[Senate Hearing 115-141]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-141
NOMINATION OF JOHN F. KELLY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATION OF JOHN F. KELLY, TO BE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
__________
JANUARY 10, 2017
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-766 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
STEVE DAINES, Montana KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
Daniel P. Lips, Policy Director
Brooke N. Ericson, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security
Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
Anna E. Laitin, Minority Senior Advisor
Sarah R. Garcia, Minority Senior Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Bonni E. Dinerstein, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Johnson.............................................. 1
Senator McCaskill............................................ 3
Senator Enzi................................................. 17
Senator Tester............................................... 23
Senator Daines............................................... 26
Senator Peters............................................... 28
Senator Harris............................................... 30
Senator Paul................................................. 33
Senator Hassan............................................... 35
Senator Lankford............................................. 37
Senator Heitkamp............................................. 39
Senator Hoeven............................................... 42
Prepared statements:
Senator Johnson.............................................. 47
Senator McCaskill............................................ 49
WITNESSES
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Hon. John McCain, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona 5
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Hon. Robert M. Gates, Former Secretary at the U.S. Department of
Defense........................................................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Hon. Thomas R. Carper, a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware 9
Prepared statement........................................... 56
General John F. Kelly, USMC (Ret.), to be Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
Testimony.................................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Biographical and financial information....................... 66
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 84
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 87
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 157
Letters of Support/Opposition................................ 186
APPENDIX
Charts submitted by Senator Johnson.............................. 205
NOMINATION OF JOHN F. KELLY
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:32 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, Paul, Lankford,
Enzi, Hoeven, Daines, McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp,
Peters, Hassan, and Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. This hearing of the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is called to order.
I want to welcome General Kelly. His family, his wife,
daughter, and son-in-law are here, and I will not steal your
thunder. I will let you introduce them in your opening remarks.
I would certainly like to welcome Secretary Gates, it is a
real honor and privilege to have met you and to have you
introducing General Kelly.
I do want to welcome our new Members. They are not all
here, but we do have Senator Hassan from New Hampshire, Senator
Harris from California, Senator Hoeven from North Dakota, and
Senator Daines from Montana have joined our Committee. I really
want to welcome all of you.
I want to welcome the members of the audience, which is a
good time to issue a warning. I know in our first confirmation
hearing earlier this morning there were disruptions. Those will
not be tolerated. I want to remind the audience members that
disruption of congressional business is not just unfair to
those who wish to watch this hearing, it is a violation of law
and a criminal offense. The Capitol Police are authorized to
immediately remove any individual who disrupts these
proceedings, and we will restore order. So, again, that is the
fair warning. I want the audience members and I want everybody
here in America to witness these confirmation hearings and
certainly the display of a fine American.
We have Senator Harris from California. Welcome.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. It is an honor for me to preside as
Chairman of this Committee for my second Congress, and
certainly this is the first hearing of the full Committee of
the 115th Congress. This Committee has a history of
bipartisanship. When I joined the Senate 6 years ago, Senators
Lieberman and Collins provided that leadership. Then it was
Senator Carper as Chairman and Senator Coburn. Last Congress,
it was myself and Senator Carper. And now I am happy to welcome
my new Ranking Member, Senator McCaskill from Missouri.
Just as an example of our bipartisan cooperation, in the
last Congress this Committee passed 83 pieces of legislation
out of the Committee; 56 of those pieces of legislation were
passed out of the Senate, and 49 were signed into law--and some
relatively significant pieces of legislation. The way we have
done that is by concentrating on areas of agreement. And what
we first and foremost agree on as Members of this Committee, I
think members of the audience as Americans, we all share the
same goal. We all want a safe, a prosperous, and secure
America. And in this Committee, we established a mission
statement. It is pretty simple: To enhance the economic and
national security of America.
We established four goals for the homeland security side:
Border security. We held 19 hearings.
Trips. One down to Central America where General Kelly
escorted us in Guatemala.
Cybersecurity. Protect our critical infrastructure.
Combating Islamic terror.
And the fifth goal really was working with Secretary Jeh
Johnson to make sure that he could fulfill his mission of
keeping this Nation safe. And, of course, the Quadrennial
Review completed in 2014 for the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) mirrors those goals and those priorities, those
missions.
So that is why we have been able to cooperate and achieve
those kind of bipartisan results, and that is certainly what we
are looking forward to.
General Kelly, I know you have some extraordinary people
here that are going to be introducing you, so I will not steal
their thunder, but just to say that I think, you are just an
extraordinary individual, a great American who has served
faithfully and sacrificed mightily for this Nation, you and
your family. It is a family affair, and we recognize that, four
star general, a Gold Star parent. Your experience as head of
U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) with the threats this Nation
faces, our unsecured border, you fully understand what the
causation of that is, what the root causes are.
As head of Southern Command, in many respects you served as
America's chief diplomat to the region, and you did a splendid
job. And so I cannot think of a more qualified individual at
this point in time to serve as the fifth Secretary of Homeland
Security. So I just want to personally thank you for your past
service, your past sacrifice, and your willingness to answer
the call one more time for America.
So, again, thank you. I think it is incumbent on this
Committee and I think it is incumbent on the U.S. Senate to
recognize how important it is for any President to be able to
set up and establish their national security team from day one.
It is certainly what happened in 2009 with Secretary Janet
Napolitano. I think that is exactly what should happen with
General Kelly, the Senate hopefully will confirm General Kelly
on the first day of the Administration.
There are a number of written statements provided to this
Committee which I would ask to be entered in the record
together with my written opening statement,\1\ without
objection.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 47.
\2\ The additional statements referenced by Senator Johnson appear
in the Appendix on page 186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will also say, because I am sure we will have great
attendance--we have Senator Hassan here, I appreciate you
certainly joining this Committee--I could either go 5-minute
rounds to quicken it, or we can go a full 7--I think I will go
a full 7, but we want to really discipline that. So watch the
time, be asking questions not beyond that. And General Kelly
has also agreed to look at the clock, so every Senator can have
a chance at asking questions.
With that, I am happy to turn it over to and welcome my new
Ranking Member, Senator McCaskill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL\3\
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Chairman Johnson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the
Appendix on page 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's hearing is the first full Committee hearing of the
new Congress and the Committee's first hearing on one of
President-elect Trump's nominees. I welcome a working
relationship with you. We have worked together before on a
Subcommittee, and I know we have many areas of agreement and
just a few of disagreement. But I am confident we can work past
those and do some good work on behalf of the American people,
and especially in the area of aggressive oversight of our
government.
As Members of this Committee and the Senate, we have a
constitutional obligation to review the nominations made by the
President and consent to their appointment. We are not here to
participate in a partisan or a political exercise; we are here
to fulfill the Senate's constitutional obligation as part of
the orderly transfer of power to a new Administration.
General Kelly has answered all of the Committee's advance
questions and has provided all the information required for us
to hold this hearing. I cannot say how grateful I am that that
occurred. It was going to be an awkward moment when I was going
to have to object to this hearing because the Office of
Government Ethics or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
check had not been completed. But I am pleased to report that
all was completed, and I have had a chance to review all of
that information, and I am very appreciative of that, Mr.
Chairman.
Welcome, General Kelly. Thank you for your service to this
country and, most importantly, thank you for being willing to
serve again. It is very important that people stand up when
their country calls, and I appreciate your willingness to do
that.
You have been asked to serve as the fifth Secretary of
Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security has the
tremendous responsibility to protect our homeland, its people,
and its infrastructure.
At this moment in our history, I cannot emphasize enough
the need to protect our critical infrastructure--whether that
is electric grids, public transportation, or power plants. We
need to understand what steps you will take to defend that
infrastructure against intrusion and harm.
Our intelligence community (IC), of which DHS is a vital
part, is among the finest in the world. I would argue it is the
finest in the world. It is made up of dedicated public
servants, including members of our military. In order for these
people to do their job of protecting Americans in an
increasingly challenging environment, they need the support of
our government, all the way to the top. I want to understand
whether you will take intelligence seriously and engage with
the people whose job it is to give us good information so that
we can make better decisions and so that the President-elect
can make better decisions.
In your answers to the Committee's questions before this
hearing, you said that drug demand in the United States is
causing much of the violence in Central and South America, and
that this violence is the major reason for the large number of
people moving illegally from that area into the United States.
The issues underlying border security are complex, but one
thing is clear: Many of the people coming across the border are
not trying to sneak in under the fence or evade the Border
Patrol; they are seeking refuge from the incredible violence in
their home countries. I know that your experience at SOUTHCOM
will help you in developing a comprehensive, inclusive approach
to addressing immigration and border issues.
I was also encouraged to see you discuss the necessity of
engaging law enforcement, medical treatment and rehabilitation,
and local communities in a comprehensive drug demand reduction
campaign that includes the opioid epidemic as a big driver of
heroin use. If you are confirmed, I hope that this will remain
at the top of your priority list.
Another major component of protecting the homeland is the
Department's counterterrorism efforts that you are very
familiar with, with your experience as an important leader in
our military. In today's environment, effective
counterterrorism efforts require using existing and new
technology, as well as other tools, to counter evolving
adversaries across shifting geographic borders. I plan to ask
how you will address this challenge in new and innovative ways.
I also hope that you will employ the same thoughtful and
multifaceted approach to counterterrorism as in your proposal
to address the challenges at our border.
Recent events have shown us that terrorism has many faces.
We have to get at root causes of extremism and also must ensure
that people in our communities feel empowered to report
concerns. I hope to hear from you today that you understand
that our fight against violent extremism is not singular in its
focus, and that you will fight against any narrative that
encourages committing crimes against any Americans based on
hate or country of origin.
As Members of this Committee, we also have a Constitutional
responsibility to conduct oversight of taxpayer dollars. This
is one of my favorite areas. I can tell you right now that if
you are confirmed, when you come before Congress to seek funds,
you have to be prepared to answer some tough questions. I
particularly am going to continue to be interested in
contracting and cost-benefit analyses. I am going to want to
see Independent Government Cost Estimates, performance plans,
and real metrics. Decisions must be made on facts and data.
I expect someone with your experience to be a strong
leader. But even the best-managed Federal agency has waste,
fraud, and abuse. I believe that whistleblowers are essential
to good government, and I have made it one of my missions to
expand and enhance protections for them. I want to make sure
that you understand that open lines of communication,
responsiveness to employee concerns, and a swift response to
retaliation are things I expect from agency leadership. I also
encourage any whistleblowers to contact my office if they have
information to report.
I believe you will also take seriously the role of
congressional oversight in your new role. I am glad that you
have already agreed to work with me as Ranking Member of this
Committee because we have a lot of work to do. If you are
confirmed, I will look forward to building a strong working
relationship with you.
Our country is facing a difficult time, and we have
difficult problems to solve. The Department of Homeland
Security needs good management and strong leadership. In your
responses to the questionnaire and in our meeting before this
hearing, you said that one of your greatest strengths as a
leader is ``speaking truth to power.'' General Kelly, I cannot
tell you how that was music to my ears. I believe very much in
that principle, and I think that we all anticipate that you
will need it in your next job, where you will have the
responsibility and the obligation to speak truth to the
Commander-in-Chief, who has used some of his most extreme and
divisive rhetoric about issues under the Department of Homeland
Security's jurisdiction. Given your experience, I expect you to
be up to that challenge. And if I think you are backing down,
you will probably hear from me.
I thank you for being here today, and I look forward to
your testimony.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
We have three distinguished individuals making
introductions of General Kelly. We will start with Senator
McCain, who needs no introduction. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. But he enjoys it. [Laughter.]
Chairman Johnson. I did not have anything written up.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN MCCAIN,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
McCaskill, and Members of the Committee. It is an honor to say
a few words in support of General John Kelly's nomination to be
the next Secretary of Homeland Security. He is an excellent
choice, superbly well-qualified for the position, and a person
of the highest integrity. The American people are fortunate
that a man of his caliber is again willing to serve them in an
important office after having already devoted many decades of
his life to the distinguished service of our country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator McCain appears in the
Appendix on page 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When he retired from his last command, Commander of the
U.S. Southern Command, General Kelly was the longest serving
Marine Corps general still on active duty, having worn the
uniform for almost half a century. He was the longest serving
active duty general in Marine Corps history, I believe. In
fact, I think he was the second longest serving general officer
in the entire Armed Forces. Only the late General John Vessey,
also an officer of the highest integrity and selfless devotion
to duty, served longer, 46 years to General Kelly's 45.
When he was nearing the end of his tour as SOUTHCOM
commander and approaching retirement, he said in an interview
that his ``greatest fear was that I would be offered another
job.''
Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt whatsoever that General
Kelly's statement was entirely sincere. Those of us who have
had the privilege of knowing General Kelly for a while, who
have heard him testify before our committees, and paid
attention to his answers to our questions know that John Kelly
says what he believes to be the truth, always, no matter the
inconvenience it might cause him. Speaking truth to power is
something he is renowned for, and no less so for his respect
for the chain of command.
Secretary Gates, who is here, one of our great leaders,
will mention his relationship with him when they served
together.
If anyone has earned a peaceful retirement from public
duty, it is General Kelly. But he is a patriot always. And like
Jack Vessey, his peer in length of active duty service, he does
not refuse his country's call. President Reagan called General
Vessey out of retirement to serve as his special emissary to
Vietnam to get an accounting for America's missing from the
war. President-elect Trump has asked General Kelly to lead the
Department of Homeland Security and help keep the American
people safe from those who wish us harm. It is work he is
obviously well qualified for.
He served three tours of duty in Iraq and was a key figure
in helping sustain the Anbar Awakening that, with the surge,
turned around a war that we were near to losing. In that role,
he learned the value of developing local relationships based on
mutual respect--a lesson that served him well in future
commands.
As SOUTHCOM commander, General Kelly was highly regarded
for the skill and success he had developing close working
relationships with the civilian and military leaders of Latin
America and the Caribbean. Many of those leaders consider him a
friend. They all respect him.
Even more important for his pending assignment, General
Kelly has extensive experience with many of the challenges that
await him as Homeland Security Secretary: the threats to our
security posed by drugs and violence that make their way into
our country across our Southern Border, and the potential for
developing strains of Islamic extremism in the hemisphere to
foment terrorist attacks here. He is the right man to meet
these and the many other challenges awaiting him.
General Kelly is not, I am sorry to say, a graduate of the
United States Naval Academy. It might surprise the Committee
that I do not find that lack of credential disqualifying. I
barely graduated from the place myself. But he has more
impressive credentials. He enlisted in the United States Marine
Corps (USMC).
General Kelly came from modest beginnings, as do most
enlisted men and women in all our armed services. He is the
proud son of his working-class family and the great city of
Boston. In conversations with me, he has recalled the childhood
friends he has lost to the scourge of drug abuse.
Before he went to college, he volunteered to risk his life
and limb in an infantry company in the 2nd Marine Division. He
was a sergeant when he left the Corps and a second lieutenant
when he returned to it 4 years later. What followed was an
exemplary career, with many challenging assignments, and quite
a few very dangerous ones, to which he gave every measure of
his talent, discipline, courage and love of country.
General Kelly has sacrificed a great deal for his country.
More than most. And in every day of his service, he knew and
respected and remains in awe of the courage and dedication of
the men and women, enlisted and officers, who stand in harm's
way so that the rest of us can pursue our aspirations and live
our peaceful lives without fear of the terrors they face for
our sake.
Should he be confirmed, as he deserves to be and I am
confident he will be, he will be entitled to the appellation
``The Honorable.'' Few cabinet secretaries will have deserved
it more. I endorse his nomination wholeheartedly, with
gratitude for his willingness to serve and for the honor of
introducing him to you today.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Our next distinguished guest offering an introduction will
be Senator Carper, who also needs no introduction.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to
Secretary Gates. In fact, I would like to do that, if you do
not mind. Thank you for the courtesy.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Our next guest then is Secretary
Robert Gates. Secretary Gates is the former Secretary of
Defense and former Director of Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA). Secretary Gates led the Department of Defense (DOD) from
2006 to 2011. Prior to this, Secretary Gates served as the
president of Texas A&M University from 2002 to 2006. Secretary
Gates began his career as an officer in the United States Air
Force (USAF) and joined the Central Intelligence Agency in
1966. He served 26 years at the CIA and is the only career CIA
officer to rise from an entry-level employee to Director, the
position he held from 1991 to 1993.
Secretary Gates has earned numerous honors and distinctions
during his career, including the National Security Medal, the
Presidential Citizens Medal, the National Intelligence
Distinguished Service Medal twice, and the Distinguished
Intelligence Medal, which is the CIA's highest award, three
times.
Welcome, Secretary Gates. It is an honor to have you here
today to introduce General Kelly. Secretary Gates.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT M. GATES,\1\ FORMER SECRETARY
OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Gates. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member
McCaskill, distinguished Members of the Committee on Homeland
Security and Government Affairs. It gives me great pleasure to
introduce my friend and former colleague, John F. Kelly, as the
President's nominee to be the next Secretary of Homeland
Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Gates appears in the Appendix on
page 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's world, the Department of Homeland Security is
much like a combat command, perhaps the most complex such
command defending our Nation and our people. Among its diverse
responsibilities are protecting us from terrorism, guarding our
borders and coasts, deciding who gets into the country,
protecting our transportation networks and infrastructure,
defense against cyber attacks, and providing help when disaster
strikes. I can think of no one more qualified, more familiar
with these threats and challenges, or better prepared to lead
our homeland defense than John Kelly.
The Department of Homeland Security, as this Committee well
knows, is a complicated mix of multiple agencies and
organizations with different cultures and histories. Yet, as
commander of Southern Command, General Kelly successfully
managed relationships and partnerships with seven different
Cabinet departments and in all more than 20 civilian
organizations. Leading a combatant command these days requires
managing multiple domestic and foreign relationships, and
General Kelly did so with great skill and success. I am
confident he would do so, as well, as Secretary of Homeland
Security.
In addition, as Senior Military Assistant to two
Secretaries of Defense, John successfully helped lead the
largest and most complex organization in the country. He was
invaluable to me and to Leon Panetta in helping break down
bureaucratic barriers to cooperation and in holding senior
officials accountable for decisions and for performance. And
the needs of the troops on the front lines were always foremost
for him.
Of special importance to this Committee, John Kelly was
twice assigned as Marine Corps liaison to the Congress, the
second time as the Commandant's Senior Legislative Assistant.
As a result, he has a deep understanding of the legislative
process, and especially of the need to be responsive to
Congress and to have a relationship of openness and trust.
In terms of skills and experience, General Kelly is, in my
view, superbly qualified to serve as Secretary. But it is
John's character and values that truly set him apart. To put it
quite simply, he is one of the finest people I have ever known.
I would trust him with my life, and, indeed, many others,
mainly young Marines, literally have done so. And how often is
it that a tough commander genuinely is beloved by his troops?
Integrity in word and deed is the source of moral
authority, and it is moral authority that moves people to
follow a leader even at personal risk and sacrifice. John Kelly
is a man of great moral authority. If he is confirmed, the
professionals throughout the Department of Homeland Security
will realize that their new Secretary cares about each and
every one of them, and that he will do everything in his power
to protect and support them and to get them what they need to
do their jobs--protecting all of us.
I commend the President-elect for nominating General Kelly
for this position because, as I know firsthand, John is a
straight-talking, candid, courageous leader who will say
exactly what he thinks. His values are a reflection of
America's best values, and he will not disappoint.
Over a military career spanning more than 40 years, John
Kelly and his family have sacrificed much serving our country,
and yet here he is willing to serve again. It is with great
pride that I introduce him to you today.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Secretary Gates. Senator
Carper.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS R. CARPER,\1\ A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations to our new Ranking Member, Claire McCaskill.
And to see all of my colleagues from this point of view, it is
good to see you all up there.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Carper appears in the
Appendix on page 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a privilege to join Senator McCain, with whom I
served during the Vietnam War, and I would just say from my
vantage point, John, you are a hero, and I am proud to have
served with you and proud to know you today and to sit with you
today.
Secretary Gates, you are one of the finest Secretaries of
Defense we have ever had, and I am honored to be with you today
as well.
We are introducing a man, as you know, who needs little
introduction to this Committee, General John Francis Kelly, and
welcoming him and his wife, Karen, and their daughter,
Kathleen, and her husband, Jake, sitting behind us, to this
confirmation hearing.
Karen, I said to your husband yesterday, given all the
years that he has served and you have allowed him to serve, for
you no purgatory, straight to heaven. So thank you for
continuing to share with us an extraordinary man.
Created about a dozen or so years ago, the Department of
Homeland Security's 240,000 employees get up every day. They go
to work. They go to work to protect our homeland and all of us
who are privileged to live here. Almost every month for the
past 4 years, I have gone to the Senate floor, as some of my
colleagues know, to talk about the remarkable work that they do
for all of us. They respond to devastating hurricanes, saving
lives, and helping people put their lives back together. They
protect us from cyber attacks and help secure thousands of
miles of our country's borders to the north and to the south,
and or shorelines to the east and to the west.
They expedite the movement of billions of dollars of
commerce every day while intercepting drugs and disrupting
human smuggling and trafficking rings. They keep us safe when
we fly the sometimes not so friendly skies of this country and
this world. They protect Presidents and Vice Presidents and
their families as well as candidates for these offices and the
leaders of scores of other nations who come here. They do all
of this and a whole lot more, oftentimes without a word of
thanks.
General John Kelly is an exceptionally well qualified
nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security, as you
have heard. If confirmed, he would succeed another exceptional
leader--Secretary Jeh Johnson. Jeh, with the help of his
leadership team, this Committee, and Congress, has begun, I
think, a remarkable transformation of the Department that was
badly needed and is much welcomed.
I have found over my lifetime that the key to success of
any organization, whether it is military, government, business,
or whatever, the success of any organization I have ever been a
part of or witnessed is almost always enlightened leadership.
John Kelly is a leader. He is humble, not haughty. He has the
heart of a servant. He understands that his job has been and
will be to serve, not be served.
He leads by example. With General Kelly, it is not, ``Do as
I say, but do as I do.'' He has the courage to stay out of step
when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune. He surrounds
himself with the best people he can find, and when his team
does well, he gives them the credit. And when the team falls
short, he takes the blame. He does not believe in raising
himself up by pushing other people down. He is a purveyor of
hope and consistently appeals to people's better angels.
Throughout John Kelly's 45 years of military service in the
Marine Corps, he has sought to do what is right, not what is
easy or expedient. He embraces the Golden Rule, treating other
people the way he would want to be treated. He looks at
adversity and sees opportunity. He believes that everything we
do, we can do better. He is tenacious. There is no quit in this
man. And when he knows he is right, he does not give up.
When we met in my office yesterday, General Kelly spoke of
the importance of addressing the root causes of some of the
problems and challenges that we face as a Nation, not just the
symptoms of those problems. As an example, he cited the
transformation of Colombia from an almost failed nation 20
years ago to a far different one today and a valued ally and
trading partner of ours.
He also spoke of our addiction to drugs and how that is the
root cause of much of the violence and lawlessness in countries
like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. And while he spoke
thoughtfully and creatively of ways to better secure our
Southern Border with Mexico--for example, he understands that
those steps need to be coupled with others embodied in the
Alliance for Prosperity adopted by Honduras, Guatemala, and El
Salvador, supported by the United States, much as we have
supported Plan Colombia for two decades.
And, finally, General Kelly understands the importance of
working cooperatively with the Congress, and Secretary Gates
has given us a couple of explanations of why that might be, the
case with two of your tours here on Capitol Hill. But I think
you understand the importance of working especially with this
Committee.
And General Kelly may not always tell us what we want to
hear in this room, or outside of it, but he will always tell us
what we need to hear. And when it is needed, he will remind the
people he leads at the Department of Homeland Security to,
``Just use some common sense,'' the way my dad used to remind
my sister and me when we were young.
In short, he will provide the leadership that will enable
the Department of Homeland Security to continue the
transformation it has begun. In doing so, he will make us safer
as a Nation, even as he makes us prouder as a country of the
team that I hope he will be confirmed to lead.
Thank you for your willingness to do this and to my
colleagues for welcoming him and for giving me this opportunity
to speak truth to power.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
General Kelly, it is the tradition of this Committee to
swear in witnesses, so if you will please stand and raise your
right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give
before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
General Kelly. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Please be seated. General Kelly.
TESTIMONY OF GENERAL JOHN F. KELLY, USMC (Ret.),\1\ TO BE
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
General Kelly. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCaskill, and
distinguished Senators of the Committee, please accept my
thanks, my deep appreciation for considering my nomination to
lead the men and women of the United States Department of
Homeland Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly appears in the Appendix on
page 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCain, Senator Carper, and Secretary Gates, thank
you for taking the time to be here on my behalf, and for your
very kind words.
My wife and family have already been introduced, but I will
say it again. My wife, Karen, is with me here today. She is my
hero. She has put up with more in our 40 years of marriage than
you could ever imagine. And my daughter, Kathleen, is here as
well and her recent husband, Lance Corporal, United States
Marine Corps, Retired, Jake Fox, another American hero. I thank
them for their service and for their sacrifice.
Over the past 45 years, I have been privileged to serve my
country as both an enlisted Marine and an officer. I have led
platoons through divisions and corps, held senior command
positions in Iraq, served as the Combatant Commander of the
United States Southern Command, and as Secretary Gates
mentioned, as the Senior Military Assistant to two of my
heroes, Secretaries Gates and Panetta. I have worked across the
interagency. I have worked with our allies, the private sector,
and independent experts to identify innovative and
comprehensive solutions to current and emerging threats.
These assignments--while varied--shared the common
characteristics of working within and leading large, complex,
and very diverse multi-missioned organizations while under
great pressure to produce results.
I am humbled to once again be called to serve, this time
with the wonderful men and women of the Department of Homeland
Security. As a Nation, we are reminded almost daily that the
threats to our homeland have not receded in any way. The
challenges to our way of life have not diminished.
As I solemnly swore before my God when I entered the Marine
Corps, if confirmed, I will faithfully support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
and domestic--every second of every day.
I believe in America and the principles upon which our
country and way of life are guaranteed. I believe in respect,
tolerance, and diversity of opinion. I have a profound respect
for the law and will always strive to uphold it. I have never
had a problem speaking truth to power, and I firmly believe
that those in power deserve full candor and my honest
assessment and recommendations. I also value people that work
for me speaking truth to power.
I love my country, and I will do everything within my power
to preserve our liberty, enforce our laws, and protect our
citizens. I recognize the many challenges facing the
Department, and should I be confirmed, I look forward to
partnering with you to protect the homeland.
Sir, I look forward to discussing the future of the
Department and answering the Committee's questions. Thanks so
very much.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, General Kelly.
Again, I want to remind the Members I am going to limit
questions to 7 minutes, and I am going to be very disciplined
in maintaining the 7 minutes.
There are questions that I will ask, and then I will
reserve the rest of my time and defer to Senator McCain, who I
know has limited time. But let me start with three questions.
General Kelly, is there anything that you are aware of in
your background that might present a conflict of interest with
the duties of the office to which you have been nominated?
General Kelly. There is nothing, sir.
Chairman Johnson. Do you know of anything, personal or
otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have been nominated?
General Kelly. There is nothing, Senator.
Chairman Johnson. Do you agree without reservation to
comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before
any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are
confirmed?
General Kelly. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. General, as you know, we passed legislation
on the defense bill prohibiting torture, including
waterboarding. Do you intend to follow that law?
General Kelly. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator McCain. And what is your personal view of
waterboarding and other forms of torture?
General Kelly. Senator, I do not think we should ever come
close to crossing a line that is beyond what we as Americans
would expect to follow in terms of interrogation techniques.
Senator McCain. Would that be basically the Geneva
Conventions?
General Kelly. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. Thank you. there is an epidemic in this
country, and it is opioids, and it is manufactured in Mexico.
And, regrettably, according to information that I have, a lot
of it is coming across the Arizona-Mexico border into Phoenix,
Arizona, and being distributed nationwide. And as you well
know, we are experiencing a dramatic increase in deaths from
overdose, and that is taking place amongst many older Americans
that have turned from OxyContin and other substances. In fact,
the former Governor of New Hampshire will testify here, I
think, on the really severe aspects of this, what many have
called an ``epidemic.'' I am very interested in your views and
taking in the fundamental economics that if there is a demand,
there is going to be a supply. But what is your view of that
situation, General?
General Kelly. Senator, I think I would start off by saying
it is amazing to me, but I just found out very recently that an
old friend--who is not so old, 62 years old--after a very
successful life, just overdosed on heroin. And I think to your
point, it is cheaper, more available in many ways than some of
the opioids, since she could not apparently get a prescription
for what she thought she needed.
But the point is that most Americans do not realize it, but
an awful lot--100 percent of the heroin that we consume in the
United States is, in fact, produced in Mexico, and it is
creeping down now into Central America. They have responded,
the cartels, the networks have responded to the demand. So
instead of Asia and South Asia, it now is all produced here in
the Western Hemisphere. Poppies are grown in countries as far
south now as Guatemala, a little bit in Colombia, although they
are getting after it. But it is all produced here.
An awful lot of the opioids, what looks like
pharmaceuticals, are actually produced, again, in Mexico and
then pirated up here through the border. And, of course, part
of the problem, and this I think would be outside my particular
area, if confirmed, but part of the problem is we are a very
overly medicated society. Huge amounts of opioids are
prescribed legally for things that in the past would probably
not receive that level of medication.
So the point is, a huge problem, getting worse, and the
profits are just unbelievable to the cartels that control the
whole marketing and transport.
Senator McCain. There has been a great deal of conversation
about building a wall, and it has been my experience that we
need to have barriers. But building a wall is not the way to
prevent the flow of drugs or people illegally across our
border. I think it requires ranging from drones to towers to
use of some of the technological advantages that we have.
If you would, just very briefly tell us what you think is
necessary to have a secure border.
General Kelly. Yes, Senator. A physical barrier in and of
itself, certainly as a military person that understands defense
and defenses, a physical barrier in and of itself will not do
the job. It has to be really a layered defense. If you were to
build a wall from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, you would
still have to back that wall up with patrolling by human
beings, by sensors, by observation devices. But as I have said
to many of the Senators present, and I have said I think for 3
years, really I believe the defense of the Southwest border
really starts about 1,500 miles south, and that is, partnering
with some great countries, as far south as Peru really, that
are very cooperative with us in terms of getting after the drug
production, transport, very good with us--to include Mexico. We
could have better partnerships. I think we can work closer with
them. We can give them more of what they need. We certainly
share information with them now. We have legal attaches in many
of our embassies, and they developed unbelievable amounts of--
--
Senator McCain. I do not mean to interrupt----
General Kelly. I am sorry.
Senator McCain [continuing]. But is it not technology that
would help us secure the border as much as anything else? And I
am talking about surveillance; I am talking about capabilities
to intercept, but not to just sit there--in other words,
frankly, the kind of border security that we see in Israel.
General Kelly. Technology would be a big part of it, yes,
Senator.
Senator McCain. And that technology would that be drones?
General Kelly. Observation devices.
Senator McCain. Towers?
General Kelly. The aerostats, observation devices mounted
in, certain terrain features, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
for sure, sensors in places perhaps that the wall cannot be
built or will not be built anytime soon in terms of the
immensity of that project, but yes, sir.
Senator McCain. Finally, the morale of our Border Patrol is
not real good, and I think you know from your leadership
experiences that if the morale of your force is not good, then
it is hard to get the mission accomplished. And I know you are
aware of that, and I hope you will spend some time with these
really outstanding men and women who are doing arduous work,
sometimes under very difficult conditions. It gets very hot on
the Sonora-Arizona border, as you know. So there are morale
problems there. A lot of it has to do with they think they are
not given the capabilities to do their job as they think they
can do it most efficiently. And I know you will be focusing a
lot of attention on that.
General Kelly. I will, Senator.
Chairman Johnson. Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. General Kelly, on Friday, the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released a
declassified report on the assessment of Russian activities and
intentions in our recent election. I am going to quote from the
report for the record:
``Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential
election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's
longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal
democratic order. But these activities demonstrate a
significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and
scope of effort compared to previous operations.
``We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an
influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential
election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the
U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm
her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference
for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these
judgments.''
General Kelly, do you accept the conclusions of the
Intelligence Community regarding Russian interference in our
election?
General Kelly. With high confidence.
Senator McCaskill. On border security, I think that Senator
McCain covered a lot of this. I want to point out that the
budget we now have annually on border security equals the
combined budgets of FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Agency
(DEA), Secret Service, U.S. Marshals, plus the entire New York
Police Department budget. That is $19 billion in fiscal year
(FY) 2016. And in fiscal year 2016, we had 331,000 people
apprehended at the border. Almost 50 percent of those turned
themselves in. In other words, all the border security agents
in the world, all the fences in the world would not have made
any difference because they said, ``Hey, take us. We are here.
We want asylum.''
So I guess my question to you is: Do you have it on your
agenda to examine the spending priorities of that $19 billion
and look at the efficacy of every place we are spending that
money? And, most importantly, how will you address the fact
that almost half of the people coming to the border right now
that we are apprehending are not trying to evade detection;
they are just trying to find someplace safe?
General Kelly. On the first question, Senator, anytime I
have ever taken over a new organization, certainly I go top to
bottom and look real hard at how we are doing business.
Clearly, people that would have come before me, if I am
confirmed, all did a great job, Secretary Jeh Johnson and
others. But my typical approach is to do a top-to-bottom
assessment, and I certainly will do that.
On the asylum issue, I believe, I am confident that most of
the people that are coming up here from certainly Central
America are coming here for two reasons, or three probably:
One, first it is very unsafe. They are some of the most
dangerous countries on the planet, and that is unfortunate; not
only because of that, but a lot of social issues or lack of
economic development; and then, finally, they are very
confident, if they pay the money and get on the network, they
will get to the United States, and they will be--in their view
at least, unlikely that they will be going back to Honduras,
Guatemala, or other countries like that.
Senator McCaskill. I will look forward to your assessment,
and I know we talked in my office about the drug cartels and
what big role they have in the people showing up seeking
asylum, because most of the violence is attributable to that,
as opposed to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrials (DACA)
or any other pronouncements or policies of the Obama
Administration.
The last thing I want to mention to you is the enhancements
on the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). I
think people do not realize--I am aware of a situation recently
where because of the electronic enhancements, we were able to
stop someone from coming to America that was coming from a visa
waiver country to South America and then was planning on coming
to America and doing us harm, and we were able to stop that
travel. In fact, since February 2016, 40,000 individuals have
been denied visa-free travel due to the enhancements that have
been put in place.
Along with that is we have tried to do preclearance in
various countries around the world so that we are checking
people before they get on the plane with, maybe somebody would
call it, ``extreme vetting.'' That is now going on across the
globe.
Have you had a chance to look at that? And do you believe
that--I mean, because that is really the border that I am most
worried about in terms of our safety. Are people traveling here
from visa waiver countries with an eye toward doing our country
harm and our ability to stop them?
General Kelly. Senator, I think that the visa waiver
countries clearly are countries that have at least law
enforcement and information systems in place that we have
confidence in. Nothing is perfect. Many other countries, as you
know, do not have nearly that kind of system in place, and,
consequently, we would not have the confidence there. But
nothing is perfect. Many countries, again, a high degree of
confidence that their citizens that come here will not cause
problems. But, ever vigilant. And in those countries that do
not have the systems in place, I think we somehow have to
convince ourselves that everyone coming here, we have a
reasonable expectation that they will not do us harm, whether
it is crime or terrorism.
Senator McCaskill. Some of the enhancements that have been
put in place are: Are you a member of the Global Entry Program?
Have you traveled to or been present in Iraq, Sudan, Iran,
Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, or Libya on or after March 1, 2011?
Other questions that are part of this.
Do you believe it is important that we expand this program,
the enhancements and the preclearance program?
General Kelly. I think it is a good idea. I do not know
exactly the details of it, but it would appear to me that it is
a good idea. But, again, we have to have confidence in the
information that we are getting onsite to prevent people that
would come here to do us harm.
Senator McCaskill. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Senator McCaskill, I notice our next new
member has shown up, so, Senator Hoeven, welcome to the
Committee. We appreciate it.
I gave up my questioning slot to Chairman McCain. I know
Chairman Enzi also is managing some activity on the floor, so I
will defer to Chairman Enzi. And then we will get back on
schedule.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ENZI
Senator Enzi. I thank the Chairman. I do need to go back to
the floor, and I do appreciate the chance that I had to meet
with General Kelly. In my early days here in the Senate, there
was a change in the makeup of the majority, and we became the
minority, and it created a little problem of a vacancy in the
Foreign Relations Committee, and I happened to get that Foreign
Relations Committee spot. And they had to redo all the
committees, and there was one committee that apparently nobody
wanted because I became the Ranking Member on it. Now, that was
just shortly before 9/11. So right after that, I had a lot of
people saying, ``So how did the new guy get the anti-terrorism
committee?'' I was even on a United Nations (U.N.) committee
that was supposed to find the bad guys, and I guess it was
fortunate, or maybe unfortunate, that just about all of us were
accountants. So what we did was follow the money, and we got
130 countries involved in it. And several of them found the bad
guys and prosecuted the bad guys, and in some cases executed
the bad guys. And it was effective until they figured out what
we were doing.
You are going to have a huge role in the anti-terrorism
area. I think we spend $46 billion on your budget, and we have
to be sure we are finding the bad guys, and I would be
interested in any approaches that you would be doing to
effectively spend that money and develop policy that will help
us.
General Kelly. To the degree that I am familiar with what
is going on already, I think anytime that we can work with
partners overseas--and, again, we have representatives--``we''
meaning the United States law enforcement agency people, intel
people, in most of the most important countries in this regard
around the world in our embassies, and they have very good
relationships, generally speaking, with the local law
enforcement, local intel people.
I think anything we can do to, get into that level of--I
know in Southern Command, as an example, the most useful intel
I got, I used, tended to come from not the CIA, but FBI and the
DEA representatives in our embassies. But anything we can do to
kind of enhance the information sharing within the law, of
course, between other countries and ourselves, and certainly
within our own interagency, we have gotten much better at it
since 9/11 in terms of information sharing.
One of the things I definitely will get into, if confirmed,
is to find out how well that is going domestically because the
Department has some responsibilities in terms of information
sharing. We have an awful lot of great systems in place. I am
not sure, because I do not know if they are all talking to each
other and sharing in the way that they should be.
Senator Enzi. I am glad you mentioned that because one of
my pet peeves has been that for people coming into the country
legally, that we check them in on a series of computers, and we
check them out on a series of computers. But I am not sure that
we ever get the computers connected so that we could know who
was here and who was not here. I think the most effective
enforcement is if we find them as soon as their visa runs out.
So I hope that you would put that on your list of things maybe
to do.
Recently, I was flying back to Wyoming, and the person
sitting next to me was a member of the Border Patrol, and he
did not know that I was a Senator, but I was very curious about
how things were going. He had just been to a training session,
and he had been doing it for quite a while. And he was pretty
depressed, I would say had low morale, he told me that they
could do a lot of things, but because there is rampant law
breaking along the border, and he felt that orders from
Washington kind of tied his hands, that they could not respond
effectively.
As a commander, I know you relied on your officers and your
troops and you developed plans and you executed missions, and
in some very difficult situations for keeping the morale of the
people that were under you going.
Have you developed any plans for how you are going to check
on the Border Patrol and see if there are some morale things
that could be changed?
General Kelly. Yes, sir. One of the things I have always
done, learned from some of the finest leaders, I think,
certainly in the U.S. military, you have to get out and about.
You have to get out and, figuratively speaking, kick the tires,
look around. Interesting you should make that point. Just prior
to my leaving active duty, because I worked so closely with
Homeland Security and law enforcement, even though Mexico was
not in my area of interest, I took a trip up to El Paso in
uniform and just went to the port of entry (POE) and then met
with some officers there, just to thank them and to tell them
from my position in the south they were doing a great job. I
met with some of the Border Patrol folks, same thing. And when
you say things like, ``Listen, just how are things going?'' You
pull out a tape recorder, because you are going to find out.
And that is, I think, a very important way to find out about
things, encourage people to speak truth to power from the
bottom up. And certainly anytime a whistleblower calls in and
makes an accusation or makes a comment, it is very definitely
worth listening.
So that is how I do business. Sometimes you get an earful
and wish you had not asked the question, but you should always
ask the question.
Senator Enzi. I appreciate that. I used to be in small
business, and sitting in an office did not solve all the
problems. You had to get out and see what was happening.
Thank you for your answers, and my time is about to expire.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Enzi. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks. Thanks so much. A quick one. We
talked a little bit about this when you visited with me in my
office this week, but there is a unit within the Department of
Homeland Security that goes by the National Protection and
Programs Directorate (NPPD). And we talked about people say,
``Well, what is that? Or what does that represent?'' There is a
lot of confusion and not much understanding. As it turned out,
it refers to cybersecurity and it refers to infrastructure
protection. And it is an agency that is supposed to do both of
those. But just by hearing the name, you would never know. Any
thoughts on that?
General Kelly. Well, when I looked at the organization
chart, maybe one of the first questions I had was: What does
that block do? So I agree. I think a name change is not always
important. It might be in this case. It has been brought up to
me, Senator, a number of times. You did, obviously, but other
people within the organization, and not within Homeland
Security. I have not spoken to anyone in Homeland Security
right now because of the memorandum of understanding (MOU). But
people have brought it up to me, past employees of Homeland
Security. So as we talked in your office, we will take a look
at that up front.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks so much.
When I was in the Navy, I was stationed for a while in San
Diego and would venture down into Mexico. And there was a time
when people went back and forth between Southern California and
Mexico rather easily. And there was a time when there was a
huge amount of illegal immigration from Mexico into the United
States. I am told that today there are more Mexicans going back
into Mexico than there are Mexicans coming into the United
States.
Why do you suppose that is? And are there any lessons from
that development that might be applicable for the emigration of
people, large emigration of people from Honduras, Guatemala,
and El Salvador?
General Kelly. That is a great question. I have a great
deal of experience in Central America, and I hold the people to
ourselves in very high regard. And I understand, I think, and
empathize with their problem. They for the most part do not
want to come up and leave their homes, their families, but
there is not an awful lot of economic opportunity for them
there, and there is certainly a level of violence that in our
country we could not imagine.
Honduras is an example. When I took over in Southern
Command, it was the most violent planet by U.N. numbers--most
violent country on the planet, 91 deaths per 100,000. By
contrast, our country is about 5. Through a lot of good work
down there, not always perfect but the President has taken that
down by a third. Still horrific levels of violence. But my
point is they most of the time do not come here for any other
purpose than to have some economic opportunity and to escape
violence.
I stated this for 3 years when I was at Southern Command,
and certainly when I testified before this Committee in April.
My view is if we can help them by reducing our drug demand,
which is the fundamental problem of many of their problems, by
reducing our drug demand, at the same time helping them improve
their police--their militaries are actually pretty good. Human
rights is very much a part of the way they operate. And if we
improve the situation of violence, then my belief is investment
would come, and so there would be economic opportunity there.
The three countries in the Northern Tier--El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras--have banded together and developed
their own approach called the--the name escapes me, but--
Senator Carper. Alliance for Prosperity.
General Kelly. Alliance for Prosperity that we helped them
develop, and so they are putting their own money against it.
And they really seek foreign investment, not money from the
United States but investment maybe from the United States. So I
think if we were to do that for them, there would be a lot--
and, frankly, they will tell you, as long as the migrants leave
Honduras or wherever and, generally speaking, get into the
United States easily, safely, and do not come back, there is
going to be a draw. So we have to get our arms, I think, around
those three factors.
Senator Carper. When we were together the other day, we
talked about Colombia and how 20 years ago a bunch of gunmen
rounded up the supreme court of Colombia. They took them into a
room and shot them all to death. And, today, Colombia is not a
perfect nation, but it is a much different nation, and a strong
partner of ours, strong trading partner of ours, and a fairly
vibrant democracy. None of us are perfect.
Then we have Plan Colombia, which a number of people worked
on, certainly President Clinton; Joe Biden was then, I think,
the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I describe
Plan Colombia and also the Alliance for Prosperity, which was
developed by Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, I call it
``The Home Depot'' plan. You know, Home Depot, in their
advertising, they say, ``You can do it. We can help.'' In this
case, Colombia, they can do it, we can help, and we have.
Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, they can do it, we can
help. In this case, we are committed to do that. We have
committed so far one year of funding, and President Obama has
asked, Vice President Biden has asked for a second tranche.
Do you have any thoughts along those lines?
General Kelly. Senator, anytime someone tells me--and a lot
of people have told me; I reference back to my time in Southern
Command--that the Central American republics cannot be helped,
parts of Mexico cannot be helped, I say, ``Look at Colombia.''
Colombia was in the exact same place 20 years ago, looking into
the abyss. They made some fundamental changes to how they did
business, how they allowed their military to operate, and they
are what we called when I was in South America ``exporters of
security.'' And by that I mean they go out and help other
countries in the region, particularly in the Central American
isthmus, help them help themselves. They are our best friends,
in my view, in Latin America, and they are already stepping up
to help and would like to do more.
The Alliance for Prosperity, when we were helping them, my
original thinking was, well, let us call this ``Plan Central
America,'' like Plan Colombia. And Plan Colombia really came
out of this institution, out of the Congress, and then the
Clinton Administration picked up on it, and it worked. Four
cents on the dollar, U.S. money, and all the rest of it was
paid for by the Colombians.
But back to the Plan Central America, there were people in
the interagency that did not think that we should do that, so
we went up with the Alliance for Prosperity. A rose by any
other name. It is kind of the same thing.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks so much.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Portman. Just for other Senators, it is going to be
Portman, Tester, Daines, Peters, Harris, Paul, Hassan,
Lankford, and I believe it is Heitkamp and Hoeven, but we will
figure it out. So that is the order. Senator Portman.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Kelly, first let me echo the comments of others to
thank you for your remarkable four and a half decades of
service to our country and the sacrifices your family has made.
I am particularly appreciative of your wife, Karen, who
apparently told you that you had to answer the call once again.
And we have seen with your introductions today that you are
likely to be confirmed, and I am just delighted you are willing
to serve. I do have three areas of inquiry I would like to
touch on, and we talked about some of this in our meeting.
The first is your management challenge. You said you had
been a member of some large, complex organizations. This will
be the most complex and the largest. It is 240,000 employees.
When you look at it, there are probably, 20 major offices or
departments within it. And as you know, I was part of the
Select Committee in the House to put this together after
September 11, 2001, knowing that the left hand did not know
what the right hand was doing. We had to protect the country,
but, frankly, I have been frustrated by the lack of progress in
having the Department work as one. And it has been mentioned,
the morale problems, but there is a lack of coordination in
many people's eyes, some inefficiencies.
So the first question I would ask you really is a
management question: What are the three things that you would
intend to do to help make the Department work more effectively
to protect us?
General Kelly. The first thing, I am sure you are aware, I
know, that the unity of effort that Secretary Jeh Johnson has
embarked upon, taking a look around at the other
bureaucracies--and I do not mean that in a negative way at
all--the way that other departments work, I know the Senate is
very aware of the fact that the Department of Defense is a
better place today than it was 30 years ago before Goldwater-
Nichols. And people of my rank--that was not my fault at the
time, but people of my rank fought tooth and nail against the
Congress for 30 years. Ultimately, laws were passed, Goldwater-
Nichols, and we have become a better place because we have
knocked down a lot of the rice bowls, got people talking to
each other. The Marines still are the best, but the other
services are pretty good, too. [Laughter.]
But, we all have our traditions and ways of thinking and
doing business, and we did not have to give that up when we
went to jointness. I think there is a place for that, and I
know that Secretary Jeh Johnson has already done that, and I am
going to get smart about that as fast as I can. I think as much
as we can draw--I mean, the mission is homeland security. That
is a mission I believe everyone can get behind. Just like DOD,
the mission is to defend the Nation abroad, primarily.
I do not know if there has been enough of that, but I
believe even though there are very separate groups within
Homeland Security, if everyone can understand first and
foremost we protect the Nation, and then we do that in
different ways, much like DOD, I think it would go a long way
to bringing the Department together, much as Secretary Johnson
has begun.
And then there are just other things. I mean, some of the
Senators and others have recommended to me some organizational
changes, personnel changes, not individual people but, why has
this person got this many Under Secretaries or Assistants, take
a look at all of that. To Senator McCaskill's point, there are
probably efficiencies there and there is savings there, and I
commit to the Committee for sure I will look at that.
Senator Portman. We would appreciate that, and a top-down
review I think is always a good idea when you come into a new
place, but particularly with an agency as complex as this one.
Let me ask you about intelligence. I am also concerned
about redundancies in our Intelligence Community. There are 17
intelligence agencies in the government, if you count them all.
Two of them reside at the Department of Homeland Security: one
is Coast Guard intelligence, but the other is this Office of
Intelligence and Analysis. Again, I have not been as impressed
as I had hoped I would be with their mission, which is really
to fuse intelligence from all the different sources together to
be able to better protect the country, including a private
sector liaison to help with infrastructure. They are supposed
to track terrorists and their networks, assess risks and so on.
What is your sense of that entity? And do you think it
could be improved?
General Kelly. I think everything can be improved, and what
I have learned--and once again, Senator, I have been restricted
from actually dealing with Homeland Security, but what I get
from the transition team and others that have worked at
Homeland Security is that that could be better, the information
sharing within the organization, and even out to law
enforcement. But, again, it is way up on the list in terms of
things I will look at.
Senator Portman. How about fusion centers? In all of our
States we have fusion centers now. Are they effective? Are they
redundant? Should they be wound down? Should they be
reinforced? What is your sense of how the fusion centers are
working?
General Kelly. Depending on who has talked to me about
them, they are effective and they are redundant. So again----
Senator Portman. And I think, frankly, even within our
States we might find that some are more effective than others.
I would hope you would also in your top-to-bottom review take a
look at those fusion centers----
General Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Portman [continuing]. And be sure they are doing
the job they should be doing. My sense is they were also
supposed to compile information and intelligence. Sometimes
because classified intelligence is difficult to compile if you
are not deeper in the community, sometimes it is being done by
other entities, and there is not information being provided to
some of our first responders. But I would love to have your
assessment of that once you have had a chance to be on the
ground.
The final question I have is about the drug issue. As you
heard earlier, this is an epidemic. You and I have talked about
it. I loved your testimony before the Committee last year. I
talked to you about that, and I have complimented you in the
Committee since then on that, because you focused on the demand
side, and I am a strong believer that until we deal with
prevention and education better, and treatment and recovery, it
is going to be very difficult to stop this flow of drugs, and
they will find other ways to do it.
On the other hand, almost unimpeded now across the Southern
Border, as you say, almost all the heroin that is consumed here
is produced in Mexico, as well as many of the drugs. So two
questions.
One, what would you do to increase that apprehension? You
mentioned interdiction earlier and pushing back beyond the
border.
And, second, we have legislation called the ``STOP Act''
which is intended to deal with this issue of fentanyl and
carfentanyl, which is a synthetic heroin, really the next wave
we are seeing in our communities. That mostly comes by mail,
and some of it actually from Mexico, it also comes from China
directly, then sometimes is mixed with heroin in Mexico and
brought back in a drug form. But it is not taken by packages
across the border physically. It goes through the U.S. mail
system. We tried to work with Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) on this as well as DEA, and I just wondered if you had
any sense of that issue, what you would do, and just your
general thoughts on interdiction.
General Kelly. I believe interdiction starts--and you can
talk cocaine or whatever. It starts really where it is
produced. The Colombians, to use that example again, do
tremendous work in terms of eradicating coca and destroying
labs and that kind of things, tremendous work in taking huge
tonnages off the flow, with very few naval assets, and I use
the Coast Guard there as well, very few naval assets. My
information is at least a year old or right at a year old, but
SOUTHCOM gets a couple hundred tons a year. And the beauty of
it down there is you get it in 1-ton, 2-ton, 3-ton lots. Once
it gets ashore and starts, it is right up the network. A big
take at the Southwest Border of, say, cocaine or something like
that might be 5, 10, 15 kilos. So I think if we could do more
with our partners. Again, not to harp on the demand thing, but
if we were to block the network so nothing could get through
the Southwest Border, the so-called balloon effect, they would
find other ways around it. The profits are so outrageous. That
is why I believe it is all about the demand.
Senator Portman. Thank you, General. I appreciate it.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
McCaskill. And, General Kelly, thank you for being here, and
thank you for putting yourself up for this. First things first,
though. I want to thank your family for sharing you with us one
more time. I very much appreciate your guys' commitment to this
because it is oftentimes not easy and these jobs are oftentimes
not easy, and this is one of those jobs that is not easy. So
thank you.
And, General Kelly, thank you, as Senator McCaskill said,
for getting your ethics report in, your background complete,
your pre-questionnaire, and your financials. I appreciate that
very much also.
Your job is a big one, and I know from our meeting in my
office--and I want to thank you for your direct answer of the
questions we talked about there and today, too. We talked about
border security. We hear a lot about the Southern Border, which
is critically important. The Northern Border, with a 540-mile
border with Montana alone, with one national park bordering
Canada, and an Indian reservation bordering Canada and three
Indian reservations within 100 miles of Canada, it adds to the
complexity. But I think you have a grasp of that.
I am going to start out a little parochial, but I am going
to take it to the bigger issue. We talked about a port north of
Plentywood that DHS wanted to close, a 24-hour port. It was my
belief that this port was critical for border security on the
Northern Border because it was a port with a long distance
between the other two 24-hour ports on the east and the west.
What is your view with border security as it applies to not
only the folks that are on patrol but the folks who are in the
ports?
General Kelly. Well, Senator, I think, it is clearly a
balance. We cannot stop the normal flow of commerce and just
legal people. By the same token, we have to do better at
closing the border to the things that we do not want to come
in.
I am not as familiar nearly, as we discussed, with the
issue of the Northern Border. But as I promised you in your
office the other day, I will be very quick to come up on that
and perhaps even during the summer visit your State.
Senator Tester. I will take you up on that. [Laughter.]
And we will make sure we do not get you into North Dakota
because they will give the wrong impression. And we will follow
up on that, but there are grants like Operation Stonegarden
grants that are critically important. There are efforts to be
made with the local farmers and ranchers that live on that
border, and I need to get you there so actually you can talk to
those folks, because I think they are not paid by you or us but
still are an important part of the overall structure of
homeland security.
I want to talk about immigration for a second. When you
were in my office, you said what I have thought for a long
time, and that is that we make folks jump through hoops to get
the visa, and then after they come into the country, we never
tell them to head home. How do you anticipate to make it work
when those visas expire, to be able to notify those folks that
it is time to head back?
General Kelly. To the degree that I have been in
discussions on this point, apparently we do not have a
particularly good system to kind of alert when--the day after
someone's visa expires, we do not have a very good system to
say this person's visa expired and to share that information,
whether it is within the Department for sure and then local
enforcement. And it is not until, as you know, Senator, people
get caught doing something wrong, speeding or something like
that, that they get caught and we say, OK, this person----
Senator Tester. That is right.
General Kelly. So the discussions I have had is that we
have to do better with systems, first of all, alerting us that
someone has stayed past, and then as appropriate, perhaps send
someone to their house or their last known residence and ask
them why they have not departed yet.
But the other issue, as I have been briefed--and this is
kind of hard, but, as you know, when non-citizens come in, we
record them. When they go out by commercial air we record them
leaving. What we do not do very well at apparently is at the
ground entrances, so I will look into that as well.
Senator Tester. Well, I appreciate any work you can do on
that because I think that would help solve not all but
certainly a fair amount of the problem.
REAL ID is something that has been of controversy in the
State of Montana since my days back in the State legislature,
which is over 10 years ago now. For the time being, DHS has
waived part of the law requiring construction of a linked
nationwide database required by the law. I know Senator Paul is
also concerned about this.
What are your plans to implement the REAL ID issue as it
applies to States like Montana that do not really want to see
this nationwide database?
General Kelly. Well, as the Senator knows----
Senator Tester. And still keep our country safe. A tough
nut to crack.
General Kelly. As the Senator knows, it is in the law. It
is my understanding that the Secretary has some elbow room in
terms of waiving it. I would like to think that--and I am not
completely, kind of conversant with it, but I would like to
think that in the small number of States that have not met the
point at which they have safe ID cards, I would like to
absolutely work with the States to find a way ahead, what we
can do to come to an agreement.
There is always the possibility of additional time waivers,
but I would like to work with the States on that, Senator.
Senator Tester. OK. Thank you. In your particular case,
this is a big Department; it has a lot of different arms
sticking out there. And your Deputies are going to be really
important.
General Kelly. Right.
Senator Tester. What are you going to be looking for in
your Deputy Secretaries?
General Kelly. For anyone that works, I think, for the
Federal Government, but certainly at the senior level, people
that, first of all, know what they are doing, understand the
importance of following the law, and understand the importance
of taking care of their people. To Senator McCaskill's point
again, people that will listen to their subordinates when there
are suggestions of how to do business better, listen to their
subordinates when there is more serious problems and not
retaliate against anyone when they come up and raise issues.
Senator Tester. OK. Last question very quickly. What is
your highest priority when you are considering anti-terror
efforts?
General Kelly. Stopping them somewhere well away from our
country.
Senator Tester. Very good. Thank you, General.
General Kelly. Sir.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Tester.
One thing you will notice, General Kelly. The Northern
Border is very well represented on this Committee. [Laughter.]
Sometimes in duplicate.
Next is Senator Daines.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Kelly, it was truly an honor to have you in the
office
yesterday. Thank you for considering coming to Montana. We will
take a look at that Northern Border. As the Chairman just
mentioned--I just counted heads here, Mr. Chairman--7 out of 15
members on this Committee actually have a Northern Border, just
two have a Southern Border. And that is not to say the Southern
Border is not important, but this Committee will also not
forget about that important Northern Border.
I also want to thank your family. As the son of a Marine,
my dad would be very proud, if he were here, knowing that we
are having this conversation. So thank you for your service. My
family sleeps better at night knowing that a four-star general,
a Marine no less, is leading the Department of Homeland
Security. So thank you, and thank you very much, Karen, and to
the rest of the family for allowing the General to continue to
serve our country.
General Kelly, as we discussed yesterday, I spent 28 years
in the private sector before I came to the Hill, 10 years with
a global cloud computing company. We faced cyber threats daily.
The customers expected their data to be secure. We delivered.
Our data was never compromised.
And then I came to the Federal Government, became an
employee of the Federal Government, elected to the Congress in
2012, and lo and behold, you got the same letter that I got in
terms of our information being compromised as Federal employees
because of a cyber breach.
The Internet is a great tool for creativity, for
communication, for commerce, but it has also become a tool for
bad actors engaging in fraud, identity theft, piracy, terrorist
propaganda, espionage.
As Secretary, how will you counter these cyber threats to
protect our Nation and our families?
General Kelly. Well, obviously, Senator, if confirmed, I
will get deep into it. In my job as a military person, I
understand cyber out there and know what our capabilities are,
U.S. capabilities out there. I also know that 3, 4, 5 years
ago, we talked about the United States would not have a peer
competitor in cyber for 20 years or 25 years. Now we know that
we have some pretty darn close to peer competitors.
I was watching something that Secretary Ash Carter started
when he first took over at the Defense Department. He started
to reach out to the commercial world, Silicon Valley, that kind
of thing, to engage them or at least to get a report card on
how we are doing within the Federal Government to develop. But
there is obviously unbelievable talent out there in the
civilian sector, and I think at this point in time, everyone
realizes that it is in everyone's interest--whether it is
personal security or corporate security, certainly U.S.
security, everyone realizes, I think, that working together
makes an awful lot of sense.
There are clearly privacy issues and those kinds of things
and the law would always have to be followed. But I think just
more cooperation amongst the private sector and in the Federal
sector and the State sector, I think that would go a long way
to it. But, again, I think Ash Carter was onto something in a
big way when he started to reach out to the commercial world.
Senator Daines. Thank you. I want to turn attention back to
that Northern Border discussion we had earlier. Agriculture is
our largest economic driver in a State like Montana. Canada is
our largest export market. We want to make sure our farmers and
ranchers do not have disruptions as they go north and south, as
it relates to commerce.
But this 5,500-mile-long border that we have on the
Northern Border, we know there are a lot of bad actors out
there. They view that Northern Border as very much a soft
underside. And, frankly, with the current Administration, we
have had some challenges with insufficient staffing to make
sure that we are protected there to the north.
As the Secretary, how would you increase Customs and Border
Protection officer recruiting, retention, and mitigate some of
the staffing shortages without reducing services?
General Kelly. Senator, I think in the world I came from,
there was a time back right in the Vietnam period where we
could not recruit or retain good servicemembers, mostly because
of the morale, mostly because of when other young men and women
talked to their brothers, older brothers, saying, ``Should I
join the armed forces? '' ``No, it is not worth it.'' So an
awful lot of the retention and recruiting problem comes as a
result of the morale problem within the Department.
I was just talking to a couple of gentlemen a little
earlier who said that they have been lifelong members of the
Federal law enforcement world but would not recommend their
sons or daughters join up. I have a very good friend--well, I
will end it there and just say the best recruiters in any
organization are the people that are already in the
organization. If they value or have a sense that people value
what they do, that there is a future, that there is upward
mobility, that you get a fair shake no matter who you are in
terms of advancement and all, that turns recruitment and
retention around.
What I hear mostly is, ``We are not appreciated,'' and,
``We are not allowed to do our job.'' So I will take a long,
hard look at that right away.
Senator Daines. Thank you, General Kelly.
Yesterday, we discussed the government earning the trust of
the people. DHS' U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) play a critical role in vetting refugees--this has
become a topic of conversation across our country as well as in
Montana--long before they reach U.S. soil, interviews,
background checks, collecting biometric data abroad and so
forth. How can the American people regain trust that any future
refugee will not be a risk to our families? And what will you
do to ensure that there are comprehensive background checks
completed?
General Kelly. One of the problems, I think, with many of
our refugees is they come in from countries obviously that are
dysfunctional. And I think many American citizens feel that if
you are taking in people from a country that simply has no law
enforcement bureaucracy--they clearly do not have things like
the FBI and Homeland Security--how can you guarantee? There is
no guarantee. You cannot guarantee 100 percent, and if you are
taking in large numbers of people--or any people from places
where you really cannot vet them very well, I guess you do the
best you can.
Senator Daines. And, lastly, you talk about telling truth
to power. How has this integrity served you in making tough
decisions as a leader?
General Kelly. It has made it easy, actually. As Secretary
Gates said, it is a moral responsibility. It is what you do. I
have found if you do not, organizations like the U.S. Senate
and House figure out very quickly that what they are getting
from a witness is not straight, and it certainly kind of
marginalizes you. So I think truth to power is the way to go.
Senator Daines. Thank you, General Kelly.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Kelly, wonderful to have you here, and I will join
everyone else in thanking you for your service, and certainly
for your family's service as well. It is truly a family affair,
public service, particularly for your many years in the U.S.
Marine Corps. So I appreciate your patriotism and sacrifice.
I also wanted to say it is good to see you again. I had the
privilege of being with you in Guatemala probably mid-year last
year as part of the Committee trip and had the benefit of your
briefings and actually had the benefit of being on the border
between Guatemala and Mexico and talking about some of the
issues related to immigration from that country and from Latin
America as well. And it is certainly very refreshing to see a
nominee for the Secretary of Homeland Security as someone who
has been on the front line in dealing with those issues.
I also appreciate from your briefings the fact that you
understand that this is an incredibly complex issue. It cannot
be solved simply by building a wall. It requires a much more
thoughtful approach. And I am confident, based on your
experience and your statements, that you bring that to the
office.
I wanted to pick up on what Senator Daines talked about in
regard to cybersecurity. As we talked about in our previous
conversation, I believe that without question the number one
national security threat to us is cyber, not only the Russian
attacks, which you have addressed earlier in the hearing here,
but attacks that are occurring on a daily basis. And as you
know, a person or entity trying to use cyber to attack us often
looks for the weakest link, and that weakest link tends to be
entities like small businesses or perhaps local governments or
State governments that do not have the same kind of cyber
protections that we may have at the Federal level, although
that is certainly open for attack as well, as we have seen from
the past.
But last Congress, I joined Senator Vitter in introducing
the Small Business Cyber Security Improvements Act--and it was
part of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and
it is now law--that will require the Small Business
Administration (SBA) and the DHS to develop a Small Business
Development Center for Cyber Strategy. And I just kind of
wanted your thoughts on your support of that endeavor and how
you see the DHS working particularly with the small business
owners who do not have the resources to have elaborate defenses
to protect themselves as well as protect larger networks.
General Kelly. Well, Senator, as you know, part of the
mission is to protect the dot-gov of DHS, protect the dot-gov
nets, and to work with the commercial world since it is part of
the mission. Again, I do not know the level of effectiveness. I
suspect, I know Secretary Jeh Johnson, a good friend, has this
on his scope. I do not know the degree how successful we are
being, but he started for sure this process of outreach, and I
will continue it.
Senator Peters. Right, well, I appreciate that.
There is another area that I have some direct questions
that I would like to ask that are very important to folks in my
State. As we spoke about earlier, I represent a very large
Arab-American, Muslim-American community in the State of
Michigan, one of the largest communities outside the Middle
East, largest community in the United States. Based on comments
made by the President-elect, I will tell you there is a great
deal of fear in the community, a great deal of unease about
what the future means for them under the new Administration.
And, certainly, the Department of Homeland Security is a place
where they have particular anxiety. I am curious as to your
position on a couple things.
First off, do you agree that putting mosques under
generalized surveillance and establishing a Muslim database,
two proposals that were discussed by President-elect Trump,
would raise serious constitutional issues under the Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
General Kelly. I am not a lawyer, but to the degree I
understand those laws, yes, sir.
Senator Peters. Will you commit to ensuring that religion
does not become a basis for U.S. counterterrorism or law
enforcement policy, particularly as it relates to the targeting
of individuals with ancestry from Muslim-majority countries?
General Kelly. I do not think it is ever appropriate to
focus on something like religion as the only factor, so yes,
sir.
Senator Peters. And do you believe that non-citizen
Muslims, people of Arab or people of South Asian descent should
have to register with the government? And if so, for what
purpose would the program be used?
General Kelly. I know there was some program some years ago
where they had this on the books. I know it is no longer on the
books, and unless--obviously, it would have to be legal, but
unless there was some really compelling reason, so yes, sir, I
would agree.
Senator Peters. I think the program is the National
Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program that
you are talking about.
General Kelly. Right.
Senator Peters. That began in 2002, and it was supposedly
to catch terrorists. It existed for a number of years and never
had any impact whatsoever. So it sounds as if you would not be
supportive of bringing that back. Good.
The last question is the Supreme Court case, Korematsu v.
the United States, was a landmark case addressing the
constitutionality of Executive Order (EO) 9066, which ordered
Japanese-Americans into internment camps during World War II,
regardless of their citizenship. Do you agree that the Supreme
Court decision in Korematsu does not provide a legitimate
precedent for internment or special registration of individuals
who are Muslim or with ancestry from Muslim-majority countries?
General Kelly. I do. I do not agree with registering people
based on ethnicity or religion or anything like that, so I
think I would agree with the Supreme Court.
Senator Peters. Great.
General Kelly. Again, I am not a lawyer here, so----
Senator Peters. Right. I understand. Well, I appreciate
those responses, and maybe just in follow-up--and I know we
talked about this in our meeting earlier, but if you could let
the Committee know how do you approach communities in this
country who are made up primarily of Arab-Americans, Muslim-
Americans. From your past experience, how do you see your role
as Homeland Security director in reaching out to those
communities and making them part of a solution?
General Kelly. Very briefly, as we discussed in the office,
Senator, our success in Iraq, certainly my time in Iraq, was
because I outreached with people across the spectrum of
society, all of whom were Muslim, followed the Islamic faith.
Obviously, the men, the clerics, the communities, the way we
won certainly in my part of Iraq was we outreached to people,
convinced them that we were there for good, not evil, we were
there to protect them and to help them, and overnight, almost,
with the Awakening and other things that I will not go into--
but, I mean, it was the thing that gave us success, outreach to
the community and touching everybody in the community and
gaining their trust. I know Secretary Johnson does that, and I
certainly will continue that, look forward to continuing that.
Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate those responses,
General. And if confirmed, we would love to host you in the
Detroit area with a community that would be very eager to meet
you and certainly needs reassurance from someone in that
position.
General Kelly. I look forward to it, Senator.
Senator Peters. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS
Senator Harris. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Ranking
Member McCaskill.
General, thank you for your longstanding service and
sacrifice, and to your family as well.
I would like to ask you a few questions, starting with the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Hundreds of thousands
of DACA recipients around the country are afraid right now for
what this incoming Administration might do to them and also
what it might do to their unauthorized family members. In order
to receive DACA, these young people submitted extensive
paperwork to the Federal Government, including detailed
information regarding themselves and their loved ones. They
also had to qualify, as you know, for the program, and in
qualifying, each person's case was reviewed and determined on a
case-by-case basis.
The young person must have not been convicted of a felony
or a significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors. The
young person must also not be deemed to pose a threat to
national security or public safety. The young person must
currently be in school, have graduated or obtained a
certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a
General Education Development (GED) certification, and/or have
been honorably discharged as a veteran of the Coast Guard or
Armed Forces of the United States.
Among other things, DACA applicants must submit proof of
identity, proof of time and admission in the United States,
proof of relevant student school completion or military status,
and biometric information.
As part of the DACA application process, we conduct
biometric and biographic background checks against a variety of
databases maintained by DHS and other Federal agencies.
If a DACA applicant knowingly makes a misrepresentation or
fails to disclose facts in an effort to obtain DACA, it is a
felony, and the applicant will be treated as an immigration
enforcement priority to the fullest extent permitted by law and
be subject to criminal prosecution and/or removal from the
United States. This means obviously that applicants to DACA
know that if they are not giving us the whole truth about their
story, they are putting a target on their own backs.
At the time, the Department of Homeland Security assured
them that it would follow its longstanding practice of not
using such information for law enforcement purposes except in
very limited circumstances. These young people are now worried
that the information that they provided in good faith to our
government may now be used to track them down and lead to their
removal.
So my question is: Do you agree that under DACA we have and
those young people--hundreds of thousands of them have relied
on our representations? Do you agree with that, that we would
not use this information against them?
General Kelly. The entire development of immigration policy
is ongoing right now in terms of the upcoming Administration. I
have not been involved in those discussions. If confirmed, I
know I will be involved in those discussions. I think there is
a big spectrum of people who need to be dealt with in terms of
deportation----
Senator Harris. I am speaking specifically of DACA.
General Kelly. And those categories would be prioritized. I
am not part of the process right now. I would guess that this
category might not be the highest priority for removal. I
promise you, Senator, that I will be involved in the
discussion.
Senator Harris. I would like that you would read or become
familiar with a document issued by the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, its Frequently Asked Questions brochure.
Question No. 20, the question is: If my case is referred to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for immigration
enforcement purposes or if I receive a notice to appear (NTA),
will information related to my family members and guardians
also be referred to ICE for immigration enforcement purposes?
The answer, according to this document, is that if the case is
referred to ICE for purposes of immigration enforcement or they
receive an NTA, information related to their family members
that is contained in their request will not be referred to ICE.
Are you willing to maintain that policy of not referring that
information to ICE?
General Kelly. I will definitely look very long and hard at
the document. I am not familiar. I do not know right now where
the upcoming Administration is going in this. I will be part of
that. I can tell you, Senator, I promise you that I will keep a
very open mind as we look at this topic.
Senator Harris. Are you familiar that under your
predecessors, the director of Homeland Security made the
decision and issued the information to the troops? It was not
the President. Are you familiar with that?
General Kelly. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Harris. OK. And do you agree that many of these
young people were brought here as children and only know
America as their home?
General Kelly. Many of them are in that category.
Senator Harris. And do you agree that they are now studying
at colleges and universities and graduate schools across our
country, some are working in Fortune 100 companies, major
institutions, and businesses, both small and large?
General Kelly. I am aware that some are, yes.
Senator Harris. And do you intend then to use the limited
law enforcement resources of DHS to remove them from the
country?
General Kelly. I will follow the law. But, again, I go back
to we have a limited capacity to execute the law, so we would
certainly look at the highest priority activities and--but I
will follow the law to the extent that I can execute the law,
if that makes sense.
Senator Harris. Well, I know as a career prosecutor--I was
formerly Attorney General of California and before that a
district attorney elected to two terms in office--that we in
law enforcement have limited resources. I am interested in
knowing from your perspective where the students and the young
people who applied for and were eligible for DACA, where they
would fall on your list of priorities in terms of the limited
law enforcement resources that you have, or would have if
confirmed.
General Kelly. I think law-abiding individuals, in my mind,
with limited assets to execute the law, would probably not be
at the top of the list.
Senator Harris. And would you agree that State and local
law enforcement agencies are uniquely situated to protect the
public safety of their own communities?
General Kelly. I would agree with that.
Senator Harris. And are you aware that State and local law
enforcement leaders across the country have publicly stated
that they depend on the cooperation of immigrant communities to
protect criminal activity and to come forward as witnesses to
crime?
General Kelly. I have read that.
Senator Harris. And are you aware that there has been--in
the past, when the government has applied indiscriminate
immigration sweeps, many local law enforcement agencies have
been concerned and have complained that there has been a
decrease in immigrants reporting crimes against themselves or
others?
General Kelly. I was not aware of that.
Senator Harris. Will you make it your priority to become
aware of the impact on immigrant communities in terms of their
reluctance to report crimes against themselves, their family
members, or others when they are concerned that DHS may direct
sweeps against entire immigrant communities?
General Kelly. You have my commitment I will get briefed on
this. Again, I fall back on really the law will guide me, if
confirmed, in everything that I do.
Senator Harris. And I would encourage that not only the law
but how it will practically apply in the streets in terms of
the perception of the interpretation of the law to those
immigrant communities and what we all want to do ensuring that
all victims of crime, regardless of their documented status,
are protected and that they receive justice in a court of law.
General Kelly. I acknowledge that.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Harris.
Senator Paul.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL
Senator Paul. General Kelly, congratulations, and I want to
join in also thanking you for your service and your family's
sacrifice in defense of our country.
The position you are up for, Homeland Security, is
obviously to defend the homeland, to defend the country. But
the oath you take is actually to defend the Constitution. That
is the oath we take. It is the oath you also took in the
military as well. And I think that is an important distinction
because it does not mean we want security at all costs. We want
security in order to have our liberty. So liberty is an
important part of this.
There have been times in our history when I think we let
fear overcome our ability or our desire to defend the
Constitution. In the Civil War, we suspended habeas corpus. We
kept people in detention without trial, without legal access.
We arrested 3,000 editors during World War II. A hundred
thousand Japanese were detained. We let our fervor or our fear
somehow replace our oath to defend our liberty, to defend the
Constitution.
We have on the books and we passed about 5 years ago a law
that says that an American citizen can be indefinitely
detained. Not an American citizen overseas, not someone
captured in Syria on a battlefield, but someone captured in the
United States and accused of terrorism can be kept
indefinitely. They could be sent to Guantanamo Bay, or they
could be sent a variety of places. It has never been used, and
this President has said he would not use it. But he signed it
anyway, much to the chagrin of some of us. But it is on the
books. And I guess my question to you would be: Do you think we
can adequately arrest people in our country who are, somehow a
threat to our homeland security? Do you think the Constitution
could be good enough, that due process in our courts of law in
our country would work? Or would you think there are going to
have to be times when we are just going to have to detain
people without trial?
General Kelly. I am pretty committed to the Constitution. I
was not aware of the law. It surprises me. But I think we have
enough laws to help us out in that regard.
Senator Paul. I think it is important, and, obviously, the
future is unknown, but you and I have talked about in the
office if something terrible happens, we need people in places
of leadership that do not let us succumb to our emotions and
our fear, whether they are irrational fears of others or
whatever they are, that the law is incredibly important, and
that is what our soldiers sacrifice so much for.
With regard to how we collect data on people to protect
ourselves, once again it is this idea, well, are we so fearful
we are going to collect data on everybody? There have been
instances when we have. For example, we have had bulk
collection of everyone's phone records. Now, some will argue a
technical part of the Fourth Amendment is, oh, well, your phone
records are not really protected. Some of us will argue, well,
they should be protected. But it is this debate we are having.
But it is also a debate about sort of how you come to security
in our country. Can we come to security by individually going
after suspects or people whom we are suspicious of? Or should
we have blanket surveillance of everyone, which means we have
to give up, according to some of us, liberty and privacy?
I will give you a specific example of this, because this
comes from Homeland Security. A couple of years ago, they
decided they would use license plate screeners, and apparently
they are very rapid, and they can collect hundreds and
hundreds, if not thousands of license plates an hour. But they
decided they would go to a gun show. Why this particularly
concerns me is you could also conceive of people at a gun show
as exercising some sort of freedom of speech or some sort of
ideological belief by being at a gun show, not just wanting to
buy a gun but actually defending their Second Amendment right
to buy a gun.
What alarms me is that if we are going to scan license
plates at a gun show, we might go to a pro-life rally or a pro-
abortion rally, depending on who is in charge. I do not want
the government scanning people's license plates. I do not want
them covering and getting all of our data just so we can
possibly be safe someday from something. I want the individual
to be protected. But I am not against Homeland Security going
after individuals and digging as deep as you want with the
proper process.
So what I would ask you is your opinion on how do we defend
the country. Can we do it with the traditions of looking at
individuals for whom we have suspicion? Or are we going to have
to collect all of this data and give up our privacy in the
process?
General Kelly. Senator, I would go with the traditional
route. The scanning of the license plates, I mean, there may be
a reason. I cannot think of one right now. But I am not for the
collection or the mass collection of data on people. I would go
the other way.
Senator Paul. And this is an amazing amount of information
we can look at. If you had all of the information of everyone's
visa purchases in the country, there is no end. But realize
that this is a big part of what your job is, people are going
to be coming to you saying, ``Protect us. We want to be safe.''
But at the same time, what are we willing to give up? Can we
keep what we actually believe and what we are as a people, the
freedom that you were committed to as a soldier? And I hope you
will keep that in mind.
General Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Paul. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Paul. Senator Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you, Chairman Johnson and
Ranking Member McCaskill. I look forward to working with both
of you. And, General Kelly, thank you so much for being here
today, for your service. To your family, I echo the thanks you
have heard today for your service and sacrifice. We are very
grateful.
I wanted to just start by asking a question on
cybersecurity that has hit my neck of the woods a little bit in
the last couple of weeks. Two weeks ago, the Washington Post
reported that a hacking group connected with the Russian
government managed to infiltrate the Burlington Electric Power
Company in Vermont. And New Hampshire and Vermont, as you know,
have many shared utility connections along the border between
the two States. I think we all agree that foreign infiltration
into our utility infrastructure, into any of our
infrastructure, is unacceptable. And with DHS being responsible
for securing our critical infrastructure from both physical and
cyber attack, I am just curious about what steps you think DHS
needs to be taking to prevent cyber attacks on critical
infrastructure and confronting foreign nations' cyber espionage
efforts.
General Kelly. The best thing we can do, obviously, is just
outreach to everybody, whether it is power plants or other
commercial interests. The problem, as we discussed, is just it
is constant, it is relentless.
Senator Hassan. Right.
General Kelly. It is from nation-states. It is from Mafia-
type organizations. And it is just from vandals. But I think
the solution is, A, outreach to offer the protections that
exist now. And then the threat changes so rapidly, we cannot
keep up with it, and we have to find a way, I think, to keep up
with it.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. There has been a lot of
discussion among Committee Members about the opioid, heroin,
and fentanyl crisis, which is devastating all of our States,
but New Hampshire has been particularly hard-hit. And there has
been excellent discussion, I thought, about issues on the
Southern Border concerning the fentanyl crisis in particular,
too, because that is really changing the way drug dealers are
operating, the ease with which fentanyl can be made, the profit
margins are huge, and the addictive nature of fentanyl is even
greater than other opioids.
But one of the things that I am heartened by is your focus
on the demand side of this crisis, and it would be, I think,
heartening to the people of my State and our country if you can
commit on behalf of DHS, should you be confirmed, to partner
with this Committee, with Governors around the country, to
really look at the overprescribing of opioids in this country
and treat it as the security threat that it is. Is that
something you can work with us on and commit to?
General Kelly. I look forward to that, Senator.
Senator Hassan. OK. Thank you.
I will add to the Northern Border chorus, by the way, just
to say do not forget us.
General Kelly. Forget, no.
Senator Hassan. And, last, I wanted to focus on one other
issue concerning terrorism. Certainly, we are all concerned
about the terrorism that is a threat from faraway places.
Earlier in your testimony, you indicated that one of your goals
would be to keep the terrorists as far away from United States
soil as possible. But the nature of the threat is always
changing, always evolving, and of late I think we all agree
that there has just been a disturbing rise in homegrown
terrorism. And no matter how secure our borders are, terrorist
groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda certainly we know use the
Internet to encourage and inspire troubled Americans to carry
out violence at home.
So how do we go about tackling that particular challenge?
And what partners will be most valuable for DHS and the
American people in this fight?
General Kelly. A tough problem, to say the least. And as I
have discussed with a number of Senators, I think it really
does start with families and with churches, synagogues,
mosques. The homegrown, if you will, terrorists, not just ISIS
inspired, I mean, there are some pretty grim other groups of
other nationalities, if you will, white supremacist, that kind
of thing. But I really do believe it starts with people,
parents, understanding what is going on in the bedroom when the
son or daughter is in there on the Internet all the time. We
kind of worry about that they are on inappropriate porn sites
or something. But the fact is that I think that is where it
starts in many ways. Who knows why they get disaffected with
the country? But they get on those websites, and it poisons
their mind, I think.
I think in the churches, synagogues, whatever, people hear
them talking and should turn them in or should at least be
concerned, talk to their parents.
I am reminded of a young--I think it was a young woman down
in the South who was getting radicalized clearly, and her
parents noticed it and turned her in to the police. By the same
token, there are other examples to where people knew that
people were getting radicalized--I think the San Bernardino
couple, but people were afraid to raise a red flag because they
thought, A, ``Maybe they will do something to me,'' and, B,
``Maybe I will be legally held accountable''--legally in the
sense of a lawsuit or something like that. But it starts there.
Clearly, our law enforcement professionals then serve a role,
but it is a really tough nut to crack.
I think to the Senator's question about engagement with
some of the parts of America that have a lot of Arab-Americans,
Islamic-Americans, so that they feel as though they can report
and not be afraid. But I think if we are going to get at this
problem at all, it is really energizing communities and
families to keep an eye out for the telltale signs and then to
seek help before it gets out of hand. And as I say, in that
case that I know of in the South, just before it really got out
of hand, they turned the daughter in. It is an act of love to
get her help or to get them help. So that is where I am on it,
Senator.
Senator Hassan. Thank you very much. And, again, thank you
for your service.
General Kelly. Yes, ma'am.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Hassan. You may not
have been here quite when I welcomed everybody, but, again,
welcome to the Committee. I certainly enjoyed our phone call,
and I look forward to working with you. Senator Lankford.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. General Kelly, thanks again for your
service. You have done a remarkable job in your career for the
Nation, and I appreciate you stepping back out again. And for
your family and for all that step out with you, it is a
tremendous asset to the Nation.
You know full well, when you were asked by the President-
elect to do this, that every time there is a problem at an
airport, every time there is a shooting, if there are two
people who cross the border, whether north or south, somebody
is going to call your phone and say what is not working. So I
appreciate you engaging to do that.
Let me give you a couple other optimistic pieces as well,
as you scan what is happening. We release every year a report
and try to identify different areas, and as you know, DHS has
been a major area for morale. That has been discussed several
times.
Let me give you a couple other pieces of good news. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO's) 2015 review of 22
major acquisition programs at DHS found that only 2 of the 22
were actually on track. The Inspector General (IG) at DHS in
their report found that DHS' major acquisition programs
continue to cost more than expected, take longer to deploy than
planned, and deliver less capability than promised.
DHS was also identified and has been identified by GAO now
for 13 years not getting up to speed on its human resources
programs. We have now spent $180 million over 13 years just to
get an human resource (HR) program working at DHS.
While we have all talked often about some of the issues at
the border, which are serious, there are some internal things
that are undone. And so while you are focusing on some of these
other areas, I would encourage you to assign a Deputy to finish
the unfinished product of how we handle acquisitions, the cost
overruns, and how we handle HR within DHS.
General Kelly. If confirmed, I have my work cut out for me,
obviously.
Senator Lankford. Yes, sir.
General Kelly. There are some great people in the
organization. I hope to retain some of them or to hire others
that have been involved in Homeland Security. And I think this
is also part of Secretary Jeh Johnson's unity of effort. He has
looked into other parts of our bureaucracy and said: How do
they do it? No one is perfect, but how do they do it? We have
to build probably an acquisition force in DHS. We do not have
the same kind of acquisition capability as, say, DOD does. Not
perfect, to say the least, but yes, sir, you have my
commitment.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. Let us talk about a couple of
things that have been touched on a little bit before. There is
an ongoing conversation, obviously, about cyber and cyber
attacks into the United States, so two specific areas I want to
bring up with you. One is jurisdictional. This Committee
obviously is very engaged in cyber as a homeland security
issue. Armed Services is obviously very involved in that and
what is happening with cyber issues, as well as Intel.
What I am looking for is some cooperation in a sense of
this is not going to be a jurisdictional fight and so no one
does it, but how do we actually build a sense of teamwork and
cooperation between Armed Services, Intel, and DHS, and so we
can build a real sense of a cyber doctrine. A cyber doctrine
and how we are going to respond to cyber attacks has been
discussed now for a decade, and it has been met to death,
basically, in one meeting after another, but no set of
decisions on that. Help me understand how we get to a decision
and move on in cooperation with other entities.
General Kelly. I think I would agree, Senator, the worst
thing that this city oftentimes deals with is the stovepipe
mentality and the rice bowls, and people, in my view, if
confirmed--and it has been the way I have operated. I have no
rice bowl. If I have to give something up or, go across town to
someone else's meeting, I will do that to improve whatever it
is we are trying to improve. There is unbelievably talented
people in the U.S. Government, across the bureaucracies. But my
sense is that there is just not enough interaction. Obviously,
we cannot do certain things because of laws, but laws can be
changed if need be. But I think 10 years ago when we started
talking about this, we were probably a little bit ahead of the
problem. And 10 years later, we are behind the problem now. I
think probably now is the time to act.
I think we very easily could suffer a catastrophic,
seriously catastrophic cyber event because we did not do our
jobs as the U.S. Government, and I think probably right now
there is an awareness that it is time to sit down and work
these things out. And, again, I think the commercial world, the
civilian world is as much a player in this as the Federal
Government is.
Senator Lankford. And I would say this Committee is eager
to have a partner in that to be able to discuss it, what needs
to be done legislatively. There are times we will have
administrative witnesses here that will say, ``I cannot really
give a recommendation to you,'' when we know the Administration
officials deal with it all the time, they know the barriers and
the issues they face. We need some good cooperation from people
to be able to sit down with us and to say, ``Here is what we
are bumping up against.''
Two other quick areas on this. One of them is working with
cities that do not want to cooperate on the issue of
immigration, the sanctuary cities that have determined we do
not want the Federal Government dealing with individuals that
are clearly in the United States illegally and have a criminal
record. What are your thoughts on this?
General Kelly. Well, I think as a public servant, if
confirmed, I do not think I have the authority to pick and
choose what laws need to be followed. I think it is in a lot of
ways dangerous to think that you can pick and choose which
laws. I understand maybe the perspective of some of the local
leaders, but I do think the law is the law, and I think the law
has to be followed.
Senator Lankford. Yes, sir. I would agree.
Let me bring up one last thing with you as well, and it is
something you and I have talked about before, and that is the
Northern Triangle and our good relationship with El Salvador,
Honduras, and Guatemala and some of their leaders that are
really doing a remarkable turnaround. We spoke about Guatemala
and the new president, Jimmy Morales, and Thelma Aldana, the
attorney general there, and the remarkable work that they are
doing.
What practically can we do as a Nation to help them? As we
deal with cocaine use, for instance, around 90 percent of the
cocaine that comes to the United States touches soil first in
Guatemala.
General Kelly. Right.
Senator Lankford. So what can we do to be able to partner
with them to deal with interdiction efforts?
General Kelly. Stop the demand.
Senator Lankford. That is a big one.
General Kelly. If we stop the demand, this would--and you
are never going to get to zero. We have talked about this,
obviously. You never get to zero. But stopping the demand, and
we just do not have and never have had a truly comprehensive
demand reduction that goes to everything from law enforcement,
treatment, rehabilitation, interdiction of large amounts of
drug as it is in the flow, working with our partners down
south. We have never had a real serious public campaign here in
the United States.
I testified in this room in April, you had some real
experts up here about behavior modification, tobacco, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving-type campaigns. You never get to zero.
But we have to reduce the amount of drugs used. Forty-seven
thousand Americans died last year from drug overdoses. It cost
America $250 billion. We have to do something.
Senator Lankford. I would agree. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
Now back to the Northern Border, Senator Heitkamp.
[Laughter.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP
Senator Heitkamp. I deserved that. There are a lot of
critics of the Northern Border here.
I am going to just rapidly go through a number of things
that you and I talked about that you know are of great
interest, and I think Senator Tester hit on the recruitment, so
did Senator Daines. Absolutely critical. We think that DHS has
begun a process that can actually result in some successes.
Please stay on top of that. We absolutely have to give these
folks help. And it is not fair what is happening to a lot of
our Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection, who
are told literally they cannot move home to other parts of the
country or transfer. You are going to lose those folks to other
Federal agencies who will, in fact, give them an opportunity to
move. So it is critical that we pay attention to the workforce
on the Northern Border, pass the bill, sign the bill. We look
forward to your analysis, putting your touch on the Northern
Border, challenges and issues, and I am greatly interested in
how that whole thing comes out.
Cybersecurity--I join Senator Lankford in saying we hear it
coming at us from all different directions. I think
historically the Intel Committee has kind of taken a little
jurisdiction there, and we do not want a stovepipe or rice
bowl--I think you were saying rice bowl. That is a new one to
me. We do not want to silo these issues. We want DHS to assert
their important role in cybersecurity.
Human trafficking--we just did a hearing this morning for
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations with Backpage. It
is a scourge. Obviously, that the Blue Campaign is working to
train officers, and has been absolutely a critical resource for
people in my State as we confront the area of human
trafficking. Please look at that program. I think there are
improvements that can be made, but I will tell you that your
officers and investigators within DHS have been critical in
advancing the cause of protecting children in this country.
Something that I do not think has been raised here, which
is first responders. I challenge you to take a look at what is
happening with volunteer fire departments. For the vast
majority of area in this country, the fire protection comes
from volunteers. Maybe there is a professional or a paid staff
person, but the volunteers provide that service. They are
having a hard time recruiting volunteers. Some of that goes to
equipment. Some of that goes to just losing a culture of
volunteerism. Somebody else is going to do it.
I think it is critical that you assert your role, and I am
going to ask that you pay attention to our RESPONSE Act which
just passed that would take a look at the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA's) role in training people, especially
as it relates to hazardous and flammable material on the rails.
I think Senator Hassan was hitting on something very
critical on the anti-radicalization. Have you had a chance to
visit with the folks within DHS who are working on that program
and evaluate what you think of that program and how you would
change the current program that they have?
General Kelly. I have not. Because of the ingoing/outgoing
MOU, we cannot directly touch.
Senator Heitkamp. OK.
General Kelly. But I am in there, if confirmed.
Senator Heitkamp. I really believe that it is critical that
you bring the expertise of your service historically to that
effort. I think that it is a little late in coming, but I think
it can be a force for good and I think critically important.
There are also some local grants to communities who want to
bring a collaborative nature, bring people together, build
those relationships that hopefully will, number one, prevent
radicalization but certainly report it as a front-line effort.
The motto, ``See something, say something,'' if the community
does not feel appreciated, respected, or is afraid to report
something for fear that it will come back to them, you are not
going to get the intel that you need.
I want to spend just a little bit of time talking about the
Northern Triangle. I like to tell--and I think I should tell
your wife, the excuse he gave me is you no longer wanted him
underfoot. [Laughter.]
I do not know. But we are extraordinarily grateful, and you
must be extraordinarily proud, both his daughter and his wife.
This is a remarkable public servant. But one of the reasons why
I believe that DHS won the Cabinet lottery--and you can tell
from perhaps this love fest that we are having with you today--
is that you have such a breadth of experience in an area that
is very challenging to our Southern Border and really our
entire border security. Your work at SOUTHCOM is critical. You
told me that very many of those Latin American leaders called
you and were very excited. That gives us a real opportunity.
But one of the things that I think we have missed as we
look at the rush of the children to the border is the
opportunity that we have to work with organizations like the
Organization of American States and the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), who are trying to deal with
the people fleeing violence in those communities and in those
countries and refugee in place, by helping Belize, by helping
Nicaragua, by helping Southern Mexico, by helping Costa Rica,
who has taken a fair number of these refugees into their
community.
Have you had a chance to take a look at those efforts
regionally to look at helping people out of violence but also
then stabilizing communities? And are you at all concerned
about blanket statements about nation building and whether that
is going to restrict or in any way hamstring your ability to
bring a different perspective to the Northern Triangle?
General Kelly. Senator, the first thing I would offer, when
in SOUTHCOM and for my entire career, every discussion really
began and ended with human rights and a discussion of human
rights. I had a very good relationship up here in Washington,
and every country--every time I visited a country, I would make
it a point to meet with the local human rights groups because
you get a far different view of what is needed, what the real
conditions are, from the local human rights people.
I would make the same comment about the churches, church
leadership in that part of the world. Of course, it is
overwhelmingly Roman Catholic with a very sizable Evangelical
Christian. I worked, met with those people. Oftentimes, maybe
most of the time, the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
organizations like that have a better view and, a way ahead
that is worth listening to. I spent an awful lot of time with
them. So I am totally--but at the end of the day, really, to
use an overused term, it is really improving the security on
the ground, and investment--not just more money--investment
monitored in the right way by the right organizations. The
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) is a particularly good
one in that part of the world. I am not suggesting we give them
money. I am suggesting we rely on them to tell us how to invest
that money.
But it is a tough problem, and it comes back to the
incredible profits that flow out of our country because of the
use of drugs. The average American who uses drugs say
recreationally does not think there is anything wrong with it.
The Latins will tell you because of your recreational use or
your abuse, thousands and thousands of Latins die every year
that should not die. And I just wish we had a campaign to make
people understand that there is no such thing as a nonviolent
use of drugs.
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you so much, and, again, thank you
so much to your family and to you for your long service and
your continued service to our country.
General Kelly. Thank you, ma'am.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Hoeven.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was presiding on the floor from 3 to 4, so one of the
good things about coming late is that we get to hear all the
testimony and the answers to the questions. One of the bad
things is you end up last in line. But, again, I want to add my
thanks to you for your service, for your service to the
military and for your willingness to serve again, and your
family, too. And you bring great experience. Thanks for coming
by the office today and engaging in conversation about this
important position.
I kind of want to start off, I come from the funding side.
I chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee for Homeland Security
for the last 2 years, and particularly in terms of results. So
talk to me, if you would, for a minute about how do we make
sure that we have secured the border and that we are measuring
results so that we know exactly what is going on and that we
communicate those results to the people of the country so they
understand what is going on.
General Kelly. Well, Senator, I think the two ways to
measure it would be--and my law enforcement friends tell me
that in the case of drugs that come in--frankly, I am not
arguing for legalization of marijuana here. I am just saying
that the only drugs that I really ever concerned myself with at
SOUTHCOM were the three hard drugs. All the marijuana flow that
we saw was coming from some of the Caribbean islands south. So
I just focused on the hard drugs.
They will tell you that if you have an effective law
enforcement strategy, I would argue border strategy, you will
start to see the cost of drugs go up. They are dirt cheap now,
but kind of a supply and demand thing, if you can reduce the
availability, and that is one way to the street price of drugs.
It is interesting, a kilo, a retail kilo, not street value cut
down, but a kilo in Washington, D.C., here costs about $40,000.
A kilo in most of the rest of the world costs about a quarter
of a million dollars, and that is because of the business
aspect of the movement. But the point is the law enforcement
people say if you see the price going up, then you are doing
something right.
And in terms of the illegal movement of people, fewer
people come in. In a way it is anyone's guess how many--there
is a certain number that we pick up, but it is anyone's guess
how many actually get through. But, I think there are some
pretty good metrics that you could use, a range of people that
get through, a range of people that are being processed in the
legal deportation route. But I think those two things: how many
you are actually grabbing at the border would be one metric,
internally how many people are apprehended and enter the
process of deportation or at least the legal process, and then
the price of drugs. I think those would be pretty good metrics.
Senator Hoeven. So are you willing to commit to provide
those metrics so that we truly have an understanding of what is
going on at the border, both the Southern Border and the
Northern Border, but then also our international airports and
seaports.
General Kelly. Right.
Senator Hoeven. The issue of visa overstays, the work we
need to do to make sure that E-Verify is mandatory so we truly
have an understanding of who is coming, who is coming in, who
is being detained at the border, and what is the resolution of
someone that is detained. Are you committed to providing those
statistics so we all have a common understanding of what is
factually going on?
General Kelly. I am certainly committed, Senator, but I
think also, if confirmed, I am going to get into how accurate
the numbers are in the first place. We are working with
numbers. If you talk to people about the amount of cocaine, as
an example, that is produced in the three countries that
produce it, the spectrum is like this [indicating]. I am told
that, 200 tons at the most, but I got 200 tons my last year at
SOUTHCOM. The Colombians got 158 tons or something like that.
So there is wild estimates as to what the numbers are, whether
it is people, whether it is drugs.
So, yes, the commitment is there, and also a commitment to
try to get--much of this data comes from DEA, FBI--to try to
clue this together and come up with better numbers so we really
know what we are dealing with. But, yes, sir, you have my
commitment.
Senator Hoeven. How do you make sure you secure the border?
Talk in terms of the wall, in terms of technology, in terms of
people. How do you make sure we have a secure border?
General Kelly. Perhaps the most important thing right now,
as I have heard--and, again, this is not briefed out of
Homeland Security. We are not talking to them right now. But,
anecdotally, it is allowing the great men and women that are in
the law enforcement business at DHS, particularly down on the
border, allow them to do the job according to the law.
I had an interesting experience. Just a few months ago, I
was down on the border in El Paso, off active duty, working for
the Department of Defense down there looking at some things.
And I was talking to some Border Patrol men and women, five of
them on the border. Maybe 200 yards down, there was a big fence
there, call it a ``wall.'' I mean, it is pretty substantial. It
is not a chain-link fence. It is 18 feet tall and pretty
seriously constructed. But I saw, half a dozen or so people
jump over the fence. And I am standing there just expecting the
officers to jump in their cars, put their lights on, and dash
down there. And they said, ``What is the use?'' I was
surprised. That is not good for morale.
So I think the number one thing right now would be, in
accordance with the law, let the people who are tasked to
protect the border do the job.
Senator Hoeven. So the need to really empower the people,
Customs and Border Patrol----
General Kelly. The laws are there, as I understand it. No
one says the laws are not there that I talk to. Again, very
anecdotal, kicking the tires. But we ought to be allowed to do
our job.
Senator Hoeven. Touch for a minute on unmanned aerial
systems (UAS), both in terms of using them on the border as
part of the technology effort, but then also counteracting
them, defense in terms of, other countries or penetration by
other technologies.
General Kelly. Well, I think, the beauty of the UAS is they
are low maintenance, relatively low cost, and they do not get
tired, they do not complain. There is no one riding them
around. It is pretty good stuff.
One of the things I did in Central America was encourage--
they thought they needed air forces. They do not need air
forces. They cannot afford them. And we got them going down the
route of looking at UASs. It is a relatively cheap solution for
observation purposes.
The other part of your question about the opposition----
Senator Hoeven. Counteracting. One of the things we have
done is set up test sites to develop UAS. We are using them on
the border. We need to do more of that. But then we also need
to have the ability to counteract any type of UAS coming in or
penetrating our system or creating a security breach.
General Kelly. Well, one of the things--I have not been
briefed in any way or any discussions on their use, say the
cartels' use of UASs, but they do use the ultralights to cross
the border. That is another problem. They are very hard to
detect. But, again, there are ways to pick these things up. I
am not completely conversant on the technologies that they use
to go after these ultralight aircraft, but will be if
confirmed.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it
very much. And, again, General, thanks to you for your service
and for your willingness to serve again.
General Kelly. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you, Senator Hoeven. And,
again, welcome to both you and Senator Harris. I appreciate you
asking some great questions.
I think what you have just witnessed here, General Kelly,
is what certainly I have experienced in my 6 years on this
Committee, a Committee of people that, again, we share the same
goal, as you do. We share your mission, keeping this Nation
safe and prosperous and secure. And we do not do show trials
here. We treat witnesses with respect.
I reserved my question time, but the Committee Members
asked a lot of great questions, so I will not hold you any
further. Just the last couple points.
Every one of these hearings that we hold from my standpoint
is all about laying out a reality, try and describe a problem,
try and go to the root cause, just lay out the reality of the
situation. I think the reality that we exposed in this hearing
is that, as Senator Heitkamp alluded to, we have the pleasure,
the privilege, the honor of holding a hearing to confirm an
extraordinary American, somebody that we are all incredibly
appreciative of the fact that you are willing to answer the
call one more time, your family is willing to support you. So,
again, I want to thank you. I want to thank Karen, Kathleen,
Jake, and your son John, who could not attend. Just thank you
for serving.
Our commitment to you is we want to help you succeed in
your mission. We made that same commitment to Secretary Jeh
Johnson. I want to wish him well. I think we all had a great
deal of respect for the job he did. He led the effort, unity of
effort, and I appreciate the fact in your answers you also are
committed to that unity of effort. I think it is extremely
important.
I just spoke with Senator McCaskill. We would kind of like
to see a unity of your responsibility reporting to Congress as
well. I know it is a real snarl here, all these agencies with
different committees. We will do what we can to try and at
least streamline that so you can concentrate on your important
mission of keeping this Nation safe and secure. So, again, I
just want to thank you for your willingness to serve.
General Kelly has made financial disclosures and provided
responses to biographical and pre-hearing questions submitted
by this Committee. Without objection, this information will be
made part of the hearing record,\1\ with the exception of the
financial data, which are on file and available for public
inspection in the Committee offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. This hearing will remain open until 5
p.m. tomorrow, January 11th, for the submission of statements
and questions for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:52 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]