[Senate Hearing 114-733]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:14 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. John Hoeven (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Hoeven, Cochran, Murkowski, Cassidy,
Shaheen, Tester, Baldwin, and Mikulski.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
STATEMENT OF HON. JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator john hoeven
Senator Hoeven. I will call this subcommittee hearing to
order. I would like to thank Secretary Johnson for joining us.
I also would like to thank Ranking Member Shaheen for being
here, as well as also Senator Tester and Senator Baldwin. In
addition, I would like to thank our Appropriations chairman,
Senator Cochran, for joining us as well.
I have an opening statement. I will then turn to Senator
Shaheen for an opening statement, as well as comments from any
other Senators.
And then, Secretary, we would, certainly, welcome your
opening statement and then proceed to questions.
Again, thank you for being with us today. We appreciate it
very much.
In the 12 years that have passed since the creation of the
Department, threats to the homeland have continued to evolve.
These threats proliferate in a world that is more
interconnected than ever before, and we need the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) to be prepared to face them.
Many of the latest incidents have not been new or novel in
their approach. Data breaches, fence-jumpers, and airspace
incursions, we have seen these types of incidents before.
For example, Verizon's 2015 data breach report notes that
social engineering, phishing scams, and poor cyber hygiene are
still responsible for the vast majority of cyber espionage and
network intrusions.
In 1994, over 2 decades ago, an individual tried to crash
his Cessna into the White House. And fence-jumpers have been a
reality for the Secret Service for even longer than that.
So today, these incidents should be met with a clear
response. DHS and partner agencies need to be up to the
challenge.
The context for these concerns today is the fiscal year
2016 budget, which we are here to discuss and review.
Now the President sent a request that exceeds budget caps
agreed to in the Budget Control Act. Since Congress will abide
by spending limits, we appropriators have to do our work and
sharpen our pencils for this 2016 process.
With a discretionary base appropriation of $40 billion and
225,000 employees, DHS has significant resources at its
disposal. Those resources need to be applied both effectively
and judiciously in the face of fiscal constraints.
As such, my priority as chairman is to support the
Department's many important operations as robustly as possible,
but that means staying within budget and that means measuring
the return on investment and holding the Department
responsible, accountable for outcomes.
I want to start with border security. Senator Shaheen and I
were in Texas a couple weeks ago to spend some time with
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), the Coast Guard, and others. We saw the need
for more technology, for better situational awareness, and for
more tactical infrastructure like better roads and fencing.
But what is the right mix? What outcomes can we achieve
with current resources? And what can we expect, if we invest
more? That has to be measured.
The American people need a clear picture of border security
measures. How many illegal aliens are coming across? How many
are getting away? Of those we apprehend, how many are removed?
How long does it take to get a disposition, particularly for
families and unaccompanied alien children?
The border security measures go hand-in-hand with other
measures: the information on those legally entering our country
and when they exit, data on employers using E-Verify, and how
we are doing in addressing visa overstays.
Over the past few weeks of hearings, we discussed measures
on other aspects of DHS operations, including preparedness
levels and the effectiveness of grant funding.
At the same time, building DHS into an organization to
execute that mission effectively and efficiently remains a work
in progress, as you and I have discussed, Mr. Secretary.
The DHS mission, whether it is border security, immigration
enforcement, protection of the President, preparedness in the
face of all hazards, and other issues, is compelling and
challenging. We need a skilled frontline work force that has
strong leadership and the right tools to do the job. And we
need good metrics to track DHS performance.
I know you're committed as well to the better integration
of the 22 agencies that comprise DHS. That is something that
you and I talked about right at the outset. That
interoperability versus a silo approach is a very important
part of your ``Unity of Effort'' initiative.
I look forward to hearing more about your plans and views
today, as well as how we move DHS to be more agile in
responding to evolving threats.
With that, I would like to recognize Senator Shaheen for
her comments.
statement of senator jeanne shaheen
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very pleased to join you for this hearing on the
budget of the Department of Homeland Security. I'm also pleased
that we have the chair and ranking member of the full
committee, Senators Cochran and Mikulski, who are with us this
afternoon.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. First, I want to begin by thanking
you for your assistance as we wrapped up the 2015
appropriations process, and note that in the first 5 years of
the existence of the Department of Homeland Security, you
received an annual appropriation at the beginning of each
fiscal year. In 2015, you were the last Federal agency to
receive a full appropriation.
I appreciate that this costly delay was due to a
disagreement over the administration's immigration enforcement
priorities, and I firmly believe that the Federal court system
is the appropriate venue to resolve this issue. Because the
courts are dealing with this case as we speak, I hope that we
will not have that interfere with the ability to get a budget
for the Department this year.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored the net
discretionary budget request for the Department of Homeland
Security for fiscal year 2016 at $41.4 billion. Excluding the
$6.7 billion disaster cap adjustment and $160 million in Coast
Guard overseas contingency funding, this represents a $1.7
billion increase, or about 4 percent, over fiscal year 2015.
Your budget for 2016 emphasizes border security,
immigration enforcement, Secret Service protection activities,
cybersecurity, emergency communications, and resilience
programs. However, these priorities seem to come at the expense
of funding for the Coast Guard recapitalization and first
responder grants, which are both cut below fiscal year 2015
levels.
If the Subcommittee is forced to work within the
constraints of the current discretionary budget cap, which
essentially restricts us to the 2015 funding level, I think we
will be hard-pressed to fund all of these priorities in
addition to addressing the reductions that I have some concerns
about.
As Senator Hoeven mentioned, he and I had the opportunity
to spend 4 enlightening days looking at border security and
immigration enforcement efforts along the southwest border in
Texas. Because I've had a chance to speak with you and share
with you my views on that trip as we came away I won't go into
it. But I would just say that I was very impressed with the
professionalism of the people who work for the Department of
Homeland Security and with their effort to work together to get
out of the silos that we have too often worked in, in the
Federal Government, and to work not only cooperatively with
each other but with other local law enforcement agencies and
authorities on both sides of the border.
Your agency also protects us from a wide variety of threats
originating at home and coming from abroad. We recently
observed the 2-year anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing,
an attack that struck very close to home for me and to others
of us from New England. Coupling that somber anniversary with
the influx of foreign fighters into Syria and attempts by ISIS
and AQAP to inspire attacks against the United States, I am
reminded that we must remain ever vigilant against their
hateful ideology.
As we speak, cyber criminals are conducting a relentless
assault against government, corporate, and personal computer
networks. Your budget seeks to enhance information-sharing and
strengthen systems to detect and prevent these intrusions.
Those are increases that I wholeheartedly support because this
threat is ever evolving and growing.
And finally, as we recover from devastating tornadoes that
ravaged the Midwest, and prepare for the beginning of the
Atlantic hurricane season, we are reminded of the deadly threat
that nature itself can pose. We just saw that on full display
in Nepal this past weekend, and I just want to commend the
Department for the search and rescue teams that are helping
with that recovery.
So, Mr. Secretary, I look forward to your testimony and to
the discussion today, and appreciate your leadership and your
commitment to tackle the diverse and prolific set of homeland
security challenges head on. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
At this point, I would turn to both our chairman of the
full Appropriations Committee, and then the ranking member, for
any comment that they might have at the outset.
statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, without delaying the hearing
any further, and giving us an opportunity to hear from our
witness from this agency of the Federal Government, let me just
say that as we continue to analyze the budgetary needs and the
demands that are being made throughout the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee, I believe we have an opportunity to take some
action prior to the start of other important ship programs by
maintaining the national security cutter production line by
adding a ninth ship. I think there's a strategy for assuring
that this makes sense and will pay off for being able to carry
out the responsibilities.
We need to be sure that we provide the ships and equipment
our men and women in uniform desperately need, so they can
carry out their responsibilities and missions.
We also know that we're living in a complex world with
ever-changing threats to our nation's security. I look forward
to hearing your thoughts on the impact of the president's
budget on current and future operations carried out by your
Department.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Senator.
I would turn to our ranking member for the full committee,
Senator Mikulski.
statement of senator barbara a. mikulski
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
be brief. I know we want to hear from the Secretary.
First, I'd like to really compliment you and Senator
Shaheen for the excellent way that you proceeded when we were
resolving the so-called cromnibus in the beginning of this
Congress. It was a little bit white knuckle, and we were a
little bit afraid it was going to get bareknuckle, but we
knuckled down and got the job done.
I would hope that we would not have a similar crisis again,
because the men and women who do all of the wonderful work in
homeland security that protect this Nation in so many different
ways need the reliability and certainty of an appropriations
process.
Second, as I look at these many demands, I say to my
friends and those who are advocating lifting the caps in
defense, something that we will be debated as we move forward,
there is also, in addition to defending America over there, we
need to protect America here. If we're going to lift up the
caps for defense, I also think we should lift the caps on
domestic funding, and homeland security should be one at the of
top the list.
I will now stop and look forward to your testimony.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Senator Mikulski. Thank you for
being here today.
I would turn to our other members to see if there are any
others who wish to offer an opening statement.
Hearing none, again, Secretary Johnson, we appreciate very
much you being here and would welcome your opening testimony.
summary statement of hon. jeh johnson
Secretary Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Shaheen, Ranking Member
Mikulski, and your colleagues, you have my printed written
advanced statement. I will not read it. I will just simply
offer a few things.
First of all, I want to thank the Senators for your
leadership in getting us a full-year appropriation for fiscal
year 2015. That was a difficult time. It was difficult period.
On behalf of the 225,000 men and women of my Department, thank
you for getting us there to a full-year appropriation.
In our judgment, the budget submission for fiscal year 2016
at the $41.2 billion level is a good budget submission. I am
pleased that it got a relatively good reception on the House
side, when I testified there about a month ago. It funds all of
our key homeland security priorities.
At the sequester level, that would represent a major step
backward in homeland security. I should point out that my
Department probably, almost certainly more than any other,
interacts with the American public more than any other
department. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
alone interacts with 1.8 million people per day.
Our budget submission represents a solid step forward in
terms of budget security, aviation security, cybersecurity,
enhancing the mission, and improving the mission of the Secret
Service. If we have to live within sequestration levels because
Congress does not remove sequestration, it will represent a
major step backward, in my view, to levels that will not
adequately fund the things we need to do on behalf of the
American people.
Let's not forget that we have within our budget automatic
pay increases tied to inflation and other things that we have
to pay for. So at the sequester level, it will be very, very
difficult to do the things we need to do for the American
people.
The other thing I would like subcommittee members to know
is that, in calendar year 2015, I've made as a major priority
for my Department of management reform, reforming the way in
which we deliver our services to be more effective and more
efficient.
So as the chairman has pointed out, for too long, we have
pursued our mission through stovepipes. We have, over the last
year, embarked on a unity of effort initiative to bring a more
strategic and centralized approach to acquisition matters, to
budget matters. We have embarked upon the southern border
campaign strategy for the southern border to have a more DHS-
wide strategic approach there. We have realigned major
headquarters functions.
We are working to get off the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) high-risk list. We are on a path to do that soon.
GAO has referred to us as a government agency that is a model
for how to get off the GAO high-risk list.
We are working very aggressively to improve morale within
the organization. I have an aggressive, active campaign to do
that--more transparency in hiring, promotion, training, and
mentoring opportunities. I believe that morale is improving
within the Department of Homeland Security.
Last but not least, I want to thank the Senate for your
partnership in helping us to fill all the vacancies. When I
came into office, there were a number of vacancies in the
Department. Over the last 15, 16 months, we have had 12 Senate-
confirmed presidential appointments to the Department. We have
three new Assistant Secretaries.
In addition to that, yesterday, the President nominated our
choice to be the next TSA administrator, Vice Admiral Pete
Neffenger, who I think is a terrific choice. He is an
incredibly dedicated and capable military officer, and I urge
the Senate to act quickly on his nomination.
All that said, I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeh C. Johnson
introduction
Chairman Hoeven, Ranking Member Shaheen, and members of the
subcommittee:
On behalf of the 225,000 men and women of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), I thank you for your continued support. We
appreciate the hard work and leadership many on this subcommittee
provided in delivering a full-year fiscal year 2015 appropriation for
DHS under very difficult circumstances. The $39.7 billion in net
discretionary funding provided by Congress for this year fully funds
our vital homeland security missions.
Now, we turn to fiscal year 2016.
The President's fiscal year 2016 Budget for DHS is $64.9 billion in
total budget authority, $51.9 billion in gross discretionary funding,
$41.2 billion in net discretionary funding, and $4.0 billion in
discretionary fees. As part of total DHS funding, $6.7 billion for the
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is provided, pursuant to the Budget Control
Act of 2011.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2016 also proposes
to end sequestration. Unless Congress acts to prevent it, sequestration
kicks in again in 2016. This would bring homeland security funding to
its lowest level, adjusted for inflation, in a decade. Now is not the
time to take such a huge step backward in our Nation's homeland
security funding. At a sequester level, funding for the Department
would be inadequate to continue paying for our current workforce and
programs. Meanwhile, pay and inflation costs would automatically
increase notwithstanding sequestration. Many other key initiatives that
were funded in fiscal year 2015 would be discontinued or sharply
curtailed. These initiatives include added border security on our
southern border, more CBP officers, more ICE attorneys for immigration
enforcement, and more HSI agents. Furthermore, the fiscal year 2016
budget includes requests to implement recommendations of the United
States Secret Service Protective Missions Panel. If sequestration
returns, our ability to fully fund this, too, is jeopardized. We need
to move forward, not backward, in our funding of homeland security.
Our fiscal year 2016 Budget focuses resources in each of the
Department's mission areas: prevent terrorism and enhance security,
secure and manage our borders, enforce and administer our immigration
laws, safeguard and secure cyberspace, and strengthen national
preparedness and resilience.
Since taking office in December 2013, I have also made management
reform a top priority in the Department. In my view, improving the
effectiveness and efficiency by which we pursue our missions is itself
a homeland security imperative.
counterterrorism and enhancing security
As I have said many times, counterterrorism must remain the
cornerstone of DHS's mission.
Safeguarding critical infrastructure and implementation of layered
security on land, in the air, and on the sea are essential to combating
any terrorist threat. The Department has prioritized investments in
technology and risk-based, intelligence-driven programs like the
Transportation and Security Administration's (TSA) Pre.TM
and Global Entry, and in the assets necessary to carry out DHS front-
line missions today and in the future. The President's fiscal year 2016
Budget will fund key priorities including a DHS data framework,
enhancing information sharing between critical vetting programs, and
service life extension of radiation portal monitors to sustain
compliance with the SAFE Port Act. In this mission area, the fiscal
year 2016 President's Budget includes funding requests for the
following key investments:
--$3.7 billion for TSA screening operations to continue aviation
security at prior year levels, and more effectively align
passenger screening resources based on risk. These risk-based
security initiatives maximize security capabilities and
expedite the screening process for low-risk travelers.
--Support for U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Trusted
Traveler Programs, which provide expedited travel for pre-
approved, low-risk travelers through dedicated lanes and
kiosks. CBP's Trusted Traveler Programs reached record numbers
of enrollment in fiscal year 2014. An additional 1.25 million
people enrolled in the agency's Trusted Traveler Programs
(Global Entry, SENTRI, NEXUS and FAST) this fiscal year to
bring total enrollment to more than 3.3 million members. Global
Entry, the agency's largest program with more than 1.7 million
members, is operational at 42 U.S. airports and 12 Preclearance
locations, serving 99 percent of incoming travelers to the
United States. CBP added nine Global Entry kiosk locations this
fiscal year and enrolled its one millionth member in NEXUS.
--$101 million for Radiological and Nuclear Detection Equipment
Acquisition with which the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
and other DHS components, including the Coast Guard, CBP, and
TSA, keep U.S. ports of entry safe and secure by detecting and
interdicting illicit radioactive and nuclear materials.
--$94.5 million for Infrastructure Security Compliance funding to
secure America's high-risk chemical facilities through the
systematic regulation, inspection, and enforcement under the
authority of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards.
The request includes $16 million to enhance regulation of the
sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate.
--$86.7 million to enhance White House Complex security, consistent
with the recommendations of the United States Secret Service
(USSS) Protective Missions Panel.
--$83.3 million for the BioWatch Program to provide detection and
early warning of the intentional release of select aerosolized
biological agents.
--$29.4 million for Visa Information Update System. This new program
will allow non-immigrant visa holders to provide updated
biographic and travel related information through a public
website. The system will complement the existing visa
application process and enhance CBP's ability to make pre-
travel risk determinations.
--$65.8 million for the National Protection and Programs Directorate
Replacement Biometric System. This system will replace the
legacy Automated Biometric Identification System. In addition
to reduced operating costs, the new system will have improved
detection capabilities, more efficient processing, and improved
scalability.
securing and managing our borders
The Department has committed historic levels of front-line
personnel, technology, and infrastructure to border security to reduce
the flow of illegal immigrants and illicit contraband while fostering
legal trade and travel. Over time, this investment has yielded positive
results. The reality is that illegal migration is a fraction of what it
used to be. In the year 2000, apprehensions on the southern border--
which are an indicator of total attempts to cross the border--exceeded
1.6 million. Apprehensions on the southern border have dropped
considerably since then, to around 400,000 a year in recent years.
Apprehensions are in fact at their lowest rate since the 1970s.
southwest border
usbp apprehensions fiscal year 2000--fiscal year 2014
These numbers are no doubt partially due to economic conditions and
trends in the U.S., Mexico and Central America, but also due to the
very large investment this Nation has made in border security over the
last 15 years. Today's Border Patrol has the largest deployment of
people, vehicles, aircraft, boats and equipment along the southwest
border in its 90-year history.
Without a doubt, we had a challenge last summer, with the
unprecedented number of unaccompanied children and others who crossed a
narrow area of our southern border into the Rio Grande Valley, in
search of a family member and a better life in this country. We
responded aggressively with more people and resources on the southern
border. Beginning in mid-June 2014 the numbers of unaccompanied
children crossing the southern border declined sharply. As the chart
below reflects, the number of unaccompanied children apprehended at the
southern border, month-to-month, are the lowest it has been in several
years. As of March 31, 2015, the total number for the fiscal year is 45
percent less than it was the same time last year.
Meanwhile, as the chart below reflects, month-to-month, total
apprehensions on the southern border are also significantly lower than
they were this time over the last several years. Through March 31,
2015, total apprehensions this fiscal year is 28 percent less than it
was the same time last year.
But, we are not declaring ``mission accomplished'' when it comes to
border security. I am committed to building an even more secure border.
In the future, DHS will more effectively execute its border
security responsibilities by implementing our new DHS-wide, inter-
component Southern Border Campaign for securing the U.S. Southern
Border and approaches. This Campaign will direct DHS resources in a
much more collaborative fashion with pre-identified, Secretary-
approved, outcomes and targets for the range of threats and challenges,
including illegal migration, illegal drug, human and arms trafficking,
the illicit financing of all these operations, and the terrorist
threat. The fiscal year 2016 Budget supports this effort by requesting
resources needed to support officer and agent staffing along the
border, maintaining all statutory personnel floors, while supporting
the 2,000 additional CBP officers first funded in fiscal year 2014. The
Budget retains critical border patrol, watch-list, and targeting
technology that enhance the capabilities of front-line officers and
agents, and investments in Coast Guard recapitalization. Funding is
included for securing and managing our borders in the following key
areas:
--Salaries, benefits, and operating costs for 21,370 Border Patrol
agents and 23,871 CBP officers.
--Resources to complete the hiring and training of up to 2,000 new
CBP officers, to achieve a total end-strength of 23,871 CBP
officers. This effort, which commenced in fiscal year 2014, is
already yielding faster processing and inspection of passengers
and cargo at U.S. ports of entry, as well as more seizures of
illegal items, such as drugs, guns, and counterfeit goods.
--Resources for Coast Guard port security screening to secure key
transportation nodes through security/background checks to
ensure unauthorized and illicit individuals do not gain access
to, or disrupt, key transportation and commerce nodes. All
crew, passengers, and cargo of vessels over 300 tons are
screened prior to arrival in U.S. waters, to mitigate potential
risks to our borders.
--$373 million to maintain the necessary infrastructure and
technology along the Nation's borders to ensure law enforcement
personnel are supported with effective surveillance technology
to improve their ability to detect and interdict illegal
activity in a safer environment.
--Provides funds for the costs associated with apprehension and care
of unaccompanied children. A portion of these funds will be
used to prepare facilities for families and unaccompanied
children in the event of a surge that exceeds prior year
apprehension levels. The request proposes up to $162 million in
contingency obligation authority--enabling CBP and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to respond effectively in the
event migration volume significantly surpasses prior-year
levels.
--Support for Coast Guard recapitalization to include $340 million
for production of six Fast Response Cutters (FRCs); $102
million to convert Air National Guard C-27J aircraft for Coast
Guard use; $91.4 million for National Security Cutter (NSC)
structural enhancement and post-delivery activities; and $18.5
million to complete preliminary design evaluation of the
Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC). Recapitalization will ensure
Coast Guard's continued ability to enforce laws and treaties
and guard the maritime domain against illegal activity and
potential acts of terrorism.
--$85.3 million for the Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) Equipment
Refresh and Recapitalization program. The NII systems allow for
passive radiation scanning and X-ray/gamma-ray imaging of cargo
and conveyances. Large scale NII systems perform 7.2 million
examinations per year at the ports of entry. In fiscal year
2016, DHS will begin replacement of NII systems that exceed
designed life expectancy.
--$90 million for Coast Guard operations and maintenance funds to
support the delivery of new and more capable assets, including
$17.2 million in operations and maintenance for two new Coast
Guard FRCs, which will provide critical maritime border
security along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts.
enforcing and administering our immigration laws
Each year Congress provides the Department resources for the
prioritized removal of a portion of those living unlawfully in the
United States. DHS allocates its resources to address the highest
risks, targeting criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety,
recent border crossers, and employers who ignore our immigration laws.
The fiscal year 2016 Budget continues the Administration's efforts to
more effectively focus the enforcement system and our finite resources
on identifying and removing high-priority individuals. For fiscal year
2016, the Budget includes funds to enable ICE to maintain more than the
34,000 detention beds and other funds requested for enforcing and
administering our immigration laws, including the following:
--$3.3 billion to provide safe, secure, and humane detention and
removal of removable individuals who are held in Government
custody because they present a risk of flight, a risk to public
safety, or are subject to mandatory detention.
--Funds to supervise approximately 87,000 individuals (average
per day by the end of fiscal year 2016), including an
additional $94.5 million to support adult detention beds for
higher risk individuals and $122.5 million for the more cost-
effective Alternatives to Detention program for those who are
not considered a threat to our communities. The Alternatives to
Detention program places low-risk individuals under various
forms of intensive supervision or electronic monitoring rather
than in detention.
--$129.4 million to identify and apprehend immigration fugitives
in the United States, with an emphasis on those who pose the
greatest risk to national security and public safety.
--$345.3 million to fund an increased number of family beds to
address the surge in families with children crossing the U.S.
southern border illegally.
--The fiscal year 2016 President's Budget proposes $45 million of
Custody Operations funding be appropriated as five-year
funding. This extension of funds availability (from one to 5
years) allows ICE to improve the cost efficiency of detention
bed rates.
safeguarding and securing cyberspace
Cybersecurity is of growing relevance to our national and economic
security. At DHS, we are building an agile and responsive cybersecurity
capability. Central to our efforts is the National Cybersecurity and
Communications Integration Center, or NCCIC. We are finalizing plans to
open a satellite office in Silicon Valley that will serve as another
point of contact with our friends in the technology industry. It is
also my hope that an office in Silicon Valley will help us steal more
private sector talent to help us realize our plans. I am already in the
hunt to hire a new NCCIC director. I am personally participating in
efforts to look for a recognized all-star in the cybersecurity field,
and I believe we are going to hire such a person soon. My goal is to
make the NCCIC a 24/7 cybersecurity operations center that brings
together government and business, working side by side to assess and
reduce the risks to America's cyber systems. We are enabling the NCCIC
to provide near real-time automated information sharing to the private
sector. Later this year, we will be in a position to begin to accept
cyber threat indicators from the private sector in automated near real-
time format.
Funding in this request supports the Department's two flagship
cyber acquisition programs--the National Cybersecurity Protection
System and Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation--which enhance
cybersecurity situational awareness and information sharing. Funding is
also included to sustain the USSS network of 46 Financial Crimes Task
Forces and 38 Electronic Crimes Task Forces which continues to leverage
USSS partnerships with international law enforcement agencies through
overseas field offices. In addition, the Department recognizes that it
must maintain its own robust internal network security to be a national
leader in cybersecurity. Therefore, DHS is allocating resources across
all of its Components that own information technology systems as part
of a plan to fix known system vulnerabilities and is preparing to
implement National Protection and Programs Directorate continuous
monitoring services. The fiscal year 2016 request includes the
following key resources for safeguarding and securing cyberspace:
--The fiscal year 2016 President's Budget sustains ICE and USSS
resources to combat cyber-crime and investigate cyber-
criminals.
--$479.8 million for Network Security Deployment, including the
EINSTEIN3 Accelerated program which enables DHS to detect
malicious traffic targeting Federal (non-Department of Defense)
networks and prevent malicious traffic from harming those
networks.
--$102.6 million for the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation
program which provides hardware, software, and services
designed to support activities that strengthen the operational
security of Federal (non-Department of Defense) networks.
--$5.1 million for the CyberSkills Management Support Initiative.
This initiative is intended to bolster DHS's ability to develop
and maintain a robust cybersecurity workforce. As part of this
initiative, DHS will ensure consistent execution of
cybersecurity workforce support activities across the
Department by consolidating these activities within the Office
of the Chief Human Capital Officer, consistent with other
workforce management programs.
strengthening national preparedness and resilience
No matter the time of day or location on a map, a disaster can
strike and overwhelm any of our Nation's communities. It is the goal of
DHS to build a ready and resilient Nation through efforts to bolster
disaster response information sharing and collaboration. The fiscal
year 2016 President's Budget includes $9.6 billion to support the DRF,
grant programs, disaster preparedness plans, and training for our
homeland security and law enforcement partners. Working closely with
State, local, and tribal governments across the country, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will continue to make progress in
its ability to plan, prepare for, and respond to disasters. These
investments include:
--$7.4 billion in DRF funding to provide immediate and long-lasting
assistance to individuals and communities stricken by
emergencies and major disasters.
--$2.2 billion in total grants funding to prepare state and local
governments to prevent, protect against, respond to, and
recover from incidents of terrorism and other catastrophic
events. These funds also include Firefighter Assistance and
Emergency Management Performance Grants that support local
first responders in achieving their missions.
Understanding and preparing for the impacts of a changing climate
is also an Administration priority. Climate change--including an
increase in prolonged periods of high temperatures, changes in
precipitation, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts,
permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise--is already
impacting the Nation and will exacerbate many of our existing
vulnerabilities. Managing these risks requires deliberate preparation,
close cooperation, and coordinated planning across government, as well
as by other stakeholders. The fiscal year 2016 President's Budget
includes the following climate resilience investments which will
strengthen our preparedness for the effects of climate change:
--$616 million in support of the President's Climate Resilience
Initiatives:
--$400 million to support flood mapping and risk analysis
activities, which are essential to educating communities about
flood risk and minimizing the loss of life and property as a
result of flooding.
--$200 million in Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants for hazard
mitigation planning and/or project applications to mitigate
damage associated with natural disasters.
--$10 million for analyses of climate change impacts on
infrastructure critical to national and economic security, and
national public health and safety.
--$6 million for FEMA climate workshops and regional resilience
coordination.
reforming the management of dhs
Since taking office in December 2013, I have made management reform
a top priority in the Department. Improving the effectiveness and
efficiency by which we pursue our missions is itself a homeland
security imperative.
Over the last 15 months, we have filled almost all the senior-level
vacancies that existed in the Department. I want to express my
gratitude to the Senate for confirming Russ Deyo, the President's
nominee for Under Secretary for Management, the number 3 position
within the Department. In February, the President also named Joe Clancy
to be the Director of the Secret Service. On Tuesday, April 28, the
President will announce his nominee to be the new Administrator of the
TSA.
Our ``Unity of Effort'' initiative has brought about a more
centralized process for making decisions concerning budget requests,
acquisition, strategy and other Departmental functions. Growing out of
this initiative, we also realigned major DHS headquarters functions to
consolidate like functions and promote efficiency. DHS is a very large
conglomerate of 22 components that is only 12 years old. We are a large
bureaucracy. In some ways, we are still finding our way, but we are
headed in the right direction.
We have established the Southern Border and Approaches Campaign, as
I mentioned earlier. We have built what I believe to be more candid and
inclusive senior leadership discussions and decisionmaking. We have
realigned seven major Department headquarters functions. We are
developing a number of human capital initiatives, including a
Department-wide approach to joint rotational duty assignments. And we
are embarking on the Acquisition Innovation in Motion (AIM) initiative,
which will be an ongoing and recurring set of activities to enhance the
way the Department does business with the private sector.
DHS is one of 16 departments and agencies on Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) so-called ``High Risk List.'' DHS has
been on that list since DHS was created in 2003, simply by virtue of
the large realignment of government it took to create the Department.
We are on a path to get off that list soon. In its most recent report
to Congress on February 11, GAO once again noted DHS's good progress
toward getting off the list. Specifically, GAO noted that since its
last report in 2013, DHS has ``fully addressed'' 9 of 30 risk areas,
and has made significant progress toward addressing theremaining 21.
Overall, GAO has stated that DHS is a ``model'' for how Federal
agencies can work to address GAO's high risk designations. GAO also
stated:
``DHS's top leadership, including the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary of Homeland Security (who assumed leadership of the
department after our 2013 update), have continued to
demonstrate exemplary commitment and support for addressing the
department's management challenges. For instance, the
department's Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for
Management, and other senior management officials have
frequently met with us to discuss the department's plans and
progress, which helps ensure common understanding or the
remaining work needed to address our high-risk designation.''
Concerning morale, one of the ways we are improving is to stop
telling the workforce they suffer from low morale. We have moved on. We
are no longer ``studying'' the issue of morale. We are doing something
about it. The Deputy Secretary and I are on an aggressive, multi-
faceted campaign to improve morale within components of DHS. We are
developing more transparency in hiring, training, promotion and
mentoring opportunities. In cascading fashion, we are encouraging all
leaders and managers within the Department to invest time and effort to
improving morale. We are thanking and acknowledging people for their
good work. In October of last year we restored the Secretary's Awards
Program, which had been dormant since 2008, to recognize more than 300
employees who have made outstanding achievements across DHS. I request
that Congress continue to work with me to address DHS workforce issues,
so the men and women all across the Department of Homeland Security
remain upbeat, dedicated and patriotic.
We have improved the Department's responsiveness to Congress. This,
despite the challenge of--depending on how you count--92 committees and
subcommittees of Congress who claim an oversight role over this
Department. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have taken
note.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rep. Beto O'Rouke (D-TX): ``Mr. Secretary, I want to begin by
thanking you for your accountability. Your responsiveness to our
requests and our questions and your commitment to transparency--I think
there's a long way still to go within the department, but in the last
12 months, we've seen more transparency than we've seen in hears. And
so I really do appreciate that.''
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT): ``I can tell you, since you've taken
office, the production and the response to Congress in terms of
responding to our letters and inquiries is--the difference, I cannot
tell you how much better it is. And I thank you and the people who work
on this. I do appreciate [that].''
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): ``Jeh Johnson has proven to be a capable
leader, a transparent partner with Congress, and committed to making
tough decisions and improving the Department.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
I thank you for the opportunity to speak with all of you and for
your continued support, I look forward to your questions.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Appreciate it.
We will follow the early-bird rule, but I would like to
first ask the subcommittee's indulgence to turn to Senator
Murkowski, who has to leave, and allow her to proceed with her
questions to start.
ICEBREAKERS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other
members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the indulgence. The
administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
in the next room, and I'm supposed to start that hearing right
now.
So if I may ask just one quick question, and I will submit
others for the record.
This relates to our ability as a Nation to be prepared, to
be resilient, in the Arctic. As you know, the United States
assumed the chair of the Arctic Council on Friday. I was with
Secretary Kerry. We were up in Iqaluit, Canada.
There is a great expectation for us as a Nation to assume
the roles, the responsibilities, the obligations as an Arctic
Nation. But it's kind of tough to do that when you can't move
when you need to, whether it is for a search and rescue
operation, whether it is to help our maritime commerce moving
through waters that are now more open. And it comes down to our
icebreaking capacity as a Nation.
As you know, we have the Polar Star. The Polar Star is our
one full-strength icebreaker, and she is on assignment to
Antarctica for the next 5 years. When she's done, she comes
back, and, theoretically, we would have the opportunity to have
her in the Arctic. But her useful life is between 6 to 8 years
from now.
We are woefully behind. China has more icebreakers than the
United States. Russia has three and four times more than we
have here in the United States.
I understand that this is a question of funding priorities.
I appreciate full well what the chairman of the full committee
has noted in terms of cutter priorities for our Coast Guard and
the importance of getting that ninth cutter going.
And know, Mr. Chairman, that I am entirely with you there.
But, Mr. Secretary, I need to figure out how we build this
path forward for not only one icebreaker, but the six that have
been recommended in the study that has been done. We know what
we need. We don't need to spend more money on studies. We have
$4 million in the request here for initial acquisition
activities for a new polar icebreaker. It takes 10 years to
build one.
Funding is an issue. We all know that. But it is also
ensuring that it is a priority. I noted in your comments as
well as in your prepared comments, there is no mention of what
we need to do in the Arctic, short of a reference to permafrost
thawing.
So I need to hear from you what you believe we might be
able to do to step it up to assume those responsibilities that
we have in the Arctic and, more specifically, to the need to
how we might be able to expedite construction of a polar
icebreaker.
Secretary Johnson. Senator, I have in 16 months in office
become very committed to our icebreaking mission, particularly
in the Arctic.
You are correct that there is $4 million for preacquisition
activities. I believe that we need to get to a new icebreaker.
I also believe that we need to carefully look at what can be
done with the Polar Sea.
I know the importance to commerce and to straight maritime
security of an icebreaker, and not just the big ones you refer
to, but the smaller fleet as well performs a valuable service
in places like the Hudson River, for example, near where I grew
up.
So you are correct that the Polar Star is years and years
old, and we need to do something about that. So I am interested
in recapitalizing and rebuilding the entire Coast Guard fleet.
But I do recognize the importance of having the right number of
icebreakers for our Coast Guard.
I note the fact that China and Russia have been able to
fund a number of icebreakers. And I know the great value there
is in having very large icebreakers to free up commerce and to
basically save people and pull them out of the ice.
Senator Murkowski. Well, know that I'm going to continue to
press on it. If we can work with you and your team, obviously
we are the Coast Guard, but I think this has to be across
agencies, in terms of how we're going to place priority on
this, so I look forward to working with you.
I do have a couple other questions, Mr. Chairman, that I
will submit for the record. But I thank you for your indulgence
in giving me this opportunity.
Senator Hoeven. Certainly.
I would like to turn to Senator Tester. I believe you also
have an engagement, and I will be more than happy to allow you
to go next.
Senator Tester. I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hoeven. No problem.
Senator Tester. I also thank you.
Secretary Johnson, just building off of what Senator
Murkowski said, I think the key here is funding. I mean, I
don't think you want to waste a bunch of time if the money
never comes. So we have to step up to give you the kind of
money you need to rebuild your infrastructure.
Without Congress acting, without Congress doing the right
thing--and hopefully, we will have a discussion about this, Mr.
Chairman, when we have the full committee come together.
Without us acting and doing the right thing, how can you spend
a lot of time on something that is never going to happen unless
we step up? So thank you.
BORDER PATROL PAY REFORM ACT
Look, we passed up the pay reform bill, Senator McCain and
I did, last Congress. It's a good bill. It would not have
passed without your support, and we appreciate that.
It increases manpower hours along the border, which I think
we all think is more important, more predictable schedules for
the employees and more predictable paychecks in that, and
offers some recruitment advantages. It also saves about $100
million a year. So it is the best of all worlds.
In moving forward, I expect this legislation to be
implemented pretty quickly in its entirety in a way that really
doesn't financially harm the agents, because you need those
folks on the borders.
Can you give me an update on the implementation of the
Border Patrol Pay Reform Act, as well as the timeline for full
implementation?
Secretary Johnson. Well, first of all, Senator, thank you
for your sponsorship of that bill. It's a really, really good
piece of legislation. It's a win-win for our Border Patrol and
for long-term fiscal discipline. It's an excellent piece of
legislation. I'm really glad you got it passed to replace the
Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO) system, which
had a lot of problems.
The law requires implementation through the drafting of
regulations. I have urged my people to do that as quickly as
possible. I am told that we could be there as soon as late this
summer.
Senator Tester. For full implementation?
Secretary Johnson. For at least initial implementation,
sometime late this summer.
I would like to see us move as quickly as possible, because
we are talking about people's pocketbooks, and we are talking
about people who work for me.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Secretary Johnson. And I understand the importance of
overtime in people's daily lives, so I'm urging our people to
get this done. I'm urging our rule-writers, our lawyers, to get
this done as quickly as possible.
I was, frankly, disappointed to hear that it is going to
take as long as it is taking, and I know the importance of
being able to fill the gap.
Senator Tester. Are there impediments that we can help you
knock down?
Secretary Johnson. We may want to come to you for that. I
understand there is an issue with how the law should be
interpreted, the wording of a particular provision. So we may
need to come to you for a little help there.
But on my end, I'm pressing our people to get this done as
quickly as possible.
FIREFIGHTER GRANTS
Senator Tester. Okay. I appreciate your efforts.
We have the beginnings of a historic drought out West.
Everybody knows about California. Washington and Oregon are
right behind. And I'm afraid to say that Montana is not far
behind them.
That means more fires. That means local firefighters need
assistance, and they get that assistance through firefighter
grants, SAFER grants, Assistance to Firefighters grants, and
others.
The administration calls for a reduction in these programs,
in the fiscal year 2016 budget at least. What is the
justification for that proposed cut? Was it done because you
thought we would probably bump it back up? Because things don't
look particularly well in the Western United States, so it's
not just one State, as far as fire goes.
Secretary Johnson. Well, first of all, if we got into a
real problem, I'm sure there are ways to compensate through
grantmaking properly for firefighter relief and other things.
Senator, I do know that at the top line, we have requested
$2.2 billion in grants for statewide and for Urban Area
Security Initiative (UASI) money, which can go to all sorts of
different things, including firefighters. I know that we are
funding, in some cases, overtime for firefighters.
When it comes to firefighters in rural areas, which I think
is implicit in your question----
Senator Tester. That's true.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. Let me take that for the
record. I do want to understand better the reason for our
current funding request.
[The information follows:]
The President's Budget requested $335 million for the fiscal year
2016 AFG program and $335 million for fiscal year 2016 SAFER grants,
which are the same amounts requested in fiscal year 2015. This was a
decision made within the context of the overall DHS budget request in
which many varying needs are weighed. The decision to request the same
amount as in the prior fiscal year was made to maintain constant
funding from one fiscal year to the next fiscal year.
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you. I have some of the
questions I'll put in the record.
But I just want to say, personally, Jeh, I really
appreciate the job you have done since you've been here at
Homeland Security. I appreciate your common-sense perspective
on things, because it is a tough job, maybe the toughest job in
the administration. I just thank you for the work you do, and I
look forward to supporting your success.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Secretary, I guess I would like to start with the top
line total in your budget. You requested, in discretionary
funding, $41.426 billion. The House mark, the House 302(b)
allocation, and I think you maybe already had your initial
hearing with House appropriators? Is that correct?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, I did.
Senator Hoeven. So their mark is $39.32 billion. Did you
discuss that difference with them?
Now, it looks like we're close to reconciling on the budget
between the House and the Senate, and then we will be setting
up our 302(b)s, so we don't know what that 302(b) is going to
be yet for the Senate. Our chairman and ranking member
undoubtedly are already having that conversation. So don't know
exactly where this 302(b) is going to come in. But for
starters, you've already seen that the House is about $2
billion below your number.
So what was the discussion in terms of prioritization and
the adjustments that you would make relative to that House
number versus your budget request?
Secretary Johnson. When I testified, it was late March,
March 26, March 27. I think that the House budget number had
just come out, maybe a few days before that. So we did not have
an in-depth discussion, except to say that if we have to do
this on the sequester level, it is going to be a real setback
for the key Homeland Security missions that we have, and the
things that immediately come to mind are border security and
aviation security and funding the Secret Service, in addition
to cybersecurity. Those are the four big items where we have
new initiatives for Homeland Security that funding at the $41.2
billion level gets us to.
If we have to fund at the sequester level, that's a very
different exercise. I've been working with my Chief Financial
Officer to understand exactly how we would try to compensate
for that. It's not easy.
If we have to do it, we have to do it. But I'm urging
Congress to give us some relief here, so we can deliver the
services that I know you want us to deliver.
Senator Hoeven. I'm asking that question on purpose,
because you have both the chairman and the ranking member of
the full Appropriations Committee here, so this is your chance
to make your case before that 302(b) allocation is made. So
that's your shot right there, because obviously we are going to
have to set that number. In all likelihood, it may be different
than the House number.
So this is where I think you plead your case.
But there is going to have to be some prioritization, in
all likelihood, between the budget number and our number. But
our number may very well be higher than the House number. So
that is why I offer you that opportunity.
Secretary Johnson. Well, I know Congress places huge value
on national security, on funding our military, on funding
national defense. In my judgment, equal to that in importance
should be basic homeland security, the security of our borders,
the security of our ports, the security of our airplanes, the
security of the Internet.
My Department, as I said earlier, interacts with the
American public more than any other department of government.
TSA alone does. So when we talk about the basic security of the
American people, we are talking about homeland security, in my
judgment, aviation security, maritime security, cybersecurity.
After a number of years of really difficult budgeting, with
less than desirable top lines because of the economy and
because of where we were in our overall budget process, we are
now at a place where I think we can really fund our vital
homeland security missions with added surveillance and
technology for the border.
Everybody in Congress wants us to do a better job on border
security. So we put forth a budget with added technology, added
surveillance capability. I know Congress is concerned about
aviation security. So we have put forth a budget that in our
view adequately funds aviation security. And we need to do
something about cybersecurity. This Congress is active right
now in legislating cybersecurity. But we need to pay for that
as well.
So there are very important missions at the $41.2 billion
level that we need to fund, that I know Congress wants us to
pursue, and that will be very difficult to do if we have to
live with sequestration.
In my judgment, homeland security is a fundamental part of
basic national security as well.
Senator Hoeven. With that, I would normally turn to Senator
Shaheen, but I understand that she would like to defer.
Senator Mikulski, would you like to go next?
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Yes, I do.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Shaheen, I just want to
comment first about Baltimore. We've been through a rough time
in Baltimore. Our protests were important to insist that
justice be done for Mr. Freddie Gray, who died in police
custody. But then there were a group of children, teens,
tweens, that really did some acting out and severe damage.
But we are calm now. Our city is calm. Children are back to
school.
And by the way, that awful day when the disruption
occurred, 85,000 of our children went home peacefully, went to
after-school activities, sports, faith-based, et cetera. So
85,000 were okay.
But let me tell you why this is important to this
committee, which goes to the emergency preparedness grants and
to the continuity of government.
I just want to say to the subcommittee, first of all,
Baltimore is calm. We are not a city that lacks leadership or
lacks commitment or lacks compassion. So we will get through
this. Baltimore emergency management, this was funded
significantly through your office, as was Governor Hogan's
Maryland emergency management, which was also activated.
To my colleagues, what this does, at a time like this, is
ensure the continuity of government and the continuity of
services. So not only do our schools need to be open but people
who might need kidney dialysis need to be able to get there and
know where to go and how to do it.
I saw this operation full-scale, full-bore moving forward.
Today, I received a call from the CVS drugstore corporation
that had been burned out. And I thought, are they calling me to
tell me they are pulling out? No. They called me on how they
could deliver prescription drugs to needy people in
neighborhoods that had been disrupted.
Because I could connect them to Baltimore emergency
services, connected to the appropriate police district
commanders, to protect the drug stores that were open, as of 2
o'clock today, we had a whole method, thanks to the
interoperability of their medical and pharmaceutical records,
and working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
backed up by the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency
(MEMA), we can meet the needs of the senior citizen that needs
insulin or the child that needs antibiotics.
So this is really what we pay for. Yes, it is guarding our
borders, yes guarding our Internet, all the excellent things
you do every day. Of course, we can't have a Port of Baltimore
without the Coast Guard.
But I just wanted to share that, because we don't always
think about the bread-and-butter issues and what must go on. So
of course, I salute the men and women in Baltimore who are
responding, and all those who have come to our assistance. But
this is the kind of stuff we pay for.
And thanks to the fact that they train, that it is in
place, and they are available, we can meet the needs of our
citizens.
So I just wanted to say that.
H-2B VISA PROGRAM
Shifting gears, though, I would like to raise the issue
about something that goes very important to jobs in my State,
which is the famous H-2B visa program.
First of all, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you and
Secretary Perez for issuing the regulations that you said you
would. By and large, I like them. I can have some flashing
lights.
But I have a real problem and so does my business community
where they have not been able, because of the H-2B cap, be able
to get the visas they need for this year.
Are you aware that's a problem?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, I am.
Senator Mikulski. I have a suggestion on how to meet that
problem without legislative change. I'm asking whether you
would do an audit on the number of nonimmigrant H-2B visas that
have been requested, and then also to know where they are not
being used and, therefore, the ability to be used by others who
could use them.
What I mean is, in my seafood industry, a company might ask
for 100 visas. They might've been doing this for 10 years.
Crabs are down. They only need 50. You would have 50 to use.
Well, this year, we need all 100.
So can you offer your suggestions on how to deal with this
H-2B, because I certainly know we coastal Senators are facing
real problems. The landscape industry is facing real problems.
Quite frankly, they create American jobs. In the landscape
industry, there are 13 people who are of Mexican heritage who
have come every year for 10 years. They are ready to go to
work, and they keep this whole landscape business with American
jobs going. Thirteen helps create another 40.
The seafood industry, the crab pickers keep a lot of our
seafood industry going, and so do restaurants.
Secretary Johnson. As you know, Senator, the cap is set by
law. If there is a way legally to do as you suggest, I would
like to work with your staff on that.
Fortunately, we have a way forward for next year. We got
the new reg out. It's a joint reg issued by DHS and Labor for
the future that satisfies the litigation.
And you are correct. We reached the cap when we issued H-2B
visas during that window period of time.
If there's a way to look at it, to do some kind of audit, I
would be very interested in hearing ideas on that. I'd be happy
to have my folks engage with yours on that.
Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Shaheen, you have been very generous.
I have other questions related to cybersecurity and
unaccompanied children. Again, thank you for your steadfast
work on that. And I will give you a letter on H-2B. I wouldn't
be me without having some suggestions to give you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Cochran.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I was looking at the briefing book before we came over here
to see whether or not there were issues other than the one I
raised in my first round of questioning. I was reminded the
flood insurance program is real important and was gladly
applauded by those in coastal and low-lying areas who built
houses where they probably, in some cases, shouldn't have.
But in many cases, Mother Nature is just unpredictable, and
nobody can predict exactly where the next storm is going to be
and how deep the water is going to get.
So I am asking whether or not the framework affordability
for flood insurance has been completed yet by the Department,
and whether or not we can expect to have something done, let's
say, this fall, as required by the Homeowner Flood Insurance
Affordability Act.
Can you give us an update? If not from your notes here, for
the record? Give us some idea of what your reaction to this
framework is?
Secretary Johnson. Two things, Senator.
One, you are correct that there was legislation passed by
Congress last year and the year before to give homeowners some
relief on flood insurance. Overall, I am interested in two
things, and I know Administrator Fugate agrees, affordability
and solvency. We want to make sure that we have a solvent
National Flood Insurance Program. We want to make sure that we
have one that is affordable to those who need the insurance
longer term.
In this year's budget submission, we have a request for new
flood mapping to make sure that we get this right, to update
the districts, update the areas that are high-risk. And again,
I think that that should be done with the purpose of a solvent
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and to make sure that
it is an affordable one for people in high-risk areas. There's
no point in having flood insurance if nobody can afford it.
So this continues to be a major item of mine. I hear about
it a lot from Members of Congress, from individual homeowners.
We have litigation in the Northeast right now that I'm very
focused on.
So, Senator, I want you to know on behalf of your
constituents in Mississippi and others in high-risk areas, this
is a top priority of mine to make sure that we have a solvent
and affordable flood insurance program.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Shaheen.
HURRICANE SANDY CLAIMS
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since you mentioned the ongoing Hurricane Sandy claims, I
understand that there may be a breakthrough in the effort to
settle some of those claims. Do you want to take this
opportunity to comment on that?
Secretary Johnson. Senator, Administrator Fugate and I are
very interested and determined to do the right thing for those
who were the victims of Hurricane Sandy. So we've been working
overtime to try to find a settlement to the litigation in New
York, and I'm pretty confident that we will have a resolution
to that is, which a good result for the homeowners, for the
people that we are pledged to serve. I think we're pretty close
to a solution.
STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM
Senator Shaheen. That's very encouraging. When
Administrator Fugate came before this subcommittee, we had the
opportunity to question him on what had happened with the
Hurricane Sandy claims. I think it's fair to say that he
acknowledged that people had not been treated in the way the
agency would've liked.
I think many of us felt that FEMA did too little too late.
But it's very positive to hear that you think there's a
positive outcome here and a settlement pending that will
benefit the homeowners and allow them to receive their claims
and to get moving with their lives. So I'm pleased to hear
that.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to be a little parochial for a
minute and bring to your attention a problem that Grafton
County, which is in the northern part of New Hampshire, is
having with the State Homeland Security Grant Program. It has
been delayed. It's now ready to move forward, if we can get
your help. I hope that you will be able to help us cut through
the red tape and get this important public safety
communications project done. Is that something that you would
be willing to help us pursue?
Secretary Johnson. I believe this is the matter that you
have raised with me before?
Senator Shaheen. That is correct.
Secretary Johnson. And as I said then, I would like to find
a way to resolve the issue. I do know that there is a large
amount of grant money from FEMA that is still at the State
level in New Hampshire. I suspect that they would tell you that
it has all been spent already.
But I would like to find a way to resolve the issue. The
issue is spending the money within the 2 years. And going
forward, I changed that policy to make it a 3-year expiration
period, because I was hearing from a lot of people that 2 years
very often is not enough time.
So I've had this conversation with FEMA, and I will
continue to do that.
HIRING
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I appreciate your
attention to this issue because it does mean a lot,
particularly to first responders and folks up in very remote
towns in the State of New Hampshire.
I want to go back to the budget request and ask, as you are
thinking about 2016 and where we may wind up in terms of the
funding levels, because of the delayed enactment of the 2015
appropriations bill, is there a possibility to ratchet back to
some degree some of the new hiring requests because the delay
in funding has meant that the hiring requests are going to be
delayed and might bump into 2016? Is that a place where there
may be an opportunity to see some savings?
Secretary Johnson. I'm not sure I understand your question.
Because we had the delay in funding for fiscal year 2015, we
are hiring later in the year?
Senator Shaheen. Right. I'm trying to understand how that
is working and whether that is a place where there might be an
opportunity to recoup some savings.
Secretary Johnson. Well, I would have to look at it at a
more specific level; I guess component by component, work force
by work force. That's an interesting question. I hadn't thought
of that, so I am not in a position to answer intelligently on
it, but it's something we may have to do, if the sequestration
caps are not lifted.
Senator Shaheen. And let me be clear, I think we should
lift the sequestration caps. I'm committed to doing that on
both the defense and domestic side of the budget. I don't think
it makes sense for us to talk about lifting caps on defense if
we are not going to also lift caps on the domestic side of the
budget. So I am fully in support of that, but I would just
raise that and ask you to take that back and see if there's an
opportunity there.
Secretary Johnson. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Cassidy.
FEDERAL FLOOD RISK MAAGEMENT STANDARD
Senator Cassidy. Good afternoon.
A couple things. I'm looking at the Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard. And this is Executive Order 13690 that
will replace the current 100-year base elevation for flood
insurance.
I'm from Louisiana, so obviously I guess we're a little
interested in flood insurance.
There are three options for the floodplain, one of which is
to build to the 500-year elevation approach. Now, I almost
start laughing when I read that. We have no idea what the flood
will be in 500 years, because it depends upon assumptions,
which are imponderables.
I just say that because in 1970, they were predicting a new
Ice Age. Now we speak of global warming. I'm not casting doubt
on the latter, I'm just pointing out that the former was quite
untrue.
So I'm just curious, how are we coming up with a dagum--if
you're going to build on the gulf coast, you have to build to a
500-year floodplain. That just like defies logic.
Since that will impact the economic development of my
coastline, what thoughts do you have, because obviously a lot
of families and their jobs and their livelihood depend upon
having common sense approaches to this?
Secretary Johnson. Senator, I would have to reread the
executive order in full. On the face of what you say, a 500-
year floodplain, I'm not sure I understand that either. But I
would have to refresh my memory on the wording of it and to
understand it better and what the motivation is for a 500-year
plan.
Senator Cassidy. Then we will give you a question for the
record.
Secretary Johnson. Sure.
CONTRACTING AND EFFICIENCIES
Senator Cassidy. They have other options, one of which is
100-year floodplain plus 2 to 3 feet more, which sounds like
they are trying to get to a 500-year floodplain.
And, of course, we are afraid that that will chill economic
development, because the Federal Government to announce this is
to bring with it the threat of all kinds of sanctions if you
don't comply sort of thing.
Secondly, one thing I'm interested in, I have a lot of
maritime industry in my State. To what degree could we
outsource some responsibilities of say the Coast Guard and save
money? I point that out because they replace a buoy, I am
told--I've learned this through what I have been told, not what
I know--that it costs about $2,000 an hour to replace a buoy.
They have a tender that goes out and lifts it, et cetera, when
you could contract that out for far less, reserving the Coast
Guard men and women for interdiction and rescue, et cetera.
Also, Senator Murkowski I think initially talked about an
icebreaker. We could have an icebreaker with non-Coast Guard
folks manning, and I'm gathering although the Coast Guard likes
to have a multi-kind, you know, can do different things at
once, when you're in the middle of an ice floe, I can't imagine
that you're doing very much drug interdiction.
So I think they could save a lot of money and again
redirect resources. Any thoughts about all that?
Secretary Johnson. Well, let me say this, I am interested
in the most cost-efficient and effective outcome for the
taxpayer possible. And in many scenarios, that can include
outsourcing, contracting, so long as it is not regarded as an
essential government function. And we do do that in a number of
different contexts.
So if there is a case to be made by my people or to my
people for outsourcing a particular function, I'm interested in
hearing that, sir.
LEASING BOATS
Senator Cassidy. Okay. The other thing that occurs to me,
so much in industry leases boats, and we seem to want to pay as
we go, even though it's hard to pay as we go right now. I
didn't know whether that which private industry has found quite
profitable, which is to lease, would be something that we could
apply to, for example, the Coast Guard, allowing the builder of
the boat and the one which is leasing to the government to be
responsible for upkeep, et cetera.
So I think Don Young had some hearings on this a few years
ago. I will track that down and send it over to you as a
question for the record.
Secretary Johnson. Yes. I do know that the Coast Guard in
particular does lease. It leases aircraft from time to time.
We're doing that right now.
Senator Cassidy. So we have precedent.
Secretary Johnson. Where there is a case to be made for
leasing, I think it can and should be done.
Senator Cassidy. Okay.
I yield back. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. Senator Baldwin.
ICE BREAKERS
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to be the third Senator to talk about icebreakers
today. We had an Alaska Senator, a gulf coast Senator, and now
a Great Lakes Senator. Wisconsin is on both Lake Superior and
Lake Michigan.
Obviously, the icebreaking capacity is critical to our
maritime security but also to our economy.
I was struck reading a report by the Lake Carriers
Association about the cost of the very severe winter that we
had in the 2013-2014 season. The cost to the economy due to
limited icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes, $700 million
and nearly 4,000 jobs. That is a huge impact to the Great Lakes
economy.
I note that, in contrast to the acquisition cost of a new
heavy icebreaker, the U.S. Coast Guard has only one in the
Great Lakes of around $225 million to $275 million, so still a
big price tag but comparatively speaking with the economic
impact in a region for just one severe winter. And we have had
another very significant and severe winter since that time.
What I just want to ask you is are you willing to work with
me and this entire subcommittee to ensure that the Coast Guard
takes a fresh look at the best way to carry out its icebreaking
mission on the Great Lakes, including a new evaluation using
updated data reflecting the last two harsh winters we have had
of a potential acquisition of a second heavy icebreaker for the
Great Lakes?
Secretary Johnson. Basically, yes. I know the value of
icebreakers, and not just in the Arctic or Antarctic. There was
a terrific article, I don't know if you saw it, in the New York
Times about a month ago on the value of icebreakers. The
specific story was about the Hudson River and the value in a
number of respects that icebreakers have in colder weather
regions of the country, which most definitely includes the
Great Lakes.
So I am a convert to the importance of icebreakers. So if
we are not assessing the need for them properly, then I want to
be sure that we do do that.
ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
Senator Baldwin. Well, I appreciate that willingness and
will work with you. I didn't mean to neglect. I wanted to
appreciate the fact that there is a commitment to upgrade two
of the medium-sized icebreakers that operate on the Great
Lakes. But the capacity for a heavy icebreaker is a real
critical issue.
Second, I wanted to turn to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection. They are charged with enforcing our trade laws.
That includes antidumping and countervailing duties, which are
incredibly important tools to level the playing field for U.S.
manufacturers.
I remain concerned about our ability to identify the
products coming into the United States that are subject to
these duties. For example, antidumping and countervailing
duties are currently in place for several types of paper
products from China, including lightweight thermal paper.
Still, we know that importers evade the duties, the duty
orders, by misclassifying, transshipping, and relabeling
products to keep their costs below fair market value. Now I
understand that steps have been taken to identify steel
products that are subject to duty orders at ports of entry,
including a CBP library of imported steel.
What I want to ask, coming from the number one paper
producing State in the country, is why hasn't a similar
imported paper product library been started at CBP? And does
CBP need additional resources in obtaining the products that
are subject to the antidumping or countervailing duty orders in
order to build such a library?
Secretary Johnson. My short and honest answer is I don't
know, but I will find out for you.
[The information follows:]
CBP Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate (LSSD) can
determine whether a product falls within the scope for the majority of
current Antidumping/Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD) orders. Also, CBP LSSD
has several viable country of origin (COO) programs for products
subject to AD/CVD laws and duties. Each commodity and accompanying AD/
CVD scope present their own unique challenges. Thus, a prospective
product requires a particular scientific analysis and methodology that
must be researched, statistically evaluated, and validated to meet
several standards (i.e., quality requirements, Daubert standards, and
other court precedents, etc.) in order for the product to be usable for
customs purposes. The COO programs are resource- and personnel-
intensive since they can take several years to develop and must be
updated continuously.
For COO determinations, authenticated, traceable reference samples
must be obtained from the multiple regions (or manufacturers) within
the country subject to the AD/CVD order and from multiple regions (or
manufacturers) in countries where transshipment is suspected in order
to accurately (or within a high level of confidence) determine the
actual origin of the commodity. As a result, there are many AD/CVD
commodities that are either too homogenous in their construction/
fabrication (i.e., steel and most steel products, solar cells, etc.) or
are too variable from product to product where a notable difference or
trend cannot be identified/discerned for origin determinations to
satisfy the AD/CVD orders.
As for the AD/CVD order on lightweight thermal paper, CBP LSSD has
had discussions with representatives of the U.S. paper industry
regarding several scientific technologies and methodologies that could
be used in determining a specific country or manufacturer of origin.
However, the methodology still needs to be evaluated and validated to
satisfy the many quality and court-driven standards before it can be
utilized for enforcement purposes. Also, CBP has not been able to
obtain the necessary authenticated reference samples from the
manufacturers within the countries subject to this order because of the
manufacturer's unresponsiveness to requests. These reference standards
are essential in making any country of origin or manufacturer of origin
determination possible.
CBP LSSD would require additional personnel and dedicated yearly
resources (i.e., funding for authenticated reference standards and
equipment) to address the technological challenges and requirements of
each new AD/CVD order and to expand/enhance current capabilities for
existing orders. Any AD/CVD libraries of products and accompanying
databases obtained and developed by CBP LSSD for enforcement purposes
are considered Law Enforcement Sensitive since the release of any of
the data contained in this list would most likely lead to a means of
evading AD/CVD orders.
Senator Baldwin. Well, very good. We will look forward to
your follow-up. And if additional attention is needed, we will,
certainly, look forward to working with you on that.
Secretary Johnson. Let me say also, Senator, that you
mentioned the Chinese. I was in Beijing 3 weeks ago. I met with
my Customs counterpart in Beijing. I think that we had a good
meeting in terms of a heightened agreement to work together on
customs issues. So I think we are in a better place there in
terms of trade with that country. We still some areas of
disagreement, but I think we are in a better place there.
But I'm interested in the answer to your question. I will
look into it and get back to you on the record on that.
BORDER SECURITY: SURVEILLANCE
Senator Hoeven. Mr. Secretary, as Senator Shaheen said just
a minute ago, she and I were down on the southern border
recently for about 3 or 4 days and looked at everything from
airports and seaports to the land border.
Clearly, we need to get the right mix of people and
technology on the border to truly secure the border. I also
come from the State of North Dakota where we are on the
northern border. Out of Grand Forks, they actually have
responsibility for border surveillance all the way from the
Great Lakes well out into Montana.
So with the idea that we have to use people and technology
in the right mix to be as effective as possible on border
security, including our coastline as well as our land borders,
and that we have a limitation of resources and we have to be as
cost-effective as we can, how can we use technology better? How
do we get the right mix? And specifically what about doing more
with unmanned aerial systems (UAS), RPAs, remotely piloted
aircraft, to really leverage our security efforts on the
border?
Secretary Johnson. I agree with the spirit of your
question, Senator. We have 21,000 Border Patrol agents. The
northern border, in particular, has lost a remote area, and,
therefore, I believe that a key to having increased situational
awareness is aerial surveillance, not necessarily unmanned.
Aerostats, for example, although aerostats are very costly
to maintain, we have been working with the Department of
Defense (DOD) to see if we could take more of theirs. I believe
that aerostats are a wave of the future. Our Border Patrol
experts, when I ask them directly what they need, they tell me
aerostats, but they also tell me about increased surveillance,
increased mobile surveillance.
I think the balance between person power and technology is
shifting and it probably should shift, given that we have
better technology. I want to see us expand situational
awareness across the northern border and the southern border.
Just within a very short period of time, with each
subsequent budget request, I've seen us move in the right
direction, and I would like to continue to do that as part of
an overall risk-based strategy.
Senator Hoeven. And we observed the effectiveness of the
aerostat, and that is something we have seen overseas as well.
The same thing holds true with UAS. I think two of the systems
most in demand in the war on terror overseas are the Predator
and Global Hawk. So can't we do more on the border with both of
those systems as well?
Secretary Johnson. Well, I had this conversation yesterday
with the Deputy Commissioner of CBP. CBP's view is that, in
terms of unmanned aerial systems, we have at the moment what we
need. What we do need are the people to man these things, to
make them work. We are a bit short there.
I also know that in our budget request, we do make requests
for added surveillance capability, in other respects. Overall,
I agree with what you say, that more technology, more
surveillance on the border, is the wave of the future and it is
needed.
Senator Hoeven. Where I'm going with this right mix of
people and technology is also then going into metrics, managing
the effectiveness of our border security, our coastal security.
That is going to be a little bit longer question than my
time remaining, so at this point I'm going to have to step out.
I'm going to ask Senator Cassidy to chair the meeting for a few
minutes. I will be back.
Senator Shaheen. Let me just follow up on Senator Hoeven's
question, because I think one of the things we were both very
impressed with when we were down at the border were the
aerostats and the use of different surveillance systems to
improve the ability of our CBP agents to do their jobs.
I know that there is some funding in the 2016 request,
about $18 million for more mobile surveillance systems, $11
million for intrusion detection systems at land ports of entry,
and more than $85 million to begin capitalizing nonintrusive
inspection equipment at the ports. If you were going to
prioritize this, and I know you don't like to do that, but
where would you prioritize? What do you think is most important
as you are looking at surveillance systems and the need for
improved technology? Is it at the ports of entry, or is it for
those mobile surveillance systems that can be used along the
border?
Secretary Johnson. If I had to prioritize, I would say that
the mobile surveillance systems between ports of entry are
crucial to gaining additional situational awareness and
additional border security, if I had to prioritize.
But I do believe that our priorities are reflected in our
current budget submission.
IMMIGRATION COURTS
Senator Shaheen. Sure. I do appreciate that.
And again, I thought what is happening is very impressive,
in terms of the impact it was having on those people who are
working the border.
One of the other things that we heard virtually everywhere
we went in Texas, at immigration courts, the processing center,
the border, and the ports of entry--was a plea that if we were
going to increase one area of the budget in terms of dealing
with illegal immigration at the border, we need to look at
increasing the whole system, because to plus-up in one area and
create a bottleneck in another area doesn't solve the challenge
that we are facing.
And I observed that one of the places where it appeared
that there is a bottleneck is with the immigration courts. Now
I know that in the 2015 appropriation, there was some increased
funding to help support additional immigration judges. But have
you talked with folks in the Justice Department about efforts
to move along that process in a way that might help as we are
thinking about how to increase the number of immigration judges
and remove that bottleneck?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, we have that conversation all the
time. And to your point about supporting the entire system, our
fiscal year 2016 request has a request for additional
attorneys, ICE attorneys who represent the government in
immigration courts. My recollection is that there was a request
for additional judges in the supplemental last summer.
Senator Shaheen. Maybe that's where it was.
Secretary Johnson. And I believe there is a request, but
this is the Department of Justice's (DOJ) request, in fiscal
year 2016 for additional judges, but I don't recall the number.
But we are meant to be companions in this, so I made an
additional request for attorneys and presumably DOJ is making
an additional request for judges.
You are correct that there is a huge backlog in these
cases. We are prioritizing the cases to deal with the more
recent influx of illegal migration. So I believe as an
administration, we have asked for added resources in the
immigration courts.
Senator Shaheen. Is that a place where it would be helpful
for Congress to weigh in with looking at the Justice
Department's request or asking these questions?
Secretary Johnson. I would say, yes. I don't recall their
request offhand, but I do believe it is worthwhile to assess,
from your perspective, whether the numbers that we sought from
each of us works and works in tandem.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Let me just say, because my time is almost up on this
round, I just want to be counted in the record as weighing in
also in support of the importance of icebreakers. Living in a
coldwater State where we have had sometimes difficulty getting
oil tankers in to provide the number two heating oil that so
many people in New Hampshire use to heat their homes, it is a
very big issue for us.
I just happened to be during this winter at the Coast Guard
in New Hampshire, and the day before they had had an injury--I
don't know if that's the right term to use in talking about
what happens to a boat--but an icebreaker in Boston Harbor,
because of the conditions.
They were repairing it, obviously, but it's an ongoing
problem. And I appreciate your commitment to try and address
that.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cassidy. [Presiding.] Well, I'm from Louisiana but
my State makes icebreakers, so that makes it pretty unanimous.
We are interested in icebreakers.
Secretary Johnson. For the record, DHS has a lot of things
going on in your State, in addition to the Coast Guard.
HOMEOWNER FLOOD INSURANCE AFFORDABILITY ACT
Senator Cassidy. Thank you. The next thing that you have
going on in my State is flood insurance again.
In the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act last
year, there was stipulated $25 surcharge on primary residences,
but a $250 surcharge for nonprimary. My legislative director,
so I have a copy of it, gets a notice that he has a $250
surcharge on his primary residence. Since when I was on the
House side, we have worked on this, of course, he understands
it is supposed to be a $25 surcharge.
It's interesting. It doesn't really designate. It just says
you have to put up $250. I can give you a copy, once I ink out
he and his wife's names. It doesn't say this is because--it's
from a write-your-own organization. It doesn't say that's $250,
not $25, because it is a secondary residence.
So we get a letter from I guess NFIP to homeowners, and he
did not receive this, but I gather this goes out to
policyholders, which indicates they are required to give a $25
surcharge for primary residences, $250 for nonresidential and
nonprimary residences. To establish that your home is your
primary residence--I gather the default is that it is not your
primary residence. This is my understanding.
The default is that you pay the $250 not the $25, and to
prove that it is your primary residence, you have to give a
driver's license, automobile registration, several other
things.
So several questions. Again, my legislative director that
helped write the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act--
--
Secretary Johnson. This is the same person who got the
letter?
Senator Cassidy. Yes. He knew enough to bring it to my
attention.
So I guess a couple questions. Do you have a sense of what
that NFIP or FEMA is doing to inform primary homeowners that
their surcharge is $25, not $250? And how can we make sure that
the write-your-own companies are indicating that the $250 might
be too much, if this is your primary residence?
And last, it seems like this is a fairly short window of 30
days. If somebody from Louisiana moved to New Hampshire, and 2
weeks there gets this letter and they have to have their New
Hampshire driver's license, their registration, voter
registration, et cetera, it seems like a tight timeframe.
So just thoughts about all that and what we can do going
forward?
Secretary Johnson. Well, I'm interested in receiving that
letter. If you want to block out the name, that's fine. If you
don't, we will treat it with the appropriate level of privacy
and confidentiality. And I will ask all the right questions and
get back to you on that, sir, both you and your legislative
director, about the letter.
Senator Cassidy. Yes. And you know, it just so happens, in
the whole scheme of things, like of all the gin joints in all
the world, you walk into mine, if my legislative director that
helped write the legislation got such a letter, presumably
there are millions more also receiving such letters. So it
would also be nice to have a sense of the scope of the issue,
because again, there's no indication that it should have been
only $25.
Senator Johnson. Understood.
Senator Cassidy. I yield back.
Senator Hoeven. [Presiding.] Senator Baldwin.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
Just closing off the last topic we were discussing, you are
reporting that you had recently met with a Chinese official,
their equivalent of Customs. I would be really interested in
follow-up conversations about your sources of encouragement.
I guess particularly with what I've experienced in
discussions with the paper industry in Wisconsin, the various
ways of misclassifying and circumventing the orders that have
been imposed here are of great concern. If you have made some
headway, we would love to hear the report and be a part of
monitoring any progress that you see.
But I want to shift to an issue that we're watching very
closely also in Wisconsin, and that is the credible increase in
the number and length of oil trains that traverse our State.
Secretary Johnson. I'm sorry, the number and length of
what? I'm sorry?
RAIL SAFETY
Senator Baldwin. Oil trains bringing Bakken oil. In fact,
Chairman Hoeven got to hear me last week when we had in this
very subcommittee Administrator Fugate here to talk about
FEMA's efforts to build capacity for responding to catastrophic
disasters.
Just a few years ago, an oil train in Wisconsin was a
pretty rare sight. Now we have many such trains, some with more
than 110 tank cars in tow traversing our State, sometimes down
the Mississippi River, sometimes across the State.
Citizens and local governments are concerned, especially as
we have seen a significant number of derailments, explosions in
the region, as well as just across the United States and even
in Canada.
This week, a committee of the Milwaukee City Council--in
fact, I think it's later today--is taking a closer look at that
issue, as many of these trains come through downtown Milwaukee,
but also traverse some of the more rural areas of the State.
I guess I want to ask questions more about preparedness and
prevention of you, Secretary Johnson. Let me start with, we
have at least 10 oil trains going through downtown Milwaukee a
week. Your thinking and your Department's thinking about the
impact on the local community? The preparedness level right now
of State and local first responders, if there were to be an
accident? And then secondly, I think especially as we prepare
to move to the appropriations bill, what flexibility does the
Department of Homeland Security have to adjust its current
grant programs to meet this growing threat?
Secretary Johnson. Well, I do know, Senator, that this
mission is a shared mission with the Department of
Transportation (DOT) and with the EPA. And certainly, we do
have a role with regard to the potential hazard of a rail
accident involving oil tankers, particularly in urban areas
like Milwaukee. And I suspect that there is some flexibility in
our grant-making. It probably also depends upon the grant
application that is submitted by an urban area or by a State.
And if there are changing circumstances, like increased
rail traffic through an urban area, that ought to be something
that is factored into whatever risk-making is done to evaluate
the level of a grant. So if the increased rail traffic is a new
phenomenon, we ought to be sure that that is reflected in
whatever grant-making goes to address this particular hazard.
But I also know that DOT and EPA have a lot of the role in
this area.
Senator Baldwin. They certainly do. I guess I would ask,
again, if you would work with us, bring to our attention any
limitations or lack of flexibility, because I know a lot of the
preparedness grants, mitigation grants, et cetera, are focused
on terrorism. But this change in circumstances in our State is
one that has caused great concern, alarm. And we want to build
capacity, capability in case there ever is an emergency. Of
course, we hope there never is.
BORDER SECURITY: METRICS
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Secretary, I want to go back to the point we were
talking about earlier, and that is getting the right mix of
people on technology on the border to do the best job possible,
both in terms of security, but also in terms of cost-
effectiveness.
We started out talking about limited resources. So how can
we make sure we are getting that right mix, number one? And
second, how do we measure the results, metrics? So how are you
making sure that we know who is coming, who is trying to come
across the border? And are we apprehending them? How many are
we missing?
But it goes beyond that. How do we also make sure that we
have the entry-exit system at all international airports and
seaports? How do we make sure that we are measuring visa
overstays, so we are able to undertake enforcement actions
there? And in the workplace, how are we making sure that our
employers are using E-Verify, through CIS, and that we are
measuring that, as well as managing it?
So they go together, right? The use of people and
technology to provide security on the border and on the coast,
but then all these other technologies go into not only ensuring
that security, but the metrics to know how well we are doing at
getting the job done?
Secretary Johnson. Thank you for that, because I actually
omitted metrics from my last answer to your question.
I think that having an agreed-upon, settled standard of
border security metrics is a good idea to measure the
effectiveness of how we are doing. I have undertaken with my
staff to consult outsiders about a good set of border metrics,
and we are moving in that direction now.
It is something I would like to achieve while I'm in
office, so that the public and Congress understand how we are
measuring our effectiveness, and what goes into that
calculation.
I think that your second question answers your first. In
other words, how do you ensure that you have the right mix of
people and technology? One way to do that is by measuring, in a
very transparent, public way, what our standards for
improvement and for failure are.
So we have in the works now in my Department a set of
metrics. Probably one of the few things I liked about a bill
offered on the House side, the Secure Our Borders First bill,
was that there was an attempt there to come up with border
metrics. And there are a lot of other things about the bill
that I didn't like, but I thought it was a pretty good attempt.
So we took that, and I've asked some experts to see if we
can develop something here, because I think it is worthwhile.
On visa overstays, I've seen a report, and I had some
questions about its reliability. So I sent our people back to
ensure that the projections and estimates there are right. Visa
overstays is a hard measure. So before I am ready to share it
with the Congress and the public, I want to make sure we get it
right.
I know it's overdue, that there's a visa overstay report
that is overdue. The draft that I have seen, I have some real
concerns about. So that, too, is a work in progress.
BIOMETRIC EXIT
Senator Hoeven. How about biometric exit at airports and
seaports?
Secretary Johnson. Biometric exit, as I'm sure you know, is
a longstanding goal of ours. We do consider it the gold
standard. It is something we are working toward.
We've been at this for quite some time. It is hugely
expensive, as you know. I know that you know we have biometric
entry now in a number of respects, a number of different
places.
Biometric exits at all of our land, sea and air ports is a
huge and costly undertaking, but it will improve security. It
will improve our ability to measure visa overstays, without a
doubt.
E-VERIFY
Senator Hoeven. I observed the biometric entry system at
the Houston airport, utilized 100 percent. It appeared to me
that it was very effective. So it was good to see that on the
entry side, the progress you've made on biometrics.
What about E-Verify? Talk a little bit about the progress
you're making in terms of E-Verify.
Secretary Johnson. I think mandatory E-Verify is a good
thing. My recollection is that it was part of the comprehensive
immigration reform bill that passed the Senate 2 years ago, and
I think that mandatory E-Verify is a good thing, and we ought
to do it.
Senator Hoeven. It seems to me that if we can combine your
effort to make sure that you have interoperability throughout
the agency, that you don't have silos, that you have everybody
working together as well as possible, which you indicated to me
is one of your absolute priorities, and we can combine that
with getting good metrics, it seems to me that that would be of
great benefit to the entire homeland security effort.
Secretary Johnson. I agree.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to inform
you that while you were out, Senator Cassidy, Senator Baldwin,
and I, as coastal States, all determined that funding the
icebreaker is a top priority in the budget. So since you have
no water, I figured you wouldn't object to that.
Senator Hoeven. Our chairman was here and he mentioned
another national security cutter, as I recall, so you have a
little bit more work to do.
IMMIGRATION: BONDS
Senator Shaheen. Let me refer again to the trip we took to
Texas. This is an issue that I raised briefly with you, Mr.
Secretary, but while I was there, I had the opportunity to
speak with ICE attorneys, with immigration court personnel,
with some outside groups who advocate for undocumented children
and families who are in the immigration processing system.
I heard different responses with respect to how bonds are
set for families in immigration courts, and there didn't seem
to be uniformity or at least an understanding among all those
groups as to how those bonds are set. There was one allegation
that it depends on how many identification documents the
immigrant has, that the immigration judge could set a bond, but
that ICE could come in and dramatically increase it.
Can you clarify for us what the bond policy is, and what
DHS is doing to make sure that people understand that and know
how that is set?
Secretary Johnson. Well, after our first conversation on
this topic, I went back to ask these same questions. Bonds set
by an immigration official can be reviewed by an immigration
judge. They are reviewable by an immigration judge in every
circumstance that the immigration lawyers I had around the
table yesterday could imagine, when I asked this question.
I asked, can an immigration official add a bond on top of
what an immigration judge has set, and I was told no, bonds are
reviewed by judges.
When it comes to bond policy for family units, which is
what we have been discussing, that is something that is under
my review right now. I want to make sure that we have an
appropriate and adequate bond policy for the current
circumstances.
We had a spike in illegal migration that involved family
units last summer. We expanded our family unit detention
capability. It looks, in the first 6 months of fiscal year
2015, as if the numbers are way down and we will not have a
repeat of last summer, although I am always on guard for that
and am always looking at the numbers.
I want to make sure we get our bond policy right for the
current circumstances, so it is under review right now. Several
Members of Congress, including you, have raised this issue with
me. So I have undertaken, along with our Immigration and
Customs Enforcement people and our lawyers, to look at the
policy to make sure it's right.
FAMILY DETENTION CENTERS
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And I
would hope that once that has been determined, that there is a
real effort made to make sure that all of those groups who are
involved in these cases understand what that policy is and how
it is determined, because clearly there is misinformation right
now about that.
Let me also raise another issue.
Secretary Johnson. If I could, we are looking at the issue
of family detention generally, to make sure it is right. I've
sent a number of people down to the facilities to inspect the
conditions, and it is something that I'm continually looking
at.
Senator Shaheen. And we did have a chance to visit Dilley
while we were in Texas. I thought the conditions there, other
than the fact that people were being detained, certainly were
not conditions that I was concerned that people were not
getting proper treatment. I thought that they seemed to be
getting proper treatment.
One of the other issues, however, that some of the
advocates raised with me was about Karnes, the family detention
center. We didn't have a chance to visit Karnes, but heard that
there have been reports in the media of a hunger strike that
may have taken place there.
I just wondered if you were aware that there was under
strike, and if you had any idea why people went on strike. One
of the concerns that was raised was that some of the women were
put in medical isolation rooms for their participation, or for
speaking up about conditions.
Do you know anything about that?
Secretary Johnson. I've heard nothing to corroborate the
suggestion that people are put in isolation rooms as a
deterrent or as punishment or anything like that.
On the issue of hunger strikes, we have looked into that
rather extensively with a number of visits. I've received
several reports. There are some people who report and assert to
be on a hunger strike.
The standard we have is a certain number of missed
consecutive meals, and it does not appear that is the case. It
also is the case that a number of people on strike are also
going to the commissary. But it's entirely possible they are
going to the commissary to feed their kids.
So I know what my folks are telling me, and I'm having
difficulty getting to a ground truth conclusion that there are,
in fact, hunger strikes. But I am sensitive, having dealt with,
as the lawyer for the Department of Defense, Guantanamo Bay,
Bradley Manning, I am sensitive to not letting an issue like
this overwhelm an overarching policy goal. So it's something
that I'm carefully looking at.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I appreciate your attention to
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Johnson. I don't mean to equate migrants in South
Texas with detainees at Guantanamo Bay or anyplace else.
Senator Shaheen. I did not take it that way.
Secretary Johnson. Okay.
ADDRESSING INCIDENTS
Senator Hoeven. Mr. Secretary, there have been a number of
incidents: the gyrocopter on the Capitol grounds, a drone
landing on the White House grounds, Secret Service going
through a bomb investigation, a fence-jumper who got into the
White House.
Talk about what you're doing to make sure that these are
fully addressed, fully understood, and that they are not
repeated in the future. And particularly a situation where, in
one of these incidents, somebody could have had a bomb or
firearms or something.
So how are you working with the respective agencies to make
sure that these are fully understood, fully addressed, and not
repeated?
Secretary Johnson. Good question. Let me give you a couple
answers.
First of all, with respect to the airspace over the
national capital region, which includes parts of this city that
the Secret Service is responsible for securing, I had a meeting
last week with the Commander of the USNORTHCOM, Admiral Bill
Gortney, who is responsible militarily for the defense of North
America, including our airspace here.
We do have a protocol. DOD has aspects of it. Secret
Service has aspects of it. The Coast Guard has aspects of it.
The protocol kicks in--something airborne, something of
suspicion--multiple times regularly.
So what he and I have resolved to do is we have to take a
closer look at whether we have the protocol right for something
that is very low-flying and of low speed, like a gyrocopter
that can fly at an altitude, or a drone, one of these smaller
drone devices, that can fly at an altitude of 40 to 60 or 100
feet.
The military is not necessarily the correct response for
something like that. So we have undertaken a review to assess
low-flying, low-speed airborne devices, whether they are
gyrocopters or smaller drone-type things, to make sure we have
that right.
With regard to fence jumpers, we are enhancing security at
the White House compound short term. There was a request in our
fiscal year 2016 budget submission to go further in that
regard, to modify the fence, to make other enhancements to the
security of the White House compound.
And longer term, I believe that through sustained oversight
of the Secret Service, we will make sure that the Secret
Service is taking advantage of the latest improvements in
technology and the latest research and development (R&D), both
within my Department, and our science and technology
directorate, and outside of the Department. So through the
sustained engagement of the Secretary, I believe that the
Secret Service, which has been a department that has somewhat
of an insular culture to it, it takes adequate advantage of
what is going on within my department and outside, in terms of
the latest technology.
So Director Clancy and I are both committed to doing that.
CYBERSECURITY: PRIORITIES
Senator Hoeven. What are your biggest priorities in terms
of cybersecurity? What are you focused on, in terms of trying
to make sure we are getting on top of the cybersecurity issue?
Secretary Johnson. A couple things: better information-
sharing with the private sector; encouraging the private sector
to share with us cyberthreat indicators; faster, near real-time
information-sharing that takes adequate account of privacy
concerns.
We have a program going right now at our NCCIC, our
National Cybersecurity Communications and Integration Center,
to better automate our information-sharing to make it faster.
I believe that cyber legislation can help. I am pleased
that two bills passed the House last week, in that regard. I
think information-sharing is the key. I think that limits on
criminal and civil liability for those who share cyberthreat
indicators with the Department of Homeland Security is a strong
inducement toward information-sharing. I believe that a
national data breach notification requirement, as opposed to
the patchwork of requirements we have across States, is a good
thing, and we support it in the administration. I believe
enhanced penalties for cyber crimes are warranted as well.
But in general, something that gives the private sector a
well-known primary portal of access for sharing cyberthreat
information with the Federal Government is warranted. And we
have done a number of things to move in that direction, with
the cyber framework we announced last year. There was some
legislation passed at the end of the last Congress that makes
some steps in this direction.
But I am very pleased to see that Congress is active in
this, and I hope we can accomplish something on a bipartisan
basis.
FIREARMS: TRANSPORTING OVERSEAS
Senator Hoeven. Yes, that is encouraging to hear. I hope so
as well. I think we have that opportunity, and I agree with you
on it.
This will be my last question. Recently, CBP issued a rule
that for hunters taking their firearms overseas, they would
have to get an employer ID number in the same way that somebody
who is in the business of exporting firearms would get an
employer ID number. Very problematic for sportsmen and hunters
who want to hunt overseas, and they cross over on ground or
they are flying somewhere to hunt.
I met with Commissioner Kerlikowske, and he agreed to go
back to the old process, one that the hunters have used for
years. So I would just ask for your assurances that any changes
made would be something common-sense and make sure that it
works for hunters and sportsmen who are taking a firearm with
them.
Secretary Johnson. Let me look into that for you.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
Senator.
SECRET SERVICE ISSUES
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have two more questions, and they are really follow-
ups to the issues that you've raised, the first with respect to
the Secret Service.
As Senator Hoeven said, there have been a number of issues
with the Secret Service, and there have also been a number of
recommendations from the Protective Mission Panel about how to
address some of the issues that were raised by these incidents
with the Secret Service. I want to commend the effort to go
forward and address those recommendations, but also raise with
you the concern about what the impact would be if we wind up
with budget numbers that are near the sequester level and what
that would do to the ability to carry out the recommendations
from that panel.
Secretary Johnson. Two things, really three things.
One, we are entering a presidential election cycle. That
means hiring more people. And we are about to have an
additional former President. That means hiring more people,
most likely.
So in this budget request is a request for additional
people for those two reasons, because one of the things the
independent panel identified was that a lot of our people are
working overtime. They are not getting adequate opportunity to
train, as they should be.
Part of this is on the Secret Service. They haven't hired
as fast as the authorizations and appropriations from Congress.
But one of the consequences of not funding the Secret
Service to the requested level is it will have a direct impact
on our ability to match the independent panel's recommendations
and our ability to hire the people that we need for the
protection mission.
Senator Shaheen. Given that we can't postpone the election
and we know that we are going to have another President, what
would that mean in terms of the security?
Secretary Johnson. It means that our people are further
stretched in terms of overtime, in terms of their ability to
train. The independent investigation identified the need for
just getting our folks additional time to do their training.
So if we have to fund the Secret Service at sequestration
levels in the midst of a presidential election cycle with a lot
of people who are running, some of whom may require Secret
Service protection, that's going to be a real crunch. This is
right now, for the Secret Service, given the needs and demands
on that agency that have been highlighted. And given where we
are in the cycle, it is not the time to force them to function
at sequestration levels.
CYBERSECURITY: HIRING
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Another follow-up on cybersecurity, because when we had
Assistant Secretary Ozment here at an earlier hearing, one of
the things that he and CIO McCormack talked about were the
challenges of the work force, getting people who can address
the very complex issues around cybersecurity, and our ability
to compete with the private sector. We don't have enough people
being trained at all, and then when we have to compete with the
private sector in our ability to provide the pay and benefits
that the private sector can, it's a real challenge.
Do you want to speak to that?
Secretary Johnson. Well, we got some relief in legislation
last year. Part of the border pay reform legislation also
included, I think, added authority for hiring cyber talent. And
I would like to see us go further in that regard.
You are correct that it is tough to compete with Citigroup
and JPMorgan, the financial sector, and competing against
Silicon Valley. When I gave a speech to 4,000 people at the RSA
conference last week in San Francisco, one of my appeals was
please think about serving the country for a couple years
before you go into the private sector or before you return to
the private sector.
I have had to personally recruit cyber talent myself, to
make sure we have the right people. And it is difficult. We
need help. I'm competing against the private sector, and I'm
competing against my interagency partners.
So I agree that added cyber talent is crucial to our
cybersecurity mission.
Senator Shaheen. So maybe we need a cyber draft? Just
kidding. I'm just kidding.
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's been a very helpful
discussion.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. We
appreciate it very much.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks from today.
Senators may submit written questions for the record, and then
we would ask that you would respond within a reasonable length
of time.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department subsequent to the hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
federal flood risk management standard
Question. Please identify any non-government organizations or
individuals that had any role whatsoever in composing, editing,
drafting, reviewing or developing any part of the Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard (FFRMS), the draft version of the Implementing
Guidelines published in a Federal Register Notice on February 5, 2015,
pursuant to EO 13690. Identify the individuals, their organizations,
their roles in the process, including any individuals or organizations
that worked through a contractual relationship with any office, agency
or department of the Executive Branch.
Answer. Executive Order (EO) 13690 revises and updates EO 11988
(1977) and reflects insight gained from significant experience
addressing Federal floodplain management issues since that time. In
working to establish a new flood risk management standard, entities
across the Federal Government drew on lessons learned from recent flood
events, consensus-based standards, current practices within
communities, input and views from a wide range of stakeholders and
experts, and decades of experience under EO 11988. As detailed further
below, the Standard reflects the work of the Mitigation Framework
Leadership Group (MitFLG), the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force,
and the Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, among
others. This process of incorporating lessons learned, input, and
feedback--including from governors, mayors, and other stakeholders--
remains ongoing.
The interagency Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (created by
EO 13632 (December 7, 2012)) played a significant role in the
reassessment of Federal flood standards in light of experience with
Hurricane Sandy and lessons learned since EO 11988 was issued in 1977.
This Task Force was chaired by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), who led the effort in coordination with multiple
Federal partners, as well as an advisory group composed of state,
local, and tribal elected leaders. As one of its first actions, the
Task Force developed a flood risk reduction standard for major Federal
investment in Sandy rebuilding that took into account data on flood
risk and applied that standard to all investments in Sandy-affected
communities. After months of engagement by Federal partners--including
with local leaders and community groups--the Task Force issued a
Rebuilding Strategy, which established recommendations to help guide
the Federal funding decisions related to Sandy-related rebuilding. The
Task Force called for all major Sandy rebuilding projects in Sandy-
affected communities using Federal funding to be elevated or otherwise
flood-proofed according to this flood risk reduction standard, which
was created using the best available base flood data plus one
additional foot of free board. Subsequent to this pilot program, the
President's June 2013 Climate Action Plan directed agencies to take the
appropriate actions to reduce risk to Federal investments, and
specifically to update their flood risk reduction standards.
In response to Hurricane Sandy, the President also established the
President's State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate
Preparedness and Resilience in November 2013, with 26 governors,
mayors, and local and tribal leaders serving as members. After a year-
long process of receiving input from across state, local, tribal, and
territorial governments; private businesses; trade associations;
academic organizations; civil society; and other stakeholders, the Task
Force, in addition to several other recommendations, recommended to the
President in November 2014:
Federal agencies should adjust their practices in and around
floodplains to ensure that Federal assets will be resilient to
the effects of climate change, including sea level rise, more
frequent and severe storms, and increasing river flood risks,
as called for in the President's Climate Action Plan. Projects
that receive Federal funding should be sited and designed with
the best-available climate data and include margins of safety,
such as freeboard and setbacks, to account for uncertainties
and reduce costs and disruption from future hazards.
Federal members of MitFLG, including representatives from the
Departments of the Treasury, Interior, Commerce, Defense (including the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or USACE), Health and Human Services,
HUD, Transportation, and Energy; the Department of Homeland Security's
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); the Environmental
Protection Agency; the General Services Administration; the Office of
Management and Budget; and the Council on Environmental Quality came
together to apply lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy and other events
across the country to bear more broadly through a Federal flood
management standard, consistent with many of the Task Force on Climate
Preparedness Force's recommendations and Resilience's recommendation
and the President's Climate Action Plan directive. These members of the
MitFLG worked to develop a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
(FFRMS) that reflects the best available science, lessons learned, and
input and recommendations gathered from experience, feedback,
government-led convening, and coordination and discussions with
stakeholders on these issues.
As a result of these efforts, on January 30, 2015, the President
issued EO 13690, ``Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management
Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering
Stakeholder Input.''
Contractual support for facilitation and technical editing was
initially provided under a FEMA contract by Clark Group LLC.
Subsequently, those services were assumed under a USACE contract with
The Council Oak.
Question. Please identify the Governors, mayors, and other
stakeholders from whom input was solicited prior to the establishment
of the new FFRMS. Include the dates input was solicited, the dates any
response or input was provided, and a summary of any input and
responses that were considered in the development of the FFRMS.
Answer. EO 13690 revises and updates EO 11988 (1977) and reflects
insight gained from significant experience addressing Federal
floodplain management issues since that time. In working to establish a
new flood risk management standard, entities across the Federal
Government drew on lessons learned from recent flood events, consensus-
based standards, current practices within communities, input and views
from a wide range of stakeholders and experts, and decades of
experience under EO 11988. As detailed further below, the Standard
reflects the work of the MitFLG, the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task
Force, and the Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, among
others. This process of incorporating lessons learned, input, and
feedback--including from governors, mayors, and other stakeholders--
remains ongoing.
The interagency Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force played a
significant role in the reassessment of Federal flood standards in
light of experience with Hurricane Sandy and lessons learned since EO
11988 was issued in 1977. This Task Force was chaired by the Secretary
of HUD, who led the effort in coordination with multiple Federal
partners, as well as an advisory group composed of state, local, and
tribal elected leaders. As one of its first actions, the Task Force
developed a flood risk reduction standard for major Federal investment
in Sandy rebuilding that took into account data on flood risk and
applied that standard to all investments in Sandy-affected communities.
After months of engagement by Federal partners--including with local
leaders and community groups--the Task Force issued a Rebuilding
Strategy, which established recommendations to help guide the Federal
funding decisions related to Sandy-related rebuilding. The Task Force
called for all major Sandy rebuilding projects in Sandy-affected
communities using Federal funding to be elevated or otherwise flood-
proofed according to this flood risk reduction standard, which was
created using the best available base flood data plus one additional
foot of free board. Subsequent to this pilot program, the President's
June 2013 Climate Action Plan directed agencies to take the appropriate
actions to reduce risk to Federal investments, and specifically to
update their flood risk reduction standards.
In response to Hurricane Sandy, the President also established the
President's State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate
Preparedness and Resilience in November 2013, with 26 governors,
mayors, and local and tribal leaders serving as members. After a year-
long process of receiving input from across State, local, tribal, and
territorial governments; private businesses; trade associations;
academic organizations; civil society; and other stakeholders, the Task
Force, in addition to several other recommendations, recommended to the
President in November 2014:
Federal agencies should adjust their practices in and around
floodplains to ensure that Federal assets will be resilient to
the effects of climate change, including sea level rise, more
frequent and severe storms, and increasing river flood risks,
as called for in the President's Climate Action Plan. Projects
that receive Federal funding should be sited and designed with
the best-available climate data and include margins of safety,
such as freeboard and setbacks, to account for uncertainties
and reduce costs and disruption from future hazards.
Federal members of MitFLG, including representatives from the
Departments of the Treasury, Interior, Commerce, Defense (including
USACE), Health and Human Services, HUD, Transportation, and Energy; the
Department of Homeland Security's FEMA; the Environmental Protection
Agency; the General Services Administration; the Office of Management
and Budget; and the Council on Environmental Quality came together to
apply lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy and other events across the
country to bear more broadly through a Federal flood management
standard, consistent with many of the Task Force on Climate
Preparedness Force's recommendations and Resilience's recommendation
and the President's Climate Action Plan directive. These members of the
MitFLG worked to develop an FFRMS that reflects the best available
science, lessons learned, and input and recommendations gathered from
experience, feedback, government-led convening, and coordination and
discussions with stakeholders on these issues.
As a result of these efforts, on January 30, 2015, the President
issued EO 13690, ``Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management
Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering
Stakeholder Input.''
Contractual support for facilitation and technical editing was
initially provided under a FEMA contract by Clark Group LLC.
Subsequently, those services were assumed under a USACE contract with
The Council Oak.
Question. Please provide a detailed summary of the activities of
the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group since its inception relating
to the development of the FFRMS, including a list of Federal members.
Also provide a list of non-Federal members, including state, local and
tribal governments, private sector and non-government organizations,
and include a summary of their involvement in the development of the
FFRMS and the dates such involvement occurred.
Answer. DHS issued the National Mitigation Framework (NMF), which
established the MitFLG in 2013 to coordinate mitigation efforts across
the Federal Government and to assess the effectiveness of mitigation
core capabilities as they are developed and deployed across the Nation.
The MitFLG includes 10 State, local, tribal, and territorial members
that serve as nonFederal participants. Specifically, representatives
from the State of Mississippi Department of Health; Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana, Commissioners; City of Palm Bay, Florida, Planning
Department; and the New York City Office of Recovery and Resiliency
have been members since July 2014. Representatives from the State of
Georgia Environmental Finance Authority, Energy Resources Division;
Tillamook County, Oregon; and the Fond Du Lac Tribe of the Chippewa
have been members since April 2015. The MitFLG facilitates information
exchange, coordinates policy implementation recommendations on
national-level issues, and oversees the successful implementation of
the NMF.
Question. Consistent with Executive Orders 13563 and 12866, please
detail the methods used in determining the costs, benefits or
scientific rationale of the FFRMS prior to its issuance, and provide
the results of any such analyses.
Answer. The issuance of an EO does not require that a cost-benefit
analysis of alternatives be completed. However, an economic analysis is
typically required as agencies undertake rulemaking or significant
policy development.
Once the implementing guidelines are finalized, each Federal agency
will carefully consider how to appropriately apply this standard to
their programs. In many cases, those individual agency processes of
updating regulations and procedures will involve their own process of
notice and comment.
When implemented, the FFRMS will reduce flood risk, increase
resilience, and diminish the likelihood of future losses, thereby
reducing future costs to the Federal Government, state and local
governments, and the private sector.
Floodplain management standards have a proven record of reducing
the costs of floods to individuals, communities, the Federal Treasury,
and society as a whole. The existing floodplain management standard
saves the country more than $1.6 billion annually in prevented damages.
But given the challenges of the increasing number and intensity of
flood events, EO 13690 seeks to create a higher standard to better
protect communities, national investments, and lives.
Previous studies have shown that the expense of elevating new
structures during construction is low, generally adding between 0.25 to
1.5 percent to the total construction costs for each foot of added
height.
Projects based on these standards have been shown to be cost-
effective and provide longer-term protection against future disasters.
Additionally, the Multi-hazard Mitigation Council of the National
Institute of Building Sciences conducted a study on the benefits of
FEMA-funded mitigation projects and concluded that they were successful
and cost-effective, saving society, on the average, $4 for every dollar
spent. Put simply, studies show that although building higher and safer
can be more costly initially, over time, it saves money because future
storms cause less damage to properly elevated buildings.
Further, for structures built using Federal funds that require the
purchase of flood insurance, the cost of building to the FFRMS may in
some instances be recovered, in full or in part, in the form of
decreased insurance policy payments.
Question. Please provide a detailed accounting of any activities to
engage the public and their representatives in Congress in the
development of the FFRMS prior to January 30, 2015, not otherwise
addressed herein.
Answer. Please see the answer to the first question for a summary
of the background of the development of the FFRMS.
Question. Please provide a detailed accounting of any funds
expended to support the activities of the Water Resources Council,
including the source of all such funds. Identify any Executive Branch
personnel, including offices, departments, and agencies, utilized to
support the activities of the Water Resources Council. Also include the
dates any meetings of the Water Resources Council were held, attendance
at such meetings, and whether there was any public notice of any
meetings.
Answer. The Water Resources Council (WRC), a group comprised of the
heads of eight departments and agencies, has not convened to date
regarding the FFRMS, issued in January of this year.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Cassidy
immigration
Question. The Administration has requested a more than 17 percent
increase for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and more than 6
percent for Customs and Border Protection and Citizenship and
Immigration Services. Together, this is a nearly $2 billion request for
three organizations within your agency.
While I absolutely believe we need to secure the border and provide
the resources for our men and women to do that, I'm also concerned
about our lack of interior enforcement. In April 2014 in an article
published by the Los Angeles Times, months before the President issued
his new round of amnesty, former ICE Director John Sandweg said, ``If
you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of
getting deported are close to zero--it's just highly unlikely to
happen.''. In fact, the Associated Press reported last September ``DHS
confided to a group of immigrant advocates during a confidential
meeting that about 70 percent of illegal immigrants traveling as
families failed to report back to ICE as ordered after they were
released at the border.''
The reality is that with numerous options for illegals to remain in
this country, many more will be allowed to stay if they aren't deemed a
priority for removal.
And earlier this month, the Washington Times reported that ICE had
released more than 30,000 criminal aliens back into the community. In
fact, an internal ICE report from the Office of Enforcement and Removal
Operations from last fall showed that nearly 900,000 aliens who had
received a final order of removal were still in the United States.
167,000 of those were convicted criminals released by ICE and were at-
large.
(a) Given that the data I've cited was from September and the
Administration issued its new executive orders in November, is it safe
to assume the number is higher than 900,000?
(b) For fiscal year 2015, the Administration requested $5.4 billion
for ICE. Half of that request was for Detention and Removal
Operations--$2.57 billion. Congress recently approved $5.93 for ICE
billion a few months ago, and $3.4 billion for Detention and Removal
Operations. For fiscal year 2016, the Administration has requested
$6.28 billion for ICE, an increase of about $350 million, yet they've
actually requested less for Detention and Removal Operations--$3.3
billion. I share this with you, because it further highlights the
Administration unwillingness to enforce our immigration laws.
(c) This morning the Associated Press reported that deportations
are on track to be the lowest since the middle of the last decade. You
were quoted as saying, ``there's lower intake, lower apprehensions.''
But we'd both agree that there could be close to 1 million illegal
immigrants with final order for removal.
(d) You also said a contributing factor to the decline is due to
the process for removing illegal immigrants from countries other than
Canada and Mexico is different. However, according to data from DOJ's
Executive Office for Immigration Review the number of in absentia
orders for aliens released on bond or on their own recognizance
increased by 153 percent. So they are not even showing up, and it's
clear from the number I've cited that your Department isn't even trying
to fulfill these court orders. How do you reconcile all of this in the
context of job performance?
Answer. As of May 9, 2015, there are currently 911,959 individuals
who have been issued final orders of removal from an immigration judge
or by the Board of Immigration Appeals who are still physically present
in the United States. They include aliens whose cases are before a
Federal court on appeal. This figure includes those detained in ICE
custody pending removal, those who have been booked out of ICE custody
and placed on orders of supervision or other condition of release, and
those whose removal orders ICE may seek to enforce consistent with the
Department's existing civil enforcement priorities.
The reality is that it also includes individuals who are not
priorities for enforcement action under the Department's civil
enforcement guidelines. In the November 20, 2014, memorandum entitled
Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented
Immigrants, I outlined clear Department-wide enforcement priorities
that guide all of DHS's immigration enforcement actions. These
priorities ensure that the Department focuses its limited resources on
individuals who pose the greatest risk to public safety, national
security, and border security. Accordingly, DHS is endeavoring to use
appropriate prosecutorial discretion and is dedicating resources, to
the greatest degree possible, toward the removal of individuals who are
considered enforcement priorities, which includes recent border
entrants, as well as those who have been convicted of felonies,
convicted of significant or multiple misdemeanors, and engaged in gang
activity.
In fiscal year (FY) 2015, Congress appropriated $5.93 billion for
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Salaries and Expenses
appropriation, of which $3.4 billion was for Detention and Removal
Operations. The fiscal year 2016 President's Budget requests $5.88
billion for the Salaries and Expenses appropriation, of which $3.3
billion is for Detention and Removal Operations.
The net result of ICE's immigration enforcement efforts each fiscal
year are driven by a number of factors, including but not limited to:
the number of individuals apprehended at the border; the level of
cooperation that we receive from our state and local law enforcement
partners as part of our interior apprehension efforts; the need for the
agency to expend resources in response to emergent situations; and/or
whether or not state statutes or other legislation are passed or
judicial decisions are issued that have an adverse impact on the
abilities of ICE agents/officers to enforce the immigration laws.
Despite these largely external forces, in fiscal year 2014, ICE was
nevertheless able to conduct 315,943 removals and returns, 102,224 of
which were individuals apprehended in the interior of the United
States. Eighty-five percent of the individuals removed or returned from
the interior had been convicted of a criminal offense, reflecting a
significant increase in the removal of individuals with convictions as
a percentage of overall removals, up from 67 percent in fiscal year
2011 and 38 percent in fiscal year 2008.
In 2014, and continuing now under the clear priorities outlined in
the November 20, 2014, memorandum entitled, ``Policies for the
Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants,'' ICE
focused its resources on individuals who pose the greatest risk to
public safety, national security, and border security. To that end,
more than 309,000, or 98 percent of all of ICE's removals in fiscal
year 2014, met one or more of the Department's civil immigration
enforcement priorities at the time.
ICE agents, officers, and attorneys review each case they are
presented with, considering not only whether the individual is a civil
immigration enforcement priority, but also any other extenuating
circumstances related to the particular offense, how long ago it
occurred, evidence of rehabilitation, ties and contributions to the
community, and compelling humanitarian factors. ICE personnel not only
assess whether a violation of the immigration law has occurred, but
whether the particular enforcement action is in line with the agency's
enforcement priorities and whether the agency is likely to succeed in
pursuing the individual's removal, based on the available evidence and
relevant case law.
Question. Mr. Secretary, USCIS is funded primarily by the
collection of fees. The majority of its budget comes from fees that are
collected from applicants for most types of immigration benefits. The
Immigration and Nationality Act requires that the agency is supposed to
charge applicants a fee that equals the cost of processing the benefit,
plus some money for the agency's overhead and also to subsidize the
processing of applications for which there is no fee such as refugee
and asylum applications, military naturalizations, the anti-fraud
division, low-income applicants who qualify for a fee waiver and other
activities.
Recently, USCIS Chief Financial Officer Joseph Moore revealed
during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on March 3, 2015, that
USCIS has accumulated a ``reserve fund'' that now totals $1.2 billion.
Why does USCIS need a 6 percent increase when it has $1.2 billion
in unexpended revenues?
Answer. The agency's fee account budget estimates for fiscal year
2015 and fiscal year 2016 that were presented in the fiscal year 2016
President's Budget were developed prior to the injunction halting the
implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful
Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expanded Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA). As such, the fiscal year 2016 budget
estimates assumed full implementation of DAPA, expanded DACA, and all
other Executive Action (EA) initiatives that were not enjoined and are
moving forward. The fiscal year 2016 budget estimates showed projected
growth in spending from $3.770 billion in fiscal year 2015 to $4.004
billion in fiscal year 2016 (across all accounts)--an increase of
$223.612 million or six percent. Most of this projected growth in
spending is attributable to the anticipated future implementation of
the DAPA and expanded DACA initiatives (from which, as noted, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is currently enjoined from
implementing). However, USCIS currently is operating within its $3.260
billion spending estimates provided to Congress in the fiscal year 2015
President's Budget, which is well below the $3.770 billion spending
level presented in the fiscal year 2016 President's Budget. As the DAPA
and expanded DACA initiatives are currently enjoined, USCIS does not
anticipate that it will spend at the $3.770 billion level presented in
the fiscal year 2016 budget for fiscal year 2015. Revised fiscal year
2015 spending estimates for the USCIS fee accounts have been submitted
to the House and Senate appropriations committees in the form of a
reprogramming notification pursuant to Section 503 of the fiscal year
2015 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law 114-4). Assuming that DAPA and
expanded DACA remain enjoined in fiscal year 2016, USCIS likely will
have spending requirements similar to the fiscal year 2015 level.
However, even if the injunction remains in force, there may be
operational conditions unrelated to DAPA and expanded DACA (e.g.,
workload changes in other benefit types) that drive changes in
projected spending requirements for fiscal year 2016. USCIS continues
to monitor operational conditions and anticipated workloads and will
adjust its spending estimates accordingly.
USCIS's estimated spending authority presented in the annual budget
submission represents what USCIS anticipates it needs to spend in order
to meet its mission and maintain acceptable application and petition
processing times. To meet its fee account spending requirements, USCIS
may have to use a combination of available current year revenue and
carryover balances from prior year revenue collections. Because USCIS
cannot predict application and petition volumes, or processing costs,
with 100-percent accuracy, in some years revenue collections will
exceed spending and in others spending will exceed revenue collections.
Over time, through its fee review and fee-setting processes, USCIS
seeks to set fees at a level that will recover actual costs so that
revenues and expenses net out.
Question. The fiscal year 2016 budget fee account spending
estimates represent notification to Congress of projected spending for
the upcoming fiscal year from revenue that USCIS projects it will
collect plus available carryover balances. As annual revenue is
projected to be lower than spending, a portion of the carryover balance
in the account is part of the required spending authority presented to
Congress in the President's Budget, rather than the spending authority
requested in the budget being an increase over the carryover balance.
Mr. Moore told the subcommittee that the Agency has a policy to
maintain $600 million in reserves in the event of revenue fluctuations.
What is the Agency's intended purpose for the other $600 million?
Answer. Of the approximately $1.2 billion of prior year revenue
collections that USCIS carried over in the Immigration Examinations Fee
Account (IEFA) at the start of fiscal year 2015 (after adjusting for
the release of fiscal year 2014 temporarily sequestered funds),
approximately $467 million was from premium processing revenue
authorized by Section 286(u) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA). Use of premium process revenue is statutorily limited to provide
certain premium processing services to business customers, and to make
infrastructure improvements in the adjudications and customer service
processes. As such, these balances are not available to meet general
agency operating expenses. Since the 2007 fee rule, USCIS has devoted
premium processing revenue to the Transformation Program (currently
referred to as the Electronic Immigration System--USCIS ELIS). However,
since that fee rule, demand for premium processing services has grown
and has exceeded Transformation spending, resulting in the $467 million
premium processing balance at the start of fiscal year 2015. Based on
the annual funding requirements included in the Life Cycle Cost
Estimate for the Transformation program, USCIS has more premium
processing funding than it will need to fund the program. As a result,
USCIS currently is considering options for expanding the use of premium
processing revenue to fund other types of expenses that are consistent
with the statutory limitations.
The remaining balance of approximately $735 million was from
nonpremium processing revenues authorized by Section 286(m) and (n) of
the INA. USCIS traditionally has maintained at least $600 million in
carryover in the account to adjudicate applications and petitions that
were received during the prior year but have not been adjudicated yet
(since applicants/petitioners pay the fee at the time their
application/petition is submitted, not when the application/petition is
adjudicated). The carryover also is needed for cash-flow purposes,
because the agency incurs obligations and expends funds to meet payroll
and contractual requirements to continue operations at the start of the
fiscal year, before it has collected sufficient current year revenue.
This is similar to a business that must maintain operating balances for
cash-flow needs. Unlike agencies that receive discretionary
appropriations that are accompanied by a Treasury warrant that funds
the full annual appropriation amount shortly after the appropriations
bill is enacted, the USCIS fee accounts have to rely on prior year
collections to meet obligations until sufficient current year revenues
are deposited in the fee accounts. Carryover balances also are needed
to mitigate the impact of fluctuations in revenue due to economic
conditions to ensure that sufficient funding is available to cover
fixed costs, while making the appropriate operational resource
adjustments.
Question. In fiscal year 2015, USCIS projects that nonpremium
spending is expected to exceed non-premium revenue. As a result, USCIS
anticipates that the fiscal year 2016 beginning IEFA non-premium
processing revenue balance likely will drop below $600 million. USCIS
is considering options to expand its use of premium processing revenues
to fund other types of expenses, consistent with the statutory
limitations, to better align available funding with spending
requirements.
The fee for DACA applicants ($485) only accounts for biometric
screening and work authorization. Yes or no? Will you be using revenues
from other immigrant fees to account for the full cost of processing
applications created under President Obama's executive orders?
Answer. Yes; however, DACA requestors must file Form I-821D,
Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (no fee) and
Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization ($380), and pay
the Biometric Services Fee ($85) for a total of $465. The revenue from
these fees has proven sufficient to cover the cost of the initiative,
which requires adjudicating the Form I-821D and Form I-765 as a
package.
For the parts of Executive Action (EA) that are not halted due to
the injunction, USCIS is operating within its fiscal year 2015 spending
estimates provided to Congress, is using available fee account revenue
to support implementation of these initiatives, and expects that it
will realize revenues that fully offset the additional costs. Should
the injunction preventing implementation of the DAPA and expanded DACA
initiatives be lifted, USCIS similarly would use available balances and
manage any new start-up costs within its fiscal year 2015 spending
authority until new fee revenues were collected from individuals
requesting DAPA or expanded DACA, to fully offset the cost of the
initiatives. USCIS does not intend that other fee-paying customers will
subsidize the EA initiatives.
ffrms executive order
Question. On February 6, 2015 I joined Senators Thad Cochran (R-
MS), David Vitter (R-LA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Johnny Isakson (R-GA),
Roger Wicker (R-MS), Roy Blunt (R--MO) and John Boozman (R-AR) in
sending a letter to President Obama regarding his issuance of Executive
Order 13690, ``Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
(FFRMS) and a process for Further Soliciting and Considering
Stakeholder Input.'' As I detailed in the letter I am concerned with
the implementation of this Executive Order because its development was
conducted with little transparency or input from the public or
lawmakers.
Which non-government organizations or individuals that had a role
in composing, editing, drafting, reviewing or developing any part of
the FFRMS, the draft version of the Implementing Guidelines published
in a Federal Register Notice on February 5, 2015, pursuant to EO 13690.
Who were the individuals, their organizations, and were their roles in
the process, including any individuals or organizations that worked
through a contractual relationship with any office, agency or
department of the Executive Branch?
Answer. Executive Order (EO) 13690 revises and updates EO 11988
(1977) and reflects insight gained from significant experience
addressing Federal floodplain management issues since that time. In
working to establish a new flood risk management standard, entities
across the Federal Government drew on lessons learned from recent flood
events, consensus-based standards, current practices within
communities, input and views from a wide range of stakeholders and
experts, and decades of experience under EO 11988. As detailed further
below, the Standard reflects the work of the Mitigation Framework
Leadership Group (MitFLG), the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force,
and the Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, among
others. This process of incorporating lessons learned, input, and
feedback--including from governors, mayors, and other stakeholders--
remains ongoing.
The interagency Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (created by
EO 13632 (December 7, 2012)) played a significant role in the
reassessment of Federal flood standards in light of experience with
Hurricane Sandy and lessons learned since EO was issued in 1977. This
Task Force was chaired by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), who led the effort in coordination with multiple
Federal partners, as well as an advisory group composed of state,
local, and tribal elected leaders. As one of its first actions, the
Task Force developed a flood risk reduction standard for major Federal
investment in Sandy rebuilding that took into account data on flood
risk and applied that standard to all investments in Sandy-affected
communities. After months of engagement by Federal partners--including
with local leaders and community groups--the Task Force issued a
Rebuilding Strategy, which established recommendations to help guide
the Federal funding decisions related to Sandy-related rebuilding. The
Task Force called for all major Sandy rebuilding projects in Sandy-
affected communities using Federal funding to be elevated or otherwise
flood-proofed according to this flood risk reduction standard, which
was created using the best available base flood data plus one
additional foot of free board. Subsequent to this pilot program, the
President's June 2013 Climate Action Plan directed agencies to take the
appropriate actions to reduce risk to Federal investments, and
specifically to update their flood risk reduction standards.
In response to Hurricane Sandy, the President also established the
President's State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate
Preparedness and Resilience in November 2013, with 26 governors,
mayors, and local and tribal leaders serving as members. After a year-
long process of receiving input from across State, local, tribal and
territorial governments, private businesses, trade associations,
academic organizations, civil society, and other stakeholders, the Task
Force, in addition to several other recommendations, recommended to the
President in November 2014:
Federal agencies should adjust their practices in and around
floodplains to ensure that Federal assets will be resilient to
the effects of climate change, including sea level rise, more
frequent and severe storms, and increasing river flood risks,
as called for in the President's Climate Action Plan. Projects
that receive Federal funding should be sited and designed with
the best-available climate data and include margins of safety,
such as freeboard and setbacks, to account for uncertainties
and reduce costs and disruption from future hazards.
Federal members of the MitFLG, including representatives from the
Departments of the Treasury, Interior, Commerce, Defense (including the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or USACE), Health and Human Services,
HUD, Transportation, and Energy; the Department of Homeland Security's
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); the Environmental
Protection Agency; the General Services Administration; the Office of
Management and Budget; and the Council on Environmental Quality came
together to apply lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy and other events
across the country to bear more broadly through a Federal flood
management standard, consistent with many of the Task Force on Climate
Preparedness and Resilience's recommendations and the President's
Climate Action Plan directive. These members of the MitFLG worked to
develop a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) that reflects
the best available science, lessons learned, and input and
recommendations gathered from experience, feedback, government-led
convening, and coordination and discussions with stakeholders on these
issues.
Question. As a result of these efforts, on January 30, 2015, the
President issued EO 13690, ``Establishing a Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and
Considering Stakeholder Input.''
Contractual support for facilitation and technical editing was
initially provided under a FEMA contract by Clark Group LLC.
Subsequently, those services were assumed under a USACE contract with
The Council Oak.
Which Governors, mayors, and other stakeholders did FEMA solicit
information from prior to the establishment of the new FFRMS?
Answer. EO 13690 revises and updates EO 11988 and reflects insight
gained from significant experience addressing Federal floodplain
management issues since that time. In working to establish a new flood
risk management standard, entities across the Federal Government drew
on lessons learned from recent flood events, consensus-based standards,
current practices within communities, input and views from a wide range
of stakeholders and experts, and decades of experience under EO 11988.
As detailed further below, the Standard reflects the work of the
MitFLG, the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, and the Task Force
on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, among others. This process of
incorporating lessons learned, input, and feedback--including from
governors, mayors, and other stakeholders--remains ongoing.
The interagency Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (created by
EO 13632) played a significant role in the reassessment of Federal
flood standards in light of experience with Hurricane Sandy and lessons
learned since EO was issued in 1977. This Task Force was chaired by the
Secretary of HUD, who led the effort in coordination with multiple
Federal partners, as well as an advisory group composed of state,
local, and tribal elected leaders. As one of its first actions, the
Task Force developed a flood risk reduction standard for major Federal
investment in Sandy rebuilding that took into account data on flood
risk and applied that standard to all investments in Sandy-affected
communities. After months of engagement by Federal partners--including
with local leaders and community groups--the Task Force issued a
Rebuilding Strategy, which established recommendations to help guide
the Federal funding decisions related to Sandy-related rebuilding. The
Task Force called for all major Sandy rebuilding projects in Sandy-
affected communities using Federal funding to be elevated or otherwise
flood-proofed according to this flood risk reduction standard, which
was created using the best available base flood data plus one
additional foot of free board. Subsequent to this pilot program, the
President's June 2013 Climate Action Plan directed agencies to take the
appropriate actions to reduce risk to Federal investments, and
specifically to update their flood risk reduction standards.
In response to Hurricane Sandy, the President also established the
President's State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate
Preparedness and Resilience in November 2013, with 26 governors,
mayors, and local and tribal leaders serving as members. After a year-
long process of receiving input from across State, local, tribal and
territorial governments, private businesses, trade associations,
academic organizations, civil society, and other stakeholders, the Task
Force, in addition to several other recommendations, recommended to the
President in November 2014:
Federal agencies should adjust their practices in and around
floodplains to ensure that Federal assets will be resilient to
the effects of climate change, including sea level rise, more
frequent and severe storms, and increasing river flood risks,
as called for in the President's Climate Action Plan. Projects
that receive Federal funding should be sited and designed with
the best-available climate data and include margins of safety,
such as freeboard and setbacks, to account for uncertainties
and reduce costs and disruption from future hazards.
Federal members of the MitFLG, including representatives from the
Departments of the Treasury, Interior, Commerce, Defense (including
USACE), Health and Human Services, HUD, Transportation, and Energy; the
Department of Homeland Security's FEMA; the Environmental Protection
Agency; the General Services Administration; the Office of Management
and Budget; and the Council on Environmental Quality came together to
apply lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy and other events across the
country to bear more broadly through a Federal flood management
standard, consistent with many of the Task Force on Climate
Preparedness and Resilience's recommendations and the President's
Climate Action Plan directive. These members of the MitFLG worked to
develop an FFRMS that reflects the best available science, lessons
learned, and input and recommendations gathered from experience,
feedback, government-led convening, and coordination and discussions
with stakeholders on these issues.
Question. As a result of these efforts, on January 30, 2015, the
President issued EO 13690, ``Establishing a Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and
Considering Stakeholder Input.''
Contractual support for facilitation and technical editing was
initially provided under a FEMA contract by Clark Group LLC.
Subsequently, those services were assumed under a USACE contract with
The Council Oak.
Please summarize the activities of the Mitigation Framework
Leadership Group since its inception relating to the development of the
FFRMS, including a list of Federal members. Also a list of non-Federal
members, including state, local and tribal governments, private sector
and non-government organizations, and please summarize their
involvement in the development of the FFRMS and the dates such
involvement occurred.
Answer. DHS issued the National Mitigation Framework (NMF), which
established the MitFLG in 2013 to coordinate mitigation efforts across
the Federal Government and to assess the effectiveness of mitigation
core capabilities as they are developed and deployed across the Nation.
The MitFLG includes 10 state, local, tribal, and territorial members
that serve as nonFederal participants. Specifically, representatives
from the State of Mississippi Department of Health; Terrebonne Parish,
Louisiana, Commissioners; City of Palm Bay, Florida, Planning
Department; and the New York City Office of Recovery and Resiliency
have been members since July 2014. Representatives from the State of
Georgia Environmental Finance Authority, Energy Resources Division;
Tillamook County, Oregon; and the Fond Du Lac Tribe of the Chippewa
have been members since April 2015. The MitFLG facilitates information
exchange, coordinates policy implementation recommendations on
national-level issues, and oversees the successful implementation of
the NMF.
Question. Please detail the Administration's methods used in
determining the costs, benefits or scientific rationale of the FFRMS
prior to its issuance, and provide the results of any such analyses.
Answer. The issuance of an EO does not require that a cost-benefit
analysis of alternatives be completed. However, an economic analysis is
typically required as agencies undertake rulemaking or significant
policy development.
Once the implementing guidelines are finalized, each Federal agency
will carefully consider how to appropriately apply this standard to
their programs. In many cases, those individual agency processes of
updating regulations and procedures will involve their own process of
notice and comment.
When implemented, the FFRMS will reduce flood risk, increase
resilience, and diminish the likelihood of future losses, thereby
reducing future costs to the Federal Government, state and local
governments, and the private sector.
Floodplain management standards have a proven record of reducing
the costs of floods to individuals, communities, the Federal Treasury,
and society as a whole. The existing floodplain management standard
saves the country more than $1.6 billion annually in prevented damages.
But given the challenges of the increasing number and intensity of
flood events, EO 13690 seeks to create a higher standard to better
protect communities, national investments, and lives.
Previous studies have shown that the expense of elevating new
structures during construction is low, generally adding between 0.25 to
1.5 percent to the total construction costs for each foot of added
height.
Projects based on these standards have been shown to be cost-
effective and provide longer-term protection against future disasters.
Additionally, the Multi-hazard Mitigation Council of the National
Institute of Building Sciences conducted a study on the benefits of
FEMA-funded mitigation projects and concluded that they were successful
and cost-effective, saving society, on the average, $4 for every dollar
spent. Put simply, studies show that although building higher and safer
can be more costly initially, over time, it saves money because future
storms cause less damage to properly elevated buildings.
Question. Further, for structures built using Federal funds that
require the purchase of flood insurance, the cost of building to the
FFRMS may in some instances be recovered, in full or in part, in the
form of decreased insurance policy payments.
Did FEMA or the Administration conduct any activities to engage the
public and their representatives in Congress in the development of the
FFRMS prior to January 30, 2015?
Answer. EO 13690 revises and updates EO 11988 (1977) and reflects
insight gained from significant experience addressing Federal
floodplain management issues since that time. In working to establish a
new flood risk management standard, entities across the Federal
Government drew on lessons learned from recent flood events, consensus-
based standards, current practices within communities, input and views
from a wide range of stakeholders and experts, and decades of
experience under EO 11988. As detailed further below, the Standard
reflects the work of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group
(MitFLG), the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, and the Task Force
on Climate Preparedness and Resilience, among others. This process of
incorporating lessons learned, input, and feedback--including from
governors, mayors, and other stakeholders--remains ongoing.
The interagency Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (created by
EO 13632) played a significant role in the reassessment of Federal
flood standards in light of experience with Hurricane Sandy and lessons
learned since EO was issued in 1977. This Task Force was chaired by the
Secretary of HUD, who led the effort in coordination with multiple
Federal partners, as well as an advisory group composed of state,
local, and tribal elected leaders. As one of its first actions, the
Task Force developed a flood risk reduction standard for major Federal
investment in Sandy rebuilding that took into account data on flood
risk and applied that standard to all investments in Sandy-affected
communities. After months of engagement by Federal partners--including
with local leaders and community groups--the Task Force issued a
Rebuilding Strategy, which established recommendations to help guide
the Federal funding decisions related to Sandy-related rebuilding. The
Task Force called for all major Sandy rebuilding projects in Sandy-
affected communities using Federal funding to be elevated or otherwise
flood-proofed according to this flood risk reduction standard, which
was created using the best available base flood data plus one
additional foot of free board. Subsequent to this pilot program, the
President's June 2013 Climate Action Plan directed agencies to take the
appropriate actions to reduce risk to Federal investments, and
specifically to update their flood risk reduction standards.
In response to Hurricane Sandy, the President also established the
President's State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate
Preparedness and Resilience in November 2013, with 26 governors,
mayors, and local and tribal leaders serving as members. After a year-
long process of receiving input from across State, local, tribal and
territorial governments, private businesses, trade associations,
academic organizations, civil society, and other stakeholders, the Task
Force, in addition to several other recommendations, recommended to the
President in November 2014:
Federal agencies should adjust their practices in and around
floodplains to ensure that Federal assets will be resilient to
the effects of climate change, including sea level rise, more
frequent and severe storms, and increasing river flood risks,
as called for in the President's Climate Action Plan. Projects
that receive Federal funding should be sited and designed with
the best-available climate data and include margins of safety,
such as freeboard and setbacks, to account for uncertainties
and reduce costs and disruption from future hazards.
Federal members of the MitFLG, including representatives from the
Departments of the Treasury, Interior, Commerce, Defense (including
USACE), Health and Human Services, HUD, Transportation, and Energy; the
Department of Homeland Security's FEMA; the Environmental Protection
Agency; the General Services Administration; the Office of Management
and Budget; and the Council on Environmental Quality came together to
apply lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy and other events across the
country to bear more broadly through a Federal flood management
standard, consistent with many of the Task Force on Climate
Preparedness and Resilience's recommendations and the President's
Climate Action Plan directive. These members of the MitFLG worked to
develop an FFRMS that reflects the best available science, lessons
learned, and input and recommendations gathered from experience,
feedback, government-led convening, and coordination and discussions
with stakeholders on these issues.
Question. As a result of these efforts, on January 30, 2015, the
President issued EO 13690, ``Establishing a Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and
Considering Stakeholder Input.''
Contractual support for facilitation and technical editing was
initially provided under a FEMA contract by Clark Group LLC.
Subsequently, those services were assumed under a USACE contract with
The Council Oak.
Please provide a detailed accounting of any funds expended to
support the activities of the Water Resources Council, including the
source of all such funds. Identify any Executive Branch personnel,
including offices, departments, and agencies, utilized to support the
activities of the Water Resources Council. Also include the dates any
meetings of the Water Resources Council were held, attendance at such
meetings, and whether there was any public notice of any meetings.
Answer. The Water Resources Council (WRC), a group comprised of the
heads of eight departments and agencies, to date has not convened
regarding, or been involved in, the Federal Flood Risk Management
Standard, issued in January of this year.
Question. In addition, this executive order would arbitrarily
expand the definition of ``floodplain'' well beyond the long-accepted
100-year floodplain historical definition and there is a great deal of
uncertainty over the scope of this executive order and how it would
apply to a variety of Federal government programs that interact
directly with the private sector on construction-related issues. Does
FEMA intend for the recent Executive Order on the Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard to apply to private construction projects that need
Federal permitting (i.e. Clean Water permits, Endangered Species Act
permits)? If this executive order essentially requires every Federal
agency to create a new definition for a floodplain this order would
thus apply to all Federal activity and would also apply to private
development that receives a Federal permit. I find that troublesome and
disconcerting and feel that it is an expansive Federal overreach that
will create confusion and conflict in the private market. Is your
agency aware of all the chaos and confusion that will be caused if this
executive order is implemented?
Answer. More than 1,500 unique comments were provided during the
recent public comment period on the draft Guidelines, and similar
questions regarding the scope of the FFRMS were raised. Many of these
comments expressed concern regarding how the Executive Order will
affect private development. In addition, many of these comments
expressed that the Government didn't go far enough to protect
floodplains and Federal investment. The MitFLG is committed to
considering the input of the individuals and organizations that
provided their perspective on the issue. FEMA and the Federal
interagency community, through the MitFLG, will analyze the comments
received and respond, as appropriate, in the draft Guidelines. The
MitFLG will provide public feedback on the types of comments received
and how those were considered, adjudicated, and used to inform the
policy decisions.
After the Guidelines are released, each Federal agency will
carefully consider how to apply the FFRMS to its programs
appropriately, and agency processes may include additional
opportunities for the public to provide input before making final
decisions about implementing the FFRMS.
cybersecurity
Question. The Departments' requested budget reduction for
cybersecurity education programs is inconsistent with DHS's stated
emphasis on the cybersecurity workforce and its specific goal of
educating 1.7M students by 2021. The justification for the reduction is
to serve higher priority cybersecurity efforts; however, proposed
technology investments will not be useful if there is not a trained
workforce to support those tools in future years.
In February 2015, GAO released a report re-designating DHS and
cybersecurity as ``high risk'' in the area of Ensuring the Security of
Federal Information Systems and Cyber Critical Infrastructure. GAO
noted that progress is being made in assessing the cybersecurity
workforce and identifying critical shortages--mainly due to Congress
passing The Homeland Security Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment Act,
which requires DHS to identify cybersecurity positions and specialty
areas with critical shortages in the DHS cybersecurity workforce. But
assessing the problem is not an excuse for delaying or not taking
actions to address the problem. In April 2015, the Partnership for
Public Service published its report ``Cyber In-Security II: Closing the
Federal Talent Gap. The report noted that the pipeline of potential new
cyber talent was inadequate--nationwide demand still out strips supply.
Specifically, even though the administration has continued to encourage
more Americans to develop science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) skills, efforts to grow the pipeline will take time
to bear fruit, because the demand for cyber-related skills is projected
to rise at an ever faster pace. In the fiscal year'15 DHS Congressional
budget justification, DHS highlighted its leadership role in
cybersecurity education. DHS ``leads the national effort for
cybersecurity education, workforce planning, training, and professional
development.'' DHS also stated that it would strengthen cybersecurity
at the high school level and expand the pipeline of cybersecurity
professionals entering the workforce--``affecting 1.7M students over
the next 10 years.''
The DHS Cybersecurity Education and Training Assistance Program
(CETAP) is expected to provide training and education to approximately
200K students this year and, if funded, 400K next year--significantly
expanding the cybersecurity workforce pipeline. What is the Department
doing to meet its goal of providing cybersecurity education and
training to 1.7M students in order to expand the pipeline of
cybersecurity professionals entering the workforce?
Answer. The Department supports the previously stated goal of
educating 1.7 million students by 2021--ensuring that the future
workforce pipeline is able to meet the projected national demand. DHS
leads several programs that serve a broad stakeholder base across the
Nation, providing cybersecurity education programs that are flexible
and responsive to meet the rapidly changing cyber environment and that
also take into account today's fiscal constraints. As these initiatives
develop and mature over time, the Department refines its strategies and
processes to address identified gaps, maximize outreach, and ensure
implementation success. Each of these programs is an integral factor in
strengthening the Nation's cyber resilience and ensuring that there is
a robust national cybersecurity pipeline.
DHS believes that a critical component to success in this area is
developing a pipeline of skilled cybersecurity personnel. In order to
fill the most immediate needs, the Department focuses on outreach and
engagement with higher education institutions where students are
enrolled in a curriculum of study tied to science, technology,
engineering, math, and cyber/computers (STEM-C). As part of developing
a skilled workforce, students must be able to see where they fit into a
cybersecurity career path and be aware of opportunities available to
them to hone those skills or find employment. As detailed below, DHS
programs such as the Centers for Academic Excellence and Scholarship
for Service lend themselves to this type of engagement.
During 6th-12th grades, a student (or through teachers or
counselors) will have identified an aptitude in STEM-C subject areas
and likely will have been encouraged to seek advanced placement
coursework in those areas of study. DHS programs such as Cyber
Competitions and the Integrated Cybersecurity Education Communities
Project support increased student engagement in these formative grades.
Engaging students early in their education careers will ensure a strong
and sustained workforce pipeline that will meet mid-term and long-term
operational workforce demands.
A layered approach to education and workforce engagement that
progresses from K-12 through higher education will enable DHS to reach,
and potentially exceed, its goal of educating 1.7 million students in
cybersecurity in 10 years. This is an update to previous methodologies
and will ensure that DHS education programs address both immediate and
future workforce needs.
An overview of the Department's efforts in workforce and pipeline
development is provided below.
Higher Education Programs
National Centers of Academic Excellence (CAE, Co-sponsored by the
National
Security Agency)
The CAE program works to reduce vulnerability in our national
information infrastructure by promoting higher education and research
in Information Assurance (IA) and producing a growing pipeline of
professionals with IA expertise in various disciplines. There are now
more than 185 academic institutions with CAE designation in 43 States,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
Scholarship for Service (SFS, Co-sponsored by the National Science
Foundation)
The SFS program provides scholarships to 58 universities across the
country; students receive SFS scholarships for up to 2 years to study
cybersecurity, after which they owe the Government a period of service
equivalent to the length of their scholarship. This program is
specifically called out in appropriations language and funding is
required by the Department.
K-12 Education Program
The Integrated Cybersecurity Education Communities Project (ICEC)
In fiscal year 2013, the Department issued the competitive
Cybersecurity Education and Training Assistance Program (CETAP) grant
in the amount of $5 million to fund the ICEC project to provide cyber
education for teachers and students.
In support of the National Initiative for Cyber Education (NICE),
the ICEC project holds cyber education summer camps around the country,
with the primary goal of educating middle school and high school
teachers who return to their schools prepared to educate students on
cyber-related content across multiple academic disciplines. Cyber
education camps were held in four communities in the summer of 2014,
with more than 35 high schools participating. Each high school sent
students and teachers as participants. Upon completion of summer camp,
the Department estimates each teacher will educate approximately 120
students over the course of an academic year. Therefore, the
anticipated impact was nearly 9,000 students during the summer of 2014.
The initial funding in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014
allowed for the development of the curriculum and training modules for
teachers and students; this additional funding was required in fiscal
year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 to complete these developmental
activities. In fiscal year 2015, the Department plans to fund the ICEC
project in the amount of $3.0 million, $2.0 million less than previous
years, due to the culmination of the curriculum and training module
development phase. fiscal year 2015 funding will continue to provide
direct training, camps, and outreach to middle school and high school
teachers and students. The various locations in which camps and
workshops are held are geographically and socio-economically diverse.
The following activities are planned for fiscal year 2015:
--16 STEM: Explore Discover Apply Workshops geared toward teachers;
--7 Cyber Discovery Camps geared toward students; and
--1 Education Forum
The grant also supports integration of cybersecurity topics into
high school curricula, which high schools across the country can adopt
and offer to numerous students each year. The Department plans to
leverage this curriculum and provide free, on-demand training to
teachers nationwide through the Federal Virtual Training Environment
(FedVTE). Utilizing a virtual capability to reach teachers in any
location, at any time, demonstrates the project's flexibility and
outreach potential. Ultimately, the ICEC project serves as a force
multiplier and a continuous return on investment as teachers who
participate in the summer camps return to their schools and integrate
cybersecurity into their classrooms.
Cyber Competitions
DHS supports cyber competitions through its sponsorship of the
annual Air Force Association CyberPatriot competition, steering middle
and high school students toward cybersecurity careers and studies.
Since 2009, the program has experienced per annum growth of more than
20 percent. In 2014, registration for CyberPatriot VI exceeded 1,500
teams, marking unprecedented growth for the program. This growth can be
attributed to the inclusion of scouting troops and Boys and Girls Clubs
organizations that were invited to field teams for the first time.
Continuing the growth trend, DHS expects approximately 12,000 students
to participate in 2015.
Training and Workforce Development Programs
The National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education Effort (NICE)
The NICE mission is to raise cybersecurity awareness among all U.S.
citizens, promote cybersecurity formal education, and evolve the
cybersecurity professional field. These activities include public
service campaigns, cybersecurity competitions, and offering tools and
resources for developing cybersecurity skills and abilities among the
current workforce.
National Initiative for Cybersecurity Careers and Studies (NICCS)/
CyberU
The DHS NICCS portal promotes the National Cybersecurity Workforce
Framework (which provides a common taxonomy to ensure professional
development of the Nation's cybersecurity workforce) by providing tools
and resources for organizations focused on cybersecurity workforce
development and information for individuals about cyber-security
careers. The CyberU will promote adoption of professional development
standards by equipping and connect users with resources in a more user-
friendly format. The CyberU portal will replace and improve upon the
NICCS portal by hosting the Cybersecurity Training Catalog, a clearing
house of cybersecurity-related education and training courses offered
across the United States, and by providing easy access to the current
FedVTE training portal (discussed further below).
Federal Virtual Training Environment (FedVTE)
FedVTE is an online training platform that provides Federal
cybersecurity and IT professionals with hands-on labs and training
courses. Annually, FedVTE provides training to approximately 60,000
cybersecurity professionals across the Federal Government. The
environment is accessible from any Internet-enabled computer and is
free to Federal users and their agencies. This program has saved the
Federal Government $72 million annually compared to similar training
provided by a private vendor.
Federal Cybersecurity Training Events (FedCTE)
FedCTE provides training classes ranging from 1 to 3 days, which
are conducted both in-person and virtually on a variety of
cybersecurity topics. In fiscal year 2014, 467 individuals received
training through FedCTE, and 1,370 individuals have received training
since FedCTE's inception in 2010.
jones act compliance
Question. The Jones Act is an important maritime law which requires
that vessels be U.S.-built, U.S.-crewed, and U.S.-owned in order to
transport merchandise between two points in the U.S. The economic and
security benefits of the law can only be realized however when people
comply with it. DHS is responsible for Jones Act enforcement. The Coast
Guard verifies the nationality of vessel owners and crew, and Customs
and Border Protection ensures the legal transportation of cargo.
Our shared goal on this issue should be informed compliance, but
that is not possible without active enforcement of the law. Certain bad
actors who believe they will not be caught, or only receive a slap on
the wrist if they are, will unfortunately make a business decision to
break the law and thumb their nose at the Department. When that
happens, U.S. mariners and shipyards suffer along with the Department's
credibility. CBP's role in documenting violations and assessing and
collecting penalties is essential to achieving deterrence of these
violations and letting those bad actors know that there are
consequences for illegal actions.
Do you agree that CBP and the Coast Guard should enforce the
requirements of the Jones Act?
Answer. Yes, it is imperative that U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Coast Guard, as the two DHS agencies
charged with enforcement of the Jones Act, both leverage their
respective resources and roles to effect the utmost enforcement of this
important law.
Question. Do you agree that civil penalties are an important
enforcement tool to protect against willful violations of the law?
Answer. Yes, the assessment and collection of civil penalties is an
extremely important tool to effectively deter violations of this law.
Question. In order to effectively deter violations, do you agree
that cases should be processed in a timely manner? Please explain your
efforts to ensure timely processing of cases by CBP and any additional
resources that may be required to accomplish that goal.
Answer. Yes, in order to effectively deter violations, penalty
cases should be processed in a timely manner. CBP works to adhere to
standard response times for processing violations and responding to
petitions, generally within 90 days of receiving all of the necessary
information from relevant parties. CBP's Office of Field Operations
constantly monitors the open cases report for all Fines, Penalties &
Forfeiture Offices to ensure compliance with these standards. Various
factors can impact the timeframes on these cases, including an
interested parties' request for information, or a request from a party
for an extension to research or obtain information from another party.
aids to navigation servicing contracting
Question. Mr. Secretary the United States Cost Guard has requested
$1.5 billion to conduct Aids to Navigation operations. The Coast Guard
is charged with the maintenance of over 50,000 Federal government-owned
buoys, beacons, and other aids-to-navigation that mark 25,000 miles of
waterways. The maritime sector contributes more than $650 billion
annually to the U.S. gross domestic product and sustains more than 13
million jobs. Nearly 100 percent of our overseas trade enters or leaves
the U.S. by vessels navigating the marine transportation system. I am
interested in the savings and efficiencies that could be gained through
contracting some of aid to navigation services.
What is the cost per hour to preform aid to navigation operations?
Examples of which could include maintaining of government owned buoys
and beacons.
Answer. The $1.5 billion reported in the President's Budget crosses
several appropriations. Approximately $1.1 billion of that figure is
for operating expenses. The remainder is distributed to Reserve
Training, Acquisition Construction and Improvements (AC&I), Research
Development Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E), Medicare Eligible Health
Care Fund (MERHCF) Contributions, and Retired Pay.
As stated in the background, the Coast Guard is responsible for
marking the 25,000 miles of coasts and waterways to facilitate the safe
and efficient movement of commerce. This work requires a variety of
assets (cutters, boats, aircraft, land units) and navigation hardware.
Buoys range in size from 9x35 foot steel hulls weighing 18,000 pounds
to 30 inch foam hulls weighing 115 pounds, and beacons include a wide
variety of sizes and structures.
While the Coast Guard has not calculated the hourly cost of
servicing aids to navigation, it has published reimbursable rates for
its assets in COMDTINST 7310.1 (series) manual, ``Hourly Rates for
Cutters, Boats, and Aircraft.'' The hourly rate for a surface aids to
navigation asset ranges from $7,305 per hour to $2,217 per hour, but
these numbers should not be used to identify the cost to perform the
aids to navigation mission, nor should this rate be considered when
comparing the cost of a private entity performing the service. This
rate is calculated to include personnel, maintenance, overhead costs
associated with support of the asset, and an estimate for the total
value of the Coast Guard command and control structure that enables all
missions.
Question. Has the Coast Guard considered contracting aid to
navigation operations to private sector companies? If not, why?
Answer. The Coast Guard has conducted several studies since 1990
that examined accomplishing parts of the aids to navigation mission via
commercial contracts. On each occasion, the Coast Guard concluded that
the contracted services would be more expensive and less effective than
using Coast Guard resources.
Question. Many of the USCG vessels involved with aid to navigation
operations are multi mission vessels, such as Law Endowment, Search and
Rescue, and other national security operations, correct? If their aid
to navigation missions with contracted to private sector organizations
would these vessels be available to conduct more national security
missions?
Answer. All Coast Guard assets are multiple-mission capable. If a
primary mission requirement was removed without commensurate decrease
in operational hours, they could be used to augment other mission
areas. However, in the specific case of ATON units, this has not been
considered due to the cost prohibitive nature of privatizing this
mission.
Question. Additionally, while these vessels can perform multiple
missions how many times have aid to navigation vessels been diverted to
secondary missions while conducting aid to navigation activities?
Answer. Coast Guard platforms performing the aids to navigation
mission have been diverted to other missions. However, the actual
number of times that this has occurred is not documented in any
accessible form and therefore the actual number of these instances
cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy
preclearance
Question. One of the major obstacles to cross-border travel today
is CBP passenger screening. Over the past couple years, DHS has made
great progress in the construction of pre-clearance facilities. I am
pleased that DHS has signed a pre-clearance agreement with Canada's
Minister of Public Safety, Steven Blaney. While the Canadian Parliament
must still act on this agreement, I am confident we are that much
closer to making decisions on individual pre-clearance projects.
Secretary Johnson, Vermont used to enjoy Amtrak service across the
Canadian border to Montreal. One of the hurdles to restarting this
service is safely and securely screening the train. We need help and
support from CBP to make the construction of pre-clearance facilities
happen. I understand that CBP staff have begun site visits for a number
of projects. Can we count on your assistance to work with Vermont, New
York and Quebec to make a pre-clearance facility in Montreal a reality?
Answer. Yes, the new U.S.-Canada Land, Rail, Marine, and Air
Transport Preclearance Agreement provides for authorities and
jurisdiction for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel
operating within a potential rail environment. This agreement outlines
that rail companies may request rail passenger preclearance. Such a
request would be reviewed by each Party based on many considerations,
including a secure corridor, resource and funding availability, and the
availability of adequate facilities. CBP is committed to evaluating all
preclearance expansion requests in a transparent and consistent manner.
The four base categories of expansion evaluation criteria that will be
used to review each applicant from Canada are outlined below:
1. Security: Determine the homeland or national security benefit to
the U.S.
2. Facilitation: Determine the economic benefit to the U.S. and
host country.
3. Strategic Impact: Determine opportunities to enhance
international partnerships and U.S. global influence.
4. Feasibility: Determine the speed and ease with which potential
preclearance locations can be set up and become operational.
At the request of Amtrak, CBP reviewed a preliminary concept design
with Amtrak and the Canada Border Services Agency. CBP has not entered
into formal facility design discussions regarding a rail facility in
Montreal. Further discussions concerning the possibility of
establishing preclearance may occur once the preclearance agreement has
entered into force and if requested by Amtrak, as provided by the
agreement.
Question. I understand a CBP team has also visited Toronto's Billy
Bishop airport. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal
year 2015 exempts Canadian airports from any preclearance restrictions,
including carrier requirements. Will you let me know if that language
was unclear, or if the Department needs additional assistance from
Congress on moving forward with pre-clearance at this location? If
additional assistance is required, I'd ask that the Department work
with my staff so we can resolve any outstanding issues standing in the
way of adding additional pre-clearance location.
Answer. CBP recently concluded its technical site visits to
possible preclearance expansion locations in Canada, including Billy
Bishop Toronto City Airport (April 13, 2015). The locations will be
examined to determine the potential impact on national security,
passenger facilitation, and on the achievement of long-term trade and
travel goals. Additionally, we have partnered with Departments of State
and Transportation to evaluate candidate airports, and their respective
governments' support, through an open and deliberative process that
heavily weighed air carrier competitive balance.
For the current fiscal year, with the exception of countries with
preclearance facilities in service prior to 2013, pursuing a new
preclearance agreement requires the presence of an operating U.S. air
carrier. The Department took seriously the concerns raised by Congress
and U.S air carriers on the importance of seeking competitive balance
at new preclearance locations. Therefore, with respect to considering
expansion of preclearance operations at countries where such operations
are already ongoing, DHS and CBP are focusing possible expansion on
those locations that already maintain the presence of air passenger
operations by a U.S. air carrier. Given the significant interest by
multiple airports, this decision allows the Department to prioritize
locations that provide preclearance opportunities to multiple air
carriers.
We continue to engage with airports at the technical level on the
possibility of pre-clearance expansion, similar to Billy Bishop, even
if the airports lack a U.S. carrier. Billy Bishop Airport will be
evaluated and ranked alongside the other preclearance candidate
airports. As part of that process, competitiveness factors, which
include the presence of a U.S. carrier, will be an important part of
the analysis. Accordingly, while the fiscal year 2015 appropriations
bill eliminated the requirement of U.S. carrier presence for countries
that have previously had preclearance locations, CBP continues to urge
Billy Bishop to attract a U.S. carrier as that is an important
evaluation factor for expansion locations.
We will continue to work with Billy Bishop to assess the
feasibility of the location for preclearance operations and support
efforts to have U.S. air carriers consider operations at the airport.
All of these efforts are contingent on the successful ratification of
the new preclearance agreement by the Canadian Parliament and passage
of the Civilian Extra-territorial Jurisdiction Act by the U.S. Congress
prior to the new U.S.-Canada Land, Rail, Marine, and Air Transport
Preclearance Agreement entering into force.
northern border staffing
Question. I appreciate that CBP has been working hard to fill the
2,000 positions for which Congress previously allocated funding.
However, I remained concerned that staffing along the Northern Border
remains lower than where it has been historically. Does the Department
have plans to submit a proposal to Congress on how to fully meet these
staffing needs?
Answer. CBP is developing a plan and taking action to accelerate
the hiring process for CBP Officers (CBPO) and Border Patrol Agents
(BPA) required to maintain the proper level of security. CBPOs, based
at the Nation's ports of entry, are responsible for screening all
foreign visitors, returning American citizens, and imported cargo that
enters the United States. BPAs, operating between the ports of entry,
are responsible for safeguarding nearly 6,000 miles of land border the
United States shares with Canada and Mexico, and more than 2,000 miles
of coastal waters. CBP's plan will include information concerning
current CBPO and BPA staffing levels, the current hiring pipeline,
projected fiscal year 2015 CBPO and BPA attrition rates, and CBP
frontline hiring challenges. The plan also will present information
detailing CBP's efforts, recent and ongoing, to reengineer the
frontline hiring process, streamline hiring processes, and reduce the
cost and time-to-hire.
Question. In the most recent round of staffing decisions, Vermont
port of entries received 10 additional positions. I believe that hiring
locally will help with the retention of CBPOs in Vermont. What efforts
are in place by DHS in order to hire local residents when positions are
available?
Answer. CBP hires candidates to fill both law enforcement officer
positions and non-law enforcement positions nationwide. CBP posts Job
Opportunity Announcements (JOA) on USAJOBS, the U.S. Government's
official website for listing civil service job opportunities with
Federal agencies. The site is operated by the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management. Consistent with qualifications, application requirements,
and other considerations identified in each JOA, all individuals
interested in the position advertised can apply to the JOA. In some
instances, the JOA will limit the area of consideration for applicants
to the local commuting area.
Sustaining CBP frontline CBPO and BPA staffing levels requires
annually attracting and assessing thousands of applicants to replace
employee losses resulting from retirement and other attrition, as well
as to fill any new positions funded or authorized by Congress. To meet
these staffing requirements, CBP recruits nationwide and opens several
JOAs each year. Individuals interested in CBPO and BPA positions will
apply for a geographic area or specific location identified in the
particular JOA.
To promote a common work experience, all entry-level BPA hires
begin their careers at a duty station on the Southwest Border.
Similarly, CBP has begun efforts to focus entry-level CBPO hiring
toward large and high-volume POEs to maximize pre- and post-academy
training experiences. As part of their career progression, CBPOs and
BPAs may pursue future promotional and reassignment opportunities to
other duty locations, including their prior location of residence. CBP
non-law enforcement position JOAs will identify the specific location
where the selected individual will perform the position duties detailed
in the announcement. Often, these JOAs will limit the area of
consideration to candidates within the local commuting area.
Question. What options are available to the Department to help
incentive staff to fill positions and combat attrition in the hard-to-
staff areas on the Northern border?
Answer. As appropriate and within spending limitations, CBP uses
incentives (e.g., recruitment, retention, and relocation) to fill
positions and retain employees in hard-to-fill duty stations, including
those along the Northern border. A recruitment incentive may be paid to
a newly appointed employee if the position is likely to be difficult to
fill in the absence of an incentive. A retention incentive is another
tool available when an agency has determined that an employee (or group
of employees) would be likely to leave for a different position in the
Federal service. Relocation incentives may be paid to a current
employee who must relocate to accept a position in a different
geographic area that the agency has determined likely to be difficult
to fill in the absence of an incentive. Payment of these incentives may
not exceed 25 percent of the employee's annual rate of basic pay and
require the employee to sign a written service agreement prior to
receiving the incentive.
laptop searches at border
Question. Several Federal courts have recently brought to light the
Department's practice of conducting forensic examinations of laptops
and other electronic devices at the border without a warrant or even a
reasonable suspicion of a crime. Several courts have rejected this
approach, including the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia just last week, holding that such an in-depth search of an
electronic device requires a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
As you know, these devices hold an almost unimaginable amount of highly
personal information, as well as trade secrets, privileged
communications, and other private data. Without legitimate suspicion of
criminal activity, an individual should not have to surrender every
intimate detail to the government simply because he or she crosses our
border. Although I recognize the critical need to safeguard our
borders, I am concerned with the privacy implications of this practice,
and believe that routine border searches should not be used as a
loophole to avoid the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
What is the Department's current policy regarding border searches
of laptops and electronic devices?
Answer. CBP's policy on the border search of electronic devices is
available online at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
elec_mbsa_3.pdf. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE)
policy is available online at: https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/
ice_border_search_electronic_devices.pdf.
Question. Does the Department plan to amend its policies in light
of the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Cotterman, and the
D.C. District Court's recent decision in United States v. Kim?
Answer. Officers and agents operating in the Ninth Circuit comply
with the holding in United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952, 960 (9th
Cir. 2013) (en banc), regarding reasonable suspicion for forensic
searches of electronic devices at the border, and DHS continually
evaluates its procedures to account for changing priorities and to make
its operations more effective and efficient. In addition, DHS is
consulting with the Department of Justice on whether the Government
should pursue further review of the Kim decision.
family detention
Question. I strongly believe that the administration's decision to
expand family detention is wrong. The new oversight actions announced
on May 13, 2015 do nothing to end or even scale back the use of this
ill-advised policy. There is clear evidence that detention has a
significant negative impact on the well-being and mental health of the
mothers and children detained, especially given the violence many of
them are fleeing and the trauma they have already endured. The
Department's rationale for detention--that it serves as a deterrent--is
both contrary to basic notions of due process and irrational. Even if
family detention were an acceptable policy, we simply do not have
enough beds to make it an effective deterrent. Instead, our policy
subjects the unlucky few who arrive on the border when a detention bed
happens to be free to months of detention at enormous cost to the
taxpayer, while the vast majority who arrive when beds are full avoid
detention all together.
I am particularly troubled by the policy to detain families who
have passed their credible fear interview. Why does DHS/ICE continue to
detain families who have passed their credible fear interview?
Answer. While the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows for
the detention of individuals subject to expedited removal who have
established credible fear (see INA Sec. 235(b)(1)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii)), ICE does not have a policy that requires
detention. Rather, ICE makes discretionary custody determinations for
families and individuals who have established a credible fear on a
case-by-case basis, accounting for the unique aspects of each case and
setting appropriate release conditions.
Question. What is the current cost per day of detaining a family
unit at the new family detention facility in Dilley, Texas? What is the
cost for each individual? What is the expected cost per day for both a
family unit and an individual when the facility is fully operational?
What expenses are reflected in the above calculations?
Answer. Due to the variable nature of the size of a family unit,
ICE does not calculate costs per family unit, but rather only
calculates costs on an individual basis. The cost per day to house
individuals at the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley,
Texas, is $313.00 as of March 2015, although it is expected to change
as the year progresses and the contract reaches full capacity.
The expenses for family residential centers include costs similar
to those for detention facilities, such as facility staff, food, and
medical and mental healthcare, as well as expenses for family-related
services such as residential advisors, educational programs, short-term
monitored care, expanded recreational facilities, and specialized
counseling.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Hoeven. With that, we will adjourn the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., Wednesday, April 29, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at a time subject to
the call of the Chair.]
-