[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
_______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California, Chairwoman
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
PETE AGUILAR, California
NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Darek Newby, Kris Mallard, Bob Joachim,
Mike Herman, Victoria Allred, and Takeena Strachan
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 3
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Page
U.S. Customs and Border Protection....
1
United States Coast Guard.............
29
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.............................
75
Transportation Security Administration
109
United States Secret Service..........
147
Federal Emergency Management Agency...
183
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
___
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
50-084 WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
BARBARA LEE, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota KEN CALVERT, California
TIM RYAN, Ohio TOM COLE, Oklahoma
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DEREK KILMER, Washington ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
GRACE MENG, New York CHRIS STEWART, Utah
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts DAVID G. VALADAO, California
PETE AGUILAR, California DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey BEN CLINE, Virginia
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
NORMA J. TORRES, California MIKE GARCIA, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona TONY GONZALES, Texas
ED CASE, Hawaii JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, May 11, 2022.
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
WITNESS
HON. CHRIS MAGNUS, COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
Today's hearing on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2023 will be conducted as a
hybrid hearing.
For any members joining virtually, speaking into the
microphone will activate your camera and display your image on
the main screen. Once you start speaking, there will be a
slight delay before your image appears on the main screen, but
do not stop your remarks if you do not immediately see the
screen switch. If the screen does not change after several
seconds, please make sure you are not muted.
To minimize background noise and ensure the correct speaker
is being displayed, we ask that members participating virtually
remain on mute unless you have sought recognition.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves;
however, I or staff I designate may mute participant
microphones when they are not recognized to speak, to eliminate
inadvertent background noise.
If I notice when you are recognized that you have not
unmuted yourself, I will ask the staff to send you a request to
unmute. Please then accept that request so you are no longer
muted.
Members can submit information in writing at any of our
hearings using the email address provided in advance to your
staff.
We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House
rules, beginning with the Chair and ranking member, and then
alternating by party in order of seniority, beginning with
members present at the time the hearing is called to order.
And I am speaking very rapidly because we are going to have
a series of 20-some votes coming up and so, after the opening
statements, I am going to ask members if they would just stick
to one question and keep it within 3 minutes, if they possibly
can, and then we will keep going round until the votes are
actually called.
This morning, we welcome Commissioner Chris Magnus, who is
here to discuss the Customs and Border Protection's operations
in its fiscal year 2023 budget request.
Commissioner, I understand this is your first hearing as
Commissioner since your confirmation. We look forward to a
productive discussion this afternoon.
As we discussed last week with Secretary Mayorkas, one of
the most challenging DHS missions is immigration enforcement,
particularly at the border. There are no easy answers or
solutions because we can't control the conditions in other
countries--drought, violence, persecution, economic
disruption--that lead people to make the desperate decision to
leave their homes. It is within our control to provide a more
realistic legal framework for managing the border, one that
could improve border management, while also staying true to our
values as a country of immigrants, but, unfortunately, Congress
has failed to act.
Commissioner, I want to be very clear that, while there are
clear policy differences in Congress, there is no doubt that
this subcommittee supports what you and the over 63,000 men and
women of CBP do every day to keep our country safe and
facilitate trade and travel that is essential to our economic
well-being.
I will now turn to the distinguished gentleman from
Tennessee Ranking Member Fleischmann for his opening remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And welcome, Commissioner Magnus. I sincerely thank you for
joining us today.
And I also want everyone on both sides of the dais to know
the Commissioner was kind enough to come and visit with his
staff yesterday, and I sincerely appreciate that, sir.
The work agents and officers of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection do every day has immense importance to both our
national and economic security. Put simply, their collective
job is to keep bad things and bad people from entering the
country illegally. On the surface, that sounds deceptively
simple, but the reality is more complicated.
Officers at the Nation's ports of entry must keep
pedestrians, trucks, and other legitimate vehicle traffic
flowing--our economic prosperity depends on it--and at the same
time officers must stop human traffickers and interdict
fentanyl and other drugs that devastate lives and wreak havoc
on communities across the country.
In between the official ports of entry, the border is
marked by rough, sometimes impassible terrain, winding rivers
with thick vegetation, and inhospitable deserts, and vast
distances, making it difficult to patrol. Transnational
criminal organizations, or TCOs, are our primary adversaries
who control every inch of the Mexican side of the border.
Fueled by narcotics and trafficking proceeds, they are
unburdened by our laws, process, and regulations; in their wake
is chaos, instability, and human suffering.
Against that backdrop, we have been in a border security
crisis for the last 15 months, with migrant encounters reaching
unsustainable levels, overwhelming our agents. In my view, this
policy-driven crisis was entirely preventable.
Thankfully, the Administration's ill-advised plans to
repeal Title 42 authority have now been rightfully, in my view,
temporarily blocked by court order, but we know that tens of
thousands are waiting south of the border for this policy to be
reversed. Even at the low end of DHS current projections, we
are looking at a record number of migrants crossing the border.
Our agents and officers will be lucky to keep up with the
overwhelming, dangerous surge of migrants.
What we need from this Administration is a clear and
unambiguous border security policy that quickly removes anyone
who comes across the border illegally. Anything less only
encourages more lawlessness. We cannot manage our way out of
this crisis with more processing capability or by increasing
the ability of non-governmental organizations to address near-
term humanitarian needs. Those are just temporary Band-Aids
that won't hold for long.
We need an effective, sustainable, long-term plan to secure
the border. I look forward to working with you and the men and
women of U.S. Customs and Border Protection as we seek real
solutions to address the border security crisis at hand.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Commissioner, we will submit the full
text of your official statement for the hearing record. Please
begin your oral summary, which I ask that you keep to 5
minutes.
Mr. Magnus. Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member
Fleischmann, members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to
appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection's operational and budget priorities for fiscal year
2023.
There is no denying that these past few years have
presented CBP with some incredibly tough challenges, but the
men and women of our agency stand firm in their commitment to
fulfill our mission.
Now, as you know, this is National Police Week, a time to
honor those who sacrificed their lives in the line of duty.
This year, CBP is honoring 37 men and women who gave their
lives last year in service to their country. I will be with
some of their families later this week and I will tell them
what they already know and what I hope the American people
understand: these men and women made the ultimate sacrifice to
protect our country, keep the American economy moving, help
those fleeing war and oppression, and stop those who would do
us harm. What they did made a difference and I am incredibly
honored, and humbled to lead an agency with men and women who
served with such valor and integrity.
I am particularly grateful for the support of this
committee. You have consistently prioritized CBP as we carry
out our mission. You have provided for fiscal year 2022; what
you provided has enabled us to sustain critical border
security, trade, and travel functions that are essential to the
national security and economic prosperity of the United States.
The President's fiscal year 2023 budget addresses CBP's
dynamic, real-time challenges, and supports CBP's four
operational and budget priorities. First, we will sustain our
mission-critical capabilities and strengthen our workforce
resiliency; second, we will continue to deploy effective
technology and infrastructure; third, CBP will strengthen trade
enforcement, particularly around forced labor, while
prioritizing the facilitation of travel; and, finally, we will
focus our efforts on the safe and humane treatment of migrants
in our temporary custody and care.
Workforce resiliency is my top priority. I am excited to be
working on multiple initiatives that include deploying
additional psychologists to the field, strengthening programs
and services to reduce suicide, and developing a range of
resources to address family needs.
I also intend to return as many personnel as possible who
are temporarily assigned to the southwest border back to their
home stations.
Furthermore, CBP is improving our hiring to maintain the
right levels of front-line personnel, which brings me to my
second objective. CBP will continue to deploy modern
technologies to make us more effective. For example, we are
making the detection of illicit goods, including illegal drugs,
faster and more efficient, while maintaining low processing
times at our ports of entry. We are providing agents a complete
picture of remote areas of the border to improve their ability
to communicate with each other and work more safely. And we are
increasing the sophistication of our air and marine assets to
improve interdiction operations.
Overall, investments in these capabilities provides CBP the
flexibility to shift more agents and officers from
administrative duties to the deterrence and interdiction of
illegal border activities.
Now, the third objective focuses on maintaining trade
compliance and security to focus legitimate commerce and the
safe and efficient movement of travelers through the ports of
entry. One area incredibly important to me is our work to
combat forced labor. Building on your tremendous support in
fiscal year 2022, the President's fiscal year 2023 budget
further promotes CBP's efforts to root out inhumane practices
of forced labor in our supply chains.
So, finally, CBP continues to encounter high numbers of
migrants along the southwest border, including single adults,
families, and unaccompanied children. The President's fiscal
year 2023 budget will allow CBP to expand temporary holding
capacity, increase transportation of migrants from processing
away from overcrowded sectors, and provide additional medical
resources to protect the health and safety of migrants, which,
in turn, protects our personnel and communities.
The budget also provides for 300 additional Border Patrol
agents, which along with investments in Border Patrol
processing coordinators, mobile processing, and contract
services, will get more agents back on the line doing the job
they were hired to do, which is securing our border.
I don't want to diminish the challenges we face along our
border, but I am confident in CBP's ability to effectively
carry out our mission and enforce U.S. Customs and Immigration
laws with professionalism and humanity.
So, I appreciate everything you have done to provide
support for CBP's men and women, and I thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Commissioner. And I am just
going to, in the interest of time, forget all my lead-in to the
questions and go straight to the question itself.
Do you believe it is time for the use of Title 42 authority
to end at the border? And can you discuss the numerous changes
CBP has made in how it is processing migrants; specifically,
how you are ensuring due process while also not compromising
necessary security vetting?
Mr. Magnus. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the question.
I am not--Title 42 is immigration--it is not an immigration
law; it is a public health order issued by the CDC and so when
and how it goes away at some point is not within my purview. I
know that at some point it will go away and so we are doing our
very best to be as prepared as possible for that eventuality at
some point.
We believe that Title 8, which is our immigration laws that
are agents were trained in and are used to using, provides
various pathways, it certainly provides for enforcement
consequences, and it provides, I think, actually a better way
to deal with the challenges that we face at the border because,
as I said, there are enforcement consequences and there are a
variety of other pathways that can be taken depending on the
circumstances of any given migrant coming across the border.
I am confident that with the resources that we have that we
are in a good position to deal with the eventuality of Title 42
going away. Thanks to you all, we have soft-sided facilities,
we have transportation, we have medical resources; we have an
entire southwest border committee that has been set up to help
with the planning; we have border processing coordinators and
contractors, as I mentioned in my opening statement.
And so I think we are in a good position to provide not
only efficient and effective engagement with migrants, but also
humane treatment of those migrants through due process, through
assuring that they have a right to asylum that is respected and
dealt with according to law. So I am very confident, as we move
forward, that we can meet this challenge.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I see that my 3 minutes are up.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, consistent
with the chair's request, I too will keep this to 3 minutes.
Most Americans, Commissioner, regardless of their political
persuasion, want a secure border and want to have our illegal
immigration laws enforced equally. The challenge, of course, is
that we sometimes have divergent views of what success on the
border looks like.
Commissioner, can you please describe to us what a secure
border looks like to you in terms of flow, ability to manage
the migrants you encounter, and what percentage of got-aways
are acceptable, sir?
Mr. Magnus. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member.
I think our commitment is to ensure the safety of the
American public, that is our mission at its core. And so, along
the border, this involves the utilization of technology, it
involves infrastructure for sure, but I don't think we can ever
get away from perhaps the most important of the three things,
which is the people.
I think we have one of the finest, most well-trained, and
most capable group of men and women working for the Border
Patrol, and I think they are in a very strong position to
address the very issues that you have raised.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Commissioner, can you describe what steps need to be taken,
in your view, to secure the border?
Mr. Magnus. Well, I think it really is a three-legged
stool, as I was saying, of personnel, of technology, and of
infrastructure. I think we are making good progress with all of
those things. We are increasing the President's budget. It has
called for an additional 300 members of Border Patrol, 300
additional Border Patrol--I'm sorry, border processing
coordinators, and additional contract personnel.
And, see, what the additional contractors and border
processing coordinators allow us to put more agents back out
into the field, on the line. And, I think, the more agents we
have on the line with the right technology and the right
infrastructure, the safer we can make the country.
So I have--again, I think we have the right combination of
things to address the challenges that we are going to have to
meet.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
In my waning seconds, are the resources in the President's
budget request for CBP enough to secure the border just as you
have described, is it enough?
Mr. Magnus. Well, I think, first of all, we are working
with the resources that we still have in the current year
budget, which will, I think, in many ways help us meet the next
year's challenges. We are already--we have taken steps with
soft-side facilities, as I said, transportation and medical
needs that we will have to have to address any possible surges,
the level of coordination I think is very strong.
And so I think we are going to be in a good position,
especially adding those additional personnel that I mentioned,
to meet those needs.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, Commissioner
Magnus, thanks for being with us today.
I want to start by raising a very disturbing New York Times
article that I read this week. The article reported on a group
of QAnon members camping out at the southern border with the
goal of intercepting migrant children before Border Patrol
picks them up. I assume you are familiar with the article?
Mr. Magnus. I'm sorry, I haven't actually read that
article, but I have heard a little something about what you are
describing, but I haven't read the article.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. Well, we will give you a printout with
your team as you leave the hearing today.
The article goes on to say that, once the group has coerced
migrant kids to their camps, they ask the children to provide
addresses and numbers of family members or friends that they
plan to join, and the group contacts those individuals
themselves. The goal of this outreach is to disrupt the
migrant-vetting process run by DHS and HHS.
This is so alarming to me, and it raises huge privacy and
harassment concerns, not to mention risks undermining important
safety protocols. What are you and your colleagues at HHS doing
to ensure our vetting protocols are keeping kids and
communities safe despite this interference?
Mr. Magnus. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
There is really nothing more important to me and I think to
my colleagues within Border Patrol than the safety of children.
And so what you are describing is certainly very troubling to
me and something that we would want to pay a great deal of
attention to.
We work hard to appropriately vet children who come across
the border, so we can make sure that they go, whether it is
with HHS for further care and support or whether they are
accompanied by a parent to a particular destination or outcome,
we want to make sure children are well taken care of. So
anything like what you are describing would be very troubling,
and it is certainly something I am willing to look into further
and would be happy to talk to you or your staff further about.
Ms. Underwood. Great. The article describes more harassing
behavior from this group, like engaging in a car chase, where
they attempted to run a humanitarian aid vehicle off the road.
Separately, the group leader announced to his followers on a
Facebook live that, ``We are building our little army, so get
ready.''
This behavior is extremely dangerous. It jeopardizes the
safety of DHS employees, migrants, and border communities. And
as CBP and its partners work to put an end to these activities,
I am here to work with you.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Magnus. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, Commissioner
Magnus, thank you for being here today. My thoughts and prayers
go out to the 37 CBP officers that died in the line of duty,
and it also goes out to their family members.
From my understanding, in the past two years, we have seen
a historic rate of CBP officers die in the line of duty, which
may or may not be a direct correlation to this administration's
failed policies on the border, because we have seen over the
past two years record numbers of apprehensions, record numbers
of drugs, record numbers of human trafficking, all in the last
two years.
You know, one thing that concerns me extremely a lot, and
not only is this a national emergency and we should be treating
it like a national emergency and deploying the National Guard,
and giving governors the authority to protect our citizens
because our federal government is failing to do that right now,
I want to address drug interdiction.
Last year alone, over 900,000 pounds of hard narcotics were
seized at our border. And we are talking cocaine, heroin, and
fentanyl. Of that, 11,000 pounds was fentanyl. But we are
pulling away CBP officers from doing their direct mission and
that is border security and counterterrorism to babysit and to
help basically, I don't know, to take care of the two million
some people that are coming across our border.
How are you addressing the staffing shortages, and also
tell me where are we finding the drugs? Is it at the southwest
border? Is it in the gaps? Is it in the ports of entry? Are we
using--I know Congress has asked to have the port of entries
100 percent and non-invasive inspection technology, scanning by
a certain point, but I see no money was asked for in the
president's budget.
Just where are the drugs coming through at? What can we do
to stop this flow of drugs? Because it is destroying families.
It is destroying communities. And it doesn't matter whether you
are Republican or Democrat or--there is no geographic
boundaries in America. What are we doing?
Mr. Magnus. Congressman, thank you for the question. As
former police chief, and actually in policing for over 40
years, I can tell you that I have seen first hand the
devastation that fentanyl in particular is doing to our
communities. I have dealt with more than a few overdoses and
deaths as a result of this truly awful stuff. So I share your
concern with this problem.
I have been very encouraged, however, by the kind of work
that our agents and officers are doing at the ports of entry
related to drug seizures. It really is quite remarkable, and I
have had the chance to spend some time at these ports of entry,
seeing the kind of work that you are doing--that they are
doing, as you describe with the NII. That is a mouthful.
They are--well, just we are seeing that first of all, the
screening of commercial vehicles getting so much better. And we
are hoping that with the continued expansion of the NII
technology, we are going to continue to see that progress. Also
cargo vehicles in particular were going from 15 to 70 percent
in terms of the inspections with this technology.
And it is simply incredible the way these drugs are hidden,
and the amount of these kinds of drugs. So I think there is
real progress that is being made around the seizures, but I
also recognize that one of the challenges is that the pre-
cursors, in particular for fentanyl, are literally flooding
from foreign countries into various places in Mexico, Central
and South America, and there are production operations that you
would have to--you know, unbelievable, that can produce
literally millions of these pills.
So the criticality of interdiction, particularly at the
ports of entry, because that is where we are seeing most of
this. There is some coming over between the ports, but the
majority is at those ports of entry. And again, I think we are
making significant progress. But there is still plenty of work
to do, no question, and the technology is going to be key to
help us with that.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I believe that through the ports
of entry, it is about 85 percent of the drugs all come through
the ports of entry.
Mr. Magnus. That is correct, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
First thing, it was good meeting with you yesterday. You
learn a lot more there, I think, than in a hearing, but I have
confidence that you are going to do the job and have good
people around you.
Just recently, the chief of Border Patrol said that 7,000
to 8,000 migrants a day could soon become the norm, and that
the Department of Homeland Security is making plans for as many
as 18,000 per day if the Title 42 policy is lifted. To ensure a
safe, legal, and orderly immigration system, your agency
requires the ability to detect, identify, classify, and
intercept equipment, vehicles, and people used in or suspected
of unlawful border crossing.
And integral component to this situational awareness is the
use of mobile surveillance capabilities. That is MSC. CBP's
mobile unit of choice is the light vehicle surveillance system.
That is LVSS. You are familiar with that.
Mr. Magnus. I am, sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Now, it is unclear if CBP is going
to allocate any fiscal year 2022 funds for the additional MSC
light systems, even though many of the Border Patrol's legacy
truck-based systems need replacement as they are nearing the
end of their expected service lives.
And my question is, are you familiar with the MSCs, you
have said you are, light. And with the growing number of
encounters CBP is experiencing at the border, how valuable is
this platform for our agents in the field? Furthermore, what is
the status of the fiscal year 2022 spend plan, and will it
include funds for mobile surveillance units?
And it is my understanding it is so much easier and better
for your mission to have these vehicles move and have the
equipment in the back. And that is why the--they have become so
popular with your agency.
Mr. Magnus. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I am
familiar with this particular technology, and I agree that it
is very valuable. And the value, really, is not only in terms
of what it is capable of detecting in terms of activity, where
they might need to make an arrest, or deal with a particular
problem, smugglers, whatever the case might be. But also, in
particular, it is portability. The fact that it is flexible,
that it is easy to maneuver from one location to another.
There is fixed technology, don't get me wrong, that has
considerable value, but the ability to move this particular
surveillance technology from one location to another has proven
to be very useful, and is getting very positive feedback from
the Border Patrol agents that are using it.
So, yes, I would continue to be interested in how we can
incorporate this into our regimen in the future, and would look
further to talking to you further about it.
That is something that I would have to get back with you
on.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Get back with me on, yes.
Mr. Magnus. Yes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Commissioner. And I think we have a shared priority in making
sure the agents, the CBP, have the tools that they need to do
their job effectively, and keep our borders safe. And I think
one of those tools that I have had a chance to see in person
are the automatic surveillance towers. They do a lot of really
good work to help support agents.
I have heard from agents who rely on those. And I would
just ask you to continue to look to those as a great investment
in technology to help our agents at our southern border to
continue to do their jobs with that innovative technology.
And especially when you talk about workplace resilience as
being a huge priority for you, I know that this has been a
strain on our agents. And a lot of the reason we have to rely
so much on technology is because they are strained with the
influx of immigrants at our southern border. And this will get
worse after Title 42 is lifted. I mean, anywhere from between 7
and 18,000 a day is what we are planning on, right?
And so what are you hearing from agents on the ground about
Title 42 in place right now.
Mr. Magnus. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
I think that there are--you know, our concern is that we
have the best tools available to address the challenges at the
border. And one of those tools is really Title 8, which
provides for enforcement mechanisms that--and other pathways
that I think our agents feel would be really helpful to them,
as opposed to some of the issues that they are dealing with
with Title 42. You----
Mrs. Hinson. But if Title 42 becomes permanent, which would
be Congress's job, and which we have a bill ready to do on the
floor, and we are calling for, are you hearing from your agents
that that is a helpful tool for them to enforce and process
people quickly at our southern border?
Mr. Magnus. Well, one of the problems with Title 42 is that
basically what it allows you to do is return somebody to the
other side of the border, or repatriate them to not even all
countries, but certainly some. And then, of course, what we
see, though, is over and over again, those individuals who have
been, you know, walked back across the line, so to speak, they
come right back.
Mrs. Hinson. Repeat customers.
Mr. Magnus. Right. And they see them over and over again.
So what I am hearing is that the more useful resource is
Title 8, because what it provides for are multiple, basically,
consequence pathways, including enforcement. And there are
multiple avenues even for enforcement to deal with people who
have--who committed more serious criminal offenses, who are
repeat border crossers.
Mrs. Hinson. But so you--you have heard from agents,
though, who want Title 42 to remain permanent?
Mr. Magnus. No. What I am saying is that I think agents----
Mrs. Hinson. I am asking if you have.
Mr. Magnus. I am sorry.
Mrs. Hinson. I mean, have the agents----
Mr. Magnus. No, I----
Mrs. Hinson [continuing]. Come to you or any of your
supervisors and said they want this to be permanent? Because
Secretary Mayorkas said that they had.
Mr. Magnus. What I am hearing, Congresswoman, is that the
agents, and I have been out in the field to multiple sectors,
talking with a wide range of agents. And they are telling me
they want the most effective tools that provide for
consequences.
Their frustration is that they are dealing with some of the
same individuals over and over and over again, with basically
no consequences. And that is the challenge with Title 42.
Mrs. Hinson. We need to give them the tools to actually
enforce the immigration laws at our southern border?
Mr. Magnus. Right. Which is not Title 42.
Mrs. Hinson. It definitely helps is what we have heard from
agents. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you. And I will shorten this. Look, I
led a letter focused on trans individuals that are, you know,
far more likely to seek asylum in the United States due to
their vulnerability, and the discrimination and acts of
violence.
I led a letter in July, asking for the release due to the
increased risk of--to their health and well-being in a letter
to the Department of Homeland Security.
I also inquired about the policy that the department has in
place for trans migrants. Can you detail a little bit what
policies and procedures CBP have in place to ensure the safety
and protection of particularly vulnerable trans individual in
custody?
Mr. Magnus. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And
assuring the safety of anyone in our custody is one of--is key
to our mission. This is part of what defines us as humanitarian
care providers. And so with individuals who identify as whether
it is trans, or any other part of the LGBTQ community, first
and foremost, we want to have them in a situation where they
are safe, and where they can talk about their particular
situation in a medical environment. Where they have privacy.
Where they know that they can give the information and not be
worried about whether they are talking to somebody in a
uniform, which could be perceived as intimidating in some way.
So the intention then is on a case-by-case basis to make
the--and really, with their choosing to some degree, do they
want to be detained in an environment where they are by
themselves? If so, that is something we can arrange for. But
again, the goal is to keep them as safe as possible.
Mr. Quigley. Sure. And I think it makes sense, given the
problems--the really severe problems that have taken place for
trans individuals and detention. You know, we would request
that you look at, particularly more options to detention for
those, given their vulnerability, and again, the problems that
have taken place through the last several years.
Mr. Magnus. Thank you for that feedback. And I think the
other piece of this, Congressman, is assuring that our
personnel have the necessary training, which we are working on
to assure that they understand the particular needs of members
of the LGBTQ community, which includes the trans community.
Mr. Quigley. We appreciate your consideration in this
matter. Thank you for your service.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. No, go ahead.
Ms. Underwood. I want to ask you about electronic health
records. As a nurse, I have seen firsthand how important good
record keeping is for good patient care. Continuity of care is
always a challenge, but even more so for migrants, who may be
transferred from one federal agency to another.
I witnessed this firsthand when I visited the border in
2019, and I saw medical records being kept with pen and paper,
if at all. In fiscal year 2020, Chairwoman Roybal-Allard and I
secured funding for CBP to establish an interoperable
electronic health record system, or an EHR. And in fiscal year
2022, the committee again provided funds to continue improving
CBP's health record system.
After almost a year and a half since it first received
funding, I know that CBP has taken large strides in EHR
implementation, and I look forward to learning more. So can you
walk through the work that CBP has done to implement the
congressionally mandated EHR system; when and where did CBP
begin the program; how many sites have the EHR up and running;
and how many medical documentations have been recorded so far?
Mr. Magnus. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I
agree that the electronic medical records is critical, because
data has--we have to have the ability to share those records
from one location to another. I mean, it is nothing less than
what we would want in terms of our own medical records.
Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir.
Mr. Magnus. So this is a very important resource. I am
happy to tell you that this system of electronic medical
records has now been--it is fully deployed. It is at all 75 of
our OFO and Border Patrol locations along the southwest border.
And my understanding is that it is working well.
What we hope to do going forward is expand on that even
further with various apps, and capabilities for additional
information sharing and privacy that will make this an even
more valuable tool.
Ms. Underwood. And it is a mandatory utilization, right? It
is not optional for your staff or contractors?
Mr. Magnus. That is correct.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. Fantastic. Do you have any future
implementation plans for this program?
Mr. Magnus. Well, the program is fully implemented within
the various locations, but of course, our plan is to continue
to evolve it as the technology continues to improve, as we have
seen in other environments. So it will be a continually
improving resource for us.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to
Mr.--I appreciate you being here.
I am a little surprised, though, at your comment concerning
the security of the southern border and that we are doing a
good job, particularly when we had over 100,000 deaths last
year from fentanyl overdose. And it is coming from our ports of
entry--points of entry.
And yet, when I look at the budget for next year for CBP,
the very technology that you talk about that was being so
successful has been zeroed out; we are not asking for anything.
Can you tell me why we are not asking for that technology
to be--I think only 2 or 3 percent of vehicles are being
screened right now with this great technology. It is great
technology. Can you talk about that just a moment?
Mr. Magnus. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
I am very pleased with the implementation of this
technology so far. It is something that I have had the chance
to see, as I said, at multiple locations and I know that it is
making a difference. We have continued--we still have
implementation work to do and there are still resources
available in the current year's budget, so our intention is to
build on what we already have to continue to evaluate what
makes--the thing that is interesting about this is, what makes
sense in terms of NII at one location may not be the same as
what works best at a different location.
So, what we are doing right now, and we have the resources
to do this, is to continue to experiment with what makes sense
where. I think that is going to help us increase the rate of
screening. I want to see that rate increase, just as you do,
because I know it makes a difference, not only in terms of drug
seizures, but other contraband, as well.
In fact, you know, when we are looking at----
Mr. Rutherford. So, Commissioner, based on the previous
funding, and you are going to go after more of this non-
intrusive inspection equipment, and right now we are doing
about 2 to 3 percent of the vehicles that are passing through
our ports of entry, can you tell me what percentage you think
you will get that to by the end of next year.
Mr. Magnus. Well, we are hoping to bring it as high as 40
percent as we continue to build on and utilize and sort of move
around this NII in different ways to maximize its
effectiveness. So, that may be a good aspiration----
Mr. Rutherford. Good.
Mr. Magnus. I'm sorry.
Mr. Rutherford. I really like--that is aspirational, and I
appreciate that, and we need it because we lost 100,000-plus
young Americans last year to fentanyl, which is completely
unacceptable.
And I want to ask one more thing. I know when Title 42 is
lifted, Secretary Mayorkas said that he is got this six-pillar
plan that he is going to--well, he has already started rolling
it out. He said he rolled it out last September of 2021. But I
can tell you when I look at those six pillars, Commissioner, I
don't see a single item in those six pillars that will stop one
body from coming across that body illegally.
Everything in that is about enhanced processing. We are not
trying to stop illegals; we are trying to process them more
quickly. That makes absolutely no sense to me and I want to ask
you what are we going to do to stop illegal immigration when
Title 42 goes away and all these numbers go up, and they are
going to skyrocket, besides surging personnel to the southern
border from USCIS or from VA medical, neither of which I
support, and I hope to God that we don't make USCIS and VA
medical take over the job down at the southern border, because
we are not doing our job down there.
Can you talk about why all of the, in your budget,
everything to stop a body from coming across has been zeroed
out. Everything that is looking at increasing processing--all
you are doing is processing illegals. Can you explain that.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Commissioner, I'm sorry.
Mr. Rutherford, you have gone well over the 5 minutes and
there are other members who have questions.
If you could submit that response for Mr. Rutherford for
the record, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Change topics a little bit. You know, we have been talking
about the southern border a lot and I would a lot to talk about
the maritime border, since I represent the Mississippi Gulf
Coast.
But there has been a lot of discussion on port delays and
supply chain issues and I was wondering, have we gotten down to
the root causes of the port delays? You know, what has CBP--you
all may have done because a lot of blame was being targeted
toward our ports. Did you all have alleviate the congestion?
What is the status today? I know there are so many things
occupying the pediatric from baby food shortages to Ukraine. I
would just like to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. Magnus. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
You are right, it is hard to get away from the southwest
border issues sometimes, but I could not agree more than
maintaining the supply chain as effectively as possible so we
have a free-flow of goods into this country, and out, is
absolutely essential and it is one of the key parts of our
mission.
I know that our key personnel are working closely with
those who are managing the ports. We have seen that
relationship very strong; for example, at a number of other
maritime ports. It is hard to say sometimes exactly what the
cause at any given location is; it is not the same thing across
the board. So, at one port of entry, delays or challenges may
be caused by one set of problems, but--and that may be
different from what is happening at another location.
But I know our personnel who are working at those ports and
who are dealing with those issues have close working
relationships with management at those ports and they are
identifying problems, they are working together, and we are
seeing things absolutely improve.
Mr. Palazzo. Okay. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to follow-up a little bit on something you talked
about earlier. You know, when you talked about morale and
workforce retention, last year when Secretary Mayorkas visited,
along with Chief Ortiz, the agents told them morale was at an
all-time low. They heard that from people.
One agent said, quote, that is the problem, Chief, for evil
to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
That is exactly what is happening here: good men are doing
nothing. You are allowing illegal aliens to be dropped off in
communities. We know some have been dropped off and flown into
our communities.
So, in my last round of questions, you spoke about the
repeat offenders: people who are continuing to come across the
border. And in the past, some who cross the border faced a
series of consequences for illegal crossing between ports of
entry. Operation Streamline, for example, which was really
intended to be prosecutorial tool for detouring future illegal
crossings, when we talk about that six-pillar plan that the
secretary put out to address the border crisis, consequences
was one of the pillars there.
So, as a former chief, I am sure--a police chief--I am sure
you understand the value that quick and timely responses and
consequences play in detouring future illegal behavior. So, do
you believe that we need to, as members of Congress, implement
additional consequences for illicit border-crossers?
Mr. Magnus. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
And I appreciate the comments you made related to the
welfare of employees who are working in both, Border Patrol and
the ports of entry. I think employee welfare and morale is
related to a lot of things. And as we talked about earlier,
certainly, the presence of consequences is an important one
which is provided under Title 8.
But I think there are other aspects that influence morale
as well, certainly, and they tie into, really, the priorities
that I have, because they involved mental health services,
suicide prevention, the sense that employees are being listened
to and that their ideas are being heard----
Mrs. Hinson. And culture is a huge part of that, obviously,
but I think, you know, this group, specifically, in addressing
the Secretary and the Chief was overwhelmed by the surge at our
southern border. So, I mean, that is clearly having an impact
on morale with the agents, correct?
Mr. Magnus. I think that one of the things that the agents
that I talked to, and probably some that you may have talked to
as well, convey is that they would like to be back out on the
line doing the work that they had signed up to do, which is why
the steps that we are taking in terms of getting the processing
done--and the processing is important. It is not just data
entry. This involves looking at somebody's criminal history. It
involves evaluating the seriousness of what they may have done,
their asylum claims.
But all that aside, we are trying to have that kind of work
done by trained, border processing coordinators, and including
contracted coordinators in the short-run so, that we can get
the agents out of that role as much as possible and back on the
border, where they need to be. Because I think that will
increase morale, and then when we combine that with the
consequences that are available under Title 8, as opposed to
Title 42, and with the other things being done that show that
we care about their welfare, that we are interested in
supporting them and their families in different ways, I think
those are the things that can really make an impact on morale.
Mrs. Hinson. We absolutely need to enforce the consequences
and our laws.
Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I think I am now going to ask my
one question. I wanted to make sure everybody else had an
opportunity.
There has been a lot of discussion about the fact that
Border Patrol agents are not out, you know, doing the work that
they were hired to do. A large part of that problem, as I
understand it, is the inability to hire the amount of agents
that you actually need. For example, in our fiscal year 2022
bill, we provided funding for 19,555 Border Patrol agent, which
was, roughly, the same number supported in prior years, but the
number of onboard agents has continued to fall far below that.
And then we also provided funding for 720 Border Patrol
processing coordinators.
This budget, the fiscal year 2023 budget proposes funding
for 300 additional agents, above the level funded in the
current year, along with funding for more processing
coordinators.
My question is, what is the status of hiring for Border
Patrol agents and in-house processing coordinators and what are
the major obstacles to hiring up to your funded personnel
levels and how are you addressing those challenges?
Mr. Magnus. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
There is not one simple answer as it relates to getting
more agents onboard, and I can speak to this, having been a
police chief and struggling with exactly the same kinds of
problems, related to bringing more officers onboard in a
department. It is very hard to keep up with attrition, and so
you have to really be creative and thoughtful about the steps
that you take.
I think we are doing that within CBP. What we are finding,
first of all, is that we needed to improve or application and
hiring process. It took far too long. It was spread out in ways
that made it difficult for candidates and made it difficult for
us to compete for candidates.
We have taken strong steps now to consolidate different
pieces of that so we can bring people onboard more quickly and
effectively. It is far more streamlined than it was.
But I think there is a bigger challenge that we face, and
it is one of the things that I have talked to our agents about,
and that I hear from them is really one of their biggest
frustrations, and that is the public doesn't really understand
the scope of what they do. They don't appreciate what the job
involves, the different complexities of it, the opportunities
that come with it, and, frankly, I don't think we do as well as
we could be doing in sharing that information, not with just
the public at large, but more specifically, with potential
candidates that we want to bring in to doing this work.
So, my commitment is to help us, and it is not so much
rebrand the agency, as it is share with the public and with
potential candidates for these jobs, a better understanding of
the opportunities that they face if they go into this work, and
to show that we really do care for them once they are in one of
these positions. I think those are things that are going to
help tremendously with our ability to hire, and just as
important, to retain, especially in this day and age, where it
is hard to get anybody in a law enforcement position.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, I am hoping our subcommittee will
be helping in that regard, and with that, the subcommittee is
adjourned.
Thursday, May 12, 2022.
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
WITNESS
ADMIRAL KARL SCHULTZ, COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
Today's hearing on the Coast Guard's budget request for
fiscal year 2023 will be conducted as a hybrid hearing. For any
members joining virtually, speaking into the microphone will
activate your camera and display your image on the main screen.
Once you start speaking, there will be a slight delay before
your image appears on the main screen but do not stop your
remarks if you do not immediately see the screen switch. If the
screen does not change after several seconds, please make sure
you are not muted.
To minimize background noise and ensure the correct speaker
is being displayed, we ask that the members participating
virtually remain on mute unless you have sought recognition.
Members are responsible for muting or unmuting themselves.
However, I or staff--I would designate may mute participants'
microphones when they are not recognized to speak to eliminate
inadvertent background noise. If I notice when you are
recognized that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask the
staff to send you a request to unmute.
Members can submit information in writing for any of our
hearings using the email address provided in advance to your
staff.
We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House
rules, beginning with the Chair and ranking member and then
alternating by party in order of seniority, beginning with
members present at the time the hearing is called to order.
Let us begin.
I welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on the Coast
Guard's fiscal year 2023 budget.
Admiral Schultz, we are pleased to have you testify before
us today.
I would like to start by extending my gratitude to you and
all of the men and women of the Coast Guard for your service to
our Nation. And in particular as you approach the final month
of your service as the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the
end of your distinguished Coast Guard career, I want to thank
you for your partnership with this subcommittee to ensure that
we have the information we need to make informed decisions
about the Coast Guard's readiness and funding.
Over the past several years this subcommittee has made
significant investments in modernizing the Coast Guard's air
and marine assets, consistently providing funding well above
the budget request levels. We have also gone out of our way to
help the Coast Guard retain and recruit a diverse qualified
workforce and to modernize your shore infrastructure and
technology systems.
In the fiscal year 2022 funding bill, we provided $11.5
billion in discretionary funding for the Coast Guard, which was
$550 million above the request, and it included funding from
many items on the Coast Guard's unfunded priority list. Many of
these items will directly support the well-being and readiness
of Coast Guard personnel and their families, such as childcare
investments, tuition reimbursement, and improving housing
facilities. We were able to fund important investments to the
bill to recapitalize the Coast Guard's air and marine fleets,
including an additional HC-130J aircraft, additional MH-60T
helicopters, and resources for the Polar Security Cutter
program.
Admiral Schultz, I commented during our hearing with the
Secretary that the Department has many difficult missions and
that the subcommittee is not always in agreement on the way
forward on some of those missions. When it comes to the Coast
Guard, I think it is fair to say that the subcommittee is
largely in sync on supporting what you do and how you do it.
I will now turn to the distinguished gentleman from
Tennessee, Ranking Member Fleischmann, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I thank you
for this hearing, and I thank you for your kind words towards
the Admiral and towards the Coast Guard. And, yes, this is one
of those areas, those rare areas where the majority and
minority both see very much eye to eye.
Admiral, good morning.
Commandant, I have some prepared remarks, but I would like
on a personal level to say to you, sir, and to all of your
coasties, thank you.
Before I served on this subcommittee, I had a very positive
view and notion of what the Coast Guard was and is. It was a
famous golfer by the name of Arnold Palmer who was a coastie
who I thought of an awful lot of when I was young. But because
of and your wonderful staff and your coasties and the travels
that we have had, that positive view has increased
exponentially.
I think our country is extremely well served by the United
States Coast Guard, your outstanding men and women, enlisted
and officers alike. We have been with them together in Alaska
and Hawaii. I have been with them in New York. Truly an
incredible job that you all do. And so a personal note of
thanks and also to you, sir, on your upcoming retirement. It
has been a pleasure to work with you, and I thank you, sir.
The Coast Guard, our Nation's maritime first responder, is
a powerful asset in our national arsenal to combat illicit
human and narcotics trafficking, maintain the safe and
efficient flow of commerce through maritime transportation
system, ensure safety at sea, and protect our natural resources
and those of our allies and partners against illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing. Coasties also save
countless lives at sea and project power and influence well
beyond our shores.
Changes in the operational maritime environment from the
increased mission requirements in the Pacific to a rapidly
changing Arctic where strategic competition with China and
Russia is at the forefront of U.S. national security challenges
continues to drive increased demands for Coast Guard assets and
personnel.
We owe it to the men and women of the Coast Guard and to
the American public they serve and protect to make the proper
resource investments to ensure mission success. This includes
funding modern ships and aircraft like the National Security
Cutter, Offshore Patrol Cutter, and the C-130J aircraft as well
as assure facilities medical support and adequate housing.
Traveling with you, sir, to the 14th District a few weeks
ago, I was impressed by the work done by our cutters and
aviation crews across the vast distances of the Pacific.
Spending time underway aboard the Fast Response Cutter Oliver
Berry was one of the highlights of the trip. We also discussed
the strategic importance of the Coast Guard as we work to
counter the rising influence of China and the Services' role in
maintaining American influence and presence throughout the
Pacific.
Capabilities wielded by a Coast Guard National Security
Cutter operating autonomously or embedded with a Naval battle
group extends the rule of law throughout the Pacific. NSCs
multiply the power and influence of our Nation by leveraging
the unique authorities of the Coast Guard to build partnerships
and protect and defend our national interests throughout the
region.
Similarly, the increased range, endurance, and capability
of the Fast Response Cutter enables operations to support our
friends in the Pacific, increase our presence in the Gulf of
Alaska, perform national security missions in the Middle East,
and conduct vital search-and-rescue missions in the Caribbean.
The ships and aircraft we fund today will be the backbone
of the Coast Guard's fleet for the coming decades, and assets
that support those cutters and aircraft must also be adequately
funded to maximize mission effectiveness.
Sir, I look forward to your testimony today. Admiral,
again, I thank you for your many years of service to our
Nation.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Admiral, we will submit the full text of
your official statement for the record and please proceed with
your oral testimony.
Admiral Schultz. Good morning, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Fleischmann, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify today. On behalf of the
entire Service, I thank you for your enduring support of the
Coast Guard in our efforts to restore service readiness.
Our 2022 appropriation, as you highlighted Madam Chair,
reflects Congress' continued commitment to addressing the Coast
Guard's readiness challenges and maintaining progress on
surface, aviation, and infrastructure recapitalization, while
also highlighting the Service's increasing role in shaping
global maritime affairs in national security. Because of your
support we are acquiring the Nation's first new heavy
icebreakers in almost half a century to enable a U.S. presence
in the geo strategically important High Latitudes.
Looking back, I am incredibly proud of what we have
accomplished together. Thanks to this committee's strong
support and advocacy, the Coast Guard's operations and support
funding increased more than 20 percent between 2019 and 2022.
Looking forward, in any given year, America's Coast Guard
will be asked to contribute more. For example, the sea
continues to be the most deadly route for regular migration,
and to date the Coast Guard has intercepted more noncitizens in
9 of the last 10 years. With increased missions and historic
inflation quickly outpacing budget growth, the Coast Guard
finds itself in an all too familiar position, the tension of
remaining mission-ready today or building service resilience
for tomorrow. I offer that we can and must continue to do both.
The administration's 2023 budget better positions the Coast
Guard by investing in our mission-ready total workforce,
mission-enabling technologies, and the modern assets and
capabilities to meet the challenges today and in the future,
but critically important work remains. To advance our national,
economic, and environmental security interests in an
increasingly complex geopolitical and technologically
sophisticated environment, we must maintain this growth to our
operational funding as well as keenly focus on the resilience
of our capital infrastructure.
As a multimission service, we are exceptionally agile and
adaptive, executing our 11 statutory missions simultaneously,
and we must apply these same skills to build a stable and
predictable PC&I funding budget of about $2 billion to optimize
our ability to plan for the recapitalization of both our
facilities and our assets.
We are currently executing about $1.4 billion dedicated to
facility improvements, including the $350 million provided in
the 2022 appropriation that supports 11 critical facility
investments, as well as a supplemental inject of $430 million-
plus provided by Congress as part of the Infrastructure and
Jobs Act which in itself funds 18 distinct projects.
This generous funding enables us to address some of our
aging infrastructure, including inventory that dates back to
the late 18th century, as well as provide new infrastructure
for new assets. But our legacy assets remain vital operational
contributors, and we cannot shortchange their maintenance and
sustain the funding.
The administration's 2023 budget request supports continued
progress on the Offshore Patrol Program absolutely vital to
replacing our legacy fleet of 210- and 270-foot Medium
Endurance Cutters which largely operate in the Atlantic. These
cutters have served with distinction, some for 55-plus years,
but are increasingly more difficult and expensive to maintain.
This budget request increases our fleet of MH-60 Jayhawk
helicopters which will operate with our National Security and
Offshore Patrol Cutters as force multipliers. New Jayhawk hulls
are converted former Navy air frames, what we call our
Sundowner Program, will enable us to optimize aviation
operation both in nearcoast and distant waters.
Beyond 2023, we must continue to resource the Coast Guard
the Nation needs, to ably conduct domestic operations, as well
as resourcing expanded operations abroad in support of our
national interests, including those detailed in the White
House's recent Indo-Pacific strategy.
The Coast Guard contributes significantly to domestic as
well as global maritime safety and security by employing our
Services' unique blend of authorities and capabilities
collaboratively alongside our interagency and international
partners to help us achieve national objectives across a very
broad spectrum of strategic challenges.
Serving as the 26th Commandant has been the honor of my
lifetime. I am particularly thankful for your support of our
Coast Guard families to include increases for childcare
subsidies, investments in Coast Guard housing, enhanced medical
service provision, including for mental health, and tuition
assistance, for the key to our success has always been and will
remain the men and women of our United States Coast Guard and
their families. They are the backbone of our Service who
proudly stand watch 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a
year, always ready for the call.
And, finally, I would like to thank the professional staff
on both sides of the aisle as they have been truly teammates,
partners, and always professional to deal with.
So thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward
to your questions, ma'am.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Admiral Schultz, as you know, the Coast
Guard's fiscal year 2023 request includes $48 million to expand
operations in the Indo-Pacific region in order to promote
economic prosperity, environmental resilience, and unrestricted
lawful access to the region's maritime environment.
We have discussed the Coast Guard's mission and activities
in the region, including its illegal and unregulated fishing
enforcement. But the Coast Guard is also playing an
increasingly important role in support of the country's
national security interests.
Since this role may be unfamiliar to some people and given
its importance to the Coast Guard, could you please discuss
your Indo-Pacific role in more detail, including the increased
presence of the Coast Guard and some of the challenges you face
in the region?
Admiral Schultz. Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you for the
question.
We have been a Pacific Coast Guard for more than a century
and a half, and I think today when you look at the pacing
threat of the national security and National Defense Strategy
being China and increasingly assertive China, we find ourselves
bringing some unique capabilities, authorities to the Indo-
Pacific region. You know, if I survey the region, particularly
the Oceania region of the Pacific Island nations, you know,
many of their maritime services look more like the United
States Coast Guard than they do the United States Navy. They
are focused on their domestic interests, protecting their
sovereign waters, protecting their economic interests, which
may be, you know, IUU fishing, illegal fishing, harvesting
their resources, making catch, and bringing to many businesses
distances thousands of miles away versus putting in their local
economies.
We have the capability to work inside the first and second
island chains supporting the 7th Fleet Commander. We sail our
National Security Cutters there in increasing battle rhythm.
Back in 2019, we had two National Security Cutters there for 5-
month deployments each sort of heel-to-toe, back-to-back. That
is probably not a pace that is sustainable every year, but we
will have National Security Cutters supporting Admiral Paparo
and the 7th Fleet on an annual basis going forward.
We put three new Fast Response Cutters, with the
committee's support, in Guam. You know, that replaced two
Island-Class Patrol Boats that had about 3,600 available hours.
We have more than doubled the patrol hours available in Guam on
those three Fast Response Cutters. We team them with our buoy
tenders in the region. We can team them with the National
Security Cutter. We go out, and one of the operations we use is
operation Aiga--that means family in Samoan--and that is a term
where we are partnering across the region to offer an
alternative. You know, the United States model is free and open
seas. It is the Western model of democracy. We think we
compete, and we think the Coast Guard really plays well in that
in that space.
I talked about, ma'am, in closing, you know, I talked about
this flat surface being 180 degrees, and, you know, the first
150 degrees is where we cooperate and where we compete, and
there is this lethal wedge which the Coast Guard has written
into the war plans in all parts of the world, but I think that
is the place where our authorities, our bias for action, our
people-to-people interactions can really move the needle for
the Nation on this increasing challenge of an increasingly
assertive China.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Why are certain activities falling under
the responsibility of the Coast Guard versus another U.S.
military service, particularly the Navy? And what special role
is the Coast Guard playing?
Admiral Schultz. Well, ma'am, I would say the Coast Guard,
you know, different authorities, so we have a law enforcement
authority which I think makes us unique. Many of the maritime
nations across the globe, you know, are not just defense. They
are defense integrated with law enforcement protection of
sovereign interest. I think that looks a lot like portions of
our 11 statutory missions. That is why I think our relevance is
in high demand across the world. As I mentioned in the Indo-
Pacific, I think off the African continent, there is a line
item in the budget about the Atlantic partnership that writes
us in I think in the Arctic.
If Admiral Gilday was sitting next to me, he talks
increasingly that the Coast Guard is represented in every
fleet. On the Arabian Gulf, the 5th Fleet, we have fielded four
of six new Fast Response Cutters, given the committee's
support. The second two were recently commissioned and will be
heading over this summer. But we are standing watch alongside
the Navy.
I would say, ma'am, I think what has really evolved in
recent years, late 2020, myself, the Commandant in the Marine
Corps, General Berger; the CNO, Admiral Mike Gilday, we signed
the Tri-Service Maritime Strategy, Advantage at Sea, and that
really looks at how do we take United States Naval capability,
link it together, not do redundant things but do complementary
things, align the use of the Marines, the Coast Guard, and the
Navy in the most optimized strategic utilization of the
capabilities and authorities we bring, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And I think you may have touched
on this, but how will the 2023 request help the Coast Guard
maintain this robust presence in this geographically diverse
and expansive area?
Admiral Schultz. I will tell you, Madam Chairwoman,
historically--and I guess I can give you the good part of a 40-
year perspective, we generally go do, and then we come back and
talk about, you know, the funds to continue to do. We have
actually got some funds up front here for additional
capabilities capacity in the Arctic, in the Atlantic
Partnership off the Africa continent, which is a burgeoning
area. When you look at projected population growth, Africa will
have 25 percent of the world's population in, you know, 25, 30
years from now. I look at the Indo-Pacific. There is monies up
front that allows us to put more people, more operational
assets, do some different thinking.
One of the budget initiatives talks about we had a
Caribbean support tender, the Gentian, of yesteryear that
operated in the Caribbean, multinational crew. The budget talks
about taking an existing Medium Endurance Cutter and use it
potentially as an Indo-Pacific type support tender center. So
if we could put an international crew on that, squeeze, you
know, some portion of 185 days, that would up our game, our
contact, that people-to-people relationship, ma'am.
So I think what is different is the recognition. The White
House national security strategy on the Indo-Pacific called out
one agency by name. It was the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard I
think is recognized as having some unique applicability in the
region, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, ma'am, and we are
excited about that. We have to be careful not to get too far
ahead of our skis. We still have all of our domestic
responsibilities, you know, thwarting illicit counter narcotics
in the hemisphere. But with the support of Congress attenuating
our readiness challenges, I believe we can do it well and do it
all, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Admiral, again, good morning, sir.
Point of privilege before I begin with my questions. I do
want to thank the Coast Guard. I should have mentioned this in
my opening remarks. We have Commander Tom Huntley with us. You
have been so kind to allow to work as a coastie with the
committee. This has not only helped us with the Coast Guard
issues but across the homeland portfolio. So I thank you very
much for that. And to the extent we can continue that
relationship in the future, I think that would be----
Admiral Schultz. Well, Ranking Member, I thank both you and
the chairwoman. We have had fellows on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
Admiral Schultz. And those have been tremendous
opportunities for our men and women to learn about the
legislative process and bring that expertise back to the Coast
Guard and share with their shipmates as well. It helps make us
be a better Coast Guard, sir.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. And it helps--it is mutual. It
helps us as well, sir.
Admiral Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Traveling with you, sir, I saw the impact that the National
Security Cutters and Fast Response Cutters are having to
counter China's influence and strengthen our partnerships in
the Pacific. While the NSCs and FRCs are significantly more
capable than legacy ships, a single cutter can only be in one
place at a time. We previously had five legacy patrol boats in
Honolulu and replaced them with three FRCs. Similarly, the
Coast Guard previously operated 12 legacy High Endurance
Cutters, yet has not obligated the previously appropriated
funds for the long lead time materials for NSC number 12.
Admiral Schultz, with the Coast Guard in such high demand
and the stakes so great, shouldn't we be growing the Coast
Guard's surface fleet to meet increasing mission demands, sir?
Admiral Schultz. Well, Congressman, thank you for the
question.
I would say we are amidst the most robust shipbuilding
program since the Second World War for the Coast Guard, so I
think we are building more ships. You know, the 2023 budget
proposes funding for the fifth OPC, long lead time for the
sixth OPC, Offshore Patrol Cutter. That is a great story. Money
is in it for a Polar Security Cutter.
You talked about the NSCs, the FRCs specifically. They are
both tremendous platforms. The NSC replaced the 378-foot High
Endurance Cutter built in the sixties and early seventies.
Those ships are--we had 12 of them, and the program and the
record for NSCs was eight ships. With the support of the
Congress, we are building numbers 10 and 11 right now. There
was some long lead funds for a 12th NSC.
Sir, my position, I think, on NSCs has been unchanged. NSCs
are doing remarkable work across the globe. We sailed the
Hamilton into the Black Sea when Russia was mounting forces
near Ukraine's border back in the spring of 2021. NSCs are
plying the Indo-Pacific. We have pushed them up to the outer
fringes of the--up in Alaska, shy of being into the Arctic here
because of the ice and the ice reinforce holes. They are
tremendous ships, sir.
What the Coast Guard remains constrained with is, you know,
there is a top line. And program record of eight, plus three,
that is a good news story. If the Congress feels strongly that
additional NSCs are there, I would say if we could do that, not
at the expense of our priority programs right now, which is a
fleet of 25 Offshore Patrol Cutters, that first ship we will
take acceptance in 2023, first operations probably 16, 18
months later in 2025, you know, that is going to be a very
capable ship as well.
And that package of about 100 new vessels, NSCs, OPCs,
FRCs, throw in the PSCs I think is going to make us the Coast
Guard I talked about when I said the Coast Guard the Nation
needs to do our missions across the globe, sir.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
Congress has provided funding for at least 66 Fast Response
Cutters, including the additional two ships funded in fiscal
year 2022. We are deploying six FRCs at the request of the
Department of Defense for service in the Persian Gulf for port
and coastal security operations. If Congress appropriated funds
to support additional FRCs, could those assets be used to
bolster operations overseas? Is there a demand signal from the
Defense Department for additional Coast Guard FRCs in Bahrain
or for other combatant commanders?
Admiral Schultz. So Congress--first, Congressman, thanks
for the additional $130 million. Program of record was
initially 58 domestically. We worked with Congress in my last
capacity as Atlantic Forces Commander this, capacity to fund
the additional six so we could continue the mission. In Bahrain
I mentioned in my earlier comments four of six are on scene
standing the watch. The other two are coming. They are over
there in Vice Admiral Cooper's arsenal. They are as capable
assets as he has as the Navy is decommissioning already five of
the ten PC-179s early in calendar 2023. The other five will
start going.
So there is a conversation to be had there, sir. I have not
had a demand signal yet from the CNO for additional hulls
there, but I think that is a rational conversation. I have
talked about if there was that demand signal coming, this is
probably the time to have those conversations while we have a
hot production line.
The additional $130 million that you gave us, you alluded
to two additional hulls. We are looking at what that $130
million does. Right now we have about a 43 increase in steel
costs. We have an equitable price adjustment clause in the FRC
contract, so there are about 11 hulls under construction as
that clause is written.
There could be a steel bill north of $100 million dollars,
so we need to come back to the Congress and talk about what our
plans are with that $130 million. I think there is an
additional hull in there. I don't know if there are two
additional hulls, but that is a conversation that we need to
have here as we noodle through this clause, sir.
But the FRCs are terrific, but I call to your addition 58
domestic replace 35 110s. The 110s were programmed upwards of
2,500 hours. In the early years down about 2,000, later in
their life about 1,800. Each FRC is about 2,500 hours. We have
a lot of FRC patrol boat hours. We made some choices taking 87s
out of Hawaii because of budget.
Just to fit inside our budget, we took 13 87-footers off
patrol on my watch. We are doing some artful things with excess
defense articles, sir.
But there is a conversation I believe to have with the
committee on Fast Response Cutters if there is an interest on
that.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Commandant.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Commandant. Glad to see you. We have something of
a history. You were the head of the Coast Guard Congressional
Affairs Committee during my initial time as chairman of this
subcommittee.
And as you prepare to retire now as Commandant, I want to
note that and note your, of course, subsequent service and
thank you for that and thank you particularly for the close
working relationship you have had with me and with subsequent
leadership of this subcommittee. We have thoroughly enjoyed
that and admired your service, and we commend you for it.
One of the memorable occasions for me anyway was a few
years ago when the two of us visited the Coast Guard Base at
Elizabeth City, and our focal point then was the Rescue Swimmer
Training Facility at Elizabeth City. And as you know, this
subcommittee took the lead in funding that all in one blow. We
are very proud of that.
And, of course, that facility is such a good facility and
such an improvement over basically the glorified swimming pool
that had served as a training facility before.
Anyway, that Elizabeth City operation has many, many facets
and many features, and one of them is joint civil military use
at the airport. The Coast Guard does so much for that
surrounding area, and it includes allowing the use of one of
our State's prized HBCUs, Elizabeth City State University, the
use of that runway for their flight training program.
Elizabeth City State is the only 4-year professional pilot
degree training program in North Carolina, and it is one of the
only HBCUs in the country that has a program anything like
this.
Now, the program has experienced growth over the past
couple of years, but the growth is limited, as you well know,
because of the need for some work on the main runway, need for
improvements on the main runway at the airspace. Without some
renovations, student pilots likely will not be able to log the
hours and earn the FAA licenses that they need for their
degree.
Thankfully, the fiscal 2021 appropriations bill provided
for the Coast Guard to repair that runway and to work with the
State and local partners, including the university, on mutually
beneficial enhancements.
So it has been a little over a year since that money was
provided, and I would just like an update on the progress you
are making, the plans you have. Can you give us an update on
the process of repairing that critical runway, any kind of time
frame you can offer, additional resources you might need, or
any coordination that you had with local stakeholders on the
project.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir. Well, good morning, Mr. Price,
and thanks for the opportunity. I worked with you when you were
a chairman, and I think I am going to follow your retirement to
the Tar Heel State, headed down to Wilmington next, so
hopefully I will have a chance to cross paths with you.
Sir, on runway 119, we are very appreciative of the
funding. We recognize Elizabeth State as a terrific partner,
HBCU, that I think there is much similarity. We have drawn some
folks into our CSPI program. That is a terrific partnership
with the Coast Guard, sir.
We have the $25 million. We are working in planning and
design. I believe we should be in a position to award a
contract in 2024 probably of the runway work, done in--you
know, started and hopefully done in 2025. The funding Federal
appropriation I think looks to be able to probably be
sufficient.
Let's talk about maybe a cost share with the State. I think
the monies that this committee and the Congress has supported
us will allow us to probably lift that as a Federal project,
sir. But I think we are on a good trajectory, and we look
forward to keeping the committee updated on the progress, sir.
I know it is a priority for you are, and it remains a priority
for us.
Mr. Price. Thank you, sir. That is a very optimistic and
positive report, and so I appreciate the update and, of course,
we will want to remain apprised of the progress you are making.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Price. God speed to you, sir. Thank you for your
service.
Admiral Schultz. Likewise, sir. Thank you for yours in the
U.S. Congress, Congressman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Admiral Schultz, thank you for being here today. Thank you
for your 40 years of service. Thank you for leaving the Coast
Guard better off than you found it and preparing it for a great
future. And, most importantly, thank you for your care and
concern for the coasties and their families. That is
absolutely--you know, we could see that was one of your top
priorities, and thank you for being here.
As I think about the word ``relevant,'' I am reminded just
a short 10 months ago, the National Security Cutter Hamilton
was in the Black Sea training with U.S. allies, including the
Ukrainian Navy, the same Ukrainian forces that are fighting
heroically against a Russian invasion.
And I think you may have touched on this, but how important
is the U.S. Coast Guard to our Nation's ability to support our
allies in Europe and around the world?
Admiral Schultz. Well, thanks, Congressman, for the
question.
I think I did touch on it, but I will amplify because I
think it is important. I think when you think about the
Ukrainian Navy, the Ukrainian Navy had four former Island-Class
patrol boats. When we were in there in April, we trained with
the Georgians who have some former excess defense sort of like
our--Island-Class patrol boats. The Ukrainians have two of
those. They got two more here late in calendar 2021. Actually
the former Coast Guard Cutter Cushing was sunk by the Russian
Navy and sits at the bottom of the ocean and a total loss of
that crew.
I think we find many of the world's navies look a lot more
like the United States Coast Guard. As I mentioned to the
chairwoman, they have authorities that look very much like us.
So we find ourselves in increasing high demand. And I will
use the term you used, ``relevant,'' sir. I think we are very
relevant as they look at the maritime security challenges, you
know, facing their respective nations, protecting their
sovereign interests, sir.
So I think that is a unique capability, functionality that
the Coast Guard can bring to theaters across the globe. So we
are in high demand in the Indo-Pacific and particularly in the
Oceania region. We find ourselves in increasing high demand off
the African continent. I was over there through request of
General Townsend, the AFRICOM Commander, met him in Rome, met
with 34 chiefs of defense from the African continent, and they
are all looking at the distant water fleets of China in their
waters.
They are looking at transnational criminals, drug
activities, human smuggling. We are looking at, you know, China
with a seaport in Djibouti, looking at something in Equatorial
Guinea on the eastern coast or the western coast of Africa.
There are many interests. How do you team up maybe the French,
the Portuguese, the Danes.
There are many--the Brazilians want to operate off the
African continent. I think there is a unique mission space for
the Coast Guard to take a leadership role there and stitch
together like-minded partners that are concerned about food
sustainment, illicit activities, sir. I think that is sort of
the special sauce that we bring with our authorities, our bias
for action, and the capabilities of the Congress has been
generous to provide to us.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you.
Now, I also appreciate the important expanding role the
Coast Guard is providing as military service and in its
maritime law enforcement roles here at home and in
international regions, such as the Indo-Pacific. Given the
complex environments and interactions Coast Guard units must be
prepared to address from drug interdiction to maritime security
and defense operations alongside the U.S. Navy and other
military services, we included language in the fiscal year 2022
appropriations bill encouraging the Coast Guard to explore the
use of advanced small arms synthetic training systems to help
improve operator decisionmaking, situational awareness, and
tactical skills in high-risk operations.
Could you please describe the steps you are taking to
improve the readiness and effectiveness of your shipboard
personnel for essential skills such as small arms training, and
do you believe Coast Guard units such as your maritime security
response teams would benefit from having access to enhance
human performance in small arms synthetic training systems that
other military training services have access to?
Admiral Schultz. Congresswoman, let me sort of start in
reverse order. I think to the latter question, I think we
clearly want to look at the other--you know, our high-end
operators are deployable specialized forces community. The
highest end folks are what we call the MSRTs.
We have a sub element of the MSRTs that work in the 5th
Fleet over in the Arabian Gulf. We call it the Advance
Interdiction Team. They are the folks that when we see many of
the big caches of weapons, you know, tens of thousands of
weapons fill up the flight deck of the USS Monterey cruiser,
there is generally a Coast Guard boarding team tied to that.
So we want to expose our men and women to the best state-
of-the-art type trainings that are out there, sir.
The specifics to your question, I would have to circle
back. I know there is some language in there. I have not
received the specific update, but I think we want to have
access to the best training, you know, within--there needs to
be an affordability piece. There needs to be an applicability
piece on the type of work we do versus, you know, other high-
end tactical operations in the other services, sir.
But I think we would certainly want to see that, understand
that and, if we have the wherewithal, make a decision to
position our men and women to be as skilled as possible.
I would like to take that as a question and get back to
you, sir, on the specifics. I don't have an informed answer for
you today.
Mr. Palazzo. Absolutely.
Admiral Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Commandant.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Hi, Admiral Schultz.
Admiral Schultz. Hi, Congresswoman, good to see you.
Ms. Underwood. Thanks so much for being with us here today.
It is good to see you too, sir.
I was so pleased to have the opportunity to recently travel
with you to visit the Coast Guard operations in Hawaii with
Chairwoman Roybal-Allard and Ranking Member Fleischmann. We saw
firsthand the critical maritime missions that the Coast Guard
performs to keep our homeland safe, including its important
role in great power competition.
I want to thank you and all of the members of the Coast
Guard for your patience with me on those cutters.
Admiral Schultz. We had a sporty trip on that cutter,
ma'am.
Ms. Underwood. Oh, yes, we did.
Admiral Schultz. For folks that weren't cutter material
people, that was a little sporty for everybody.
Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir.
And today I want to focus our time talking about the Great
Lakes Region. One of the most important resources in the
Midwest is the Great Lakes. Every day 30 million people rely on
the Great Lakes as their primary source of drinking water. The
lakes are also home to thousands of species, and they are an
economic engine for Illinois and the Greater Midwest Region,
supporting 1.3 million jobs.
For so many reasons protecting and restoring our Great
Lakes and their ecosystem is essential. Through its
environmental response work, the Coast Guard plays an important
role in the ongoing endeavor to protect our Great Lakes.
Admiral Schultz, what are the biggest environmental threats
to the Great Lakes that the Coast Guard is seeing?
Admiral Schultz. Well, Congresswoman, thank you for the
question.
As a former Great Lakes sailor myself for 3 years operating
out of Sharvelle mission, it is a special area. It is, as you
mentioned, the home to tens of millions of people. The
criticality, the fresh water resources, from a trade
standpoint, the taconite comes down from up in Duluth and goes
down to the auto industries. It is a critical, viable engine,
economic engine for the Nation, ma'am.
So our interests up there are keeping the Great Lakes
clean, and I think, you know, from a young guy born in the
sixties to where the Great Lakes are today in terms of that is
a whole different story, and it is really a beautiful region,
and we are excited to be part of that. And anytime there is a
spill, we work with all of the private sector partners, State
and local partners.
In terms of commerce on the Great Lakes, we have made
additional investments. We put an extra icebreaker back up
there. Recent years ago there was 640-foot breakers, the
Mackinac. You know, we know the will of the Congress is to take
a look at additional capacity, something Mackinac-like, what we
call the Great Lakes Icebreaker. We have a program office.
Congress has been generous over multiple years of funding
to have north of $20 million there, so we have stood up a
program management office. There is some additional bodies
coming in in the 2023 budget, and we are doing pre-acquisition
activity.
So I think, ma'am, it is looking at the economic activity,
enabling that with icebreaking capacity. It is the
environmentals. It is tremendous. You know, Michigan--you look
at Florida, California, Michigan, those are the three top
States for recreational boating if you sort of take the months
of the year that you really can operate on the water, but many
operate on the ice, maybe not in craft, but out there on
snowmobiles. It is a recreational paradise up there.
So we are interested in recreational boating, safe ice
operations, and efficient economy, and the environmental as
well, ma'am. So we are a multimission organization up there
concerned with all of those things.
Ms. Underwood. Yes, sir.
Now, speaking of our environment, we know that climate
change is exacerbating extreme floods. In fact, more than 40
percent of Americans live in counties hit by climate disasters
in 2021, and extreme weather events will only increase the
severity and frequency in years to come. At the same time,
nearly half of the Coast Guard's shore infrastructure is beyond
its service life with a maintenance backlog of $2.6 billion in
2019. Infrastructure degradation impacts the Coast Guard's
mission capability, leading to collapsed piers and power
outages at facilities with 100-year-old utilities. With more
than 20,000 shore facilities, the Coast Guard has a unique
vantage point when it comes to coastal resilience.
Can you discuss the impact of extreme weather events on the
Coast Guard's infrastructure?
Admiral Schultz. Well, Congresswoman, I think you framed it
well. You know, we are a disaggregated force spread across the
coastlines of the Nation, many in high-cost areas. I alluded to
there are still some facilities that were built in the 18th
century. So when we have the wherewithal, the fiscal
wherewithal to upgrade stations, we try to form it with the
best science and climate information because when we build a
facility, we generally operate it for a long time, ma'am.
So where we have the opportunities to build new facilities,
they are informed by projections on climate change. You know,
generally our work dictates where we are at, so sometimes it is
not, hey, we go to higher ground just by default. We have to be
where the work or the service is.
Having had a chance to travel to the High Latitudes, you
know, when you look at the Arctic, it is really the thermostat
for the planet, and we do see changes. You know, there are many
different scientific thoughts about the increasing intensity of
hurricanes, whether it is directly tied to climate change or
not. I think there is enough there to say things are changing,
and, you know, as an organization that operates on the
coastlines across the country, we are seeing those changes.
So, ma'am, we are tying to inform our thinking. You know,
there are men and women on the Great Lakes that pray for
hurricanes to hit because they see where the new infrastructure
projects come to areas devastated by hurricanes. I say, hey, be
a little patient. We are trying to bring some additional
facilities to the Great Lakes. With the support of Congress, we
have been able to get after some of that. I think if we
maintain the momentum, I talked about, you know, trying to get
to a $2 billion level for our PC&I budget where new assets and
infrastructure projects will continue to buy down the risks in
our old infrastructure, use the best science available in how
we build new facilities and hopefully, ma'am, continue to meet
the needs of the constituents of the Great Lakes, that
beautiful region of the country that it is.
Ms. Underwood. Well, Admiral Schultz, thank you so much for
your distinguished career and your service to our country. It
has been a real treat to work with you during this timeframe.
Thank you.
Admiral Schultz. Congresswoman, thanks for making time--we
appreciate how busy all of your schedules are--to come out meet
the--you know, really the best ambassadors of our service are
the frontline coasties that you met, ma'am, and they really
were honored to have you and the committee leadership here to
spend some time with them.
Thank you.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Admiral. Thank you for coming before us and,
again, thank you for your service to the Coast Guard and to our
country. And, you know, obviously, being from Iowa, we are,
despite our Midwestern location, a direct beneficiary of the
Coast Guard. We have six Coast Guard offices in the State of
Iowa, but also in my district, Dubuque, a Mississippi River
town, is home to the Wyaconda Cutter. So we are very excited to
have you and be able to talk about it today because, as you
know, the Mississippi River is such a huge part of our economy,
maintaining the navigational channel system and your role there
with the Wyaconda and what it is doing as a river buoy tender
is just--the importance to our district can't be understated.
So it is critical not only as we are seeing water levels
change with natural diasters and severe weather events as well,
which we are no stranger to in the Midwest, but also when we
talk about the Mississippi River and it is vital part in the
supply chain process, how important that is for efficiency in
our inland waterways to make sure that our farmers and our
manufacturers can get those goods to market. So I appreciate
your help in supporting that.
So if you could just elaborate a little bit how the funds
that are requested will help to bolster and maintain that
efficiency along the Mississippi via cutters like the Wyaconda
and other means as well.
Admiral Schultz. Well, thank you, Congresswoman, and thank
you for recognizing the important work that goes on in the
heartland and the Western Rivers System. You know, we are a
maritime Nation where 95 percent of our goods enter via the
sea. The movement on cargos across the Western rivers, about
25,000 miles of river, is critically important. With the
support of the past administration, this administration, the
Congress in particular, you know, we are recapitalizing a fleet
of 35 vessels. Some are more than
3/4 of a century old, the oldest ones there, and we are very
excited about that.
Those vessels have limitations in terms of mixed vender
crewing. The new vessels will be fully accessible to our women
shipmates. That is a great thing. That is an interesting
mission set. Many that haven't had the privilege of working on
the Western rivers don't know what they are missing. It is just
rewarding. End of the day you can look back and see what you
did.
We did about 45,000 aids in navigation, and those cutters
do very important work there. So we are very excited, ma'am. We
are going to award a detailed design contract on the first
Waterways Commerce Cutter here this quarter. The fiscal quarter
ends by June 30, so we should be on track for that. I think we
will see the first cutter probably fielded by 2025. And that is
a relatively modestly priced cutter, so we hope we can pace
those out pretty quick and get those 30 ships across the fleet.
The first three, Atlantic Beach, North Carolina; St. Louis,
Missouri; and Sewickley, Pennsylvania. We have identified the
next three ports. They are on the EUPOL for every one of these
cutters requires some different shore sight support to support
the cutters and crews, but I think there is a really good story
there for the Nation. I think there is a lot of energy and
excitement inside the Coast Guard that these will be open to
our male and female shipmates alike. And it is rewarding work,
ma'am, so thank you for addressing that.
Mrs. Hinson. Absolutely.
And just a quick follow-up there too. You know, when you
talk about those new cutters and their home ports, there are
several that haven't been announced yet. So any potential for
any of those to be along the Mississippi River? You know, we
are, obviously, trying to make sure that the investments we
make, you know, to upgrade our lock-and-damn system, you know,
coincide with the great work that you are doing together
because it all fits directly together.
Admiral Schultz. Ma'am, I will tell you there will be a
significant number along the Mississippi River. In terms of--we
mentioned one in St. Louis, will be in Tennessee down the road.
I think as we build out that fleet of 30, a lot of that work is
along the Mississippi.
What we have to figure out is, you know, where--you know,
from a fleet of 35 to 30, there is, obviously, some choices.
They won't be one for one replace. It is where can we best
support those crews. We have found in some places when we can
collocate a couple of vessels, we can do support better. With a
little smaller footprint, we can do more things for those
crews.
So we are sort of working on those on a three or four at a
time and then come forward with a budget ask to support the
major shore piece of that as well, ma'am.
So I think you will see new Waterways Commerce Cutters
plying the Mississippi River, but we have still got a little
work to do on exactly which home ports.
Mrs. Hinson. Great. Well, thank you, Admiral, again for
your service. And I would welcome you any time if you want to
stop in Dubuque, a beautiful Mississippi River town.
Admiral Schultz. I may have some time. Be careful what you
offer me, ma'am. Thanks, Congresswoman. Thank you.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Admiral, it is great to see you, and I too want to echo
great appreciation for your service to the Coast Guard and to
our country. I think you have been an amazing Commandant, and I
really appreciate all your efforts.
One thing I would like to talk to you about--and I am sorry
I came in late, so I missed your comments, but, you know, I
would like to ask about the Dolphin helicopters.
Admiral Schultz. Sure.
Mr. Rutherford. You know, the fleet of 98 MH-65s, that
fleet has saved more lives I am told than any other rotary wing
aircraft in the world, and that is your largest fleet,
obviously, but they are 39 years old. And I want to make sure
that we in Congress are doing all we can to help you in, number
one, your sustainment.
And I understand in this career's budget, if I am correct,
there is $23 million in there for your air operations, and
within that is the sustainment for a no-fail mission for the
Dolphin. Is that----
Admiral Schultz. Sir, to dial into that specificity on
Dolphins, let me circle back and get you an exact number. You
have been funding the committee service life extensions on both
the 65s and the 60s.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Admiral Schultz. And then, you know, the fleet of 98, as we
have talked about drawing down and marching towards an
increasing number of MH-60 Jayhawk Tangos, that is the longer
solution. But we will be flying Dolphins, sir, into the 2030s
and what we need to do, because, you know, there has been some
challenge getting parts. The industry is partnering with us,
Airbus, and we have seen them working very hard to help us find
rotor bars, gearboxes.
So I would say Hitron, the tactical air squadron in
Jacksonville, sir, is probably going to be flying 65s for quite
some time. Our cutters, our legacy fleet of 210s, 270-foot
cutters don't have the wherewithal to land larger MH-60 Tangos
on back, so the ability to do our counter narcotics missions is
very much going to be enabled by our remaining Dolphin fleet.
Right here in the National Capitol Region, the air defense
mission that we fly out of Washington National Airport, 65
mission. I suspect we are building a new hangar, hanger 14,
over on the Air Force property at Andrews. They will still
stand on the ready here, but we will be able to support them
here versus doing that in a split model with Atlantic City.
So we will fly Dolphins, sir, well into 2035, but we will
transition some stations. We did that in Borinquen, Puerto
Rico. We are doing that this summer in New Orleans. We had done
that up in Traverse City. We will probably take on an air
station a year. But I think you will see a 98 fleet drop. If we
went to an all 60 fleet, it would probably be 127 aircraft.
Today we are about 48 there. So about four aircraft a year,
sir. There are four 60s in the 2022 budget, four 60 transitions
proposed in the 2023 budget. So I think it is a pretty good
pace.
We are exploring other options, what a new 60 might cost to
have all of the options on the table, sir. But the Dolphins, we
are confident we will keep flying them. We are partnered with
industry. I think it will be a blended fleet. 98 comes down, 48
goes up, and that really matches well.
The last piece of that, sir, is about 30 air stations out
there. Fifteen right now you can maybe swap out a 60 with a 65
BL hangrit. The other 15 or so you have got to do a lot of
fracture, new hangars. There is big bills with that, so I think
we are on a healthy trajectory pace while it is going forward.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you for that explanation.
And, Commandant, that is why I asked that question. I
wanted the members of this committee to really understand how
important that sustainability budget is for you all and how it
is critical to the mission.
And so I thank you for that.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir. And we will keep that dialogue
open. You know, Elizabeth City where we do the ALC, where we
take those--take those Navy hulls with 8,500 hours and fly them
another 12,000 hours out to 20,000, we are getting new cabins,
with the support of the committee. That is an aircraft we can
fly 20,000 new hours on. These are the Jayhawks.
There is a lot of variables, where we would introduce the
hot production, you know, a new production line on new 60s. I
think we should have an ongoing dialogue, but we obviously need
to continue to drive up the Jayhawk conversation, drive down
the 65 Dolphins, but there will be a mixed fleet of both going
forward, Congressman, for quite some time.
Mr. Rutherford. Good, good.
I would also like to ask you about, you know, I have had a
chance to travel and see firsthand the threat of the Chinese
Communist Party in our hemisphere and around the world. And the
Coast Guard has, I think, a unique mission set that allows you
to play a major role in countering that Chinese influence, both
in the Pacific, Central America, and South America.
And from your work in the Indo-Pacific supporting the 7th
Fleet and your work in the Arctic, the role that you play
there, the U.S.--you know, trying to make sure that the U.S.
remains the preferred customer of different folks across the
globe, can you talk a little bit about as Congress looks at
ways to counter this Chinese influence, this Chinese Communist
Party influence, is there anything specifically in Congress
that this subcommittee can do to enhance that work going
forward for you in the future?
Admiral Schultz. Yeah, Congressman, that is a great
question.
I would say I think it is keeping the foot on the gas pedal
what we are doing today. So we are building new ships on
schedule. We are trying to keep them on budget. I think
maintaining our legacy fleet, you know, so we counter China, it
is not just an Indo-Pacific conversation.
China's distant water fleet, we all saw the articles in the
New York Times, and there are 350 China flag or China
characteristic, maybe South America flag, but most of these
deals are done with no transparency in back rooms, you know,
that fishery off the Galapagos--pristine Galapagos Marine
Reserve, and then that catch gets on a transshipment vessel and
goes back to China.
So our legacy ships are very effective down there, so what
we have found ourselves in recent years is, you know, I am
leaving the equivalent of a couple cutters, you know, from a
maintenance standpoint, you know, off the table that we could
put in the fight. I am leaving, you know, 65 helicopters from a
maintenance standpoint that I can't match with a cutter to be
optimized on the fleet.
So I think the sustainment funds, the readiness
conversation, if we can continue to build that out, maintain,
you know, 3 to 5 percent real growth--obviously, this inflation
bogey is very challenging so, you know, the inflation could eat
up that 3 to 5 percent trajectory, but I mentioned in my
opening statement, you know, about 20, 22 percent increase over
last three, four budget cycles. That is a very good news story
following 8 years of a 10 percent overall loss in buying power
across our operating budget.
So if we can maintain the trajectory and sort of figure out
how to deal with the challenge of inflation on top of that, I
think, sir, we are doing what we can to keep the Coast Guard in
the fight.
Mr. Rutherford. Yes.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
And I see my time is up.
Admiral Schultz. Congresswoman, I spent some time with your
former sheriffs colleagues down at Nease Junior High School.
They have a great ROTC program.
Mr. Rutherford. Oh, yes, sir.
Admiral Schultz. My buddy is retiring, and I had a chance
to chat with some of your sheriffs that served with you. I told
them I would probably see you this week, so they send their
regards.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah, they are great. They are great. Thank
you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That ends the first round, and we are
going to go in a second round.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I just want you all to know we all have
hearings that are happening at the same time so everyone is
kind of moving around.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The fiscal year 2023 request highlights
the Polar Security Cutter program as one of the highest
acquisition priorities. However, the request also includes $150
million to acquire and operate a commercially available polar
icebreaker. When we discussed the possibility of securing a
commercially available icebreaker a few years ago, the Coast
Guard did not believe a commercially available ship could meet
the Coast Guard's operational needs.
What has changed? And is a commercial alternative available
that would meet the Coast Guard's needs?
Admiral Schultz. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think a lot has changed, the short answer. So about a
good part of 10, 12 years to condition the conversation about
the Nation's needs for additional icebreaking capacity. As you
know, the Polar Star is our sole heavy icebreaker now that is
44 years old, and we will operate her, you know, about a single
mission a year, generally going down to McMurdo to replace the
National Science Facility there.
We had the opportunity here during the COVID period to send
her north for a year because they did not do that mission, but
we are, with the support of Congress, about $15 million a year,
about $75 million over, and we are going to continue to bridge
the gap and continue to use the Polar Star here until the
arrival of probably the second Polar Security Cutter because
that will give us some wherewithal and capacity.
I think what is changed in the conversation about a
commercially available icebreaker, ma'am, is the fact that we
have a program of record for three Polar Security Cutters. We
have funded through the first two. There is long lead items in
the 2023 budget. Since day one of the job, I have talked about
a 6-3-1 strategy. I think as a Nation informed by the High
Latitudes studies we probably need a minimum of six
icebreakers.
I have talked about, you know, really a conversation--and
maybe at a little risk of breaking ranks administration, but
former administration, current administration have all been
keenly interested in the Arctic. I talked about maybe four to
six heavier Polar Security Breakers and them some Arctic
Security Cutters.
So as we walked it into the commercially available
icebreaker conversation, ma'am, the first Polar Security Cutter
contractually right now is for acceptance in the spring of
2025, about 3 years from now, in May or so, about 24 or months
or so before she makes her first trip, you know, in 2027, we
could onboard a commercially available icebreaker.
We need a little bit of help on the legislative language
and things to do that, you know, as fast as we could, but I
think we could push that ship into some service maybe by 2025.
If you look at the eight Arctic nations, us, Russia, and
Canada are Pacific and Atlantic nations. Five of the eight are
Atlantic based. We have been using other platforms to partner
and collaborate up around Greenland. I think the commercially
available icebreaker really starts to look a lot like what a
medium breaker--maybe what--we have at least thrown some
lexicon out there.
I have called it the Arctic Security Cutter. That would be
my successor's, you know, obviously can shape that the way she
would like or her team would like, but that medium break, but
this gets us into, you know, a conversation. Before it was a
conversation in lieu of. We weren't going to build Polar
Security Cutters. How about we just lease you breakers, Coast
Guard.
Now we have had a conversation about an additive
conversation. We have a program of record. We can get a
commercially available breaker fairly quick, bridge that gap
from a capacity standpoint. The conversation started as a lease
conversation. We shaped it to say, well, if we are going to
lease something, we could actually do this much cheaper onboard
turning it into a Coast Guard ship.
So $125 to procure the vessel--hopefully that's what we're
thinking--$25 million for crewing. There is probably a bill,
$125 to $250 million to really outfit it over some out year
budget cycles. That would be a medium icebreaker in the Coast
Guard inventory.
There is one domestically available ship that is only 10
years old, very little use on it. We could use that ship to
shape our thinking about what the Arctic security requirements
could look like. We can build some icebreaker sailor capacity.
I think all of those things, ma'am, are a very different
when we are fending off the lease option. Now we are building
the ship we want. It is complicated. The Polar Security Cutter
is very complicated. It was challenged by the COVID
environment, a lot of interaction and collaborations here, but,
ma'am, we are off to the races on that, a little slower.
I hope we start cutting steel this year, but I think this
medium breaker domestic option, commercially available one
really is a bridging strategy. It is a capacity building. It
will shape our understanding, you know, rather than going out
and doing acquisition and, you know, building in the designs as
we go.
We can truly inform what the Arctic Security Cutter
requirements might look like by operating a medium breaker. We
have not done that in an awfully long time, ma'am. We used to
have many, many breakers. You know, about the years I was
coming in, they are going out of service in the early, mid
1980s.
So I think that is what has changed, to answer your
question, Congresswoman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair. Admiral.
Admiral Schultz, under your leadership you have
successfully garnered support to improve Coast Guard readiness
through the recapitalization of legacy surface and aviation
assets. However, we are in the midst of a border security
crisis at the southern land border. News reports suggest that
despite the increased funding provided to manage the border, it
may not be sufficient to address the crisis.
Has the Coast Guard been asked to provide personnel or
other resources to support operations along the border? And, if
so, sir, how does that affect your ability to perform Coast
Guard missions?
Admiral Schultz. Well, Congressman, I appreciate the
question.
You know, we are coming up on the 20th anniversary of the
Department of Homeland Security in the spring of 2023. We have
been, you know, at the table as a--we started as the biggest
organization when DHS was created. I think we are the third
largest now with TSA and CBP eclipsing our numbers.
We are proud to contribute to all the threats that confront
the department, and I think you will find us being involved in
Allies Welcome from an overseas perspective to vaccination
sites to, obviously, we work with FEMA and all the partners. So
we very much value the relationship within DHS.
We have been asked--you know, Christmas of 2018, I think I
took a call on Christmas Eve about some of the challenges and
the uptick at the border there, and they needed medical help.
We have always pushed Coast Guard men and women to the front
lines to assist in that fight. Sir, what--you know, this year,
you know, a lot of speculation on what happens with Title 42,
potential upsurges.
You know, we have been asked in the recent for budget
cycles to provide financial support in terms of reprogramming
to the border. You know, one year that turned out to be a zero
number.
The highest number was about an $89 million bill. I think
there is a potential bill that comes our way this year. You
know, it is part of being on the DHS team. But when I couple,
you know, a bill that probably ranges in triple digits, you
know, $80 to maybe $300-plus million, I couple that with
inflation, the fuel costs, I couple that with the steel, the
equitable price adjustments, I mean, my concern--and this is
not--we will be team members because that is who we are, and we
are proud to be on the DHS team.
But as a service chief to give you a frank answer, I would
say this starts to look a little like--you know, the chairwoman
has said, hey, we will not continue to do more with less. All
the ground we have made here, which has been very constructive
to the readiness structure that each member has talked about
here today, we do bite into that a little bit.
So, you know, that said, we are a part of the team, a proud
member of the team. We will support where we can. But there is
not a lot of--there is no fluff in the Coast Guard budget, you
know. $50 million of fuel, that is our bill in 2022 here.
For the rest of the projected year, our DLA, Defense
Logistics Agency, is about a $50 million increase there. The
equitable price adjustment, the steel prices, and then you
couple in some type of reprogramming, that suddenly proximates
a half billion dollars pretty quick. That is a lot of that
trade space. The chairwoman talked about a--and I forget the
number--a $561 million increase. We potentially eat a lot of
that. So it is just the partnership to make the more ready
Coast Guard. That is what tends to get eroded in these
conversations, sir.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. So if I may, to try to put that
into perspective, the Coast Guard has been asked to help, the
Coast Guard has helped, and there is a cost to the Coast Guard
to help fiscally. And in that regard, with the potential
migrant surge, if asked to help again, those costs will be
there, and then you have got to take resources from your other
missions to deal with the southern border.
Admiral Schultz. Sir, I don't have a specific ask yet on
bodies. I think we will probably have an ask for some Coast
Guard support, frontline operations. We have supported
operational forces to the Rio Grande, rotary wing aviation,
surface assets. We have sent medical people as I alluded to
before. You know, our medical community, that is a little
challenging because we have had a lot in our medical community
with COVID and other things, but we will press forces forward.
There is a fiscal piece of that.
And I would say, sir, what is sort of if you take the
migration, immigration challenge up to a higher level, we have
about a threefold increase in the maritime right now for
Haitian migration. We haven't been at these levels in a long
time. The Cuban vector is up almost fourfold from almost back
to the pre-repeal of wet foot, dry foot 2015 level.
So we are surging surface and aviation assets to the
Straits of Florida, off the North Coast and Western Coast of
Haiti route now. We have an uptick in the migrants between the
Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. So we are active on every
vector.
So when you say, you know, is there a cost, I think it is
the wherewithal of people. But that said, sir, you know, we are
proud teammates on the DHS team, and we will put in the fight
what we can and take reasonable risk in other parts of the
service if necessary.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. Thank you for bearing with me and
for the flexibility on me going virtual for this line of
questioning. So thank you again, Admiral, for being before us.
I just wanted to talk a little bit about the work that you
carry out with the Coast Guard by intercepting a lot of the
illicit and dangerous items that come into our country
illegally. I know that my district in Iowa is safer every
single day because you are out there stopping a lot of the
smuggling, drugs, people, fish, food products, weapons. The
list is very, very long. And when your folks were in my office
not too long ago, we talked a lot about the cooperation that
you have on our northern border with Canada to stop things
coming in on our northern border as well.
I also understand many of these operations are not
necessarily coming in on our northern or southern neighbor
countries but can also be traced back to operations in China
and many of our other foreign adversaries. And I just wanted to
go to specifically something from this week. In the Ukraine
supplemental that we did Tuesday, $400 million was provided for
international narcotics control and law enforcement,
particularly to also combat human trafficking.
So I just wanted to kind of have a conversation about any
anticipated changes there. How are you as a Coast Guard
operation prepared to react to any increased aggression and
also malicious behavior from dangerous and illegal maritime
activity?
Admiral Schultz. Yes, thanks, Congresswoman.
I would say, you know, there is a lot there to bite into. I
would say transnational criminal activities are on the rise
across the globe. And, you know, there is illegal narcotics.
There is human smuggling. There is, you know, smuggling of
ivory and other things. All of those are all transnational
crimes. I think for us there is a Western Hemisphere piece
where the majority of our effort goes. We have anywhere between
4 and 78 cutters down in the Western Hemisphere, Eastern
Pacific, Caribbean doing counter narcotics work.
We roll up somewhere north of on average about 200 metric
tons a year. That is 440,000 pounds of illicit cocaine destined
for American streets. The fentanyl crisis, you know, Mexico is
now the source for about 85, 90 percent of the Fentanyl that
comes to the United States. There is precursors that come from
China.
I wear a hat in addition to the Commandant. I am the
interdiction coordinator. Dr. Rahul Gupta, the new office of
the National Drug Control Policy director, he has thrown a
challenge to the tick about how do we get after precursor
chemicals and commercial means that enable this Fentanyl
challenge. That is a focal area for him.
Anne Milgram, the DEA administrator, we work closely with
them sort of pulling it out of the Western Hemisphere. We just
had a law enforcement team on the USS Hershel ``Woody''
Williams off the coast of Africa. They interdicted almost 6,000
kilograms of cocaine probably destined for Europe.
So I think that speaks to the transnational element of
that. On that same mission, they had a Cabo burden shiprider on
board. They interdicted a Chinese fishing vessel that was
distant water fishing off the western shore of Africa, you
know, harvesting means illicitly and then were bringing the
proceeds back to China. One in every fish on the planet is
harvested through illicit means and goes into the economic
system, and that puts U.S. fishermen and others at a
disadvantage, ma'am.
So I would say transnational crime is pervasive. We can
help capacity building for like-minded partners across the
globe. And one of the things that we bring is a brand that I
think connotates modern maritime governance rules based order.
And we all know how critically important the world's oceans are
to the global economy. I think that is where we can influence
that conversation, ma'am.
Mrs. Hinson. Absolutely. And are there any specific areas
around the globe that you are seeing increased incidents of
these kind of, number one, interdictions but any threatening or
aggressive behaviors?
Admiral Schultz. Ma'am, I think migration in the MED. I
think the Italian Coast Guard, the other regional partners
there have seen upticks, Sub-Saharan, you know, migration to
the north as, you know, different increasingly challenging life
conditions on the African continent, I think that remains. We
have not been drawn into the migration issue in the MED, but I
think we watched that.
What I see at the southwest land border of the United
States, you know, years back there was a little perception and
a reality that the drug smugglers were getting into the human
smuggling at the border, but then there was a conversation
extrapolated from some, you know, higher level of intelligence
that said, hey, that was just a risk position that wasn't
advantageous for the narcotic smugglers. I think we are finding
them again intertwined with the human smuggling piece again
because it is just so lucrative.
So I think the ground rules are always changing. We, the
U.S. law enforcement community, need to stay adaptive, need to
stay agile. And I hope that addresses your question.
Mrs. Hinson. Yes, absolutely.
And, obviously, with the increased numbers that you are
facing, you mentioned nine out of ten out of the last 10 years
you have had, you know, more people in the last year.
Admiral Schultz. Right.
Mrs. Hinson. Are you seeing increases in trafficking there?
And if you can be brief with that answer because we are almost
out of time.
Admiral Schultz. Yeah, I will tell you, ma'am, we are
seeing uptick in migration at sea. If you take a standard
Haitian profile vessel, this could be a 35- to 60-foot vessel,
maybe 150, upwards of 300, 350 people on board. That is a human
tragedy.
That is, first and foremost, a lifesaving mission because
when you come alongside that vessel, it is going from Haiti,
maybe along the North Coast to Cuba to try to reach the Florida
Keys, try to get in the Bahamas. That is one, you know, sort of
unannounced storm away from hundreds of people in the water.
And if we were even on scene, we might be able to rescue
half or two-thirds of that, but that would be, you know, human
tragedy of huge proportion.
So we have tried to up our game and try to encounter those
vessels when they are not too distant from the North Coast of
Haiti, from the Gulf of Haiti down there. Our goal is to take
keep the lid on things per se and, you know, interdict at sea,
repatriate to their homeland. They are brought back without any
real fear of reprisal of return. But I think that is important,
ma'am, to recognize, you know, right now we are pretty engaged.
Same thing in the Straits of Florida. You know, years back
it was many Floridians leaving South Florida on fast boats and
going and picking people up. That could get to be very
challenging. We want to keep, you know, interdictions at sea
active so that people in South Florida aren't committing crimes
and trying to bring people back.
So we are active on all maritime threat vectors right now,
ma'am, in terms of human smuggling. We don't encounter a lot of
that, but I think that intertwines with the IUUF fishing. Many
of these fishermen on these distant water vessels are probably
equivalent to indentured servants, ma'am. When we encounter
them, we deal with that.
Mrs. Hinson. Well, thank you, sir. I appreciate your
service again, and thank you for your patience with me jumping
around. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Admiral Schultz. Thank you, Congresswoman. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Commandant, in Northeast Florida we just heard a lot about
the USS Milwaukee's deployment around South America and the
great work that the 4th Fleet was able to accomplish down there
working with you all.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. And that is important work, and I would
like to ask you if you--because I feel like it is going to
become even more important as China continues to look into
South America, Central America. I mean, I have been to Guyana,
Suriname. The Chinese have been in there.
Can you talk a little bit about what you see as a growing
threat in particularly the littoral waters around South America
and Central America?
Admiral Schultz. Sure, Congressman.
I would say that there is a competition element. You know,
I am a former J3 at U.S. Southern Command and spent, you know,
most of my career here in the Western Hemisphere operating
around the region. You know, Guyana, recent discoveries of rich
sources of energy, you know, territory disputes with
Venezuela--you know, Venezuela remains complicated here in
terms of it is becoming a permissive environment for narcotics
smuggling. You know, 2, 3 years ago, the cocaine trade in the
Western Hemisphere was an 85/15 percent split, 85 percent
Eastern Pacific, so west of the Central American land corridor,
15 percent in the Caribbean. That is about a 60/40 split now,
and I think a lot of that is because Venezuela is so
permissive. So that is going on.
We see China influence. You know, China will come in and
buy a fire truck for a community. They will come in and then it
is a soccer stadium. You know, when a Chinese diplomat visits a
country, generally it is a transaction and they leave the
check, and there is some benefit to a local politician. It is
the same thing on the African continent.
Mr. Rutherford. You mentioned Ecuador and the Galapagos
Islands.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. You know, it took me about 2 years to
figure out why they were interested in Ecuador. They go down
there and build a hydroelectric plant. Now we know. They sent a
160-vessel fleet.
Admiral Schultz. About 350 vessels.
Mr. Rutherford. 350 vessel fleet. There are just going to
fish out the Galapagos Islands.
Admiral Schultz. So we as a flag state, sir, where our
fisherman operate, we as a flag state make sure they are
following our rules. You know, when the Chinese fleet is 9,000
miles from Beijing, there is no China Coast Guard--they have
bigger ships and Arleigh Burke cruisers, biggest Coast Guard in
the world. They are not there ensuring that the Chinese vessels
under their flag or their characteristic vessel are following
the local rules.
You know, we went there at the behest of the Ecuadorians
and a couple days of patrolling with the National Security
Cutter Bertholf, our ScanEagle unmanned system, we had more
than a dozen vessels that, you know, their AIS system that
indicates their position and the reality where they are, they
were spoofing the system. So there is illicit activity, sir,
that feeds this.
Mr. Rutherford. So I bring that up because one of the
concerns that I have in the President's budget request is this
decommissioning--it is in the Navy's request, the
decommissioning of nine Freedom Class LCS, I think those ships
are important to the 4th Fleet and what is going on in South
America, and I see less ability for them to partner with you
all if they are decommissioning nine ships that are less than
half--well, they are right around half-life. Some are a little
more; some are a little less. And basically it looks like we
are throwing away a dime to save a nickel.
And so I am hoping that the Navy will reconsider that
request because I think they are a tremendous partner with you
all in that whole hemisphere. And, you know, I think the
Milwaukee--I started with the Milwaukee deployment because I
know how well you all worked together on that, and it was all
over the news in Florida.
Admiral Schultz. Congressman, I would tell you this, sir. I
am not--you know, Mike Gilday is a professional colleague and
he is a friend, and I respect him tremendously. And I am not
going to opine what the Navy decision on shipbuilding would be.
Mr. Rutherford. Sure.
Admiral Schultz. I would say what my position has
consistently from Land Forces Commander to Commandant these
last 6 years overall is if the Navy puts a platform into the
region and we can put or Coast Guard law enforcement attachment
or precision marksmen on their helicopters, we can do counter-
narcotics work, we will continue to do that. We have
coastguardsmen on Navy ships in the Indo-Pacific under a
program called OMSI, Oceania Maritime Security Initiative.
But, sir, I think the Navy, you know, as a service chief
with a fleet, some 210 Medium Endurance Cutters that are 55, 60
years old, you know, parts availability, you know, we have had
them. We have had a corner on that market. I think the CNO
faces many very difficult choices. There is the--and I
mentioned in my comments there is the struggle of building and
bringing on new capabilities. I think what I read in here from
the CNO is, you know, you need to look at this through our
warfighting lens. If you think the pacing threat of the Nation
is a China threat and now we have Russia in a very different
place, and I look at the demand signals on the United States
Navy, they are high.
I think I would defer to the CNO's perspective on that
because he is balancing sustainment versus investment. That is
a tricky place. But my position remains and I think I will
speak that my successor will probably say when the Navy does
have a platform that they avail to a mission where we can
complement that with, you know, detachment, law enforcement
detachment, an aviation piece of that, we will continue to do
that, sir. But I really have to really reserve the decisions
base of the CNO because he sees the sustainment of the
investment.
Mr. Rutherford. No, I understand. I just want to make sure
that they are there doing their job in that Southern Hemisphere
as well----
Admiral Schultz. Absolutely.
Mr. Rutherford [continuing]. Because I know you guys are.
Thank you.
Admiral Schultz. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it, and
sorry for the tardiness and not being in person, Admiral. I am
bouncing around on some other hearings today as well.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aguilar. Admiral, I wanted to follow up on the
conversation regarding transnational crime. The budget request
included $40 million for the Atlantic partnership to help our
allies in Africa and South America address these issues and
others, like countering illegal fishing and training maritime
security operations.
How will additional funding allow the Coast Guard to
support our allies and what specific engagements do you hope to
establish or expand on with that budgetary authority?
Admiral Schultz. Yeah, thanks, Congressman.
I alluded to earlier--and I am not sure what point you
jumped in, but, you know, the African continent in terms of
population growth is going to be tremendous. You know, 25
percent of the world's population will be on the continent by
2045, 2050. Food sustainment, you know, about somewhere between
20 and 40 percent of African communities derive their primary
protein source from the ocean.
So, you know, IUUF, which is prevalent on both the east and
western shores of Africa by distant water fleets, not solely
China, but, you know, it is Taiwanese and others. We I think
can bring some unique capabilities there to stitch like-minded
partnerships together, whether we are going to work with the
French Naval forces, the Portuguese, the Danes.
The Brazilians have an interest here. I think that is
global societal work, sir. I think we bring the authorities,
the wherewithal. We put out a strategy here in 2020 on IUUF,
the illegal, unregulated, unreported fishing strategy, a
supplement implementation program the next year.
We do not have the wherewithal in the Coast Guard to be the
world's fish cops, but we have the wherewithal to stitch
together academia, NGOs, see the problem, see the problem in an
unclassified domain so we can share the information and then
collectively, I think, as a global society get after those
things that are really ravaging the ecological sea floor.
We have seen what China has done with clamming off their
coasts. They build bigger ships, they push them further off,
and they say bring this source of protein back to mainland
China, put it in the marketplace. I think, sir, there is an
important tempering force of like-minded nations, you know, and
off the African continent and sorry parts of the world, sir.
I hope that is responsive to your question.
Mr. Aguilar. No, I appreciate it. It puts it in great
context and just shows the work that we have ahead of us; but I
appreciate your focus on it.
If I could call your attention a little bit more to Latin
America, how can this funding expand multilateral exercises and
training in that region?
Admiral Schultz. Well, yes, sir, Congressman. So I think
when you look here in the Western Hemisphere and, you know,
fascinating history, you know, being a Californian and sharing
a border with Mexico, I think we have seen the benefit of
persistent investment in partnership with our Western
Hemisphere neighbors and partners.
You know, I go back to 2000 Plan Colombia where for every
dollar that the U.S. put in, the Colombians matched with about
$9. The Colombians have taken a very big leadership role in
thwarting the interdiction of illicit narcotics.
Today regional partners, Western Hemisphere partners,
Central Latin America partners are involved in about 60-plus
percent of our interdiction efforts. You know, when you look at
just end game with--you know, so about a third or 40 percent
are just truly end game from a Central American, Latin American
partner, sometimes informed by information that we are able to
provide them; but that is a testimonial, sir, that persistent
investment, partnership collaboration yields long-term success,
sir.
I think maybe one day the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard
on Navy ships in the hemisphere don't have to be down there.
That is not one day soon because there is such a prolific
amount of cocaine going, but I think as Colombia game out of
50-plus 2-year insurgency with the FARC and are still working
through, you know, justice issues and things, I think if we
continue to fight we shape behaviors.
I think what we see at the land border is really--you know,
it is the dry corridor in Central America. Hurricanes Iota and
Edna that really ravaged parts of Honduras, Nicaragua, you
know, it is sort of the perfect storm of things. But I think
when we can build regional stability, we can thwart the illicit
drugs that fuel the corruption that destabilize governments.
All of this I think, you know, manifests itself in the
different challenges that we face here in the United States, in
your state, along the Texas border right now, sir. So it is all
sort of part of the same conversation, and we are part of the
conversation about pushing the border out and giving these
governments a little bit of wherewithal and decision and
maneuver space.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Admiral. I appreciate it.
Yield back, Madam Chair.
Admiral Schultz. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Admiral, I have two additional questions
that I would like to ask you.
This committee has a history, as you mentioned in your
opening statement, of investing in recruitment and retention
and increasing diversity. And we discussed many your efforts to
encourage a more family-friendly environment and a more diverse
workforce.
In your State of the Coast Guard Address in February, you
discussed the success the Coast Guard had had over the past
several years in increasing retention of women and
underrepresented minorities, as well as seeing a higher
retention rate for all Coast Guard personnel at the 15-year
benchmark.
As you prepare to retire and step down as Commandant, what
do you see as the biggest challenge for the Coast Guard in
recruiting and retaining a more inclusive workforce? And what
investments do you think could help the most to retain Coast
Guard personnel?
Admiral Schultz. Well, thank you, Chairwoman, and I think
there is a lot in that question.
Let me start by saying we have been, you know, really
keenly focused on being a Coast Guard that is more
representative of the Nation we serve. You know, we will strive
to bring 4,200 enlisted men and women to the Services here.
About 600 of them are reservists and then about 3,600 Active
Duty.
It is a tremendously competitive environment for recruiting
right now. About one in four, so 25 percent of American youth
age 18 to 26 is eligible to serve. When you take all out of
those things that limit service, you know, different medical
conditions, drug use things, one in four eligible.
When you look at a propensity to serve, you are down to 9
to 11 percent, so less young Americans have some connection
with an uncle, neighbor, or a parent that served in the Armed
Forces.
I think Chief of Staff of the Army, General McConville,
recently talked about 83, 84 percent of the men and women
finding their way to the Army are from Army families. I mean,
so we have got to get our story, our brand out there. We have
set our recruiting goals for enlisted workforce at 35 percent
underrepresented members, 35 percent women.
We actually in this challenging environment have been
hitting that target for underrepresented members. Our
recruiters have been working hard. The goal for women was 25
percent. In 2020, we hit 20 percent; 2021, 15 percent. So I
don't know if it's the great resignation, less women coming to
the table.
We set the bar for a goal at 35 percent, like the URM
community, so we have got to work very hard. I would say if we
brought in 4,200 just women and we had high retention, you
know, moving from 15 percent women across the Coast Guard, when
you mix officers and women in the same conversation, that
mathematically is about a 15 percent number.
In the officer ranks, it is 22 percent. Our academy
incoming class, our graduating class is high 30s, incoming 40
percent. There is a very strong story there. I think you
mentioned retention. We have the highest retention across the
Services.
I am proud that the E-6, E-7, O-4, sort of those mid grade
really influential for women, for any--you know, for leaders
writ large, we have about a 28 percent increase of women
staying at those levels. So that is who shapes the future.
My successor, the first female service chief in the history
of the Armed Forces, there is energy, excitement about that,
and I think we are on a good trajectory.
But you say what would I leave behind? Change does not
happen fast, so we have to continue to--we have about 30
initiatives under the umbrella of what I call D&I initiatives,
and there is many different things in there. We were spending
about $600,000 towards this. I think we are spending $23, $24
million. We have put professionals in jobs that help us see
this through a different lens. We have thought about more
family-friendly programs.
You know, 50 percent of our women are married to other
servicemembers, mostly other coastguardsmen. We used to send
you and your spouse on orders, maybe colocated, but you had a
2-year set of orders, your spouse had a 4-year set of orders.
You are 2 years in, you know, how do you think about choices?
Does that drive one of you out?
Now we sit you down and say, Hey, where do you want to go?
Here's the type of assignments based on your career choices
available to you. How do we get you both on same tour length?
If you ultimately want to do something and do it for 4 years
and your spouse said, Hey, we're willing separate to do that,
we give you that choice, but we will strive to get you
together, strive to get you on the same timeline. That allows
you to make housing decisions. It allows you to make childcare
decisions.
The committee has helped us. There is another $4 million in
the 2023 budget. That brings the number to $17 million to date.
I think that puts you north of $20 million for childcare
subsidies. We have doubled the number of coastguardsmen that
are getting help from the childcare subsidy program. We have
about 2,800, you know, children, Coast Guard children out
across 78 locations.
So that has been hugely effective to helping us allow our
dual Coast Guard families to find success in the service. We
have changed a lot of policies, ma'am, that I think have made
us more family friendly.
That said, we have got to stand to watch. We have got to go
to sea, but we are working very hard to send a signal.
Today, when I wake up this morning, I don't think we have
ever had a more challenging housing crisis that is affecting
our men and women moving. We have made some recent policy
changes. You used to get about 14 days for temporary living
expenses when you went into a new area.
We just stroked a pen-and-ink change up to 60 to take a
little of the pressure out of the tires so our people can get
to a place, have little more time. But, ultimately, you know,
South Florida right now recently, it used to be first month,
last month security, that is $8,000 to $10,000 for a young
Coast Guard family. There are some places now that they want a
year rent because people are flipping houses. They are saving a
lot of money. They are going back and renting.
So we are going to have some challenges here, ma'am, but
the committee has helped us do things that signal to our men
and women that there is nothing more important than the
coasties, their families. The investments on mental health
providers, medical, I think that stuff, ma'am, has been hugely
impactful, but it is an intense recruiting environment.
We are standing up an instant command to really say are we
doing everything possible. And I think what DOD will do is they
may buy themselves out. They will offer more bonuses. That is
where it gets challenging for us. As we are building our 2024
budget, you know, my voice going out the door was to say we are
going to have to put some money in for recruiting bonuses for
coasties too because we can't compete in an already tense
environment without bringing something to the table, ma'am.
So it is a conversation at the professional staff level
with us about how do we continue to compete for the best and
brightest in the Nation.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, I do want to commend the Coast
Guard because I understand that the Vice Commandant Fagan was
confirmed yesterday.
Admiral Schultz. Last night. The new Vice Commandant, her
successor, Admiral Poulin, the 33 stars, the entire senior
leadership slate, ma'am, has now been confirmed, and we will be
getting them in place here in the coming weeks.
And I am very excited that, with the support of this
committee, I think we are on a good trajectory. I mentioned in
my statement more work to do, but we have had a frank
discussion. The administration is supportive. I will leave on 1
June very heartened that I think the Coast Guard is in a good
place and moving to a better place and doing the work that the
Nation needs us to do, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And I believe, again, the Coast Guard is
leading the way. She is the first woman to lead a military
service?
Admiral Schultz. Admiral Fagan was our first 4 star, not
our first Vice Commandant, but the first 4 star woman in the
history of the Coast Guard, and she is the first service chief
in the history of our Nation that will lead an armed force of
the United States.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Congratulations.
Admiral Schultz. A lot of excitement about that, and she is
a tremendous officer and she is a woman. She is just going to
be great and is building on a really terrific team, ma'am, that
I will sleep well at night that the Coast Guard will remain in
good hands.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And I just have one more question and it
is--excuse me.
Okay. I am sorry, Pete. Before I ask my question, I didn't
see that you were still on. Go ahead and ask your question.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
second bite at the apple here.
Admiral, I was pleased to see the creation of the new cyber
mission specialist enlisted rating establishing a new cyber
career pathway for noncommissioned coastguardsmen. I have long
been a fan of a diverse cyber workforce and creating this
rating for an enlisted coastguardsman is a significant step in
that direction.
What has been the reception of this new rating and how do
we intend to integrate it into the cyber mission specialist?
Admiral Schultz. Yeah, thanks, Congressman.
There is a lot of excitement. So two things. We will have
our first graduates that have a cyber security major at the
United States Coast Guard Academy. They will be crossing the
stage here on May 19th, and they are very excited about the
work. You know, we generally don't assign people specifically
to their academy degree, but we will send a handful of them to
the cyber command here at Coast Guard headquarters for their
initial assignment. After a couple 2, 3 years there, we will
get them out in the field because we do all our promotions in
one general pool. We don't promote by specialty. So we will get
them some cyber exposure. We will send them out to similar
sector commands where they will sort of bring their knowledge,
their programmatic expertise to the field. We will send the
balance of those young Coast Guard cyber professionals, some
will go to sea, some will go to sectors, maybe go into cyber
their next tour. So they are excited about that.
The cyber mission specialist enlisted rating, we are going
to take a model like we did with the dive program. So we are
not going to take the young American off the street and send
you right to training to be a cyber mission specialist. We are
going to take a coastguardsman who has risen in the ranks to E-
5.
The investment, sir, that we have with to make for the
cyber workforce, it is to the tune of hundreds of thousands of
dollars, so we want to make those investments judiciously. So
we will take folks that are in other ratings right now and they
will say, hey, I would like to be in the cyber mission
profession, folks that are standing at the cyber watch. It is
electronic technicians. It is intelligence specialists. It is
IT information technologists. Many of them that are covering
those positions, they will want to map into this cyber mission
specialist rating.
There is tremendous excitement, so we will have no trouble,
sir. We are building out our third cyber protection team. The
2023 budget has additional funds to build out the first cyber
mission team, sir. So there is a high level of excitement, a
lot of work out there. You know, we have to spend about two-
thirds, three-quarters of our efforts. We ride on the
Department of Defense information network. That is a lot of
investment to stay there, and that is where we need to operate.
And we have our regulatory role across our 360 seaports
across all the ships that, you know, have contact with the
United States. We have to make sure we create an appropriate
regulatory framework, and so a lot of work for our cyber
professionals, but we are exciting, sir, to onboard this new
rating. I think we got the thinking right, and this was the
right time to pull the trigger on that decision.
Mr. Aguilar. I really appreciate the answer, Admiral, and I
am excited about where you guys are going on this.
So thanks so much.
Thanks, Madam Chair, for the second question.
And, Admiral, all the best to you in the future. And we are
going to miss you and appreciate the leadership that you have
instilled.
Admiral Schultz. Thanks, Congressman.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Are you going to get to me already?
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes, we are going to get you already,
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. We have three hearings at the same time.
Gets you in shape.
I am really next?
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes.
Admiral Schultz. No pressure, sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Good to see you.
Admiral Schultz. Congressman, good to see you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And I guess we are not going to see you
for a while.
Admiral Schultz. Hopefully not in this capacity.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You did a great job. I know we went on a
CODEL with you and your wife to Alaska. It was very
educational, and we learned a lot and the mission that you have
there, so very impressed.
And I do want to say this, the Coast Guard always does more
with less. And, you know, I know the members of this committee
continue to talk, because a lot of us are on some other
committees too, defense, how well you do, how well you do your
missions, so congratulations to you.
Admiral Schultz. Well, sir, with your help, we are trying
to do with more with more.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You always do.
Admiral Schultz. And put that more with less chapter behind
us, but I appreciate your acknowledgment that we do a lot with
what we get, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Good. Well, again, thanks for your
lifetime service, and under your leadership, you can't say
enough where you are. We are looking forward to working with
your new person.
Admiral Schultz. Admiral Fagan, yes, sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I think you have left a good operation,
and hopefully we will stand behind you on the Coast Guard.
As we know, this is your last budget, and it is my last
budget representing the Coast Guard in Baltimore. We had
redistricting, and we are moved all around now. I will still be
working with the Coast Guard but not the Baltimore operation.
The work done at the yard, the local yard directly impacts the
national, international security.
And their dedicated labor force is a mix of in-house
civilian engineers, industrial tradesmen and women who have the
institutional knowledge, technical expertise necessary to
maintain and repair both services aging--and it has got
whiskers--aging service fleet and the newly acquired modernized
fleet.
I recently reviewed the Coast Guard's unfunded priority
list, which includes $56 million for upgrading the Coast Guard
Yard in Baltimore, and I am interested to hear what
specifically that funding would go towards and why it is
needed.
Admiral Schultz. Yeah, thanks, Congressman.
You know, as a young ensign starting out my career, I ended
up in the Coast Guard Yard in one of the Service Life Extension
Programs, one of the early ones on the 180-foot buoy tender, so
I have had sort of the vantage point over 39 years to see the
yard up close and personal. It is a tremendously talented
workforce. It is some old infrastructure there.
Where we find ourselves today, sir, and sort of working
into the unfunded priority list is, you know, we are building
Offshore Patrol Cutters. And the chairwoman was the sponsor on
number two, the Chase, National Security Cutters. There is a
very competitive environment to find shipyards to do repair
work for Navy combatants, for our large Coast Guard ships.
So the yard, we have done our service life extensions. We
have done our major maintenance availabilities, MMAs, on our
140s, our 225 buoy tenders. We finished the 140s. The 225s are
still doing that work there. We do not have the ability to do
work on these larger ships, so on OPCs, you know, 4,500 tons,
4,300 tons; a National Security Cutter, you know, 418 linear
feet in the water, 4,600 tons. We need to have the wherewithal
because of the competitive environment to find ship repair
facilities.We need to be able to do that in Baltimore, sir.
So the $56 million that is on the unfunded priority list
starts to do some of the conditioning work. It deals with the
electrical. It deals with the dredging.
The second piece of that is about a probably $60, $65
million dry dock, you know, where we can bring those big ships
in, and we can do some of that work organically at our Coast
Guard Yard with our Coast Guard employees, terrific employees.
You know, right now, you know, if you are a shipyard and
you are looking at the Coast Guard coming in and doing, you
know, work to the tune of a million, million and a half, couple
of million, or do you sort of wait and see a Naval combatant
that comes and is doing tens of million dollars of work? You
know, are you going to tie up your yard for the smaller Coast
Guard project or are you going to wait for the bigger Navy ship
or commercial project? That is where we find ourselves, sir.
I think as we build out, you know, the last couple National
Security Cutters, starting on a fleet of 25 Offshore Patrol
Cutters, making these investments today and then in the coming
years in the Coast Guard Yard really buys down our risk in
sustaining the fleet for the future.
So that is the $56 million piece now is about dredging,
electrical, sort of getting the piers ready, and then the
subsequent budgetary piece would be about procuring a dry dock
so we can work on those ships at our organic Coast Guard
facility with our great workforce.
Mr. Ruppersberger. The area where you are located is in the
area----
Admiral Schultz. Curtis Bay, yes, sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger [continuing]. A blue collar area that I
have represented for 20 years, even before that, and they are
very, very proud of having the Coast Guard there.
Admiral Schultz. They are a multi generational workforce.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Multi generational, blue collar. They
just lost--Bethlehem Steel had 40,000 jobs. They lost their
jobs. Now they are taking advantage of the water again and
putting a place in called Tradepoint Atlantic, but they are
very proud of having the Coast Guard there.
Yield back.
Admiral Schultz. Thanks, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Admiral, before we adjourn, I
would like to ask you about an area that we seldom talk about,
but yet my understanding is there is a lot of concern about
this particular area, and that is the Caribbean and that as we
are, you know, tightening up different entries, whether it is
along the border, that we are seeing more and more traffic,
illicit traffic going into the Mediterranean, particularly in
the area of Puerto Rico. And the concern is that once someone
reaches Puerto Rico, then they can reach the United States; it
is domestic travel.
Admiral Schultz. That is correct, absolutely correct.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. So if you could talk just a little bit
about that and tell us what concerns or what it is that you are
seeing there now.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, absolutely, Chairwoman.
Puerto Rico is a gateway to New York City, Miami,
everywhere else. So if you make landfall in Puerto Rico, there
is an illicit migrant smuggling things. Some of it is, you
know, folks from Hispaniola, Dominican Republic, so Haiti, get
across the Mona Pass, get into Puerto Rico. Some of it is to
seek work. Some of it is a gateway or pathway to get to the
United States.
The Mexican cartels, the Colombian cartels are very
prevalent in Hispaniola, particularly Dominican Republic, so
they are running a lot of their drug operations here. So there
is the threat from illicit narcotics.
You know, when you think about the Western Hemisphere, very
easy to get to South Paulo, Brazil, or other parts of South
America. There is established routes that can take you to, you
know, the southwest land border traversing through Mexico, very
challenging, very difficult terrain, the Darien Province in
Panama. But then you look at how permissive Venezuela is, it is
a long way, but we are starting to see more indications of some
human activity across those long distances from the North Coast
of Venezuela to the Eastern Caribbean Corridor to places like
Puerto Rico.
Admiral Poulin, who is our, as of last night, confirmed
33rd Vice Commandant, he is currently the Atlantic Forces
Commander, a position I previously held, he is duly headed as
the director of Joint Task Force East. They are just working on
a Caribbean plan that really is looking at Puerto Rico as that
gateway, the Eastern Caribbean Corridor that is working with
DHS partners to really up our ability down there to see and
define the problem and then get after the problem. That is
working with DHS, his, ICE. It is working with DOJ. It working
with the U.S. Attorneys in Puerto Rico.
I think your instincts, ma'am, to say that is a vulnerable
corridor are absolutely correct. We need to have domain
awareness to better see the problem, and we need to have the
wherewithal to action the problem. I can tell you Admiral
Poulin on the JTF, he is going to turn over the watch to
Admiral Lunday. That will be a seamless transition.
I appreciate the department allowing JTFEs to continue. The
other two JTFs task force on the west and JTFI, the
intelligence piece, sort of went by the wayside. We, the Coast
Guard, are the parent agency, so we have the most positions
there. It was the vision of the E-7580, it is in the thirties,
but there is a lot of good work coming out of there.
So, ma'am, we share your interest in the region. We are
trying to understand and action it. Our Fast Response Cutters
in Puerto Rico have never been busier. They are having a lot of
interdictions, both, you know, illicit drugs and illicit
migration, and they will remain busy, ma'am.
And our transition from Dolphin to smaller, short-range 90-
minute profile helicopters, two 60s, 4 to 6 hours has been
impactful already. As we have seen this uptick in human
smuggling, uptick in drugs, I think, ma'am, arguably we have
three 60s there. We should probably put a fourth down there. We
would like to do some land-based airborne use of force. Right
now it is sort of getting our wherewithal around supporting the
new airframes, getting our crews trained. But I think there is
some low-hanging fruit where they can just up our capacity and
our capability down there as well.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. So at some point do you anticipate
that the subcommittee can expect that there will be additional
requests for money to deal with any increased activity in that
area?
Admiral Schultz. Yeah, I will tell you, Congresswoman, we
had had damages to our facilities down--I think if I look at
Borinquen, which is the air station up in Aguadilla, the
northwest part of Puerto Rico, I look at San Juan, our sector,
we are executing in the planning phase, getting ready to award
contracts to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars to
get our facilities--you know, all facilities upgraded, getting
our housing. We put new generators in. We are upgrading
housing. We are trying to make Puerto Rico that resilient--it
is a difficult, challenging place to serve.
So we are trying to get the facilities that were damaged,
get the old facilities up to modern standards. I think all of
that enables us to get coasties excited to go serve there and
get after these multimission threats, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. So will there be additional----
Admiral Schultz. So I think there will be a continuing
dialogue. Yeah. Will it be an ask for more resources there? I
think down the road it might be another helicopter, fourth
helicopter. I think that would be useful.
I think it is--you know, with the costs of, you know,
infrastructure work, now engineering work, there might be some
asks to say what we plan to do, we don't have quite have the
wherewithal. I think there will an ongoing dialogue about the
Puerto Rico corridor, ma'am, yes.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Well, if there are no more
questions, we will conclude today's hearing.
Admiral Schultz, thank you so much for coming before the
subcommittee, and we wish you the absolute very, very best in
your--I won't say retirement, but the best of whatever the
future holds for you and your wife.
Admiral Schultz. Madam Chairwoman, to you and Ranking
Member Fleischmann and all the committee members, thank you for
your continued interest, support for the men and women of the
Coast Guard.
As you said in my statement, it has been the privilege of
my career to serve in this capacity, and we really enjoyed the
partnership, and you have made us a better Coast Guard.
Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Where are you going to live? Have you
decided yet?
Admiral Schultz. We are heading to North Carolina,
Congressman, Wilmington, North Carolina, at least for a little
bit.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. One last comment. Our very best to Dawn
for her great 40 years of service, lovely lady, First Lady of
the Coast Guard. Our very best, sir.
Admiral Schultz. Thanks, sir.
We have got remarkable families, and if you get one thing
right, you marry the right person. Right? I got lucky there.
Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. You certainly did.
Admiral Schultz. I did. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The subcommittee on Homeland Security
stands adjourned.
Tuesday, May 17, 2022.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
WITNESS
TAE D. JOHNSON, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
As this hearing is being conducted virtually, we must
address a few housekeeping matters.
During today's virtual hearing, members are responsible for
muting and unmuting themselves. When you are recognized to
speak, if I notice you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask
you if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
To avoid inadvertent background noise, I, or staff I
designate, may mute participant microphones when they are not
recognized to speak.
If there is a technology issue during a member's speaking
time, we will move to the next member until the issue is
resolved, and you will retain the balance of your time.
We will be following the 5-minute rule. With 1 minute
remaining in your time, the clock will turn yellow. When your
time has expired, the clock will turn red, and it will be time
to recognize the next member.
We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House
rules, beginning with the chair and ranking member, followed by
members present at the time that the hearing is called to order
in order of seniority and we will alternate by party.
Next, we will go to members who were not present when the
hearing was called to order, until every member has had a first
round.
Members can submit information in writing at any of our
hearings or markups using the email address provided in advance
to your staff.
Let us begin.
Today, I welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on
ICE's fiscal year 2023 budget request. We welcome Tae Johnson,
Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Acting Director Johnson, as a career civil servant, you
have been asked to step into this interim role as ICE Director
and we appreciate your service in this capacity.
There are significant disagreements about immigration
policy in this country and among members of the subcommittee.
My own view is that we should work together to focus our
limited resources on those who threaten our public safety and
national security, and to find appropriate solutions that
balance immigration enforcement with due process and that
balance removals with humanitarian considerations. I believe
the Administration's actions are moving in that direction.
For example, we have seen many important retractions in the
last 16 months of the prior Administration's policies that
abrogated the rights of asylum seekers and other migrants.
Those policies drove a wedge between ICE and many communities,
particularly those with large migrant populations.
I have also been heartened to see that ICE has taken
additional steps to better focus its resources. For example,
when you were before us last year, we discussed the draft
Environment Priorities Guidance you issued in February of 2021.
This draft guidance focused ICE's resources on the pursuit and
removal of aggravated felons and other serious criminals
compared to ICE's less targeted approach in the past.
In late September, the Secretary updated that guidance to
ensure ICE focuses its resources on the apprehension and
removal of noncitizens who are a threat to our national
security and public safety and on our border security.
I was also pleased to see ICE's announcement this spring
that it was directing its attorneys who represent ICE in
Immigration Court proceedings to exercise discretion in
accordance with these priorities, but more remains to be done.
I continue to be concerned about the state of ICE detention
facilities and how individuals are treated while in ICE
custody. One issue I am particularly alarmed by is that those
in ICE custody continue to have difficulty obtaining access to
legal counsel and communicating with their counsel when they do
have it. For example, a 10 or 15-minute phone call is not
nearly sufficient given the sensitivity and complexity of the
legal issues and necessary evidence one needs to present their
case.
I look forward to discussing these continuing issues.
Lastly, I would like to recognize the important work and
accomplishments of the Homeland Security Investigations
workforce, including their work in disrupting transnational
criminal organizations, and I look forward to hearing more
about that work this afternoon.
I will now turn to the distinguished gentleman from
Tennessee Ranking Member Fleischmann for his opening remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
hearing.
And welcome, Acting Director Johnson. I thank you, sir, for
your testimony today as we discuss the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Request.
Before I begin, I would like to offer my sincere thanks for
your 3 decades of service, which go all the way back to the
legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is responsible for the
enforcement of our Nation's immigration, custom, and trade
laws. Despite its rather straightforward mission, the men and
women at ICE are often vilified just for enforcing the
immigration laws because some of our colleagues are unable to
get a majority of Congress to change the law.
For the past few years, this Administration's budget
request has decreased ICE's budget for enforcement and removal
operations, or what we refer to as ERO. This year's request
decreases ERO by almost nine percent, largely by reducing
funding for detention beds for both adults and families.
Time and time again, those cuts are restored in conference
because a bipartisan and bicameral coalition of members
understands that the enforcement of immigration law is not an
optional exercise. Criminals, public safety threats, and, yes,
even some on the terrorist watch list are removed by ICE every
year. It is irresponsible to advocate cutting funding or even
decreasing funding for enforcement actions that protect our
community and our Nation. We need a strong, effective,
transparent, and accountable ICE, and we need to provide the
necessary tools for ICE agents to do their jobs.
Unfortunately, President Biden and DHS leaders have decided
to tie the hands of ICE enforcement and removal operation
officers by releasing prosecutorial discretion memos to limit
removals and enforcement actions to a narrow and arbitrary
subset of individuals eligible for deportation.
On one hand, the Administration tells us with a straight
face that they need to exercise prosecutorial discretion
because they have limited resources, while on the other hand
they submit a request that decreases enforcement resources. You
can't have it both ways. Those actions are contradictory and
amount to little more than a smokescreen for the real purpose
of the memos: purposely reducing the enforcement of our
Nation's immigration laws.
I have consistently advocated for a funding level that
enables ICE to fulfill its law enforcement mission, including
funding detention facilities. While we have sharp differences
on this committee about immigration enforcement, there is broad
bipartisan agreement to robustly fund Homeland Security
Investigations, or HSI. Special agents of the HSI do amazing
work tackling some of the most heartbreaking cases, including
child exploitation investigations both here and abroad. They
also investigate other bad actors and illicit transnational
criminal networks, target migrants who are public safety or
national security concerns, and disrupt predatory and illegal
trade practices.
Acting Director Johnson, please convey our thanks and
appreciation for the work that the men and women of ICE are
doing to protect this Nation, sir. I look forward to the
discussion today.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Acting Director Johnson, we will submit
the full text of your official statement for the record. Please
proceed with your oral testimony.
Mr. Johnson. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Roybal-Allard,
Ranking Member Fleischmann, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee for Homeland Security. Thank you for inviting me
to appear before you today. My name is Tae Johnson; I am the
Acting Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
ICE's mission is to promote homeland security and public
safety through the broad enforcement of over 400 federal laws
governing our border, customs, trade, and immigration.
Before I go any further, I would like to thank you for
funding recently enacted the fiscal year 2022 omnibus to
support our people and our mission. The fiscal year 2022
funding supported our officers and special agents by increasing
ICE's victim assistance program, bolstering the Center for
Countering Human Trafficking, combating child exploitation, and
furthering ICE's information technology data modernization,
among others.
ICE employed policies and operational changes to support a
fair, orderly, and humane immigration system, and has operated
its detention system in a tremendously challenging environment
due to the global pandemic.
ICE acts in accordance with DHS-wide enforcement priorities
to focus Department resources on national security, public
safety, and border security. The fiscal year 2023 budget
represents a fundamental shift by the Administration towards an
approach that emphasizes increased enrollment in Alternatives
to Detention, or ATD, where appropriate, as a more humane, less
costly, and effective means of monitoring individuals while
they navigate the immigration removal process.
We are requesting $75 million in increase funding to expand
ATD participation and to ensure sufficient resources to monitor
compliance with immigration proceedings.
The fiscal year 2023 budget also includes a request for an
additional $15 million to provide technology investments for
credible fear screenings and enhanced visitation opportunities
for detainees, as well as supplementing access to counsel.
Additionally, we seek $6.4 million and 50 additional ICE
Health Service core positions to ensure ICE can continue
delivering appropriate medical care.
Cyber crime continues to be a growing threat and the fiscal
year 2023 budget seeks to further enhance Homeland Security
investigations cyber crimes capabilities. ICE has continuously
demonstrated results in this area. Through fiscal year 2017
through fiscal year 2021, the number of cyber investigations
have increased over 97 percent.
In fiscal year 2021, HSI arrested over 3700 individuals for
crimes involving sexual exploitation of children, a 23-percent
increase over fiscal year 2020; and, in fiscal year 2021, over
1100 victims of child exploitation were identified and rescued,
which represents a 16-percent increase over fiscal year 2020.
The fiscal year 2023 budget request to establish a
dedicated budget and further strength the HSI-led Center for
Countering Human Trafficking, or CCHT. Currently, 16 DHS
component offices are currently providing personnel to support
the Center's efforts to counter human trafficking and the
importation of goods produced with forced labor.
Additionally, the budget request's support for HSI's Victim
Assistance Program, or VAP, building on enhancements received
in fiscal year 2022, ICE requests funding for positions for
training, equipment, travel, and equipment to adequately expand
the VAP program. These resources are paramount to continue
providing the needed assistance to victims of child
exploitation and human trafficking.
Despite significant accomplishments in fiscal year 2021,
the Office of Principal Legal Advisor, known as OPLA,
litigation teams have a growing number of non-detained docket
of over 3.0 million cases requiring additional resources to
address. The fiscal year 2023 budget seeks $58.4 million and
341 additional OPLA positions, including 268 attorneys.
Finally, ICE's mission support workforce serves as a
critical role in ICE's ability to meet our national security,
public safety, and border security missions. Despite the
challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic and the
significant workload demands in supporting a 24/7 law
enforcement agency, ICE's mission support workforce continues
to operate efficiently to meet the needs of the agency. The
fiscal year 2023 budget seeks new positions and funding to
address capability gaps in the areas of human resources,
cybersecurity, policy refresh and development, training for
tactical operations, leadership and career development,
financial management, as well as other support programs.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today and
thank you for your continued support for our dedicated
personnel and our agency's mission. I am honored and humbled to
represent the more than 20,000 hard-working ICE employees and I
am proud to serve beside them, and grateful for the opportunity
to speak with you today. I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you. Acting Director Johnson, I
believe we may have enough time for myself and Ranking Member
Fleischmann to ask our questions, and then we will go into
recess because of the two votes we have on the floor.
Acting Director Johnson, we continue to hear about
unacceptable conditions at detention facilities and the lack of
basic services, including the lack of meaningful access to
counsel, language access, and medical neglect. Let me begin
with the lack of access to legal counsel.
Advocates and legal representative groups have revealed how
difficult it is for individuals in custody to access legal
counsel and, once they do have that counsel, to have enough
time and regular and private phone communications with that
counsel. We have also learned that access to private settings
or private phone calls is often limited or unavailable.
Why is providing this necessary and important access to
counsel so difficult for detention facilities, specifically the
ability to talk in private and with enough time to discuss
their cases?
Mr. Johnson. Thanks, Congresswoman. A very good question.
It is an area that we have been working towards for many years.
As you are aware, access to counsel is one of our primary, sort
of responsibilities and something we take absolutely seriously.
We have been working with the various facilities to
increase access to counsel. As you may be aware, we are
providing our detained population with a number of monthly free
minutes so that they can not only speak to their counsel, but
to speak to their family members. We are also working on adding
a virtual visitation option at all of our facilities, so that
when there is issues with access to phones they can use other
technology such as Skype or other sort of technologies to stay
in contact with their counsel.
Additionally, we are working with the Department of Justice
to expand our legal orientation program, so that individuals
could have access to free legal services, and we are working
with our various vendors to look for other opportunities so
that individuals may be able to speak with their counselors
without some of the issues that you have identified.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. What is the timeline for this? I mean,
why is it so difficult that someone is talking--let's just say
it is a phone conversation, why are they so limited in the
amount of time that they can speak with their counsel?
Mr. Johnson. Well, typically, there are different phones
for talking to your legal representative than there is for
talking to your family or friends. The phones that have the 10
or 15-minute limit are typically the phones that are in the
housing units and are really designed for keeping in contact
with family and friends as opposed to speaking with lawyers.
And it is necessary, just given the small number of phones, to
put a limit on how long an individual can talk, just so that
everyone in the housing unit has an opportunity to use the
phones.
So it is certainly something that we are aware of. This
issue is not all that prevalent in most of our facilities, but
there are a handful of facilities, largely local jails, where
we still have some work to be done. And we are hoping the legal
orientation programs and our work with DOJ, as well as some of
these virtual visitation programs, will help.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And what is the timeline? When do
you anticipate that some of these problems will be addressed?
Mr. Johnson. So we are working with the DOJ on a legal
orientation program. I believe we received some funding in
fiscal year 2022 for this effort and we obviously requested
additional funding in fiscal year 2023 to expand it to more
facilities, but the tablets and some of the other virtual
platforms are well underway now at most of our facilities and
we are going to continue to roll it out throughout the rest of
this fiscal year. So the work is underway.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Mr. Fleischmann?
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be
deferential to you, but would you prefer to recess before I ask
questions with the vote or do you want me to go ahead and ask?
It is about 148 left.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I will leave that up to you. Do you want
to ask for 5 minutes or----
Mr. Fleischmann. I have got some proxies to do, I don't
know if you have any----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay.
Mr. Fleischmann [continuing]. But I would feel a little bit
more comfortable if we could recess now and then reconvene
right after the two votes.
Mr. Director, we just have two votes on the floor, one is
about ready to conclude and then that is what we are facing,
and I want to make sure that we give you every opportunity to
address what is before the subcommittee.
Madam Chair, would you be willing to adjourn?
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Absolutely, especially if you have
proxies.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. So we are now--the subcommittee is now
in recess.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Recess.]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security
will now come to order.
Acting Director, thank you so much for your patience. I
will now turn to the ranking member, Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. I thank the distinguished chair
for the adjournment so we could go and vote.
Acting Director Johnson, recently, sir, the Administration
has released several policy memos under the guise of
prosecutorial discretion that reduces the ability of ERO
officers to enforce the law except for three narrow categories,
citing limited resources.
My first question, sir: Acting Director Johnson, if the
premise of these memos is to focus limited resources on the
most pressing categories of offenders, why not ask for more
resources?
Mr. Johnson. Good question, Congressman Fleischmann. I
guess I would start with, you know, detaining individuals in
this COVID environment has been extremely challenging, as I
mentioned in my opening remarks. It is certainly, just given
the lack of medical personnel and the ability to hire the guard
services and even some of the ancillary services, bringing on
additional detention capacity, while it is something that the
agency has looked at, it just does not seem to be, you know, a
viable situation given the current COVID-19 environment.
So, given the lack of detention resources, the inability to
detain a lot of individuals just because of the mounds of
litigation surrounding COVID-19 and the fact that many people
with risk factors can't be taken into ICE custody to begin
with, you know, we are going to have to focus our resources
only on those individuals that we can actually remove, and
those individuals that are public safety threats and national
security threats. So I think that is in line with the current
priorities.
Mr. Fleischmann. Well, Mr. Director, in fact the
Administration proposes a cut to enforcement and removal
operations for around nine percent, sir. How many fewer
individuals will that allow ICE to detain when considering
current COVID restrictions?
Mr. Johnson. So, as you mentioned--and I am assuming this
is accurate, but the cut is largely related to detention beds
and, as I stated, I think it is just the acknowledgment of how
truly difficult it is to detain individuals in this COVID-19
environment. So, you know, it is--we are focusing on
alternatives to detention, a much more humane and effective and
significantly less costly option for monitoring individuals who
don't pose a public safety or national security threat.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. One final question in this
round.
In addition to limiting the categories of aliens who ERO
can take action against, the Administration also released a
memo seeking the administrative closure of cases currently on
the docket that do not meet the Administration's narrow
enforcement priorities. How will that impact the enforcement of
our Nation's immigration laws?
Mr. Johnson. Well, consistent with the immigration
enforcement priorities, we think that it makes the most sense
to use not only our OPLA attorneys resources, but also the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the court's
resources in a much more targeted way.
So, I mean, we are hopeful that once we remove some of
these sort of non-priority cases, it will allow us to get
through these individuals that are, you know, public safety
threats and national security threats that are on the docket
much more quickly and, hopefully, those cases that would
typically take 5 years or longer to adjudicate can be
adjudicated much more quickly.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Director.
Madam Chair, I will yield back and wait for round two.
Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Mr. Director. I am glad to have you with us and
appreciate your testimony.
I want to address the cooperation between ICE and local law
enforcement, and particularly the status and future of the
287(g) program, as it is called.
I remember when I first became chair of this subcommittee
some years ago, we had a hearing with ICE, with one of your
predecessors, and we were talking about what seemed to me and
others to be rather indiscriminate enforcement rates all over
the place, but at the same time we realized that there were
hundreds, thousands of people who should be deported who were
coming out of our prison system every day and we didn't even
know who they were.
Well, that was some years ago and what ensued were a series
of efforts to deal with this. Remember Secure Communities, the
Priority Enforcement Program back and forth with various
efforts to focus this program appropriately, and in the process
287(g), the program that where local law enforcement makes an
agreement with ICE for enforcement activities, that came under
a lot of scrutiny. And the Trump administration, I think it is
fair to say, weaponized that program, expanded it greatly. It
went from 34 participating jurisdictions to 152, that included
16 in my home state.
So I am glad to see that President Biden has rolled that
back. He has expressed his commitment to, quote, force--against
DHS programs that, quote, ``force local law enforcement to take
on the role of immigration enforcement.'' But I want to ask you
to elaborate on that.
We all know that our local law enforcement can't simply be
the long arm of ICE, that compromises their local trust and
access, and so many other things essential to local law
enforcement. So the question is, what is the appropriate kind
of cooperation?
And what about the 287(g) program, first of all? I know you
are reviewing that program. What is the result of that review
thus far and do you anticipate that some of the agreements made
in the last Administration will not be continued? What is the
future of that program?
You have announced the end of workplace rates, the
Secretary has announced that and the desire to take a more
targeted approach, presumably targeting more dangerous people,
people who pose a danger to the community, perhaps coming out
of the penal system as opposed to the front end of the law
enforcement process.
But I am asking you generally, what is the appropriate
role? What is your vision of how local law enforcement
cooperates with ICE and the areas where ICE chooses to use
other methods and does not rely on local law enforcement?
Mr. Johnson. Very good question, Mr. Price. It is certainly
an area that we have given a lot of thought to over the last
several months. As you indicate, the 287(g) program is
currently under review. There are currently about 70 287(g)
programs and about another 70 warrant servicer officer
programs. Well, these are just two different programs. One
where folks are actually empowered to enforce immigration laws
which are the 287(g) program with some training, and the
warrant service officer is just focused on the ability to serve
certain warrants of arrest and warrants of deportations.
So, you know, the 287(g) program is just one example of the
sort of cooperation with State and locals. You know, we believe
that that cooperation with the local authorities is key, but we
also believe that it just has to be appropriate checks and
balances to make sure that folks are coloring within the lines
and are acting sort of responsibly with that authority.
So in the 2022 sort of Congressional language there was a
requirement that OPR and CRCL go out and take a close look at
some of our 287(g) partners and raise any concerns as it might
relate to civil rights and civil liberties and so we are aware
of that requirement. It is something that is underway and, you
know, just as a general manner we believe the cooperation of
the State and local governments and the enforcement of our--
whether it is immigration laws or some of our criminal cases is
absolutely key. I mean, they serve as a force multiplier and we
cannot perform our mission without the partnerships with our
local government agencies.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your remarks. Thank you for being
here today.
First off I would like to thank the men and women in your
agency who do their best to maintain law and order when this
Administration has not made that an easy task. You all have an
incredibly difficult and complex duty to this country and I
hope you are aware of the support that you have.
This invasion of foreign nationals at our southern borders
should be the top priority of this Administration and Congress.
As the acting director for ICE I look forward to hearing how we
can help you clean up this disaster.
The historic crisis at our southern borders has worsened
greatly due to the announced recision of Title 42 which will
bring a tidal wave of illegal immigrants across our southern
border and overwhelm an already overworked and understaffed
agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The well resourced cartels, gang members, human
traffickers, and drug smugglers will exploit this crisis to
further endanger American citizens. Last year you testified
that the U.S. was seeing a record low number of deportations.
You stated that a contributing factor was being able to expel
individuals who have not made it into the detention network and
in a position to be removed via Title 42.
With the recent announcement of Title 42's recision, could
you tell me how this is going to affect ICE's ability to remove
individuals and do you believe the number of deportations will
begin to increase once this goes into effect?
Mr. Johnson. So, really, really good questions. I do think
that the number of ICE deportations will increase once Title 42
goes away because we are expending a good number of ICE
resources currently on the expulsion of individuals via this
Title 42 authority. Since Title 42 has been in effect we have
removed about 85,000 individuals with ICE air resources to
countries under the T42 authority.
So if and when T42 goes away, that will free up some of
those air frames and resources for us to increase our typical
standard Title 8 removal/deportations.
Mr. Palazzo. Several weeks ago Secretary Mayorkas sat in
front of this committee and explained that he is preparing the
agencies he is responsible for to be ready for this massive
influx of immigrants. Hope is not a strategy, and I believe we
need to have a clear plan in place to deal with the influx that
is to come. Could you please explain to me and this committee
what will ICE be ready to do differently as of May 24?
Mr. Johnson. Very good question. It's something we have
been planning for the better part of a year for the end of
Title 42. You know, we will continue to deploy resources down
to the southern border as we have for, you know, at least the
last 12 or 16 months to assist with the orderly and humane
processing of individuals, namely enrolling them on ATD,
scheduling an appointment for them to show up in the interior
to receive their charging documents, et cetera.
We are continuing to beef up our transportation networks,
whether it is ground transportation or air frames in
preparation for the end of Title 42. That work has been
underway for quite a while and it is going to be really
important that we have the ground transportation and air frames
to move folks to where the beds are or where the support
structures are.
Mr. Palazzo. As the head of ICE, what amount of advice in
conversation have you given to Secretary Mayorkas and the White
House concerning the tidal wave of immigrants that are coming
our way?
I mean, again you said you've been preparing for this for
over a year and I am assuming that is not building hospitality
centers and medical centers and receiving centers when you
think we would have been, you know, sending up signals to where
we would not have this tidal wave of immigrants but to kind of
more, you know, encourage people to stay at home but instead of
taking this dangerous journey to the border. It is just I am
always concerned. It is like is the President even listening to
his Secretary and is the Secretary listening to the people
under his command such as yourself, Director?
Mr. Johnson. So I can only speak to my conversations with
the Department and the Secretary and absolutely they are taking
our input and all the input from the career professionals
within the organization.
You know, again we are pushing the resources and trying to
push the border south. We are, you know, devoting a lot of
resources in Mexico as well as the northern triangle and really
trying to stem the flow and target some of these transnational
criminal organizations well before they make it to our southern
border.
So that work is underway. It will continue. We continue to
have discussions with Mexico and Guatemala about, you know,
them doing their part to stop the flow. But, you know, there
are certainly a lot of efforts underway to sort of reduce the
flow of migrants to our southern border.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Director. Madam Chair, I yield
back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Johnson, thanks
so much for being with us today. I first want to talk about
some big picture reputational challenges facing ICE.
In December the Washington Post reported that an internal
working group of Homeland Security Investigations or HSI agents
developed a proposal to separate from ICE because of the degree
to which ICE's negative reputation impedes their work.
The agent cited 77 examples of how the HSI's affiliation
with ICE erodes their partnerships and impedes investigations
and their ability to fulfil HSI's mission and reported that the
toll on HSI agents from this affiliation is getting worse. The
agents also described feeling like HSI's affiliation with ICE's
immigration enforcement role endangers their personal safety.
If DHS's main investigative agency cannot do its job
because ICE's reputation is getting in the way, that is clearly
a problem for DHS's overall mission. Mr. Johnson, how are you
working to address the behaviors and actions that lead to these
reputational challenges within ICE so the agency can do its
job?
Mr. Johnson. Very good question and we appreciate that. I
mean, it starts with educating the public and the community on
the great work that HSI does each and every day.
We recognize how polarizing the immigration enforcement
portfolio is. It is nothing new. It's been like that for, you
know, the better part of several decades and it is likely never
going to change. So this is not a new phenomenon but it does
create challenges for our special agents that are out here in
the communities trying to partner with State and local
governments and, you know, they have to come up with
workarounds in certain areas.
So we certainly understand the issue. You know, we are
continuing to try to sort of do some capacity building with the
State and local governments because while there are certainly
some folks that will never agree with any immigration
enforcement whatsoever, there are lots of communities that can
stand behind rescuing kids from child exploitation and rescuing
trafficking victims, and just getting that message out that we
are a resource and a tool that can be available to assist them
with some of those investigations will go a long way.
Ms. Underwood. Well, Mr. Johnson, as the director of an
agency to have that kind of reputation where your own staff is
feeling like the agency is a drag on their ability to execute
their critical national security mission is a problem and I
think that, you know, while that reputation may be
longstanding, as even the acting director you have the ability
to change the culture in the organization.
I think that in our congressional oversight capacity it is
just unacceptable to say, oop, this is just how it is. And so
we ask of you, sir, to consider the ongoing challenges for
hiring staff, retaining those staff, and making sure that we
are earning the trust of the community, recognizing how
imperative that is to ICE's ability to do its work.
I understand how challenging the work is right now and I
hope that as you do this work and you lead this agency, even on
an acting basis, that ICE's focus on addressing the root causes
of this level of discontent within the workforce.
DHS agencies must do more to address the behavior
throughout the agency that tarnishes the whole department's
reputation and therefore undermines its mission. I have
encouraged the Secretary to focus on this, too.
So I just want you to know that this not just being
directed to you. This is a problem within the whole department.
Border Patrol agents' treatment of Black migrants in Del Rio
last summer--I mean, I'm sorry, last September is just one
publicized example of what I am talking about.
I think that I will stop there and yield back, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. So if I could respond, I mean, I do think a
key piece to just getting everyone educated is it is not just
on the HSI portfolio but it is also on the changes that we made
in terms of our enforcement priorities for immigration.
And, you know, while everyone won't be a supporter of the
new changes in our enforcement priorities, I do think that
there are a number of jurisdictions out there who can actually
support this more focused approach where we are targeting the
worst of the worst and not so much people that are just in the
country illegally who have extensive ties in the United States.
So we are pretty confident with all the work that is
underway. It will take some time to change some minds of folks
but eventually we are going get to a much better place. But we
appreciate your concerns.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member.
Director Johnson, I thank you for being here.
I have to tell you a few weeks ago I had this conversation
with Secretary Mayorkas about the low ICE deportation numbers
and how that concerns me and it actually makes me believe quite
frankly that what is going on at the southern border, it is not
a failed immigration policy. It is not lack of resources. This
is your policy. This is what you want, these number of people
coming across the border illegally and not being deported.
And the evidence of that is when I look at ICE deportations
last year down to 59,000 from 359,000 in fiscal year 2019. So
that 359,000 down to 59,000. Now Secretary Mayorkas tried to
convince me that he was really putting out the more serious
offenders because he said that 46 percent of the folks that you
all were deporting were felons and in the previous
administration only 18 percent.
But I pushed back on that because if you know the overall
number that is where it matters. Look at the numbers--46
percent of 59,000 is 27,000 people. 18 percent of 185,000 was
33,000 people. So even that year we deported more felons than
this administration did last year.
And what makes no sense to me is when I look at your
detention beds. It is not--it cannot be an asset problem
because when I look at your detention beds you have 34,000 beds
funded last year, 19,000 were actually in use--19,000 of the
34,000 that we funded.
Now, in this year you actually asked for 9 percent less in
the budget request for that. So that concerns me. But what
really concerns me most of all and the reason I think this is
by design and not, you know, nothing to do with a failed
immigration policy is when I look at and listen to you all talk
about prosecutorial discretion.
Prosecutorial discretion does not mean you get to pick and
choose what laws you will enforce. You get to pick and choose
what order you will enforce them. That is your prosecutorial
discretion and Secretary Mayorkas brought that same issue up.
So when I look at detention beds in this year's budget you
are asking to cut 5,000 more beds for adults, another 2,500
beds eliminated for family detention. So I cannot understand
this. It is not a benefit or not an asset problem.
Now, alternate to detention, that is what you all are using
instead of putting people in detention facilities, I am okay
with that if needed. But here is the thing. You have 200,000
immigrants who are out on ATDs and you say that 85 percent
check in on time. Now that 85 percent checks in on time the
first time because they get benefits. They get their benefits
and then they never show back up.
But even that 15 percent that is not compliant the first
time, that is about 30,000 absconders that are going into our
community and yet you are only using 19 of the 34,000 detention
beds that we have made available. That makes no sense to me.
And when I see this influx that is coming down the line
when you raise Title 42, the six pillars that Secretary
Mayorkas talked about, those six pillars have absolutely
nothing to do with stopping illegal immigration.
You know what they do? They speed up processing. We are not
going to stop anybody from illegally coming into this country.
We are simply going to try to process them more quickly so we
do not wind up with 10,000 people housed under a bridge on the
border. So I guess my first question would be----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford, I'm sorry. You are way
over time. I will let you ask the one question. I will do you
that courtesy and give him an opportunity to respond.
Mr. Rutherford. Well, I would just like to hear his
response. Why? Why aren't we stopping and deporting people out
of this country?
Mr. Johnson. Okay. I think the best way to--just taking
some of your earlier points. The 59,000 that you mentioned that
ICE removed in fiscal year 2021, as I mentioned earlier you
also have to taken into account the 84,000 or 85,000 expulsions
that ICE also sort of removed by air and that will take that
number up significantly.
I also note that you compared fiscal year 2019 removal
numbers which was, you know, prior to COVID. It was during a
time when we did not have the limitations on who we could put
in an ICE detention bed or how, you know, the use rate that we
could actually get out of facilities.
So I am not sure it is a real apples to apples comparison
when you are just looking at removal numbers because, you know,
this COVID-19 environment has significantly changed how we
could detain individuals, which individuals we can actually
detain, and certainly had a significant impact on the number of
removals.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and I share my
colleague's commitment to wanting to speed up the processing,
you know, of individuals. I think that that is one way that we
can deliver, you know, justice is to ensure that individuals,
you know, receive their day in court for advocating for lawful
asylum.
One of the ways that we can do that I would encourage my
colleague to work with us on is to ensure access to legal
counsel to make sure that we, you know, process individuals and
that they have rights associated with seeking lawful asylum.
Acting Director, I also wanted to bring up the topic that I
focused with you on last year and that was the discussion about
detention of U.S. citizens. ICE has communicated with our
office and the committee that they do not detain U.S. citizens.
ICE stated that they cannot track data or instances of
detention of U.S. citizens.
Fiscal year 22 Omnibus withheld $5 million from ICE in part
due to the agency's failure to provide a report to this
committee. This is the same report you committed to sharing
with the committee during your last hearing before Congress. I
raise this issue because we have heard reports of yet another
U.S. citizen who was held in detention in Pennsylvania just
this year.
So my question is why has ICE continued to fail to track or
report this information the committee has requested for
multiple fiscal years?
Mr. Johnson. Very good questions, Congressman. I will note
that the information or the reporting of U.S. citizen data is
now on our public website as of about a month or so ago.
We have been trying to get that official Congressional
report out the building, was hoping to have it done before this
hearing but was not successful. But I assure you that will be
out the door in short order. So you should have that official
Congressional report hopefully by, you know, the end of this
week if we are lucky.
Compared to prior fiscal years the number of U.S. citizens
that were actually arrested are significantly less than what
they have been. I think over the last two years the number of
arrests were somewhere around 5 or 7 individuals, and the
number of individuals that were actually detained was like 1
individual over the last 2 fiscal years and none of those
individuals were actually removed from the country.
So, I mean, I think that what that illustrates is that the
process and the safeguards that we actually have in place to
quickly review claims of U.S. citizenship is actually working.
Again, I cannot, you know, stress enough how terribly
complicated it is to determine whether an individual has
actually derived citizenship or they have, you know, adjusted
their status and the like. But, you know, we do have the
appropriate policies and safeguards in place to make sure that
we are not sending people out of the country who are, in fact,
U.S. citizens.
Mr. Aguilar. I note that you talked about the difference
between arrest and detain. Do you also in the report discuss
the length at which individuals, you know, are detained?
Mr. Johnson. I don't know offhand. For some reason I do not
think so but let me take that as a get back and we can circle
back with your office.
Mr. Aguilar. Have there been any changes in ICE's intake
procedures to prevent this from happening? What steps does ICE
take today? What steps can you take today to reduce that number
of detained U.S. citizens now?
Mr. Johnson. Well, again it is, you know, I don't know. I
mean, in my perfect world we will never arrest a U.S. citizen,
but just given the complexity of the situation and the fact
that oftentimes people claim to be U.S. citizens when they are
not just in an effort to avoid immigration proceedings.
I think what you see now where, you know, relatively a
small number of people were actually arrested and basically 0
or 1 being removed is probably as good as it is going to get,
you know, given just how often, you know, that we are dealing
with people who actually make false claims to being a U.S.
citizen just to avoid certain consequences.
So, I mean, I am not saying that we are not going to strive
to try to do this even better, but just given the dynamic, you
know, of U.S. citizenship and how complicated it is to
determine whether someone has derived citizenship, I do not
think the answer--I do not think we are ever going to get to a
0, quite frankly.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay.
Mr. Aguilar. Yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Director Johnson. Good to see you again, and again I want to
say thanks for appearing before the committee. Thanks for your
many years of service at ICE and you obviously have a very
critical mission within DHS to keep Americans safe and Iowans
safe, too.
I also wanted to just let you know, too, I particularly
support the work that HSI does, Homeland Security
Investigations to crack down on child exploitation, human
trafficking. A top priority of mine back home in the district
to fight for our kids, the must vulnerable among us, and really
want to applaud the work that your agents are doing to help
carry out that mission.
I just met with a group of folks in Postville, Iowa, small
town Iowa in my district about how we can work to prevent those
kinds of challenges in our community and obviously you are a
front line in that fight. So thank you for that work there.
Also wanted to flag something that I am very concerned
about for my district and my constituents. In March, ICE
released its fiscal year 2021 report 3 months late. That was
after Republican members of this subcommittee joined me in
introducing a resolution of inquiry requiring you to release
this critical information to the American people.
And it did reveal some major concerns when we were able to
get that information regarding levels of enforcement, notably a
68 percent decrease in deportations over the past year, the
lowest level of deportations in 26 years.
So my question to you, Director, is how do you justify this
historic decrease in deportations?
Mr. Johnson. Very good question, Congresswoman. Again, I
think it is a combination of the COVID-19 pandemic. First and
foremost I think it is, you know, all the litigation that was
impacted who we can actually detain and requiring individuals
with certain risk factors be immediately released from custody.
I also think you have to take into account the 85,000
expulsions that our officers have carried out, you know,
consistent with the Title 42 sort of authorization. So you have
to factor that in, as well.
I think if you look back at the last six months of fiscal
year 2020 and actually compare it to the month over month
removals for fiscal year 2021 you would notice that the numbers
are not all that different, and it is just sort of indicative
of, you know, the pandemic and how difficult it was to, one,
even house people in custody for any extended period of time,
but to effectuate removals when you are only able to use such a
small percentage of your beds and detain so few folks.
Mrs. Hinson. Well, I would ask that you please follow up
with us on those specific numbers because when I am seeing a 68
percent decrease that is alarming and I know we have had a
number of conversations about the memo that was released
shortly before we had the conversation to speak last year about
the changes in your enforcement priorities, and to me there is
a direct priority between that memo that went out last February
and the 68 percent decrease in deportations.
You look at the year prior, with COVID, we were
experiencing COVID in 2020 as well, and we didn't see that
historic decrease.
So, in the memo, specifically you talk about limited
resources but I find it a little disingenuous because you're
claiming this while the budget is actually requesting a cut to
the agency's enforcement operations.
So how do you reconcile the ask for a cut for enforcement
while we're having this historic low in deportations?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think the request to cut the bed
number is just reflective of the administration's position that
alternatives to detention is the more appropriate and humane
way of dealing with segments of the population that don't pose
a, you know, public safety or national security threat.
Mrs. Hinson. But that alternative is to release them into
the country, correct?
Mr. Johnson. With monitoring. I mean, the idea is that we
will use some of that funding that we would be spending on
detention to hire individuals to more closely monitor folks on
a non-detained setting or on ATD, whether it is GPS monitor or
SmartLink.
I mean, the reality is we can't detain--there's not enough
beds in the, you know, out in the private sector to detain our
way out of this situation.
Mrs. Hinson. But the point being that once Title 42 goes
away, we are going to have an increased number of these people
coming across and instead of detaining them, with those extra
beds that you have, you are cutting that and then going to be
releasing those people into our country. And I think that is
what Americans are concerned about right now.
We are seeing this surge happen at our southern border. We
want to see that stopped, not increased, which unfortunately I
think when you are asking for a decrease, that is my main
concern here.
So I see I am out of time. So Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Johnson, thank you for being here today and I have to
say right off the bat that you have an incredibly tough job and
I don't envy the position you are in.
Now while I have some serious concerns regarding certain
standards in ERO tactics, I have always been impressed with
your agency's work. It is mainly transnational gangs especially
the crime syndicates that are importing fentanyl from Mexico
and into the country.
Homeland Security investigations, specifically, is doing
amazing things. You don't have to look any further than
Baltimore field office, which is in part of my district, who
were gracious enough to recently host my team, my office team,
for a tour.
Now, last year, Homeland Security Baltimore alone seized
2.6 million in currency, 630 firearms, 2,000 pounds of cocaine
and over 17 pounds of Fentanyl. To put that into perspective
that is enough Fentanyl to kill roughly 3.7 million.
Now, from what I hear, Baltimore's OCDEF has been a great
success. That is kind of like a team coming together to focus
on these issues. I have always said that it is essential that
federal, state and local government work together and the
strike force concept brings synergy in action.
However, with drug overdose hitting a record high in 2021,
there is much more we can do in Baltimore and throughout the
country.
Now my questions to you, Mr. Director, are number one, do
you believe the OCDEF strike force model can be replicated with
success in other localities? What are some of the Homeland
Security's investigation operational challenges when
investigating drug trafficking cases and, three, also of
interest to me, as I-95 runs through the heart of my district,
what are some of the Homeland Security's operational challenges
when investigating human trafficking cases?
Did you get all of that?
Mr. Johnson. I did.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Good.
Mr. Johnson. Really good questions and I'll start with the
OCDEF.
Just so you know, sir, there are 19 of those OCDEF task
forces all throughout the country. HSI is a active participant
and is fully engaged in each one of those 19 task forces.
Just for context, there have been 335 total investigations
initiated in fiscal year 2022 so far this year and HSI has
sponsored 156 of those new investigations. So we are at the
forefront of sort of the spear in those OCDEF task forces and
we are extremely proud of the great work that our HSI special
agents and folks are doing each and every day.
So I think, you know, we will continue to be supportive of
any expansion of OCDEF and any efforts to sort of combat these
TCOs and others who wish to bring these dangerous narcotics
over into U.S. soil.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, I do want to say that, years
ago, I was an investigative prosecutor doing a lot of gang work
and drug work and I can tell you I think that is the best way
to focus on the gang problem and the international gang problem
and the feds, the locals and the state working together and I
think it really helps us get the bad guys.
Mr. Johnson. I could not agree more, Congressman. And just
on the gang front, HSI is really leading the charge on that.
Just last year alone, we arrested 3,574 known gang members
which has a direct impact on public safety and making our
community safe. So we are extremely proud of that great work.
You asked about what challenges we have, you know, in
investigating human trafficking. Human trafficking is a pretty
labor intensive sort of bucket. Right now about 10 percent of
our cases that we initiate are related to human trafficking.
And because, you know, these cases tend to need to be
investigated for, you know, at least a year, oftentimes much
longer, we just need to make sure we have the continued sort
of, you know, deploy the resources.
So any assistance you can provide with additional resources
as well as criminal analysts to support these long term and
complex investigations would be extremely critical.
As you may know, we only have 750 criminal analysts
assigned to HSI. That is about 1 analyst for every 10 special
agents and we really have to do a better job of getting that
ratio down to about 1 analyst to every 5 agents.
So, you know, we will continue to work. Our estimate is
that we need about 900 criminal analysts in order to get to
that--to a more acceptable ratio. And, just so you know, our
current, you know, staffing only allows a criminal analyst to
be assigned to about 14 percent of the cases and, you know,
that is a very small number. But, whenever we assign a criminal
analyst to a case, of those 14 percent of the cases, they were
resulted in 30 percent of the total arrests. So I think it just
speaks volume of how important and critically necessary it is
to have more criminal analysts to support some of these complex
investigations.
Ms. Royal-Allard. Now that completes our first round and we
will now have a second round of questions.
Acting Director Johnson, this subcommittee has provided
funding to expand attention oversight capacity within ICE's
Office of Professional Responsibility so that ICE can more
quickly identify systemic issues and problems at specific
facilities.
What is the current status of staffing for this office and
is the office meeting its hiring targets?
Mr. Johnson. So a very good question, Congressman,
Congresswoman.
Just so you know for numbers, in fiscal year 2019 that
office was able to inspect 48 facilities. In fiscal year 2020,
we were able to increase that to 121. In fiscal year 2021, it
increased to 208. And so far in fiscal year 2022, we have
conducted 85 inspections.
We are on target to do the 2 inspections a year as you guys
put in the appropriations language and last I checked I think
we were, and don't hold me to this but--and we will circle
back, I think we had hired at least 85 percent, 80 to 85
percent of the folks that we were scheduled to bring on board
recognizing that there was a request in fiscal year 2023 for
some additional staffing to continue that effort.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Can you--some of the changes in ICE
policies or requirements and oversight detention facilities
that have resulted from these ODO inspections?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I mean--look the program is still sort
of in its infancy. They are ramping up their inspection
capability as I highlighted. I mean, they still have a little
ways to go.
You know, I think they have a really good inspectional tool
that they have developed that really focuses on the, you know,
aspects of a detention operation that means that most to an
individual that is detained and, you know, between ODO as well
as the numerous other oversight components that we have,
whether it is the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
the Office of Detention Ombudsmen, there are numerous oversight
entities that are responsible for ensuring that the conditions
are appropriate for ICE's detained population.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And are you receiving regular updates
from ODO and these agencies and the head of enforcement and
removal operations?
Mr. Johnson. We are. Every time there is a new inspection,
we get the report typically within a couple of weeks. We
typically have staff that participate in the out-briefing so
that we are immediately aware if there are any significant
issues that need to be addressed immediately before the report
is finalized so that there is a lot of coordination amongst the
various inspectional components.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well let me ask you a question about one
of the facilities. This spring, the DHS Inspector General
issued a management alert after an inspection of the Torrence
County detention facility in Estancia, New Mexico, calling for
the immediate transfer of all detainees from that facility.
Yet, ICE disagreed with OIG's conclusions but ICE's own
contracting office modified the contract because the facility
was unable to maintain sufficient staffing for the detainees
housed at this facility.
Can you explain ICE's position on the management alert and
why ICE continues to use this facility given the multiple
issues at this location over the past several years?
Mr. Johnson. So, just prior to that management alert, ODO
had actually gone out and done a inspection of that facility
and they actually were rated superior. So we have that.
We also----
Mr. Roybal-Allard. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I need some
clarification.
You are saying that the OIG came to the conclusion that
they should be immediately removed. Many times they will come
say certain things need to be corrected. But, in this case, it
was the immediate removal and you are telling me that ODO came
out with a rating of excellent at the same time?
Mr. Johnson. Just before the visit, ODO had done a review
and those inspectional findings were excellent or the
equivalent of excellent, whatever the--what the nomenclature
is.
Also we had a team of folks that were actually on site at
the facility and were intimately aware of the conditions are
the facility. Were there issues? Sure. Are they--were the same
sort of issues that all of our facilities have been
experiencing in this COVID environment with difficulty hiring
staff and getting certain medical folks? Absolutely.
But the--based on the population level that we actually had
at the facility, which was only like 20 percent of the total
beds, it was our view, and we looked at this pretty
extensively, that it was more than sufficient staff to
accommodate the small number of individuals that were being
detained in the facility at the time.
There were a number of other issues that we took exception
with with that particular report that I would prefer not going
into details here. But, yeah, we did take a really hard look at
the findings and, you know, there was just--we did not agree
with the recommendations and that is not totally uncommon.
Sometimes we do. Sometimes we don't. This is one that we felt
strongly they got it wrong.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. My time is way past. But I would
like to follow up on this with you.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Acting Director Johnson, so as the number of encounters
along the border continues to increase, ICE has decided to rely
on the alternate--alternatives to detention program. This
program has seen a massive increase in enrollment.
Is it your plan simply to continue to put all of these
people on ATD, a program which ICE itself has said, in the
past, has little value but is of significant expense? And, if
so, how will you ensure that it is used as an enforcement tool?
Mr. Johnson. Very good question. I guess I would start by
saying while the ATD program might be fairly, you know, to
somewhat extent, to some extent costly, it is not nearly as
expensive as it is for detention first.
So, you know, we think it is really important that if you
are going to use alternatives to detention, then you actually
do have to have the staff to monitor these cases and respond to
alerts and the like and just position the agency in a spot
where they can actually provide the robust monitoring that is
required.
And we think that, you know, if we--recognizing that, you
know, there is not an endless supply of funding, and you
typically can't, you know, just ask for, you know, there are
some limits on what you can ask for. You know, the expectation
is that we will use some of the funding that we would be saving
from fewer detention beds to buy some additional staff to
increase the monitoring of those individuals.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. A follow up question. ATD has a
compliance right now of 86 percent. Right now, there are over
230,000 people on ATD and reports say that could go to 600,000
people.
Are you committed to rapidly removing the tens of thousands
of individuals who undoubtedly abscond from ATD which, if your
compliance rate holds, could be nearly 100,000 individuals,
sir?
Mr. Johnson. So the compliance rates have actually
increased in fiscal year 2021. I think that the 16 percent or
14 percent that you were noting is a fiscal year 2021 stat. The
fiscal year 2022 stat is actually at 91 percent compliance
rate. So we have seen some improvement in that area.
And, yes, sir, we are absolutely committed to locating and
removing any individual that has absconded from the program.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the answer to
our questions. And, Madam Chair, I yield back so others can
ask.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
In July, the Biden administration implemented a new policy
that generally exempts pregnant, postpartum and nursing women
from immigration detention. This is a reversal of the previous
administration's policy that led to a 52 percent increase in
the number of detained people who are pregnant.
Mr. Johnson, what trends do expect we will see this year in
terms of the detention of pregnant and breast-feeding people?
Mr. Johnson. A very good question. I think we have, you
know, as long as you are going to have new cases coming across
the southwest border, there is probably going to be individuals
that either, one, don't even know they are pregnant when the
hit ICE custody and learn about it just after their medical
screening, or two, a recent border-crosser who comes across
that is pregnant and can't be immediately released at the
moment because there is just no safe release plan, then they
would have to go to an ICE detention bed for a short period of
time.
I expect that, you know, in the rare event that someone is
in ICE custody and is determined to be pregnant that they will
generally be released from custody fairly quickly and, you
know, and only in very rare occasions would anyone stay in
custody for an extended period of time.
Ms. Underwood. And, for those who are pregnant and in ICE's
care, what procedures does ICE have in place to ensure that
each is receiving clinically recommended maternal healthcare
services and social supports?
Mr. Johnson. We are--immigration health services core is--
does a phenomenal job at providing medical care. They have a
program to deal with individuals who are pregnant or
postpartum. It is in their sort of their medical orders and
there is a process in place to sort of deal with that segment
of the population should there be a need to deal with it.
But, again, the guidance is pretty clear. We are--have
instructed our folks that we are not to detain individuals
absent extraordinary circumstances.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. I'm going to ask, for the record, that
your team share with us the procedures for the clinically
recommended maternal healthcare for individuals who are
pregnant.
What is ICE doing to ensure pregnant women in custody are
offered the COVID-19 vaccine and booster shot and whether
practices are in place to safeguard pregnant people in ICE
facilities from COVID?
Mr. Johnson. So that would--I can run down. I have no idea
whether the vaccine is even acceptable for those that are
pregnant.
Ms. Underwood. It is.
Mr. Johnson. I don't want to speak out of turn. So let me--
--
Ms. Underwood. It a hundred percent is. Unequivocally. Go
ahead.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. So we'll--let us run that down and we
will get that back to you.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. Last I want to talk about family
separation. The Trump administration's family separation policy
was a moral stain on our country's immigration history. An OIG
report from May 2021 stated that under the last administration,
ICE removed at least 348 parents without the necessary
documents for reunification and, in some cases, removed parents
without their children even after parents told ICE officers
they wanted their children to accompany them upon removal.
As you know, the lack of proper documentation is a
catastrophic roadblock to reunifying families and one of OIG's
recommendations to ICE was for ICE staff to document and obtain
acknowledgment for each parent's preference on whether their
child should remain in the U.S. or be removed with the parents.
That was the OIG's recommendation.
OIG shared with my office that as of last Tuesday, May
10th, ICE had not demonstrated any new policy or guidance for
obtaining supervisory acknowledgment for each parent's
preference per OIG's recommendation.
Mr. Johnson, when will ICE implement a new procedure to
obtain and record parents' preference for their children to
remain in the U.S. or be removed with them?
Mr. Johnson. So, as you are aware, Congresswoman, I mean,
there is very little family separation that is occurring right
now. In fact, there is a family reunification task force that
has been working diligently to reunite a lot of the folks that
have been separated under the prior administration.
You know, I don't know that my policy shop is in the--is
currently working on a reunification policy because it is
totally contrary to the current administration and the agency's
position to do any family separation. So----
Ms. Underwood. Okay. Well----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. I think----
Ms. Underwood [continuing]. We will be following up with
you all. I don't see how in the face of this action having been
taken and then exploited and really just so in a horrifying way
for us to not heed the recommendation of an inspector
general's, you know, direct report describing the need for a
policy even if the separation is not occurring.
Like we know that without proper procedures, we can slip
into bad practices. And so it is my hope that when you receive
that communication from our office, you all do take action.
Thanks so much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair. As I mentioned last
year, since the beginning of the Biden administration, our
southern border has seen an invasion of migrants trying to come
into our country illegally.
Border Patrol remains overwhelmed by the vast number of
migrants they are detaining. We have heard that a facility is
quickly filled up further making a problem for agents to
process illegal immigrants.
When we spoke at this hearing last year, you stated that a
priority of the agency was to increase the number of HSI agents
abroad to help push the souther border further south to stop
individuals before they get to U.S. ports of entry.
Now, as Secretary Mayorkas has stated, and something I
actually agree with, the southern border cannot be the first
line of defense. What resources does ICE need to actually
prevent people from coming to the U.S.? And tell us more about
pushing the southern border further south.
Mr. Johnson. Very good question. I mean, as I mentioned
earlier, I think we need the ability to devote more resources
to human trafficking and human smuggling.
Right now, as I mentioned, only 10 percent of our
investigations are targeting that sort of level of--sort of
that line of effort. So any additional resources would be
helpful. And, again, the need for additional criminal analysts
to support these investigations which, as I mentioned, are
typically long term investigations and require lots of combing
through data.
Increasing our international footprint, whether that is
getting more special agents that, you know, in Mexico and the
Northern Triangle. One other thing that would be extremely
helpful is the stipend, the authority to pay a stipend to some
of the other, you know, our international partners, which is,
you know, an authority that some of our other fellow law
enforcement components, like DEA, have to sort of, you know,
encourage or incentivize some of these partnerships with our
international partners. So just being able to have the
authority to provide a stipend I think will also sort of
enhance our investigative, you know, work abroad and will help
break up or target some of these transnational criminal
organizations and break up some of the human trafficking
smuggling and narcotics trafficking.
Mr. Palazzo. I mean, we have some of the brightest Intel
analysys in the world and forensic accountants. I mean, you
think, you know, you always follow the money and we should be
able to disrupt these transnational criminal organizations a
lot easier than it is just taking. But, yeah, again, it is
about you telling us what resources you need to do your job. I
know Dutch Ruppersberger's mentioned earlier, you have a very
hard and difficult job and we appreciate what you do.
Which kind of leads me to, you know, we know ICE is already
sent an overwhelming amount of their resources and personnel to
the southern border. How has this affected morale within your
agency?
Mr. Johnson. I mean, I think morale is, you know, in a
pretty good spot. I mean, look, we are recognizing how
important the mental health and well-being of our staff is. You
know, we are certainly required to send a good number of folks
to the southern border but we are, you know, keeping an eye on
folks and trying to make sure that it is voluntary as possible
so not to impact individuals and their families.
So, you know, we have no reason to believe that morale is
down and our workforce is resilient and they certainly, you
know, will step up to the plate and take on the task at hand.
Mr. Palazzo. Now that is good to hear. You know, reviewing
your ICE annual report for fiscal year 2021, you know, quick
questions. I notice there is a lot of discussions about seized
currency. Real quick. What do you do with that seized currency?
Does it go back into your department? Does it go back in the
U.S. Treasury?
And I would just like to point out also, I mean, we
mentioned almost move, you know, 900,000 pounds of hard
narcotics that were actually seized at the border. I mean, you
will have mathematicians. If that is what was seized, and only
like 20 to 30 percent of the cargo is actually scanned and
detected, what would be your estimate of hard narcotics that
actually makes its way into the country that we don't seize
that is destroying communities of color? It does not matter,
you know, geography or, you know, boundaries. That is basically
hurting all of our communities in America.
Mr. Johnson. Well and I will confirm that this is accurate
but I am pretty certain that all seizures of funds get sent to
the Treasury forfeiture account and that is whether it is ICE
or any other federal agency whereby these federal agencies can
use those funds to sort of, you know, for other investigation
or investigative efforts in the future. So I am pretty certain
that is the way that works.
And whether we have any stats on exactly how much narcotics
is actually slipping through, I don't know that we have a way
to actually quantify that. I mean, as you noted, HSI sort of
seized over 14,000 pounds of Fentanyl in fiscal year 2021 which
is, you know, which is a, you know, significant amount of
seizures.
So, you know, I--we will circle back and let you know if
there is a way to quantify the sort of what has sort of got
away but I am not sure that there is offhand.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. Thank you, Director. And, again,
thank you for your hard work and that of you team.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Acting
Director.
Secretary Mayorkas previously expressed his commitment to
us to review detention facilities across the country. Earlier
this year ICE also announced that it would end of use of an
Alabama detention facility that had a profound history of
mistreating immigrants in detention and the chairman pointed
your attention to the facility in New Mexico as well.
Can you provide an update on the status of the review of
ICE detention architecture? What is the criteria for the review
and termination of contracts and how many facilities have been
reviewed?
Mr. Johnson. Very good question. I mean, I guess we would
start with there has been at least a handful of closures since
the new administration took office. I don't have the exact
number in front of me but we did recently close a facility in
Alabama or are in the process of getting out of that facility
if I remember correctly as well as a facility in Florida.
The review is ongoing. We continue to assess the--our
detention facilities each and every day and we will continue to
do so. If we become aware of a facility that is not meeting our
high standards, then, you know, we will take appropriate action
to either fix the problem and if the problem can't be fixed,
then we have no issues with discontinuing use of a particular
facility.
So, to answer your question directly, the review is
ongoing. It has resulted in the closure of some facilities but
I cannot speak to what is on the horizon.
Mr. Aguilar. But can you tell us what that review process
looks like? Is it a team that does site visits? Do you look at
capacity in addition to the physical infrastructure of the
facilities? You know, what are some of the criteria that goes
into that?
Mr. Johnson. So it is a team that looked at all of the, you
know, going back five or seven years, all of the various
inspectional reports of the different entities that are
responsible for providing oversight at facilities; whether it
is OIG, where it is CRCL, Office of Detention Oversight,
NOCOMOTO. You know, it is a number of folks that issue, you
know, inspectional reports.
So it included a review of the historical inspectional
reports as well as some visits to certain facilities or data
calls to certain facilities to request additional information.
Mr. Aguilar. I would encourage--I know some of that process
started during obviously during, you know, COVID and during
some--but, you know, to the extent, you know, physical site
reviews, you know, can be a part of that, I think, you know, I
think I would encourage you to think through that.
There is some things that a paper review just can't----
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. Show you clearly and that is just
something that I think, you know, can be added as well.
I also wanted to bring your attention to California
obviously is made some news related to private detention
contracts. They passed--the State passed a law banning for
profit prisons and detention centers.
However, at the time, ICE quickly sped through a contract
as well. And so I wanted to ask the status of those contracts
with for-profit companies before that law went into effect. Do
you anticipate reviewing these types of contracts during that
architecture review?
Mr. Johnson. Sure. I mean, no facility is off the table for
review. I mean, we have been looking at a few facilities in
California and you are absolutely right. When we were about to
be in a situation where we could no longer secure any detention
space in the California forever, we did sort of go out and
enter into some contracts just so that we could have them in
our back pocket in the event that we ever need them in the
future.
But, you know, since--it has been at least three or so
years since that law was enacted and we have not--maybe it has
been 1 small facility that we activated. But we have not
expanded our detention population in California as a result of
these contracts to date.
Mr. Aguilar. And oftentimes we pay for that capacity
whether we use it or we don't. So I think that would be of
importance to this committee as well.
Thank you, Acting Director. I appreciate your being here
and thank you, Chairwoman. Yield back.
Microphone.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I was told that Mr. Rutherford was on
his way back but I don't see him. I don't know if there is any
other questions that anyone has.
Okay. With that, I will adjourn the hearing.
Director Johnson, I want to thank you very much for your
time and for your service and, with that, the subcommittee on
Homeland Security stands adjourned.
Wednesday, May 18, 2022.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
DAVID PEKOSKE, ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
Today's hearing on the Transportation Security
Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2023 is being
conducted virtually. Therefore, we must address a few
housekeeping matters. During today's virtual hearing, members
are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. When you
are recognized to speak, if I notice you have not unmuted
yourself, I will ask if you would like the staff to unmute you.
If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute your
microphone. And to avoid inadvertent background noise, the
chair or staff designated by the chair may mute participants'
microphones when they are not recognized to speak.
If there is a technology issue during the member's speaking
time, we will move to the next member until the issue is
resolved and you will retain the balance of your time.
We will be following the 5-minute rule. With 1 minute
remaining in your time, the clock will turn yellow. When your
time has expired, the clock will turn red and it will be time
to recognize the next member.
We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House
rules beginning with the Chair and ranking member followed by
members present at the time the hearing is called to order in
order of seniority and we will alternate by party. Next we will
go to members who were not present when the hearing was called
to order until every member present has had a first round.
Members can submit information in writing at any of our
hearings or markups using the email address provided in advance
to your staff.
Let us begin. I would like to welcome Administrator Pekoske
to today's hearing. You have appeared many times before this
subcommittee to discuss the importance of TSA's mission and its
dedicated front-line workforce. The pandemic has taken a toll
on TSA and changed the way the agency operates as it has for
the rest of the federal government and the country as whole. I
look forward to today's discussion of the President's budget
request for TSA and, in particular, the need to reform TSA's
pay structure and provide protections for employees which are
equivalent to the rest of the federal workforce.
We have spoken about the value of these reforms and the
importance of implementing them as soon as possible. These are
reforms which I fully support. The challenge of transitioning
TSA personnel at the start of 2023 to a new pay system where
they will be treated like the rest of the federal workforce
would cost nearly $1 billion.
Unfortunately, the Administration did the subcommittee no
favors in how this was proposed in the budget. Rather than
directly funding the new pay structure, the President's budget
proposes a change to existing law to make more resources
available to TSA from the security fees charged to airline
passengers.
Currently, a portion of those fees are diverted to the
Treasury for deficit reduction. I support ending the diversion
of those fees but, unfortunately, changing existing law is not
within this subcommittee's jurisdiction. As a result, the
Administration has given the subcommittee a bill we may not be
able to afford within our funding allocation. While it will be
a challenge, I feel strongly about this, so the committee will
do its best to meet the challenge in our upcoming bill.
I would also like to discuss briefly a troubling incident
which was brought to my attention. Last week, I was contacted
by a passenger at LAX who, at a security checkpoint, was denied
the ability to take onto the airplane supplies she needed for
breastfeeding notwithstanding that TSA's policies appear to
permit it.
While at this time you may not be able to comment on this
matter, I do appreciate your immediate attention to this
serious matter and I expect it will be addressed in a way that
will prevent it from happening again.
Administrator Pekoske, your current term as TSA
administrator was ending this summer when we first planned this
hearing. I had presumed this would be your last appearance
before the subcommittee. So I was very pleased when President
Biden announced earlier this month he would be nominating you
for a second term. You have my full support and I hope the
Senate will promptly take up your nomination.
I now turn to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee,
Ranking Member Fleischmann, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you again, Madam Chair, for holding
this very important hearing.
Welcome, Administrator Pekoske. Thank you, sir, for joining
us today. I appreciate being with you in person last week and
being so accessible. And I would also like to reiterate my
congratulations to you, sir, for your recent nomination for a
second term. Congratulations.
TSA protects the Unites States transportation system. The
engine that powers our economic prosperity. Originally,
effective transportation security was based on threats from
shadowy actors like Al Qaeda. Over the past two decades, these
threats have grown to include cyber criminal, state and
nonstate actors and others who seek to exploit vulnerabilities
in the aviation-of rail and pipeline networks to their
advantage.
Despite robust efforts of the Transportation Security
Officers, or TSOs, transportation hubs, particularly aviation
remain targets for terrorists and other actors. Our security
posture, especially at the checkpoint, has regrettably remained
largely static. Most travelers must still remove their shoes
more than 21 years after a single failed attempt to detonate a
shoe bomb on a transatlantic flight. And the basic technology
used to screen passengers today was first employed nearly 15
years ago. However, modern technological innovation, like
computed tomography, scanning enables TSOs to render 3-D images
that are far superior to traditional 2-D x-ray scans. Coupled
with advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning,
these scanning machines dramatically increase contraband
detection rates by TSA agents while increasing passengers
through goods and reducing checkpoint wait times.
They may even lead to the day where we can leave a laptop
in its case and take a bottle of water through the security
checkpoint, something we can all celebrate. Replacing legacy x-
ray machines at passenger checkpoints, like we have through the
checked baggage system, will ensure that no airport represents
a weak point of entry into the passenger aviation system.
Ensuring this upgrade happens as quickly as possible is a
security imperative.
Similar advances in credential authentication technology
enables TSOs to identify fraudulent documents and quickly
confirm passenger identity. As criminals and terrorist
organizations move in to the cyber domain, investments in cyber
defenses for our transportation system will help boost our
online defenses.
I look forward to hearing how you are partnering with CISA
and the private sector to ensure that our cyber infrastructure
is protected alongside our physical infrastructure.
I am also pleased to note the continuation of the federal
flight deck officer and crew program which is a critical last
line of defense against the worst case scenario of an in-flight
hijacking.
Finally, I have reservations about the nearly $1 billion
requested for personnel compensation benefits and collective
bargaining. TSA's own estimates suggest that the total cost for
these pay increases amounts to $7.9 billion over the course of
five years. While I wholeheartedly believe that providing
appropriate pay to the men and women of TSA and I appreciate
their dedication and service to our nation, we will need to
balance pay increases against other funding requirements of the
department.
Again, sir, I would like to thank you for your service and
leadership. I look forward to our conversation today.
Madam Chairwoman, I thank you and I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Administrator Pekoske, while we will
submit the full text of your official statement for the hearing
record, please begin your oral summary which I would ask you
keep to 5 minutes.
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you, Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking
Member Fleischmann and distinguished members of the Homeland
Security subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today. And Chairwoman and Ranking Member, I
appreciate your comments in your opening statement.
I am extremely grateful for the production relationship TSA
enjoys with this subcommittee and the longstanding support
we've received from its members and staff.
Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member, I appreciate your
letters of condolence for those we have lost during the
pandemic. They convey your strong bipartisan support of our
people and have been very meaningful for the families and
colleagues that we have lost.
As TSA administrator, I have had the great honor of leading
our dedicated employees as they perform our mission of
protecting the nation's transportation systems with excellence
every day. In the beginning of my term as administrator, I
established three strategic priorities to guide the agency
through its 25th anniversary in 2026. They are to improve
security and safeguard the transportation system; to accelerate
action; and commit to our people.
As I come before you today nearing the end of the fifth
year as administrator, I want to use this opportunity to update
you on our progress on those priorities and able body
appropriations you have provided and how, in fiscal year 2023,
we request your support to continue this effort.
TSA's most important asset is its people. We cannot be
successful in our vital mission without a professional engaged
and enabled workforce. That's why I commit to our people as a
strategic priority and why attracting and retaining our
transportation security officers and other frontliners and
support personnel is critically important to Homeland and
national security.
As you know, significant parts of TSA's workforce are
underpaid relative to other federal government employees and
that continues to impede TSA's ability to improve the overall
experience and therefore our ability to recruit and retain at
levels on mission demands. This is most acute in our screening
operations. 81 percent of our uniformed TSOs make less than
their GS equivalents. But it's an agency-wide issue, too.
Overall, 75 percent of the current TSA workforce receives pay
that is lower than our counterparts in other federal agencies.
This is unfair, has mission impacts, and I ask for your support
to put us on an equitable footing with the rest of the
government.
To address this long-term pay and equity, the fiscal year
2023 budget includes $871 million to ensure TSA employees are
paid at a level commensurate with the counterparts on the
general schedule pay scale. It also requests an additional $121
million to establish labor relation support to manage expanded
labor relations benefits for TSOs as well as supporting their
right to adverse action appeals to the Merit System Protection
Board. If we do not address TSA's long-term pay and equity or
even defer some common sense solutions for a short time, this
would have significant adverse impacts to our people. In fact,
it could lead to many of our officers and other valuable
employees to leave the agency just as the nation's
Transportation System and Aviation sector recovers from the
pandemic. At the same time, it would undercut recruitment
efforts and likely require TSA to continue to increase short-
term hiring retention incentives to counter those losses.
As we continue to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic that
has impacted so many over the last two years, TSA expects
passenger volumes to return to the historical year-over-year
growth rate of 4.5 percent. We expect to screen over 2 million
passengers per day this summer and be at or very close to pre-
pandemic passenger volumes. The fiscal year 2023 budget will
strengthen TSA's ability to recruit, hire, train and retain
staffing levels needed to keep pace with the demands of
increasing volumes in fiscal year 2023 while also meeting wait
time standards and continuing to provide effective and
efficient security.
I would like to take a moment here to discuss the incident,
Madam Chairwoman, that you mentioned that occurred at Los
Angeles International Airport where a passenger traveling with
gel ice packs, one of which was frozen and the other partially
frozen, to keep breast milk cold experienced screening that was
not consistent with our standard operating procedures. I share
your concern about this incident and assure the members of this
committee and the American public that we will continue to look
closely at our training and security procedures to make sure
they are being consistently and properly applied at our
checkpoints nationwide. We have reached out to, and spoken with
the passenger to express our apologies. And I am sure there are
other passengers who have had a similar experience. We will fix
this and have already updated our online information and
provided the refresher brief to our entire screening workforce.
Our next strategic priority, accelerate action, recognizes
that a well-trained, appropriately compensated and sufficiently
sized workforce can only be successful if they have the right
tools for the job. It is imperative we continue to accelerate
action to strengthen checkpoints' screening operations by
investing in new technology that will improve screening
effectiveness, efficiency and the passenger experience. To that
end, the fiscal year 2023 budget includes $105 million for the
checkpoint property screening system program and $19 million
for on-person screen algorithm development to address
capability gaps and detect new and evolving threats in civil
aviation.
TSA's third strategic priority is to secure and safeguard
the nation's transportation systems. Implicit in that priority
is the need to recognize evolving threats from adversaries and
anticipate their changing tactic. The fiscal year 2023 budget
requests $23.5 million to enable early detection and
dramatically improve the cybersecurity of TSA networks and our
ability to protect TSA's sensitive data in compliance with
recent executive orders and OMB direction. Throughout the
transportation sector, TSA continues to help partners build
cybersecurity resilience and improve incident response focusing
on the pipeline, rail and aviation sectors.
In closing, Chairwoman Roybal-Allard and Ranking Member
Fleischmann and members of the subcommittee, thank you again
for your strong support and the opportunity to testify before
you today. I look forward to the opportunity to respond to your
questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Administrator Pekoske, we have spoken
many times about the relatively low compensation provided to
TSA's workforce especially transportation security officers
when compared to other federal employees. We have also
discussed the importance of providing TSA's workforce the same
work of protection made available to other federal workers.
As you know, legislation to place TSOs into the Title V
civil service pay system was passed by the House last week. It
is not clear what the bill's state will be in the Senate. But
even without that legislation, you have broad authority over
the pay structure for TSA personnel. And the fiscal year 2023
budget proposes to implement a new pay structure beginning next
year.
As I discussed in my opening remarks, the way the
Administration is proposing to pay for that presents a huge
challenge for the subcommittee. In your opening statement, you
talked a little bit about this but I would like for you to
expand a little bit more on the importance of these proposed
changes to the workforce and to our nation's transportation
security, especially what the consequences would be if these
changes were not made.
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you, Chairwoman. I appreciate the
question. And I would first reflect on H.R. 903 which the House
passed last week and reiterate my strong support for that bill.
It's critically important that we bring compensation levels
across the entire agency in TSA into alignment with what our
employees' counterparts in most of the rest of the federal
government receive. In addition, it's important that our labor
framework be similar to what other employees in the federal
government receive especially for our transportation security
officers. I could not emphasize any stronger to you the
importance of both these initiatives. And as I said in my
opening statement, the impact on TSA is quite significant if we
do not implement what is in the fiscal year 2023 budget. We are
having a very tough time during this . . . particular last 6 to
8 months in recruiting people to come on board TSA to work in
our various disciplines within the agency but most especially
as transportation security officers.
Our attrition rates have historically been very high. They
remain very high. And what that results in is, first, a drain
on the overall talent within the agency that is particularly
important to maintain, to maintain a certain number of years of
experience within every screening checkpoint across the system.
And it also means now that we will have to recruit even more
which is, as I said just a minute ago, very, very challenging
for us.
So I would submit that these initiatives that are in the
fiscal year 2023 budget are absolutely critical to the
continued ongoing success of TSA. And then I would just overlay
on top of that the observation that we all have when we are
flying now is that the aviation sector is largely recovered. We
are at 90 plus percent recovered already on most days.
Passenger volume is over 2 million most days already. And we
expect to continue to grow over the summer and into fiscal year
2023. For us, we need to be prepared for that. It takes about 6
months for us to bring somebody on and to train them and
certify them in the positions they perform in our screening
checkpoints. So it is not something we can turn on and turn off
quickly either.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Can you briefly talk about what steps
the Administration is taking to ensure the fee revenue proposed
to help pay for this initiative will actually be available?
Mr. Pekoske. The fee revenue to pay for the initiative
comes out of the aviation security passenger fee. Madam
Chairwoman, as you mentioned in your opening statement and your
follow on question, the way that fee is currently structured,
the first $250 million of fee revenue goes to the Aviation
Security Capital Fund. And then the next--in fiscal 2023, the
next $1.52 billion goes to deficit reduction. And then the
balance of the fee revenue is used to offset the appropriations
for TSA. The proposal is that we end that deficit reduction
diversion and use those revenues to compensate for the
increased funds we are going to have to spend to provide
equitable pay for the TSA workforce and equitable labor
relations rights for that workforce. And so, the current law
does need to be changed. There are legislative proposals to do
that.
The other thing that I would emphasize here is that there
is not a proposal to increase the aviation security passenger
fee itself. The proposal is to keep the fee at the same levels.
Let's expand the $1.52 million diversion which increases by $40
million every year all the way through fiscal year 2027.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair.
My first question, sir, the budget request is nearly $1
billion for increased pay benefits and collective bargaining
for TSOs. While I fully believe in paying TSOs as a competitive
benefits package, I understand that the 5-year cost is nearly
$8 billion. Balancing this need against other priorities, is
there, sir, a scalable way to increase benefits?
Mr. Pekoske. So in balancing against those priorities, I
would just offer that aviation security is a critical priority
for the Homeland security and the national security of the
United States. And for too many years, the TSA workforce--and
this is beyond the transportation security officer workforce
although it is most acute within that workforce and that is the
largest workforce component within TSA--but the pay and equity
applies to pay levels and specialties across the entire agency.
I mentioned in my opening statement that 75 percent of the TSA
workforce, if you classified their positions in the general
schedule, they see a pay increase. So that pay and equity is
significant for us.
And I would just observe that we participate and have
benefitted greatly by the federal employee viewpoint surveys
that come out every year. And they assess worker views on the
agency, worker views on the morale within the agency. TSA has
always struggled in those surveys. And what those surveys show
clearly, year after year after year, is that pay is the number
1 issue by far of any factor. And I wouldn't say that pay is
the only issue. But if we address this issue, it will result in
an--a workforce that is equitably paid as a labor framework
that is similar to other federal agencies and also will improve
retention which will be important for our security
effectiveness. And it is just something that, in my opinion, we
need to do. I have had 5 years in this job. I have tried many
different ways to improve the compensation package for our
frontline workforce. They have moved the needle a little bit
but not nearly enough compared to what needs to happen and what
I believe that the American public's expectations are for their
experience going through aviation screening.
Mr. Fleischmann. Understand your position, sir. As you
mentioned, you propose paying for these costs by ending the
deficit reduction program for passenger fees that was put in
place under the Ryan-Murray budget deal in 2013. My question,
sir, is do you have other suggestions to pay for the increases
of TSA pay, sir?
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you for your question, Ranking Member.
And from my perspective, there is no room within the TSA budget
to offset this requirement for additional pay. Our budget is
very, very tight as it is. Our acquisition program is
proceeding along but we have very far out, out-year full
operating capability dates for some of our key technology
upgrades which you mentioned in your opening statement. So from
a TSA budget perspective, there is absolutely no room in the
TSA budget to fund this initiative.
And I would note, too, that I appreciate the committee's
efforts to help partially fund those in beginning of fiscal
year 2021 and going on into fiscal 2022. We have been trying to
do this piecemeal. It just has not provided the impact and the
effect that we had hoped. And plus, we are dealing with an
incredibly competitive labor market in the United States. But I
do not expect it to subside any time in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Fleischmann. Well, thank you for your answers, sir.
Administrator Pekoske, I do have some other questions but they
are rather in depth on tomography. So I think, Madam Chair,
what I will do is wait for my round 2 and yield back to you so
others may ask. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Pekoske, thank you for being with us today. Like the
chairwoman, I was concerned to learn of the incident last week
where TSA agents at the LAX airport refused to let a
breastfeeding mother bring ice packs to insulate breastmilk
through security. TSA made the mother check the ice packs and,
as a result, she was unable pump before her 5-hour long flight.
I am glad TSA issued an apology for this incident but it is
not a new problem. For years, the chairwoman and others have
encouraged TSA to make sure that families can safely travel
with breastmilk and formula. The best way to do this is to
ensure families have clear guidance from TSA.
When I reviewed the existing guidance that comes up first
when you Google, though, I saw this caveat at the bottom: ``The
final decisions rest with the TSA officer on whether an item is
allowed through the checkpoint.''
I would like to know more, sir, about how exactly TSA
officers make these determinations. Can you lay out the
specific circumstances that would cause a TSA officer to
prevent an item needed for breastfeeding, such as gel and ice
packs, from going through the checkpoint?
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you, Congresswoman Underwood. I
appreciate the question. And we have updated all of our web
guidance to be explicitly clear that breastmilk and formula are
permitted through the screening process.
Now to directly answer your question, there are some
additional procedures when we see volumes of liquid that might
be above the limit of 3.4 ounces. And we just do some checks on
those substances as we always do and that is where the
discretion on the part of the federal security director and the
officer come in to play. I would expect that formula and
breastmilk will check clear on that on that and they typically
do.
And the key thing for us--and we have a lot of information
on our website. But I would also like to emphasize that we do
have a Twitter handle if there are any questions that
passengers ask. And we generally get back within a minute or so
to those questions. And a passenger can always ask for a
supervisor. And I agree--and my goal, and I am sure yours, is
that these issues are handled as a routine matter as people are
going through the screening checkpoint. That is our intent.
Every once in a while, it does not happen that way. And that is
where a supervisor needs to come in and address the situation.
Now I know in the case of LAX, the passenger did ask to
speak to a supervisor. I do not think that process was handled
properly either and we are addressing that.
Ms. Underwood. Excellent. So reports are already indicating
that Americans will be traveling more this summer than at any
point since the beginning of the pandemic which will mean
busier airports and longer lines for security. In your
testimony, you state that TSA expects travel volume to reach up
to 3 million passengers per day which is a 50 percent increase
over the current volume and a 25 percent increase over the
busiest pre-pandemic travel days in 2019.
You also state that TSA is planning to meet heightened
travel volumes by recruiting a workforce that can meet those
demands and ensuring passenger wait time expectations are met
while maintaining security effectiveness. Can you elaborate on
the specific steps you are taking to make sure that travelers
do not experience excessive wait time?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. We have taken a number of steps.
As I stated in my opening statement in response to the
chairwoman's question, it's hard for pretty much everybody,
whether it is a private sector entity or a government agency,
to hire at the levels we need to hire at the present time. And
so, what we have done is we have put a number of processes in
place to counterbalance that. For example, we have increased
retention incentives at airports where we see that the
attrition rates are higher than other airports of similar size.
So those retention incentives have been out there. And we have
the ability, under current law, to adjust those--really, we can
adjust retention incentives tomorrow if we chose to do that and
use that tool successfully.
We also pay significant recruiting bonuses now up to $2000
for new people coming on board. But we pay out that bonus over
a full year. So you get a bonus when you come into work the
first time and then you'll get the bonus after a year of
service within the agency.
We have created a new category of employees at the
screening checkpoint that are not screening officers. They are
called Security Support Assistance. The idea there is to be
able to hire these individuals quicker because they do not need
to meet all the requirements that we have in place for
Transportation Security Officers and to have them do things
like provide instructions to passengers on what to take out of
their carry-on bag, for example, before it goes through the x-
ray and to do some bin management back and forth within the
checkpoints. That is kicking off--it looks like it is going to
be very successful. I was just down at Atlanta airport
yesterday and they have about 1600 applicants in the queue for
both TSO employment and this Security Support Assistant
employment. So I think that is going to very positive for us.
And then lastly, we have a National Deployment Force within
TSA. Pre-pandemic, it was about 250 volunteers. These are fully
certified officers. Over the course of the pandemic and then up
to today, we have increased that to about 1000 officers. And
so, these are officers that volunteer to deploy their excess--
the current airport's needs and we just move them to other
airports with the anticipation of what volumes are going to be
because we have worked very closely with the carriers and with
our own projections that estimate when airports are really
going to need some additional men and women in the screening
checkpoints.
And so, all these things together, I think, will help us
meet the demands.
Final thing very quickly is that, yes, the recovery has
been robust and we are over 2 million per day. There is very
much a potential for a 3 million person day over the course of
this summer. But that recovery is a bit uneven. And that is why
we are able to take some resources from airports that have not
fully recovered and put them to some of the airports that are
either already at 2019 levels and some in excess of 2019
levels.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Administrator,
thank you for being here today. Also, thank you for your career
before this new career in the United States Coast Guard. Being
the 26th vice commandant, it is no small task. And so I know
you have got the executive experience to lead TSA. But again,
thank you for your service to your nation twice now. So thank
you.
TSA is undergoing significant changes to the PreCheck
Enrollment process. As you know, the TSA PreCheck program is
among the most popular federal programs under DHS. However, I
have concerns with how this transition is being carried out.
Specifically, we have concerns about the privacy of the
traveling public. Are DHS and TSA committed to ensuring that
passenger data and information will not be commercialized and
be sold or handled by third parties outside of PreCheck
Enrollment contract holders? And is DHS also able to put clear
privacy protections in place?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. Thank you, first, for your comments.
And then for the check on our custom travel programs, they have
been very, very successful, both TSA PreCheck and Customs and
Board Protection Global Entry Program. If you are in either
program, you get the PreCheck insignia on your boarding pass
paper or electronic that gives you PreCheck privileges when you
go through screening.
We are seeing PreCheck enrollments return already to pre-
pandemic levels. So people have already started to come back in
for the enrollment process to enroll in TSA PreCheck.
We take very care--very high care for all of the personally
identifiable information that a passenger provides. And we have
criteria for all of our enrollment providers to ensure that not
only do they protect the information when they store it within
their own systems but when they are transmitting that
information across, we use the highest protocols to be able to
ensure that that data is protected.
TSA PreCheck and Global Entry are hugely valuable programs
for us. They increase security effectiveness. They increase
security efficiency. And as I'm sure almost all of us on this
call are, we are already trusted traveler members. That is a
significant passenger convenience factor as well.
Mr. Palazzo. Yes, sir. I appreciate that. Can you--I don't
know if you answered my primary part of my question. Is TSA or
DHS--are you all going to sell or commercialize the information
that you collect on travelers?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, no. TSA and DHS do not sell or
commercialize the data. But we do have new TSA enrollment
providers through an OTA agreement that should come online
sometime in the next several months. And they have the
opportunity to bundle the TSA PreCheck service with other
offerings they may offer. But it's a passenger's choice to go
to those additional vendors, which are very important for us
because we want to increase the network across the country
where passengers can readily TSA PreCheck enrollment and
renewal. So they are able to bundle that information but it is
only with the passenger's acknowledgment that the information
they provide will be used for that purpose.
Mr. Palazzo. And privacy protections are in place to
protect the traveler's data.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. Next question. According to the
September 2020 Credential Authentication Technology procurement
and deployment report to Congress, TSA has deployed CAT units
to 119 airports. What is TSA's plan to expand the deployment
and operation of CAT systems to all checkpoint screening lanes
across the 430 federalized airports?
Mr. Pekoske. Our plan is to do just that. It is to deploy
the CAT technology across every single airport within our
system. The CAT technology is a significant security
enhancement. Not only does it electronically validate the
credential that's offered. But the newest version of CAT
technology does a one-to-one match with a camera and matches
what the camera sees with the passenger standing in front of
the camera and the credentials image digitized. So it's
significantly effective there.
The additional part of the CAT-2 procurement is that it is
connected to our secure flight database which is the database
that we use to vet all passengers and assess a risk status to
passengers. So it lets us readily identify who is a PreCheck
passenger, who is a standard lane passenger, who is a passenger
that may need additional screening. And that is done in the
real time. I think it is critically important that this
capability be at every single airport in the system because in
our system, if you come into one airport, you are essentially
in the entire system. So I'd appreciate the continuous strong
support of this committee for the CAT program.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield
back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Administrator Pekoske. I want to thank you for
the work that you and TSA agents do and those officers are
doing to keep Iowa safe as we all travel, obviously, on
frequent flyer. So I really appreciate the job that they do.
And I know that the industry has really been ravaged by
COVID. Lots of shifts in work schedules, lots of challenges to
which your folks have had to adapt. And so I appreciate your
attentiveness and your responsiveness to all of these issues as
well as specifically touching on cybersecurity. Iowa's critical
infrastructure has been subject to several cyber attacks in the
past year so I certainly appreciate you keeping that on top of
mind.
And I know keeping passengers safe as they travel is a top
priority for TSA. Up-to-date technology plays a significant
role in that and specifically replacing the aging baggage point
screening technology is your number 1 tech acquisition in the
budget request. And actually one of the airports in my district
in Waterloo is set to get some of this new technology from the
program later this year. So I would just ask you straight away,
what are the benefits of these new systems for baggage
screening?
Mr. Pekoske. Ma'am, thank you for your question. Thank you
for your reference to cybersecurity because we have done a lot
of work on that, particularly over the last 12 months.
But with your question regarding CT computer to monitor the
x-ray technology, we've used CT technology in checked baggage
for a good number of years. But only recently have they closed
the distance and been able to be sized to the point that they
can be used in screening checkpoints. The advantages of those
systems are, first and foremost, they can detect an awful lot
more. The technology is different and its ability to detect is
significantly better than the current technology that is there.
Additionally, the technology is able to look at a carry-on
bag from a 3-dimensional perspective. And so what passengers
will see is when the CT technology is employed, even standard
lane passengers won't have to take laptops out of their carry-
on bags. Won't have to take liquid aerosols and gels out
because--and the reason we have those taken out in the past was
the x-ray system couldn't see beyond that metal block. With the
CT technology, it can literally see underneath, sideways, you
can slice through what's in the carry-on bag.
The other benefit of the CT technology is that it will
result in fewer bag searches. So--and we just came to a
pandemic. One of the things that we wanted to do was to limit
the amount of physical contact between our officers and
passengers and passengers' belongings. Because the CT
technology results in more on-screen resolution, so if you see
something on the screen that is of concern, you can resolve a
lot more then than with the current technology right on the
screen without having to do a bag search. And then if you do
have to do a bag search, it is a very targeted bag search. We
did not know----
Mrs. Hinson. Right. So it is really an efficiency thing.
And so that will save time and, obviously, frustration for
passengers not having to take all that stuff out going through
a checkpoint as well.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes. Exactly.
Mrs. Hinson. And specifically, obviously, this budget calls
for $105 for baggage screening technology updates. At this
point with that request, how long do you anticipate that it
will take for a full replacement of baggage screening techs
across the country?
Mr. Pekoske. If we took $105 million and just extended that
out into the out-years, it would take us until fiscal year 2036
to complete this acquisition. And that is from a funding
perspective. And then we would need the follow on year to fully
install those systems we acquire in fiscal 2036.
The other thing that I would emphasize on this program is
it has been in place for a while. We have contract vehicles
already in existence. And we have a series of vendors that are
competing for these contracts. And as I said earlier, not only
does this provide better passenger experience and provide a
better tool in the hands of the officers, it simply provides
much better security. And as we look at the threats going out
to the next 5 to 10 years, we need to have this capability in
place as soon as we can.
Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. One question to follow up on that. I
would say that's a number 1 priority. Why are they taking so
long? Should we be moving it up on the priority scale? And then
the other thing, when you look at this length of time, that is
a lot of maintenance for legacy systems as well. So how much
are you anticipating that to cost to maintain legacy systems
while you are rolling this out?
Mr. Pekoske. And you are right. The cost for legacy systems
is still there. But we have been pretty successful in keeping
our legacy system cost--it does increase year to year but not
nearly as much as you would expect given the age of some of our
x-ray systems. And, yes, it is taking a little bit longer. Why
do we not accelerate it? It all involves the top line. You
know, the chairwoman asked at the very beginning and observed
funding pay equity is going to be a real challenge. And it is
within our current cap. And the same applies with CT is within
our current top line. We have to make some very hard choices
within that top line. And so we have chosen to keep the
programs moving but not at the speed that we would like to if
we had more funds overall.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Administrator. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Administrator, I want to start by expressing my thanks to
TSOs across the country who worked through the pandemic and
kept passengers safe.
I wanted to ask specifically about REAL ID. In May of 2023,
there are passengers who are going to show a REAL ID-compliant
form of identification at TSA checkpoints. While this
implementation was delayed in part due to the pandemic, many
Americans still do not have REAL ID. How is the agency
preparing for May of 2023 and how does the budget in front of
us support an efficient and effective role out that will be
seamless for passengers?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. Thanks for the question. And on REAL
ID, you are right. REAL ID implementation is scheduled for the
3rd of May of 2023 so less than a year away.
The budget formally transfers the REAL ID program from the
Department of Homeland Security to TSA because now the lion's
share of the work is within TSA's rubric. We intend over the
course of the next year to increase our public information that
is provided out there. You are already starting to see some
additional messaging atcheckpoints. But that is not enough. It
needs to be much broader than that because some passengers only
travel once or twice a year and would not get that messaging.
One of the things we found when we had the earlier deadline
approaching, before COVID-19 hit and we extended the deadline,
was one of the most effective ways to message the need for REAL
ID. It was just to simply tell passengers individually when
they came into the checkpoint, well in advance, you know, 6 to
8, 10 months in advance that a driver's license that you
presented today will not be good for access the screen process
as of May of 2023. And that way, that individual messaging gets
the word out.
Additionally, we have a very good relationship and are
working very hard with all the DMVs across the country to make
sure that we understand kind of where each DMV is with the
issuance of REAL IDs and providing whatever assistance we can
in that process. But the REAL ID, if you look at the credential
authentication technology, that, married up with the REAL ID,
is a very, very powerful identity verification process.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate that. Can you--as the budget
justification highlights as well, many states are transitioning
to mobile driver's license and digital IDs. Can you now shift
and talk a little bit about how the budget supports TSA's work
to integrate these types of identification and how that is
going to interplay with the REAL ID system?
Mr. Pekoske. So the mobile driver's license is a form of
digital ID. And there will be, I predict, several forms of
digital ID out there. One of the things that we have done in
working with digital ID and with mobile driver's license, the
first use case for that is with Apple in the state of Arizona.
And that went live a couple months ago. And so far, it is
working out very well. But we have worked hard to make sure
that there is high fidelity in the transmission of data from a
person's driver's license into their Apple Wallet, in the case
of Apple, or, in the case of other phones, their similar
application for that purpose.
The other thing is that we have tried to standardize the
means of transmission of that data from the phone, from the
mobile device, through our credential authentication
technology. And that is all standardness standards. So the idea
was to develop a standard test, move that along, so that they
could be universally used by any particular vendor going
forward. And very shortly, we will publish an identity
management roadmap. It will post it on our public facing web
page that will describe the work that we are doing within TSA,
within the federal government and with other vendors on
additional identity and how we are managing identity management
overall.
Final thing I would say, sir, is that first and foremost in
our minds on this is to make sure we protect the privacy
concerns of passengers and to make sure whatever technology we
put in place has very, very low error rates. And all of our
testing shows that this is the case. So I think it is a very
positive way forward. And if you think of touchless technology
and the ability to get identity verified without literally
touching anything, I think the way forward is pretty clear for
digital identity.
Mr. Aguilar. Can you tell us how digital IDs interact with
your screening systems?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. What happens is with the current
Apple Wallet digital IDs, the ones currently in place--that is
probably the best way to describe it--is a passenger, when you
walk up to the screening checkpoint, it will ask you do you
want to transmit your driver's license at a TSA. And it will
also show you what data fields are going to be transmitted to
TSA. And like you do with any payment system in the Apple
Wallet, you double click the button so it confirms that you
want to do that. And then you literally tap your phone on a
reader device that we have with our CAT technology. And so it
transmits it electronically. And then what the system does is
it looks at a person's full name and their date of birth. And
it also pulls the photograph on the driver's license
electronically. It takes that electronic photograph and uses
the camera to match it up with the person standing before it so
a digital match. And then once you are complete and your
identity is verified and you walk away, as soon as you walk a
certain number of feet away from that reader, all the data that
we have from your driver's license is erased. And we put out
privacy impact statements all the way through the development
of this to be very explicit with passengers of what data were
we using and then how long we are retaining that data which is
a very, very short period of time.
Mr. Aguilar. Thanks for the update, Administrator. Thanks,
Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
Administrator Pekoske, I really want to begin by saying
thank you for your service to our country and also
congratulations on, I think, your recent renewal for 5 years.
We are very pleased to see that. Congratulations on that.
I wanted to ask a question very briefly on the Federal
Flight Deck Officers program. I think it is a great program and
it has enjoyed strong support from this subcommittee since its
inception like almost 20 years ago, I guess. And I see we have
several training facilities that are being added including
Atlanta back in 2019 even though that is not a full-time
facility yet but I suppose it will be soon.
But my question is--and I think locating that in a major
hub is like brilliant because that is going to help get a lot
of folks through that might not otherwise be able to. But my
question is about the budget because for about the last 5 years
or more, I see a declining budget request for this program.
Now--although we flustered up in those years when Atlanta was
being proposed. My real question is we are committed to this
program. Is the Administration committed to this program? Not
you necessarily but coming from a president's budget request, I
do not understand why they have not been plussing this up as it
has grown.
Mr. Pekoske. Congressman Rutherford, thanks first for your
comments. And secondly, I agree and the Administration agrees
that this program is an incredibly valuable program. It
provides--and we are all about having layers of security in our
security system. So if one later is not completely effective,
the next layer will be. The Federal Flight Deck Officer program
is the epitome of that.
I appreciate all the carriers allowing this program to
proceed on board their aircraft and certainly all the pilots
and first officers that participate in the program.
We saw a decline in enrollments totally expected during the
pandemic. And now we are in the recovery phase. And so we have
now restarted some of the initial training courses which are
out in Artesia, New Mexico. We have a class of 32 that is going
through this fiscal year. And then--I'm sorry. Eight classes.
And then 16 classes in fiscal 2023. The recurrent training is
critically important, too. And I couldn't--major hubs is very,
very important. Atlanta--we started off. We still need to
finish that. And then we will work on budget support for that
into the future.
But, you know, I would just highlight that our partnership
with pilots and first officers and flight attendants is
critically important to aviation security. And we have done an
awful lot of work with both. I just need to make sure we keep
focused on that. And we will work on putting together--to do
that. So we can see where we are today, where do we want to get
over the next 5 years and what are the milestones to getting
there.
Mr. Rutherford. They are the lifeline of defense. And I can
say that the Airline Pilots Association really appreciates you
all and your focus on this program.
Let me ask this very quickly. So under the credentialing
authentication technology, I think you have about 1520 units
out right now. And you have got 75 CAT-2s to be purchased in
this budget. How many do you need going forward? And how the
rollout between the CAT-1s and the CAT-2s?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. The CAT-1s are an earlier version.
CAT-2 more capable has the camera with it. It has faster speed
to it. And it will also have the ability to receive the digital
identities. We eventually want to transition--we eventually
want to upgrade all the CAT-1s to CAT-2s. And then future
purchases will be of CAT-2s primarily.
When we look at this program, basically, the planning
factor is for every standard lane, so not a PreCheck lane, for
every standard lane to have one CAT machine across the entire
country, every single airport. And then for every PreCheck lane
to have 2 CAT machines just to keep up with the pace of
through-put through the PreCheck lanes.
These CAT devices, too, are relatively mobile so they are
not next to the floor so you can move them around. And that
provides extra versatility at the screen checkpoint. So when we
re-baseline this program, the full requirement is going to be
roughly about 3500 machines, so a significant increase over
what we have today. And it is going to be very important for
continuing to develop our identity verification process. I
mean, we are one of the only security systems around the world
that verifies the identity of every person. A lot of systems
require a boarding pass. But we require a boarding pass and the
identity verification.
And the other part with CAT that I should have mentioned
earlier is, you know, as a passenger, you will notice that when
the CAT machine is employed and you are asked to put your
driver's license into the slot so it can read it or put your
passport down, we do not ask you for a boarding pass because
part of the technology returns to us your flight info. So it
has got multiple benefits. And we do want to expand the
program. And these are relatively inexpensive machine to
machine. It just took a lot to develop the technology.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I
yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. That completes the first round.
And so we are going to go into a second round.
Administrator, before I go into my next topic, I want to go
back to my original topic with regards to the pay increase for
the workforce. And specifically, I would like to know exactly
what steps the Administration is taking to ensure that the fee
revenue that is proposed will actually be available. For
example, is the Administration working with the authorizers
because as was mentioned earlier, it is going to take a change
in law.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. And I can show you that the
Administration will be working with the authorizers on this. We
recognize it requires a change in law and that originally has
been the authorization committee. So that work is certainly
contemplated and underway.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Passenger volumes at many airports are
now returning to or exceeding pre-pandemic levels as you have
mentioned. And we have heard recent reports of long lines at
airports. For example, Congressman Doggett from Texas spoke to
me about the delays at the airport in Austin, Texas. He told me
the lines are so long that they overflow the airport terminal
and snake up and down outside the building in very hot weather.
The fiscal year 2023 request includes $243 million for
additional staffing to support the projected increase in
passenger volume. This translates into an additional 2,540
positions. However, this funding will not be provided before
October at the very earliest. What is TSA's current estimate of
passenger levels for fiscal year 2022 and are you on track to
meet the associated staffing requirements particularly as we
head into the very busy summer season? And in addition to that,
what steps is TSA taking to address the long lines at airports
such as those at Congressman Doggett's airport in Austin?
Mr. Pekoske. Thanks for the question. And I have just
spoken to Mr. Doggett in his office last week and then talked
to him on the phone when we had the first wait time issue in
Austin Airport as people were leaving from the South by
Southwest event in Austin.
Austin, Texas is rapidly growing. It is one of the fastest
growing areas in the country. And airport volume has grown
substantially there. We are doing our very best to be able to
provide increased TSA capacity and meet that growth and to
prevent wait times from exceeding our standards.
Now our standards for wait times--sometime the line will
appear very long--and I accept that we do not want people
standing outside particularly in a very warm climate. Our
metric is to look at the wait time overall. And what we do is
we establish them and all of our planning is based on a wait
time of 30 minutes or less for standard passenger and 10
minutes or less for a PreCheck passenger.
By and large, across our system, we are able to meet those
standards. But every once in a while, we are not. And
unfortunately--I met with Mr. Doggett, I believe, last
Thursday. And we had not seen a wait time exceed our standards
in Austin Airport since South by Southwest. So it had been
many, many weeks that we had not seen those increased wait
times. But literally, two days later, we had one. And part of
it involves staffing that just does not meet the passenger
volume that we are seeing. But we try to employ as many tools
as we can to be able to address it because we do not want to
see large gatherings of people in public areas at the airport
either.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, how often are these estimates made
with regards to passenger volume? Because it is not just Mr.
Doggett, but I am hearing from others that have had some real
horrible experiences and long wait times at various airports.
So how often are these estimates made and exactly--how exactly
is it determined?
Mr. Pekoske. Ma'am, a really good question. And we look at
these estimates and we revise them as we need to. If we see an
airport that is starting to spike up, we can literally revise
them every 2 or 3 days if we need to. And that is how we
determine from our national deployment force how many officers
to send to those airports. For example, in Austin, we have 50
additional officers up there at that airport today. And
beginning on Memorial Day weekend, we will have 61 additional
officers.
The other thing that we are doing is we are redeploying
some of our K-9 teams to airports that are seeing those
increased wait times. But I would come back to the very good
conversation we had earlier in this hearing. You know, our
challenge right now is being able to bring on transportation
security officers and get them certified to meet those volume
demands. And, really, people looking for employment in this
environment have a lot of choice. And they are going to compare
compensation levels. That is why the pay equity initiative is
so important.
And it has another importance that I think everybody is
aware of. But I just would talk about it for a second to
emphasize it is there are a lot of employees that we have that
come in to TSA to begin their federal career. They have an
entry point at TSA. We go through all the process that a
regular federal employee would require to be hired. And then
they look for other opportunities. And it is no surprise that
some of them would because if they are looking at a--for a TSO
with 30 percent pay difference by moving to another federal
agency, some people depending on what their own personal
desires are, are going to take advantage of that opportunity.
So I think the pay issue will be the single most important
thing that will help us address our staffing challenges. And it
is very important. The signals that we all provide right now on
this proposal are critically important because people are
expecting, given the present budget, their expectation is that
our pay and equity within TSA will be addressed. And, you know,
I have great concern that, if we don't meet that expectation,
it is going to make it actually harder than it already is in
the next several months.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well I certainly hope that the
administration will be working diligently with the authorizes
in order to make this happen. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Administrator Pekoske, while the TSA is mostly known for
aviation security, your agency also has primary oversight over
the vast pipeline network that ensures the flow of energy
throughout our country.
The Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack had devastating
impacts on the national energy supply, particularly in the mid-
Atlantic and northeast.
Mr. Administrator, what lessons has TSA learned from the
Colonial Pipeline attack and, going forward, how is TSA
partnering with CISA and the private sector to bolster cyber
security throughout the transportation sector?
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you, Ranking Member.
We are working very, very closely with the pipeline
companies and, you know, within the pipeline sector, there are
thousands of companies. One of the things that we have done in
very close partnership with CISA is to identify those companies
that are most critical within that subsector.
And then what we have done over the past year plus is we
have used the authorities in TSA to require certain activities
to improve those companies' resilience to a cyber attack.
You know, Colonial Pipeline was a ransomware attack. There
are other attack vectors that make the pipeline sector, the
rail sector and the aviation sector vulnerable and we have been
working diligently with those companies and with other federal
agencies to make sure that we improve our overall preparedness.
So we have done things like requiring that cyber incidents
get reported before the legislation that passed Congress was in
place just so that not only we had a baseline, we in the
federal government, but companies within that sector could see
that, hey. I am getting attacked, you know, every ``X'' number
of days. What has been the experience of other companies in the
same sector, and just being able to benefit from the collection
of that data.
We require a cyber-security coordinator be available 7/24
so that, if there is a cyber incident, we can get in contact
with somebody right away.
And we are working those reporting requirements for those
two things through CISA because, you know, the desire and I
think very positive is to have CISA be the front door for
private sector entities to come through with respect to cyber
security concerns that they might have and to be, you know, to
be wanting to go to CISA for assistance.
We have also required vulnerability assessment contingency
plans. And then, in the case of pipelines in particular, we
required certain measures to be put in place to raise
significantly their cyber security baseline.
Things like, you know, patching software. Things like
multi-factor authentication. Administrator access and things of
that nature.
What we have also done in our security directives for one
of the very first times since my time as the administrator is
generally our security directives are Sensitive Security
Information so they are not released publicly.
We felt that it was so important for every critical
infrastructure owner and operator to see what the federal
government was doing that we made those publicly available so
that people could see the measures that we are recommending.
And, when I say we, it is CISA, the FBI and all the sector risk
management agencies.
So, in transportation, our co-sector risk management agency
is the Department of Transportation and we have worked very
closely with CIMSA, the pipeline or hazardous material safety
agency, the Federal Railroad Administration and the Federal
Aviation Administration and also the Department of Energy.
And I have seen terrific federal partnership on this and I
would also call out the companies because we have asked them to
do an awful lot in a very short period of time. They have done
it.
And I have been really very satisfied with the response of
the companies that are critical within the pipeline sector and
critical within the rail sector and the aviation sector. I
mean, they have put a lot of effort, a lot of people power to
it and a lot of financial resources to it.
So I would say, overall, a year later, our cyber security
for critical transportation infrastructure is significantly
better than it what it was May of 2021.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you for your comprehensive answer,
sir.
Sir, your budget requests $23.5 million to improve the
cyber security within TSA's networks. Can you provide specific
details on the specific initiatives this funding would support?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. That funding supports compliance
with the executive order that the President put in place and
the companion OMB management directive that requires federal
agencies to improve their cyber security. The idea is that the
federal agencies would be a key leader in the United States
on--with cyber security.
So, you know, for example, you know, one of the things that
we want to put in place is a zero trust environment across all
the networks within the federal government. And what that means
is, you know, if you can access your computer system like we
can now. You can access your computer system and then you can
literally go to different applications without having to re-
authenticate yourself.
Zero trust means that as you enter the system the first
time, you still have zero trust in your ability to move to
other applications. You have to re-authenticate.
Things like that that are quite expensive to put in place
but critically important because, you know, we don't want
federal systems to be successfully attacked by cyber actors.
They are attacked every day we just don't want those attacks to
be successful and we want to be the example along with our
private sector counterparts who work with cyber security.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Madam Chair, my time has
expired. I will yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
Administrator, again.
I wanted to ask you a little bit about something that I
find pretty concerning. It was reported last year that TSA
allowed certain forms of non-traditional identification
documents, including warrants for arrest or warrants for
deportation, as allowable forms of ID for flying.
Can you confirm that that was happening in the last year?
Mr. Pekoske. Yeah. I would just clarify what was happening
and we have worked really hard on this really going back to
2019.
We allow individuals who do not have a U.S. driver's
license or a passport to present some immigration documents to
the Transportation Security Officer at the checkpoint. That
document though is not their pass into our system. That
document has a file number on it and what we do is we take that
file number and then contact CBP and ICE, get information from
that file number to ensure that we can verify the identity of
that individual.
So it is not that people can just present the document and
they get through with no further scrutiny. That is just a
reference to a file that the immigration agencies have that we
verify.
Additionally----
Mrs. Hinson. So----
Mr. Pekoske [continuing]. Every single passenger--oh, I'm
sorry. Go ahead.
Mrs. Hinson. I was just going to say well what happens if
an identity can't be verified with that process? Are they
subject to additional screening? Are they able to get on a
plane without, you know, you knowing, with absolute certainty,
who they are? Will they actually--I mean, because I think that
is the biggest concern is, you know, kind of a double standard
here when Iowans and Americans are having to go through the
process of getting a real ID in the next year. That is going to
be a huge hassle for them. And they want to make sure that that
double standard is not being applied here.
Mr. Pekoske. Ma'am, no double standard. All the passengers
that do not have a form of acceptable ID, that we go through
our process, just like I described for migrants. If we can't be
reasonably sure that it is that person, then we do additional
screening on those individuals before they travel.
If we have serious concerns about their identity, we do not
permit travel. So we apply exactly the same standard across the
system and we are in the process of, as we talked about today,
of strengthening our identity management system overall.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay. Well that definitely--it makes me feel a
little bit better knowing that you are applying that strict
scrutiny standard to people that I think Iowans obviously care
about, making sure they are getting on a plane and that it is
safe and that that same standard is being applied to everyone
coming into our country.
And many Iowans obviously are traveling again as the
industry is rebounding and you obviously mentioned earlier that
TSA is expecting about 3 million passengers a day in the coming
year.
Obviously I fly quite a bit between D.C. and Iowa and I
actually just talked to some of our TSA folks on my way out of
Cedar Rapids on Monday and one of the things obviously that
they brought up was kind of the upcoming retirements and
workforce morale.
So what are you hearing specifically about morale? Are
there other things, and we have talked a lot about, you know,
retention and ways that we can maybe help support that in
Congress, but are there some non-monetary ways where we could
do that?
And then could you just briefly speak about, you know, long
term succession planning there?
Mr. Pekoske. Sure. You know, workplace morale is one of the
key things that I focus on every single day. And I try, as many
times as I can, I just, like I mentioned earlier, came back
from DFW. I was traveling last week as well. I try to get out
to the airports and, when I do, I walk around checkpoints, talk
to the officers, one on one, to get a sense for what their
morale is. And I also look at their--results.
So I think workplace morale and the--decor amongst that
workforce is critically important.
I would also footnote that, you know, the jobs we ask our
Transportation Security Officers to do are hard jobs. They are
on their feet all day long. Oftentimes, in some of the large
airports, they are showing up for work at 2:30, 3 o'clock in
the morning just to be ready for people arriving for those
morning flights.
And then, in any airport, even the smaller ones, there are
periods of time where just like in traffic you have rush hours.
And airports generally on the east coast from 5 a.m. until like
9 a.m., it is rush hour and it is just a constant flow of
passengers going through. And those officers need to maintain
our security standards all the time with every single
passenger.
You mentioned retirement and I would kind of go back again
to the impacts of not providing pay equity in fiscal 2023.
There are a lot of people that are retirement eligible. TSA
is 20 years old. So you start to get retirement eligibility
beginning at that point.
Pay equity will increase pay so substantially that if you
are a TSO and you are going to see a 30 percent pay increase,
because the retirement is based on your highest three levels of
pay, you would be incentivized to stay for three more years.
And so that will help us soften out what could be a higher
level of retirements then we have experienced in the past.
Even if you stay for one more year, that one year at 30
percent above, those increase the overall average. So there is
benefit for the longer time you stay. So it does impact
retirement.
And the other thing we are trying to do, and this affects
workplace morale, too, is you have supported, I have asked and
you supported the provision of a number of incentives to our
workforce, like those recruitment incentives, like incentives
for our retention based on the efficient rates at airports.
Incentives are great but, for employees, the incentives
don't count towards a retirement and they don't count to your
matches in your 401K equivalent, the TSP program and the
federal government.
So, you know, this is a way to also provide more surety on
compensation levels and more overall benefit to employees
because retention incentives can change over time. If attrition
all of a sudden drops down to a very low number, we would
decrease the retention incentives which would change the basic
pay that someone receives.
So I--and I really appreciate you engaging with our
officers. I know many members of this committee do that. It
means an awful lot to them. You know, they know that they are
doing very important work but hearing--how it is valued and, as
I mentioned, Chairwoman and Ranking Member, you sent those
letters and, as I have told you in the past, when people passed
away because of COVID, we posted them on our page where we
reflect and really highlight the contributions of people who
had passed away. Those are so meaningful to our employees
because they know that the oversight committee for TSA on the
appropriations side, that the members really care about their
well-being and it is very helpful to me in managing the agency.
Mrs. Hinson. Yeah. Well our supervisor in Cedar Rapids was
sharing about the Des Moines recruitment efforts and how you
are doing one stop shops for recruiting people. So had a really
good conversation with them and just appreciate the work that
you are doing and obviously we have some work to do in this
committee as well but have to balance our priorities as well
with the long term costs.
So I certainly appreciate your time, Administrator. Thank
you so much.
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Administrator Pekoske, it came to our attention last year
that TSA was allowing illegal immigrants to go through TSA and
board planes utilizing only DHS issued forms like a notice to
appear, alien booking records, warrants for arrest of an alien
and warrant for removal of deportation.
My question is we really don't know who these people are.
Are they--in many cases, we don't know who they are. Is there a
special dispensation, I guess, that DHS has CBP officers get
when they are moving and flying illegal aliens all over the
country?
Now I know many times they use their charter flights but
they are also using domestic flights, so putting these
individuals on planes with American citizens and others who
are--who we know who they are. How does that happen?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, you are--when you talk about the
immigration documents, as I mentioned earlier, those documents
contain a reference to an immigration file that is maintained
by both CBP and ICE, the immigration agencies.
What we do with those documents is we don't use that
document as the sole means of proceeding through the screening
process for TSA. We use that document to go back to the ``A''
file and verify that the person that is in front of us is what
is contained in that file. So we know that the person
encountered by our immigration agencies is this individual.
And then what happens in our process, whenever a person
flies, whether it is a person that is not a citizen of the
country, or a citizen, we take the information on their flight
information, you know, their name, their date of birth and the
information on the ``A'' files to verify and bounce that off
all of the terror databases that the U.S. Government holds.
So, you know, we would know if that individual is a known
or suspected terrorist and we would act accordingly.
Mr. Rutherford. Well here is my problem, sir. In
Jacksonville we had a case, illegal alien crossed the border.
Used one name, then a fake date of birth. DHS flew him on a
domestic flight to Jacksonville where he then murdered one of
our--one of my constituents. His name was Johan (ph).
Now it wasn't until after the murder that ICE was actually
able to determine who he truly was. So my question is how does
this guy get on a plane in Texas and we fly him to Florida?
And, quite frankly, we didn't know who he was. We had never
proved who he was.
So what is our policy on if you can't prove who they are?
The information in the ``A'' file, that doesn't prove anything.
Mr. Pekoske. Well, what the ``A'' file contains, sir, is
the information that CBP generally it is mostly the Border
Patrol obtained from the individual when they came through into
the United States or the CBP office of field operations officer
through a port of entry.
Mr. Rutherford. Uh-huh.
Mr. Pekoske. And what we look at, from a TSA perspective,
is is this person, based on their biometrics, watch listed in
any way, shape or form and then we apply the right level of
screening or we deny boarding based on that watch listed
status.
Mr. Rutherford. So you are telling me that these people are
vetted and they get no special consideration because DHS is
flying?
Mr. Pekoske. For DHS, and I am going to assume that you are
excluding the charter flights that the Department----
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I am not talking about
those.
Mr. Pekoske. We----
Mr. Rutherford. We talk most about the domestics where they
are flying on an airplane with me potentially or my children or
your children.
Mr. Pekoske. So we have not seen in, since 2019, any cases
where we had a person with terrorist connections fly on a
flight in the United States without the appropriate level of
screening provided for them.
Now we have, on any given day, people in different risk
categories that we apply additional screening to. So, in the
case of any person that doesn't have a driver's license or a
passport, there is always additional screening provided for
those individuals. And that applies across the board equally.
The other thing that we put in place over the past year and
a half is the use of an application that CBP uses to do
biometric verification of people that they encounter coming
across the border, whether through the Border Patrol or in the
ports of entry, and that is a pretty good process for using the
biometrics that they captured to ensure that the person that
they identified is the same person that is presenting in front
of us.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Thank you very much. I see my time is
up. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I just got word that Mr.
Ruppersberger is on his way. There are several hearings going
on, Administrator, at the same time. So, just to give him a
little bit of time to get here, I just want to ask one question
and that has to do with the counting of unmanned aerial systems
and the pilot that is now going on at LAX.
The 2021 Appropriations Act provided to TSA was to expand
the countering unmanned aerial systems pilot to the second
major airport which, as I mentioned, started last year at LAX.
Can you provide any kind of an update on the pilot at LAX?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. We are up to what we are calling
test beds. One is in Miami and that has been in place for
several months now and has been very successful and allowed us
to test out systems and to get much better awareness of the
prevalence of unmanned aerial systems in the airspace around
Miami airport.
The second test bed is out at LAX. That will kick off in
July of this year and, ma'am, we would be honored if, towards
the end of the summer into the early fall, if you and, when you
are going through Los Angeles airport, if you could just have a
little bit of extra time, we would love to show you what that
test bed looks like and kind of some of the results that we are
looking at from Miami that will apply in the LA test bed.
The other thing that I think is important here----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Administrator, on that point, if you
would just have someone contact my office when we are about a
week or two away from, you know, a desired visit, I would very
much like to do that.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. We would really appreciate your
time because I think you would find it really informative.
The other thing just to mention very quickly is that, you
know, the department's counter UAS authority expires in October
of this year because the authorization was for a limited time.
If that authorization is not renewed in October, those two test
beds will have to stop which would be a shame because we are
learning a lot and this is a threat to aviation that we need to
get better at.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Again, do you know if the administration
is talking with the authorizers?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. We are and the administration put
out a counter UAS national action plan that calls for the re-
authorization and it also calls for the provision of--on the
part of state, local and travel territorial organizations. It
has a national training plan, a national equipment
certification plan. It is very, very comprehensive and we will
provide your staff a copy of that plan.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Administrator, thank you for joining us here today.
I recognize that although your agents receive endless
flack, their roles are critical to ensuring the safety of our
transportation system.
In that vein, one of the core functions of TSA is to screen
the baggage of over 2 million passengers each day for
explosives, weapons and other contraband.
The best tool to do that, in my opinion, is computed
tomography or CT which your agency began using through a
successful 2017 pilot program to ensure exceptional CT
standards.
TSA began requiring vendors to undergo a thorough testing
process. The process which lands them on the qualified products
list or QPL.
Now, as of May 2022, only one vendor had been cleared to
supply CT units to TSA under the new procurement program called
CPSS. Given there are many qualified vendors in the industry,
this seems like a low figure considering there are other
vendors who have previously provided TSA with CT units.
While it is critical that TSA ensures vendors are meeting
the necessary standards, it is also important for TSA to be
transparent about expectations and timelines.
Also venders need to address issues if they arise during
the QPL process. To that end, I ask what is TSA doing to
improve vender experience and understanding of the QPL process
and do you need more funding and additional personnel expand
the QPL and evaluate all CPSS systems under review?
I know it is talking another language but you understand
that. So if you can answer the question, I would appreciate it.
Thank you.
Mr. Pekoske. Thanks, Congressman. I appreciate your
comments on the computed tomography capability. It is a
significant improvement in our security effectiveness and it
also improves efficiency and passenger experience.
I would also recognize all the work the vendors have done
to be competitive for CPSS, that is a checkpoint screening
system awards off of our contract vehicles.
And I do agree I would like to have multiple vendors being
able to compete for these contracts from a fully qualified
basis.
There is kind of a two-step process that we ask vendors to
go through. The first process is certification which means that
the ability of their technology to detect meets the standards
we have. And the second is qualification which means that, you
know, we look at things like maintenance, mean time between
failures, staffing required, things of that nature.
So that two-step process is important to get competitive
for these contract awards.
We know that we need to make that process a little quicker
but I do think that we have had pretty good back and forth with
the vendors in terms of managing expectations and I would be
happy to talk with you personally about this if there is some
specifics that you have that you would like to share.
But I do want to make sure that we have strong competition
for this procurement but, at the time, this poses a very
critical security gap that we have and it is important that we
move with due speed to bring this capability in.
The other thing I would observe is that, you know, we are
still at the very beginning stages of this overall procurement.
You know, to date, if we get the fiscal year 2023 funding that
we have asked for, we will have completed 40 percent of the
procurement for CPSS. So there is a lot more opportunity that
exists out there and, along that way, too, we want to make sure
that we continue to improve the capability, the technology,
that we are purchasing.
I think we have been very transparent about that. But I
sense from your question that there is some concern about it
which I very much want to address.
So I would be happy to meet with you individually or with
your staff to figure out--it.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah. You know, my concern when you have
contracting and--in this area of the law really, when you only
have one vendor, that concerns me. When you have other vendors
who have participated in the past and, from my understanding,
they have a good reputation with you all and I would suggest
you at least look at it and review it to make sure that we can
get more people who are qualified and that is the process that
we have and I think it has worked pretty well in the past.
So I just ask if you would look at it, evaluate it, see
where we are and make sure we can get the best for our country
when it comes to what you do which is very important to our
country and our safety.
Okay. I yield back.
Mr. Pekoske. Yeah----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah. Go ahead.
Mr. Pekoske. I absolutely commit to taking another look at
that. I want to make sure that we do have as much competition
as we possibly can.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah. That is all we are trying to do. I
think we will make out--and it might be that we are there now.
Who knows? That's the process.
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you for your comments and I
appreciate you looking at it again. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Administrator, I believe there are no
more questions. So we will conclude the hearing. Thank you very
much for your time and for everything that you and your
workforce does to protect the flying public.
The subcommittee on Homeland Security stands adjourned.
Wednesday, May 25, 2022.
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
WITNESS
JAMES MURRAY, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
During today's virtual hearing, members are responsible for
muting and unmuting themselves. When you are recognized to
speak, if I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will
ask you if you would like the staff to unmute you. if you
indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute your
microphone.
To avoid inadvertent background noise, I or staff I
designate may mute participant microphones when they are not
recognized to speak.
If there is a technology issue during the member's speaking
time, we will move to the next member until the issue is
resolved and you will retain the balance of your time.
We will be following the 5-minute rule. With 1 minute
remaining in your time, the clock on your screen will turn
yellow; when your time has expired, the clock will turn red and
it will be time to recognize the next member.
We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House
rules, alternating by party, beginning with the Chair and
ranking member, and then going to members present at the time
the hearing is called to order in order of seniority. We will
continue alternating by party until every member present has
had a first round.
Members can submit information in writing at any of our
hearings or markup using the email address provided in advance
to your staff.
Let us begin.
I welcome James Murray, Director of the United States
Secret Service, who is here to discuss his agency's operations
and the fiscal year 2023 budget request.
Director Murray, you are charged with two primary missions:
Protecting the President, key officials, and foreign
dignitaries; and investigating threats to our currency, and
financial systems and infrastructure. While this may not be a
presidential transition or campaign year, the Secret Service
has a very heavy protective workload with several national
special security events tentatively planned, including the UN
General Assembly in New York City. While not an NSSE event, you
also have the upcoming Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles.
In addition, the agency is protecting a comparatively large
number of additional protectees beyond the President, Vice
President, and their families, and the former Presidents,
including a small number of former officials from prior
administrations who were assigned protection by the last
President and whose protection has been temporarily extended by
the current President.
I hope you will use this hearing as an opportunity to
provide us with a candid assessment of whether your budget
request is sufficient to carry out your protection
responsibilities. We also will want to hear details about your
challenges related to cyber-fraud investigations, and
maintaining a workforce hiring pipeline and training capacity
aligned with current and future staffing requirements.
Also, before I turn to the ranking member, while I
understand you are addressing the situation that happened in
South Korea this past weekend, I would like you to update the
committee. I look forward to our discussion this afternoon.
I would now like to turn to the distinguished gentleman
from Tennessee, Ranking Member Fleischmann, for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and as usual
I appreciate this very important hearing for the subcommittee.
I look forward to our discussions today.
Welcome, Director Murray. I want to thank you for your
testimony today, sir, as we discuss the fiscal year 2023 budget
request for the Secret Service.
It was a pleasure, sir, to speak with you and your
outstanding team last week. You came by the office, as you
often do, and that means a lot to me and my staff and allows
this hearings to go much better, and it keeps me better
prepared. So, thank you so much for that, sir.
I also want to thank you personally for your many years of
service to our Nation.
Not only is your agency charged with protecting the
President, Vice President, and their families, but you also
protect other senior U.S. officials and the former Presidents.
In addition, National Special Security Events such as the UN
General Assembly stretch the Secret Service thin when hundreds
of agents are required for the protection of visiting heads of
state. It is a tough job with zero margin for error.
Unlike in the past, there are serious and credible threats
by our adversaries to several high-ranking former
administration officials who have been provided protection as a
result. This has also increased the demand for agents. Numerous
National Special Security Events each year are coupled with
increased travel, high-profile political rallies, and an
upcoming campaign season. Taken together, this operational
landscape presents challenges for the agency, particularly the
Uniformed Division who are called upon to work significant
overtime during protective details.
While not known as well, the Secret Service investigative
arm has thwarted fraud and criminal activity throughout the
financial sector, particularly the explosion of COVID fraud
cases where criminals seek to exploit programs intended to help
those Americans in most need.
Last year, the Secret Service cyber financial
investigations prevented the loss of $2.3 billion. Secret
Service counterfeit investigations arrested over 200 criminals
and COVID fraud investigations resulted in 215 arrests and
returned over $86 million to victims.
Turning to the budget request, the Secret Service proposal
includes $2.7 billion to support ongoing protective and
investigative operations and investments. This represents an
increase of 200 agents, uniformed officers, investigators, and
support staff; continued investment in the Fully-Armored
Vehicle Replacement Program; and funds to begin the planning
and preparation for the 2024 Presidential campaign.
As with other federal agencies, recruiting and retention
issues continue to oppose challenges to hiring, especially
considering the rigorous background checks, polygraph
requirements, and other vetting the Secret Service requires.
Mandatory salary caps, especially for more senior agents,
reduce the potential for overtime earnings and negatively
impact retention, requiring agents to still work overtime while
leaving those hard-earned wages on the table.
Growing the service to around 10,000 agents should reduce
the fiscal impact of the time-intensive nature of the job, at
the same time to provide additional capacity to mature and
train the next generation of agents. I look forward to hearing
an update on your human capital strategic plan.
Again, I thank you for your service to our country and
please convey our deep appreciation for the men and women of
the Secret Service. I look forward to your testimony, sir.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director Murray, we will submit the full
text of your official statement for the hearing record. Please
begin your oral summary, which I would ask you to keep to 5
minutes.
Mr. Murray. Thank you, ma'am.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member
Fleischmann, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for your continued support and the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal year
2023 budget for the Secret Service.
I am pleased with the progress presented in this budget and
will note that much of this was possible due in large part to
the support your subcommittee provided in fiscal year 2022.
Before we begin, I did want to express how grateful I am
for the resiliency shown by the men and women of the Secret
Service. We are only successful in our integrated mission
because of our workforce and their dedication to protecting our
Nation's leaders and safeguarding the American public from
cyber criminals.
Since last appearing before the subcommittee a year ago,
our personnel have carried out 4900 protective operations, led
security planning for two National Special Security Events,
and, as noted, we are currently preparing for the Ninth Summit
of the Americas, slated for Los Angeles next month.
In defense of our Nation's critical infrastructure and the
financial sector, our agents responded to an average of two
cyber network intrusions and closed an average of six cyber
crime cases per day. And, across our network of 161 field
offices, we made almost 1,000 arrests over the past year.
This is just a snapshot of the vital work that the talented
professionals of the Secret Service perform on a daily basis.
As we look forward to the next fiscal year, the President's
$2.7 billion budget request provides for continued staffing
growth and training of our workforce; lead-up funding for the
2024 Presidential campaign; and critical investments into our
agency's ability to investigate cyber crime. Our workforce is
our most precious resource and this request includes $42
million for our agency to achieve a staffing objective of 8,305
positions. This continues to move us a step closer to our
longer-term human capital target of nearly 10,000 personnel by
the year 2027.
Robust hiring translates to robust training and we plan to
conduct 17 basic training classes for newly-hired special
agents and 12 for newly-hired Uniformed Division police
offices.
With our country's emergence from the pandemic, we
anticipate a return to fully-attended NSSEs, such as the UN
General Assembly, as well as a very high protective operations
tempo moving forward.
Along the same line, unforeseeable, large-scale events not
designated as an NSSE, such as the Summit of the Americas, will
require extensive resources and personnel in order to develop
and execute effective operational security.
As this subcommittee is also aware, fiscal year 2023 marks
1 years out from the next Presidential campaign and the budget
request provides $34 million to initiate preparations for
campaign operations. This funding will be used to begin
training our personnel and federal partners, while at the same
time permit us the ability to purchase new equipment such as
magnetometers, and then preposition assets and vehicles across
the country that will be used in support of the campaign
through 2024.
In addition to all the physical and technical measures we
employ, a key element to our protective methodology is how we
manage protective threats. We share this knowledge of threat
management through our National Threat Assessment Center, or
NTAC. Last year, NTAC conducted 135 training events, engaging
with nearly 24,000 participants, on techniques related to
identifying and mitigating targeted violence. With your
support, this important work will continue in fiscal year 2023.
With respect to our investigative mandate, our agents are
highly skilled in investigating transnational organized crime
that poses a direct threat to our national and our economic
security. Our sustained focus on cyber-enabled crimes has
resulted in the prevention of more than $9.5 billion in
potential fraud loss over the past several years. In
particular, efforts by Congress to help those financially
impacted by the pandemic has created the unintended consequence
of opportunities for criminals. In the past 2 years, the Secret
Service has opened almost 1,000 COVID-fraud-related cases; we
have seized more than $1 billion in that regard; and, more
importantly, prevented and returned more than three times that
amount to some of the most vulnerable Americans.
Our agency's focus on cyber crime is led by our cyber fraud
task forces. We partner with state and local investigators on
these task forces after training and equipping them at our
National Computer Forensics Institute, or NCFI, where since
2008 we have trained almost 18,000 partners hailing from all 50
states. This budget request provides $30 million to continue
with this effort.
All of this is just a partial summary of some of the
outstanding work the Secret Service carries out.
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Fleischmann, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for
your unwavering support of our integrated mission and our
workforce. I will place the remainder of my statement in the
official record and look forward to answering any questions you
may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director Murray, as you noted, your
budget proposes an increase of $42.4 million for 200 additional
positions based on the Secret Service's fiscal year 2021-2025
human capital strategic plan. This would bring your total
personnel level to just over 8,100, while the strategic plan
calls for continued growth up to 9,595.
What hiring and retention challenges does the Secret
Service currently face, and how will projected retirements
impact the ability to meet future staffing requirements?
Mr. Murray. Thank you for your question, ma'am.
So the Secret Service has been fortunate over the decades
to attract very high-caliber candidates. On the flip side of
that is that we have exceedingly high standards when it comes
to being considered to be an applicant and then things like
polygraph and being able to achieve certain security
clearances. So that is a pretty unique challenge to us.
One thing we have incorporated since we spoke last year is
we have reintroduced a preemployment physical fitness test.
That is something we suspended for a number of years. We think
this will help us identify folks who are ready to come on board
in our law enforcement positions and not have to on-board them
and then possibly separate later on.
With regard to the retirement situation, as I discussed
with the subcommittee last year, we are in the middle of what
we call a retirement bubble. This is because of uneven hiring
that would have taken place back in the '90s and the 2000s. We
are the peak of that bubble now. As we move forward and upward
with our human capital strategic plan, we expect that will
subside and we won't have that same challenge. However, being
able to achieve that 9,595 is pretty reliant on being able to
hire somewhere in the area or plus-up about 300 people every
year. This year, we are right at about 200 for fiscal year
2023.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Even with increased hiring, the USS
still relies extensively on overtime. What is the impact of
current staffing levels on overtime demands and morale?
Mr. Murray. So overtime is a reality here in the Secret
Service, it always has been, and even when we get to that
number of just under 10,000 it will be as well. And that is
because we don't get to decide our mission tempo, especially
when it comes to our protective mission, that is decided for us
by the number of people we protect and the number of operations
we have to carry out.
The ability to provide overtime and overtime above the
standing pay cap has paid off big dividends and the most
notable one is that the folks that come in jeopardy of going
over that pay cap are our most experienced people; they are our
most senior agents and officers, and they are also our
operational supervisors. And these are folks with a substantial
amount of time on the job that, frankly, are very near or at
retirement eligibility because of this ability to provide
them--to pay this overtime. We have actually seen an up-tick in
folks staying on the job and not leaving where they had in the
past.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Yet you still have an increasing
number of employees who are not fully compensated for their
work despite the higher pay cap. What impact does that have on
morale and retention of agents and officers who work, you know,
this overtime and are not able to be legally compensated?
Mr. Murray. Yes, ma'am. Even though we are able to go
beyond the federal employee pay cap, we are able to go just
beyond to a senior executive service level, but once we get
there, folks are required to work beyond that, but we cannot
compensate them for it. It is a challenge, also a reality here
in our job, and one that we are probably not going to be able
to ever get relief there; however, as we grow the workforce, we
should ameliorate that challenge moving forward.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And, based on your current hiring,
when do you expect that you might be able to reach that goal
of, let's just say 9,595?
Mr. Murray. We are currently on--if we are able to hire
somewhere around 300 per year, we should achieve it by fiscal
year 2027.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. One of the ongoing challenges for the
Secret Service is how to achieve required training while also
keeping pace with increased protective requirements?
How is the Secret Service's ability to train its workforce
impacted by your increasing protection requirements and what
have you done to address those challenges?
Mr. Murray. Thanks for the question, ma'am.
So, as members of the subcommittee are aware, the Secret
Service has been informed and guided by a panel that was set up
in the wake of a fence-jumping incident about 8 years ago, it
is referred to as the PMP, the Protective Mission Panel. There
were 19 recommendations made for the Secret Service, we have
implemented 17 of them. The two that remain outstanding have to
do with training and hiring, and those are intrinsically
linked.
So, as we continue to grow the workforce, we are able to
increase training opportunities, but I think unless we--until
we get to that number of about 10,000, we will never be able to
cover down on the actual prime recommendation from the PMP.
What we have done, however, and we have learned this
collectively as our experience during the pandemic, is we have
learned to do two things: we have regionalized training
opportunities where, in addition to training people at our
facility here in the National Capital region, we actually send
out a team of trainers across the country to not only train
Secret Service, but our many public safety and law enforcement
partners across the country. And then, at the same time, we are
doing what we can to maximize virtual training opportunities.
The challenge, however, ma'am, is that when you have a
mission tempo that requires us to effectively have folks work
days off, holidays and long days, it is not possible in every
instance to have those people go in and complete cyclical or
in-service training, and that is where the human capital
strategic plan sort of helps us achieve that in the long term.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, thank you, Director Murray. Sir, the Secret Service
is seeing increased travel as COVID restrictions are finally
lifted and with larger-than-normal of protectees, coupled with
additional events that require advance teams and details, the
result is pressure on both your personnel and financial
resources.
Director Murray, as I said in my opening statement, the
margin of error for the Secret Service protective work is zero.
I would like to know, sir, how does the increase in protective
services, travel, and overall mission requirements impact your
resourcing needs, sir?
Mr. Murray. Thank you for the question, sir.
So, at present, we have about 34 domestic protectees, that
is in addition to the very many foreign heads of state and
heads of government we provide protection for when they visit
our country. Any time you go from administration to
administration, that domestic number will change, it will even
change within an administration.
The one thing we don't have the benefit of is when we start
a fiscal or a calendar year, as I noted earlier, we can't
prescribe how many protective operations or how many visits we
are going to cover; that is dictated to us. And, candidly, the
tempo we are seeing, especially as we come out of COVID, is
certainly exceeding even the assumptions we made a number of
months ago. We are seeing a higher number of travel,
particularly when it comes to overseas travel. In this third
quarter alone that we are in, the Secret Service will have
carried out in excess of 80 foreign trips for the folks we
protect here domestically.
At the same time, the nature of travel is very different.
As was noted, we have a number of folks in the former
Administration who are still protectees, but the one thing we
are seeing with a former President is we are seeing rallies
where we have never seen this before. And it is not the number
of visits because when we look at the former President's number
of trips as compared to the three predecessors, President
Clinton, President Obama, President Bush, the number of trips
are about the same, the nature is different, and we are seeing
sometimes two, three, four of these rallies every month.
The challenge is that when one is a sitting President or
Vice President, he or she receives support from the Department
of Defense. What that means is, when President Biden or Vice
President Harris goes somewhere, the U.S. Air Force supports
the Secret Service mission by transporting not only some of our
people, but, more importantly, our vehicles, our equipment, and
other resources. Once somebody is no longer a sitting President
or Vice President, we don't have that DOD support in that
regard and we have to figure out solutions for ourselves.
So that has been a challenge and one we could not have made
assumptions about even 6 months ago, sir.
Mr. Fleischmann. Understood. Thank you, sir.
Speaking of campaigns, sir, your budget requests $34
million to support preparations for the 2024 Presidential
campaign. What will this funding support and what preparations
are required as you get ready for the campaign trail?
Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. So, once one campaign ends and we go
into a Presidential transition and we come out of that, the
Secret Service in earnest begins planning for the next
campaign. So we have been doing that for the past year or so.
But that fiscal year prior to the actual campaign year is
critical for us because that is when we start making firm
preparations and we start leading up to our operations.
The one thing we do is we start to identify how we are
going to staff a campaign. And, typically, what we do is we
identify about eight different campaign details, which are
actually 16. It is an A and B rotation because folks will go
out 3 weeks at a time. And then we bring those details in and
we deliver them some advanced training here at our training
facility within the National Capital region.
At the same time, we are going to be sending those regional
training teams I mentioned earlier out to train our field
personnel, as well as our federal, state, and local partners.
Beyond that, what we will do with that funding, sir, is we
will go ahead and we will purchase and upgrade new equipment as
appropriate. I mentioned earlier one of the key things for us
is magnetometers. And then we will, using our experience on
past campaigns, figure out an intelligent way to go ahead and
preposition equipment across the country, whether that is
vehicles, assets, technology, mobile alarms, what have you,
because the same challenge exists for the campaign, as I noted
with the former President, we don't have the ability to rely on
the Department of Defense to travel with us for the campaign.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Director, thank you for your
answers.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back for round two.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Director Murray, thank you for being with us today.
Yesterday, at least 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde,
Texas were horrifically murdered at their school. This is
another of the dozens of mass shootings that happen in this
country ever year because weapons of war are unconscionably
easy to access. While we do not yet know this man's motives,
there is mounting evidence between the link of mass violence
and violence towards women.
In March, I was both glad and a little surprised to see the
Secret Service release an important publication entitled ``Hot
Yoga Tallahassee,'' a case study of misogynistic extremism.
Glad because understanding the links between violence towards
women and mass violence are critical to helping prevent both,
and surprised because, despite this importance, it is not
something the Federal Government has really focused on before.
I want to emphasize why learning more about this is so
important, especially today.
The Pulse Nightclub massacre, 49 people were killed by a
man who reportedly abused both his wives. The Sandy Hook school
massacre, 26 people were killed by a man who first shot his
mother and left writings calling women inherently selfish. The
Boston Marathon bombing, three people were killed and 260 were
injured by a man who had been arrested on domestic violence
charges. The Virginia Tech massacre, 32 people were killed by a
man with a history of stalking female classmates. The UC Santa
Barbara attacks, six people were killed by a man who left
behind a misogynistic manifesto and had attempted to assault
women. The Colorado Planned Parenthood massacre, three people
were killed by a man with a long history of assault and abuse
who targeted a women's health clinic. The Sutherland Springs
church massacre, 26 people were killed by a man who repeatedly
beat and threatened to kill his ex-wives. The Atlanta spa
massacre, eight people killed by a man who was motivated by
violent misogynist and racist ideology. The 1966 University of
Texas Austin shooting, 15 people were killed by a man who
killed his wife and mother the night before.
And, even here, at the 2015 congressional baseball shooting
where our colleague from Louisiana was shot, that gunman had
reportedly abused his grandniece.
And, honestly, this is just a small portion of this list.
It is not a coincidence that some of the most deadly, violent,
and hateful mass shootings in our Nation's history share a
common threat of gender-based violence and misogyny. In fact, a
study found that in 68 percent of mass shootings from 2014 to
2019, the gunman, because 98 percent of the time it is a man,
had either killed an intimate partner or a family member, or he
had a history of domestic violence.
It is clear that broadly gender-based violence is often a
precursor to mass violence, yet it is not talked about or
studied nearly often enough.
The National Threat Assessment Center's case study is
important because it centralized this issue. The publication
analyzes the gunman's personal history, including three arrests
for groping women in public, being fired from multiple teaching
positions for inappropriate behavior towards female students;
years of assault and stalking female classmates; and writing
disturbing songs and stories with misogynistic messages that
romanticize mass killings. A friend's wife even contacted law
enforcement about these threatening behaviors, and yet this man
was still able to purchase a gun, plan a targeted attack, and
commit mass violence.
The report states hatred of women and the gender-based
violence that is associated with it requires increased
attention from everyone with a role in public safety.
Beyond this publication, can you share what the Secret
Service is doing and can do to bring greater attention to
gender-based violence specifically?
Mr. Murray. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for your question, and
thanks for your interest in that product and your support of
the National Threat Assessment Center.
So, as you are aware, the National Threat Assessment Center
was something we started back in the '90s to support our own
protective operations. After experiences like Columbine,
President Clinton and members of Congress realized there might
be an opportunity for the Secret Service to share really the
science and math of what we do to help our communities,
schools, businesses, cities and town, and that is what we have
endeavored to do for the last 20-plus years. It was a very
deliberate decision, ma'am, to do that product that you talked
about with the Hot Yoga Tallahassee because, while there is no
single profile for an attacker, there is also no single profile
for the group that might be attacked.
And some of the examples you gave as far as folks hurting
people that were intimate or close to them is part of a
constellation of behavior that our social science researchers
have tried to share with communities and businesses to
basically say there are--it is not a matter of looking at
demographically what an attacker might be, or even in terms of
age or gender; however, it has to do with what the individual
is saying or doing. And the ability there is to kind of assess
that and then take action.
One of the ways we do that and the easier example I can use
with regard to schools is we identify these threat assessment
teams, we recommend these threat assessment teams that together
and they act on these behaviors and they intervene.
Candidly, though, this is not a solution that law
enforcement in and of itself can accomplish. We are entirely
reliant on the partnership in those instances in schools with
administrators, town leaders.
Today, we are actually not too far from your district,
ma'am. We are in the 4th Ward of Chicago, delivering a
presentation to faith leaders because another frequent target
are houses of worship.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Director Murray, it is great to see you, and I want to
congratulate you on the great job that the Service does in
coordinating and partnering with state and local law
enforcement when you are out in the various communities. I
really appreciate the partnership that you all have always
shown.
I want to follow up on my good friend Ms. Underwood, her
talking about the school violence at Uvalde. You know, in 2018,
after the Parkland shooting, we passed my bill the Stop School
Violence Act of 2018, and the focus on that was two things:
Number one, building partnerships between police, mental
health, and the school administrators, but the other part was
bringing CPTED, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design,
to the forefront. And I know NTAC has been very involved in
that; in fact, I think you all may have even helped develop
that whole concept back in the '90s.
And so my question is, as I talk to people in different
school locations, I am amazed how many people don't even know
that the Stop School Violence Act has passed. This year, for
example, in the President's budget request, we have got $135
million, $135 million, a lot of which could be used for CPTED
at most of these schools that will keep these children safe,
$82 million in the BJA grant process and another $53 million in
the COPS Stop School Violence grant process. So we have got the
money there.
I am afraid a lot of people know nothing about NTAC, the
people that should. So I would like to ask, do you have plans
or can you plan to try and get this information out about the
Stop School Violence Act and NTAC, and some of those plans that
are sitting on the shelf that have the potential of really
stopping a lot of this school violence?
Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. Thank you for your question.
The answer is, yes, we do have plans. As I noted for the
subcommittee earlier, last year alone we conducted 135
different training sessions, we trained about 24,000 people,
that is not to say anything about the high degree of
consultation we do.
The reality is, sir, we get far more requests than that
than we can accommodate. And so, you know, with respect to our
ability, I could tell you, as a dad, as an uncle, as the
brother and brother-in-law of somebody who--two people who have
been a teacher for 30 years, it is hard not to be outraged and
horrified by what happened yesterday, but the only thing that
overshadows that--and I know I speak for everybody in the
Secret Service--is our desire to want to help and make this
better----
Mr. Rutherford. Yes.
Mr. Murray [continuing]. And we can.
This is also true, though. With regard to these communities
and these schools, it is not a lack of will, to your point, it
is a lack of awareness, and if we had the ability, if we had
the staffing, and we had the support, we absolutely could get
out there and reach a lot more people.
And the results we have, I think somebody might be able to
say, well, it is anecdotal, but we have actual examples where
people have applied this model, this threat assessment model in
their community--I am thinking about one in particular from my
home state of New Jersey--where the community was able to
intervene and prevent an unwanted outcome, that is the term we
use in our job here, would prevent an attack effectively.
So it is hard to characterize any of those things as
anecdotal when we are talking about saving lives.
Mr. Rutherford. And I have personally seen it work as well,
even before we had the grant. So I thank you for that,
Director.
Very quickly because I am running out of time, I keep
hearing on our--particularly on the years where we have
Presidential campaigns--that those officers who go over the
limit on their overtime, through no choice of their own,
obviously, that even though they may not get paid in that
fiscal year, I am hearing that they pick it up in the next
fiscal year, and then other places I hear, no, they don't.
So can you tell me, do they eventually get that money or
not?
Mr. Murray. So not in all instances, sir. As I said, there
is effectively two different pay caps we are talking about
here, one is standard for all federal employees on the GS
scale--and I will use the GS scale for example--and then what
happens there--and I will use the example of agents--what
happens there is the pay cap is here and it moves up ever so
slowly, but then when you have folks that are on the job for a
number of years and they are at a certain grade level, the
President, whoever he or she is, is providing a one, two, or
more percent increase every year and you erode that pay cap.
So, when somebody earns overtime, you effectively go over it.
For many years, we did not have the ability to pay beyond
that. Thanks to this subcommittee, we have for the last number
of years.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
Mr. Murray. But even beyond that, sir, there is another cap
that we won't be able to go on.
So, to the example you used, if somebody works that much
that they go over that second pay cap, they are not going to be
compensated. And, as happened to me growing up in this job, you
quite literally get a pay statement that says here is what we
are paying you, here is what you over earned and we are not
paying you.
Mr. Rutherford. Yeah.
Mr. Murray. You get that every 2 weeks.
Mr. Rutherford. I think my time has run out, Madam
Speaker--or Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Director.
Mr. Murray. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, thank you.
Director Murray, first, thank you for your 30 years of
service to your agency.
It hasn't been 2 weeks and our country has been borne
witness to yet three more horrific mass shootings in public
spaces: a church, a grocery store, and, yesterday, an
unspeakable attack inside a fourth grade classroom. As a
grandfather of five grandchildren, I cannot imagine the pain
these families are enduring right now. In America, going about
your daily life is no longer a safe activity.
The Secret Service has long loaned its expertise in threat
assessment to public safety professionals across the country
through its National Threat Assessment Center, or NTAC.
First, can you tell me what actionable guidance has the
Secret Service developed through NTAC's Safe Schools Initiative
to reduce the occurrence of mass shootings like we saw
yesterday?
And, secondly, can you tell me how the President's budget
will ensure the research and assessment conducted by NTAC
continues to enhance the public safety and potentially prevent
future acts of targeted violence?
Mr. Murray. Thank you, sir.
So, as I noted earlier, the prime way we deliver this
training--and when I say this training, as I said earlier, we
actually share the science and math of how we conduct threat
management for our own protective mission. That is something we
have been doing for more than 20 years. And we do that by
traveling out, meeting with communities, with school systems,
with private sector partners, and we help them develop
strategies, and those strategies are all about prevention. It
is about having a plan so that when there is--whether it is a
student or an employee or somebody who attends a church or a
synagogue, if somebody there starts exhibiting certain
behaviors because, as I noted earlier, there is no single
profile--it has nothing to do with age, gender, demographics,
but when certain behaviors take place, that that is a sign to
engage in order to prevent these things from happening in the
first place.
One of the key ways we do that beyond that training is we
offer consultation to these communities that would like us to
do a deeper dive and to help them, you know, in building their
programs. We are very, very happy to do that.
To answer the second part of your question, sir, at
present, this budget request is--with respect to NTAC, is
around $4.5 million; we are grateful for that, but that will
permit us to deliver about the same number of training events
and reach out and touch about the same number of people in
fiscal year 2023.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. All right, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Director Murray, for being here today, and I
want to echo my colleagues in thanking you for your decades of
service to our country. I certainly know that you have
sacrificed a lot, and I appreciate all you and your staff do to
sacrifice for our country and to serve and keep people safe. So
I appreciate the opportunity to talk about funding for fiscal
year 2023.
I know that you do a lot to protect Iowans. We here a lot
about financial crimes and the work that you do to investigate
those. I heard you reference in your opening comments,
obviously, cybersecurity threats and the work that you are
doing there; of course, keeping our children safe and
protective operations for many government officials.
During my time in office, which hasn't been that long in
D.C., but I have seen a lot of instances where crimes under the
Secret Service purview directly impact taxpayers in this
country: COVID relief fraud and theft; cybersecurity threats
against businesses and individuals that are being scammed; the
weaponization of the global financial sector, of course, during
a time when we are seeing a lot of aggression across the world.
All of these things impact the safety and security for our
families in Iowa.
And so, of course, when we are going through all of these
budget requests that we are trying to figure out how best to
spend these taxpayer resources, I want to make sure we are
being efficient, as efficient as possible. And so you are, of
course, in the Secret Service not only charged with responsibly
spending the money, but protecting, and then of course, as I
mentioned, fraud, reclaiming misused funds.
So you mentioned that there had been more than 900 criminal
investigations into fraud specific to pandemic-related relief
funds over the past couple of years, which I believe totaled
over $100 billion. So can you talk a little bit about the
status of those criminal investigations. How many anticipated
fraud cases are you still thinking are maybe out there? And
just give us kind of a status report about where things are.
Mr. Murray. Yes. Thank you, ma'am.
So, as I shared with the subcommittee last year, we knew
going into spring of 2020, when we really couldn't define what
COVID was going to mean to any of us, when we saw packages like
the CARES Act come out, that while it was fantastic for our
citizenry, we also knew it was a great opportunity for
fraudsters. So we worked with our partners within DHS, at CISA,
and at the FBI, and we were very much committed to making sure
that people across all sectors were aware and that they
remained alert, and that they took a belt-and-braces approach
to readying for what was coming at them in terms of fraud.
And, candidly, we were not concerned about making good
cases back then, we just wanted to make sure we could knock
down schemes as we encountered them.
Over time, as you noted, we did start to open up cases and
we have opened up well more than the 900 at this point. We
are--we have arrested about the same number of people and we
have seized a lot of money, but more importantly, as I noted in
my opening remarks, we have been able to sort of stop the loss
of and return money to potential victims, and that is an even
bigger win for us in the Secret Service.
Mrs. Hinson. Absolutely. Yeah, and you talk about returning
that money, what are you doing to mitigate similar scenarios
like this from happening in the future?
Because, obviously, we know that the fraudsters follow any
time they can try to find an opportunity to take advantage of
something. You know, the pandemic fraud recovery efforts are
just one example of that, but what are you thinking about the
future, right, because there is no guarantee that this kind of
a situation isn't going to happen again?
Mr. Murray. You are absolutely right, ma'am. And I think I
may have used the example that 6 years after Hurricane Katrina,
I was in a small office in New Jersey and we opened up two
Hurricane Katrina fraud cases, a thousand miles away, 6 years
later.
So, to your earlier question, we are still seeing, we are
still opening up about two or three COVID fraud cases per month
now. That is significantly down from the last 2 years, but that
has been a pretty steady drip, we expect that to go on for a
period of time, and we will be combating COVID fraud for a
number of years; that is a fact, we know that.
The way that we basically make sure that we get the word
out there about whether it is COVID fraud or any other sort of
fraud is through our network of cyber fraud task forces, we
have 42 across the country, two overseas. On those are,
obviously, Secret Service personnel, but, more importantly,
Federal, state, and local law enforcement, academia, and
anybody in the public sector or private sector that wants to
join. It is basically an information-sharing, a network.
And so that is how we kind of make sure that people get out
there. And not to oversimplify it, but sometimes, to use a
clunky analogy, it is as simple as telling people to lock the
doors in your cars out in front of your house so your car
doesn't get broken into.
Mrs. Hinson. Right, the cyber hygiene aspect----
Mr. Murray. Absolutely.
Mrs. Hinson [continuing]. Which I think is the word you
used last year.
Mr. Murray. Yes.
Mrs. Hinson. And I have used that analogy with many of my
private sector businesses that I have visited as well and I
think flagging that for them has been incredibly critical.
So you are working directly with CISA on that, I know, and
we had the Director before us a few weeks ago as well. I am
kind of lamenting that, hey, they have all these resources
available, we want to make sure we get the word out.
So I will follow up with some other questions in round two,
but I just want to really appreciate my gratitude for all you
do to help spread awareness about this. So thank you very much,
Director.
Mr. Murray. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Director, thanks for your service and thanks for being with
us today.
A couple of my colleagues have referenced NTAC. I guess, to
the extent possible, could you go a little bit deeper dive. The
increase in variety and intensity of social media and postings,
I guess, provides opportunities and challenges for you as you
do assessments and you find out what is going on. I mean, what
are the tools and what are the possibilities of how you gather
information, you know, as you are assessing a situation or
moving into an area? To what extent are you able to use social
media and postings you see, and information that comes through
you through social media and those other outlets?
Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. If I may, I will answer that in two
ways.
So we certainly have invested a lot with regard to open-
source assessment when it comes to the Secret Service's
protective mission. In the Secret Service I grew up in, a
garden variety threat case was something where somebody walks
into a diner, they sit down at the counter and they start
mouthing off, they eventually say something that sounds a lot
like a threat, because if one of the other patrons, they call
local law enforcement, who calls the Secret Service, and we
respond out and we open up a threat case.
While those things still happen, the reality is those types
of threats are just lying dormant out there on the internet
right now and we can't rely on good citizens only to bring
those to our attention, we have to go out there and find them.
And it is very much like finding a needle inside a mountain
full of needles. And one challenge, one thing that is paramount
for us is the First Amendment. So you have to be mindful of
what is First--freedom of speech, what is First Amendment
speech and what is closer to threatening language.
We have invested a lot into an open-source branch we have
within our protective intelligence division. We leverage
publicly-available tools, we do some R&D of our own, and we use
some tools available from our partners.
That is how we handle it for a protective operation. When
we are providing consultation when it comes to NTAC, we are not
actively involved in the investigation, but, to your point, if
folks are spending time online or they are engaging in activity
online that is noticeable to others that fits within that
constellation of behavior that I mentioned earlier, that is one
of those concerning behaviors or, another way to put that,
another warning sign where we would want some level of
intervention or we would recommend some level of intervention
from that threat assessment team, which is made up of, in the
case of a student, it would be the school, the community, and,
to a certain extent, law enforcement.
Mr. Quigley. Yeah, but you talked about a needle among
needles. First, you have got this multitude of postings, it
must take a tremendous amount of resources to not just review
those, but to have the experts assess just, as you say, what
constitutes a threat. Not putting aside the First Amendment,
but it must be--the language that is used must be part of a
larger context that you have some sort of prescribed limits
that, okay, this is, this isn't. It seems to be pretty
subjective at some point.
Mr. Murray. Subjective, maybe, but I will say this, it is a
full-time operation. It is 24/7, 365, our folks are culling
through a lot of different information.
We are--as always, in everything we do, we are highly
reliant on the partnerships we have with other law enforcement,
public safety information, and there is a whole lot of
information-sharing that goes on there because, candidly, we
are engaged in this effort in the same way that the U.S.
Capitol Police is engaged in this effort in order to protect
the Capitol and members of Congress.
Mr. Quigley. Yeah, but when it happens in the Capitol, I
mean, let's say someone posts something that is in that gray
area or, you know, goes beyond, you know, there are limits to
what they can do in terms of resources. Do they approach this
person? Who approaches them?
And the question is, you know, how do you have those kind
of resources to further investigate this to let this person
know that they have gone too far or at least to monitor them
while the person you are protecting is in their area?
Mr. Murray. Sir, it is notable, we conduct about more than
6,000 protective intelligence or threat management cases every
year.
Mr. Quigley. Toward that end. And you do it yourself, you
don't use local law enforcement?
Mr. Murray. We do it ourselves, we do it in concert with
our partners at the FBI through our Joint Terrorism Task Force.
We absolutely work with local and state law enforcement in all
things that we do.
Mr. Quigley. Very good.
Mr. Murray. But if it is something, if there is a threat
directed against a Secret Service protectee, then the Secret
Service will effectively lead that investigation or work
jointly with the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Mr. Quigley. Very good. Thanks for your information.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair. Director Murray, thank
you for being on today to answer our questions. And also thank
you for your service in the United States Army Reserves. I
appreciate you for doing that.
You know, one thing that has been evident to this committee
is that many, many federal agencies are sending support to our
southwestern border to help deal with the surge of people
trying to get into our nation. Could you tell me, is the Secret
Service providing any of that support to the southwestern
border mission?
Mr. Murray. We are, sir, particularly in terms of
leadership. We have had a number of our folks go down, the
senior executive service level and folks that are in training,
if you will, to achieve that level, to go down there and run
certain programs and assist.
We have had a number of folks through our workforce to go
down there and support it as well, but candidly, not at the
same numbers of other components within DHS. I think the
simplest answer to that is because, as I noted earlier, we are
a workforce that is--has very, very heavy protective
operations. We are already having to cancel days off for people
that are supporting the Secret Service mission. So it is A) not
conceivable; and there is probably not a whole lot of interest
for folks who are traveling the world for protection to come
home, and then raise their hand to go down, whether to the
southwest border or anywhere else.
But this is something we have been committed to. We
continually make our workforce know that there is opportunity
to do so, and as I noted we have taken a notable leadership
role down there in some of the programs that are ongoing.
Mr. Palazzo. With as much as you can share, have you all
seen an increase or any activity of where transnational or
criminal--financial criminals are trying to come across or take
advantage of this huge surge of people at the southern border?
Are you all in the position to discuss that or report any
apprehensions?
Mr. Murray. We have not seen any trend to that regard as
yet, sir.
Mr. Palazzo. Okay. Well, thank you. And, listen, thank you
for your service and we really appreciate you and your entire
workforce for what you do. I know it is a lot of work being
thrown on your shoulders right now.
Mr. Murray. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Director, you talked a little bit in response to a few of
my colleague's questions about the National Threat Assessment
Center, and I wanted to come back to that. Obviously, our
frustration and heartache related to yesterday's school
shooting, but I want to make sure we are doing everything we
can to direct our federal resources to protect students and
prevent these types of shootings from happening in the future.
Can you tell us specifically the work that you are doing
working in schools, training schools, and school leaders,
school officials? How you are ensuring that this training
protects the mental health needs of children and minimizes the
discriminatory practices?
Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. Thank you.
As I noted earlier, I think the one thing we are very, very
clear about when we go out and we gauge with our partners out
there in the communities and schools is that they don't fall
into the trap that there is one certain type of profile with
regard to potential attackers. It has much more to do with the
behaviors or the constellation of behaviors, as I noted
earlier.
The idea of engaging with, we will use the example of
schools, is for them to go ahead and develop their own threat
assessment plan within the school that is comprised of a multi-
disciplinary team of educators, counselors, mental health
professionals, yes, law enforcement. But this is not a law
enforcement led or law enforcement run effort in any way, shape
or form.
The idea is that if there are instances where there are
these concerning behaviors, to not only intervene, but
intercede on behalf of that individual to get that person help.
And if I may, when we--I mentioned to one of the other
gentlemen earlier, we conduct about 6,000 threat assessment
cases a year in the Secret Service for our protective mission.
We don't arrest a whole lot of people when it comes to threat
management. We do get a lot of those people that come to our
attention in for counseling and for mental health assistance.
That is something we have done for a lot of decades. So we have
looked to capitalize on that experience and that certainly
informs how it is we not only deliver the training when it
comes to--but also provide consultation at the school and at
the community level.
Mr. Aguilar. Appreciate that. Thanks. Obviously something
at the top of mind for all of us.
Switching gears, director, I wanted to talk about the focus
the agency has on combating cyber crimes related to crypto
currencies. We have talked about this in the past, and I know
since 2015, the Secret Service has seized over 100 million in
crypto used in money laundering, ransomware, and other elicit
activities.
Can you talk with us about how this budget request impacts
your Ransomware investigations and how the elicit use of
digital assets challenges your investigators? And give us some
examples of successes that you have had.
Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. And greatly appreciative of the
subcommittee's continuing support of the Secret Service's
investigative mission mandate. So we are very proud of being
the nation's first financial crimes investigators, going back
to 1865. We have been involved in this game since it went from
paper to plastic to bits and bytes, and now a lot of the work
we do is literally in the clouds. And when it comes to crypto,
it is just a new--it has been a new challenge.
I do think, sir, there has--you know, there is a
misapprehension, if you will, out there that crypto currency in
and of itself is illicit or inherently not good. That is not
the case. I use the example of the interstate system. We all
use the interstate system to get where we want to go to go see
loved ones. We don't know who is traveling past us on those
highways. Are they trafficking guns, people, drugs? Don't know.
But we don't indict the interstate system, and I--you know, I
think there is a misapprehension where people indict crypto
currency in and of itself.
There are two very unique challenges with crypto currency
that we encounter. The first one is the anonymity that is
involved, that you can send and receive crypto currency without
identifying yourself. And the other one is the use of what we
will call over-the-counter exchanges. So not bona fide exchange
companies.
We have worked very hard in studying the block chains, and
how the block chain system works. We have had a lot of success
in defeating that anonymity, and especially when it comes to
the on-ramps and the off-ramps of that money transferring. And
that is where we have been able to yield a lot of those
seizures that you are talking about.
There is one particular case I would note. It is called
Operation Tourniquet, where for the past year or so, we have
been working on a digital--focusing on a digital marketplace
out of the UK, where individuals were trading information and
then converting that to crypto currency. We were able to arrest
the administrator of that, but also perform an undercover role
for a number of weeks and identify other illicit activities
that went on.
We were able to identify 700 million users of the digital
marketplace. And we were able to identify 110 billion different
unique records that were potentially going to be used in fraud.
Mr. Aguilar. Appreciate that answer.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That completes round one, and we will
now begin round two.
Director Murray, I would like to follow up on the training
and training infrastructure. One of the issues notes by the
protective mission panel several years ago was the lack of a
facility for training agents and officers assigned to the White
House. While we funded a feasibility study several years ago,
three administrations have yet to actually request funding for
that facility. Can you talk about the importance of a White
House training facility?
Mr. Murray. Yes, ma'am. And thank you for the question. And
thank you for your support of being able to update that
feasibility study, which is going on right now.
So I believe last year when I met with the subcommittee, we
discussed that this White House training facility is absolutely
critical to Secret Service. And the analogy I may have used was
if you think of the Secret Service like a basketball team, we
are a basketball team without a court, without baskets, or
without a basketball, and we have nowhere to practice when it
comes to the White House facility. There is nothing at our
training facility that replicates the White House or the White
House complex itself.
This would be a game changer for us because what it would
do is it would afford us the ability to not only train our
officers and our agents, but provide real time, real life
training environment, where we could also work with our White
House military office partners, and then our national capital
region partners, like the U.S. Capital Police, Metropolitan
Police Department, and the D.C. Fire Department.
We expect to get the results of this study in the fall of
this year, and look forward to advocating for support for the
fiscal year 2024 budget.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do you have any updated cost estimates
at this time?
Mr. Murray. So nothing definitive, ma'am. When you
supported the initial feasibility study a number of years ago,
it was somewhere around $90 million. We suspect it will be
closer to $140 million when we get the results in the fall.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And what is it that this
subcommittee can do to help move the project forward? For
example, is there a useful next step that you are ready to take
that we could support?
Mr. Murray. Yes, ma'am. The one thing we could move out
very quickly on is with regard to things like permitting. We
can cover down on 100 percent of the design cost, and we can
actually start beginning the clearing of land at our training
facility in the national capital region.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. We will definitely take a look at
that.
Mr. Murray. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. It is always challenging for an agency
to budget for a fiscal year in advance. It is even harder to do
when you can't predict what your requirements are going to be
from year to year. And for the Secret Service, that unknown
requirement is often the total number of individuals that you
will need to protect. Based on the obligations that you now
have, do you foresee any budget problems as we move further
into this fiscal year and into fiscal year 2023?
Mr. Murray. So as you noted, ma'am, it is impossible to
start out the year to know how many protective visits or
operations you are going to have to carry out. And as I have
already stated for the subcommittee, we have exceeded what our
assumptions were.
While I can't say for sure that we have any budget
problems, this is an ongoing effort, where we stay in constant
communication with DHS, OMB, and we are grateful for the
counsel we receive from senior staff and this subcommittee. As
we move forward into the summer, I think we will have a better
idea as to whether there will be a shortfall on funding or not.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And how do you balance the need to
fully fund protection requirements with a need to also fund
investigations? And is your budget balanced correctly between
funding for protection and investigations?
Mr. Murray. We feel it is balanced correctly, but candidly
here in the Secret Service, we are very proud to be charged
with this mission mandate of both protection and investigation.
But the reality is, it is not a 50/50 split. You know, there
are two dragons and that protection dragon is going to eat
first.
And so we tend to always make protection our priority here
in the Secret Service.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And we have seen a significant increase
has been noted in data breaches in all sectors, including the
financial sector in just this past year. What is the role of
the cyber fraud task force in mitigating and investigating
cyber crimes related to network intrusions in the financial
sector?
Mr. Murray. Yes, ma'am. So our network of cyber fraud task
forces, which we have 44 around the world, they are the ones
who lead our investigations out there in the field. They do so
in partnership with federal, state, and local partners. Many of
whom we actually train down at the National Computer Forensics
Institute in Alabama. We have equipped them as well. And they
are the ones that are going out there and responding to, as I
believe I noted earlier, we respond to about two network
intrusions per day here in the Secret Service.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Director, this next line of questioning is more of a
matter of inquiry. It deals with the issue of the fully armored
vehicles, sir.
The fully armored vehicle program contracted with O'Gara
Armoring Company to design and install armor and other
equipment in the chassis of vehicles. Unfortunately, early this
year, O'Gara announced it was going out of business and unable
to continue contracted work. Now the Secret Service is working
to transfer this production line to a new vendor.
Sir, for the benefit of the committee, what is the status
of the fully armored vehicle program, and what impacts from
either cost or schedule is this situation having on the
program?
Mr. Murray. Thank you, sir. As you recall a number of years
ago, back in 2018, 2019, we actually made a wholesale purchase
of a number of vehicles that we would armor in support of our
fully armored vehicle fleet. That was because General Motors
was ceasing production of a particular model, 3500 model line.
At that time, we developed a plan to armor about 100
vehicles per year in order to upgrade and replenish our fleet,
going back to somewhere in the area of the 2010s. As you noted,
there is a contracting--a firm we were contracting with who
decided to cease business operations recently. That caused us
to go out there and reclaim some of our vehicles, some of them
in parts. We were able to establish contracts with other
armoring companies. We are on a path to achieve the armoring
rate that we set out for to begin with. A little bit of hustle
involved there.
The one thing that we probably won't be able to invest in
in the upcoming fiscal year is studies and design with regard
to the next gen FAV, which is something we are always mindful
of.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. A little bit of a follow-up.
What is the impact of switching contractors in the overall cost
of the program? And will the Secret Service require additional
funds to support the completion of the fully armored vehicle
program that you just alluded to currently?
Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. There is no notable change with
regard to the costs in terms of the armoring plan itself. We
don't think we need funding for that specific purpose at this
time.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. And you feel personally comfortable,
sir, where the program is now, given all of the circumstances
that have occurred and able to move forward?
Mr. Murray. I do, sir. Yes. I do not--I don't think this
will affect mission readiness in a negative way.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your questions
today, your outstanding service, and my best to the men and
women of the Secret Service. Thank you so much.
And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Director, I wanted to continue with my questions about the
Hot Yoga Tallahassee report. I really appreciate the Secret
Service's attention to this issue, and I think it is something
that other federal law enforcement agencies should be focused
on as well. So what are your next steps after this report? Are
you working with other agencies like the FBI to share its
findings and learn more about this issue?
Mr. Murray. So NTAC itself, ma'am, is not working directly
with the FBI. As I said, it was a--certainly a deliberate
decision to focus on that event that happened in Tallahassee
because we thought it was certainly a worthwhile examination.
We are always looking for our next project that we are going to
be addressing. I don't know what that subject matter is right
now. However, we welcome the opportunity to work with groups
within the community to engage with them when it comes to
consultation and training, and help them best prepare and
establishing their own assessment teams.
Ms. Underwood. How does Secret Service use behavioral
threat assessments, like the one used in this report, to
intervene before acts of mass violence?
Mr. Murray. I am sorry. I think you cut out there. What
now?
Ms. Underwood. I said how does Secret Service use
behavioral threat assessments, like the one used in this
report, to intervene before acts of mass violence occur?
Mr. Murray. I am not familiar--is that something that is in
the--I am not familiar with that model.
Ms. Underwood. The behavioral threat assessment model that
you----
Mr. Murray. Behavioral. Behavioral.
Ms. Underwood. Yes.
Mr. Murray. So in this instance with regard to the yoga
situation, you are not talking about a school. You are not
talking about a place of business where the person worked. So
that would be a broader community issue where, as you noted,
the actor in that case was somebody who had been identified as
exhibiting all of these behaviors that we talked about. That
would require something where, in this case Tallahassee, would
have to develop their own community-based threat assessment
team.
Ms. Underwood. Right. But if you all were doing this kind
of analysis and you all discovered some information, how does
Secret Service use it? That is my question.
Mr. Murray. So we would use this, obviously, in the
delivery of other training to other groups, regardless of
motivation. For us, as I noted, when we started the National
Threat Assessment Center back in the 1990s, it was on the heals
of an effort we had called the exceptional case study. And what
that was was we looked at a number of cases that were not
organically Secret Service cases. In other words, they weren't
directed at Secret Service protectees. One example would be the
Son of Sam case.
And we look to see what happened in those instances. What
were the early signs. What were the points where intervention
or intercession could have taken place. And where--what might
we learn to kind of strengthen our own protective mission.
We effectively looked to do the same thing when we share
this with other communities. And as I noted, you know, I think
whether we are talking with faith-based groups, schools,
business communities, we look to have that inform our
consultation.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. So you are saying that the behavioral
analysis is not done, like, prospectively for your protectees,
with respect to the threats that you are encountering?
Mr. Murray. Well, the--it could be. I will give you an
example.
Ms. Underwood. Okay.
Mr. Murray. If a community or a school came to us and said,
hey, we think we are having a problem. We have a concern about
this student or this individual. Absolutely, NTAC would make
itself available to come out there and provide a consultation
and help make an assessment to that situation.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. And then is gender-based violence,
like intimate partner violence and violent misogyny an
identifier that the Secret Service uses or is considering using
when assessing national threats?
Mr. Murray. So when we go out and we conduct our protective
intelligence cases, or we conduct a threat assessment if you
will, we absolutely look at those types of things. We look at
whether or not there is violence within the home; whether there
is violence being committed against the person who is accused
of being the attacker or could have been the attacker. We look
at whether or not there is violence against animals. We look at
whether or not somebody has access to weapons, and so on and so
forth.
So as I mentioned earlier, it is a constellation of
behaviors we are looking to get a sense of, not just one person
on one day or one emotional outburst, if you will.
Ms. Underwood. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Director Murray, I want to talk a little bit, very quickly,
about your staffing recruitment and retention. Get to those 200
new positions that you mentioned earlier will get you around
the 8,300 mark of personnel. You talk about the need to
actually on-board 962 people to get to that number. That is 200
plus your attrition of about 762.
Now, what concerns me going forward is when your on-
boarding takes roughly eight months, 238 days, that is--we are
coming up on that mark for November 2023. I know when you
guys--I know it is 120-day window, but you really do start a
year out, so November 2023 is really your start date, as you
mentioned earlier.
Two things that concern me. Number one, are we going to be
able to hit that mark. And I will just ask you that. Do you
think we are going to be able to hit that mark okay?
Mr. Murray. Well, sir, you mean the mark of 8,305 or the
larger one of just under 10,000?
Mr. Rutherford. No, no. The 8,300 that will get you the 200
new positions this year, and the 996 going into next year.
Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. We are confident we are going to hit
the 8,305 for sure.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay.
Mr. Murray. Baked into our human capital strategic plan is
this intent to hire actually around 300 per year. And that
accounts for that attrition number, which is--if you roll up
all the law enforcement positions, about 9 percent for us. That
is why you have that larger higher number.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. And so let me bring this issue up
too, because if there is one thing that I consistently hear
about the service, it is some grumbling about the GS-14, 15
areas, that you could have better middle management. Let me ask
you this, because I would love to sit down and talk to you. I
know right now, they use a straight, written technical exam for
the promotion process, if what I am hearing is correct. I can
tell you, the agencies that I have dealt with--law enforcement
agencies that have used the assessment center model that I am
sure you have heard about it, I know it is expensive. I know it
is time consuming. But I have to tell you, it will cut down on
your attrition number significantly, I believe.
And so that is one thing that I would like to talk to you
about offline. But also this overtime pay. We have got to fix
that. We can do that. I would love to sit down with you and
talk about that, what we need to do to accomplish that. And
then third and, you know, finally, I think--I don't know if
there is some way you can get a commitment. I know we lose an
awful large number of the attrition is people leaving, going to
the FBI, going to HSI, you know, and we ought to be able to
find a way to slow that down. Maybe you get a four-year
commitment, or if they are going through your academy, four or
five-year commitment, something that will haul these people
over the hump so that once they get that much time on, they
will stay with the service.
Would you be willing to sit down and talk about those
things? Because I think we can help reduce those attrition
numbers.
Mr. Murray. Sir, I appreciate the offer. I very much
welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk with you about it,
kind of share our experiences. The one thing I will tell you is
that I have been here in the Secret Service 27 years, wouldn't
want it any other way. But I would also tell you, there is not
more demanding job in the federal government than being in the
Secret Service, regardless of job description: agent, officer,
mission support.
When we get to 10,000 people, that will still be true. But
we are always looking for innovative ways to convince people
that they are in the right place. We even look at might there
be a unique way to tailor our retirement system to incentivize
people to stay on board so----
Mr. Rutherford. With the others. I agree. Last question
very quickly, with the roughly 15 million I think that is in
this year's budget for the FAV hardening, can you tell me what
percentage of the 532 or 36 vehicles that will--is that for 100
percent hardening of those--of the fleet?
Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. That is for the 100 percent of the
number we are going to do this year. But with your permission,
when I come and visit you about other things, I will have a
hard and fast answer for you then. I don't have that right in
front of me right now.
Mr. Rutherford. Yes, thank you. Madam Chair, I see my time
has run out. I yield back. Thank you, Director.
Mr. Murray. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. For many years, the Secret
Service has been funding and staffing the National Computer
Forensics Institute to help train state and local law
enforcement personnel, prosecutors, and judges to better
understand computer and digital evidence and cyber crime
methods.
In my district, the 2019 Robin Hood attack caught Baltimore
City off guard when Ransomware froze the city's IT systems. All
servers, with the exception of essential services, were taken
offline. In a ransom note, hackers demanded a 13 bitcoin,
roughly $76,282 in exchange for keys to restore access. It was
found that the perpetrators were able to exploit aging hardware
and unpatched software.
Ultimately, it took the city several weeks to restore and
rebuild its servers and several months to fully recover from
the attack. The city spent $4.2 million on recovery efforts in
the first three weeks after the attack alone. To that end,
could you describe the level of Secret Service engagement in
this program, and the benefits that the training has had in
complementing the Secret Service's mission? What impact does
NCFI training have on investigations carried out by your cyber
fraud task forces and local law enforcement?
Mr. Murray. Yes, sir. Thank you.
So as you noted, NCFI opened its doors back in 2008. Back
then we--for that year, I think we hired--we trained somewhere
in the area of 250 of our law enforcement partners, and I want
to say we offered three or four different courses.
Last year, we trained nearly 4,000 people and we offer 30
different distinct courses. What is more is we equip all of
those folks that come in. And again, those are local, state,
territorial, and tribal law enforcement, prosecutors, and
judges. And while it is a selfless endeavor and a way for us to
give back for all the support we get in the protective side of
the house, the truth is that we are so glad that so many of
them stay on and participate in our cyber fraud task forces.
But the real impact is in the fact that these folks go back,
and they do this sort of work to support their own communities.
And what they are doing there is they are not only looking
at things like ransomware, sir, they are doing all the cyber
examination and exploitation when it comes to violent crimes,
homicides, crimes against children, and the list goes on and
on.
We are very, very proud of the work that our graduates do.
And as I said, happy to have them be part of this cyber fraud
task force and contribute to the Secret Service mission. But I
think the real contribution is what they are able to give back
to their own communities.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I believe there are no more questions,
so we will conclude today's hearing. Thank you very, very much,
Director Murray, for the time, especially for your service, and
that of all the Secret Service, everything that you do for your
country, I think that you have heard from this subcommittee how
much it is truly appreciated.
And with that, the Subcommittee on Homeland Security is
adjourned.
Wednesday, May 25, 2022.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
WITNESS
DEANNE CRISWELL, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
Before we begin this morning, I would like to take a moment
to reflect upon the horror that unfolded in Uvalde, Texas
yesterday. Our heartfelt condolences are extended to the family
and friends of the teachers and children that were appallingly
killed while in their school classrooms. Mere words cannot
convey our feelings of anger and sadness.
Mass shootings are a growing play in this country that we
and Congress have a duty to help address. I hope we can come
together to make that happen.
I want to acknowledge the brave and the heroic actions of
first responders including U.S. Border Patrol agents who heard
the call of an active shooter yesterday and quickly responded.
Without their actions, the loss of life would no doubt have
been much worse. I ask that we have a brief moment of silence
to remember what was lost yesterday by the victims and the
family and by the Uvalde community.
(Moment of silence.)
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Today's hearing on the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's budget request for fiscal year 2023 is
being conducted virtually. Members are responsible for muting
and unmuting themselves. When you are recognized to speak and
have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff
will unmute your microphone. To avoid inadvertent background
noise, I or staff I designate may mute participants'
microphones when they are not recognized to speak.
If there is a technology issue during a member's speaking
time, we will move to the next member until the issue is
resolved and you will retain the balance of your time.
We will be following the 5-minute rule. With 1 minute
remaining in your time, the clock will turn yellow. When your
time has expired, the clock will turn and it will be time to
recognize the next member.
We will follow the speaking order set forth in the House
rules alternating by parties beginning with the Chair and
ranking member and then going to members present at the time
the hearing is called to order in order of seniority. We will
continue alternating by parties until every member present has
had a first round. Members can submit information in writing at
any of our hearings or markups using the email address provided
in advance to your staff.
Now let us begin.
Welcome Administrator Deanne Criswell to today's hearing,
which is your first time testifying before the subcommittee.
The members of this subcommittee and members of Congress
overall greatly appreciate and support the work you, your
colleagues at FEMA and emergency managers across the country do
to help our communities and constituents before, during, and
after disasters.
For more than two years, emergency management professionals
at all levels of government have worked tirelessly under
unprecedented conditions to assist our nation during the
pandemic while also responding to hurricanes, fires, tornadoes
and floods. Unfortunately, climate change appears to be
contributing to the increased severity and frequency of major
disasters, which will require expanded investments in FEMA's
response capabilities and capacity.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, there were $21 billion natural disasters last
year, including winter storms, wildfires, floods, tornadoes,
cyclones, and severe wind events with a total economic cost of
$145 billion. That is the third most costly year on record when
adjusting for inflation. And the total costs for the last five
years, $765 billion, is more than one-third of the total
disaster cost for the last 42 years.
This morning, we look forward to hearing your assessment of
FEMA's resource requirements for the upcoming fiscal year and
beyond.
I will now turn to the distinguished gentleman from
Tennessee, Ranking Member Fleischmann, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
hearing and, perhaps most importantly, I want to associate
myself with your comments and sentiments and thank you for that
moment of silence. For me, it's also a moment of prayer for the
victims and families of yesterday's shooting. The magnitude in
depth of this horror is shocking. People just--many people just
will never recover from this. So again, our hearts and prayers
go out to the entire community and all involved. But again,
thank you.
Administrator Criswell, I wanted to thank you for your
testimony today as we discuss the FEMA fiscal year for 2023 and
the budget request.
FEMA's mission is to help people before, during and after
disasters. But over the course of the last two years, FEMA has
become, to use a baseball analogy, the nation's disaster
utility player clearly showcasing their ability to excel in
efforts well outside the normal area of expertise. From
personal protective equipment to vaccines, lost wages and
funeral assistance, FEMA has been called on to tackle every
aspect of the nation's collective COVID response. In fact, FEMA
coordinated over 10,000 interagencies and contract staff
deployments to administer vaccines. Thus far, FEMA has
obligated more than $96 billion from the disaster relief fund
in support of COVID efforts, an incredible sum.
Administrator Criswell, please convey our sincere thanks
for all the work that the men and women of FEMA have done
behind the scenes that helps lead us to where we are today,
hopefully, in the remaining days of this terrible pandemic that
has claimed so many lives. In spite all of FEMA's good work
with COVID, there are always a few bad actors all too eager to
fraudulently take advantage of a terrible situation. Limited
guardrails and safeguards in some of those programs enabled
people with malicious intent to exploit the massive sums of
money Congress appropriated to address the crisis. Sadly,
several investigations are underway that involve fraud schemes
with the aim to steal money from taxpayers and those with
legitimate needs only to criminally enrich themselves.
And of course, all of the agencies' covert efforts are on
top of FEMA's typical work to help the nation prepare, mitigate
and respond to national disasters like wildfires, tornadoes,
floods and hurricanes.
Emergency management is a shared responsibility for
disaster operations that require capabilities beyond that of
state and local governments and be federally supported even if
the local governments manage and execute the day-to-day
recovery operations. One of the principal ways FEMA supports
state and local preparedness is through grant making authority.
And this year's federal assistance request, which includes
grants, totals $3 and a half billion. Grants cover a wide range
of preparedness and mitigation activities including support to
firefighters, hazard mitigation and terrorism prevention
activities. This year's request also includes funding for
critical infrastructure, cybersecurity grants and substantial
increase for nonprofit security grants. As we use these grants
to buy down risk, FEMA's risk calculation formulas should
consider the significant sums of funding we have allocated to a
relatively few localities and take into account new risks based
across the nation.
I offer my sincere gratitude to the people of FEMA who have
been on the job in some of the worst of times. Thank you,
Administrator Criswell, and to everyone at FEMA for their
amazing work and cooperation with our states.
Madam Chairman, I thank you and I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Administrator Criswell, we will submit
the full text of your official statement for the hearing
record. Please begin your oral summary which I would ask you to
keep to 5 minutes.
Ms. Criswell. Thank you very much. Before I begin my
testimony today, I would also just like to say that my heart
breaks for the community of Uvalde, Texas. I'm a mom and I'm a
grandmother, I am horrified by the scenes that I saw yesterday.
And this comes just days after the events in Buffalo and across
the country. And I know that our entire FEMA family is
heartbroken as well.
Chairwoman Roybal-Allard and Ranking Member Fleischmann and
other members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you
for the opportunity today to testify regarding FEMA's $29.5
billion request for fiscal year 2023.
Ten years ago, we managed an average of 108 disasters a
year. Today, we are managing 311. This includes the ongoing
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. National disasters are more
frequent, more intense, and more destructive, and this pattern
will continue for the foreseeable future.
Disasters are no longer falling within certain months of
the year. Instead, disaster seasons are year-long events. Our
fiscal year 2023 funding request ensures that our agency can
meet these challenges and be prepared for the future as it
helps the nation before, during, and after disasters.
FEMA has aligned its budget request to support the goals
outlined in our 2022-2026 strategic plan. These goals are: (1)
to instill equity as a foundation of emergency management; (2)
lead the whole of community in climate resilience; and (3)
promote and sustain a ready FEMA and a prepared nation.
I would like to begin by addressing equity. It is important
that we recognize that disasters affect individuals and
communities differently. We must commit ourselves to
eliminating barriers to access and commit to delivering
equitable outcomes for all survivors. And truly, equity
considerations have been woven into everything that we do at
FEMA and throughout our $29.5 billion request.
To take but one example, FEMA is requesting to add 23
regional interagency coordinators within its ten FEMA regional
offices, as well as headquarters. This staff is going to work
with our governmental partners and assist them in addressing
equity to underserved communities.
This increased capability will allow FEMA to work with
these stakeholders to ensure that they can maximize their
preparedness, recovery, and mitigation efforts for communities
in an equitable manner.
And next, let's look at climate resilience. FEMA is not
just a response and recovery agency. One of my highest
priorities is to focus equally on mitigation. We must recognize
that the climate crisis and integrate future conditions into
our planning efforts now.
Our request includes $3.4 billion to support strategies to
address climate change through community partnerships. This
includes further investments in the Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, our hazard mitigation
grant program, flood mapping and federal flood risk management
standards. Specifically, we are setting aside $1 billion of the
Disaster Relief Fund to be used exclusively for the BRIC
program. This set aside will help communities build capacity by
funding hazard mitigation projects, such as seismic retrofits,
stormwater management plans and construction of flood control
and flood ways.
Our budget request also supports our efforts to promote and
sustain a ``Ready FEMA'' and a prepared nation. The increase in
frequency, severity and complexity of disasters has heightened
the demands of FEMA's workforce and on our first responders in
every state and every territory, tribal nation, county and city
across the nation.
To rise to this challenge, FEMA must expand its approach to
agency readiness and to national preparedness.
FEMA's request includes $19.7 billion for the Disaster
Relief Fund to address current and future disasters. To reach
this number, FEMA worked shoulder-to-shoulder with disaster-
impacted states and localities to understand their recovery
needs from ongoing catastrophic disasters in addition to
evaluating the historical cost average for non-catastrophic
disasters; the previously mentioned allocation for BRIC; and a
reserve to ensure FEMA maintains the ability to fund initial
response operations for new significant events.
And while natural disasters are at the forefront of our
discussions, we cannot overlook other threats facing our nation
which FEMA is also charged with helping with. We are reminded
of this earlier this year during a hostage standoff at the
Congregation Beth Israel synagogue in Colleyville, Texas. I
visited the Congregation Beth Israel and spoke to the rabbi at
the synagogue following this attack. He spoke to me about the
importance of FEMA's Nonprofit Security Grant Program and how
it helped save lives. Given the increasing threat to houses of
worship and other nonprofit institutions, we are asking
Congress to increase funding for this program to $360 million.
In closing, the fiscal year 2023 appropriations request is
equal to the critical challenges that we face. And I look
forward to your questions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Administrator Criswell, in the last
several years, we have heard growing concerns that the
application process for individuals and household assistance
has become overly complicated perhaps as part of the effort to
help prevent fraud. Fraud has been a real problem in the past,
and FEMA is right to try to prevent it. But if the process is
leading some eligible applicants to be incorrectly screened out
or to give up seeking benefits to which they are entitled
because the process is too difficult or because of the mistaken
belief they are not eligible, the agency needs to take a fresh
look at whether it is striking the right balance.
In the Report of Company, the fiscal year 2022 Funding Act,
we acknowledge steps FEMA is taking to address this situation.
We also asked the inspector-general to review this issue
including whether recommendations made by the OIG and other
oversight entities may have influenced FEMA to adopt overly
restrictive policies.
Can you tell us what steps FEMA is taking to address this
problem? And do you think prior oversight efforts may have
contributed to it?
Ms. Criswell. Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, thank you so much
for that question. Our support to individuals, to me, is one of
the most important things that we can provide as an agency. We
are one of the few federal agencies that have that immediate
direct impact on communities and on individuals.
Our processes can be difficult to navigate and some of the
documentation that we had been requesting in the past was
overly restrictive. We took a hard look at our programs,
specifically to the type of documentation that we accept in
regard to individuals or families that own property that
perhaps have been passed down through the generation, and they
may not have had the appropriate deed or paperwork that we were
requesting.
So, we made some changes to our policies last year ahead of
hurricane season. And we've seen some significant change in the
amount of individuals that have been eligible for our program.
And I'd like to just give you a couple of numbers. So since we
implemented these changes on the types of documentation we
accept, we were able to help more than 42,000 homeowners as
well as 53,000 renters last year receive assistance. These are
individuals that just the year prior, we would have probably
denied for assistance.
We also changed how we calculate the property threshold for
properties. Our formula and the things that we were doing was
not allowing us to take into account the lower value homes that
people may have. And so, we changed it from a fixed threshold
to a price per square foot threshold. And this change resulted
in an additional 2,700 survivors being able to be eligible for
our direct housing program after Hurricane Ida.
These are just the first steps. We know that we have more
work to do, and we are continuing to look into ways that we can
improve our programs. And right now, some of the things that we
are restricted by is the fact that we can only support
rebuilding to safe and sanitary to a habitable state. As we
continue to look at the types of regulatory or legislative
changes we can make, we hope that we can make significant
difference in how we help survivors.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Administrator, we are already
experiencing another active fire season in the West due to
drought, linked to climate change including the fire in New
Mexico. And in addition to providing assistance through major
disaster and emergency declarations by the President, FEMA also
has the ability to provide fire management assistance grants.
Does FEMA prepare for the western wildfire season in the
same way it does for the Atlantic hurricane season? For
example, if a state prepositions resources before a hurricane,
FEMA often pays for those costs through a disaster declaration
or a pre-landfall emergency declaration. However, I understand
from my home state of California that, if in-state resources
are pre-positions for wildfire, they are not eligible for
reimbursement under current FMAG regulations. Is that the case?
And if so, what is the basis for this disparity?
Ms. Criswell. Chairwoman, the wildfire situation that we
are seeing is continually presenting us more unique challenges
than we have faced in the past. We have gotten more aggressive
in how we do pre-landfall declarations for hurricanes as we see
them coming. And we are looking closely at how we administer or
fire management assistance grant program and the things that we
can do to support the wildfire activities that are happening in
these states that are experiencing this increase.
We recently just held our first ever FEMA wildfire summit
with leadership from all 10 of our regions to have this very
conversation of what you brought you up and how we can better
support our states and our local jurisdictions as they continue
to have to respond to an increased number of wildfires. And
I'll work with my team to make sure that you are informed along
the way as we make changes to that level of support.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. So, there's a consideration that
there may be additional resources being provided to state,
tribal, and local government in anticipation of the wildfire
season?
Ms. Criswell. No. I wouldn't say additional resources,
ma'am. What I would say is we continue to provide our fire
management assistance grant, but what we are seeing is that
these wildfires are becoming more destructive. And a larger
number of these fires are actually reaching the major disaster
declaration level. And so we want to better understand how we
can now work within our programs and our statutory authorities
to support states more proactively.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I just have one more question. I
know my time is up. But does FEMA have any plans to embed staff
in California operational areas during peak Santa Ana wind
events as it does in coastal states in anticipation of
hurricanes?
Ms. Criswell. Our states--our regions, I would say, have
what we call FEMA integration teams as well as some of our
regional staff that are embedded in every state across the
country. And as a state has a specific need or request, we can
certainly accommodate that request.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. All right. And I look forward to
whatever discussions you have on how to be more--from my
perspective from my California--more equitable in the way
California and western states are treated versus what happens
in terms of hurricanes. So, I look forward to your feedback on
that.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman, for
this hearing. And welcome again, Administrator Criswell.
Madam Administrator, since September the 11th, we have
spent billions of dollars in grants to increase
interoperability, add capability to the nation's firefighters,
mitigate manmade and natural disasters and made other
worthwhile investments.
When we look at the totality of our grant spending, how do
we know if we have made the right investments and spent
taxpayer dollars wisely to buy down the right risks that face
our communities? Put in other words, how do you measure the
success of FEMA grant programs? Thank you.
Ms. Criswell. Ranking Member Fleischmann, first, I would
just like to say thank you for your gratitude towards our FEMA
staff and the work that they have done. I know that it will go
a long way in acknowledging all the hard work that they have
done not just for COVID-19 but throughout some of the responses
that we have had.
As you stated, our grant programs are instrumental in
improving the preparedness of our jurisdictions across the
country. And I believe that we have created increased capacity
around the nation as it comes to the things that are eligible
underneath our grant programs. Some of the ways that we measure
the effectiveness is through our annual state preparedness
report and our THRA, which is the threat and hazard
identification risk assessment, to see if we are increasing
capacity through the grant spending.
One of the things that we have done this year in the notice
of funding opportunity that was just released is we have
changed our risk formula, I think, to something that you said
in your opening statement, to better represent the types of
threats that we are facing across the nation. These terrorism
grants were created 20 years, post 9/11, that we have seen that
our threats continue to evolve and change to include more
domestic violent extremism. And so, our new grant formula that
we rolled out this year takes that into account so we can make
sure we're--and we are going to continue to work on--evolving
this grant formula, as well as defining the metrics that we're
going to use to measure the effectiveness of them as we
continue to roll them out in the future.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. A little bit of a follow-up to
that question, Madam Administrator.
Is there a better way to measure grant effectiveness and
build that into future notices of grant funding opportunities?
Ms. Criswell. I think one of the ways that we can continue
to look at grant effectiveness is lessons learned and things
that we have heard from our stakeholders. A great example of
that is Colleyville where they directly stated how important
the grant funding that they received from the Nonprofit
Security Grant was in improving their own capability to respond
to that event.
Those types of success stories are things that I think that
we need to gather more deliberately so we can share with others
across the country.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Can you please explain how FEMA allocates grant dollars in
the Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security
programs. Do they consider previous investments made that
ostensibly buy down risk and should that be a consideration?
Ms. Criswell. The Urban Area Security Initiative, it is one
of our suite of--or part of the suite of homeland security
grants that we have. And it is such an incredibly important
tool in how we help keep Americans safe across the country.
The formula that we use is the risk formula that I just
previously mentioned that takes into acccount threat,
consequence and vulnerability. And that's, the way that we
allocate the funding is to those urban area metropolitan
statistical areas that encompass 85 percent of the nation's
greatest risk. And so, with that, it just takes into account
those that have the greatest risk across the nation and then
allocate it across those jurisdictions.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you very much, ma'am. I appreciate
the answers to my questions.
And, Madam Chair, I will yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Administrator Criswell, thank you for being with us today.
I have been glad to see your emphasis as administrator on
equity and user-friendly information as the foundation of
FEMA's services. Equity and clear information are two of my
highest priorities as well which is why I am focused on
ensuring nursing parents have the breastfeeding supports they
need during a disaster.
Currently, FEMA's guidance materials specifically cite
infant formula as eligible for critical needs assistance, or
CNA, but there is no information on how nursing families can
receive financial assistance for a breast pump or any other
necessary breastfeeding equipment. This means parents have to
proactively ask and state and local emergency management
officials have to determine eligibility all in the middle of a
crisis.
After hearing about the confusion these inconsistencies
caused survivors, disaster coordinators and volunteers on the
ground, I introduced the Demand Act to make breast pumps and
other lactation supplies explicitly eligible for FEMA's
financial assistance. In March, I sent you a letter urging FEMA
to provide clear guidance to parents and emergency management
partners on assistance for lactation equipment and
breastfeeding support services by (1) updating FEMA's website
with user-friendly information; and (2) explicitly including
these supports in FEMA's individual assistance program and
policy guide update in 2023.
Last week, I received your team's response to my letter.
The response lays out the available assistance at FEMA stating:
``Financial assistance provided through CNA could be used for
breastfeeding support and equipment if that is how the
applicant chooses to use those funds to meet their post-
disaster needs.''
Now I appreciate this response, but I am concerned that
this information is not more public. If breastfeeding equipment
is already an eligible expense, under CNA, FEMA needs to
proactively communicate that to families and emergency
management officials now. We cannot wait until another
hurricane season has passed.
So, my question to you is can you commit to updating FEMA's
website to make information about lactation equipment and
breastfeeding support services available to the public?
Ms. Criswell. Representative Underwood, I truly appreciate
your concern and your advocacy for survivors. And as a mother
myself, I understand caring for newborns is critically
important and that our website does not necessarily address the
concerns that you have.
It is an eligible expense under critical needs assistance.
And, we are going to update that in our next update of the
individual assistance program policy guide in 2023 so it will
be in there. But, I will absolutely work with my external
affairs team to make sure that (1) our website is more clear;
and (2) see if there are additional fact sheets that we can put
out to make sure that our state and local jurisdictions have
that awareness as well.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. When can we expect that update to
be available online?
Ms. Criswell. I will have my team get back to you but
certainly as hurricane season is approaching on June 1st, so
you will see that soonest.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. I view public facing materials
including a website update as a critical way for FEMA to
clarify its position for breastfeeding parents. As you know,
during a disaster, parents are going through some of the
hardest days of their lives. And they should be able to quickly
find information on how they can feed their newborn babies.
What else can FEMA do in the short-term and long-term to ensure
assistance is available and accessible to breastfeeding
parents?
Ms. Criswell. I think, again, as we update our website and
we get information on state and local jurisdictions, that is
going to be our first step.
But certainly, the most important time to make sure
information is getting out there is after a disaster has been
declared and we are starting to communicate with the public. I
believe some of the things that we can do is make sure if they
visit one of our disaster recovery centers that information is
available for them as they come in there. I can also commit to
making sure that we provide some training for our disaster
survivor assistance teams that do go out into the public and
talk to survivors one-on-one to find out what their needs are
and make sure that they have that information and they can let
them know one-on-one.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. As you are the first woman to
lead FEMA, I appreciate your focus on addressing inequities in
our national emergency management and response. This work has
always been needed but it will only become more dire as
climate-related natural disasters continue to increase. I look
forward to partnering with you on these important issues to
ensure families are not left behind in the aftermath of
disasters.
Thank you and I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
Listen. If--and I am speaking to everyone. If you have not
heard about this issue, you need to make yourselves aware of
it, particularly if you are in hurricane prone areas like I am
here in Florida.
I am hearing from our municipal power companies back home
with great concern about supply chains as we enter the
hurricane season. Usually, as a storm approaches, these
companies begin to stockpile equipment that they know they are
going to need to get the electrical grid back up, after these
storms have struck. I can tell you already they are struggling
to find supplies due to the supply chain issues, transformers
particularly. This is just one example. And obviously,
transformers are a vital piece of our recovery. It used to take
3 months to get a delivery of a transformer. It is now taking
up to 75 months. Now, that puts our entire grid at extreme risk
for long, long periods of time.
And so, Ms. Criswell, I would like to ask, in the lead up
to the hurricane season, June 1st, can you discuss what FEMA is
doing to work with states, localities and power companies? Not
just the municipalities. I think even the private companies are
having difficulties. Can you tell us what you can do to help
with these stockpiles and bolster supplies that are going to be
necessary and vital for recovery?
Ms. Criswell. Representative Rutherford, the private sector
is such a critical partner in our ability to recover from these
disasters, and in particular, our power companies. I know that
the impacts that we are seeing from the supply chain concerns
are causing all of us to make sure that we are taking the extra
steps now to have conversations about what the potential risks
might be and what the limitations might be in our ability to
help communities recover.
I think one of the best ways that we are approach this
understanding or trying to gain this understanding is through
our regional administrators who work very closely with all of
our state partners as well as the private entities that support
their recovery efforts to better understand what their
capabilities are and what their gaps might be.
We, on the FEMA side, have made sure that we have our
stockpiles in place at our distribution centers across the
nation. We do have generators in place that can support
critical infrastructure as needed or as requested by the
states. And, we are going to continue to work really closely
with our state partners through our regional offices to
understand what their shortfalls might be and what we can do to
help mitigate that in the interim while trying to get back
online.
Mr. Rutherford. Ms. Criswell, I am not worried about
generators. I am worried about transformers.
Ms. Criswell. I understand, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. And so, my real question is, or I want to
put you on notice, that we are going to be asking after the
next hurricane, are these transformers available? What has the
federal government done to help these localities get prepared
and have the necessary transformers? Because that is the
problem. Not generators. Transformers are the problem of
getting our grid back up. Can you tell me what we are doing
about transformers specifically? And, do we have them
stockpiled?
Ms. Criswell. And so, again, Congressman, transformers are
an issue. FEMA does not stockpile transformers. What we do is
support the temporary restoration of power while the private
sector restores the power. We will continue to connect through
our regional administrators and our state emergency management
partners on what their potential identified needs and
shortfalls might be, but our role will be to come in and
temporarily provide support while the private sector restores
the power.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. Well, thank you very much. And
listen, anything that you can do to help us, my understanding
is a lot of these are manufactured over in China and that is
the biggest problem in getting them. This is going to be--I am
just telling everyone--this is going to be a major problem this
hurricane season. And I just want everybody to be on notice
that these transformers are very, very, very difficult to come
by.
So, my next question I would like to ask is on the border
crisis. I know FEMA administers a grant program and nonprofit
used to coordinate the travels of these immigrants from the
border to the interior of a country after they have been
released. My question is does DHS, FEMA contract the grantees
themselves in the localities that these people are being moved
to, or are they notifying anyone about who is coming in to
their jurisdiction?
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I see my time just ran out. I'm
sorry. I'll save that for the next round. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. All right. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Administrator Criswell, thank you for being here. You have
a very difficult job. We know that. Part of our job is to try
to support you and get you the resources that you need. Your
agency has the critical mission to respond to and to mitigate
every manmade and natural conceivable nearly impossible
disaster and that is nearly an impossible task. But you are
there and we are going to work with you.
In that vein, I would like to take the opportunity to
highlight a program that can be used to combat both. FEMA's
port security grant program largely flies under the radar but
has made profound impact in my district, especially in the Port
of Baltimore, which I represent.
Last year, the port received a $1.6 million grant to bring
its cybersecurity infrastructure into the 21st century by
improving access-controlled procedures and initiatives as well
as upgrading software and licensed products. America's ports
generate $4.6 trillion in revenue and employ 23 million people
throughout the country. The Port of Baltimore alone generates
$310 million in state, county and municipal revenue each year.
The bottom line is that the economic impact of seaports cannot
be understated.
Now, according to the Brookings Center, it would take only
a small attack on our ports to grind U.S. commerce to a halt
within days. The need for port security cannot be understated.
And for this reason, I was pleased to see the Administration's
request of $100 million for the programs but believe we can do
more.
Now, Administrator, in your opinion, what are our biggest
cybersecurity threats to our official ports of entry? What are
the potential consequences? And, is the $100 million enough to
meet the needs at seaports?
Ms. Criswell. Congressman Ruppersberger, our ports of entry
are such a critical part of our infrastructure. And, I think if
there is anything that we have really learned over the first
three months of this year, the first half of this year, is that
the cybersecurity threats to all of our critical infrastructure
gave us an increased awareness of the vulnerability that they
face. And so, we are committed to continuing to work through
the port security grant program to fund the critical needs to
help the ports build resilience against all types of attacks.
And, I do believe that the $100 million that we currently
have for the program, based on how it has been utilized and the
requests that have been made in the past has been sufficient.
I would also like to note, though, that we did release this
year, too, through the bipartisan infrastructure law, a $1
billion cybersecurity grant program that we will be
administering on behalf of CISA. It is another opportunity for
us to increase the cyber resilience for all of our critical
infrastructure to include ports. If we do find that this
program becomes overextended, I would be happy to continue to
work with Congress on ways that we can increase the funding and
how we can continue to improve the readiness and the resilience
of this critical piece of our infrastructure.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, thank you for your comments. And I
yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I
appreciate you holding this hearing today. And I know,
obviously, we share the commitment of ensuring that our
communities have strong disaster support.
And Administrator Criswell, as we have previously
discussed, welcome back. I know that we have talked in the past
about the major storm that came through my district in August
of 2020. Eastern Iowa, of course, was subjected to a terrible
derecho storm. We call it the land hurricane here in Iowa. But
it wreaked havoc upon many of the communities that I represent.
It was the costliest thunderstorm in U.S. history. Homes,
property, crops, lives were lost as well. So we are still
putting pieces back together in many of our communities. But I
just wanted to say thank you today for your continued
partnership because just a couple of weeks ago, FEMA announced
an additional $15 million to Linn County for derecho response.
And I know those dollars meet a very critical need in our
community. So I just wanted to start off by saying thank you
there.
And my first question today is, as I am out meeting with
folks in the district, preparing for the next disaster is
always top of mind. We are no stranger to those strong storms
coming through Iowa. And, while many of our communities have
resources to invest and prep, many of them do not, especially
when it comes to our smaller rural communities. And FEMA's Pre-
Disaster Mitigation fund can make a world of difference in
smaller communities. We know that investment in disaster
mitigation brings stronger terms on investment. Right? A dollar
spent can really return on that investment saving both taxpayer
dollars and lives.
And one of the top programs at FEMA, the BRIC program,
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, makes those
targeted investments to mitigate disasters. But where my
concern is here, Administrator, is that in the previous cycle
of those BRIC funds that went out, FEMA allocated over 50
percent of those awards to just three states: California,
Washington and New Jersey. So in your testimony, you mentioned,
obviously, we are focused at FEMA on equitable response to
disasters. So, I guess I am concerned and I would ask how are
you at FEMA looking toward a more equitable distribution of the
BRIC funds, for example, to ensure that rural communities are
not left out of this process?
Ms. Criswell. Congresswoman Hinson, I think that you are
spot on when we talk about the investment made with Predisaster
Mitigation funding and the value, the return on investment,
that we are going to get. It is an incredible time for us to
make sure that we are taking that into account as we continue
to see increased devastation from some of these storms. And we
have to reduce the impact so we can continue to be able to
respond to these events.
Our BRIC program is one of our key programs to do this.
During the first year of this delivery, for the jurisdictions
that were announced, we did notice that there were gaps across
the middle of the United States related to who was eligible or
who was granted an award from the competitive side of the
program. I would state that all states do get a baseline
funding. But the competitive side was really geared towards
more of our coastal states or larger cities.
We did make some changes in our program for the formula
this year to give additional points to underserved communities
and minority communities so we can better reflect those
communities that have greater need so we can help build their
capacity. The grant period for that funding has closed. I think
we're getting ready to make the pre-award announcement later
this summer.
But, this is a new program. We are going to continue to
take feedback, like what I just got from you, so we can improve
this program to make sure that we are making sound investments
in those areas that need the capacity building the most.
Mrs. Hinson. Well, I certainly appreciate that. And, I know
we want to make sure we are targeting to communities that maybe
have been overlooked in the past, underserved communities for
example. But when you look at rural communities, I think that's
definitely something that I would just flag as you are looking
at the map of the country and we are targeting those resources.
And you spoke about eliminating barriers to these communities.
Have you identified any barriers specifically for the smaller
rural communities through that competitive process? And then I
would just ask how can we tackle those together? I mean, is it
just the feedback? I would ask you to commit to work with our
office on making sure we can refine the process so people can
access those resources.
Ms. Criswell. I would say that I think some of the biggest
barriers are just the complication of our process. Right? And
so, we want to continue to work especially with our rural
communities on how to help them navigate that process.
One of the ways that we are doing that is through Direct
and Technical Assistance with our BRIC program to help
especially rural communities, underserved communities, develop
projects that can be more competitive. We want to provide that
direct assistance to take the burden off of them.
And so, that is one of our key focus areas. And if there
are communities in Iowa that have not applied for that, I would
love to be able to have my team work with your staff so we can
do some outreach for them.
I would also like to add that the President authorized
$3.46 billion last year as part of the COVID-19 Hazard
Mitigation Grant program. It's only the second time that we
have given Hazard Mitigation funding for a non-natural
disaster. The first time was after 9/11. And so that increased
the amount of funding that every state does have to do disaster
mitigation projects, and it can be for any project that the
state deems a priority.
Mrs. Hinson. Well, I certainly appreciate that. And I see
my time has expired. So, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you,
Administrator.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thanks to the
Ranking Member and thank you so much for being here. We
appreciate the great work that you are doing and look forward
to so many efforts together.
A question about flood mapping. And you know how important
that is. Unfortunately, I guess, the question is, is this an
issue of methodology or just needing to be updated? There are
issues with how accurate flood maps are across the country. In
Chicago, FEMA has previously produced flood maps for Chicago
that say that only 3 out of every 1,000 properties should flood
every 100 years. Obviously, this is not the case. So what is
FEMA doing to try to get more accurate flood mapping? And, is
it a combination of those things, a methodology updating them
or just errors in the past?
Ms. Criswell. Congressman Quigley, flooding is our nation's
most costly disaster. And our flood mapping is one of the tools
that we have to help communities better understand their risk.
We do provide assistance to communities across the nation to
help them update their flood mapping.
And I would also like to point out that our flood mapping
is really based on coastal flooding and riverine flooding. It
does not take into account rainfall and how quickly rainfall
might happen. And so, we have to keep that in mind.
One of the ways that we want to be able to help increase
the amount of flood mapping capacity that we are doing is in
our fiscal year 2023 budget request. We have asked for $4.3
million and 30 additional employees that will enable us to
reach more of our communities and help them update their flood
mapping. This is a critical need and a critical tool for our
state and local jurisdictions to use. So we want to make sure
that we have the appropriate funding and staffing to support
them.
Mr. Quigley. Yeah. We want to make sure that we work with
you on that because with climate change and a new world, there
are so many different dynamics. And obviously, FEMA is focused,
as you said, on coastal areas that are traditional. But we have
seen a dramatic increase in urban flooding issues and the costs
that are involved and the risks that are involved. So I am
hoping that we can work with you on an ongoing basis to work
with our local jurisdictions to make sure we get this right
because, as you said, this flood mapping really matters. And it
is very important to inform our constituents what they are
facing as well.
Ms. Criswell. Our flood mapping is for coastal as well as
river flooding, and I do want to continue to provide the
assistance. We provide assistance to the level that we can
right now but this increased funding in our fiscal year 2023
request is going to give us that ability to reach more
communities and help them better understand what their risks
are.
Mr. Quigley. I appreciate that. We look forward to working
with you and your office. Thanks for your service.
And I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
Administrator Criswell, thank you for being with us today,
and thank you for the many trips you have made to our state
after natural disasters. I think Mississippi has always had a
great relationship with our FEMA administrators, not by choice
but because of unexpected natural incidents that we have.
So Hurricane Katrina is still fresh in many people's minds
here in south Mississippi. But when we tackled our response
effort, we just didn't want to build back. We wanted to build
forward. We wanted to be more resilient. We wanted to mitigate
against future storms. So real quick, in your opinion, and in
practice of FEMA, is it to build back more resilient stronger
or to build back to your same standard as before the storm?
Ms. Criswell. Congressman Palazzo, I think that the crisis
that we are facing right now in the face of climate change is
continuing to grow every day, and one of the things that I have
continued to talk to my team about, as well as emergency
managers across the country, is that we cannot do our planning
based on historical risk, that we have to start to take into
account what the potential future risk is going to be. The
disasters that we are seeing today are different than 10 years
ago, and they are going to be different 10 years from now. And
so, as we are working with communities to rebuild after
disaster, we do encourage them to look at what the future
conditions might be and how do we rebuild more resilience. That
is why, with every project, they do have an opportunity to
increase the amount of the project threshold to incorporate
hazard mitigation into that so they can build back more
resilience.
Mr. Palazzo. I actually have a project on the Mississippi
Gulf Coast that we are working with Region 4. I want to say
Gracia Szczech, and she's been a delight to work with. By the
way, the whole group at Region 4 has been very responsive. But
we just got this one last project on the Mississippi Gulf
Coast--if we could get some clarity on what they need to do
next to meet all the approvals necessary to build back better
resilience, that would be great.
And I do have--I know you get a lot of questions about
flood insurance. One of our biggest concerns, not just on the
Mississippi Gulf Coast, but pretty much around the nation, and
this is a bipartisan, not one, party. It is not really
geographically limited to the coastal areas, but is all across
the nation. It's the affordability and availability of flood
insurance. I know there has been a lot of concerns raised with
Risk Rating 2.0. And I would love to meet with you in person or
your staff to get a greater understanding of Risk Rating 2.0,
find out how we can get some more transparency in the premium
increases and just also to take another spin on a bipartisan
effort to delay implementation. You know, I do not think it is
Congressional intent to making flood insurance unavailable and
unaffordable because that will lead to a loss of homes and loss
of value in their homes as well. And again, this is nation-
wide. This is not south Mississippi. This is everywhere there's
a possibility of flooding.
So, I would love to be able to meet in my office when we
come back in session or set up another phone call so we can
discuss risk rating----
Ms. Criswell. Congressman Palazzo, I would be happy to come
to your office and talk to you more about Risk Rating 2.0. And,
I would just say we do understand the affordability concerns.
And we fully support the affordability framework that is
currently being considered with Congress in a legislative
proposal to help make sure that families that need flood
insurance can get it.
Mr. Palazzo. Great. Great. Because, as you know, this also
affects those like the low income neighborhoods, especially in
my district. So, listen, better than meeting in the office in
D.C., if you could make it to the Mississippi gulf coast, we
got the world's greatest seafood----
Ms. Criswell. Congressman Palazzo, you cut out towards the
end there. But I think what I heard you say is come to the gulf
coast which I would happy to come to the gulf coast as well.
Mr. Palazzo. And the world's greatest seafood. All right.
Thank you, Administrator. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Sorry about that, Administrator. Mr. Palazzo
never misses an opportunity to invite people down to the Gulf
Coast, but he means well, and I am sure he would host you with
world-class food as well.
I wanted to follow up on the Chairwoman's comment, and
building off of what Mr. Palazzo said, honestly, about equity.
The Chairwoman talked a little bit about wildfire danger and
equitability. But Mr. Palazzo talked about the equitability of
investments and that risk reduction that we look at.
Can you elaborate on the Agency's plans to use funding to
invest in community partnerships and ensure that it is not in
an inequitable way getting toward risk reduction?
Ms. Criswell. One of the first things that I would say,
Congressman Aguilar, is that our mitigation funding is eligible
funding for wildfire mitigation projects, but what we see is
very few communities actually put in applications for wildfire
mitigation projects. So, we are doing a lot of outreach through
our regional administrators. Part of the summit that we had
recently with all of leadership from across the 10 regions has
to make sure we are getting that word out there as we are
continuing to see the threat from wildfires across the nation.
And so, it's a goal of mine to make sure that those communities
that have increased threats regardless of what they are
understand the types of resources that are available to them.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate that, and when we were talking
about wildfires, I could not help but think about the fact that
climate change has shown the number of natural disasters is
going to rise. And in California, clearly, wildfire season is
not confined to a season anymore of a few months. It is year-
round. And so, I was pleased to see that the President's budget
request emphasized how focusing on climate science and
investing in resilient infrastructure will reduce risk from
wildfires, floods, storms and other extreme weather events.
How can Congress support FEMA's goal to incorporate climate
science to mitigate extreme weather events and support
disadvantaged communities?
Ms. Criswell. You know, I think as it relates to wildfires,
I think some of the great things that came out of the
bipartisan infrastructure law was the establishment of the
Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission. It is an
opportunity for us to bring together our state enforcers, our
state emergency managers, our private sector, our utility
companies, and talk about what are the things that we can do as
an entire enterprise to help reduce the risk that we are seeing
from wildfire. I think the report that is going to come out of
this commission is going to inform many of the activities that
we take that could be transcendent across the types of
disasters that we are facing.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate that. Can you talk with us about
how the budget request deals with various natural disasters
that may happen across the country over the next year? We are
obviously no strangers to supplemental requests when big events
happen, but how, from an ongoing perspective do we account for
this financially through the next fiscal year?
Ms. Criswell. Yeah. I will talk specifically about our
Disaster Relief Fund and some of the funding that we have in
there. And I think right now where we are at, absent any
multiple new catastrophic events or any unexpected significant
COVID-19 costs, the funding that we have requested in our
Disaster Relief Fund request, I think, is going to be
sufficient to support our response and recovery needs.
In our fiscal year 2023 request, we are asking for $19.74
billion to cover our DRF, our Disaster Relief Fund, major
disaster declaration which is going to give us sufficient
funding to support the anticipated costs from COVID-19, as well
as our on-going recovery efforts for current disasters and any
new catastrophic events that we might see.
Mr. Aguilar. Didn't the bipartisan bill also have some DRF
funds associated with it?
Ms. Criswell. The bipartisan infrastructure law did give us
an additional $1 billion towards our Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities program as well as some of our
other hazard mitigation programs. On that Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities, that would be in addition to
the funding that we take from the Disaster Relief Fund as part
of statute to support that program.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate that. Thank you so much,
Administrator.
Yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That completes the first round. And so
now we are going to start the second round.
Administrator, in the fiscal year 2022 funding bill, we
provided $40 million for Next Generation Warning Systems grant
to help public broadcasters better provide critical information
to communities across the country before and during disasters
and emergencies through the Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System, or IPAWS.
Please tell us what role the public broadcasting system
plays in IPAWS and how the next generation warning system grant
enhance IPAWS?
Ms. Criswell. Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, the public warning
system and our public broadcasting stations are such a critical
partner in our ability to make sure that we are giving ample
warning to communities when a potential threat arises. When you
see an emergency alert come across your phone for a
thunderstorm warning or a tornado warning, this is part of that
system, and we want to make sure that our public broadcasting
stations have the most up-to-date infrastructure to support
that. And so, the NextGen Warning System funding and the grant
that you talked about is really going to help enhance the
ability of our public warning or public broadcasting stations
across the country. We are just beginning to implement this
program, but I look forward to seeing how it is going to
continue to increase the capacity that these stations have.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Early last year, President Biden raised
the federal cost share for COVID disaster assistance to 100
percent and expanded the scope of assistance. FEMA recently
announced, however, that the cost share will revert to 90
percent in July citing the provision in the fiscal year 2022
funding bill requiring the federal cost share for 2020 and 2021
disasters be less than 90 percent.
What is the rationale for reducing the cost share of COVID
assistance, and will this change, impact reimbursement for work
already performed by state, tribal, and local governments?
Ms. Criswell. As we are moving through our support for the
COVID-19 pandemic, we have continued to support our state and
local jurisdictions with the cost that they have incurred in
response to this crisis. They have been given 100 percent
reimbursement and President Biden did back date that back to
the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic which made sure that we
were covering costs from the start of the pandemic, not just at
the beginning of this Administration which was incredibly
helpful to all of our state and local jurisdictions.
As we are now moving more into a sustainment phase on how
we are we are going to support jurisdictions, we did determine
that it was time to move into our normal operating way of
supporting disasters and that is to do a 90 percent federal
cost share with a 10 percent cost share for state and local
jurisdictions. That does begin on July 1st, and that is
something that we socialized with all of our state and local
emergency managers earlier this year so they can be prepared
for that.
This is only going to be for new costs incurred after that
time-frame, so any costs incurred prior to July 1st of this
year will still be covered at 100 percent.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay, and what will be the impact on
current requests for reimbursement that have not yet been
approved, that are still in that pipeline? And are they then
going to be in the 90 percent reimbursement? Or because they
applied prior to the change, will they be grandfathered in?
Ms. Criswell. That's my understanding, ma'am, that any
costs incurred prior to July 1st will be covered at 100
percent, but we will make sure that we put together a fact
sheet so it is clear to everybody on what is going to be
covered and what is not covered and when that transition is
going to take place. I believe we did put one out already and
we can forward that to your office. But if it is not clear, we
will make sure that that is clear.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And, did FEMA have any consultations
with our state and local or tribal territorial and local
government prior to making this decision or was this made
completely independent of them?
Ms. Criswell. No. This is definitely made in consultation
with our state and local emergency managers. In fact, I was
myself meeting with the National Emergency Management
Association which is all of our state directors, having
conversations with them about what the next phase was going to
be. And so there was certainly consultation across the board.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Early last year, President Biden
raised the cost share for COVID disaster assistance to 100
percent. Let me--hold on one second. It didn't flip.
I can see that my time is up, so I am going to call on Mr.
Fleischmann, but I do want to ask a question about Nonprofit
Security Grant programs in the next round.
Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair. This has been an
outstanding hearing. Madam Administrator, as well, I appreciate
all the comprehensive responses.
In my opening statement, I mentioned the incredible sum
that has been obligated as the disaster fund for various COVID
efforts or at last count, was more than $96 billion.
Unfortunately, with any large expenditure of funding, criminals
try to take advantage of the spending to enrich themselves. Can
you speak to the guardrails, please, that FEMA has put in place
to minimize fraud?
Ms. Criswell. Some of the funding that we have executed in
response to COVID-19 were programs that were brand new to us.
As we developed the delivery models for these programs, we
worked closely with our partners to make sure that we were
putting together or putting in place mechanisms to ensure to
minimize fraud, waste, and abuse. Unfortunately, we are always
going to see, and you will never get rid of, it 100 percent. We
are going to continue to see different types of fraud, waste,
and abuse. And as the programs continue to unfold, we would put
in additional mechanisms to make sure that we were being proper
stewards of the taxpayer dollar.
Mr. Fleischmann. A follow-up question to that. Outside of
COVID spending, does FEMA have the right process in place to
verify eligibility for benefits for survivors of disasters? How
do you balance the need to meet basic needs quickly without
opening disaster relief programs of undue risk?
Ms. Criswell. I do believe that we have the proper tools
and mechanisms in place to validate those needs. I believe that
some of the processes that we had have been actually too
restrictive, and that is why we have opened up some of the
types of documentation we accept for certain programs so we can
make sure that those who have the greatest need are also
getting the greatest level of assistance.
One of the other things that we have also done, though, if
we cannot verify through our initial programs, is we have
instituted a 100 percent outreach to those that before we deny
them, we can have a conversation with them and validate the
information that they are giving us to ensure that they are
eligible applicants for our programs.
Mr. Fleischmann. Very well. And finally, given the
substantial spending related to COVID-19 pandemic, does the
Disaster Relief Fund have enough of a cushion should a major
disaster strike before we finish the work on the fiscal 2023
spending bill?
Ms. Criswell. I do believe that the health of our Disaster
Relief Fund right now is in good shape pending any
unanticipated COVID-19 costs that we have not planned for or
multiple catastrophic events. I do believe that our DRF, our
Disaster Relief Fund, is in good shape to get us through the
end of this fiscal year.
Mr. Fleischmann. Madam Administrator, I know other people
want to ask in the second round. So, I will just say thank you.
And, Madam Chair, I will yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mrs. Hinson.
Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you,
Administrator.
I wanted to follow up as well a little bit on the derecho
and some disaster assistance worst case scenarios that actually
played out after that happened.
In 2020, the GAO released a report called ``Additional
Actions Needed to Strengthen FEMA's Individuals and Household
Programs''. So, that one lays out ways in which FEMA could
really improve its individual disaster assistance programs.
So, the priority recommendation asked FEMA to identify and
implement strategies to provide applicants with information
about their eligibility. And last year, I wrote FEMA about
these reforms and the importance of supporting Iowans who are
seeking that help from FEMA. So, I would just ask today what
progress would you say has been made in improving not only the
clarity but the availability of assistance to individuals and
households following disasters.
Ms. Criswell. Yes, ma'am. The report from the GAO, they did
identify 14 actions to help strengthen our individual and the
households program, and we are currently working to see how we
can best implement those. Some of the changes that we have
already made go towards implementing some of the
recommendations that were made by the GAO. And, I do also
understand that as we implement our recommendations, that we
are also looking at how we can reduce the fraudulent disaster
applications at the same time.
I would be happy to have my staff get back with you and
provide any more in-depth analysis of where we are in
implementing these provisions and any additional actions that
we think that we might need assistance with.
Mrs. Hinson. Perfect. I appreciate that, and I completely
understand what you are saying about making sure that we are--
we are trying to make sure that fraud is not rampant. And, we
are getting those disaster assistance resources to the people
who really need them. So, I understand making sure that we are
doing everything we can to prevent that and be judicious.
So, my next question: how are you coordinating with all of
the communities--and I think maybe this would be something
that, if you are going to follow up with us, too, that you can
look at, but how are you coordinating on recommendations to
ensure that the changes are actually being made? I mean, are
you on the ground? How is that process kind of playing out so
that we can make sure we are actually listening to them on the
inputs from the feedback for what has happened?
Ms. Criswell. I think it is incredibly important to hear
from the people that are experiencing some of the frustrations
with how we deliver our programs, and one of the things that I
have done is go on listening tours to jurisdictions that have
been recovering from disasters last year. I visited many states
that are still in the recovery process from disasters several
years ago, and bringing that information back to help drive the
way that we continue to improve the delivery of both our
individual assistance and our public assistance programs.
Those listening sessions led to direct changes in the
individual assistance program, and we are also making changes
to our public assistance program before this hurricane season
based on those conversations.
We are going to continue to do that. We are going to
continue to listen to our customers and hear what their
struggles are and where their burdens are so we can put in
place the things that we need to reduce their barriers.
Mrs. Hinson. Okay. And my last question. You know,
obviously, we have heard a lot today about all of the far-
reaching areas that you are doing work at FEMA--COVID-19
pandemic preparedness, natural disasters, the southern border
refugee efforts, so obviously, you are stretched pretty thin in
terms of where you are going with your mission, and I talked
with the DHS Inspector-General when I met with him recently.
And so I would ask about focus. Right? FEMA's goal:
obviously, you have a lot of hats to wear, but I want to make
sure that you still have the utmost ability to focus on
disaster preparedness and response. So, do you feel that your
mission has been spread too broad? Do you need more narrow
focus? What is your take there?
Ms. Criswell. Yeah, I would not say that we need more
narrow focus. I think that the value that emergency managers
across this nation brings to the table is our ability to
collaborate and coordinate and bring all of the appropriate
parties together to solve some of the tough challenges that we
are facing today.
In some of the other instances that you talked about are
support to the southern border as well as Operations Allies
Welcome. We just served in our coordinating role, bringing that
skillset to the table with really a small amount of personnel
to support those operations, but tapping in to the skillset of
collaborating and coordinating and building that structure so
that the agency that we were supporting could be successful.
I feel strongly that our workforce is some of the best at
that, and they are still very focused on supporting natural
disasters, and I believe that we are in a good place going into
this hurricane season.
Mrs. Hinson. All right. Thank you, Administrator.
I yield back now, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
And I really--if Ms. Criswell would follow up on my good
friend's comments from Iowa, Mrs. Hinson. I have to say, one of
the things that I worry most about is FEMA actually becoming a
victim of their own success. I mean, honestly, I can tell you
as a law enforcement officer and having worked very closely
with FEMA in northeast Florida for many, many years, I can tell
you they have one of the best responses that I think any
federal agency that I have worked with. And so, my hat is off
to FEMA.
But it is almost like what you regularly see is those who
do more get pushed away. And I just want to make sure--Mrs.
Hinson was mentioning--you know, I want to make sure that FEMA
isn't overloaded because I do see--and you yourself made the
comment in your opening remarks that while your core mission--
and I'm going to quote: ``While [your] core motion has not
changed, our operating environment has.'' And I think that is
what the gentle lady from Iowa was really talking about. Your
operating environment really has changed. And I see areas where
it looks like there is a mission creep, if you will, not in a
bad way. I am just saying you get the job done.
But when I look at BRIC, and BRIC is talking about
floodgates, flood ways, stormwater, those are historically Army
corps issues, how is that shifting over to become a FEMA issue?
And then, on the other side, with DOJ and the Nonprofit
Security Grant, when I look at terrorism, cybersecurity, those
things becoming part of FEMA's responsibility--I do not want
you to wear too many hats. I mean, I know you guys are great,
but you cannot do it all.
And so, can you talk a little bit about how are you going
to make sure that you are not getting into this mission creep?
Ms. Criswell. Congressman Rutherford, it is a really great
question. I would say when we talk about BRIC specifically,
FEMA has always been, and one of the foundational elements of
emergency management is, mitigation and mitigating against
natural disasters. And that is what our BRIC program is, and it
replaced our Predisaster Mitigation program. And it provides an
increased level of funding toward jurisdictions. But it will
never match actually what the Army corps of Engineers programs
do. They do much larger projects. And so, there is this shared
responsibility across the federal family to address all of the
different components. And when we work together, we create more
resilient communities. And so, that partnership with us and the
Army corps of Engineers through the different programs that we
have, collectively increases the resiliency across the agencies
or across our communities.
I am going----
Mr. Rutherford. Well, I would just ask that--you know, we
are going to be paying attention to that because I really do
not want more beans dumped on you, so to speak.
But let me skip over to another issue that Mr. Aguilar and
Mr. Palazzo mentioned earlier. And that is the Risk Rating 2.0.
Particularly, for those folks who are going to be grandfathered
in, even though the rates may go up, it really is important
that they know what is coming. But I think even more
importantly is this issue of some of these discounts that can
be made available to individuals for listing their homes for
having flood openings and other discount capabilities. How are
we going to communicate to people so that they know what they
can do to actually help lower their rate?
Ms. Criswell. Yeah. I think that is really the basis of the
Risk Rating 2.0 program, Right? It does take into account now
the individual risks that homes have. I think the best way for
a homeowner to learn what the steps are that they can take to
mitigate that--I would say it two ways. One is really to work
closely with their insurance agent. Their insurance agent can
tell them the types of things that are going to reduce what
their rate potentially could be, but they can also look at
fema.gov on our mitigation page, and there are a number of
resources there as well that talk about the types of risks
different homes have and the types of action that they can
take.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much, Ms. Criswell.
I see my time has expired. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I have one final question,
Administrator, and this has to do with the Nonprofit Security
Grant program. During my time as chair on the subcommittee, we
have increased funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant program
more than three-fold from $60 million in fiscal year 2019 to
$220 million in fiscal year 2022. The fiscal year 2023 budget
proposes funding this program at $360 million. Does FEMA
believe that the demand for these grants is sufficient to
warrant a $360 million funding level next year? And does FEMA
actually have the resources to administer the program at that
funding level?
Ms. Criswell. Chairman Roybal-Allard, this is an incredibly
important program to help increase resiliency across the
nation, and I think as we continue to see our threat landscape
change, it is more important than ever to make sure that our
grant programs can support some of these targeted threats that
we are having. I do believe that the funding is needed and the
program is still oversubscribed to those applicants that are
coming in and asking for funding from the program. So, this
increase is going to make such a big difference in our ability
to increase resilience and the protection of some of these
nonprofits across the nation. And as I talked about with the
synagogue that I met with earlier this year in Colleyville,
Texas, specifically identifying that that program made the
biggest difference in their ability to recover or respond to
that event.
We do have the staff that is available to support this, and
we will continue to work with our regions to help support the
implementation. And if we need to bring on some more staff to
support that, we can do that. But right now, I think we are
good in supporting the implementation of this program.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And just finally, FEMA recently
announced changes in the scoring for applications in this
program for fiscal year 2022. Can you explain what these
changes are and the rationale for them?
Ms. Criswell. I do not have the specific changes here right
in front of me. I know that across all of our programs we have
made some changes in how we calculate risk to make sure that we
are better understanding the domestic risk that is out there,
as well as increasing points for underserved communities. I
think one of the changes that I know that we made is we want to
encourage more nonprofits to apply for these grants. And so, we
gave additional points to first time applicants for this
program so we can encourage more nonprofit organizations to
apply.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. If there are no more questions,
then we will conclude today's hearing.
Administrator Criswell, thank you very much for your time.
And thank you for everything that you and your personnel do on
behalf of our country during some very, very trying times.
The subcommittee on Homeland Security stands adjourned.
[Question and answer submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]