[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]