 

Ye• 

Ye• 

No 

No 

No 468,171 1696 
81 

Question#: II 

Topic: Federal Air Marshals 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: To which countries have has the Federal Air Marshal Service provided 

training to develop or enhance its their own Air Marshal program? To any other 

countries? Please list the countries that have participated in the last year and the 

countries that will participate through 2018 and describe the training. 

Response: In 2017, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) provided training 

to four In-Flight Security Officer (IFSO) programs to develop or enhance their own IFSO 

programs: Australia, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Japan. 

In 2018, TSA anticipates offering training to Canada and France for the same purpose. 

The training provided by TSA focuses on aspects of the Federal Air Marshal Training 

Program II (FAMTP-11). FAMTP-!1 provides training specific to transportation security, 

particularly the aviation domain, adapting physical skills such as the safe and effective 

application of firearms and defensive measures. Training content does not include 

sensitive security information (SSI). 

Lastly, it should be noted that TSA's Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal 

Service serves as a charter member of the International In-Flight Security Officers 

Committee. As such, TSA regularly participates as a major contributor to standardization 

and benchmarking efforts to increase global aviation security. 
82 

Question#: 12 

Topic: Missouri REAL ID Legislation 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: On June 12,2017, Governor Eric Greitens signed legislation aimed at bringing 

the state of Missouri into compliance with the REAL ID Act of2005. As DHS 

Secretary, you have the authority, once an extension is requested, to grant extensions to 

non-compliant states that have taken legislative action to come into compliance with the 

provisions of the REAL ID Act. 

Have you or other DHS officials reviewed the legislation that Governor Greitens signed 

into law on June 12, 2017? 

Do you intend to grant an extension to the state of Missouri once a request is made? 

Response: On June 21, 2017, the State of Missouri requested an extension to give it 

additional time to achieve full compliance with all REAL ID requirements. On July 10, 

2017, DHS notified the State of Missouri and members of its Congressional delegation 

that the state had been granted an extension to the REAL ID compliance deadline until 

October 10,2017. For the duration of this extension, Federal agencies may accept for 

official purposes driver's licenses and other appropriate identification documents issued 

by Missouri. 
83 

Question#: 13 

Topic: Voter Integrity Commission 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach was quoted in The Kansas City Star on 

May 11, 2017 as saying that the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, 

created by Executive Order 13799, would have full-time staff from the Office of the Vice 

President and the Department of Homeland Security. 

Are you aware of any plans to staff the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election 

Integrity with DHS employees? If so, what office within DHS will staff the Commission, 

how many DHS employees will staff the Commission, and what is DHS's anticipated 

annual budget for the Commission? 

Response: The Department of Homeland Security notes that Section 7 of the Executive 

Order states that GSA will provide support to the Commission, including staff necessary 

to carry out its mission. 
84 

Question#: 14 

Topic: H-28 Visa Cap 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Under Section 543 of Division F of the FY 2017 omnibus spending 

legislation, you were given the authority, after consultation with the Secretary of Labor 

and upon determining that there are not American workers who are willing, qualified, and 

able to perform nonagricultural labor, to raise the annual cap on H-2B visas by an amount 

not exceeding the number of "returning workers" who were exempted from the H-2B cap 

in any previous fiscal year. 

Have you determined whether you will raise the H-2B visa cap for the remainder ofFY 

2017? If so, how many additional H-2B visas will be available for the remainder of the 

fiscal year? 

Response: On July 19, 2017, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, the Department 

of Homeland Security published a final rule increasing the numerical limit on H-2B 

nonimmigrant visas by up to 15,000 visas through the end of Fiscal Year 2017. These 

visas are available only to American businesses which attest that they will likely suffer 

irreparable harm without the ability to employ all the H-2B workers requested in their 

petition in fiscal year 2017. This is a one-time increase based on a time-limited statutory 

authority; it does not affect the H-2B program in future fiscal years. 
85 

Question#: 15 

Topic: Land Ports of Entry Report 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The U.S. Customs and Border Protections (CBP) complex mission to provide 

security, facilitate operations, and manage 328 ports of entry (POEs) throughout the 

country in partnership with the General Services Administration (GSA). In both 2010 

and 2014, CBP provided the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on 

Border and Maritime Security with a report, National Land Border Ports of Entry 

Assessment, which lists current POE infrastructure and explains their various needs. 

Please provide an updated report if it is available. Please provide the below information 

if it is not provided in the updated report: 

A list of all land POEs that includes: 

Modes of access (truck or rail crossings) and current infrastructure (number of lanes or 

rail lines) 

Annual commercial traffic volume by mode (truck and rail) 

Average traffic crossing wait time (truck and rail) 

Ownership structure (CBP, GSA, state or local government, private partnership) 

A prioritized list of land POE commercial traffic infrastructure needs that includes: 

Estimated costs for completion 

Age of infrastructure since last refurbishment 

Ongoing infrastructure projects 

Land POE commercial traffic funding in the last 10 years, including: 

Spending at CBP and GSA sites 

Appropriations for CBP and GSA sites. 

Response: Annotated response below. 

A list of all land POEs that includes: 
86 

Question#: 15 

Topic: Land Ports of Entry Report 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

The list of all 167 land crossings can be found in the attached Excel spreadsheet titled 

"Land Crossings Data File" 

• Modes of access (truck or rail crossings) and current infrastructure (number of 

lanes or rail lines) 

• Provided in the Excel spreadsheet titled "Land Crossings Data File", where 

available 

• Annual commercial traffic volume by mode (truck and rail) 

• Provided in the Excel spreadsheet titled ''Land Crossings Data File", where 

available 

• Average traffic crossing wait time (truck and rail) 

• Provided in the Excel spreadsheet titled "Land Crossings Data File" 

• Ownership structure (CBP, GSA, state or local government, private partnership) 

• Provided for all LPOEs in the Excel spreadsheet titled "Land Crossings Data File" 

A prioritized list of land POE commercial trat1ic infrastructure needs that includes: 

See Table 1 below. 

• Estimated costs for completion 

• See footnote to Table 1 below. 

• Ongoing infrastructure projects 

• See Table 2 below. 

• Age of infrastructure since last refurbishment 

• Provided in the Excel spreadsheet titled "Land Crossings Data File'' 

Table l: Commercial-Capable LPOEs with Moder nization Needs (in alphabetical order): 

···.•··.•· :• >. '•c.> GSA-Owned· . • 

Alburg Springs, VT 

Alcan, AK 

Alexandria Bay, NY Phase I 

Alexandria Bay, NY Phase II 

Beebe Plain, VT 

Brownsville-Gateway, TX 

Calais- Fen·y Point, ME 

Coburn Gore, ME 

Columbus, NM 

Douglas, AZ 

Dunseith. NO 
87 

Question#: 15 

Topic: Land Ports of Entry Report 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

El Paso (BOTA), TX 

Ft. Fairfield. ME 

Gordie Howe, MI 

Highgate Springs, VT 

International Falls. MN 

Madawaska, ME 

Otay Mesa, CA 

PorthilL ID 

Sumas. WA 

GSA-Leased ...... . Ambassador Bridge, MI 

Andrade, CA 

Detroit Windsor Tunnel, MI 

Eagle Pass II, TX 

Estcourt, ME 

Lubec, ME 

Niagara Falls- Lewiston, NY 

Niagara Falls - Whirlpool Rapids Bridge, NY 

Ogdensburg, NY 

Peace Bridge, NY 

Port Huron- Blue Water Bridge 

Presidio, TX 

Progreso, TX 

Rio Grande City 

Roma. TX 

St. Aurelie, ME 

St. Juste. ME 

St. Zacharie, ME 

Table 2: Active Commercial LPOE Modernization Pro'ects 

Active Commercial LPOE Modernization Projects 

Project Phase Project Locations 
88 

Question#: 15 

Topic: Land Ports of Entry Report 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Active Commercial LPOE Modernization Projects 

Project Phase Project Locations 

International Falls, Minnesota 

Otay Mesa, California 

Otay Mesa East, California* 

Sumas, Washington 

Coburn Gore, Maine 

Planning Phase Projects El Paso, Texas Bridge of the Americas 

Alburg Springs, Vermont 

Beebe Plain, Vermont 

Douglas, Arizona 

Alcan, Alaska 

Estcourt, Maine 

Rio Grande City, Texas 

Madawaska, Maine 

Design Phase Projects Alexandria Bay, New York 

Donna, Texas (commercial capability development)* 

McAllen- Anzalduas, Texas (commercial capability development)* 

Derby Line I-91, Vermont 

Construction Phase Projects Calexico West, California** 

Columbus, New Mexico 

*PPP project 

**Modernization of non-commercial land crossing; does not affect the rail crossing 

infrastructure 

Land POE commercial traffic funding in the last I 0 years, including: 

Provided in the Excel file titled "10-Year Historical LPOE Appropriations". 

Appropriations for ports with commercial operations have been highlighted in yellow. 

Spending at CBP and GSA sites 

Provided in the Excel file titled "l 0-Year Historical LPOE Appropriations". 

Appropriations for CBP and GSA sites. 

Provided in the Excel file titled "10-Year Historical LPOE Appropriations". 
89 

Question#: 16 

Topic: Electronic Device Search Software 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Please provide a list of all electronic device search software that the 

Department has purchased from 2007 through the present. State the contract number for 

each purchase, the date of the purchase, and the name of the developer and seller of the 

software. 

For all electronic device search software that DHS has purchased from 2007 to the 

present, please provide a detailed explanation of the Department's intended purpose in 

using the software, as well as any policies and guidelines that govern the potential use of 

the software. 

Response: DHS is committed to providing the requested information. Electronic device 

search software includes a wide range of products and requires an extensive data call to 

accurately answer the question. DHS will provide the information as soon as the data 

calls are completed. 
90 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable John F. Kelly 

From Senator John McCain 

"The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Y car 2018 Budget Request" 

June 6, 2017 

Question#: 17 

Topic: Physical Wall Investment 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable John McCain 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Secretary Kelly, do you agree that a wall to secure the southern border of the 

United States may consist offences, drones, towers, personnel, and/or hardware and 

software technologies to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking and acts 

of terrorism? 

Response: Securing the border in order to reach the state of operational control requires 

12 master capabilities working in concert. Border Patrol has identified the top four 

capabilities that are required to achieve operational control at varying amounts along the 

entire border: mission readiness (deployment of agents), access and mobility (ability to 

patrol and work along the border), domain awareness (technology to identify and classify 

illegal activity) and impedance/denial (to prevent/deter illegal entries). 

Question: How will $1.59 billion investment in a physical wall advance this definition? 

Response: A border wall system constructed along those identified and prioritized areas 

of border will provide the required impedance and denial capability as well access and 

mobility for the Border Patrol Agents. 
91 

Question#: 18 

Topic: Surveillance Technology 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable John McCain 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: $197.2 million is proposed to provide southwest border technology, which is 

approximately 12% of $1.59 billion budget for a physical wall. According to your 

assessment, is this sufficient to provide the technological surveillance necessary to 

achieve a virtual wall that will more effectively secure our border? 

Response: Technology provides a domain awareness capability, which is distinct from 

the impedance and denial capability provided by wall. It is critical that CBP invest in 

both these capabilities at the appropriate levels across the border to address the threats 

and risks in each area, along with the necessary levels of access and mobility and mission 

readiness capabilities. The Fiscal Year 2018 request for technology augments the 

technology deployments already in place from prior year investments. 
92 

Question#: 19 

Topic: Border Patrol Agents 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable John McCain 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: There are 18,000 Border Patrol agents. Last month, there were 12,000 

apprehensions. That is less than 1 apprehension per agent over the entire month. With the 

number of apprehensions dropping, do we need an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents 

rather than use those resources elsewhere to prevent the entry of manufactured narcotics? 

Response: The increase in Border Patrol agents will support the full mission of the 

Border Patrol, to include detecting, preventing and apprehending those who attempt to 

smuggle aliens and contraband such as drugs, weapons and currency across the border 

between ports of entry. 

Question: With an increase in CBP officers, has there been an increase in effectiveness 

in preventing manufactured heroin from crossing the border and ports of entry? 

Response: The Office of Field Operations (OFO) is experiencing an increase in seizures 

related to opiates (heroin) and opioids (fentanyl) as seen below. 

FY16 FYI 7 YlD (MAY) 

OFO FENTANYL SEIZURES 146.41 KGS 210.36 KGS 

OFO HEROIN SEIZURES 1,916 KGS 1,180 KGS 

In addition to increasing CBP Officers to enhance interdiction rates, CBP's Non-Intrusive 

Inspection (NH) Systems investment is focused on evaluating and acquiring technology 

with capabilities that enhance imagery analysis, decrease processing time, and provide 

the ability to redirect manpower to other mission areas or examine a greater portion of 

conveyances thereby increasing interdiction rates of illicit materials. 

Two key on-going efforts to support this focus include (I) CBP and DHS Science and 

Technology Directorate's (S&T) evaluation of the use of drive-through NII systems with 

backscatter technology to increase Nil examinations/ scanning rates of personally owned 

vehicles and commercial vehicles on the Southwest Border and (2) CBP and S&T 

working to establish one common user interface that has a secure capability to transfer 

data from multiple large-scale Nil systems to a common viewer workstation, while 

allowing images and data from multiple systems to be viewed on a standardized software 

platform, and capture data from multiple vendors/ types of image into a standard file 

format. Collectively, these projects and other ongoing initiatives, will ultimately reduce 

operational burdens, increase efficiencies, and have the potential to increase examination 
93 

Question#: 19 

Topic: Border Patrol Agents 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable John McCain 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

beyond high-risk conveyances which should ultimately increase the number of heroin and 

other contraband seizures. 

CBP currently has limited visibility into international mail shipments but has been able to 

identify shippers of fentanyl and other illicit controlled substances. Better data is very 

important but having the technology in place to utilize the information is even more 

important for security and to interdict illicit controlled substances. 

Interdicting these shipments creates a challenge, requiring coordination with multiple 

agencies and a bit of luck because it requires a person to manually sort through large bins 

of packages looking for a matching name. Modernization based on the current standards 

used by the major international air freight forwarders would be ideal. 

International mail is processed manually at one of the following nine International Mail 

Facilities (IMF): New York, New York; New Jersey; Miami, Florida; Chicago, Illinois; 

Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; Honolulu, Hawaii; San Juan, Puerto 

Rico; and Charlotte Amalie, the U.S. Virgin Islands. When mail arrives at an IMF, it is 

accepted (scanned) by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and sorted prior to presentation to 

CBP for inspection. CBP performs a visual inspection and review of the paper customs 

declaration affixed to the outside of the parcel as it passes along on a conveyor belt. One 

hundred percent of all mail presented to CBP by the USPS is screened through the use of 

detection technology equipment such as X-rays and Radiation Portal Monitors. Per 

existing regulations, the carrier must submit the following manifest requirements: country 

of origin; total number of mail bags/containers; total weight of mail bags/containers, and 

the final destination of the mail shipment. 

In addition, CBP utilizes advance electronic data (AED) in the express carrier 

environment to screen and target shipments for contraband, including narcotics. Express 

operators use internal security operations to identify possible illegal shipments. CBP 

meets regularly with private carriers (express) to discuss, to the extent possible, mutual 

areas of concern to include identifying shipments of illicit drugs. For instance, CBP 

recently met at the local level with an express carrier to conduct outreach with a focus on 

the safe handling of synthetic opioids. 
94 

Question#: 20 

Topic: Unaccompanied Minors 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable John McCain 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: In fiscal year 2016, $750 million was appropriated to address root causes to 

deter and prevent children and families in the Northern Triangle from illegally 

immigrating to the U.S. Although a budget was drafted, there is no public data as to the 

effectiveness of the program and how the fund was allocated. How will the $7.94 billion 

budget request for immigration and customs enforcement address the issue of 

unaccompanied minors in the United States? 

Response: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is dedicated to the 

faithful execution of our nation's immigration laws, in accordance with the President's 

January 25, 2017, Executive Orders entitled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of 

the United States and Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements. This 

Administration's commitment to enforcing the immigration laws passed by Congress has 

sent a strong message that our country's borders are not open for illegal crossings. 

DHS data shows that since January 2017, the number of illegal aliens apprehended on the 

southwest border has drastically decreased, indicating a significant decrease in the 

number of aliens attempting to illegally enter the country. These results have likewise 

deterred unaccompanied alien children (UAC) from making the dangerous journey across 

our nation's southwest border. DHS records indicate that the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) 

.apprehended 1,493 UACs in the entire month of May of2017. By contrast, in May of 

2016, USBP apprehended 5,594 UACs. 

Additionally, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) commenced an 

initiative to target human smugglers engaged in smuggling UACs, as well as those 

facilitating the smuggling venture, which places the safety ofUACs at risk. As UACs 

arrive at the border, any sponsor information provided is reviewed and efforts are made 

by ICE to contact the UAC prospective sponsors, and interview them in an effort to 

collect information about the smuggling networks. Information obtained from these 

interviews is used to develop a cohesive picture of these complex smuggling operations. 

The overall analysis of these networks ideally includes information about those involved 

in the facilitation of smuggling, as well as the routes and means of travel used by 

smugglers. This process of identification, interviews, and information development is a 

constant cycle-with information provided to enforcement personnel on a regular basis. 

If a human smuggling situation becomes exploitative and transitions to a human 

trafficking situation, ICE Homeland Security Investigations aggressively utilizes its 

authorities and resources to protect the victim(s) and prosecute the traffickers. 
95 

Question#: 20 

Topic: Unaccompanied Minors 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable John McCain 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

In addressing UACs that do make the dangerous journey to our nation's borders, DHS 

complies with the standards outlined in the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA). The TVPRA requires that any minor 

encountered at a land border or at a U.S. port of entry who meets the statute's definition 

of an UAC, and who is from a country contiguous to the United States, be screened for 

trafficking indicators, among other factors, prior to being permitted to withdraw his/her 

application for admission, a role executed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If 

there are no trafficking indicators present and the UAC from a contagious country meets 

several other conditions, that child may be permitted, when voluntarily choosing to do so, 

to withdraw his/her application for admission and be repatriated immediately. 

UACs from contiguous countries that cannot be returned immediately, and UACs from 

non-contiguous countries, are placed in removal proceedings under Section 240 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act. DHS must then transfer custody of the UAC to the 

care and custody of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee 

Resettlement within 72 hours after determining that such child is a UAC. 

The Fiscal Year 2018 budget will ensure that ICE continues to stern illegal immigration, 

target human traffickers engaged in smuggling UACs, and effectively move UACs from 

both contiguous and non-contiguous countries through the immigration process, from the 

initial apprehension through the final disposition of the case. 
96 

Question#: 21 

Topic: Cyber Activities 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable John McCain 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Our greatest collective frustration has been the lack of any direction from this 

administration or the lack on how we should be deterring our adversaries in cyberspace. 

With $971.3 million being budgeted for cyber activities, how could an overly strict 

interpretation of sovereignty limit or impair the Department of Defense's ability to plan or 

employ offensive cyber capabilities? 

Response: Deterring our adversaries in cyberspace is a critical challenge, and one that 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) carries out along with our colleagues at the 

Departments of Defense, State, Justice, and other Federal agencies and partners. DHS 

defers to the Department of Defense regarding its operations, including the planning or 

execution of offensive cyber capabilities. 

As part of implementing the President's Executive Order on Strengthening the 

Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure, issued on May 11, 2017, 

DHS is currently working with the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, and 

Commerce, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Intelligence Community to present the 

President with strategic options for deterring adversaries and better protecting the 

American people from cyber threats. 

DHS contributes to our nation's deterrence efforts through its law enforcement, network 

protection, and national preparedness efforts. The National Protection and Programs 

Directorate (NPPD) contributes to deterrence in cyberspace through network protection 

efforts. NPPD works to ensure that government agencies and critical infrastructure are 

protected and resilient thereby denying malicious cyber actors the ability to be successful 

during less sophisticated malicious attempts at intrusion and reducing the impact of 

success during more sophisticated attacks. We do this through four interconnected lines 

of effort: information sharing; best practices, risk assessment, and capabilities; incident 

response; and building a stronger cybersecurity ecosystem. NPPD provides network 

protection services and capabilities to Federal departments and agencies and has unique 

authorities to provide technical capabilities and services directly to civilian Executive 

branch departments and agencies. NPPD also provides network protection services and 

coordinates the cybersecurity efforts of the Sector Specific Agencies in alignment with 

the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. NPPD, in coordination with Sector-Specific 

Agencies, works with critical infrastructure owners and operators within their sector to 

enhance network security and reduce systemic risk. 

The Departments law enforcement components, particularly the U.S. Secret Service and 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations (ICE/HSI), 
97 

Question#: 21 

Topic: Cyber Activities 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable John McCain 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

contribute to deterrence by aggressively countering cyber crime worldwide. By holding 

cyber criminals accountable, it deters other potential criminals and demonstrates to 

foreign states the ability of the U.S. government to attribute and lawfully respond to 

malicious cyber activity. This reduces the ability of foreign governments to use non-state 

proxies to engage in malicious cyber activity and undermines their efforts to engage in 

covert hostile cyber actions against the United States. 

For example, on 25 July 2017, ICE/HSI, Secret Service, and their domestic and foreign 

law enforcement partners successfully took down the Bitcoin exchanger BTC-E and 

arrested Alexander Vinnik, a Russian citizen, who was in Greece at the time. According 

to the indictment, BTC-e was one of the world's largest most widely used digital 

currency exchanges, which provided cyber criminals a highly anonymized means to 

launder their illicit proceeds. The indictment describes Alexander Vinnik as the owner 

and operator of multiple BTC-e accounts, including administrator accounts, and also a 

primary beneficial owner ofBTC-e's managing shell company, Canton Business 

Corporation. By targeting the financial systems that support cyber criminals, law 

enforcement not only contributes to deterrence, but directly counters the ability of 

malicious cyber actors to conduct their activities. 

As you have observed, how we apply the concept of sovereignty to issues involving 

cyberspace is a critical challenge that has substantial impacts on our ability to deter and 

counter malicious cyber activity given the transnational nature of cyberspace. DHS 

works closely with our interagency partners to find pragmatic solutions that allow us to 

both hold malicious actors in other nations responsible for activity in their sovereign 

jurisdictions by partnering with officials and providing capacity building assistance 

where needed, to help bring them to justice. We also seek to ensure the United States is 

able to directly counter critical cybcr threats, as needed, all while continuing to promote 

an open, interoperable, reliable, and secure Internet that fosters efficiency, innovation, 

communication, and economic prosperity. DoD is best able to assess the impacts various 

views of sovereignty have on their ability to plan or employ offensive cyber capabilities. 
98 

Question#: 22 

Topic: NCCIC 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable John McCain 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Additional $42.3 million is allocated to allow the National Cybersecurity and 

Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) to protect private sector entities through 

the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program. What is the intersection between the 

civilian hub, National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), 

Federal entities, and non-Federal entities, including the private sector? 

Response: The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) leads efforts to 

protect federal civilian government networks, collaborates with the private sector to 

increase the security of critical infrastructure networks, and works closely with state, 

local, tribal, and territorial governments to promote cybersecurity best practices. Within 

NPPD, the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) 

serves as a 24/7 cyber monitoring, incident response, and management center and as a 

national hub of cyber and communications integration. NCCIC operates at the 

intersection of the private sector, state and local governments, federal civilian 

government agencies, law enforcement, intelligence, defense communities, and 

international partners. The mission of this civilian hub is to apply unique analytic 

perspectives, ensuring shared situational awareness, and orchestrating synchronized 

response efforts while protecting the civil liberties and privacy rights of Americans. 

The Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (ECS) program is one of many NCCIC capabilities 

to protect private sector entities. ECS is an intrusion prevention capability that helps U.S. 

based companies protect their computer systems against unauthorized access, 

exploitation, and data exfiltration. ECS works by sharing sensitive and classified cyber 

threat information with Commercial Service Providers (CSPs). CSPs in tum use that 

information to block certain types of malicious traffic from entering customer networks. 

ECS is meant to augment, but not replace, existing cybersecurity capabilities. 
99 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable John F. Kelly 

From Senator Rob Portman 

"The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request" 

June 6, 2017 

Question#: 23 

Topic: National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20 !8 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Rob Portman 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The President's budget states that Science and Technology Directorate 

assesses that capabilities at the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures 

Center (NBACC) can be replicated at other facilities. IfNBACC is closed as proposed in 

the President's budget, which specific agencies or organizations will assume 

responsibility for supporting the threat characterization currently conducted by NBACC? 

Has DHS coordinated with these entities? Were similar determinations and plans made 

for the Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC)? 

Response: The strategic reductions in the Fiscal Year 2018 budget will allow the Science 

and Technology Directorate (S&T) to focus on the highest priority needs of the 

Administration and DHS. The budget proposes to close three laboratories, including 

NBACC, to maximize limited research and development (R&D) funds and avoid 

maintaining facilities that would be underutilized at the reduced requested funding 

levels. The budget continues to fund high-impact R&D for Administration and DHS 

priorities in border security, counterterrorism, explosives, cyber, and first 

responder/disaster resilience, while minimizing reductions to biodefense. 

S&T assesses that capabilities at NBACC can be replicated on various levels at other 

facilities. This would require a higher degree of coordination across the various agencies 

or lab providers involved. S&T will maintain DHS's partnership with 13 Department of 

Energy national laboratories that are vital to the national homeland security mission. 

DHS will also seek to leverage technologies developed by the Department of Defense, 

which is heavily invested in chemical and biological detection and mitigation. 
100 

Question#: 24 

Topic: NBACC Closure Plan 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Rob Portman 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: I understand NBACC has already received notification that the organization 

should begin developing a closure plan. Given the dependency of any such closing on 

Congressional action, what steps are you planning to take, if any, regarding the closure of 

NBACC following the completion of the closure plan and prior to the completion of the 

Congressional authorization and appropriations process for FY20 18? 

Response: S&T has notified the contractor, Battelle National Biodefense Institute 

(BNBI) that manages NBACC for the Department of Homeland Security's Science and 

Technology Directorate (S&T) of the proposed budget reduction in the Fiscal Year 2018 

President's budget. S&T does not intend to close any laboratory facility before there has 

been a congressional decision. 
101 

Question#: 25 

Topic: Polar Icebreaker Program 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Rob Portman 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question; At the hearing you stated that the Coast Guard plans to buy six icebreakers, 

three heavy and three medium. Does the current acquisition plan of record for the Polar 

Icebreaker Program reflect this intention? 

Response: The current acquisition plan of record for the Polar Icebreaker Program is not 

finalized. The 2018 Budget proposes funding sufficient to begin work on one new vessel 

to begin the program, with delivery of that ship scheduled for FY 2023. 

Question: The Coast Guard Authorization Act of2015 (Public Law 114-120), Section 

207, POLAR ICEBREAKERS, states: "(a) INCREMENTAL FUNDING AUTHORIZED 

FOR POLAR ICEBREAKERS- In fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year thereafter, the 

Commandant of the Coast Guard may enter into a contract or contracts for the acquisition 

of Polar Icebreakers and associated equipment using incremental funding."(§207(a)) 

This authorization provides the Coast Guard with the ability to enter into a contract or 

contracts to acquire as many new Polar Icebreakers as are required - as long as the Coast 

Guard uses the incremental funding acquisition process. I understand that the current 

Polar Icebreaker acquisition process now being executed by the Coast Guard does not 

take advantage of this authorization. What evaluation process occurred prior to the Coast 

Guard decision not to enter into a contract or contracts to acquire as many Polar 

Icebreakers as are required using the incremental acquisition process? Was a formal 

cost-evaluation completed to compare the existing Polar Icebreaker acquisition process 

and a block buy incremental acquisition process? If not, why not? 

Response: The Coast Guard is considering all acquisition options to ensure the Polar 

Icebreaker program is best executed. Incremental funding may be an important part of 

this strategy and if AC&I funding is appropriated the incremental funding approach will 

be analyzed. 
102 

Question#: 26 

Topic: Urban Area Security Initiative Allocations 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Y car 20 I 8 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Rob Portman 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: I understand that FEMA is conducting a review of the risk methodology used 

to determine Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) allocations. What is the schedule for 

that review and what is the plan to incorporate Congressional and stakeholder input? 

Response: FEMA is currently developing an outreach plan and a review schedule, which 

FEMA can provide to the Committee once it is finalized. FEMA expects to have the plan 

and schedule completed by Septemberl, 2017. 
103 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable John F. Kelly 

From Senator Thomas R. Carper 

"The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request" 

June 6, 2017 

Question#: 27 

Topic: St Elizabeths 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: For the last several years, I have been a strong advocate for the Department of 

Homeland Security's Headquarters Consolidation at St Elizabeths. I firmly believe that 

finishing the DHS headquarters would improve our national security, increase morale and 

productivity at the Department, and save money for the taxpayers. 

The President's budget proposes $135 million for GSA's portion ofDHS Consolidation at 

St Elizabeths but does not include DHS funding for new development at the site. 

As you know, GSA is largely responsible for infrastructure investments at the site, while 

DHS is responsible for tenant renovations and improvements. 

Can you please share your vision for Headquarters consolidation? Is the current funding 

request enough to keep the project on schedule? 

Response: The Department of Homeland Security believes that the Headquarters 

Consolidation Program first and foremost is an operational necessity that will promote 

unity of effort and enhanced mission effectiveness. If we are to achieve and sustain the 

promise of the Department's creation, we must act as an integrated nimble team to stay 

ahead of those who seek to destroy our way of life. Headquarters Consolidation moves 

us closer to that promise. Besides the operational benefits, there is also a solid business 

case that supports the long-term savings/cost-avoidance of federal property over 

commercial lease space. 

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Budget Request does not seek new development funding for 

St. Elizabeths but does include critical support costs to sustain current operations at St. 

Elizabeths. In light of the FY 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and the FY 2018 

President's Budget request, DHS and GSA are in the process of evaluating the impacts 
104 

Question#: 27 

Topic: St Elizabeths 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

that the Appropriations and Budget processes may have on the St Elizabeths 

Headquarters Consolidation Enhanced Plan. 

Question: Have other Administration infrastructure priorities for DHS, such as building a 

border wall, shifted resources away from DHS Headquarters consolidation at St. Es? 

Response: The Department fully supports the President's Fiscal Year 2018 Budget 

submission. Given the Fiscal Year 2017 appropriation, GSA and DHS will work during 

Fiscal Year 2018 to re-validate the program schedule forSt Elizabeths. This will ensure 

that the remaining investments made at St. Elizabeths are both cost effective and 

efficient. 
105 

Question#: 28 

Topic: Cybersecurity Hiring 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Cybersecurity breaches, such as the "WannaCry" ransomware attack last 

month, are becoming more common and increasingly rely not on expensive or 

sophisticated technology, but on a combination of common software bugs and user error. 

It is important that the Department have the resources it needs-including qualified 

cybersecurity professionals-to help work with private sector partners and federal agencies 

to detect, mitigate, and respond to such attacks. 

Please provide an update on the Department's progress in hiring and training qualified 

cybersecurity professionals. 

Response: The Department is working to better leverage available recruiting and 

retention tools to bolster the cybersecurity workforce. One such tool is the Direct Hire 

Authority for Information Technology and Cyber positions, which allows DHS to hire, 

after public notice is given, any qualified applicant without regard to 5 U.S.C. 3309-3318, 

5 CFR part 2121, or 5 CFR part 33 7, subpart A. Direct Hiring Authority expedites hiring 

by eliminating competitive rating and ranking, veterans' preference, and "rule of three" 

procedures. Additionally, DHS Schedule A Authority for cybersecurity is an excepted 

service authority to hire up to I ,000 cybersecurity positions in certain occupational series. 

DHS is authorized to make permanent time-limited or temporary excepted service 

appointments under this authority. Finally, DHS takes into consideration the special 

requirements needed for cyber workforce positions and utilizes the superior qualifications 

appointment authority provided by 5 U.S.C. 5333 and 5 CFR 531.203(b) alone or in 

combination with a recruitment bonus in order to attract top-tier talent to join its 

workforce. We have also leveraged several programs to bring cyber professionals into 

our organization at lower grade levels through the Scholarship for Service and the 

Pathways Programs to serve as a source to grow talent within the organization. 

At the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), for example, focusing on 

recruitment and retention tools has yielded significant results. The use of these programs 

coupled with efforts to adequately staff and streamline our security process have resulted 

in a decrease of39.8 days for our hiring timeline in Fiscal Year 2016 compared to Fiscal 

Year 2015 for the Office ofCybersecurity & Communications. As of June 6, 2017, 

NPPD has filled 824 of its budgeted 1,044 Cyber positions (78.9 percent). There are 79 

candidates (7.5 percent of the total Cyber population at NPPD) who have been selected 

and are in the process of onboarding. NPPD has 51 positions ( 4.8 percent) that are 

actively being recruited but have not yet received a selection. Finally, 133 of the 

remaining Cyber positions (12.7 percent) are pending actions from the hiring manager. 
106 

Question#: 28 

Topic: Cybersecurity Hiring 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20 18 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

We are confident that NPPD will meet hiring goals for its cyber workforce in the near 

term. 

Question: What portion of the increased cybersecurity funding will go to building up 

DHS's cyber workforce? 

Response: The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget Request includes $971.3 million for 

cybersecurity activities at NPPD. These funds will allow NPPD to coordinate and 

integrate cyber activity across the intelligence, law enforcement, and counterintelligence 

domains; analyze and reduce cyber threats and vulnerabilities; and support Federal 

departments and agencies in improving their cybersecurity posture. The Fiscal Year 

2018 President's Budget increased funding for NPPD's cyber workforce particularly for 

increases to personnel associated with the National Cybersecurity and Communications 

Integration Center and National Cybersecurity Protection System. The Fiscal Year 2018 

President's Budget Request would support NPPD in filling 1,044 Cyber positions. 
107 

Question#: 29 

Topic: TSA VIPR Funding 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20 18 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Last year in the wake of the attacks on the airport in Brussels, the Senate voted 

91 to 5 for an amendment to double the number ofTSA Visible Intermodal Prevention 

and Response, or VIPR teams. These teams patrol our airports and public transit spaces in 

order to deter and respond to terrorist attacks. The provision, which I worked on with a 

number of my colleagues including Senator Heinrich, was ultimately signed into law. 

Instead of funding the doubled teams, the President's FY20 18 budget request cuts the 

number of VIPR teams to eight. 

Please explain how this proposed cut is justified in light of increased attacks on soft 

targets. 

Response: The level of complexity involved with securing the homeland from all 

threats, including those to the transportation domain, requires difficult resource allocation 

decisions. In formulating the Fiscal Year 2018 budget request, the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) focused on preserving front line security capability to 

protect the traveling public. As part of the risk-based prioritization for resources, those 

areas where state and local law enforcement already operate or have the capability to step 

forward to support transportation security were ranked lower for federal funding. This 

allowed finite resources to be applied to those areas solely under the jurisdiction of the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

The Fiscal Year 2018 President's budget request reflects TSA's intent to place the eight 

VIPR teams in the higher-risk locations in all modes of transportation. Additionally, 

TSA is working with state and local law enforcement and industry associations to 

develop solutions that mitigate the threat to soft targets. Tn May 2017, the Public Area 

Security Summit group published a national framework with recommendations to 

enhance security in public spaces throughout the transportation system. 
108 

Question#: 30 

Topic: ICE Private Prisons 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Senator Harris and I sent a letter to DHS last month asking a number of 

questions about ICE's use of private, for-profit detention facilities. 

As you know, an outside panel last year reviewed these facilities and found that these 

facilities are generally less safe than publicly run facilities, and made a number of 

recommendations for their improvement. 

I believe we requested a reply to that letter by next week (June 12th). I have not a 

question for you but a request. Can you please commit to reviewing our letter carefully 

and providing a thorough response to our questions? 

Response: The Department has received your letter and is in the process of carefully 

reviewing and preparing a response, which will be sent to you as soon as possible. 
109 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable John F. Kelly 

From Senator Heidi Heitkamp 

"The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request" 

June 6, 2017 

Question#: l 

Topic: Surface Transportation Security Grants 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: In the President's FY18 Budget, the grants available for surface transportation 

security assistance received a cut of over $52 million from the FY17 level. In addition to 

receiving a cut in funding, the Public Transportation Security Assistance, Railroad 

Security Assistance and the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP) were all put 

in the same line item, whereas in previous budgets, each grant program received 

dedicated funding. What is the basis for combining these programs into one funding 

sum? Who will have the discretion of making the distribution decisions for funding these 

programs from the one sum? How will the Department ensure each program is receiving 

adequate funding to mitigate threats? 

Response: The President's Budget Request typically does not include funding for subprograms. Instead, top line requests are included for: 

State Homeland Security Program 

Urban Areas Security Initiative; 

Port Security Grant Program; and 

Public Transportation Security Assistance and Railroad Security Assistance (TSGP) 

Funding for transportation security grant programs such as the Intercity Bus Security 

Grant Program, which is a carve out of the Transit Security Grant Program, is 

appropriated by the Congress. Ultimately, FEMA executes on the funding as appropriated 

by Congress. 
110 

Question#: 2 

Topic: Intercity Bus Security Grant Program 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: In the wake of recent terrorist attacks around the world involving the use of 

vehicles as weapons, it is increasingly necessary to ensure that large commercial vehicles 

are prepared for these new security threats and are in the position to mitigate these risks. 

Even with this increased threat, the IBSGP received a $1 million cut in the FY17 

Omnibus and did not receive a dedicated line item in the President's FY18 request. What 

priority is the Department placing on the importance of insuring all surface modes have 

adequate resources to prepare for these changing threats? Can the Committee obtain a 

commitment from you that the IBSGP is a priority for the Department of Homeland 

Security moving forward? 

Response: DHS does not believe that funding the Intercity Bus Security Grant Program 

is the best use of dwindling financial resources. DHS believes that the greatest risk to the 

traveling public is within public transportation systems and recommends that grant 

funding be focused accordingly. 
111 

Question#: 3 

Topic: First Responder Grants 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURlTY (SENATE) 

Question: Ensuring that first responders have the tools and resources they need to keep 

our communities and families safe is critical to national security. That is why I strongly 

support programs like State Homeland Security Program, Operation Stonegarden, and the 

Emergency Management Performance Grant program, which provide critical funding to 

help law enforcement, first responders, and emergency managers attain the training and 

resources they need to prevent, protect, and respond to terrorism and other hazardous 

events. Like many, I have serious concerns about the President's FY18 budget request 

and the potential impact that the proposed reductions and 25 percent cost-share could 

have on state and local communities. What are your thoughts about the proposed cuts and 

25 percent non-Federal cost match, and are you concerned that they may weaken the 

ability of state and local communities to prepare for emergencies? 

Response: As a team, state, local, territorial, tribal and federal partners are responsible 

for the coordination of preparedness and protection-related activities throughout the 

nation, including grants, planning, training, exercises, individual and community 

preparedness, assessments, lessons learned, and continuity. 

The reductions to non-disaster grants are proposed based on hard decisions within the 

Department, striking a balance to ensure adequate funding for core Department of 

Homeland Security national priorities and missions, to encourage grant recipients to share 

responsibility for the cost of preparedness activities in their own budgets, and to fund 

those activities that demonstrate the greatest return on investments. 

Included in the Budget is a proposal for a 25 percent non-federal cost match requirement 

for preparedness grants. Preparedness is primarily the responsibility or state, and local 

governments. The federal government should now focus on ensuring funding is directed 

to close capability gaps and address national priorities, and continue to provide technical 

assistance and tools to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate 

terrorism and other hazardous events. 
112 

Question#: 4 

Topic: Ground-Based Technologies 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20 18 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The FY2018 budget includes increased funding for ground-based technologies 

along the border to maximize protection in areas that lack border patrol forces. S&T 

described that part of these funds will be used to continue to "investigate" technologies to 

be used on the northern border and non-walled areas like tripwire systems and unmanned 

aerial systems. With the Administration focused on a potential southern border wall, what 

steps will DHS take to ensure that any technology investigation is analyzed to determine 

if it could be used in other areas and environments, such as the Northern Border, coastal 

borders or parts of the southern part without a wall or fencing? 

Response: S&T's Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency's (HSARPA) 

Borders and Maritime Security Division (BMD) focuses on border security research and 

development for technologies and solutions to prevent the illicit movement and illegal 

entry or exit of people, weapons, dangerous goods, and contraband; and manages the risk 

posed by people and goods in transit. BMD works closely with Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the United States 

Coast Guard (USCG) through its Secure Borders Integrated Product Team and working 

groups to identify current, emerging, and future border security threats and challenges. 

This partnership ensures that DHS remains agile to incoming needs and flexible enough 

to make adjustments to address changes to administration priorities, emerging threats, 

and technological advancements. BMD's portfolio consists of four main border security 

mission spaces: Land, Maritime, Air, and Ports of Entry. 

HSARP A/BMD has the advantage of analyzing capability gaps and recommending 

solutions that meet broad Department needs, rather than individual component needs. 

For example, unattended ground sensor projects arc being tested for feasibility on the 

northern and southern borders, at and between ports of entry, with and without fence and 

wall infrastructures, in both land and maritime environments, and for surface and subsurface activities. This is a prime example of how DHS ensures there are technological 

efficiencies across the mission spaces. 
113 

Question#: 5 

Topic: NBACC Closing 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The FY20 18 budget proposes to eliminate funding for research and 

development projects that advance national security. Part of the elimination includes 

closing the National Biological Analysis and Countermeasure Center (NBACC), which 

houses facilities equipped to analyze and assess chemical and biological threats to the 

United States. 

What research or evidence supports closing these facilities? 

Did DHS consult with other agencies, such as DOD, FBO, or USDA, before assuming 

that these agencies would be able to fill the national security research gaps caused by the 

elimination ofDHS research projects under this proposed budget? 

If yes, can DHS point to parts of those agencies' budgets that provide funding for 

research and development related to these projects? 

If no, what will DHS do to mitigate the lack of critical research if other agencies or local 

researcher do not produce research that helps DHS achieve its national security goals? 

How would closing these facilities and cutting or reducing funding for research of 

biological threats open the United States not lead to increased vulnerability to chemical 

terrorism events targeting our natural resources, farm commodities, and citizens? 

Response: The strategic reductions in the Fiscal Year 2018 budget will allow the 

Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) to focus on the highest priority needs of the 

Administration and DHS. The budget proposes to close three laboratories, including 

NBACC, to maximize limited research and development (R&D) funds and avoid 

maintaining facilities that would be underutilized due to S&T's budget reduction. The 

budget continues to fund high-impact R&D for Administration and DHS priorities in 

border security, counterterrorism, explosives, cyber, and first responder/disaster 

resilience, while minimizing reductions to biodefense. 

S&T assesses that capabilities at NBACC can be replicated on various levels at other 

facilities. This would require a higher degree of coordination across the various agencies 

or lab providers involved. S&T will maintain DHS's partnership with 13 Department of 

Energy national laboratories that are vital to the national homeland security mission. 

DHS will also seek to leverage technologies developed by the Department of Defense, 

which is heavily invested in chemical and biological detection and mitigation. 
114 

Question#: 6 

Topic: Chemical Attack Research 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: How will DHS mitigate or prevent the threat of chemical attacks without 

research and development facilities and funding, and without certain commitments from 

other agencies or local research facilities to assume responsibility for this or related 

research? 

Response: The Fiscal Year 2018 President's budget request will allow the Science and 

Technology Directorate (S&T) to focus on the highest priority needs of the 

Administration and DHS. The budget proposes to close three laboratories, including the 

Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC), to maximize limited research and 

development (R&D) funds and avoid maintaining facilities that would be significantly 

underutilized at requested funding levels. 

Although closing CSAC may impact DHS's ability to have direct scientific and research 

advice during a chemical incident, S&T assesses that capabilities at CSAC can be 

replicated at other facilities. S&T will maintain DHS's partnership with 13 Department 

of Energy national laboratories that are vital to the national homeland security mission. 

DHS will also seek to leverage technologies developed by the Department of Defense, 

which is heavily invested in chemical and biological detection and mitigation. 
115 

Question#: 7 

Topic: CBE Defense 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The FY2018 DHS Budget eliminates CBE Defense spending, which provides 

funds for agricultural screening and surveillance technologies to monitor livestock 

welfare for the USDA, and first-responder and disaster resilience spending, which 

includes funding for the Foreign Animal Disease Vaccines, Disease, and 

Countermeasures project. The FDAVDC project allows USDA and other first responders 

in the agricultural community to develop and implement effective countermeasures 

against foreign, biological threats to livestock welfare. These technologies and research 

are essential to providing farmers in North Dakota with protection against foreign 

biological threats to their livestock herds, which are critical to the economy in North 

Dakota and nationally. 

Did DHS consult with USDA or local research facilities, such as university extensions, 

regarding the impact of these cuts to agricultural threat prevention research? 

If yes, are the USDA and/or local researchers willing to assume responsibility for the 

research, development, and security needs for livestock welfare that DHS abandons with 

its proposed budget cuts? 

What is DHS planning to do to assure these groups assume full responsibility for the 

research previously conducted by DHS researchers, and what steps will DHS take to 

ensure the research meets DHS standards regarding the national security and public 

safety needs of the nation? 

If no, what steps does DHS plan to take to work with USDA and/or local researchers to 

coordinate transitioning research in order to prevent or mitigate biological threats to 

livestock welfare? 

Response: The Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget request fully funds operations for 

the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) for $49.5M. The US Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) executes 

federal funding for research in vaccines and livestock issues. DHS S&T defers to USDA 

APHIS on research priorities offederally funded research and development to take place 

at PIADC. 
116 

Question#: 8 

Topic: Livestock Protection Funds 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: What research indicates a low or non-existent threat to livestock that supports 

cutting funds for protecting livestock against foreign bio-threats? 

Response: The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) executes federal funding for research in vaccines and 

livestock issues. DHS S&T defers to USDA APHIS on research priorities of federally 

funded research and development to take place at PIADC. 
117 

Question#: 9 

Topic: Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Your budget eliminates TSA's Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement 

Program which helps to provide local law enforcement support at airport checkpoints -

and in and around airports. I can tell you right now that this program has allowed the 

Fargo Police Department to provide officer support to the airport in Fargo- and if you 

eliminate this money there is a good chance that the Fargo police department will have to 

choose between not providing this support or doing so at the cost of potentially taking an 

officer off of the frontlines of addressing our rising drug crime, trafficking, and other 

issues that are impacting a metro area that is growing rapidly. 

How does eliminating this program "protect the homeland"? 

Response: In cooperation with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), 

airport operators and their state and local law enforcement partners play a critical role in 

maintaining security at airports across the country. Over the years, TSA has worked with 

and will continue to work with state and local law enforcement to develop capacity and 

relationships. Today, state and local law enforcement partners are better equipped than 

they have ever been before to meet emergent threats. 

Additionally, all airports are required to have an approved Airport Security Program 

(ASP), developed in concert with the local airport authority, and once completed, is 

subject to TSA inspection for airport operator compliance. As a result of that process, 

TSA works and will continue to work with the airport to ensure that law enforcement 

personnel are available and committed to respond to a security incident within a set 

period of time. 

Question: How do you expect cooperation with state and local law enforcement when 

this cut tells me- and tells them- this is important, but you'll have to go it alone? 

Response: DHS recognizes the value of this program, along with many others that work 

to protect the safety and security of the traveling public. DHS is also obligated to 

holistically review programs and functions that enhance homeland security and weigh the 

contributions of each. DHS considers many variables when reviewing programs to 

ensure they take into account the President's vision and national budgetary priorities. 

Question: If state and local law enforcement are no longer able to provide this perimeter 

and interior law enforcement presence at airports throughout the country, what is the 

Department's plan to cover this serious security gap? 
118 

Question#: 9 

Topic: Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: I The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Response: Each airport operator will still be responsible for complying with minimum 

security requirements set forth in their Airport Security Program, including a law 

enforcement presence and capability at the airport that is adequate to ensure the safety of 

passengers. TSA will continue to work with these airport operators in order to ensure 

that such requirements are maintained in an efficient manner. 
119 

Question#: 10 

Topic: Northern Border Security 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: There is a glaring lack of mention of the northern border in this proposed 

budget. How does this budget improve northern border security? With regards to 

staffing? Technology? 

Response: CBP's proposed budget encompasses all of the nation's borders at and 

between the ports of entry without regard to whether they are northern or southern 

borders, or whether it is an air, land, or sea environment. CBP is responsible for 

managing the flow of lawful trade and travel through our 328 air, land, and maritime 

ports of entry. CBP also manages more than 6,000 miles of land border and more than 

12,000 miles of coastline border, and prevents the illegal movement of people and 

contraband crossing U.S. airspace. CBP must always consider a complex set of threats, 

risks, and challenges in protecting this nation's borders. 

The Fiscal Year 2018 requested budget focuses on the operation and sustainment of the 

Northern Border Remote Video Surveillance System (NB-RVSS) and the Maritime 

Detection Project (MDP). NB-RVSS consists of 13 operational sites (St. Clair River) in 

Detroit Sector and (5) five operational sites (southern Niagara River) in Buffalo Sector. 

NB-RVSS is expanding to up to four additional sites on the St. Lawrence Seaway in 

Swanton Sector. The Swanton Expansion was funded by prior year funding. The 

Maritime Detection Project has a deployed operational site in Detroit Sector (Lake St. 

Clair) and two sites in Buffalo Sector (eastern Lake Erie). MDP is funded to deploy two 

additional sites, one in Detroit Sector and one in Buffalo Sector, both are on Lake Erie. 

Deployment to the two additional sites was funded by prior year funding. No new 

Northern Border technology deployments are requested in Fiscal Y ear20 18. 

As of June I 0, 2017, 95 percent of the authorized CBP officer positions on the Northern 

Border were filled. However, there are key ports and stations, especially in Maine, 

Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and Vermont that have faced staffing challenges. 

Recruitment incentives have been approved for the following Northern Border locations: 

Jackman/Coburn Gore and Houlton, Maine; Grand Portage, Minnesota; Sweetgrass and 

Raymond, Montana; Massena, New York; Pembina and Portal, North Dakota; Beecher 

Falls and Norton, Vermont, and Oroville, Washington. Relocation incentives can 

technically be used anywhere but have primarily been used for Northern Border hard-tofill locations. 

Overall traffic across the Northern Border from Fiscal Year 2011 through Fiscal Year 

2016 has fallen by -8.6 percent. Personally Owned Vehicles (POV) have dropped by11.7 percent while commercially owned vehicles (COV) have increased 8.4 percent. 
120 

Question#: 10 

Topic: Northern Border Security 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Change in Vehicle Volume, FY 2011 to FY 2016 

POV cov TOTAL 

Northern Border -11.7% 8.4% -8.6% 

United States 11.5% 14.3% 11.8% 

Additionally and consistent with CBP's Vision and Strategy 2020 1

, OFO requires agility, 

flexibility, and adaptability across its operational environment. This means enhancing 

integration across our data, processes, and technology. While CBP utilizes inspection 

and detection technology, specifically Non-Intrusive Inspection (Nil) systems and 

Radiation Detection Equipment (RDE), we are working to address two gaps to address 

these requirements: ( 1) stand-alone technology and (2) lack of data-networking and 

integration with the CBP network and CBP enforcement systems. Through continued 

investment, CBP and DHS partners, including the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 

(DNDO) and the Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), current focus for Nil 

systems and RDE is to evaluate, acquire, deploy, and maintain technology with enhanced 

capabilities or integration aspects that increase effectiveness, decrease processing time, 

and provide the ability to redirect manpower to other mission areas or examine a greater 

portion of conveyances where feasible while facilitating trade and travel. Three key ongoing efforts to support this focus include (1) CBP & S&T evaluating the use of drivethrough Nil systems to increase Nil examinations of personally owned and commercial 

vehicles on the Southwest Border; (2) CBP and S&T working to establish one common 

user interface that has a secure capability to transfer data from multiple large-scale Nil 

systems to a common viewer workstation, while allowing images and data from multiple 

systems to be viewed on a standardized software platform, and capture data from multiple 

vendors/ types of image into a standard file format; and (3) equip select radiation portal 

monitor (RPM) lanes with a remote operation capability allowing local ports to employ 

remote operations concepts where and when feasible. Collectively, these projects and 

other ongoing initiatives, will ultimately reduce operational burdens, increase 

efficiencies, and support the inspection and detection technology goal of redirecting 

resources or increase exam/scanning rates as feasible. 

In addition, CBP works closely with DHS Office of Policy to help ensure the Department 

is maximizing the benefits of its coordination efforts with northern border partners 

through interagency forums, documented agreements, and its resource planning process. 

CBP worked with DHS Office of Policy to develop the Northern Border Threat Analysis 

1 U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Vision and Strategy 2020 U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Strategic Plan. CBP Publication 0215-0315. Published April 8, 2015. 
121 

Question#: 10 

Topic: Northern Border Security 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

that responds to the reporting requirements set forth in the Northern Border Security 

Review Act (P.L. 114-267). CBP will work closely with DHS Office of Policy to utilize 

that report to update the DHS Northern Border Strategy. Per the Department's standard 

business processes, a formal gap analysis will be derived from defined metrics and 

anticipated outcomes. Through the process of updating the DHS Northern Border 

Strategy, writing an implementation plan, and initiating the Department's JRIMS process, 

DHS will address key gaps in our capabilities and thereby help make the northern border 

more secure. 
122 

Question#: 11 

Topic: Land Port Staffing 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The Ports of Entry seem to be largely ignored in this budget in favor of 

funding border security between the ports. Our land ports are the primary smuggling 

route used to traffic narcotics into the U.S. and many ports experience lengthy delays in 

commercial traffic because of strains on personnel and other inspection resources. 

Research has shown that reducing wait times at these ports could generate thousands of 

jobs and millions of added dollars to the U.S. GDP. What is reasoning behind not 

providing adequate funding to address these issues? 

Response: The Fiscal Year 2018 budget provides funding to sustain and strengthen 

DHS' most critical programs and capabilities in each of its mission areas- securing and 

managing borders, enforcing and administering immigration laws, preventing terrorism 

and enhancing security, safeguarding and securing cyberspace, and strengthening 

national preparedness and resilience. To assertively implement the policies of the 

President's Executive Orders, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement 

Improvements, Executive Order No. 13 767 (January 25, 20 17), Enhancing Public Safety 

in the Interior of the United States, Executive Order No. 13768 (January 30, 2017), and 

Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and 

Preventing International Trafficking, Executive Order No. 13773 (February 14, 20 17), 

the Fiscal Year 2018 President's budget makes significant, critical investments in people, 

technology, and infrastructure for border security and enforcement of immigration laws, 

while ensuring that DHS's other operations are sufficiently funded. 

Because the vast majority of activity at the POEs is required by statute and not 

discretionary activity that could be scaled back or stopped, CBP has ensured there is 

sufficient funding to maintain services at the POEs. CBP has proposed investing 

additional resources into the National Targeting Center (NTC) and in the NII program in 

the Fiscal Year 2018 President's Budget, both of which will directly impact work at the 

Ports of Entry. 

The NTC in both the traveler and cargo environments provide technical efficiencies, 

automation, advanced vetting and risk segmentation, which increases national security 

and results in reduced workload at POEs. The NTC is a 24x7 operation with the 

centralized mission of preventing dangerous and unlawful travelers and goods from 

entering and exiting the country by effectively screening, reviewing, identifying, and 

segmenting low and high-risk passengers and cargo across all international modes of 

transportation, inbound and outbound. The NTC carefully identifies, targets, and 

coordinates examination of the small percentage of shipments and travelers that may be 

connected to terrorism or other transnational crimes, such as narcotics smuggling, human 
123 

Question#: 11 

Topic: Land Port Staffing 

Hearing: The Department ofHome1and Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

trafficking, merchandise counterfeiting, and money laundering. The NTC supports and 

responds to inquiries from the POEs and other law enforcement entities and conducts 

tactical targeting to identify actionable targets. 

The Nil program equipment allows for passive radiation scanning and x-ray/gamma-ray 

imaging of cargo and conveyances by land, sea, and air POEs to identify terrorist 

weapons and other contraband. CBP officers and agents utilize a variety of Large-Scale 

(LS) and Small-Scale (SS) Nil systems and RDE to inspect sea containers, rail cars, 

trucks, automobiles, pallets, and various packages and parcels thoroughly and quickly for 

the presence of contraband and illicit radiological materials. These systems are viewed as 

force multipliers and address the mission need to effectively inspect arrival conveyances 

at the Nation's borders without impact to legitimate trade or travel. Nil systems and 

RDE provide a $1 billion annual cost avoidance in CBP operations and $5.8 billion to 

$17.5 billion savings per year to industry in avoided costs due to delays. The average Nil 

system examination of a cargo container takes approximately 8 minutes, while a physical 

inspection takes, on average, 2 hours. 
124 

Question#: 12 

Topic: Future Cybersecurity Workforce 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Across the nation, there is a growing cybersecurity workforce shortage, and it 

is critical that DHS make appropriate investments to develop and grow its cybersecurity 

workforce. Part of this strategy must include investments in cybersecurity education 

efforts that engage and educate industry partners, K -12 students, teachers, counselors, 

and post-secondary institutions. What steps has DHS taken to help foster and prepare our 

future cybersecurity workforce? 

Response: Since 2004, DHS has invested in cybersecurity education programs for the 

nation, beginning with partnerships with the National Security Agency (NSA) and the 

National Science Foundation. Through these partnerships, DHS co-sponsors the 

CyberCorps®: Scholarship for Service (SFS) program and the National Centers of 

Academic Excellence (CAE) in Cyber Defense Education. Over 200 colleges and 

universities in 45 States, the District of Columbia (DC), and Puerto Rico have CAE 

designation and are producing thousands of graduates, capable of filling the cybersecurity 

jobs of today and tomorrow. DHS also provides approximately $300,000 each year to 

support annual SFS job fairs, enabling over 500 students each year to find cybersecurity 

internships and full time jobs in the government (federal, state, local, and tribal). 

Since 2012, DHS has also invested in the integration of cybersecurity concepts into 

middle and high school curricula through the Cybersecurity Education and Training 

Assistance Program (CETAP) grant. The grant supports the creation and continuous 

development of multiple curricula, all of which are available for free to K-12 teachers 

throughout the United States. At present, over 5000 teachers in all 50 States, DC, and 

two territories, have downloaded the curricula. DHS estimates that approximately 1.2 

million U.S. students have been affected since the program began. 

DHS, along with the Department of Defense and the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, co-authored the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) 

Cybersecurity Workforce Framework (NIST Special Publication 800-181 ), which 

categorizes and defines cybersecurity roles, specialties, and knowledge, skills, and 

abilities. The NICE Framework forms a common lexicon to describe cybersecurity 

careers and skills, thus aiding schools that teach cybersecurity and employers who will be 

hiring their graduates. DHS facilitates the understanding, adoption, and implementation 

of the NICE Framework through the DHS Cybersecurity Workforce Development 

Toolkit, a free resource available to the public. DHS also provides a free cybersecurity 

training catalog, listing thousands of cybersecurity courses available throughout the 

United States. All courses are mapped to the NICE Framework. These and other free 
125 

Question#: 12 

Topic: Future Cybersecurity Workforce 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURlTY (SENATE) 

resources are available through the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Careers and 

Studies cybersecurity education and workforce portal. 

DHS also delivers free cybersecurity training to government (federal, state, local, tribal, 

and territorial) employees through the Federal Virtual Training Environment (FedVTE), 

an online, on-demand learning management portal. In 2015, DHS extended free access to 

U.S. veterans, regardless of their employment status. FedVTE is a scalable solution, with 

over 170,000 users as of June 6, 2017 and over 5000 new users being added each month. 

Question: What steps can Congress take to help DHS attain a healthy cybersecurity 

workforce? 

Response: The President has put forward a Fiscal Year 2018 budget request that provides 

funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Chief Human Capital 

Office (OCHO) for the Cyber Statutory Authority Program, which was created to design 

and implement a new excepted service personnel system, as authorized by the Border 

Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-227). 

Additionally, the budget request for DHS's National Protection and Programs Directorate 

(NPPD), which fulfills the DHS's cybersecurity and infrastructure protection mission, 

includes funding to improve retention of cybersecurity employees. NPPD offers eligible 

cybersecurity positions a retention incentive in order to retain employees designated as 

part of the cybersecurity workforce. In the absence of such an incentive, these cyberskilled employees would likely leave Federal service. DHS appreciates Congress's 

continued support in order to attract and retain top cybersecurity talent. The Department 

is in the process of implementing the authority provided by the Border Patrol Agent Pay 

Reform Act of2014 and stands ready to work with Congress on any future efforts to 

enhance the cybersecurity workforce. 
126 

Question#: 13 

Topic: Worker Visas 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Worker Visas. During the hearing on 6 June 2017, you responded to a 

question I asked regarding certain types of work visas by stating that "in the current 

Administration this is all about American jobs versus people that come in and do the 

work"- seemingly misunderstanding the intricacies of the various work visas or in the 

alternative expressing the Administration's view that in those circumstances where a 

business has sought unsuccessfully to fill positions with American workers that they 

should potentially be forced out of business as opposed to filling those positions with 

foreign workers who pay state and local taxes, boost the economy through purchasing 

local goods and services, and keep American small businesses viable. Since the 

beginning of this Administration, my Washington and state offices have been 

overwhelmed with calls from hospitals and doctors, small business owners, farmers, and 

other ag interests relaying massive concerns about the pace in getting visa approvals for 

doctors under H-1 B, seasonal workers under H-2B, and ag workers under H-2A. I have 

beekeepers saying they are in danger of not having enough workers to meet their orders, 

seasonal businesses that have said they may have to shut down entirely, and doctors left 

in limbo who may now not end up serving the people of my state. Your FY18 budget 

appears to ignore the issue of processing these applications in an efficient and timely 

manner. Given that this is a responsibility ofDHS and these are programs authorized in 

law it is your job to properly manage these programs, therefore: 

How long do you think people should have to wait to get clarity on these visas? 

Response: On June 26, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) resumed 

premium processing for all H-1 B petitions filed for medical doctors under the Conrad 30 

Waiver program, as well as interested government agencv waivers. July 24, USCIS 

resumed premium processing for petitions that may be exempt from the cap where the HI B petition is: an institution of higher education; a nonprofit related to or affiliated with 

an intuition of higher education; or a nonprofit research or governmental research 

organization. A premium processing request is typically adjudicated within 15 days 

(assuming no security or other complex substantive issues are present, and that there is no 

need to obtain additional evidence from the employer). This processing time should 

provide clarity and alleviate concerns of affected hospitals and doctors. 

It should also be noted that while premium processing is temporarily unavailable for 

certain petitions, petitioners have the option to submit an expedited request. H-lB 

petitioners may submit a request to expedite an H-IB petition if they meet the criteria 

posted on the users website at: www.uscis.gov/lorms/expedite-criteria. 
127 

Question#: 13 

Topic: Worker Visas 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20 18 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

In regard to H-2A agricultural and H-2B non-agricultural temporary worker petitions, 

users understands the time-sensitive nature of this work and makes every effort to 

provide timely adjudication in accordance with regulation. users provides premium 

processing service to H-2B temporary non-agricultural worker petitioners, by which they 

may pay an additional fee to ensure an adjudicative action is taken on their petition 

within 15 days of its receipt. This service is widely utilized by H-2B petitioners. 

However, in certain cases, it may be necessary to request further evidence from 

petitioners in order to determine whether their petitions are approvable under existing 

law, which will extend the timeframe for issuing a decision. H-2B petitions that do not 

utilize the premium processing service are typically adjudicated within 30 days. 

The adjudication of H-2A petitions, has been centralized at the users California Service 

Center and all H-2A petitions have become prioritized for expedited processing since 

2007. users instituted this practice to provide agricultural employers with an orderly 

and timely flow of workers, without requiring payment of additional fees for an expedited 

decision, while striving for consistency in the adjudicative process. users adjudicates 

these petitions as quickly as possible in a way that is consistent with the law. On 

average, H-2A petitions are processed by users within two weeks. This timeframe is 

within the 15-day premium processing guideline provided to other visa classifications. In 

certain cases, it may be necessary to request further evidence from petitioners in order to 

determine whether their petitions are approvable under existing law, extending the time 

frame for adjudication. 

Additionally, in 2016, USCIS instituted two processing improvements intended to 

streamline the H-2A petition process and be more responsive to employers' needs. This 

included collaboration with Department of State on the electronic sharing of information 

on approved H-2A petitions and allowing expanded use of pre-paid mailers exclusive to 

H-2A petitioners. 

USCIS regularly monitors the Form I-129 processing times and will adjust its resources 

accordingly. Adjudication ofH-2A and H-2B petitions are currently within our stated 

processing times. 

Additionally, on July 19, 2017, the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor 

published a final rule increasing the numerical limitation on H-2B nonimmigrant visas by 

up to 15,000 through the end of Fiscal Year 2017 in response to section 543 ofDiv. F of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115-31 (Fiscal Year 2017 

Omnibus). This is a one-time increase based on a time-limited statutory authority: it does 

not affect the H-2B program in future fiscal years. These visas are available only to 
128 

Question#: 13 

Topic: Worker Vis as 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

American businesses which attest that they will likely suffer irreparable harm without the 

ability to employ all the H-2B workers requested in their petition. 

Question: What do you think is a proper timeframe for you to deliver them an answer? 

Response: All petitions are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis by an officer, after a 

thorough review and application of relevant laws, policies and regulations. users seeks 

to process petitions as quickly as possible. However, certain factual circumstances 

require additional time to assess the petitioner's eligibility for a requested benefit, and an 

officer may request additional evidence from an employer where necessary. As always, 

we remain mindful of these concerns as we continually work to ensure the efficient and 

timely processing of petitions and other immigration benefit requests. 

As mentioned above, in recognition of the time-sensitive nature of agricultural work, 

USCIS expedites the adjudication ofH-2A petitions. On average, H-2A petitions are 

processed within two weeks. This timeframe is within the 15-day premium processing 

guideline provided to other visa classifications. 

As indicated above, most H-2B employers choose to utilize the premium processing 

service and are provided with an adjudicative action on their petition within 15 days. H2B petitions that do not utilize the premium processing service are typically adjudicated 

within 30 days. 

The current timeframes associated with these classifications appear to be reasonable and 

provide a sufficient amount of time for users to ensure that all petitions are adjudicated 

in a fair and equitable manner as required by law and regulation. 

Question: What is there in your budget to make this process more efficient and to clear 

any backlogs? 

Response: USCIS built its Fiscal Year 2018 Immigration Examinations Fee Account 

(IEF A) Congressional Budget Justification at a level it believes is fiscally responsible 

given preliminary Fiscal Year 2018 application and petition fee collection projections, 

estimated carryover balances, and the reserve requirements that are needed to sustain 

operations. Throughout the remainder of Fiscal Year 2017, USCIS will refine its revenue 

estimates and projected costs to determine the level of additional requirements that can be 

funded in Fiscal Year 2018, including those that aim to improve processing times, reduce 

backlogs, and increase efficiency. 
129 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable John F. Kelly 

From Senator Steve Daines 

"The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request" 

June 6, 2017 

Question#: 14 

Topic: Acquisition Management 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Steve Daines 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Thank you for testifying again. It was good to see you again and discuss your 

efforts to mitigate drug trafficking and domestic demand. At your last hearing, we 

discussed the dramatic drop, nearly 70%, in illegal southern border crossings under your 

first few months of leadership - this was accomplished by just broadcasting the US would 

enforce its laws. 

As the horrific attacks in London remind us, the security of our homeland remains our top 

priority and challenge. I look forward to continue working together to get you the 

resources necessary to keep us safe. 

The Departments' top level ask is a 6.8% increase in discretionary funding, much of this 

will go to the acquisition and deployment of new technologies. A recent GAO report 

reviewed DHS acquisition programs in FY16 and found cost overruns of nearly one 

billion dollars for the year, and schedule delays averaging of six months. We must be 

good stewards of taxpayer dollars and strengthen accountability without sacrificing 

security. Ranking Member McCaskill and I have been working on bi-partisan legislation 

that will accomplish this and address GAOs recommendations. How will DHS improve 

its acquisition management with proposed cuts for the Office of Under Secretary for 

Management, responsible for acquisition oversight? 

Response: The Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (P ARM), which 

falls under the Office of the Under Secretary for Management (USM), will not be directly 

impacted by the proposed cuts to the USM's budget. Therefore, PARM will continue to 

execute its multifaceted mission of striving to continually improve the management and 

oversight of acquisition programs across the department. 
130 

Question#: 15 

Topic: Morale 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20 18 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Steve Daines 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: We have discussed the morale challenges within DHS in the past. From your 

perspective, with four months on the job, how is the morale at DHS now? What are you 

doing to engage the workforce? 

Response: Acting Secretary Elaine Duke has already conducted a series of listening tours 

around the country, sitting down with employees in small groups to hear about the 

challenges they face each day and how we can further help them do their jobs. In each 

location visited, the Department has let our employees know they are valued and 

valuable. And even more importantly, the Department is addressing their concerns at the 

local level, where many of the issues originate. By fixing those items that are broken, 

such a bureaucratic processes, the Department has found it can have an immediate 

positive impact. 

One measure of morale in the Federal Government is OPM's Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). The Department is pleased to report that our Employment 

Engagement Index scores continue their upwards trajectory, rising 3 percent in 2015-

2016, and 4 percent in 2016 to 2017, for a seven percent increase over the past two years. 

We continue to work with our Employee Engagement Steering Committee, which is 

chaired by the Under Secretary for Management, to formulate and implement componentlevel engagement action plans that address the feedback we receive from the FEVS. 

We are also launching a "DHS Leadership Year," with monthly activities at the DHS and 

component levels aligned to quarterly themes. Leadership Year focuses on the 

importance of leadership excellence to the DHS mission and workforce morale. Activities 

include interviews with the Acting Secretary on leadership philosophies and expectations, 

tools to support supervisors in better managing performance and engagement, and 

initiatives such as video highlights and panels with both technical and supervisory leaders 

across the Department. 
131 

Question#: 16 

Topic: Hiring Times 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Steve Daines 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Related to morale, has DHS improved the time it takes to hire employees? Do 

you have the authorities you need to continue attracting and hiring top talent? 

Response: DHS has made significant progress in reducing time-to-hire. In Fiscal Year 

2014, our time-to-hire averaged 166 days. By Fiscal Year 2015, it was 124 days, down 25 

percent. Fiscal Year 2016 saw a further reduction to 111 days, down an additional 10 

percent. We have achieved these improvements by developing innovative approaches to 

streamline human capital and security clearance processes, mainly through increased 

coordination, enhanced centralization, and expanded use of hiring flexibilities. 

For example, we have held consolidated cyber, intern, recent graduate, and veteran hiring 

events with interviews and tentative job offers made "on-the-spot." We also found these 

joint events quite successful because we could share candidates among Components, 

increasing the number of hires at these events. We have also been improving processes 

for law enforcement officer hiring, with the creation of centralized hiring hubs that 

combine several background and fitness steps of the hiring process in one location. In 

addition, we've increased our education efforts, ensuring that hiring managers and human 

resources staff are well-versed in the full range of hiring flexibilities. 

As part of our ongoing collaboration with OPM, we have obtained additional 

compensation and hiring flexibilities. To date, we have received direct hire authority for 

many of the mission critical occupations (MCOs) that we will need to implement the 

Executive Orders on Border Security and Interior Safety; authority to reduce barriers-toentry for Border Patrol Agents, by moving Spanish language proficiency tests from the 

beginning of the hiring process to the end, allowing applicants to undergo training prior 

to being evaluated; as well as authority to reemploy federal retirees without a reduction in 

their salaries equal to their retired pay. 

We have requested, and are anticipating, other authorities from OPM, including 

additional direct hire authority for support positions associated with implementing the 

E.O.s, and the ability to ask questions pertaining to financial and criminal history early on 

in the hiring process for specific law enforcement positions, and those requiring a 

security clearance. All of the authorities requested, if received, will help further reduce 

the Department's time-to-hire. We look forward to working with Congress to refine 

requests for additional authority to ensure we have the most effective tools available to 

fill MCOs. 
132 

Question#: 17 

Topic: TSA Delays 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Steve Daines 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Air travel and tourism are of critical importance to Montana's connectivity and 

economy. Nearly two million passengers pass through TSA or contractor screening at 

Montana's airports every year. Last summer we all experienced TSA delays. Coming 

from a rural state, we generally have more expensive airfare and make more connections. 

I am concerned about raising any fees. If Congress does not authorize fee increases, how 

will DHS reallocate resources to maintain the safety of the traveling public and ensure 

passengers receive efficient services? 

Response: The proposed Aviation Passenger Security Fee increase of one dollar, from 

$5.60 to $6.60 per one-way trip, is in line with overall airfare cost growth. We look 

forward to working with you and your colleagues on its successful enactment as the 

proposal will allow for DHS to better focus on its programs of critical importance. 

The Department also proposes other initiatives to maintain the safety of the traveling 

public and ensure that passengers receive efficient services. For example, the budget 

proposes to cease exit lane staffing, allowing for TSA to devote its trained Transportation 

Security Officers (TSOs) to checkpoint screening duties. This proposal is equitable, 

treating all airports the same as the two-thirds of commercial airports that are already 

responsible for securing their exit lanes. It will also reduce TSA's reliance on 

appropriated funding and allow for its resources to be used for critical departmental 

priorities that protect our Nation's safety and security. 
133 

Question#: 18 

Topic: Private Property 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Steve Daines 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Property rights are at the very foundation of our society. Pristine land is what 

draws people to Montana. We do not take eminent domain lightly in Montana. The 

budget request addresses some of the need for more physical infrastructure on our 

southern border, building 74 miles of wall and levee. How will you avoid taking private 

property involuntarily along these stretches? 

Response: DHS only acquires real property that is necessary to meet the mission 

requirements. 

Question: How will DHS leverage technology to secure the border within existing 

easements? 

Response: Where deployed within existing easements, the wall is the backbone of an 

enforcement system in which the capabilities of impedance and denial (e.g., physical 

wall); domain awareness (e.g., technology components such as sensors and cameras that 

detect, identify, and classify attempted entries); and access and mobility (e.g., agents and 

road access). This system is engineered to, first and foremost, prevent and deter illegal 

entry, but also to ensure that anyone who attempts illegal entry is immediately detected 

and apprehended before they can breach the wall. In this respect, technology is a critical 

component that supports and protects the wall, provides for agent safety via situational 

awareness, and ensures operational success with regard to the operational objective 

articulated in Executive Order 13767. 
134 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Honorable John F. Kelly 

From Senator Kamala Harris 

"The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request" 

June 6, 2017 

Question#: 19 

Topic: ICE Agent Training 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: During your testimony on April 5, you stated that there was no need for 

additional training or guidance for ICE agents on the seven enforcement factors as 

"they're already highly trained individuals." On April 13, 2017, the DHS OIG published 

a report on ICE deportation operations and found that "ICE has not clearly and widely 

communicated DHS's deportation priorities ... and not provided sufficient training." 

Considering the conclusions on the DHS OIG, have you revised your earlier position that 

no additional training is needed related to enforcement priorities? 

Please provide any further guidance or training materials that has been issued to carry out 

the new enforcement priorities provided in the February 201

h memo. 

Response: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office oflnspector 

General's (OIG) Report (OIG-17-51), entitled ICE Deportation Operations, reviewed the 

Obama Administration's immigration enforcement priorities from June 2016 to October 

2016. The aforementioned OIG report is based on an investigation that took place 

approximately 4 months prior to my February 2017 announcement of the new 

immigration priorities. The OIG report recommends, among other things, that U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) improve how it communicates changes in 

enforcement priorities for deportation to the field offices. 

ICE concurred with all five recommendations outlined in the OIG Report, and has 

initiated corrective actions accordingly. DHS immigration enforcement priorities were 

and continue to be communicated through numerous training efforts: 

(1) The ICE Office of Training and Tactical Programs provides standardized training to 

all future Deportation Officers (DO) through the Basic Immigration Enforcement 
135 

Question#: 19 

Topic: ICE Agent Training 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Training Program (BIETP), which includes instruction on DHS immigration enforcement 

priorities. 

(2) The ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Case Management Training 

(CMT) program is mandatory for all Immigration Enforcement Agents (lEAs) who have 

recently been upgraded to the DO position and for DOs who have attended a course 

substantially equivalent to the BIETP. CMT provides the training required for those 

transitioning from the lEA role to a DO position. CMT provides comprehensive 

instruction that includes docket-related duties, such as docket review, detained and nondetained case management, etc. CMT classes began in the latter part of 2016. ERO 

intends to have a 70 percent of lEAs upgraded to DOs by December 2017, and 100 

percent upgraded by March 2018. 

(3) ICE law enforcement officers are also notified of policy changes, including the 

Executive Orders issued by President Trump and implementation memoranda issued, via 

broadcast email messages from agency and department leadership. These broadcast 

messages include hyperlinks to the Executive Orders and implementation memoranda 

that are posted to either public websites or internal agency intranet sites. 

(4) ICE ERO is working with the ICE Office of Human Capital and the Office of the 

Principal Legal Advisor to negotiate an ICE ERO On-the-Job Training (OJT) program in 

collaboration with the American Federation of Government Employees National ICE 

Council. OJT will be a key training component for recent basic academy graduates 

reporting to their field duty assignment. OJT will also serve as a recurrent refresher for 

several ERO specific skillsets, including those related to docket review, detained 

casework, and non-detained casework. ICE is currently working with the Department's 

Office of Policy and other programs to examine current ICE policies and guidance to 

ensure their alignment with the President's recent Executive Orders and the vision and 

plans for implementing those orders. 
136 

Question#: 20 

Topic: ICE Detention Facilities 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURlTY (SENATE) 

Question: The President's budget proposes nearly $1.5 billion in new spending to 

increase the average daily population ofiCE detention facilities to 51,379. Given that 

border apprehensions are at historic lows, please provide any modeling or assessment 

justifying such as massive increase in detention beds. 

The budget also seeks to change its facility performance requirements to detention 

standards and inspections for certain detention facilities by moving away from the 

Performance Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) recommended by the 

Homeland Security Advisory Council, and instead using the standards used by the U.S. 

Marshall Service and Bureau of Prisons. 

Please explain the rationale for this decision, including any consideration of using 

standards employed for criminal detention to a civil detention system? 

Please provide a list of any contracts that have been awarded or consultants being 

employed to carry out this change. 

Please provide a timeline for implementation. 

Is ICE considering changing the PBNDS standards for other categories of facilities? 

Response: The number of beds needed to support current U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) interior enforcement 34 percent higher in Fiscal Year 2017 

compared to Fiscal Year 2016 (20,959 vs. 15,596); this upward trend is expected to 

continue into Fiscal Year 2018. Additionally, ICE's augmented interior enforcement 

efforts are underway, and initiatives such as increased Criminal Alien Program arrests are 

expected to necessitate additional bed space. 

In anticipation of any future changes in migration levels, ICE requires additional bed 

space in order to be prepared for enforcement efforts by other agencies, including a 

potential increase in the issuance of charging documents by U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services. 

ICE's dedicated facilities, which include government-owned Service Processing Centers, 

Contract Detention Facilities, and dedicated Inter-governmental Service Agreement 

(I GSA) facilities, are currently covered by the Performance Based National Detention 

Standards (PBNDS) 2011. ICE will require all new and existing dedicated facilities to 

comply with these standards. 
137 

Question#: 20 

Topic: ICE Detention Facilities 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

The remainder ofiCE's adult detention facilities are non-dedicated IGSAs and U.S. 

Marshals Service intergovernmental agreement facilities, where ICE makes up a subset of 

the detained population. These facilities currently utilize a combination of the National 

Detention Standards (NDS) 2000, PBNDS 2008, and PBNDS 2011, as appropriate. Of 

note, ICE is updating and streamlining the NDS for non-dedicated facilities, limiting the 

standards to areas of importance to ICE, while maintaining a model for safety and 

security. 

ICE has not awarded any contracts or hired any consultants for this project of updating 

and streamlining the NDS. Further, ICE anticipates this revision of the NDS will be 

completed and ready for use by the end of Fiscal Year 20 1 7. 
138 

Question#: 21 

Topic: 14 HSAC Recommendations 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: What is the status of the 14 number of recommendations made by Homeland 

Security Advisory Committee? Have any of these recommendations been adopted? 

Response: Of the 14 Homeland Security Advisory Committee recommendations which 

cover issues related to detention facility usage, changes and/or improvement to oversight, 

and applicability of detention standard and the expansion of U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) Health Service Corps provided care, ICE is in either full or 

partial agreement with most of them. Many of the recommendations are currently under 

consideration as part of the agency's ongoing effort to revamp oversight and increase 

cooperation with local government agencies, while others require additional funding or 

are not actively being pursued at this time. 
139 

Question#: 22 

Topic: Workforce Modeling 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Your budget proposes funding for 1,000 new ICE agents and 500 new border 

patrol agents, please provide any workforce modeling used to arrive at these numbers. 

Response: Executive Order 13768 called for the hiring of an additional 10,000 law 

enforcement officers (LEO) at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE 

utilized its Workload Staffing Model (WSM) to define the agency's staffing requirement 

and demonstrate ICE's resource needs for 10,000 immigration officers. The WSM is a 

staffing tool used to determine staffing requirements based on workload hours, workload 

activities, and frontline staffing levels. The WSM utilizes operational, personnel, and 

financial data for the analysis. Assumptions made as part of the analysis included an 

increased detention population, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) hiring, atlarge arrests foregone when detainer requests are not honored, and the at-large criminal 

alien population on the Southwest Border. Based on the current operational data and 

these additional inputs, it was determined ICE requires 10,000 additional officers. The 

Fiscal Year 2018 budget request includes funding for the first 10 percent oflaw 

enforcement hiring for ICE (i.e. 1,000 officers). Please see the methodology in the chart 

below. 

For CBP, given the available resources for recruitment and hiring, we believe reaching 

our near-term goal of 500 additional border patrol agents can be achieved by the end of 

Fiscal Year 2018. The U.S. Border Patrol is continuing to refine its staffing methodology 

to determine its requirements to conduct border enforcement operations. 
140 

Question#: 

Topic: 

Hearing: 

Primary: 

Committee: 

ERO Frontline 

Total ERO Fn,ntline 

ERO Suppon:*"'** 

HSI fron't!ine 

Tc"t~l HSI Frontline 

HSISupport:**•*' 

OP'LA*"'* 

QAO 

OCIO 

ToQl 

A5tumetiont 

22 

Workforce Modeling 

The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20 !8 Budget Request 

The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Cet;ainer Ncr-Co,.,... ;::liance 

8.5-;X: 

2,6~5 

u .. u.s EROT~IIno--• 

Pr~f'<llt::ts ao'i:J<t.:CnaoFT£-rtqi.!''"#'OJ n:: <nt:•'li'O;u' 

(1 ~·.£.-:::1>;<11' d~t~'1 C>.:::>,., popvlat>C,.., ~.:..c;•P,' to ~l. OOS' 

R~tf•*::rs t""'E Ei"rO n ...,,~,oer of f'Tii --e~u>reo rc: 

S'-'pp:;;rr a !f,OOOC8P~t..'SB P FTE oncreose 

.:tfff~crs t"'~ "~:::r4!'0$<1i'O ·~,_,,..,.,_~,..of "7E '"fi:Qt.J•'VO to 

cc ,.,o .... ct crr-•c,.·;;;• a•'"W.tts ,.,_ . .,e., Cl# n::t ,,., .. ,.. ,.."''.:~ ~.<E.s a 

Re_r~e.;.rs t"l~ ·~creosE ,, '"'"'~,.. c_f _r.-o..,t•,.,-e :;;ff>ce··;; 

··fl:~v,.·ea to ar.-es.r a•1 e.st"""OtE::>' 236r<.' .:;~r-•ar;.,4 

::;...-,....., .. ~0· a•.;.;.n,; C:" r"'ll'Sovr'H<.'Ii!'St Bc:r,;a>r 

·s•.•,e:·- "~OT£ •,•,'SIVI ca<ev•ar•or.fc .. s·.••g ~ J.>~Ops <5 _:<, 120 n 0 ·~-otVf!''" f>;>$ ~·-::) •V# •$ C<::Jpp <!!"0 !":I 

A ~t>o of 0.305' was use-d tt;> cc:>o,;lotesupporr; 

r11 1.1irernent 

• "'n!"'""Or(::;.-.a' crgr...,cs r::: <:IC"''O!I'~>'t f!J" i"7"f: •V07E 

.:::95 easoelu'e CC CN US ln:::re3le ~"'<! '>-'o'SII,->1 ca•C:..><CJr::::,..,f~:;.- OCOi''f..<'S O:Ti£ is .343, 

J. sc-= 

... 

1.71-6 OPl.A Tot:alln.a..a.sa 

..., "~"'-""''If"" Plis l'a•ve ·s :::rJ.ppceo ro '""'''r V'!e ;..s, 

;;q,,~r•i,..,..,. FTi£ rorc<• to 1,.500 

P:~f~crs Me i-<5, "''"',.,.'"<il'"' r;f r:·e '"-<il'"'1'-''"'" ~c 

s!Jopc•·r a s.oooca "'·•.!SE~"' O:TE ,,.,c,..•oJ:.r 

A "tl'tio ofO 66 wus used ro-co-•'cvla.te .support 

requirement 

1'<:-.t_f•<!!-Cr.> t"e <•">C~"<!-CI..>l<''"<ii'Q'-"""-<i!'d !;OC"'O.>J: OPJ.A rc 

a C""t (eve fl.''' Fi£ 

P.ef••:::t.> t'i'le .c;; ,.,..,,.,.,.,. .. ,.. e_f FTii requ ''"t" roJ:voe:::rc ,,..,., ..!.SOO .....::;, Fi£ i"l::re:;~rs~ 

Rii:f<E::rs l:f"e oC£ '"'""'"''l:>li',. of FTE "4N~v ;,.._..a ro 

.f:_;pr:-c,..r :::r .5, :::OQCS P-VSi!!P F7E ,,.,::.-eas;r 

R-ef<e::r..> !"'1~ •C£ "''-'"'"'l.?er of Fii£ ..-e~u ireo ro 

.SI .. •,t;PC:"'I:: t"'H $.500 £1:?0 ;:7£ ,,..,crea.re 

'""' FYl5 "M i~tsGd •rre!n ""crl<.leOIJd' metr•c was prov•ded bv LES..A, FY:l6metricscould not be produced t:1 rnelv enovgh for 

this an ai'(SI'i 

........ ~ee :51...pp-1ern ental OPL.:O. Per$0nn el Category Chart below 

......... OA"!i:su,.,....<I!S HS.I and ERC FTE QUOt<l'~ do ne-t on::!ud.a r~it:>s<on :upp~rt Staff 
141 

Question#: 23 

Topic: UASI Grant 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20!8 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The FY18 DHS budget makes significant cuts to grant programs, such as the 

Urban Area Initiative Area (UASI) grant, that help states and localities keep communities 

safe. You testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 25 that you 

asked your staff to review every DHS grant program to evaluate their effectiveness and 

whether they should be continued. 

Please provide a summary of these reviews, as well as any analysis that was used to 

support cuts to grant programs in the FY2018 DHS budget. 

Response: Reductions to state and local grants are proposed in order to ensure adequate 

funding for core Department of Homeland Security missions and national priorities, 

encourage grant recipients share responsibility for the cost of preparedness activities in 

their own budgets, and fund those activities that demonstrate the greatest return on 

security investments. Reductions are consistent with the President's budget blue print 

priorities to stand prepared for emergency response and disaster recovery, eliminating 

funding for programs to ensure the federal government is not supplanting other 

stakeholders' responsibilities. 

Preparedness is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments. Since 2002, 

the federal government has allocated over $4 7 billion in grants to support state and local 

preparedness investments. Those funds have been put to good use to greatly expand 

preparedness capabilities; however we have been unable to demonstrate the results of 

those investments. The federal government should now focus on ensuring that funding is 

directed to address any remaining capability gaps and national priorities. It is time for 

state and local governments to contribute more toward their own preparedness needs so 

the federal cost share can be reduced. Grantees will potentially need to reprioritize 

funding or funding amounts to address their highest priority national capability gaps and 

national capability gaps. 

In order to identify priority investment needs, FEMA works with our state, local, tribal 

and territorial partners to assess their current capabilities as well as resource and training 

gaps. 

FEMA requires states, territories, major urban areas, and tribes receiving Homeland 

Security Grant Program (HSGP) funds to review their Threat and Hazard Identification 

and Risk Assessment (TJ:IIRA), update as relevant annually and submit them to FEMA. 

THIRA provides a four-step adaptable process to assess risk. Using the guidance 

established in Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 201, Second Edition each jurisdiction 
142 

Question#: 23 

Topic: VAS! Grant 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

assesses its own risks and establishes specific capability targets for each of the 32 core 

capabilities to meet those risks. 

Once each jurisdiction has determined capability targets through the THIRA process, 

states and territories assess current capability levels against those targets in the annual 

State Preparedness Report (SPR). The outputs from the THIRA and SPR provide an 

accounting of current capability levels and descriptions of potential shortfalls for each 

core capability in the areas of planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercises. 

States and territories use this information to prioritize resources where they are needed 

most. 

Grantees applying for State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) funding must describe 

in their investments justifications how projects funded by grant dollars will address their 

high priority capability gaps. Grantees, and FEMA, use the THIRA and SPR as a basis 

for measuring grantees' progress in closing shortfalls over time and gauging their ability 

to reach the level of preparedness described in their THIRA. Each year, FEMA reports on 

progress toward closing national capability gaps in the National Preparedness Report, 

which draws upon the THIRA, SPR, and other data sources. 

Question: Were state and local stakeholders consulted in this decision, and if so, please 

provide a list of whom. 

Response: As part of the Executive Branch, the proposed reductions or elimination of 

grants were publicly announced as part of the President's budget proposal and reflected 

in the Fiscal Year 2018 DHS budget proposal. The Department continuously evaluates, 

reprioritizes, and adjusts policy within state and local grant programs in order to ensure 

adequate funding for core Department of Homeland Security missions and national 

priorities, encourage grant recipients share responsibility for the cost of preparedness 

activities in their own budgets, and fund those activities that demonstrate the greatest 

return on security investments that focus on national priorities. 

Question: How is DHS working with states and localities to help them prepare for a 

potential loss of funding? 

Response: Beyond the $1.9 billion that the Department is requesting for grants to support 

homeland security officials, emergency managers, and first responders, FEMA and the 

Department will strive to ensure adequate funding tor core Department of Homeland 

Security missions, encourage grant recipients share responsibility and support responders 
143 

Question#: 23 

Topic: UASI Grant 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

through other direct support activities including, but not limited to, technical assistance, 

training, and exercises. 
144 

Question#: 24 

Topic: Inquiries from Democratic Lawmakers 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel recently issued guidance 

that executive branch agencies have no legal obligation to respond to congressional 

requests for information from individual members, including ranking minority 

lawmakers. The guidance says: "[i]ndividual members of Congress, including ranking 

minority members, do not have the authority to conduct oversight in the absence of a 

specific delegation by a full house, committee, or subcommittee .. .They may request 

information from the Executive Branch, which may respond at its discretion, but such 

requests do not trigger any obligation to accommodate congressional needs and are not 

legally enforceable through a subpoena or contempt proceedings." 

Have you or has anyone on your staff been asked or directed by the White House to limit 

responses, in any way, to requests or inquiries from Democratic lawmakers? 

Response: No. The White House has neither asked, nor directed, the Department of 

Homeland Security to limit, in any way, a response to a request or an inquiry from a 

Democratic Member of Congress. 
145 

Question#: 25 

Topic: Status Requests 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: Below are several outstanding requests I have made to DHS which to date 

have not been answered. Please provide the status of each. 

Responses to Questions for the Record from April 5, 2017 HSGAC hearing on 

"Improving Border Security and Public Safety." 

Response to May 16 letter to Acting CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan regarding the 

use of polygraphs as part of the CBP hiring process. 

Response to May 16 letter to Secretary Kelly regarding ICE plans to use private detention 

facilities. 

Response: Each item is currently undergoing internal clearance to ensure they're 

accurate and full responses will be provided to you as soon as possible. 
146 

Question#: 26 

Topic: New DACA Guidance 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: In a June 15, 2017 press release announcing the discontinuation of the 

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), the 

DHS announced that "The June 15, 2012 memorandum that created the Deferred Action 

for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program will remain in effect." The White House later 

clarified that "no final determination has been made" regarding DACA. 

Since January 20,2017, have any new policies or guidance related to DACA or DACA 

recipients been issued? If so, please provide any such documents. 

Response: USCIS has not issued new substantive formal policy guidance related to the 

DACA process since January 20, 2017. 

Question: Have DACA Standard Operating Procedures changed since January 20, 2017? 

If so, please describe such changes and provide any related documentation. 

Response: DACA standard operating procedures have not changed. USCIS continues to 

accept and process requests for deferred action under DACA under the existing DACA 

guidelines. 

Question: During Secretary Kelly's January 10, 2017 confirmation hearing, I asked 

whether DHS would continue its policy of not using information submitted to DHS as 

part of a DACA application for enforcement purposes except under certain 

circumstances. Is this policy still in effect? 

Response: This policy is still in effect in accordance with the instructions on Form I821 D and the Fn:qu.:ntlv Asked Question # 19 found on the USCIS website: 

"Q19: Will the information I share in my request for consideration ofDACA be 

used for immigration enforcement purposes? 

A 19: Information provided in this request is protected from disclosure to ICE and CBP 

for the purpose of immigration enforcement proceedings unless the requestor meets the 

criteria for the issuance of a Notice To Appear or a referral to ICE under the criteria set 

forth in USCIS' Notice to Appear guidance (www.uscis.gov/NT A). Individuals whose 

cases are deferred pursuant to DACA will not be referred to ICE. The information may 

be shared with national security and law enforcement agencies, including ICE and CBP, 

for purposes other than removal, including for assistance in the consideration ofDACA, 

to identify or prevent fraudulent claims, for national security purposes, or for the 

investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense. The above information sharing policy 
147 

Question#: 26 

Topic: New DACA Guidance 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20 18 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

covers family members and guardians, in addition to the requestor. This policy, which 

may be modified, superseded, or rescinded at any time without notice, is not intended to, 

does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or 

procedural, enforceable by law by any party in any administrative, civil, or criminal 

matter." 
148 

Question#: 27 

Topic: DACA Recipients in DHS Custody 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURJTY (SENATE) 

Question: Please provide the number of current or former DACA recipients, who are in 

DHS custody broken down by detention facility. 

Please provide the number, for each immigration court, of current or former DACA 

recipients who have been put into removal proceedings between January 20, 2017 and the 

date of your response to these questions? 

Response: Attached is a chart showing the total number of current or former Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients in U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) detention, broken down by detention facility, as of June 24, 2017. 

ICE defers to the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review 

regarding questions related to removal proceedings in immigration courts. 

Additionally, ICE notes that DACA is an exercise ofprosecutorial discretion for a 

temporary period and may be terminated at any time by the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), with or without a Notice of Intent to Terminate. As the June 

15,2012 DACA memorandum specifically advises, "[t]his memorandum confers no 

substantive right, immigration status, or pathway to citizenship. Only Congress, acting 

through its legislative authority, can confer these rights." 

My February 20, 2017 memorandum entitled, Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to 

Serve the National interest, guides DHS's immigration enforcement policies and 

operations and keeps the tenets ofDACA in place. However, DACA recipients who are 

enforcement priorities may be subject to enforcement action, which has been the case 

since the inception of the policy. 
149 

Current or Former Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Recipients in 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention as of June 24,2017 

~~ 

l>ctention Facility Current or Former I>ACA Recipients 

ABRAXAS ACADEMY DETENTION CENTER I 

ADELANTO DETENTION FACILITY 27 

ALBANY COUNTY JAIL I 

ATLANTA PRETRIAL DETN CTR 4 

BAKER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT. 6 

BERGEN COUNTY JAIL 2 

BOONE COUNTY JAIL 2 

BRISTOL CNTY NDARTMOUTH I 

BROW ARD TRANSITIONAL CENTER 2 

BUTLER COUNTY JAIL 2 

CACHE CO. JAIL l 

CALHOUN CO., BATTLE CR,MI 5 

CCA NORTHEAST OH CORRECTS 4 

CCA, FLORENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER 6 

CHARLESTON COUNTY CORRECT I 

CHASE COUNTY JAIL 2 

CHIPPEWA CO., SSM 3 

CONTRA COSTA CO JAIL/WEST 4 

DEKALB COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 2 

DENVER CONTRACT DET. F AC. 13 

DODGE COUNTY JAIL, JUNEAU 5 

DOUGLAS COUNTY CORRECTION 3 

ELPASOSPC 3 

ELIZABETH CONTRACT D.F. 6 

ELOYFEDERALCONTRACTFAC 44 

ESSEX COUNTY JAIL 6 

ETOWAH COUNTY JAIL (AL) 2 

FOLKSTON PROCESSING CTRJDR JAMES 3 

FREDERJCK COUNTY DET. CEN I 

FREEBORN COUNTY JAIL, MN 2 

GLADES COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 12 

HALL COUNTY SHERIFF 4 

HARDIN CO JAIL 2 

HENDERSON DETENTION 5 

HOUSTON CONTRACT DET.F AC. 13 

HOWARD COUNTY DET CNTR 1 

HUDSON COUNTY JAIL 6 

ICA- FARMVILLE 15 

IMPERJAL REGIONAL ADULT DET FAC I 
150 

IRWIN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 12 

JENNLASALLE DETENTION FACILITY 10 

JOHNSON COUNTY JAIL 12 

KANKAKEE COUNTY JAIL 2 

KARNES CTY CORR CTR 1 

KROME NORTH SPC 8 

LAREDO PROCESSING CENTER 2 

MARSHALL COUNTY JAIL 2 

MCHENRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S 7 

MESA VERDE CCF 6 

MONROE COUNTY DETENTION-DORM 1 

MONROE COUNTY JAIL 2 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY JAIL 6 

MORGAN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT I 

MORROW CO. CORRECTIONAL FACILITY I 

NEVADA SOUTHERN DETENTION CENTER 5 

NORTHWEST DET. CENTER 21 

ORANGE COUNTY JAIL 2 

OT A Y MESA DETENTION CENTER 10 

OTERO CO PROCESSING CENTER 3 

PENNINGTON COUNTY JAIL SD I 

PHOENIX DJST OFFICE I 

PIKE COUNTY JAIL 2 

PINE PRAIRIE CORRECTIONAL CENTER 3 

PLATTE COUNTY JAIL 1 

PLYMOUTH COUNTY H.O.C. 2 

POLK COUNTY JAIL 4 

PORT ISABEL SPC 3 

POTTAWATTAMIECOUNTY JAIL 2 

PRAIRIELAND DETENTION CENTER II 

PULASKI COUNTY JAIL 8 

RIO COSUMNES CORRECTIONS-RCCC 5 

RIO GRANDE DETENTION CENTER I 

SENECA COUNTY JAIL I 

SHERBURNE COUNTY JAIL 7 

SOUTH TEXAS DETENTION COMPLEX 9 

STEW ART DETENTION CENTER 37 

STRAFFORD CO. CORRECTION 1 

SUFFOLK HOC SBA Y I 

THEO LACY FACILITY !0 

TULSA COUNTY JAIL 5 

VIRGINIA PENINSULA REG. JAIL I 

WAKULLA COUNTY JAIL 1 

WORCESTER CO. JAIL 2 
151 

IYORK COUNTY JAIL, PA 

YUBA COUNTY JAIL ~I Note: This chart is based on data provided by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as of July 7, 

2017, as reported for the ICE Currently Detained Population as of June 24, 2017. 
152 

Question#: 28 

Topic: Encounters with DACA Recipients 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 20 18 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: What guidance has been issued to ICE and CBP officers concerning 

encounters with DACA recipients? 

Response: Secretary John Kelly's February 20, 2017 memorandum, Enforcement ofthe 

Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest states that the June 15, 2012 

memorandum entitled Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals 

Who Came to the United States as Children remains in full effect. CBP issued guidance 

in June 2012 and again in June 2017, advising officers to generally continue to exercise 

discretion with respect to those individuals who currently have deferred action under 

DACA, absent derogatory information. Officers were also advised that individuals who 

have been provided deferred action under DACA require advanced parole to travel and 

seek entry at a port of entry. 
153 

Question#: 29 

Topic: Advance Paroles 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: How many DACA recipients have applied for, and how many have been 

granted, advance paroles this year (please break down by month)? How many of these 

recipients who traveled abroad were denied reentry into the United States, and for what 

reasons? 

Response: This data represents advance parole receipts and approvals for DACA 

recipients in fiscal year 2017. Approvals for cases in Fiscal Year 2017 have been 

provided regardless of when the case was received. 

U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services 

Form 1-131, Application for Travel Document 

Receipts and Approvals 

Advance Parole for DACA Recipients 

Fiscal Year 2017 (10/0112017-06/28/2017) 

Month Receipts Approvals 

October 2,022 1,398 

November 2,111 1,253 

December 2,589 1,167 

January 743 1,357 

February 443 1,393 

March 565 2,091 

April 708 1,745 

May 945 1,365 

June 785 444 

Grand Total 10,911 12,213 

Please note: 

I) The report reflects the most up-to-date data available at the time the report is 

generated. 

2) Not all Fiscal Year 2017 cases have been adjudicated yet. 

3) The total approval column represents 1-131 DACA Advance Parole cases approved in 

Fiscal Year 2017 regardless of the year in which they were received. 

Database Queried: June 29, 2017 
154 

Question#: 29 

Topic: Advance Paroles 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Report Created: June 29, 2017 

System: CJ Consolidated 

By: Office of Pe1jormance and Quality (OPQ), Performance Analysis and Data Reporting (PAER), 

DL 

Parameters 

Date: 10/0112016-06/2812017 

Form Number: l-131 

Application Type: DACA Recipient Advance Parole 

Data Type: Count of Receipts, Approvals 

CBP does not keep a metric on the number of recipients who traveled abroad and were 

denied reentry into the United States. 
155 

Æ 

Question#: 30 

Topic: ICE Detainers 

Hearing: The Department of Homeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request 

Primary: The Honorable Kamala D. Harris 

Committee: HOMELAND SECURITY (SENATE) 

Question: During your testimony on June 6, you stated that you were aware that a 

number of federal courts have imposed civil liability on local governments for complying 

with ICE detainer orders that were not supported by probable cause. You further stated 

that you "appreciate the fix" that this puts local jurisdictions in, and work with local law 

enforcement leaders to "to the degree that they can and are comfortable with." 

What specific guidance has been provided to local law enforcement leaders who are 

concerned about civil liability issues related to ICE detainers? 

How has DHS specifically addressed concerns raised by local law enforcement on this 

issue, as well as the underlying constitutional concerns around due process? 

Response: To date, the Department of Homeland Security has not provided any specific 

guidance to local law enforcement leaders about civil liability issues relating to U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers. To ensure compliance with all 

applicable laws and to ensure state and local law enforcement may honor its detainers, 

ICE has implemented policies and procedures to ensure its detainers are supported by 

probable cause of removability and are accompanied by an administrative warrant. The 

Department also continues to engage with state and local law enforcement agencies 

regarding Immigration and Nationality Act section 287(g) agreements and other effective 

means of improving enforcement of the immigration laws and protecting public safety. 

The Department also continues to consult with the Department of Justice regarding 

federal and state detainer authorities and to represent the interests of the Federal 

government in related litigation. 

Question: Please provide the stakeholders, including states, local law enforcement and 

jurisdictions that DHS consulted with on the proposal included in the President's FY18 

budget to drastically expand 8 U.S.C 1373. 

Response: The Department of Homeland Security did not specifically engage nonFederal stakeholders regarding that provision of the President's Fiscal Year 2018 budget.