[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STATE AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON DHS
PREPAREDNESS GRANT PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS,
RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-738 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas John Katko, New York
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey Clay Higgins, Louisiana
J. Luis Correa, California Michael Guest, Mississippi
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Dan Bishop, North Carolina
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Al Green, Texas Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa
Eric Swalwell, California Diana Harshbarger, Tennessee
Dina Titus, Nevada Andrew S. Clyde, Georgia
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida
Kathleen M. Rice, New York Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Val Butler Demings, Florida Peter Meijer, Michigan
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California Kat Cammack, Florida
Josh Gottheimer, New Jersey August Pfluger, Texas
Elaine G. Luria, Virginia Andrew R. Garbarino, New York
Tom Malinowski, New Jersey
Ritchie Torres, New York
Hope Goins, Staff Director
Daniel Kroese, Minority Staff Director
Natalie Nixon, Clerk
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
Val Butler Demings, Florida, Chairwoman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Kat Cammack, Florida, Ranking
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey Member
Al Green, Texas Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex Andrew R. Garbarino, New York
officio) John Katko, New York (ex officio)
Lauren McClain, Subcommittee Staff Director
Diana Bergwin, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
Kenyatta Collins, Subcommittee Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Val Butler Demings, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Florida, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Kat Cammack, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Witnesses
Hon. David Y. Ige, Governor, State of Hawaii:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Mr. Jared M. Maples, Director, Office of Homeland Security and
Preparedness, State of New Jersey:
Oral Statement................................................. 16
Prepared Statement............................................. 18
Mr. Orlando Rolon, Chief of Police, Orlando Police Department:
Oral Statement................................................. 22
Prepared Statement............................................. 23
Mr. Robert V. Altman, Battalion Chief, Ocala Fire Rescue:
Oral Statement................................................. 28
Prepared Statement............................................. 30
STATE AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES ON DHS PREPAREDNESS GRANT PROGRAMS
----------
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Recovery,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:07 p.m.,
via Webex, Hon. Val Butler Demings [Chairwoman of the
subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Demings, Jackson Lee, Payne,
Watson Coleman, Cammack, Higgins, and Miller-Meeks.
Also present: Representative Thompson.
Chairwoman Demings. The Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery will come to order. The
subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on State and
local perspectives on DHS preparedness grant programs.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the
subcommittee in recess at any point.
Let me officially say good afternoon to all of you. I would
like to start by recognizing that this is my first Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Subcommittee hearing for
the 117th Congress and my first hearing as Chair for the
subcommittee.
I am pleased to be joined by my colleague and fellow
Floridian, Ranking Member Kate Cammack. We both hail from a
State that has experienced many natural disasters. We can
attest to the importance of emergency preparedness and use our
experiences to conduct meaningful oversight of the Department
of Homeland Security.
We are here today to discuss the Department of Homeland
Security's preparedness grant programs. These grant programs
were created following one of the Nation's darkest moments, the
September 11 terrorist attacks. We all remember that tragic day
that took the lives of so many. I was assigned to the Orlando
International Airport as a police commander in charge of the
police division of the Orlando Police Department at that time.
We learned many lessons that day, and the months and years to
follow, about our readiness to respond to all threats.
Through the Homeland Security Grant Programs, the
Department's premier grant suite, DHS has made important
investments to elevate the Nation's homeland security posture.
These programs provide Federal assistance to fill gaps related
to State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments' ability
to effectively prepare for, respond to, recover from, and
mitigate terrorist attacks.
This is especially so for the Urban Area Security
Initiative, the UASI Program and the State Homeland Security
Grant Program, programs States rely on to build and maintain
critical infrastructure and capabilities to keep our
communities, our States, and our Nation safe. UASI funding is
particularly critical to the Congressional district I
represent, Florida 10. with central Florida being home to
millions of domestic and international tourist destinations,
including world renowned theme parks and attractions, it is
essential that our first responders have the training,
equipment, and other resources needed to perform their job
during the most challenging times.
Presently, Orlando's strong security posture is due in part
to UASI funding that has helped to provide first responders
with the tools and training they need to fulfill their primary
mission, to keep our residents and visitors to our region safe.
Having served as a law enforcement officer for almost 3
decades, I understand the tough job of our first responders,
police and fire and others, and believe in the importance of
continued robust Federal support for grant programs that assist
them in their work.
President Trump consistently proposed significant cuts to
the DHS preparedness grant programs that if enacted would have
resulted in the tremendous loss of important homeland security
capabilities that this country has invested in for years.
Thankfully, Congress worked to ensure that cuts to these
programs did not take place, but rather enacted increases in
these programs.
I look forward to working with the Biden administration to
ensure that DHS preparedness grant programs continue to
maintain robust funding, enabling us to meet the moment and
boldly respond to any threat facing our Nation. In the nearly
20 years since the September 11 terrorist attack, the threats
against our Nation are ever-present, but we now see additional
threats that were not as prevalent when the preparedness grant
program was first established. Rather than foreign radical
extremism being the predominant threat, it is now domestic
terrorism, a fact evidenced by the January 6 insurrection at
the U.S. Capitol.
Unfortunately, this rise in domestic terrorism has also put
non-profit organizations at risk, prompting them to struggle to
secure their facilities with extremely tight budgets, and
underscoring the need for them to have access to DHS funding.
I would like to commend Chairman Thompson on the critical
work he has done to help secure nonprofit organizations from
terrorist attacks through the Securing American Non-profit
Organizations Against Terrorist Act, which is now a law.
While the evolution of the threat landscape requires DHS
preparedness grant programs to evolve with it, it is important
that stakeholder perspectives are considered and incorporated
into changes to the grant program, including changes DHS made
in the fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 budgets.
I am pleased that the Department has the interest in
ensuring preparedness dollars are spent how and where they are
needed most and that Secretary Mayorkas has acknowledged the
need to assess how these grant programs can be improved.
While I look forward to working with the Biden
administration to improve the grant programs, it is also the
role of this subcommittee through its oversight function to
hold them accountable. I am pleased that we have a simple--this
expert panel of stakeholders to assist us in that effort.
I look forward to your testimony today about how grant
programs are used to strengthen your communities, the effect of
the recent changes to the programs in fiscal year 2020 and
2021, and the future of the grant programs.
[The statement of Chairwoman Demings follows:]
Statement of Chairwoman Val Butler Demings
April 28, 2021
We are here today to discuss the Department of Homeland Security's
preparedness grant programs. These grant programs were created
following one of the Nation's darkest moments, the September 11
terrorist attacks.
Through the Homeland Security Grant Program, the Department's
premier grants suite, DHS has made important investments to elevate the
Nation's homeland security posture. These programs provide Federal
assistance to fill gaps related to State, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments' ability to effectively prepare for, respond
to, recover from, and mitigate against terrorist attacks. This is
especially so with the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Program
and the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the DHS programs States
rely on to build and maintain critical capabilities used to make and
keep this country safe.
UASI funding is particularly critical to the Congressional district
I represent, Florida's 10th. With Orlando being home to many
international tourist destinations, including world-renown theme parks
and attractions, it is essential that our first responders be
adequately equipped. Presently, Orlando's security strong posture is
due in large part to UASI funding that has helped to provide first
responders with the tools and training they need to do their jobs
safely and effectively.
Having served as a law enforcement officer for 27 years, I
understand the tough job of first responders, and believe in the
importance of continued, robust Federal support for grant programs that
assist them in their work. President Trump consistently proposed
significant cuts to the DHS preparedness grant programs that, if
enacted, would have resulted in the tremendous loss of important
homeland security capabilities that this country has invested in for
years. Thankfully, Congress worked to ensure that cuts to these
programs did not take place, but rather enacted increases to these
programs.
I look forward to working with the Biden administration to ensure
that DHS preparedness grant programs continue to maintain robust
funding and are responsive to all threats facing this Nation.
In the nearly 20 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks,
the threat environment in this country has evolved, and the risks we
now face are different from when the preparedness grant programs were
first established. Rather than foreign radical extremism being the
predominant threat, it is now domestic terrorism--a fact evidenced by
the January 6 insurrection at the United States Capitol.
Unfortunately, this rise in domestic terrorism has also put
nonprofit organizations at great risk, prompting them to struggle to
secure their facilities with extremely tight budgets and underscoring
the need for them to have access to DHS funding.
I would like to commend Chairman Thompson on the good work he has
done to help secure nonprofit organizations from terrorist attacks
through the Securing American Nonprofit Organizations Against Terrorism
Act, which is now law. While the evolution of the threat landscape
requires DHS preparedness grant programs to evolve with it, it is
important that stakeholder perspectives are considered and incorporated
into changes to the grant programs, including changes DHS made in
fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021.
I am pleased that the Department has an interest in ensuring
preparedness grant dollars are spent how and where they are needed
most, and that Secretary Mayorkas has acknowledged the need to assess
how these grant programs could be improved. While I look forward to
working with the Biden administration to improve the grant programs, it
is also the role of this subcommittee, through its oversight function,
to ensure they are getting it right. I am pleased that we have
assembled this expert panel of stakeholders to assist us in that
effort.
I look forward to engaging with you today on how DHS preparedness
grant programs are used to strengthen your communities, the recent
changes made to the programs in fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021,
and the future of the grant programs.
Chairwoman Demings. It is now my pleasure to recognize the
Ranking Member of this subcommittee, the gentlewoman from the
great State of Florida, Ms. Cammack, for an opening statement.
Ms. Cammack. Thank you to my fellow Floridan and
Chairwoman, Val Demings.
It is a very exciting time for us to be hosting our very
first subcommittee hearing. I think this is historic that we
have 2 Floridian women that are spearheading this subcommittee.
So, I look very much forward to working with you.
As we all know, this year marks the 20th anniversary of
September 11, the worst terrorist attack on American soil. As
our Nation watched the events of that date unfold, we saw
first-hand the countless emergency responders who rushed toward
the danger without a second thought, risking their lives, and
sadly many made the ultimate sacrifice to save the lives of
others. That tragic day in 2001 highlighted the invaluable role
that first responders play in communities all across America.
From responding to major terrorist attacks and detection of
weapons of mass destruction, to security screening operations
and fire suppression activities, we rely on our first
responders to keep us safe each and every day. FEMA's
preparedness grants provide State, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments the ability to build, sustain, and
improve capabilities necessary to prepare for and protect
against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate hazards at the
local levels. Preparedness grant dollars enable the funding of
necessary training exercises, information sharing initiatives,
community awareness campaigns, and the purchasing of vital
equipment, among other items.
In my home State of Florida, Urban Area Security Initiative
grants funded a boat for the Tampa Police Department to
regularly conduct patrols within the Port of Tampa Bay to
increase port security and deter criminal and terrorist
activity. I have myself witnessed this equipment in action and
it is truly a necessity to keep our communities safe.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted a
grant-funded State-wide cyber training for IT security managers
and high-tech crime investigators to help determine the
effectiveness of their information security defenses. In 2019
State Homeland Security Grant Program funds were spent to
purchase anti-vehicle barriers as a pilot project for Florida's
Northeast Regional Domestic Security Task Force. Port Security
grant program funds were utilized by Florida law enforcement to
attend the Maritime Tactical Operations Training Program at the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, also known as FLETC,
where they learned tactical boarding procedures, tactical water
survival, and vessel clearing and shooting from an unstable
platform. In a State like Florida, with 14 deep-water ports, it
is critical that this training is readily available for all of
our first responders.
Bringing it a little bit closer to home, my husband Matt is
a firefighter, paramedic, and SWAT medic. The Assistance to
Firefighter Grants, ASG, has provided financial assistance
directly to eligible firefighter departments, such as his,
emergency medical service, EMS, organizations, and State fire
training academies for critical training and equipment. The ASG
program enhances response capabilities to more effectively
protect the health and safety of our first responders and the
public with respect to fire and fire-related hazards.
The importance of these grant programs cannot be
understated. However, as the threat environment changes, it is
important that these grant systems evolve and adapt to emerging
challenges and become more responsive to the needs of first
responders and our local communities.
It has come to my attention through daily interactions with
first responders in my district that grant monies are often
times not allowed to fund essential equipment necessary to keep
our local first responders safe. As new technology becomes
available it is important that allowable uses of these funds
remain flexible to best serve these everyday heroes.
Furthermore, I think it is important that these grant
programs, and applying to receive funds, is more accessible and
``user-friendly'' for smaller and more rural emergency
responder departments. The threats that our communities face is
wide-spread and not everyone has available resources to staff
solely dedicated to the--to staff the dedicated process of the
grant application process.
We must ensure that all of our first responders have the
tools they need to get the job done and to keep us safe.
Preparedness grants that support our States, urban areas,
ports, transit systems, fire services, and non-profits are
crucial to maintaining capabilities, providing training, and
purchasing equipment for the overall protection of our
communities and way of life. I am proud to support these
programs that strengthen our Nation's overall emergency
preparedness postures.
Thank you very much to my colleague, Chairwoman Demings,
for holding this important hearing today. I very much look
forward to hearing from our witnesses on the necessity of these
grant programs and how we can better support these initiatives.
We need to continue to enhance the critical safety and security
initiatives to keep our communities safe.
So I look forward to the recommendations to improve the
grants going forward. Thank you to all our witnesses again for
your testimony here today.
With that, I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Cammack follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Kat Cammack
April 28, 2021
This year marks the 20th anniversary of September 11--the worst
terrorist attack on American soil. As our Nation watched the events of
that date unfold, we saw first-hand the countless emergency responders
who rushed toward the danger without a second thought, risked their
lives, and sadly many made the ultimate sacrifice to save the lives of
others.
That tragic day in 2001 highlighted the invaluable role that first
responders play in communities across America. From responding to major
terrorist attacks and detection of weapons of mass destruction to
security screening operations and fire suppression activities, we rely
on first responders to keep us safe each and every day.
FEMA's preparedness grants provide State, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments the ability to build, sustain, and improve
capabilities to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from,
and mitigate all hazards at the local level.
Preparedness grant dollars enable the funding of necessary
training, exercises, information-sharing initiatives, community
awareness campaigns, and the purchasing of vital equipment, among other
items.
In my home State of Florida, Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
grants funded a boat for the Tampa Police Department to regularly
conduct patrols within Port Tampa Bay to increase port security and
deter criminal or terrorist activity.
The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted a grant-funded
State-wide cyber training for IT security managers and high-tech crime
investigators to help determine the effectiveness of their information
security defenses.
In 2019, State Homeland Security Grant Program funds were spent to
purchase anti-vehicle barriers as a pilot project for Florida's
Northeast Regional Domestic Security Task Force.
Port Security Grant Program funds were utilized by Florida law
enforcement to attend the Maritime Tactical Operations Training Program
at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) where they
learned tactical boarding procedures, tactical water survival, and
vessel clearing and shooting from an unstable platform.
A little closer to home--my husband is a Firefighter/Paramedic &
SWAT Medic--the Assistance to Firefighter Grants (AFG) provide
financial assistance directly to eligible fire departments, emergency
medical service (EMS) organizations, and State Fire Training Academies
for critical training and equipment.
The AFG program enhances response capabilities to more effectively
protect the health and safety of first responders and the public with
respect to fire and fire-related hazards.
The importance of these grant programs cannot be understated.
However, as the threat environment changes, it is important that these
grant systems evolve and adapt to emerging challenges and become more
responsive to the needs of first responders and local needs.
It has come to my attention through daily interactions with first
responders in my District, that grant monies are oftentimes not allowed
to fund essential equipment necessary to keep our local first
responders safe. As new technology becomes available, it is important
that allowable uses of these funds remains flexible to best serve these
everyday heroes.
Furthermore, I think it is important that these grant programs and
applying to receive funds is more accessible and ``user-friendly'' for
smaller or more rural emergency responder departments. The threats that
our communities face is wide-spread and not everybody has the available
resources to have staff solely dedicated to the grant application
process. We must ensure all our first responders have the tools they
need to get the job done and keep us safe.
Preparedness grants that support our States, urban areas, ports,
transit systems, fire services, and non-profits are crucial to
maintaining capabilities, providing training, and purchasing equipment
for the overall protection of our communities and way of life. I am
proud to support these programs that strengthen our Nation's overall
emergency preparedness posture.
Thank you to my colleague, Chairwoman Demings for holding this
important hearing today and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses on the necessity of these grant programs, how they've
supported and continue to enhance critical safety and security
initiatives, and any recommendations to improve the grants going
forward.
Chairwoman Demings. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member.
Members are also reminded that the committees will operate
according to the guidelines laid out by the Chairman and
Ranking Member regarding remote procedures.
Without objection, Members not on the subcommittee shall be
permitted to sit and question the witnesses.
It is now the Chair's pleasure to recognize the Chairman of
the full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr.
Thompson, for an opening statement.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me
say before I give my formal talk how happy I am that the 2
ladies from Florida are running the show. You both are doing a
wonderful job and Florida could not be better represented by
the 2 of you.
So let me formally thank you as subcommittee Chair and
Ranking Member for holding today's hearing on the Department of
Homeland Security's preparedness grant. The committee has
always prioritized oversight of Homeland Security Grants and I
am glad that the subcommittee is starting this Congress with
such a critical hearing.
The Homeland Security Grant Program, also commonly referred
to as Preparedness Grants, was created nearly 20 years ago
after the September 11 terrorist attack to fill gaps in our
National emergency preparedness.
It was apparent the Federal Government needed to do more
work to provide critical resources directly to our first
responders and State and local government, which is why
Congress created the State Homeland Security Program and Urban
Area Security Initiative Program, along with other grant
programs. These programs have proven to be critical resources
over the last 2 decades. While State and local governments have
made great strides in their preparedness capabilities, we must
recognize that the threat landscape is ever-evolving and the
threats we now face have expanded considerably, to include
rising incidents of domestic terrorism to cyber attacks. As the
threats to our Nation continue to evolve, so too must the
Homeland Security Preparedness Grant Program.
Nearly 20 years ago we focused our grants primarily on
combatting terrorism from abroad. Now, some of the most
dangerous threats we face as a Nation are home-grown, lone
offenders, and small groups of individuals who commit acts of
violence motivated by domestic extremist ideological benefits.
In fact, in recent years houses of worship and other non-
profits have been targets of violence. That is why I was
pleased when my bill, the American Non-Profit Organizations
against Terrorism Act, was signed into law last year. The law
authorized critical grant funding to non-profits and faith-
based organizations to help secure their facilities against
terrorist attacks.
I am glad that former President Trump's proposed cuts to
existing preparedness grants funding failed due to bipartisan
opposition from Member of Congress. Those cuts, if enacted,
would have been devastating for our Nation and would have
hindered our ability to keep America safe.
I hope to hear from our witnesses today about how DHS
grants have aided them as they make their communities safer and
how we can ensure the grant programs best secure our States and
cities from terrorist threats.
I look forward to working with the Biden administration and
my colleagues and continue to support communities in the fight
of all forms of terrorism in our homeland.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
April 28, 2021
The committee has always prioritized oversight of homeland security
grants, and I am glad that the subcommittee is starting this Congress
with such a critical hearing.
The homeland security grant programs, also commonly referred to as
preparedness grants, were created nearly 20 years ago after the
September 11 terrorist attacks revealed gaps in our Nation's emergency
preparedness. It was apparent the Federal Government needed to do more
to provide critical resources directly to our first responders and
State and local governments, which is why Congress created the State
Homeland Security Program and Urban Area Security Initiative Program,
along with other grant programs. These programs have proven to be
critical resources over the last 2 decades.
While State and local governments have made great strides in their
preparedness capabilities, we must recognize that the threat landscape
is ever-evolving and the threats we now face have expanded considerably
to include rising incidents of domestic terrorism to cyber attacks. As
the threats to our Nation continue to evolve, so too must the homeland
security preparedness grant programs.
Nearly 20 years ago, we focused our grant efforts primarily on
combating terrorism from abroad. Now, some of the most dangerous
threats we face as a Nation are home-grown, lone offenders, and small
groups of individuals who commit acts of violence motivated by domestic
extremist ideological beliefs. In fact, in recent years, houses of
worship and other nonprofits have been targets of violence. This is why
I was pleased when my bill, the ``American Nonprofit Organizations
Against Terrorism Act,'' was signed into law last year. The law
authorizes critical grant funding to nonprofits and faith-based
organizations to help secure their facilities against terrorist
attacks.
I am glad that former President Trump's proposed cuts to existing
preparedness grant funding failed due to bipartisan opposition from
Members of Congress. Those cuts, if enacted, would have been
devastating for our Nation and would have hindered our ability to keep
America safe.
I hope to hear from our witnesses today about how DHS grants have
aided them as they make their communities safer and how we can ensure
the grant programs best secure our States and cities from terrorist
threats. I look forward to working with the Biden administration and my
colleagues in continuing to support communities in the fight against
all forms of terrorism in our homeland.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much to our Chairman.
It is now my pleasure to welcome our panel of witnesses.
Our first witness is Hawaii Governor David Ige, appearing
on behalf of the National Governors Association. Governor Ige
was sworn in as the eighth Governor of the State of Hawaii on
December 1, 2014. Prior to becoming Governor, he served in the
Hawaii legislature for almost 30 years. Before that Governor
Ige had a career as an electrical engineer and a project
manager.
Our second witness is the director of New Jersey's Office
of Homeland Security and Preparedness, Jared Maples. Mr. Maples
has served in that capacity since 2017 and served as the
Federally-designed Homeland Security Advisor to the Governor,
in addition to serving as the cabinet-level executive
responsible for coordinating and leading New Jersey's
counterterrorism, cybersecurity, and emergency preparedness
efforts.
Mr. Maples has testified before the subcommittee on
multiple occasions, and I want to thank him for again being
willing to provide us with his insight on these very important
topics.
Our third witness, certainly no stranger to me, the chief
of the Orlando Police Department, Orlando Rolon. He is
appearing on behalf of the Major Cities Chief Association.
Chief Rolon started with the Orlando Police Department in 1992.
Having previously served with him while I was in his position,
I am well aware of what a dedicated public servant he is.
Chief Rolon, it is great to have you with us. I know your
testimony will be invaluable for this subcommittee. Thank you.
Finally, I understand that Ranking Member Cammack would
like to introduce our final witness, battalion chief of Ocala
Fire Rescue, Robert Altman.
Ms. Cammack. Thank you, Chairwoman Demings.
I am very, very proud to introduce today a constituent of
mine, Mr. Robert Altman. Mr. Altman is a 31-year veteran of
Ocala Fire Rescue. After serving as captain for 18 years, Mr.
Altman was promoted to battalion chief in 2019. Throughout his
career with Ocala Fire Rescue Mr. Altman has played integral
roles with special operations and urban search and rescue
teams, responding to numerous disasters.
As a member of the International Association of
Firefighters, Mr. Altman was selected to participate in the
peer review process for FEMA's Assistance to Firefighters
Grants Program, or AFG, as we all know them, where I am sure
the knowledge that he has gained from his extensive career is
very welcome and appreciated here today, as he has helped
review thousands of applications.
I really appreciate Mr. Altman for his continued service to
our community and I am so pleased that he is able to testify
here today and represent the Gator Nation--I had to throw that
in there.
So thank you, Rob. Appreciate you.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much Ranking Member, and
thank you so much, Chief Altman, for being with us today. That
comes from a Florida State Seminole.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record.
I now ask each witness to summarize their statements for 5
minutes, beginning with Governor Ige.
Governor.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE DAVID Y. IGE, GOVERNOR, STATE OF HAWAII
Governor Ige. Good morning and aloha from Hawaii. Thank you
so much, Chairwoman Demings, Chairman Thompson, and Ranking
Member Cammack for this opportunity.
I am representing the National Governor's Association, the
bipartisan voice of the Nation's Governors, comprising the 55
States, territories, and commonwealths. Where appropriate, I
will also add my perspective as Governor of the State of
Hawaii.
Now, for example, we learned much in 2018 as we
concurrently responded to and managed the recovery from the
Kilauea eruption and the wettest tropical cycle ever recorded
in Hawaii and the Nation. We are still dealing with the unique
challenges our island State faces from the COVID-19 pandemic.
My testimony will focus on 4 main areas, cybersecurity,
FEMA programs, preventing targeted violence, and COVID-19
challenges and lessons learned. My written testimony provides
additional information in each of these areas.
First, I would like to discuss cybersecurity. As former co-
chairman of the Council on Governors, a bipartisan group of
Governors that work with the administration on key National
security issues, I worked with my peers and Federal partners
from the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of
Defense, and the White House on several cyber initiatives over
the past 2 years. One area that needs continued work is
addressing the complexity of authorities related to
cybersecurity.
Specifically, Governors have asked DHS and DoD to better
define the roles and responsibilities at the Federal level
related to response efforts during a cybersecurity event. In
addition, the NGA has called on Congress to create a dedicated
State and local cybersecurity grant program. Finally, we
strongly urge Congress to include cybersecurity in any National
infrastructure plan or legislative package.
With respect to FEMA programs, Governors must prepare for,
respond to, and recover from man-made and increased occurrences
of catastrophic natural disasters. Much of our ability to do
this comes through the FEMA grant funding. Governors remain
concerned that current funding levels are insufficient. On-
going dedicated Federal support is crucial.
Another area of concern is that FEMA's preparedness grants
prescribe where 20 percent of the funding must go. Governors
have concern that continued carve-outs hurt overall efforts. We
look forward to working with DHS Secretary Mayorkas on this
issue.
I also want to note NGA's concerns about FEMA's proposed
rule titled ``Cost of Assistance Estimates in Disaster
Declaration Process for the Public Assistance Program''. The
time and manner in which these changes have been proposed will
unduly burden State, territorial, and local governments as they
continue responding to and recovering from disasters, both
COVID- and non-COVID-related.
Combatting the rise in domestic violent extremism and
preventing acts of targeted violence are serious issues.
Through a 2-year grant from the Department of Homeland
Security, the NGA worked with 5 States to develop State-wide
multi-disciplinary strategies to prevent targeted violence.
With NGA's guidance, Hawaii created a multi-disciplinary team
focused on education and we plan to establish a threat
assessment team focused on health care infrastructure.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but the work done
by the NGA center is a great starting point and resource for
decision makers at both the State and Federal level.
I will conclude with these observations and lessons learned
from COVID-19. During COVID 2 key issues arose within FEMA and
DHS for Governors, eligibility for under public assistance and
a Federal-State cost share requirements. Written testimony
details the challenges we have experienced in these areas and I
want to focus on our recommendations.
Federal funding needs to be immediate, accessible, and
flexible enough to address emerging needs for critical
materials during this on-going crisis. In addition, NGA calls
for a simplification of the public assistance eligibility
requirements to ensure efficiency and simplicity. The work and
service of the National Guard has been critical this past year
and NGA has called for a review of a legislative solution for
the use of Title 32 for large-scale disasters and pandemics.
In addition, the FEMA mission assignment process should be
reviewed to ensure a better-coordinated, streamlined, and rapid
responsive system.
Thank you so much for this opportunity to share with you.
Aloha.
[The prepared statement of Governor Ige follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Y. Ige
April 28, 2021
Good morning, thank you, Chairwoman Demings and Ranking Member
Cammack, for holding this hearing and inviting me to speak today.
I am here representing the National Governors Association (NGA),
the bipartisan voice of the Nation's Governors, comprising the 55
States, territories, and commonwealths. Through NGA, Governors and
their policy advisors share best practices, speak with an informed
voice on National policy and develop innovative solutions that improve
citizens' lives through State government and support the principles of
Federalism.
Where appropriate, I will also provide my perspective as Governor
of Hawai'i. My State has a diverse perspective on preparedness and
disasters learned from events such as earthquakes to volcanic eruptions
to unique challenges from COVID-19 as an island State.
We as a State have had to learn to manage the response and recovery
process concurrently as we continue to manage the recovery from the
Kilauea eruption and the response to the COVID-19 pandemic which has
left us with one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation.
There is a lot to discuss with regards to the Department of
Homeland Security but in my testimony today I will highlight key themes
and considerations in 4 main areas:
Cybersecurity
FEMA Programs to include grants and regulations
Preventing targeted violence
COVID-19 challenges and lessons learned.
cybersecurity
First, I would like to discuss a few areas within cybersecurity
that Governors and our policy advisors have raised as concerns and
opportunities for State, territorial, and Federal Governments.
Federal Roles, Responsibilities, and Capabilities
As former co-chair of the Presidentially-appointed Council of
Governors, a bipartisan group of Governors that work with the
administration on key National security issues, I worked with my peers
and Federal partners from the Department of Homeland Security (OHS),
the Department of Defense (DOD), and the White House on several cyber
initiatives over the past 2 years.
One area that needs continued work is addressing the complexity of
authorities related to cybersecurity, specifically in dealing with
critical infrastructure and the resources available to a State or
territory during a cyber event.
Specifically, Governors asked DHS and DOD to better define the
roles and responsibilities at the Federal level related to
cybersecurity response efforts. Governors need a more detailed and up-
to-date summary--beyond the 2016 National Cyber Incident Response Plan
noted as a resource by our Federal partners. This also should include
an overview of what the whole-of-Government cyber response plan in the
case of a catastrophic cyber event looks like.
We believe this will afford States and territories a better idea of
what resources are available to us in the event of a cyber incident as
well as help to develop a process to request and receive assets where
appropriate. A better understanding of the Federal roles and
responsibilities will also help State, territorial, and the Federal
Government with better and timely information sharing.
And finally, over the past year-and-a-half, the Hawai'i National
Guard, along with Ohio and Washington, participated in a Cyber Mission
Assurance Team (CMAT) pilot program. The 10-person CMAT performed
comprehensive mission/risk analysis, vulnerability assessments, and
facilitated information sharing. The proof of concept is being reviewed
by the National Guard Bureau; however, I believe that CMAT or a similar
capability should be provided in each of the States, territories, and
commonwealths. I believe this capability will augment OHS cyber
capabilities throughout the Nation.
Dedicated Funding
For several years, NGA has called on Congress to strengthen the
Nation's cybersecurity posture through the creation of a dedicated
State, territorial, and local cybersecurity grant program.
We believe that a fully funded and dedicated cybersecurity program
can help States, territories, and localities develop and implement
innovative and effective cybersecurity practices to include remote
work; help to build resources and capabilities; better identify,
protect against, and detect cyber threats; and help to enhance
partnerships among different levels of government, including local
partners.
Cybersecurity is the No. 1 growing threat to the Nation's critical
infrastructure. This is especially concerning for the State of Hawai'i
as the largest combatant command with all its service components reside
in the Island of Oahu. A cyber attack could against Hawai'i's critical
infrastructure could impact USINDOPACOM's mission assurance.
Over the past 2 years, both the Trump and Biden administrations
have tried to better prioritize cybersecurity investment via carve-outs
in FEMA grant programs. We appreciate and share DHS's renewed focus on
cybersecurity to include resiliency, workforce development, modernized
systems, and collaboration. But, to accomplish this fully, Governors
believe that carve-outs can only go so far; dedicated funds that
incentivize economies of scale are needed to be most effective.
COVID-19, along with several high-profile cyber intrusions, such as
SolarWinds, Microsoft Exchange, and the 2015 Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) data breach, revealed that the Nation needs to address
cybersecurity and IT infrastructure resilience comprehensively.
Reliance on State, territorial, and local networks during the
pandemic has increased the risk of vulnerabilities and gaps. This surge
on our information technology infrastructure--to include administering
large and diverse Federal funds across State, territorial, and local
governments--requires additional investment in both funding and
manpower to keep up with the massive usage.
Cybersecurity, and ensuring the availability and reliability of IT
infrastructure, is a critical component of our infrastructure.
Therefore, Congress must recognize that cybersecurity is an important
piece of any National infrastructure plan or infrastructure legislative
package.
fema programs--grants and regulations
With the constantly-evolving landscape of man-made disasters and
increased occurrences of catastrophic natural disasters, Governors must
maintain and continually update strategies to prevent, prepare for,
respond to, and recover from emergencies.
Leveraging resources, strengthening coordination, and improving
information sharing between Federal, State, territorial, and local
authorities remain critical to addressing challenges and meeting the
homeland security and public safety needs of our States, territories,
and the Nation. Federal partnership through the Department of Homeland
Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are
critical to these efforts.
Much of our ability to do this comes through FEMA grant funding,
which we leverage to develop and sustain critical capabilities such as
intelligence, fusion centers, State-wide interoperable emergency
communications, specialized regional response teams, threat
assessments, and cybersecurity initiatives.
However, Governors remain concerned that current funding levels for
these programs are not sufficient and make it difficult to sustain core
capabilities, invest in innovative approaches, and ensure flexibly to
adjust to emerging threats. States and territories have continued to
respond efficiently to disasters; however, States and territories
cannot maintain the status quo indefinitely, and COVID-19 has
highlighted the gaps that exist when facing prolonged and concurrent
crises. Territories are further limited in their response to both
COVID-19 and new emergencies due to their unequal treatment under
Federal programs, the fragility of their health care infrastructure,
and having been impacted by severe natural disasters in recent years.
COVID-19-related strain has demonstrated many areas of under
investment in Hawai'i's IT infrastructure, from our unemployment
insurance system, which was quickly overwhelmed and vulnerable to
fraud, to broadband access in rural areas as the Department of
Education tried to continue to care for our students through remote
learning.
On-going, dedicated Federal support is crucial to ensure States,
territories, and localities have sufficient capacity to handle more
routine disasters as well as scale for catastrophic events. Governors
believe Federal funding provided to States and territories should focus
on developing or enhancing common core capabilities and support efforts
to measure the effectiveness of grant funds in building and maintaining
preparedness and response capabilities.
National Priorities
As you know, last year the Trump administration undertook efforts
to reprioritize investments in homeland security through the
establishment of National Priorities for FEMA's preparedness grants.
This was done by prescribing where 20 percent of the funding must go.
While we agreed with the focus on the core priorities defined by
the DHS, Governors and our homeland security and emergency management
advisors have concerns that continued carve-outs hurt overall efforts.
NGA and our coalition partners noted to the Trump administration 2 key
issues for consideration:
A delay of 1 year to account for the on-going COVID-19
pandemic and to allow States, territories, and localities the
ability to focus on this mission rather than rethinking their
grant applications, and
Work with stakeholders across all levels of government to
adequately prepare for and implement new changes in advance of
formal notices of funding opportunities.
However, the administration moved forward with the new
requirements.
This year, the Biden administration increased the minimum amount
each State must spend on specific interest areas from 20 to 30 percent
of the total grant award.
As you know, threats and challenges are only growing across the
country. There are only so many ways you can divvy up funding before
there is little left to use for innovative and new approaches. In some
instances, smaller jurisdictions may go with less effective methods to
avoid being questioned on their spending. Furthermore, by prescribing
amounts to be spent on specific activities, previous investments for
the same efforts could result in duplicative spending and detract from
other efforts and priorities under way in the State or territory.
We can all agree that our investments should be tailored to threats
and needs, but not at the expense of other programs or investments
already made.
It is critical for the Department to provide timely guidance and
transparency in the decision-making process. We are pleased to see that
the DHS Secretary Mayorkas has identified grant programs as an area for
engagement next year, and Governors look forward to working with the
Department in these efforts.
As chief executive officers of our States, ensuring the safety and
security of citizens is one of the paramount duties and these Federal
funding streams are a critical component of achieving that end. We
encourage Congress and the administration to work with us on any
reforms.
Public Assistance Regulations
I also wanted to note to the committee concerns NGA and our
partners raised with FEMA's proposed rule titled ``Cost of Assistance
Estimates in the Disaster Declaration Process for the Public Assistance
Program.''
While we understand the need for FEMA to periodically review
disaster policy, we believe the time and manner in which these changes
have been proposed will unduly burden State, territorial, and local
governments as they continue responding to and recovering from
disasters, both COVID- and non-COVID-related.
In a coalition letter to FEMA, we noted our concerns with the
proposed rule. We believe that raising the threshold for Public
Assistance (PA) will inadvertently reduce mitigation and resilience
funding and other Federal programs. Furthermore, we believe that
utilizing the Total Taxable Resources (TTR) metric is inherently
inequitable as it does not reflect the reality of a State's ability to
tax those actual resources.
Our letter provided several recommendations for FEMA to consider,
to include:
Limiting adverse impacts to States, territories, and
localities by using a phased-in approach over a long period of
time when considering an adjustment to the per capita
indicator.
Creating a standardized method for weighing localized
impacts and ensure States and territories have insight as to
how FEMA applies their evaluation and recommendation to the
President, and
Reevaluating the size and scope of FEMA's response.
We encourage Congress to also consider our concerns should this
proposed rule continue to move forward.
preventing targeted violence (ptv)
Combatting the rise in violent, domestic extremism and preventing
acts of targeted violence are among the most serious issues each State
and territory grapples with every day. I would like to briefly note the
work of the National Governors Association's Center for Best Practices
(NGA Center) in this space.
In 2017, the NGA Center received a 2-year grant from the Department
of Homeland Security's Office of Targeted Violence and Terrorism
Prevention to support States', territories' and commonwealths' efforts
to explore and develop multidisciplinary strategies to prevent targeted
violence. NGA worked with 5 States during a policy academy that helped
develop State-wide preventing targeted violence (PTV) strategies and
action plans.
In continuation of its efforts to assist States and territories in
developing prevention strategies, in January of this past year, the NGA
Center released the Governors' Roadmap to Preventing Targeted Violence,
which distills the latest research and draws from elements of public-
health interventions to provide guidance to Governors, State,
territorial and local leaders, and other stakeholders on how to prevent
ideologically-inspired violence.
As Governors, this roadmap helps provides us with some best
practices--such as leveraging our role as convener, executive, and
administrator at key points in implementing targeted violence
prevention, including strategy setting, program design, and securing
community support.
As Governor of Hawai'i, I am dedicated to creating a safe State
where everyone can thrive. Our remote geographic location makes it an
imperative that we identify and mitigate threats early and prior to an
incident. This requires a whole-of-community layered and
multidisciplinary approach.
One of our innovations has been the formation of threat assessment
teams, multidisciplinary teams that focus on specific aspects of
targeted violence. The flagship team, Threat Team Oahu (TTO), an
island-specific threat assessment team, has been highly effective in
bringing together stakeholders and we are currently working to
replicate its success with State-wide discipline-specific threat
assessment teams.
We have already leveraged the lessons learned from TTO to create a
multidisciplinary team focused on education, Threat Team EDU, aimed at
preventing acts of targeted violence in throughout the State's
educational institutions.
We are excited to continue to work with the NGA Center to improve
and expand our programs and continue building State-wide discipline-
specific threat assessment teams in the hopes of promoting increased
information sharing and stronger situational awareness. Specifically,
in collaboration with the NGA Center, Hawai'i plans to establish as
threat assessment team focused on health care infrastructure.
Given the events over the past year, we know there is no one-size-
fits-all solution. But the work done by the NGA Center is a great
starting point and resource for decision makers at the State,
territorial, and Federal levels.
covid-19
I would like to conclude with observations and lessons learned from
the COVID-19 experience. Governors continue to be on the front lines of
the pandemic, and therefore we face a myriad of challenges from health
preparedness to State and territory stabilization, but for today's
hearing I will focus on areas within FEMA and DHS.
Public Assistance Eligibility and Cost Share
During COVID-19, 2 key issues arose for Governors--eligibility
under public assistance and the State-Federal cost share requirements.
Early on, recognizing the unique and wide-spread impact of COVID-19
across the Nation, Governors made numerous requests to the Trump
administration to authorize the increase of 100 percent Federal cost
share for Major Disaster Declarations under FEMA. Unfortunately, this
call went unanswered throughout 2020.
Along with the need for financial assistance, State and territories
saw challenges with FEMA's Public Assistance guidance.
At the start, State and territories were getting inconsistent
messaging across FEMA regions on what items were eligible for
reimbursement. Some States had invested in funding for masks and
disinfectants for schools, while other sought assistance with increased
cost in operating 24-hour, 7-days-a-week emergency operations centers.
This was compounded by challenges in locating and procuring PPE and
health supplies due to a global supply shortage. Territories, as well
as my own State, are especially vulnerable during disruptions in
maritime commerce and supply chains due to their geographic location.
In August of last year, as rumors of forth-coming restrictive FEMA
guidance began to circulate, NGA along with 7 of our partner State and
local associations, called on FEMA not to limit the eligibility under
Public Assistance and avoid any arbitrary distinctions between
``response'' and ``reopening.'' Unfortunately, the Trump administration
chose a more restrictive policy, which caused greater confusion,
frustration, and concern among State, territories, and localities.
Reasons such as these are why NGA and other associations supported
H.R. 8266, the FEMA Assistance Relief Act last year, which would have
adjusted the FEMA cost share as well as clarify and codify eligibility
requirements for COVID-19 Major Disasters.
FEMA's reimbursement process for disaster recovery is designed
around rebuilding after wide-spread physical damage from a natural
disaster, such as a hurricane. It is important to recognize that for
COVID-19, States and territories are responding to an on-going and
evolving public health crisis. That is why Federal funding,
specifically FEMA funding, needs to be immediate, accessible, and
flexible enough to address emerging needs for critical materials.
Changing policy guidance makes it difficult to effectively plan and
execute programs while ensuring good stewardship of taxpayer funding.
Governors truly appreciate the Biden administration's willingness
to address our calls for 100 percent Federal cost share early on,
taking action on January 21 of this year to provide that support for
emergency protective measures and the use of the National Guard dating
back to the start of the pandemic, as well as expanding some public
assistance eligibility.
However, several changes to policy guidance from FEMA since the
start of the pandemic means that States and territories will have 3
different eligibility requirements based on arbitrary dates. These 3
eligibility windows will pose challenges to verifying duplication of
benefits, untangling obligated funds, and will strain personnel at the
State, territorial, and Federal level.
NGA calls for the simplification of the eligibility requirements
from the start of the pandemic to ensure efficiency and simplicity and
to ease the back-end paperwork and auditing process.
My State ran afoul of the changing guidance around purchases to
support a safe environment in our public schools. This is compounded by
the fact that as a smaller State we were forced to increase our order
sizes to compete with States that had higher demand. This is now
leading to issues as we work to manage the excess inventory.
National Guard
And finally, Governors would also like to recognize the work and
service of our National Guard over the past year-and-a-half, not just
during the pandemic but in response to a variety of domestic and
overseas missions.
Specifically, to COVID-19, since the beginning of the pandemic,
Governors called for the use of the National Guard, and the
authorization of Title 32, which was granted and extended several
times.
It is important for the committee and Congress to recognize that
the lack of a formal process or guidance led to significant confusion
and delays, especially at the start of the pandemic.
Even more concerning was the requirement that States and
territories fund 25 percent of the cost associated with a Federal duty
status. Never have States and territories been required to fund a
Federal duty status, let alone during such an unprecedented pandemic
and economic struggle.
As noted earlier, we appreciate President Biden retroactively
authorizing Title 32 at 100 percent Federal funding for the use of our
National Guard, and the extension of this authority through September
of this year.
During a crisis, Governors should be able to rely on the Federal
Government to provide clear guidance and requirements; a well-
understood and transparent process; and resources, all in a timely and
realistic manner. This guidance should be consistent and applied in a
transparent and equitable fashion.
This is why NGA has called for a review and a legislative solution
for the use of Title 32 for large-scale disasters and pandemics. How
Title 32 was utilized during COVID-19 also highlights challenges with
the FEMA mission assignment process and utilization of the Disaster
Relief Funds. This process should be reviewed by the committee to
ensure a better coordinated, streamlined, rapid, and responsive system
at the Federal level.
conclusion
Again, I would like to thank the committee for inviting NGA to
testify today on these critical issues. Governors across the country,
and our staff, stand ready to work with you and Members of Congress as
you look to address challenges in the homeland security and disaster
response arena, be it review of the Stafford Act or FEMA grant
programs.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much, Governor Ige, for
your testimony.
I now recognize Director Maples to summarize his statement
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JARED M. MAPLES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF HOMELAND
SECURITY AND PREPAREDNESS, STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Maples. Thank you, Chairwoman. Chairwoman Demings,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. It
is an honor to speak with you and share the work my office is
doing to keep our residents, visitors, and institutions of New
Jersey safe, especially with regard to Homeland Security grants
and emergency preparedness.
The New Jersey Office of Homeland Security on Preparedness,
NJOHSP, is tasked with coordinating the State's
counterterrorism, cybersecurity, and emergency preparedness
efforts across all levels of government, law enforcement, non-
profit organizations, and the private sector. As New Jersey
faces complex security challenges driven by evolving threats,
we know these threats neither start nor end at our State's
borders.
Last year brought compounded challenges to our country.
Like other States, we were not immune to the devastating
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. New Jersey is the most
densely-populated State in the Nation, increasing the
difficulty of containing a wide-spread respiratory virus. We
took action necessary to slow the spread of COVID-19, bolster
our hospital capabilities, and support our communities. As the
fight continues, we remain appreciative for the Federal
Government's support.
Since the beginning of the pandemic we witnessed humanity
and kindness in our society. Unfortunately, on January 6 there
was also an unacceptable attack on our democracy and its
institutions resulting in the culmination of an existing
domestic threat that has been pervasive in our country for some
time.
New Jersey's analytical capabilities have focused on
domestic extremism and the threat it presents. We were one of
the first States in the Nation to sharpen focus on groups in
the United States perpetuating extreme ideologies meant to
motivate individuals to violent action. We observed that COVID-
19 restrictions, disinformation, and misinformation would
converge with the 2020 Presidential election and mounting civil
unrest Nation-wide. Specifically, we saw domestic extremists,
foreign terrorist organizations, and nation-state threat actors
attempting to leverage disinformation to hinder economic
recovery and vaccination efforts, fuel anti-Government
sentiment, and spread false narratives to sow discord
throughout the United States.
In response we increased our efforts, beginning in March
2020, to combat these inaccuracies and provide up-to-date
information and guidance to the public. In September we
released the threat assessment detailing how the convergence of
COVID-19 pandemic, civil unrest, and the Presidential election
influenced the National threat landscape.
This year brings with it an unfortunate milestone for our
Nation, the 20th anniversary of September 11, 2001. For the
past 20 years the Homeland Security paradigm has evolved
through proactive strategy and reactive operations. The focus
on public safety remains the same, but tactics and strategies
change with new lessons learned or priorities identified.
With the new administration we see policy adaptations that
will affect State and local programs moving forward. Whereas as
one administration may have stringent investment priorities for
grants or risk-based jurisdictional awards, others broaden
discretion and expand the risk-based jurisdictional grants.
Ultimately, we recognize that of us in this discipline are
working toward the same goals and objectives. We encourage the
administration and DHS to sharpen its focus on risk-based
decision making as program priorities are developed. Through
risk-informed processes, collaboration with State Homeland
Security leaders on future mandated programs and grant
allocations, which allow for advance planning to occur with new
priorities, rather than waiting on an annual notice of funding
opportunity and having only the application submission window
to impart Federal planning priorities.
As a State with a high-risk urban area, we support the UASI
program and welcome continued risk-informed decisions about
funding allocations, priorities, and expansion of
jurisdictions. We also appreciate the Federal Government's
attempt to broaden resources provided into other programs, such
as targeted violence prevention. Collaboration with the States
will strengthen these programs and help inform where both
financial and programmatic resources will be most efficiently
invested.
Last, we recognize the threats in the cyber realm are both
an end-target and a vector through which other consequences may
manifest. It is why our preparedness posture focuses on
integrative threats with a goal of agnostic consequence
management.
With this approach in mind, we welcome conversations with
DHS and about dedicated funding for prioritization about
cybersecurity.
In conclusion, the last year has highlighted many of the
challenges for which our Nation's preparedness must improve.
Whether focusing supply chain resiliency, the criticality of
functions that drive our markets and economy, or the services
that support our way of life, we must constantly adapt. We have
spent the last 4 years trying to position New Jersey for these
evolutions.
In that vein, we applaud DHS's movement toward critical
functions and away from a singular focus on infrastructure
assets. We appreciate the sharpened focus on collective
capabilities and priorities for the grant programs.
Chairwoman Demings, Ranking Member Cammack, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee, including
Congressman Payne and Congresswoman Watson Coleman, are great
champions and partners. Thank you again for the opportunity to
testify today. I look forward to your questions and yield back
to the Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maples follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jared M. Maples
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
introduction
Chairwoman Demings and Ranking Member Cammack, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. It is an honor to speak with
you and share the work my office is doing to keep the residents,
visitors, and institutions of New Jersey safe, especially with regard
to homeland security grants and emergency preparedness.
The New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness
(NJOHSP) is tasked with coordinating the State's counterterrorism,
cybersecurity, and emergency preparedness efforts across all levels of
government, law enforcement, nonprofit organizations, and the private
sector. NJOHSP is charged with bolstering New Jersey's resources for
counterterrorism, critical infrastructure protection, cybersecurity,
preparedness, training, and Federal grants management.
New Jersey faces complex security challenges driven by evolving
threats, but we know those threats neither start nor end at our State
borders. In New Jersey, we pride ourselves on the partnerships we have
developed and strengthened with our Federal, State, and local partners
to address our shared domestic security. We recognize that our work is
never complete, and continual improvement is the only way to succeed at
protecting New Jersey and the country. While we provide details on our
on-going efforts, be mindful that we always seek to improve our
strategic approach on homeland security and preparedness.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to share our thoughts,
discuss our challenges, and collaborate on future steps as we all work
toward securing our homeland.
njohsp actions
Last year brought compounded challenges to our country and each
individual State. New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the
Nation, increasing the difficulty of containing a wide-spread
respiratory virus. We took actions necessary to slow the spread of
COVID-19, bolster our hospital capabilities, and support our
communities. Like other States, we were not immune to the devastating
effects of the pandemic; however, the work and dedication of our
medical professionals remains immeasurable.
As the fight continues, we remain appreciative for the Federal
Government's support. I encourage committee members to stay engaged
with State governments to support short- and long-term response and
recovery efforts focused on both medical response capabilities and
economic recovery and growth.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, we witnessed humanity and
kindness in our society. Unfortunately, there was also an unacceptable
attack on our democracy and its institutions. The events of January 6
were the culmination of an existing domestic threat that has been
pervasive in our county for some time. These criminal acts were
attempts to stop the orderly business of our Government. New Jersey's
analytical capabilities have focused on domestic extremism and the
threat it presents. We were one of the first States in the Nation to
sharpen focus on groups in the United States perpetuating extreme
ideologies meant to motivate individuals to violent action. We have
worked closely with partners within our State to prevent violence
against individuals, groups, or government and community institutions.
NJOHSP continuously assesses strategic and tactical trends concerning
international and domestic extremist ideologies and organizations. We
proactively collect, compile, and aggregate information to generate
intelligence products, which are used to inform our law enforcement
partners, the private sector, and the public on potential threats to
the State, its residents, and visitors. Through these timely, accurate,
relevant, and insightful assessments, we spearheaded efforts to remain
ahead of the ever-changing threat landscape, especially as the COVID-19
pandemic resulted in an environment unlike we have experienced before.
NJOHSP observed that COVID-19 restrictions, disinformation, and
misinformation would converge with the 2020 Presidential election and
mounting civil unrest Nation-wide. Specifically, we saw domestic
extremists, foreign terrorist organizations, and nation-state threat
actors attempting to leverage disinformation to hinder economic
recovery and vaccination efforts, fuel anti-Government sentiment, and
spread false narratives to sow discord throughout the United States. In
response, NJOHSP increased its efforts beginning in March 2020 to
combat these inaccuracies and provide up-to-date knowledge and guidance
from trusted authorities to help navigate the sheer volume of
inaccurate information.
In September, NJOHSP released its 2020-2021 Supplemental Threat
Assessment, which detailed how the convergence of the COVID-19
pandemic, civil unrest, and 2020 Presidential election influenced the
National threat landscape. The analysis highlighted how evolving
security threats would continue to impact New Jersey and the United
States for the remainder of 2020 and through 2021. The following
predictive analysis was forecasted:
The COVID-19 pandemic and polarizing sentiments surrounding
its impact would worsen the convergence of the 2020
Presidential election and mounting civil unrest across the
Nation.
Domestic extremists--primarily anarchist, anti-Government,
and racially motivated--would continue to manipulate National
incidents such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 Presidential
election, and civil unrest to further their agendas and remain
a threat.
Nation-state threat actors' expanding disinformation
campaigns that exploit COVID-19, election security, and civil
unrest would persist into 2021 to exacerbate domestic tensions
and challenge U.S. global credibility.
Foreign terrorist organizations would continue to exploit
COVID-19, Presidential election dissonance, and civil unrest to
create conflict, inspire extremists to radicalize, and provoke
home-grown violent extremists to conduct attacks.
As we all continue to address threats within our borders, we should
work collaboratively to address root causes, prevent violence of any
kind, eschew political opportunism, and respect the foundational rights
upon which this country is built. No matter the ideology of the threat
actors, violence against any individual is both wrong and criminal. Our
laws are set by legislative bodies, and we have tools to combat the
type of actions witnessed on January 6 through the current statutory
constructs. We will continue to use those tools to prevent violence and
punish perpetrators while respecting the rights of every individual to
express their beliefs, opinions, and speech in a peaceful manner.
Not unlike years past, we have been faced with multiple diverse
threat streams in this country. Recent natural and man-made incidents
have shaped our actions this year and will continue to influence those
to come. However, this year brings with it an unfortunate milestone for
our Nation: The 20th anniversary of terrorist attacks on September 11,
2001. For the past 20 years, the homeland security paradigm has evolved
through proactive strategy and reactive regrets. The focus on public
safety remains the same, but tactics and strategies change with new
lessons learned or priorities identified. Through it all, some
constants remain firmly in place, beginning with the obvious that
neither man-made terrorist events nor natural disasters respect State
borders. Collaboration is key and teamwork is foundational at all
levels of government and with the business community and the public.
In New Jersey, we are immensely proud of our recent work and
continue to embrace a whole-of-community approach to security, focusing
on our communities of faith and business. NJOHSP's Interfaith Advisory
Council continues to be a model for the country in Government to faith-
based community engagement. We foster open dialog and promote honest
conversations in a collaborative approach to security with more than
3,500 members. We also recently launched the New Jersey Shield program,
a collaborative effort with the New Jersey State Police and New
Jersey's intelligence fusion center. This program will enhance public-
private partnerships by enabling true bilateral information and
resource sharing. It connects our public safety personnel and private
sector to each other and with the other global Shield jurisdictions in
operation. It creates the mesh network of information and resources
that has been a priority since that fateful day in September 2001.
Our efforts in New Jersey continue to focus on suspicious activity
reporting that remains vital to law enforcement efforts. The New Jersey
Suspicious Activity Reporting System, or NJSARS, is part of an on-going
effort in New Jersey to increase threat reporting. NJSARS shares
information from suspicious activity reports (SARs) with law
enforcement partners throughout the State. It is also linked to the
FBI's National SAR system known as eGuardian, which partners with the
Nation-wide SAR Initiative to form a single repository accessible to
thousands of law enforcement personnel and analysts Nation-wide. We
collect and analyze over 1,000 SARs every year and immediately share
all leads with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Our relationship with the FBI remains strong, and its dedicated
team of professionals continues to support and inform our efforts.
NJOHSP has recently taken a leading role in New Jersey to combat
increasing counterintelligence threats. Since 2018, we have partnered
with the FBI in following its Joint Terrorism Task Force model to
create the Nation's first Counterintelligence Joint Task Force. Members
of this task force have worked diligently to mitigate threats presented
by foreign state-sponsored actors seeking to conduct intelligence
operations in New Jersey. Threat actors have attempted to unlawfully
acquire intellectual property and access sensitive information in
furtherance of their countries' foreign policy and economic goals.
These illegal activities pose security challenges to New Jersey, with
the potential to become significant National security threats.
These and other programs have been foundational to the success we
have realized in New Jersey. Their implementation is a direct result of
the resources the Federal Government has provided. We remain
appreciative for that assistance and collaboration as we move forward
into new endeavors. Similarly, the Federal Government is changing some
programmatic directions. With the new administration, we see the policy
adaptations that will affect State and local programs moving forward.
Whereas one administration may have stringent investment priorities for
grants or fewer risk-based jurisdictional awards, others broaden
discretion and expand the risk-based jurisdictional grants. Ultimately,
we recognize that all of us in this discipline are working toward the
same goals and objectives, just through different programmatic paths.
We recognize the need for and support the identification of
priorities within the homeland security grant program. While each State
has its own needs, we understand the importance of enterprise
capability building across the Nation. NJOHSP serves as New Jersey's
State Administrative Agency to administer homeland security grant funds
provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the State
of New Jersey. With this designation, NJOHSP is responsible for
ensuring compliance with all the fiduciary and programmatic
administration requirements of Federal and State homeland security
grant programs designed to make New Jersey a safer place to live,
visit, work, and worship. NJOHSP's administration and management of
homeland security grant programs is built upon 3 foundational guiding
principles: Inclusivity, transparency, and accountability. In an effort
to establish clear guidelines for the allocation and distribution of
discretionary funding, we follow 5 basic criteria when managing and
administering Federal and State homeland security and preparedness
grant funding:
Follow a risk-based system--risk being defined as a function
of threat, vulnerability, and consequence assessment.
Significantly benefit New Jersey's emergency response
community.
Link to our State preparedness goals to prevent terrorist
attacks, protect critical infrastructure, and reduce
vulnerability to terrorism, mitigate terrorist attacks, respond
to incidents of terrorism quickly and effectively, and recover
from terrorist attacks in order to restore quality of life.
Support the National and State priorities and core
capabilities; e.g., interoperability, regionalization, and
information sharing.
Avoid duplication where wasteful.
To attain a more quantitative understanding of the risks that New
Jersey faces and to better inform our investments of Federal and State
homeland security funds for many of our strategic funding, planning,
and preparedness programs, we divided the State into 4 planning and
funding regions: Urban Areas Security Initiative Region (UASI),
Northwest Region, Shore Region, and Delaware River Region. This
regionalization approach facilitates a ``bottom-up'' planning
framework, which informs a State-wide preparedness road map. At the
State level, our Domestic Security Preparedness Task Force addresses
both regional and State-wide preparedness capability initiatives.
While achieving the foundational guiding principles, several
tangible outcomes have resulted that go well beyond grant management
activities. None is greater than the profound sense of collaboration
between both multiple levels of government (local, county, State,
Federal) and various first responder communities (fire, emergency
medical, law enforcement, emergency management services, etc.), as well
as the build-out of public and private partnerships. Further, the
Federal and State nonprofit security grant programs have brought
greater understanding and collaboration between law enforcement
professionals and houses of worship that results in greater detailed
mitigation efforts against terrorism and acts of violence. Incredibly,
it is the grant funding that brings together the ``whole community'' to
address on-going and emergent threats associated with terrorism.
To date, NJOHSP has administered over $1.3 billion of grant funding
and currently is responsible for over $175 million in open Federal and
State homeland security and preparedness grant funds. In 2018, a new
State-funded grant program, the Nonprofit Security Grant Pilot Program,
was established to assist eligible non-profit organizations in
enhancing physical security with the funding of security personnel and
target-hardening equipment. This program continues to grow in terms of
interest and funding amounts. There are efforts to make this program
permanent by way of State legislative enactment.
We encourage the administration and DHS to sharpen its focus on
risk-based decision making as program priorities are developed. Through
risk-informed processes, we also encourage DHS to collaborate with
State homeland security leaders on future mandated programs and grant
allocations. This process would allow for advanced planning to occur
with new priorities, rather than awaiting an annual notice of funding
opportunity and having only the application submission window to impart
Federal planning priorities.
As a State with a high-risk urban area, we continue our support of
the UASI program. Here, too, we welcome continued risk-informed
decisions about funding allocations, priorities, and expansion of
jurisdictions. While the homeland security grant program has been with
us since the beginning, we appreciate the Federal Government's attempts
to broaden resources provided into other programs such as targeted
violence prevention. Again, collaboration with the States will
strengthen these programs and help inform where both financial and
programmatic resources would be most efficiently invested.
We encourage DHS to harmonize the program with all of its
components as new programs are developed. There remain instances where
some components of DHS may not be engrained with the awareness,
knowledge, or rationale of a new program, making full collaboration
within the States difficult. This is most important in those areas
where one component may be developing the policy of a new program while
another component is developing the administrative necessities of a
related grant program. We understand the difficulties in creating
National programs and appreciate DHS's continued work and perseverance.
One noticeable area of continued focus is cybersecurity. NJOHSP,
through its New Jersey Cybersecurity and Communications Integration
Cell (NJCCIC), is charged with leading and coordinating New Jersey's
cybersecurity efforts while building resiliency to cyber threats
throughout the State. We do so by focusing on the confluence of
physical and cyber risk, using enterprise risk management techniques to
drive our decision making. We focus on information sharing with both
the public and private sectors, and we oversee the State government
Garden State Network to ensure that critical Government functions
continue uninterrupted.
Cybersecurity challenges are addressed with a wide-area lens in New
Jersey. We recognize that threats in the cyber realm are both an end
target and a vector through which other consequences may manifest.
Whether the support of a criminal enterprise, the malicious destruction
of control mechanisms, or the interruption of critical services,
cybersecurity consequences can affect a multitude of unrelated targets.
It is why our preparedness posture focuses on integrated threats with a
goal of agnostic consequence management. No matter what caused the
issue, we strive to develop capabilities to deal with it. It is the
quintessential progression through prevention, protection, response,
and recovery and the basis upon which we rest our strategy.
With this approach in mind, we welcome conversations with DHS about
dedicated funding or prioritization for cybersecurity. Unlike the
physical realm, cybersecurity threats, vulnerabilities, and
consequences change the result of the risk equation. In doing so,
focused spending on cybersecurity will require a collaborative approach
among States and the Federal Government to ensure that risk is properly
identified and prioritized in new programs.
conclusion
As we all work on today's challenges, we constantly remain aware of
what tomorrow may bring. Looking to the future, we must ensure that we
are not preparing only for the most recent incident. The last year has
highlighted many of the challenges for which our Nation's preparedness
could improve. Whether focusing on supply chain resiliency, the
criticality of functions that drive our markets and economy, or the
services that support our way of life, we must constantly adapt. In New
Jersey, we have spent the last 4 years trying to position for these
evolutions. In that vein, we applaud DHS's movement toward critical
functions and away from a singular focus on infrastructure assets. We
appreciate DHS's sharpened focus on collective capabilities and
priorities for the grant programs.
We will remain dedicated to further collaboration with our partners
at the local, county, State, and Federal levels to work on risk
mitigation efforts for both the short and long term. NJOHSP relies on
partner engagement, and relationship building is essential to our core
goals. Through the development of working groups, robust information
sharing, increased interagency interactions, and public awareness
campaigns, NJOHSP has remained successful in meeting its mission.
NJOHSP will continue to generate accurate assessments of National
security threats both at home and abroad and investigate every
potential threat that could impact the communities in New Jersey.
Chairwoman Demings, Ranking Member Cammack, and distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, I thank you again for the opportunity to
testify today.
I look forward to your questions and yield back to the Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Maples.
The Chair now recognizes the Orlando Police Chief, Chief
Rolon, to summarize his statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ORLANDO ROLON, CHIEF OF POLICE, ORLANDO POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Chief Rolon. Thank you, Chairwoman Demings, I am happy to
participate in today's hearing.
Can you hear me?
Chairwoman Demings. Chief, you are a little in and out, but
we can hear you now.
Chief Rolon. OK. It is an honor to appear before the panel
led by 2 representatives from the State of Florida, Chairwoman
Demings, who is a friend and former chief of police here at the
Department where I have the privilege to lead, and the Ranking
Member Cammack, who knows first-hand the sacrifices first
responders make.
I appear before you today as the chief of the Orlando
Police Department. It is also a privilege to testify on behalf
of the Major City Chiefs Association.
Local law enforcement has been the front line, whether it
be responding to a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or the
global pandemic. FEMA preparedness grants, especially UASI, and
State Homeland Security Grant Programs provide critical
resources that bolstered law enforcement's ability to prevent
and respond to these threats. It is worth noting that nearly
every UASI-eligible jurisdiction is a member of the MCCA and
robust stakeholder engagements is a must. Unfortunately, that
type of engagement isn't the standard or formalized. In order
to ensure preparedness grants are meeting the needs of grant
recipients, FEMA should solicit the local law enforcement
input.
As you are likely aware, FEMA considered making several
changes to the fiscal year 2021 UASI and State Homeland
Security Grants, changes related to risk determination with
nearly double the number of jurisdictions eligible for UASI
funding, or FEMA to spread already limited funds. Another
proposed change would have made UASI funding competitive with
results in funding inconsistencies and favor jurisdictions that
can write the best applications. Funding should be allocated
based on risk and not the quality of the grant writers.
I understand FEMA is still considering some of these
changes. FEMA now also requires grantees dedicate 30 percent of
their funding to National priority areas. This is a 10 percent
increase from last year. While National priority areas can help
ensure limited grant funding is also used to address the most
significant threats, they must be developed in consultation
with key stakeholders to ensure they accurately reflect
threats. Again, this is not always the case.
For example, FEMA's consultation with MCCA members while
developing the National priority areas in the proposed changes
to the funding formula was limited, at best. I understand that
Secretary Mayorkas recently instructed FEMA to host a series of
stakeholder listening sessions and the MCCA looks forward to
collaborating on future grant guidance.
UASI and State Homeland Security grant recipients often
engage in years-long planning work. Predictability is key.
There needs to be more transparency with respect to the risk
validation process that is used to determine the grant
allocations. While grantees are allowed to review and comment
on the risk profile, they are unable to see the specific--the
data that was used to calculate the risk.
In light of these challenges, FEMA should let personnel
from each jurisdiction with the appropriate clearances see the
specific data that was used to formulate the risk profile. It
is also important to ensure that FEMA's risk methodology
captures all the relevant factors that contribute to a
grantee's risk. For example, the sheer number of tourists who
visit Orlando, coupled with the fact that many of them are
visiting soft targets, like our famous theme parks, represents
a substantial risk that should be accounted for. Until recently
tourism-related metrics, such as daily visitors and special
events, were not included. FEMA must continue to review and
update its risk formulas and properly address the needs of the
jurisdictions.
Although today's hearings have focused on FEMA grants, a
conversation of preparedness would not be complete without
touching on some recent challenges. Over the past decade local
law enforcement has become a public target for cyber attacks.
We are lucky in Orlando to have a great chief information
officer, Rosa Akhtarkhavari, that understands the seriousness
of these threats and has taken steps to secure our city's
systems. This is not always the case, as we have seen
ransomware attacks in Atlanta and Baltimore.
Orlando knows just how dangerous threats like the massive
tourism can be and the Orlando Department has to be able to
apply many of the lessons learned from the Pulse Nightclub
tragedy to mitigate other threats and prevent violence. The
MCCA has committed to continue to serve as a conduit between
our membership, the Federal Government, and other key
stakeholders to help build those relationships.
I would like to close by thanking the committee for its
continued support of FEMA preparedness grants and the MCCA
looks forward to continue to work closely with all of you to
achieve our shared goals here in our communities. I look
forward to any questions the committee may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chief Rolon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Orlando Rolon
April 28, 2021
Chairwoman Demings . . . Ranking Member Cammack . . . and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to participate in today's hearing. I appear before you
today as the chief of police in Orlando, Florida. It is also my
privilege to testify on behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs Association
(MCCA), a professional association of police chiefs and sheriffs
representing the largest cities in the United States and Canada, of
which I currently serve as a member of the executive board. It is
particularly special to testify in front of a panel led by two
Congresswomen from my home State of Florida. It is also an honor to
appear before Chairwoman Demings, who is the former chief of the police
department I am now privileged to lead.
Local law enforcement is on the front lines of responding to any
emergency, whether it be a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or
global pandemic. FEMA preparedness grants are critical resources that
bolster law enforcement's ability to prevent and respond to terrorist
attacks and other associated threats. The Homeland Security Grant
Program (HSGP), which includes the Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI) and State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSP), are
particularly valuable for local law enforcement.
These programs have only grown in importance as the threat
environment facing the homeland becomes more complex, especially as
local law enforcement is consistently asked to take on more
responsibilities and stretch limited resources further. My testimony
will provide a local law enforcement perspective on these critical
programs and offer a few suggestions on how they may be improved. More
specifically, I will touch on recent changes that have been proposed to
these grant programs, outline ways to enhance the predictability and
integrity of the funding formulas, and discuss some of the challenges
law enforcement has faced over the past year.
proposed changes to fiscal year 2021 notice of funding opportunity
As you likely are aware, in advance of the release of the fiscal
year 2021 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), FEMA considered making
a few significant changes to UASI and the State Homeland Security Grant
Program. These changes would have impacted how funding gets distributed
and the amount of funding that some jurisdictions receive. While not
implemented in fiscal year 2021, I understand that some of the changes
are still being considered for inclusion in future Notices of Fundings
Opportunities. The MCCA has voiced concerns about some of the proposed
changes and calls on FEMA and Congress to work closely with
stakeholders throughout the entire process to ensure potential changes
to these grant programs are carefully vetted and considered.
Changes to Risk Calculation Formula
One proposed change would have altered how FEMA calculates risk.
FEMA uses 3 components--threat, vulnerability, and consequence--to
determine risk. Currently, consequence is weighted more heavily than
threat or vulnerability. Under the proposed change, each component
would have an equal weight.
By statute, UASI funding is limited to the urban areas that
comprise 85 percent of the National risk. Since the input for
consequence in FEMA's risk methodology is driven primarily by a
jurisdiction's population and population density, this risk is
currently consolidated in roughly 30 cities. By weighting consequence
equal to threat and vulnerability in the formula, the number of cities
that comprise 85 percent of the National risk will more than double.
This will force FEMA to spread already finite funds more thinly,
thereby impacting the program's effectiveness. Should this change be
included in future Notices of Funding Opportunities, Congress must
ensure there is a requisite increase in appropriations for UASI.
Competitive Funding
Another proposed change would have made UASI funding 100 percent
competitive. Currently, UASI jurisdictions receive a targeted funding
range based on their risk. As part of the proposed change, UASI funding
would be split into 1 of 3 buckets, and cities would compete for
funding with the other cities in their same bucket.
There are several challenges associated with making UASI funding
fully competitive. First, it will likely result in funding
inconsistencies and complicate preparedness planning since it will be
nearly impossible for cities to predict how much funding they'll
receive in a given year. This challenge will only be exacerbated during
years that cities move into a new bucket. Second, having the cities
with the most considerable amount of risk compete against each other
will leave gaping holes in risk mitigation for some of the most
attractive targets for terrorism throughout the United States. Finally,
a competitive UASI program could very well result in a situation where
funding is skewed toward those cities that can write the ``best'' grant
application. UASI is designed to enhance preparedness, and awards
should be made based on applicants' risk, not the quality of their
grant writers.
dedicated funding requirements
To receive their full allocation of UASI and State Homeland
Security Grant Program funds, grantees must dedicate a certain
percentage of funds to projects that meet the criteria outlined in
statute or the grant program's Notice of Funding Opportunity. Congress
and FEMA must ensure that these requirements align with the threats
facing grant recipients. The percentage of a recipient's award that
must be dedicated to these obligations has continued to grow year after
year. If this pattern continues, Congress and FEMA should also consider
establishing separate funding streams for specific activities to help
ensure grantees have sufficient funding to invest in projects to
address risks outside of the program-mandated priorities.
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activities Threshold
Following the 9/11 attacks, Congress created the Law Enforcement
Terrorism Prevention Program to help build State, local, and Tribal law
enforcement's capabilities to respond to terrorist attacks. This
program has been steadily weakened over the years, and in 2007, it
stopped receiving funding as a stand-alone grant program. It was
replaced with Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activities (LETPA),
and States are now required to use 25 percent of all UASI and State
Homeland Security Grant Program funds for Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Activities.
Despite the program being reduced to what is essentially a
bureaucratic requirement for States to receive FEMA funding, the
required spending on Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activities
still provides value. For example, one MCCA member uses this specific
carve-out to help fund its fusion center and Chemical Biological
Radiological Nuclear Explosive (CBRNE) teams.
There have been recent efforts by some to remove or further reduce
the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activities requirement. If
successful, this would significantly impact the amount of Federal
funding dedicated to local law enforcement's unique role in preventing
terrorist attacks. This undoubtedly would be detrimental to homeland
security overall, especially in the current budget environment where
law enforcement is continually asked to respond to new threats and do
more with fewer resources. If Congress is not willing to restore the
existing Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activities threshold to
an independently funded program, it must, at minimum, ensure the
current requirement in statute is not weakened further.
National Priority Areas
Beginning in fiscal year 2020, FEMA began to require that grant
recipients use specific percentages of UASI and State Homeland Security
Grant Program funds to address certain National Priority Areas. In
fiscal year 2021, grantees will be required to spend 30 percent of
their funds on these National Priorities Areas, a 10 percent increase
over the fiscal year 2020 requirement. Notably, funding projects in
these areas can also be used to meet the Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Activities threshold, potentially limiting the ability of
law enforcement to utilize the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
Activities set aside for terrorism prevention activities that fall
outside of these priorities. While the establishment of National
Priorities Areas can undoubtedly help ensure that limited grant funding
is used to help address the most significant threats facing the
country, these priorities must be developed in consultation with key
stakeholders to ensure they reflect the needs of UASI and State
Homeland Security Grant Program grantees.
Direct Funding Streams for Fusion Centers
Created initially to break down silos of intelligence among partner
agencies and enhance information sharing, the fusion center network has
taken on a primary role in intelligence and information sharing at the
local, State, and Federal levels. As the threats that local law
enforcement is asked to mitigate metastasize, the need for robust
information sharing has only increased. Fusion centers play a critical
role in ensuring law enforcement personnel across the Nation, at all
levels of government, can access the information they need to keep our
communities safe.
Despite fusion center's critical role in the homeland security
enterprise, there are currently no direct funding streams to maintain
the network of fusion centers. While Homeland Security Grant Program
funding can be used for this purpose, it does not explicitly carve out
designated amounts. As a result, fusion centers may need to compete
with other priorities and projects for grant dollars. This can produce
uncertainty and potentially put vital programs and capabilities at
risk. While FEMA recognizes the important role fusion centers play and
preparedness grants have prioritized fusion centers for several years,
Congress should consider establishing a separate funding stream for
fusion centers.
predictability and integrity
It is not uncommon for projects funded by FEMA preparedness grants
to be multi-year efforts. Grantees often engage in years-long planning
processes to ensure they can use grant funding to address threats and
priorities in their jurisdiction in a timely manner. For these efforts
to be successful, there must be predictability and integrity in the
risk calculation and funding allocation process FEMA uses each year.
Engagement with Stakeholders
Strong partnerships across all levels of government are critical if
preparedness grants are to be as effective as possible. FEMA is an
essential partner, and improvements can be made concerning stakeholder
engagement. More specifically, there needs to be a more formal process
for soliciting local law enforcement input on preparedness grants. For
example, FEMA's consultation with MCCA members while developing the
National Priorities Area included in the fiscal year 2020 Notice of
Funding Opportunity was limited. The engagement regarding the proposed
changes to the fiscal year 2021 Notice of Funding Opportunity was also
haphazard. This is concerning given that nearly every UASI jurisdiction
is a MCCA member.
Providing local law enforcement and other key stakeholders with the
opportunity to ensure their voices are reflected in the policy-making
process will help ensure transparency in grant directives and guidance.
Working with stakeholders ahead of time will also help mitigate
situations where a FEMA policy change forces grantees to make last-
minute pivots in their planning processes, which can inhibit their
ability to effectively allocate the resources these grants provide.
The MCCA was pleased to hear that Secretary Mayorkas recently
instructed FEMA to host a series of listening sessions and other
engagement events with Homeland Security Grant Program stakeholders,
including law enforcement associations like the MCCA. The MCCA looks
forward to collaborating with FEMA to provide our perspective and input
on future grant guidance.
Transparency in Risk Profile Calculation
There is a need to inject additional transparency into the risk
validation process that is used to determine funding allocations for
UASI and the State Homeland Security Grant Program. While States,
territories, and UASI-eligible Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) are
allowed to review and comment on their risk profiles, there is a lack
of detailed information. For example, while the risk profile explains
how each element of the profile is calculated and notes the sources
used, grantees are unable to see the specific data utilized. This makes
it challenging to provide substantive feedback, confirm the
calculations are accurate, or raise other concerns. For example, after
a historical data call, one MCCA member learned that several of their
critical infrastructure assets had been omitted, resulting in the
Metropolitan Statistical Area's risk being miscalculated.
In light of these challenges, FEMA should let personnel from each
jurisdiction, with the appropriate clearances, see the specific data
used to formulate the risk profile. This will help increase
transparency, further FEMA and stakeholder engagement, provide another
opportunity for State and local threat information to be incorporated,
and ensure the risk to communities across the Nation are being
calculated accurately.
Accounting for Tourism in the Risk Formula
Orlando and several other MCCA members that receive UASI grants are
unique in that the number of annual visitors is significantly greater
than the local population. For example, in 2018, Orlando was one of
America's most-visited destinations, welcoming 75 million visitors.\1\
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that the population of the entire
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2018 was
only 2.6 million.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Orlando Announces Record 75 Million Visitors, Solidifies
Ranking as No. 1 U.S. Travel Destination,'' Visit Orlando, May 9, 2019.
https://www.visitorlando.com/media/press-releases/post/orlando-
announces-record-75-million-visitors-solidifies-ranking-as-no-1-u-s-
travel-destination/.
\2\ ``Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to
July 1, 2019,'' United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/
data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010's-total-metro-and-micro-
statistical-areas.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sheer number of tourists coupled with the fact that many of
them are visiting soft targets--such as Orlando's many theme parks--
represents a substantial risk that should be accounted for in FEMA's
risk methodology. Until recently, tourism-related metrics, such as
special events and daily visitors, were not included. Once these
factors were incorporated, several prominent tourist destinations saw
significant increases in their UASI funding allocations. FEMA must
continue to review and update its risk formula as necessary to ensure
it properly weights the unique needs of tourist destinations.
It is also important to ensure the risk methodology is resilient
and flexible enough to account for challenges related to being a
tourist destination. This point has been underscored by the COVID-19
pandemic, which has significantly impacted tourism and the number of
special events held throughout the country. Jurisdictions who rely on
such factors to ensure their risk is accurately represented should not
face the prospect of decreased funding due to acts of God or other
incidents that are outside of human control and impossible to predict.
The MCCA understands that FEMA made slight changes to its fiscal year
2021 risk methodology to account for the impacts of COVID-19 and
encourages FEMA to continue to exercise discretion, as necessary, to
account for the effects of future incidents and crises.
Timely Disbursement of Funding
Once a project using UASI and State Homeland Security Grant Program
funding is approved, it is important that FEMA disburses the necessary
resources expeditiously. Several MCCA members have expressed concern
with navigating FEMA's bureaucracy and getting the funding released for
some projects quickly. Things become even more complicated when
grantees are trying to fund a project that requires additional levels
of approval from FEMA, such as the acquisition of controlled equipment.
Failure to disburse funds in a timely manner is not only detrimental to
homeland security as it inhibits recipients from mitigating risks as
efficiently as possible, but it also can cause challenges as grantees
work to coordinate project delivery with other public safety entities,
vendors, and other stakeholders.
additional preparedness challenges
Although today's hearing is focused on FEMA's grant programs, a
conversation on preparedness would not be complete without mentioning
some of the other challenges facing local law enforcement. A global
pandemic, a National conversation on policing, wide-spread civil
unrest, and the emergence of new threats have created one of the most
challenging environments for local law enforcement in recent memory. I
am proud of how the brave members of local law enforcement rise to meet
these challenges every day to keep our communities safe.
COVID-19
Local law enforcement has remained on the front lines throughout
the COVID-19 pandemic. Especially early on in the pandemic, MCCA
members had to make drastic changes to their operations in order to
continue offering essential services and ensuring public safety.
Furthermore, nearly every major city in the country experienced
upticks in violent crime throughout the pandemic. Local law enforcement
continued to address these calls for service, despite at times having
large segments of the workforce quarantined. Finally, the strain COVID-
19 placed on local budgets will undoubtedly impact local law
enforcement well beyond the end of the pandemic. Federal assistance,
provided through legislation such as the CARES Act and the American
Rescue Plan, has been instrumental as communities across the country
continue to respond to and recover from this crisis.
Cybersecurity
Over the past decade, law enforcement agencies have experienced an
increase in cyber attacks by both criminal entities and
``hacktivists.'' Considering their prominent public role and the
sensitive information on their systems and networks, police
departments, including many MCCA members, have become popular targets
for ransomware, denial-of-service, and doxing attacks. As law
enforcement relies more and more on technology systems to carry out its
mission, these attacks can have catastrophic effects. For example, a
ransomware attack could deny police officers access to critical records
and investigative files, and denial-of-service attacks could take 9-1-1
dispatch centers off-line, making it more difficult to get help to
citizens in need. During the civil unrest that occurred throughout the
summer of 2020, many MCCA members also struggled with having personnel
and their families subjected to harassment and other threats to their
safety as a result of being doxed.
Law enforcement agencies can be especially vulnerable if their
technology systems are outdated, or they do not adequately train their
personnel to mitigate cyber threats. These challenges can be
exacerbated by police departments' connections with larger municipal
networks, which may be less secure and provide an alternative vector
for attacks. We are lucky in Orlando to have a great chief information
officer that understands the seriousness of these threats and has taken
numerous steps to secure our city's systems from infiltration.
Congress can take a few steps to help local governments, including
local law enforcement agencies, better mitigate cyber threats. First,
Congress must ensure the grant programs that help build local cyber
capacity, such as the Homeland Security Grant Program, are fully
funded. Congress should also continue to ensure agencies such as DHS's
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have the
authorities and resources needed to continue programs and efforts
designed to help law enforcement prevent and respond to cyber attacks.
Domestic Violent Extremists
The recent rise in domestic violent extremism (DVE) is another
threat that local law enforcement is currently working diligently to
address. Local law enforcement, including MCCA members, is no stranger
to addressing extremist threats, having been a key stakeholder in
responding to the rise in home-grown violent extremism just a few years
ago. Unfortunately, Orlando knows just how dangerous extremism can be
and how extremist violence can devastate a community. The Orlando
Police Department has been able to apply many of the lessons learned
from the Pulse Nightclub tragedy to mitigate other threats and prevent
extremist violence.
The importance of developing strong relationships between Federal,
State, and local law enforcement authorities cannot be emphasized
enough. These relationships often manifest themselves in joint
investigations, increased information sharing, and other initiatives
that are critical in addressing threats such as domestic violent
extremism effectively. Through its oversight efforts, Congress must
continue to ensure Federal agencies work closely with their local
counterparts and that mechanisms for promoting this collaboration, such
as fusion centers, are adequately funded. The MCCA also commits to
continue to serve as a conduit between our membership, the Federal
Government, and other key stakeholders to help build those
relationships.
Congress must also ensure that law enforcement retains access to
the tools and technology that assist with investigations, including
domestic violent extremism investigations, such as facial recognition.
Facial recognition is a valuable tool that helps generate leads and
makes law enforcement operations more effective and efficient. Congress
must also address the threat posed by the ability of extremists and
other violent criminals to ``go dark.'' These challenges have
frustrated on-going investigations and hindered law enforcement's
ability to detect additional extremist activity and combat everyday
violent crime.
conclusion
FEMA's grant programs undoubtedly provide critical resources and
help ensure that local law enforcement is prepared to prevent and
mitigate the variety of threats that fall under our purview. On behalf
of the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the Orlando Police
Department, I'd like to thank the committee for both its support of the
Homeland Security Grant Program, including UASI, and continued
oversight efforts to ensure the program meets the needs of local law
enforcement. I also must thank the committee for the support it has
shown for the brave members of local law enforcement during one of the
most challenging years in the history of our noble profession. The MCCA
looks forward to continuing to work closely with all of you to achieve
our shared goal of securing our communities from all threats.
I look forward to answering any questions the committee may have.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much, Chief Rolon.
The Chair now recognizes Chief Altman for 5 minutes.
Chief.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ALTMAN, BATTALION CHIEF, OCALA FIRE
RESCUE
Chief Altman. Good afternoon, Congresswoman Demings,
Ranking Member Cammack, and Chairman of the committee, Mr.
Thompson.
I am Robert Altman. Again, I am the battalion chief with
Ocala Fire Rescue located in North Central Florida. I am
pleased to testify before your subcommittee today to discuss
the importance of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program
known as AFG.
I was recently asked by Congresswoman Cammack from the
Third District to give some testimony on the Assistance to
Firefighter Grants program from my own first-hand knowledge. I
also have been on the Assistance to Firefighter Grants program,
selected by the International Association of Firefighters for
FEMA.
Ocala Fire Rescue, the Department I work at, operates out
of 7 stations providing emergency services to an estimated
61,000 full-time residents and approximately 156,000 people on
an average weekday. The Department covers just over 47 square
miles and has an automatic aid agreement with Marion County
Fire Rescue to assist with emergency coverage for 1,663 square
miles and over 365,000 residents.
Ocala Fire Rescue has been the beneficiary of several AFG
awards in the past, including 1 this previous year. The
Department was awarded a grant for hearing protection
previously for apparatus, 2 grants roughly 10 years apart for
self-contained breathing apparatus, known as SCBAs. We are
awaiting the arrival of the newly-awarded SCBAs currently.
Fire Departments like Ocala depend on the funds to make
major purchases that were either not budgeted for or the
current financial climate could not cover the expense.
Ocala Fire Rescue, like many other departments across our
Nation, has been struggling to recover from the financial
downturn our Nation previously went through. The COVID-19
pandemic has put new strains on departments that have not fully
recovered. Bills like the current Senate Bill 426; Firefighter
Cancer bill, will also put a financial strain on fire
departments across Florida. While joining 44 other States in
our country to improve firefighter safety, it has a cost to the
cities and counties and departments.
Departments are trying to improve the personal protective
equipment (PPE) of their firefighters. The new gear that is
recommended to protect firefighters is costly. Some departments
just do not have the resources or the budget to cover these
items. This is where the AFG program helps these departments,
not only cover the recommendations and meet the current
National Fire Protection Standards, but also the mission of the
fire departments, to protect those that protect us, our
firefighters.
Florida firefighters are asked to perform in all types of
emergencies, cover all types of economic development, from
rural to urban terrain and everything in between. We respond to
all natural disasters, hurricanes, hazardous materials
incidents, technical rescues, fires, and medical emergencies,
and any other situation that the public can't handle. A perfect
example of the need for AFG is currently the COVID-19 pandemic
we are all working through. Without the Federal aid that was
offered last year by AFG, many departments just could not meet
the communities' needs. Services would have been cut short to
the people that needed it the most.
Departments across the Nation, like my own, are currently
being asked to submit flat budgets or decrease their current
budget proposals due to the cost the pandemic has put on their
departments and communities. Funding that was budgeted for
other critical equipment has spent on COVID-19 response. With
this unexpected pandemic and its costs, departments still need
to respond to every other emergency that is out there. They
still need to keep up on schedule with PPE purchases and other
essential equipment that fire departments need to operate and
serve their citizens.
I have read numerous applications from departments all
across our Nation, large and small, all with the same missions
and goals. The AFG not only help those departments protect the
lives and safety of their citizens, it also helps them meet
their goals of firefighter safety. Without the AFG many
departments would not be able to provide adequate PPE to its
firefighters to do basic fundamentals of the fire service,
which is fight fire. I have read too many applications where
departments do not have enough bunker gear to outfit their
firefighters so that each firefighter has his own individual
turnout gear. Fire departments are driving 30-year-old
emergency vehicles as front-line apparatus. Departments asking
for exhaust scavenging systems for their apparatus, so
firefighters and the public do not have to breathe cancer-
causing fumes from emergency vehicles.
The other side of the AFG is that departments that are able
to maintain and secure awards can then use other funds to
advance life safety projects that the fire service offers to
its citizens. Departments like mine can offer smoke detector
programs, hands-on CPR to schools and businesses, water safety
programs, and community paramedic programs, just to name a few
that we offer.
Ocala Fire Rescue is also part of USAR Task Force 8, which
combines 3 local departments, Ocala, Gainesville, and Marion
County. We have 28 members from our department on the regional
team. We have been able to train and receive the most advanced
technical equipment through the AFG awards. We have responded
to many emergencies throughout Florida and the southeast region
of the USA. When a department receives a grant from AFG, not
only does the award help their department, it helps neighboring
departments by providing more resources and more up-to-date
resources for those departments.
In closing, being a recipient of AFG grants and as a
reviewer, I can attest that the need to continue, and when
possible, increase the allotted budget for AFG is greatly
needed. Without these funds many departments would be cutting
services, laying off firefighters and asking firefighters to
put their lives at greater risk by performing their job without
adequate personal protective equipment or inadequate
firefighting equipment. When that disaster strikes, local fire
departments will be the first to arrive. They need the
equipment to do their jobs safely. I am glad that the Federal
Government recognizes the need to assist in funding these
grants. These grants help local departments meet their basic
needs and improve their capabilities to respond to all hazards.
I thank you for the opportunity today to testify about my
experience with the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. I
am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Chief Altman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert V. Altman
April 28, 2021
Good afternoon Congresswoman Demings and the Members of the
subcommittee. I am Robert Altman, a current battalion chief with Ocala
Fire Rescue in Ocala Florida, located in North Central Florida. I am
pleased to testify before your subcommittee today to discuss the
importance of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program known as
AFG. I was recently asked by Congresswoman Cammack from Florida's 3d
Congressional District to give some testimony on the Assistance to
Firefighter Grants program from my own first-hand knowledge. I also
have been selected to review AFG grants by The International
Association of Firefighters for FEMA.
Ocala Fire Rescue operates out of 7 fire stations providing
emergency services to estimated 61,000 full-time residents and
approximately 156,000 people on an average week day. The Department
covers just over 47 square miles and has an automatic aid agreement
with Marion County Fire Rescue to assist with emergency coverage for
1,663 square miles and over 365,000 residents.
Ocala Fire Rescue has been the beneficiary of several AFG awards in
the past including one this previous year. The department was awarded a
grant for hearing protection in our Fire Apparatus previously, 2 grants
roughly 10 years apart for self-contained breathing apparatus known as
SCBA's. We are awaiting the arrival of our newly awarded SCBA's
currently. Fire Departments like Ocala depend on the Federal funds to
make major purchases that either were not budgeted for or the current
financial climate could not cover the expense. Ocala Fire Rescue like
many other departments across our Nation has been struggling to recover
from the financial downturn our Nation previously went through. The
current COVID-19 Pandemic has put new strains on departments that have
not fully recovered. Bills like the current SB 426; Firefighter Cancer
bill have also put a financial strain on Fire departments across
Florida. While joining 44 other States in our country to improve
firefighter safety it has a cost to the cities, counties, and
departments. Departments are trying to improve the Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) of their firefighters. The new gear that is recommended
to protect firefighters is costly, some departments just do not have
the resources to budget for these items. That is where the AFG program
helps these departments not only cover the recommendations and meet the
current National Fire Protection standards but also the mission of the
departments, to protect those that protect us, the firefighters.
Florida firefighters are asked to perform in all types of
emergencies, we cover all types of economic development, from rural to
urban terrain and everything in between. We respond to natural
disasters, hurricanes, hazardous materials incidents, technical
rescues, fires, and medical emergencies and any other situation that
the public cannot handle. A perfect example of the need for AFG is the
current COVID-19 pandemic we are working through, without the Federal
aid that was offered last year by AFG many departments just could not
meet the communities needs, services would have been cut short to the
people that needed it the most.
Departments across the Nation like my own Department are currently
being asked to submit flat budgets or decrease their current budget
proposals due to the cost the pandemic has put on departments and
communities. Funding that was budgeted for other critical equipment was
spent on COVID-19 response. With this unexpected pandemic and its
costs, departments still need to respond to every other emergency that
is out there. They still need to keep on schedule with PPE purchases
and other essential equipment that fire departments need to operate and
serve their citizens. I have read numerous applications from
departments all across our Nation, large and small all with the same
missions and goals. The AFG grants not only help the departments
protect the lives and safety of citizens it also helps them meet their
goals of firefighter safety. Without the AFG many departments would not
be able to provide adequate PPE to its firefighters to do the basic
fundamentals of the fire service, fight fire. I have read too many
applications where departments do not have enough bunker gear to outfit
their firefighters so that each firefighter has his own individual
turnout gear. Fire departments that are driving 30-year-old emergency
vehicles as front-line apparatus. Departments asking for exhaust-
scavenging systems for their apparatus, so firefighters and the public
do not have to breathe cancer-causing fumes from emergency vehicles.
The other side to the AFG is that departments that are able to
maintain and secure awards can then use other funds to advance life
safety projects that the Fire Service offers to its communities.
Departments like mine can offer smoke detector programs, hands-only CPR
to schools and businesses, water safety, and Community Paramedic
Programs to name a few.
Ocala Fire Rescue is also part of USAR task force 8 which combines
3 local departments, Ocala, Gainesville, and Marion County. We have 28
members from our department on the regional team. We have been able to
train and receive the most advanced technical equipment through the AFG
awards. We have responded to many emergencies throughout Florida and
the southeast region of the USA. When a Department receives a grant
from AFG not only does the award help their Department, but it also
helps the neighboring departments, by adding more resources and/or more
up-to-date resources.
In closing, being a recipient of AFG grants and as a reviewer I can
attest that the need to continue and when possible, increase the
allotted budget for AFG is greatly needed. Without these funds many
departments would be cutting services, laying off firefighters and
asking firefighters to put their lives at greater risk by performing
their job without adequate personal protective equipment or inadequate
firefighting equipment. When a disaster strikes, local fire departments
will be the first to arrive, they need the equipment to safely do their
job, I am glad that the Federal Government recognizes the need to
assist in funding these grants. Grants help local fire departments meet
their basic needs and improve their capabilities to respond to all
hazards. I thank you for the opportunity today to testify about my
experience with the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program. I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much, Chief Altman. I want
to thank all of our witnesses, this very geographically diverse
panel of witnesses.
I will remind the subcommittee that we will each have 5
minutes to question the panel. I will now recognize myself for
questions.
I would like to begin, Chief Rolon, with you.
Cities like Orlando have unfortunately found themselves,
regardless of which party within in the White House, on a
terribly unpredictable roller coaster, not knowing year to year
whether to expect DHS grant funds to be available to maintain
core, counterterrorism, and preparedness programs.
From your perspective, Chief, how has this lack of
predictability impacted Orlando's ability to be forward-leaning
in addressing emerging threats?
Chief Rolon. Chairwoman Demings, I think, to put it in
simple terms, we have been short-changed, in my opinion, in the
Central Florida region considering that we received, prior to
COVID, more than 76 million visitors to our region. It has been
a challenge for us to solicit and secure the funding that we
believe is best to not only support our local residents, but
also the millions of people that come, not only from the United
States but all over the world.
We have learned to navigate through the system, but it has
been very difficult at times for the people who do the heavy
lifting in our area, that put everything together in order for
us to try to compete for the funds. It has been somewhat of a
struggle to show that we are deserving of more support. But we
appreciate you and our Congressional delegation who have made a
tremendous difference in fighting for us to secure additional
funds that have resulted in an increase for funding that now,
just this year, will allow us to have for the first time in our
region, a high-reach rescue vehicle, one that you would have
thought that here in Central Florida we would have had a long
time ago.
So, it has been somewhat of a struggle, but we have hope
moving forward, through sessions like this and giving us the
opportunity to communicate our concerns, we will be able to get
better funding in the future.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you, Chief.
Governor Ige, as a former police chief I know first-hand of
how important the Department of Homeland Security Grant Program
is to keeping our communities safe. That is why I asked all of
you here today for my first hearing as Chair of this
subcommittee.
The introduction of fiscal year 2020 of cybersecurity, soft
targets, intelligence and information sharing, and emerging
threats are National priorities to be addressed by a specified
portion of grant funding marked a significant change, but other
consequential changes were proposed, including transforming
portions of grant funding into competitive grants that were
pending when the Biden administration came in.
Governor, can you share your view on the impacts to States
of those changes that were made in recent years and how can the
committee be thinking about where these programs need to go
from here?
Governor Ige. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Demings.
I think it is very important on behalf of all the Governors
to advocate for maximum flexibility and reducing the earmarks
because all of the States are different, and we definitely have
different needs.
We know that the Federal Government has to be more active
in cybersecurity. We do know it is a Nation-wide network, and
we are only as strong as the weakest link. Clarifying and
providing additional funds to improve the cybersecurity posture
in every State is so necessary to increase the cybersecurity
posture of the country. Many important infrastructure assets
are scattered in different States. For example, here in the
State of Hawaii we are headquarters to all of the Pacific
Commands for the Indo-Pacific Region. Any impact to our
community definitely impacts the country's response to any kind
of activity that would occur.
So we certainly would encourage maximum flexibility.
As you had said, being able to count on grant funding is so
important to improving our posture all across the country.
Chairwoman Demings. Governor, thank you so much. I know how
early it is there in your home State as well, so again thank
you for being with us.
Director Maples, the State of New Jersey has multiple
jurisdictions in the UASI program. To what degree has the
changes in the past few years impacted the State's preparedness
and what challenges today have they presented from the grants
administration standpoint?
Mr. Maples. Thank you for the question.
Unfortunately, I don't have a term like aloha to use. I
won't tell you what we normally say in New Jersey, but we do
have great beaches.
Regarding our preparedness, our robust UASI program covers
the most densely populated State in the country, most diverse
by many measures. So when we talk about preparedness in our
administration of the grant program, the biggest challenge that
we face is making sure that all those jurisdictions are on the
same page going forward. That is one of the reasons my office
exists.
But then when you look at what happened to us just this
past year with the rating. Our rating actually went down
despite us having a signature terror attack in 2019, December
2019 in Jersey City, and of course our enduring threat. Again,
we labeled white supremacy and some of the race-based extremist
issues that we are facing as a high threat. So we have that
present in our State. So, making sure that those are connected.
One of the other challenges, I would say, is because of
where we are in the corridor--and the Governor mentioned about
infrastructure--in New Jersey we literally sit at the heart--in
the middle of Philadelphia and New York, and of course,
extending the Northeast corridor and all the infrastructure
that comes with that. So, making sure that our ranking is
reflected in that, and then therefore allowing us to administer
those grants in a way that provides across the entire State and
across all of our sectors that are present here in New Jersey.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Maples.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Cammack.
Ms. Cammack. Thank you, Chairwoman Demings. Again, thank
you to all of our witnesses here today. I will jump right in.
Chief Altman, your testimony mentions that you have been
selected by IAFF to review the AFG grant proposal. Can you just
give a brief overview to all of our Members here today of how
that process works? As a follow-up, have you found smaller fire
departments, which are often times rural, have difficulties
applying for the AFG grant? If so, how can that process be
improved?
Chief Altman. Thank you, Congresswoman Cammack.
Yes, about 3 years ago the International Association of
Firefighters was looking to add more people onto the FEMA grant
team for AFG grants. I was recommended at that time by the FPF
president over to FEMA to be selected for a board. I had to
fill out a resume and a bio to get in. One of the things I
believe where people stay on the board until they retire or
stop, you know, working on that board.
So I started reviewing grants roughly 3 years ago for AFG
and I have had so many grants. Usually what happens with the
rural departments, they have a harder time because they don't
either pay a grant writer to write their grants and they don't
go back and forth with information. They will give it to maybe
a lower-level person inside their department to try and write
the grant. It is very important, and it is a huge need for
their department, but because they don't hit all the check
marks when we are going through, doing all the checking, they
just won't make the cut to get the grant.
I think that is the biggest problem. I feel when they are
doing this, maybe if they were given either a not just a class
from FEMA--FEMA office, some ways to learn how to do the
grants, but maybe if there was like an interview process or
something the grant--they put together or a video, training
video, for these smaller departments to help write grants or
the key things they are looking for. It changes every year. At
least the key things put inside the grants would help. A lot of
these rural departments, like you said, are just not getting
the funding. But when we go through and read them, it is just
because they didn't use criteria of what FEMA is asking them to
put in the grant, not that they don't have the need. They
obviously have the need.
So that is pretty much the issue that I found reading the
grants.
As far as our department and some of the other departments,
which are your larger departments, usually pay grant writers or
have grant writers on staff to do it. The small rural
departments just can't afford to do that, and that is where
they fall short.
Ms. Cammack. Excellent. Thank you.
Last Congress--sticking with you, Chief Altman--the CARES
Act included $100 million in supplemental funding for the AFG
program. This was distributed in 2 rounds because there was a
lack of qualifying applications in the initial application
cycle.
Did you participate in the peer review of the grant
applications for the CARES Act for AFG?
Chief Altman. I did. It was completed right after we did
the AFG grants in the beginning of the year and we followed
right up with the CARES Act grant. It was $100 million for PPE
for all departments.
I believe the issue is a lot of the smaller departments
didn't get it in time. Somehow, they didn't get the information
out to them so that they can apply for it. That is why we had
to do--the first time we didn't have enough applicants apply,
so we came back around the second time and we captured more
departments. But I feel the same way, the smaller departments
just didn't have--in such a short period of time from when it
was announced to when they--from the opening to closing, they
probably issued the information in time, but also, then again,
the quality of the application they submitted was the issue.
Ms. Cammack. Excellent. OK. Thank you.
Turning now to Mr. Jared Maples up in New Jersey. The
fiscal year 2021 budget request proposed a 25 minimum percent
non-Federal cautionary requirement for the grant programs that
do not carry a statutory cost share. Now, how would a 25
percent cost share impact the current programs and initiatives
funded through all of our preparedness grant programs, in your
opinion?
Mr. Maples. Thank you for the question.
The No. 1 thing about cost share is the investment
required, which is good in many cases because it requires the
local municipalities and our State resources to come to the
table with that investment. However, we want to make sure that
when you are talking about cost matching that it allows the
flexibility within it so that the State and local
municipalities, our partners here, can spend that money
effectively.
So I think the biggest impact on that--we would prefer zero
for sure--I will tell you that from our side--to give us the
maximum flexibility and make sure we can dedicate all those
dollars directly toward the programming--the Federal resources
of course available. So, I mean we are in favor of having zero
cost match. But when there is cost match, we recognize that it
does force that specific investment. We want to make sure that
we are working with our State and local partners across the
board to reflect those investments and the importance of each
of those investments, the ownership, if you will, in some of
those programs.
A great example in New Jersey is our Secure the Shore
Initiative where we talk with our shore communities about
vehicle ramming and some of the concerns we have on our
boardwalks, for example, and making sure those local
municipalities are coming to the plate with resources and
dollars as well.
So I think that is one example of what we do with some of
our Federal dollars in cost match that is effective. But,
again, we want to be careful that it allows the flexibility to
the local municipality, that it doesn't take away from other
resources.
Ms. Cammack. Excellent. Thank you.
Chairwoman Demings. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Staff has informed me that we are encountering technical
issues. Accordingly, we will take a brief recess until we can
resolve the issues. Once the issues are resolved Members will
receive notice and time to resume the meeting. Members and
witnesses will please remain on the platform with their cameras
on and their microphones muted.
The committee will stand in recess subject to the call of
the Chair. It should not be long. Thank you for your patience.
[Recess.]
Chairwoman Demings. The Chair will now recognize Members
for questions they may wish to ask our witnesses. In accordance
with the guidelines laid out by the Chair and the Ranking
Member, I will recognize Members in order of seniority,
alternating between Majority and Minority. Members are also
reminded to unmute themselves when recognized for questions.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Good morning. Thanks, Madam Chair, for
this very important hearing. Thank you to all of the witnesses.
Let me thank some of the witnesses for mentioning that the
issue of security and emergency preparedness comes in many,
many forms, and for acknowledging the terrible insurrection
provoked by White supremacists and insurrectionists who were
there to attack Members of Congress, the Speaker of the House,
and the Vice President. Obviously, preparedness is important
for local jurisdictions because we never know what an emergency
really is.
So I am interested in that kind of flexibility in terms of
not discerning what kind of emergency a jurisdiction will be
encountering.
So let me first of all start with Governor of Hawaii. Thank
you for your presence here, and as well the director of
homeland security for New Jersey.
Give me just a short assessment at how important grants and
response from the Federal Government are in a manner that
allows you to respond to what is at that time an emergency.
Emergencies don't send notices and they don't give people a
knock on the door, they just come.
Governor.
Governor Ige. Yes, certainly. Thank you so much for this
opportunity.
As you said, often times we don't know what the emergency
will be and what the full scope of the emergency will be. For
many of the States, and Governors taking action to respond to
emergencies, we all make a commitment of local resources, but
FEMA and Federal support was very, very important, especially
for those catastrophic events that exceed the capacity in any
given State. I do think it is important, some emergencies do
require access to Federal resources, whether it be Department
of Defense or other claims of assets that we don't have access
to at the State level.
So it is very important, the emergency response and the way
it is structured, from county and local jurisdictions to State
coordination to Federal coordination is very important. We
continue to work to improve coordination between all levels of
government. Most emergencies require an all forms of Government
response in order to best serve our communities.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Time is of the essence.
Director Maples, that very same question on timeliness and
expeditiously getting resources to you when an emergency comes.
Mr. Maples. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you for the
question.
Certainly, no-warning events are the hallmark of what we
prepare for in Homeland Security. To that end the dollars that
we get from our Federal grant program go a long way for both
strategic initiatives and tactical initiatives and how we
operate.
So when we are looking at the Jersey City attack or
Hurricane Sandy, or really down the line of a lot of these
events that have happened in New Jersey over time, we dedicate
the dollars for strategic, implementing programs. Things like
training exercises, strategic assessments, so the threat
assessments that I talked about and the technology behind that,
cybersecurity events. We do a lot of strategic investment. Then
also the tactical investment. Investing in the tactical gear,
equipment, and training allows our first responders to get in
place.
Then the Governor talked about that Federal interaction.
Pretty much any incident that happens in New Jersey is going to
have some sort of a Federal nexus almost immediately. So
building the relationships on the front end become a huge part
of how we get through those and create resiliency.
Ultimately, our goal is to stop those incidents from
happening before-hand, whether they are man-made, or try to
mitigate the nature of natural ones, but then also build a
resilient community on the back end so we can recover in a
better footing.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Rolon and Mr. Altman, in terms of the local impact.
First of all, COVID-19 has been devastating to law enforcement,
both police and firefighters. Thank you for your service.
In the course of just answering my question about the
importance of these grants, the DHS Preparedness Grant Program,
being detailed enough to be able to meet the needs of local
entities, such as police and fire, if you respond to that, but
more importantly, what impact it has when you need PPE for
pandemics and can't access them because of the lack of dollars
or the lack of access to Federal grants.
Chief and Battalion Chief. Chief, would you please go
first?
Chairwoman Demings. The gentlewoman's time has expired and
the witnesses may very quickly and briefly answer the question.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I am so sorry. I can't--I didn't see the
clock. It is not showing up on these, so I apologize. Thank you
so very much. If they would----
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you. The witnesses may give brief
answers please.
Chief Altman.
Chief Altman. Would you like me to go first?
Chairwoman Demings. Yes, please, go first.
Chief Altman. I believe the PPE for our firefighters is
very important. We did run down to close level zero for a short
period of time, but with our neighboring community fire
departments and our hospital, they were able to keep in
support. But without local grant funds, we wouldn't be able to
keep up with the need for the amount of calls that we have had
for COVID. We just would not be able to handle it.
Chairwoman Demings. Chief of police. Thank you. Chief
Rolon. We can't hear you. You are on mute. Now we can hear you.
Chief Rolon. So early on there were a lot of unknowns and
so there was a lot of concerns that the equipment that everyone
was recommending was not readily available. Thankfully, as time
progressed those needs became less, but the availability to
have access to them also was facilitated.
So, to be honest with you, the early stages of the pandemic
were nightmares, but beyond the first 3-4 months, I think
everyone realized that, hey, we saw light at the end of the
tunnel in the funding process and the support mechanism in
place was exactly what we needed in order to get beyond the
hump that we were facing.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam
Sheila Jackson Lee.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the State of
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Chairwoman Demings and Ranking
Member Cammack, for holding today's hearing.
I represent much of Louisiana's gulf coast. I certainly
understand the importance of preparedness for disaster
mitigation. It is an on-going challenge. I also spent many
years in law enforcement, and I know that a well-funded police
force is generally a well-prepared police force. It is
essential to protecting our communities and our first
responders.
So the Department of Homeland Security Grants are
undoubtedly a necessity in this process. I appreciate my friend
and colleague, Chairwoman, for holding this hearing.
Mr. Altman, you mentioned in your written testimony, which
I have read, that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
has helped your department's, Ocala Fire Rescue, response to
natural disasters. We are particularly concerned about that.
Hurricanes, hazardous materials incidents, technical rescues,
fires, medical emergencies, et cetera.
Would you further explain to America and to the committee
your experience with DHS grants assisting natural disaster
response? Give us an overview there, sir, from your
perspective.
Chief Altman. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
I started on our USAR team, which is an operations team.
Originally I started on special operations in the 1990's and in
mid-2000's USAR came about. We responded to everything from
Katrina on forward, just about every natural disaster that has
happened in the southeast region. That is my department. We
have--we are made up of, like I said, Gainesville and Marion
County. What happens is we get the best training for our 4
departments that can put together, best the State has--that our
country actually has to offer. We have the great Florida State
Fire College right here in our backyard and we teach the
military from all over the world and everything right here in
Ocala. So we have the most up-to-date. So the grants, what they
have done is given us the best equipment, they have given us an
amount of money to train that we would not ever have been able
to afford the training. Any one of these departments with the
resources the departments have, would not have been able to
afford to do the training that we got.
So when we do respond to these natural disasters, we are so
much better equipped and we have so much more training that we
could have had any point without having the AFG grants. They
have made it where we stepped up--I am sorry, go ahead.
Mr. Higgins. Would you concur and just clarify for everyone
that is tuned in here that your grant applications and
approvals are allowing you to train, but you are not just
training your department. Speak to the magnification of your
training impact due to the access to grant monies for training.
Chief Altman. Sure.
Mr. Higgins. How many departments come train with you?
Chief Altman. Well, at a minimum we have 4. We will have 4
big departments come train. Sometimes we have departments all
the way from Key West, out through Jacksonville, all the way
through the panhandle of Florida that will come down and train
with us.
So using all of the equipment that we get for our Task
Force team, it is not just used here locally to even be trained
on, it is training throughout the whole State of Florida. It
just depends on the different times. We offer different classes
at different times and different training events. At least
quarterly we all meet and get together in different areas from
up in Jacksonville to Orlando. We have guys in Orlando actually
that are there today because of grant funding doing training.
So it is all the State of----
Mr. Higgins. So it certainly magnifies. Would you agree,
just in closing--and then I have a question for Mr. Rolon--
would you agree that the DHS grant system allows you to save
lives and preserve property, protect property and save lives?
Chief Altman. Absolutely, 100 percent.
Mr. Higgins. There is a direct correlation there, is there
not?
Chief Altman. Yes, there is. Yes, there is.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, sir. God bless you.
Mr. Rolon, in my remaining time, would you please advise to
the State and local law enforcement that will ultimately watch
this, when it comes to applying for and implementing the best
use of DHS Preparedness Grant Programs, what words of advice
would you have in my remaining time--which, Madam Chair, I
cannot see the clock, but perhaps you could advise the witness.
Chairwoman Demings. The gentleman's time has expired, but
the witness may answer the question.
Mr. Higgins. Oh, I apologize, Madam Chair. My time has
expired, but perhaps he could answer.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Demings. Chief, you are on mute.
Chief Rolon. Thank you very much.
I think it is critical for every community, regardless of--
it is not a one fit all. Every community has to be measured by
what the risks are for that community. I think that is where in
part sometimes we come up with these processes that say you
must meet these criteria, but it is for the general market that
is trying to capitalize on these grant opportunities. Maybe we
need to re-tweak how it is that a city like ours, as compared
to Newark, New Jersey, you know, and see if whatever criteria
is being set for all to follow is right or not. I think, again,
in our case, in our area we have suffered as a result of it.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much, Chief.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the State of
New Jersey, Mr. Payne, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just thank you
and the Ranking Member for this very timely committee hearing.
I will start with Mr. Maples, who I know very well, and has
been very helpful to this committee in the past. Mr. Maples,
for the past few fiscal years the risk ranking and funding
levels for the Newark, Jersey City, and New Brunswick, New
Jersey, UASI jurisdictions, have fluctuated, bringing in an
element of unpredictability to the jurisdictions' budget for
fiscal year to fiscal year, an issue that I spent a lot of time
engaging with FEMA when I was Chairman of this subcommittee.
The question is how has this unpredictability impacted
emergency preparedness in New Jersey?
Mr. Maples. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Again,
thank you for your partnership and friendship over the years.
I will say this, that unpredictability in this business,
particularly when we look at strategic investments and
strategic programming, is very challenging. That is, it is a
lot more efficient, and it is a lot more strategic, quite
frankly, to be able to develop the goal that we want to develop
by having a little bit more consistency in those rankings. When
those rankings drop, for example, to your point, when some of
those dollars go away, investments that we thought we were
going to be able to make and some of our municipal partners
were going to be able to make, we have to push them back, or
not even do them in some cases.
So those are direct impacts on things like strategic
training initiatives, exercises, some of the tactical
preparations of--some of the specific tactical equipment, for
example. If we can't invest in those and only have a specific
funding source, that unpredictability causes a lot of problems
for us to respond to those no warning events that we have
talked about.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
While in office, former President Trump consistently
proposed significant cuts to DHS Preparedness Grants. Now that
the Biden administration is at the helm of the Department,
please explain the importance of robust funding levels for
these grant programs, including how emergency preparedness will
be impacted if cuts that the Trump administration proposed were
enacted.
So are you there--are there any specific sections of DHS
Preparedness Grant funding that you could use immediate
additional support?
Mr. Maples. So thank you again for that.
I think one of the biggest standout areas that we can talk
about is the cybersecurity realm. Right now there is a 7.5
percent dedication in the current grant streams to
cybersecurity. That is an evolving threat, that is an
incredibly emerging threat of a whole profile, high impact to
our National security. Certainly in New Jersey everything from
ransomware incidents throughout our municipalities up to our
strategic investment in critical infrastructure protection,
that is one area where I think we can see if not a dedicated
grant funding stream from our DHS counterparts in the Federal
Government, certainly enough taken what we spend or is
allocated throughout the investment matrix.
Then also when we talk about this preparedness, those
efforts, I think the more preparation that we can do, the ``P''
in preparedness in OHSP, and it having--those exercises having
those communication networks established, which we try to do
every single day. If those dollars are increased, I think we
will see a lot of impact from an investment perspective.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, sir. Once again, it is good to see
you and thank you for always supporting us here.
With that, Madam Chair, I will yield back.
Chairwoman Demings. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Iowa, Ms.
Miller-Meeks, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much, Chair Deming and
Ranking Member Cammack, and to all the witnesses for this very
important hearing. It is fascinating to me, being a former
director of public health, especially after the emergency
preparedness and homeland security took place.
I also want to thank Representative Payne for giving me an
opening for my question.
So this is for Mr. Director Maples. Within the State of
Iowa, as a State senator, I had to advance legislation because
of some of our localities and our cities because of
cybersecurity. They were ransomed and being paid in bitcoin. We
know that China, the Chinese Communist Party, now has its own
cryptocurrency and is trying to advance that. I think that is
extraordinarily troublesome and problematic for the United
States.
You had mentioned, and in your written testimony, you said
that you were welcoming conversations with DHS about the
dedicated funding for prioritization for cybersecurity. Both
State, Homeland Security Grant Program, and UASI recipients are
required to spend 7.5 percent of their award on cybersecurity.
As you had just started earlier, would you be able to elaborate
your thoughts on additional dedicated funding for
cybersecurity?
Mr. Maples. Sure. Absolutely. One quick adjoinder to the
previous question that I will add to this so that it impacts
your question as well, which is the other side really impact
would be the non-profit and security grant program. I think
there can be programs implemented very quickly that we will see
a lot of impact from. So I do want to make sure I mention that.
From a cybersecurity perspective, I thank you for the
question. It is a great one. No. 1 is there has been this
tremendous convergence of threat that we see. So previously a
cybersecurity incident may be isolated as a specific on-line or
cyber environment incident, and now you see this nexus between
extremism, whether it be recruiting, whether it be on-line
pieces; ransomware is a criminal act. You see an incredible
nexus from our foreign organizations like our foreign state--
organizations like you talked about with China, that there is a
real benefit quite frankly to them to impact us, whether it be
through causing chaos on-line, causing those attacks,
exfiltrating information, or IP. There is a huge nexus to that
convergence of threat that we deal with every single day in New
Jersey.
So when we talk about an uptick, whether it be again in an
investment percentage or in a specific set-aside grant stream
for cybersecurity, a lot of it will deal with that convergence.
So they have to connect. It can't just be independent of the
extremism piece and a lot of other preparation and preparedness
grants that are out there. It has to be complementary. But then
on a cybersecurity side, it is things like getting the small
local business, because they become targets, they become
targets of something as big as a Chinese state actor all the
way down to a criminal actor on a small level. You see huge
impacts in New Jersey that I am sure you do in Iowa as well,
from a dollar figure, from economic impact, from a trust in the
system that we can protect PII and all the information and data
that is available, we can protect our networks.
So the dedicated streaming, at least in New Jersey--of
course that is what I am speaking on behalf of--we can dedicate
that funding to--for technology, for resources, for personnel,
for access to communication platforms, to really increase our
capability with the Federal Government to team up together to
beat that convergence.
So I think that is how I would answer that one.
Ms. Miller-Meeks. I only have a little bit more time left,
but I am so glad that you brought up the issues that you
brought up, because we also have disinformation from--you know,
from other governments that are not friendly to the United
States. Hopefully you saw the recent Wall Street Journal
article talking about both Russia and the Chinese Communist
Party with their disinformation campaigns on social media to
exaggerate the side effects from our vaccines for COVID-19.
This is extraordinarily serious. We know we have to get through
this pandemic. It is part of--I am sure it has impacted all of
you and your jobs in emergency preparedness. You know, your
thoughts on that type of disinformation campaign by foreign
leaders in the digital or internet realm.
Mr. Maples. Thank you for that question. That is a--I hate
to say it has become part of our wheelhouse in New Jersey.
The Governor and I spoke very early in the pandemic and we
realized there was a problem. One of those was a state-
sponsored--and I don't want to get into the specific details--
but a state-sponsored actor started a text message strain that
started--really started some of the panic around that first
March time frame. It said essentially that they had a friend
that is high-ranking at FEMA or the military and they are going
to kick the doors in and lock the entire country down. That is
what led us to start saying well, this is a core Homeland
Security problem. I was getting calls from private-sector
leaders, Chairmen and Chairwomen, company CEOs, you name it,
public sector, and people were really concerned about that.
That was 100 percent a foreign influence misinformation,
disinformation campaign.
That led us to the vaccinations, like you said, and really
across the board. Some of the unrest that we have seen over the
past year-and-a-half. So on our website at NJOHSP.gov, we have
got a dedicated web page toward combatting the disinformation
and misinformation. Again, we have seen this now in New Jersey
as a core Homeland Security discipline and problem set that we
have to deal with, and turning that narrative by being
trustworthy, transparent, direct, with the information. We are
an apolitical organization, we fight to maintain that
apolitical nature, and we do that through, again, those
mechanisms.
Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much for your answer and
thank you, Chair Demings, for indulging his response.
Chairwoman Demings. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Thank you.
As you know, cybersecurity is one of those areas where we
think about what keeps us up at night, I would say
cybersecurity does. It is certainly the new weapon of choice.
Governor, in the fiscal year 2021 the Department added
transnational crime and cyber threats. To the threat portion of
the grant risk formula and to the vulnerability piece of the
formula it added isolation to try and better account for more
remote locations that nevertheless are at risk, particularly at
this time of heightened domestic terrorism.
Governor, in your view, do you think these changes help to
more accurately reflect the current threat landscape? If not,
why not?
Governor Ige. Thank you so much for that question,
Chairwoman.
It definitely does improve the threat landscape. You know,
as Representative Meeks had asked, the cyber threat is a
Nation-wide threat because we are all connected. You know, we
are definitely seeking and encouraging the Congress to dedicate
a stream of funding to cybersecurity. We are seeing more
sophisticated threat actors, as Mr. Maples had commented. We
have nation-state threat actors using misinformation campaigns
to confuse the residents across all 50 States and territories.
It becomes more important that these international actors--and
I think the real threat to the American way of life is no
business is really prepared to deal with these nation-state
actors. They are becoming more sophisticated. The cyber
terrorists from out of country have access to the networks
within our country. I think most importantly the weakest link
in the network is where those cyber actors, those bad actors
will enter the network and wreak havoc. So even the smallest
county, the smallest business how now has been encouraged to
embrace the technology and being part of the network, can
become the weakest link and the area of attack.
So I do think it is very, very important. This change is
important to recognize the nature of the cyber threat all
across the country.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much, Governor Ige.
Chief Altman, I know you talked earlier about grant
applications and how some of the smaller agencies just don't
have the resources and how you are working together.
Could you talk just a little bit about how you are working
together to address a cyber threat to the agencies in your
region?
Chief Altman. Thank you, Ms. Demings.
As far as us working together, we have--obviously our IT
departments are working, and we have to do training. We
actually--we have a weekly training. We have a multi training
where we all meet and get together and address whatever threats
or intelligence for cyber training.
Our department has budgeted--put a certain budget together
and our city put a certain budget together just to maintain and
fight against cyber threats. Like you said, ransomware has
become something that is very, very real. I would just like to
get this up so I can do this meeting on this; I had to give to
our police department and make sure that the computer didn't
have anything that was going to affect us for cyberware.
So we have actually been held accountable on our city side
for somebody for some ransomware. Our department works with our
neighboring cities and counties and we have a joint commission
that works for cybersecurity.
Chairwoman Demings. Chief Rolon, I know you spoke earlier
about the city of Orlando's commitment to this area. Anything
else you would like to add in the area of cybersecurity or
cyber threats?
Chief Rolon. We have to ensure--we have to make sure that
whatever project has been allocated for future funding that is
needed to support this important portion of the grants system
is there in order for us to be able to best prepare for
potential attacks. It is an ever-evolving process, it is an
ever-changing process. So the fixes of today may not be the
fixes of tomorrow, so we have to have the right people to
provide us the support and the right funding to have the
equipment to counter these threats.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey,
Ms. Bonnie Watson Coleman.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Chairwoman and Ranking
Member, for this hearing and thank you for--I didn't know if
you knew I was on. I was getting a little nervous.
First of all, let me thank all the witnesses, not just for
sharing your information with us and your concerns, but for the
service that you render to the States and counties and
municipalities. We are grateful for the work that you do.
Mr. Maples, I am very--I am Jersey proud. I am very proud
of the work that you are doing. I am so glad that you kind-of
amended your interest in what were greater needs when you
talked about community organizations, especially those I am
very concerned about, the UASI grant.
Madam, I am--I don't know if I am causing the feedback,
but.
So I know that there was a proposal----
Chairwoman Demings. If the gentlewoman would suspend.
Would all Members just make sure that you are muted. Please
make sure you are muted.
The gentlewoman may proceed.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, it is much
better.
I know that the Trump administration had proposed
increasing the eligibility of UASI grant recipients and at the
same time reducing the amount of money that was going to be
available. Had that happened, what would that have meant
materially in the State of New Jersey? That is one question.
No. 2 is I know we have got cybersecurity issues, I know we
have nation-state issues, I know we have foreign attack issues,
but it is clear that we have White supremacy attack issues.
With that in mind, are we looking to bring in faith-based
communities that didn't necessarily--weren't necessarily
vulnerable to foreign terrorists, but would be very much
targeted from White supremacists? That would be the Black
churches in particular.
Mr. Maples. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you for
your kind words. Both great questions.
So, No. 1, the loss of dollars and an increase in
applicants would definitely have a huge impact in New Jersey.
We, as you know, are, again, one of the most diverse States in
the country and that also extends to our religious community.
Also through our community action and non-profits who are
eligible for those grant dollars. So we are advocating more
eligibility, but a lot more dollars to be commensurate with
that side, because the loss in the--the impact would be we just
wouldn't be able to get as much--as many dollars directly to a
synagogue or a church or a temple or any of those other
organizations that are out there because--well, I mean clearly
we just need the funding aspect to that.
So we really rely on these dollars in our State to be
resilient, to prepare our communities across all of the
counties. One of the challenges has been the eligibility in all
21 counties. We don't necessarily have the Federal side. That
is an area we would love to see that expansion and we are
seeing that now.
But the dollars have to go up not down here--period.
Because those are used for cameras, locks, alarms, training,
vital.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Maples. Then as far as our faith-based communities, I
love that you asked that question. It is something we focused
on from Day 1. Some of our community leaders, across all
communities, but in particular the communities that you just
mentioned, in our African American Black communities
throughout, we had great leads and great impact in developing
relationships that weren't there before through our Interfaith
Advisory Council.
So we have a 3,500-member council that has every religion
in the State. All religions are documented in there in part of
that group and we leveraged that to get those grants out there
to make sure we are engaging directly with the community. But
it is not just us communicating out, it is about the community
let us know what issues are so we can head those off before
they become real problems. So the community question is
something we focus on.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Yes. Thank you.
I am very concerned about domestic violence in this country
now, as evidenced by July--January 6 and beyond. So it is good
to know that we are expanding our desire to contact and protect
those additional types of churches and organizations.
Madam Chair, I see the clock, but I don't know if I have a
little bit more time because of what happened.
Chairwoman Demings. Thirty seconds. Thirty seconds.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Forty?
Chairwoman Demings. Thirty.
Ms. Watson Coleman. OK. All right.
Governor, I just wanted to know whether or not you agreed
with the testimony of Governor Pritzker of Illinois last year
when he said that the initial response to the COVID disaster
was disastrous and air bridge was another type of disaster.
What was your experience in Hawaii and what is your experience
now?
I thank you for the additional indulgence, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Governor. If you would be able to answer that.
Governor Ige. Sure. Yes, I would agree with Governor
Pritzker's assessment. I think the real challenge for all of
the States was because there wasn't strong Federal leadership,
that all of the States were left to deal with the different
aspects of the pandemic in a different way.
I will give you a personal example from the State of
Hawaii. You know, access to personal protective equipment, and
the chiefs of police and fire talked about, you know, from a
Governor's perspective, having our front-line personnel not
have access to PPE was just a poor choice. We did not want to
see that happen. What was happening is that small States like
Hawaii had to increase our orders in order for us to get on the
map. We kept getting outbid by California and Washington State
and New Jersey for critical PPE. We couldn't access and
purchase the equipment that we needed to protect our public
servants.
That is just one example that the initial response was
poor.
Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I think we are definitely
moving in the right direction here now to protect everyone.
Madam Chair, I yield back and I thank you for your
indulgence.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much. The gentlewoman
yields back.
I just want to make sure that we have recognized all
Members. Is there is any Member who has not been recognized?
I would just like to take a moment to ask our witnesses,
you know, COVID-19 was something we had never seen before,
which required us all to do some things we had never done
before. I would just like to hear from each of you how it
affected your work, your ability to work on grants and apply
for grants. Also how has it been working with the Federal
Government and how can FEMA better support you?
Governor Ige, we will start with you.
Governor Ige. Yes, certainly. Thank you so much.
You know, I do think that the biggest challenge in
responding to grant opportunities is that, you know, for the
past 14 months everything has been all about COVID. So, you
know, all of the other kinds of grants and having to apply for
grants in this kind of environment where we have an on-going
National emergency, I think is a challenge for all States. So,
you know, that has made it difficult for the other parts of
support that FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security
provides.
But I would like to say that the support that most States
have gotten from FEMA has been very responsive. You know, the
uncertainty of funding and support for our National Guard, for
example. Not being able to count on how much Federal support we
would get. We are thankful that the Biden administration came
in and guaranteed 100 percent cost match for all of the
emergency activities from FEMA was a welcome commitment. You
know, it is hard to plan not knowing whether we will get no
FEMA support, 100 percent FEMA support, or 25/75. That has made
it difficult for all States.
Other than that FEMA has been proactive and responsive to
our needs. Most recently we see a sea change in transparency
and responsiveness from the Biden administration.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much.
Mr. Maples.
Mr. Maples. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman.
The impact was definitely great on all of us here in New
Jersey, from dealing with it sort-of on the forefront for the
country as far as the amount of cases and deaths and issues
that we were dealing with, but then also preparing for those
multiple tiers.
The good news for us we have really focused on flexibility
and our strategic implementation to deal with multiple threats
or multiple incidents and issues at one time. We do that in
partnership with our OEM colleagues, the Office of Emergency
Management of the State Police. In doing so, have some of the
relationships in place with FEMA and our regional
representatives and everybody in place.
So we were in a position to deal with it, however, I think
that was a tsunami for all of us in that whether you talk about
PPE shortages, whether you talk about some of the existing
other programs that are out there where all the sudden our
people are remote, been dealing with some of those challenges.
So it did impact us. I am proud and happy to say that we were
able to get through that. I think we have been almost at 100
percent of capability throughout this, with some hiccups, but
we punched through those hiccups and, as the great philosopher
Mike Tyson says, everybody has a plan until you get punched in
the face. We got punched, but we are hopefully punching back
here in New Jersey.
So thank you.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much.
Chief Rolon.
Chief Rolon. I think----
Chairwoman Demings. Chief, you are muted. OK, OK, we can
hear you.
Chief Rolon. Thank you.
I have to say, just one time we have to give credit to the
FEMA representatives who work closest to us at the local level.
They were there, they were supporting us every step of the way.
What happened above that, at the Federal level, could be deemed
a different story. But I am telling you, the way the
stakeholders work with everyone to support the needs of the
public safety profession--and I couldn't be more proud of the
men and women of police and fire who know that they were
risking their lives or their loved ones, went out there and did
their jobs. They did not have the luxury to not respond to a
call for services, they did not have the luxury to say, you
know what, let me think about it before I take that call. They
did so knowing that they were putting their lives at risk. So
on a personal note I would like to take this opportunity to
recognize the members of public safety and the heroics that
they performed during the COVID initial phase where the unknown
was dominating everything.
Chairwoman Demings. Thank you so much, Chief.
Chief Altman.
Chief Altman. To copy the Chief's comments, we were lucky
in a position ourselves with our local hospitals and our local
health departments. We were able to get a lot of PPE. Like you
were saying, FEMA on the local level has been great to us. We
were able to operate 100 percent the whole time, never missed a
beat. We obviously made adjustments in how we respond to calls
and how we enter into homes and nursing facilities. Our
community has a lot of nursing homes and a lot of retirement
communities. So that was a huge challenge for us.
But on the local level we were put in a position running a
large amount of calls. Our members and our police and our fire
said we are up to the task and we never hit a level. We got
close, but, as Chief said, we had some hiccups along the way,
but we never missed a beat and were able to perform up to 100
percent at all times.
So I think we were really focused and everything was
handled on the local level very well.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Demings. With that, I want to thank the
witnesses for your valuable testimony and for what you do every
day to make sure that we are ready and to properly respond to
anything that threatens us.
I also want to thank the Ranking Member and the Members of
this subcommittee for your questions.
The Members of the subcommittee may have additional
questions for the witnesses and we ask that you respond
expeditiously in writing to those questions.
Without objection, the committee record shall be kept open
for 10 days.
Hearing no further business, the subcommittee stands
adjourned. Thank you all so much.
[Whereupon, at 1:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]