[Senate Hearing 117-483]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-483
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 4431
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2022, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Department of Homeland Security
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-174 WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Vice
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California Chairman
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
JACK REED, Rhode Island SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JON TESTER, Montana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon ROY BLUNT, Missouri
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia Virginia
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
MARCO RUBIO, Florida
Charles E. Kieffer, Staff Director
Shannon Hutcherson Hines, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Department of Homeland Security
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut, Chairman
JON TESTER, Montana SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire Virginia, Ranking
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
Professional Staff
Scott Nance
Drenan E. Dudley
Jennifer Piatt
Kamela White
Jason Yaworske (Minority)
Chris Cook (Minority)
Justin Harper (Minority)
Thompson Moore (Minority)
Administrative Support
Teri Curtin
LaShawnda Smith (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Wednesday, April 14, 2021
Department of Homeland Security: Federal Emergency Management
Agency......................................................... 1
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
Department of Homeland Security.................................. 39
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 75
----------
back matter
List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements....... 99
Subject Index:
Department of Homeland Security: Federal Emergency Management
Agency..................................................... 101
Department of Homeland Security.............................. 101
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:03, in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher Murphy (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Murphy, Shaheen, Capito, and Hoeven.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management Agency
STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT J. FENTON, JR., SENIOR OFFICIAL
PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATOR
opening statement of senator christopher murphy
Senator Murphy. Good afternoon, everyone. We call this
hearing Subcommittee on Homeland Security to order. A general
reminder from the onset, this is a virtual, a hybrid hearing
where some of my colleagues couldn't be here in person, they
will be appearing virtually. And so, we'll do our best to
ensure that everybody is aware when it is their turn to speak.
This is the subcommittee's first hearing of the 117th
Congress, and my first meeting as chairman. I'm also a new
member of the Committee, and so, I will cop at the outset to a
learning curve and I'm very grateful to be able to have the
advice, and counsel, and partnership of a ranking member and
prior Chairwoman Capito. I'm looking forward to doing some good
work together on this subcommittee.
Let me welcome the Acting Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Bob Fenton. This is his second
tour of duty in this acting capacity, and we are grateful to
him for his willingness to shuttle back and forth from his
responsibilities on the west coast to help us during these
interregnum periods.
We're going to examine today the Agency's response to
COVID-19, and other challenges, in emergency management. We're
thankful that you're here to testify before us in person.
FEMA exists to coordinate the Federal Government's role in
disaster preparation, prevention, and relief and we typically
see FEMA serve as an emergency manager when there is a certain
area of the country that's hit with a natural disaster. But
COVID-19, it impacted the whole country and the size, and the
scale of the Federal responses really have been like nothing
we've ever seen before. FEMA estimates that obligations for
COVID relief through fiscal year 2021 are going to be somewhere
north of $115 billion. That's more than double the Department
of Homeland Security's annual discretionary budget.
And I want to acknowledge at the outset all of the great
work that's been done by Emergency Management personnel at the
Federal, State, and local levels who have just worked
tirelessly over the past year to respond to and confront this
pandemic. We all thank them. Your staff in particular for their
ongoing work.
When COVID-19 was declared an emergency back in March of
last year, FEMA was directed to lead a whole of Government
Federal response to the pandemic. But a coordinated Federal
response for all intents and purposes did not materialize.
Instead, the Trump Administration decided to outsource most of
the disaster responsibility to states, to local governments,
and to private health systems.
On many days, my state's leaders will tell you, the Federal
Government was sometimes more of a hindrance than help. There
was a lot of confusion amongst non-Federal Governments and
healthcare providers regarding overlapping roles and
responsibilities of our Federal response agencies. Some days,
it seemed like FEMA was in charge, other days it looked like
the White House Task Force was in the driver's seat, other
times HHS appeared to be calling the shots. GAO cited one
Federal--excuse me, one local public health official who said
the response was, ``Incoherent, confusing, and uncoordinated.''
This was especially true with regard to the medical supply
chain. Early on, there was a serious and damaging perception
that medical supplies and personal protective equipment were
not being distributed to the places in the country that had the
greatest need, but rather based on other motives, whether they
be political or personal. Governors and local officials who
competed for months for lifesaving supplies often saw the
Federal Government redirect those supplies without explanation.
Now, some might say that with the COVID threat still real
and present, that isn't the time to look backward, but we need
to be learning these lessons in real time. We can't afford to
just keep repeating the mistakes of the past. And while the
Biden Administration has straightened out much of this
confusion, this Committee obviously has the responsibility to
fund FEMA in a way that doesn't doom us to the same failures
the next time a pandemic hits.
Of course, we also want to hear today about the Agency's
present state of operations. We need to know how the Defense
Production Act authorities are being used, what FEMA is doing
to ensure an equitable distribution of vaccine support, and we
need to know about the financial health of the Disaster Relief
Fund.
And while COVID-19 will obviously be the primary subject of
this hearing, FEMA does face other challenges. Currently, the
Agency is supporting 960 declared disasters across the country;
at least 1 in every single state and territory. We spent a lot
of time focusing on the emergency response, but we should also
be talking about focusing on investments that make us more
resilient.
With that in mind, I'll have questions about FEMA's
implementation of what's known as the Brick Program. That's the
money we use to build resiliency in our communities.
And we'll also want to look at how FEMA is assisting
efforts at the southwest boarder. Senator Capito and I were
there recently, and obviously, FEMA is deeply engaged in
helping the Department of Health and Human Services find
suitable facilities for unaccompanied children, and funding
assistance to support local Social Service Agencies to provide
humanitarian relief.
There's a lot to cover today, and I look forward to your
testimony, Mr. Fenton. And I'll now turn to the ranking member
of the subcommittee, Senator Capito, for any opening remarks.
statement of senator shelley moore capito
Senator Capito. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Murphy, and
congratulations on your first hearing. You're doing a great job
so far, and I look forward to working with you and really
getting to know you. We've already had, on our trip to the
border, had an opportunity, even though we've served together
for several years, to really forge a relationship that I think
is going to be important as we move through fiscal year 2021
and begin to formulate the Bill for fiscal year 2022.
So, I thank you for scheduling this hearing. FEMA is
exceedingly important, and their role in supporting our State
and local partners in responding and recovering from a historic
number of disasters facing our nation. I think all of us in our
individual states get to know our FEMA regional and local reps
very, very well.
So, I want to thank the Acting Administrator, Robert
Fenton, who I have learned obviously has very good sense
because he's married to a West Virginian. So, thank you for
that. Thanks for joining us here today.
FEMA's mission is helping people before, during, and after
disasters. These words are more important than ever, and the
Acting Administrator Fenton knows, and we all know, he has a
big job to ensure FEMA continues to live up to those--to that
promise. We are keeping a close eye on the progress we're
making concerning COVID-19, including many of the areas the
Chairman talked about, the various Federal support mechanisms
in place to distribute much-needed PPE, vaccines, and other
necessary supplies and personnel to combat the pandemic.
FEMA is playing an integral role in that effort, helping to
support vaccine distribution centers, resupply our states with
necessary PPE, and providing additional resources to ensure
success. We have also been following the recent non-COVID-
related disasters, including severe winter storms, damaging
tornadoes. We even talked about the situation in Texas a bit,
flooding and fire events across the nation.
FEMA is also playing an integral role in the current border
crisis, working with HHS and other DHS components to identify,
procure, and mange an array of temporary shelters and
processing centers for the thousands of unaccompanied children
crossing our southern border. Mr. Fenton, the men and women of
FEMA are a vast network of responders coordinating the full
spectrum; and we want to say thank you for what you do.
Speaking of the border crisis, I would be remissive if I
did not say some additional words on this topic. Last month,
Secretary Mayorkas acknowledged that we are headed towards more
southwest border encounters than we've seen in 20 years and the
numbers are proving him correct. In March, CBP faced 172,331
encounters at the southwest border, which is 66 percent higher
than the march of the last border surge, which was in March of
2019, where there were 103,731 encounters.
We can't dismiss these numbers as a seasonal migration
pattern. DHS has been forced to set up multiple influx
facilities to deal with the surge at the border. HHS has
already set up 10 emergency facilities to house nearly 20,000
migrant children, spending $60 million a week, in conditions
even HHS would admit amount to little more than crisis care.
CBP was so overwhelmed that the Washington Post has
reported that they are seeing 1,000 getaways per day. That's
the folks we don't get, and we don't encounter on the border.
That's tens of thousands of individuals who are now in this
country who all we really know about them is a fleeting
footprint or maybe an article of clothing they left behind. In
addition, CBP has had to resort to releasing illegal immigrants
from custody into the United States without a Notice to Appear
in Immigration Court, which is what I can describe as nothing
less than a failure of our nation's immigration system.
FEMA, which we are here to discuss has been at the
southwest border, and we appreciate that help because obviously
describing what I am describing, it's very much needed.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask, and I appreciate this
hearing, I hope that we can, in the near future, have a
discussion on this border crisis, as it is something that's
staring us in the face that's going to have a lot of input into
our jurisdiction in terms of funding. And I think that
hopefully that we cannot continue to encourage by policies or
others migrants to come in and enter our country, making that
very dangerous journey.
And so, I also think that we will need to make sure that
CBP and ICE are fulfilling and executing their Mandate under
the Law. Mr. Chairman, I hope you and I can work together on
these goals in the future.
Returning to the topic at hand, and I'll try to be briefer
here. FEMA continues to see a high level of incident management
workforce deployments with only 21 percent of the personnel
remaining for deployment to future events. I thought this was
an interesting fact: out of the 52 Federal Coordinating
Officers that FEMA currently deploys for disaster management,
there is only one remaining who is not assigned to an existing
declared disaster. So, our manpower is getting low. The men and
women of FEMA perform very diverse array of duties and I think
that's something, as we're looking at funding, we should look
at.
So financially, FEMA executed an extraordinary level of
funding because of the CAREs packages, and the COVID reliefs,
and the great strain on the Disaster Relief Fund. Sixty-eight
billion dollars for state, local, and travel assistance
including National Guard deployments. Close to $60 billion
remaining in the Disaster Fund. It would seem that our
resources would be sufficient, but they're going out the door
very, very quickly. And our data is giving us a different story
in terms of how we're going to be able to maintain a sufficient
level of funding for FEMA.
On a personal note, as I'm sure you all--the three of us in
the room here, have seen the impact FEMA has and can have
during and after a disaster. The COVID response, reopening, and
operating support FEMA continues to provide to West Virginia
after our flood are much appreciated. In 2016, we lost 23 lives
that day, hundreds of homes, millions of dollars in damages.
And almost 5 years later, we still remember the things that we
lost, and recognize the ongoing efforts.
I would like to thank you and your now Deputy Acting
Administrator MaryAnn Tierney, who I mentioned to you is our--
was our Regional Director for her and your continued attention
to this recovery. So that's one of the--did you say 900
disasters that are still ongoing. It's just--it takes so long
sometimes to rebuild.
So, thank you for appearing with us today, and I look
forward to hearing your testimony.
Thank you.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Capito. By way of
introduction, our witness is the acting FEMA administrator,
well now serving as the Acting Administrator. Mr. Fenton is the
FEMA Region 9 Administrator. It's a career position. He's been
with FEMA since 1996, and he's been involved in a number of
significant large-scale response and recovery operations,
including Katrina, the Southern-California wildfires of 2003,
and the 9/11 World Trade Center terrorist attacks.
We appreciate you being before us today. Following your
opening statement, each member is going to be recognized by
seniority for up to five minutes for statement and question.
summary statement of mr. robert j. fenton
Mr. Fenton. Good morning, Chairman Murphy, and Ranking
Member Capito, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to discuss FEMA's role in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. This is an unprecedented challenge that has
claimed the lives of over 558,000 of our neighbors, friends,
and family members across the country. It caused grave damage
to the global economy and put a spotlight on inequities
throughout our nation.
At FEMA, we are committed to ensuring that everyone has
access to vaccination. This is our highest priority, and its
success is dependent upon the whole community being unified to
achieve this goal. Our current work can be grouped into three
broad categories.
First, at the President's direction, FEMA is reimbursing
100 percent of the costs of the Title 32 National Guard
activations, as well as 100 percent of eligible emergency
protective measures expenses incurred by states, local, tribal,
and territorial partners in response to COVID-19 through
September 30th. This includes reimbursement for vaccination
efforts, screening and testing, and personal protective
equipment.
The President also directed FEMA to expand the eligibility
of emergency protective measures from January through September
of this year to support the safe opening and operating of
public facilities. This includes, among other things, eligible
schools, childcare facilities, transit systems of those that
have been impacted by COVID-19.
Second, FEMA is working to support state, territorial,
tribal, and local government's lead community vaccination
efforts, also known as CVCs. FEMA is doing this through the
deployment of Federal personnel, the provision of equipment,
supplies, and technical assistance, and the awarding of
expedited financial assistance.
Third, and finally, FEMA is teamed up with the Department
of Defense and other agencies in establishing pilot CVCs across
the country. These sites are stood up in partnership with state
and local authorities to better reach under-served and
historically marginalized communities. These CVC sites come
with additional temporary, eight-week vaccine allocation, and
is above and beyond the normal state allocation and some can
administer up to 6,000 vaccinations a day.
As of April 12, FEMA has obligated more than $4.53 billion
for COVID-19 vaccination efforts. There are 1,567 federally
supported vaccination sites and 357 mobile units including
these 30 pilot community vaccination sites that have been stood
up since January 20th.
To date, 189.6 million vaccine doses have been administered
across the United States with 172 million of those taking place
since President Biden was inaugurated. Furthermore, the
Administration has been able to provide states and territories
with a three-week vaccination supply allocation. As of early
April, this allocation stood at approximately 26.8 million
doses. Over the last three weeks, close to 90 million total
doses have been sent to states, tribes, territories, and
through Federal channels.
President Biden has made equity a cornerstone of the
Administration's COVID-19 efforts. At FEMA, we've established a
Civil Rights Advisory Group with our Federal partners to ensure
equity is incorporated into all of our activities. Since its
inception in January, the Civil Rights Advisory Group has
supported the development of the methodology used to determine
federally led community vaccine pilot site selections, worked
with all 10 FEMA regions to collect and analyze demographic
data, identified under-served communities, and collaborated
with community-based organizations. As of early April, 58
percent of all doses administered at the federally led pilot
CVCs went to communities of color.
We have reason to be hopeful in the months ahead. We expect
that vaccine supplies will continue to increase substantially
in the months to come so that everyone who wants a vaccine will
have access to one.
In closing, we greatly appreciate this subcommittee's
steadfast support for FEMA's efforts throughout the COVID-19
pandemic and for appropriating the resources our agency has
needed to meet the historic mission requirements.
I'd just like to end with saying how much of an honor it is
to be the Acting Administrator and lead. In my eyes, the finest
group of civil servants that I've had the opportunity to work
with. Their ability to work tirelessly through disaster after
disaster to help Americans when at the greatest need, just
shows you how dedicated this work force is in the challenging
times that you've all highlighted.
So, thank you for taking the opportunity to testify. I look
forward to answering your questions today.
The statement follows:
Prepared Statement of Mr. Robert Fenton
Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Capito, and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Robert Fenton. I am the Senior Official
Performing the Duties of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Administrator. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss FEMA's role in
the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is an unprecedented
challenge that has claimed the lives of over 558,000 of our friends,
relatives, and neighbors across America, caused grave damage to the
global economy, and put a spotlight on inequities throughout our
nation.
At FEMA, we are committed to advancing access and equity in the
COVID-19 vaccination program. This is our highest priority and its
success is dependent upon the whole community being unified to achieve
this goal. To accomplish this, we are executing the President's
National Strategy for the COVID-19 Response and Pandemic Preparedness
with the help of our Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial
partners.
As of April 12, 2021, 189.6 million vaccine doses have been
administered across the United States with over 172 million of those
taking place since President Biden was inaugurated. Furthermore, under
the President's leadership, the Administration began providing states
and territories with a new dashboard depicting allocation projections
with a three-week forecast. As of early April, this weekly allocation
stood at approximately 26.8 million doses, and over the last three
weeks, close to 90 million total doses have been sent to states,
tribes, and territories through Federal channels.
For today's hearing, I would like to discuss what we are doing to
respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, what we plan to do in the coming
months, and what challenges lie ahead. Our current work can be grouped
into three broad categories.
First, at the President's direction, FEMA is reimbursing 100
percent of the cost for Title 32 National Guard activations, as well as
100 percent of eligible emergency protective measure expenses incurred
by states, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners, and certain
private non- profits, through September 30, 2021. This includes
reimbursement for vaccination efforts, screening and testing, personal
protective equipment, and emergency medical care. The President also
directed FEMA to expand emergency protective measure eligibility from
January 21, 2021 through September 30, 2021, to include the safe
opening and operation of public facilities, including schools, child-
care facilities, healthcare facilities, non-congregate shelters,
domestic violence shelters, and transit systems impacted by COVID-19.
FEMA is coordinating with Federal partners to finalize the specific
eligibility criteria for this expanded assistance.
Second, FEMA is working to support SLTT-led Community Vaccination
Centers (CVCs) through the deployment of Federal clinical and non-
clinical personnel; the provision of equipment, supplies, and technical
assistance; and the awarding of expedited financial assistanceto
states, tribes, and territories. We are also providing Mobile
Vaccination Units (MVUs), which, when paired with staff and supplies,
can each support administration of 250 or more vaccines per day. For
example, our team worked closely with Connecticut to utilize an MVU to
support jurisdictions in providing COVID-19 vaccinations to all those
who want one. As a testament to the importance of public-private
partnerships in delivering vaccinations, staffing for the MVU will be
provided by UConn Health, Griffin Health, Hartford Healthcare, and
Trinity Health of New England. The sites will also be supported by the
Connecticut National Guard and municipal partners for non-clinical
staffing. federally supported MVUs are currently operating in 17
states. FEMA MVU's are currently operating in Connecticut, Maryland,
Oregon, and Nevada to bring vaccinations to hard-to-reach and high-risk
populations.
Third, FEMA teamed up with the Department of Defense and other
agencies to establish CVC sites. These sites are stood up in
partnership with state and local authorities who are working side by
side with faith-based and community organizations to better reach
underserved and historically marginalized communities, which have a
high risk of COVID-19 exposure and infection. The sites are selected
based on analysis of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
(CDC) Social Vulnerability Index and other Census data as well as input
from our partners. These CVC sites come with an additional temporary,
eight-week vaccine allocation that is above and beyond the normal state
allocation and the largest of these sites can administer up to 6,000
vaccines a day. CVC Pilot sites are operating in California, New York,
Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio,
Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri,
Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington with several more expected to be
operational in the near future.
As of April 12, FEMA has obligated more than $4.53 billion for
COVID-19 vaccination efforts. Since January 20, 2021, FEMA has
supported 1,567 federally supported vaccination sites, including 357
mobile units. FEMA currently has 2,602 staff deployed across the nation
to support vaccination missions. To further support this whole-of-
government effort, Secretary Mayorkas activated the Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) Surge Capacity Force for vaccination support
operations, drawing on Federal employees from DHS Components and other
Federal agencies to augment FEMA's workforce.
President Biden has made equity a cornerstone of his
Administration's COVID-19 efforts, and at FEMA we established a Civil
Rights Advisory Group (CRAG) within the National Response Coordination
Center to ensure that equity is incorporated into all activities. The
CRAG is led by FEMA's Office of Equal Rights and includes personnel
from the Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC, the
Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, and the Department of
Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, among
others.
Since January 29, 2021, FEMA's Office of Equal Rights and its
Federal partners have supported the development of the methodology used
to determine federally-led CVC pilot site selections, and has worked on
the ground in all ten FEMA regions to collect and analyze demographic
data, identify underserved communities, and collaborate with community-
based organizations. We have also incorporated Regional Disability
Integration Specialists into the CRAG to ensure that the needs of
people with disabilities are integrated in all facets of vaccine center
operations. As of early April, approximately 58 percent of all vaccine
doses administered at the Federal pilot CVCs went to communities of
color.
While FEMA remains focused on supporting vaccination distribution
efforts and the COVID-19 response, the agency also maintains its
mission readiness and ongoing support for multiple emergency and
disaster declarations. Recent examples include the severe winter storms
that caused widespread damage in Oklahoma, Louisiana, and particularly
Texas. FEMA actively coordinated with impacted state, local, and tribal
governments to address unmet needs and support the distribution of
critical resources such as generators, fuel, blankets, water, and
meals. Following Texas's major disaster declaration and approval for
Individual Assistance, FEMA continues to assist eligible individuals
and households in Texas who have uninsured or underinsured expenses for
serious disaster-related damages.
As we look ahead to the late spring and early summer, FEMA has a
particular interest in ensuring that COVID-19 vaccines reach as many
people as possible before we enter hurricane and wildfire seasons.
Climate change is making natural disasters more frequent, more intense,
and more destructive, and we must be prepared for another challenging
series of disaster events this summer and fall. Last year, FEMA faced a
record-setting number of hurricanes and major wildfires. While the
agency responded successfully to each of these natural disasters,
COVID-19 makes any response and recovery effort more difficult.
Widespread vaccination is essential to improving our posture to respond
to natural disasters.
We have reason to be hopeful in the months ahead. As vaccine
supplies continue to increase substantially in the months to come, FEMA
will continue to work with our Federal and SLTT partners to ensure that
vaccinations can proceed as quickly as those increased supplies allow,
so that every member of the public who wants a vaccine will have access
to one. We are also working to amplify messaging from the Ad Council,
which is coordinating with Federal partners to encourage vaccination
for individuals who may be hesitant to get vaccinated.
We greatly appreciate this Subcommittee's steadfast support for
FEMA's efforts throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and for providing the
resources our agency has needed to meet these historic mission
requirements. I would like to thank Congress for recently appropriating
$50 billion to FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund within the American Rescue
Plan Act of 2021 to cover
the costs associated with major disaster declarations, including
the ongoing battle against COVID-19.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to
answering your questions.
Senator Murphy. Thank you again. Thank you very much for
your service and your willingness to talk to us today. You
obviously have had a unique seat managing a regional response
to the pandemic. And as I mentioned at the outset, I do want to
focus on present efforts, in particular the vaccination
campaign. But I do think it makes sense to do some
retrospective here to make sure that we are learning lessons in
real time.
So, I wanted to turn to this question about overlapping
responsibilities. FEMA was given this lead role in the whole of
government Federal response back in March of last year. But as
you know, there was wide-spread confusion amongst policy makers
and state-level implementers about who was in charge; whether
FEMA was in charge, HHS was in charge, or the White House was
in charge. We can't wait to do a year-long retrospective and
inquiry before trying to make a mends for that confusion.
So, I'd love your perspective, having sat in Region 9, to
tell us what you think FEMA's role should be, let's say visa
vie HHS during a nation-wide public health incident like a
pandemic.
How can we learn from our mistakes over the last year to
make sure there are clear lines of authority for state and
local public health officials, governors, members of Congress?
Mr. Fenton. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
Apologies. Let me start off by saying that the last year was
the most complex event that I've ever had the opportunity of
responding to in my 25 years of being in this field in
Emergency Management. And it was really a maximum maxima event.
Never did we anticipate that we would have such a large event
not only impact the nation's capability but let alone the
world's capability.
And so, when you look at events like this, I think
emergency management at all levels of government has a
responsibility to be a coordinating function. Something that
FEMA does really well is coordinate and communicate in all
levels of government, both vertically and horizontally. And
connect with not only government, but private-sector or private
non-profits, and others to ensure that everyone is working
toward a common set of goals and a unity of effort.
It was difficult to do last year at the beginning of the
event because of different authorities. The uniqueness of the
medical event and starting off with the event being managed by
HHS, and then eventually transitioning in March, to FEMA taking
the lead of it. It took us a little bit of time to get the
coordination mechanisms that traditionally haven't been
involved in a medical-only event to come together and unify
those efforts at all levels of government across private
sector, private non-profit. And it's something that we continue
to work on and improve throughout the summer in response to
COVID.
Senator Murphy. So, I spent about a month last summer
trying to understand the emergency medical supply chain in
trying to understand who from the Federal Government was doing
what. I spent about a month talking to anybody that I could,
and I think I left that month more confused at the end than I
was going in.
In fact, in the report that FEMA released in January, FEMA
noted neither HHS nor FEMA understood the domestic supply chain
at the beginning of this response.
So, to what extent were agencies aware of this knowledge
gap, and what's being done right now to identify and manage
those gaps in advance of future incidents? And then, who really
should be the lead with respect to this question of supply
chain management? Should this be FEMA? Should this be HHS? And
how do we make sure that we're not sort of caught unaware in
the way that we were last spring and summer?
Mr. Fenton. From an organizational standpoint, the National
Response Coordination Center, when stood up nationally, is the
overall coordinating mechanism. What they did was establish a
supply chain task force to focus in on the medical supplies of
this event and it took them some time to get a hold of and an
understanding of that supply chain. It's very complex as far
as, asking ``Who are the big manufacturers? Where is the
manufacturing happening at? Where are the resources needed to
do the manufacturing? What is the capacity of that within the
United States, with outside the United States?'' And so, those
were all things that took them time to wrap their hands around.
At the same time, funding is going out to state and local
Governments, so they're taking the necessary action to go
procure the needed resources to be able to combat COVID. There
is a little bit of complexity at the beginning to get unity of
effort going and it's something that we continue to work
through during the summer months.
Going forward, there are a number of things that are
happening right now. Not only does FEMA have a role to provide
coordination and through Executive Order last year, had some
responsibility to look specifically at some of the medical
supplies. But, more importantly, we have now a much better
understanding of our supply chains, and an understanding that a
just in time supply chain isn't sufficient to meet the
challenges of a worldwide pandemic. And so, what we've done
over the last year is be able to understand that supply chain,
understand where those manufacturers are, what their capability
is within the US, outside the US, and where the resource
dependencies are. What we're now doing is working to build
capability and relationships to better be able to share
information to include stockpiling resources, both within the
Federal level, and at the state level; but more importantly,
ensuring that private sector is part of that, and they are also
building capability, and that medical institutions are doing
the same thing.
So, it's really a whole of community effort. Recognizing
that everyone has parts and responsibility of that. Working
through each organization's authorities with FEMA assisting and
coordinating many parts of this.
Senator Murphy. I'm going to turn this over to Senator
Capito, but I do maybe on a second round, want to follow up
with you with this question of how we learned from our
experience in overlapping distribution systems and procurement
systems, whether it's appropriate to have state systems
overlayed with Federal systems, overlayed with private sector
systems and how we can sort of learn from that duplication of
effort. But at this point, I'll turn it over to Senator Capito
to be followed by Senator Shaheen.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank
you for coming out. The first think I wanted to ask about is
the Disaster Relief Fund, recognizing that you're acting, but
we're getting ready to go into an appropriation season here.
The Administration is going to be asking $18 billion to address
major disasters through the Disaster Relief Fund. As you've
probably done, as all of I have done, we've watched the Fund go
down and go down, and back up, and then down.
And I don't know--do you have any level--or what is your
level of confidence that this balance that we have in the DRF
is going to be sufficient to address these needs? I know it's
hard to speculate, but I didn't know if you had an impression.
Mr. Fenton. Well, I think that's what it is. It's
speculation based on experience and history. We have a good
team at FEMA that has gone back and looked at history. We've
looked what the risks are and the current requirements that we
still have left outstanding from either the COVID event or past
disaster event where we have to provide funding for those?
Right now, we project that we would be on a trajectory to have
sufficient funding in the DRF by the end of the fiscal year.
Senator Capito. All right. Another question, and I don't
know if we can answer this shortly, but it's certainly a
question that's going to come to all of us from our
constituents on the COVID relief, which is the funeral
assistance that was just rolled out. And I heard on the radio,
actually, that you were inundated--FEMA was inundated with
phone calls on the helpline or whatever line you set up for
this.
It's probably causing some confusion. I don't know if--they
said that you'd gotten a million calls, and I don't know how
that's rolling out. Just shortly, briefly, what your hope is,
what the confusion might be. What can we tell our constituents
here?
Mr. Fenton. Yes. What I would say is to get all of the
necessary documents together before phoning that line. The
first day we opened up there was definitely congestion on the
line, and we had a couple of technical issues with the service.
We cleaned that up by the second day. 60,000 calls, 58,000
registrations, 1,700 have already come back with documentation.
Hopefully, we'll start funding that next week. That represents
about 10 percent of the deaths so far.
The second day was much better than the first day and I'm
sure today will be much better than yesterday. And we want to
make sure that we empathically and compassionately help
everyone that had a loss. And so, we look forward to working
with you to phone that 1-800 number and take time to pull
together the necessary information before starting your
application.
Senator Capito. Well, I know this is the first time you've
administered something of this nature and so, I know--I wish
you well on that. I do think it is good to reinforce that this
is reimbursements for expenses that have already been incurred
by families and others toward the burial assistance of a COVID
patient. So, getting all of that documentation is really
important.
I would like to ask you about the southwest border crisis
where FEMA is now in helping to identify and assist in
sheltering and processing centers.
You know, are you concerned about this? Do you think FEMA's
role is going to get larger? What impact is this going to have
on your FEMA resources? And, you know, talking about who's in
charge here. I mean, that's a little bit of this kind of
situation as well with so many hands on deck at the border.
Do you have any impressions on that? What are you hearing
from the field?
Mr. Fenton. Yes. So far, the impact on our staffing has not
been significant. In all events, we help out other Federal
agencies as they help us out through the Economy Act. I have
now been in FEMA, as you said earlier, 25 years and through
three Administrations. I've been involved in unaccompanied
children in the Obama Administration, the Trump Administration,
and now this Administration.
One of our core values is compassion. We want to be able to
help out HHS with setting up shelter capacity for the children
and we're going ahead and doing that, which is something that
we do very well.
Senator Capito. Is that in any specific place, or is that
all along the borders of Texas mainly?
Mr. Fenton. Texas, California. We're looking at some other
sites throughout the United States. But HHS is doing the
contracting. It's their funding. What we're providing is
technical assistance and personnel support to help them.
Senator Capito. All right. Thank you. You mentioned the 100
percent cost share for COVID for our National Guard and I'm
sure all of us have been contacted as that 100 percent cost
share looks like it's getting ready to be timed out. We're all
getting calls from our National Guards to ask that--or from our
Governors, really, to have that extended.
I do think that, you know, there is a risk of this becoming
the norm and I think that there has to be state, local, and,
you know, disaster relief assistance at the same time,
certainly through these Guard assistance and they've been
fantastic with us.
So, do you have an impression on that? On the 100 percent
cost share? It goes to what, September 30th?
Mr. Fenton. Yes. It goes to September 30th. There should be
sufficient vaccination to vaccinate anyone that needs
vaccination, as the President laid out, by May. But through
July, hopefully, we have everyone vaccinated. So as long as we
stay, on that trajectory, that should lessen hopefully the need
for additional support past September 30th. I think September
30th is a good estimate right now and we can see what happens
as COVID continues to progress and we continue to vaccinate
America.
Senator Capito. Well, thank you. And I'll turn it back
over. I might want to have a question after we go through.
The other thing I would say, as a grateful person as well,
FEMA has probably the best network of volunteers that I've ever
seen. Just really selfless people that have that compassionate
and caring attitude and having interacted with them one-on-one
during very difficult times, I just want to express my
appreciation to them as well.
Mr. Fenton. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Fenton,
thank you for once again stepping up and taking over the duties
as Acting Administrator and please share our appreciation to
everyone at FEMA for the work they're doing in these very
challenging times.
I want to follow up on Senator Capito's question about the
Funeral Assistance Program, which I know is new to FEMA. But we
are hearing from people who are concerned not just about how
it's working, and it just rolled out, so that's understandable,
but also constituents who have found out that they're
ineligible to receive assistance because they prepaid for
funeral expenses prior to the eligible date. And even though
they didn't lose loved ones until after January 20th, 2020,
they had prepaid those expenses.
So, can you explain why the Policy would exclude those who
may have prepaid funeral expenses before the date even though
those in question who lost their lives, that didn't happen
until after the 2020 deadline?
Mr. Fenton. I'm not sure I completely understand your
question. As I understand it right now, if someone already paid
funeral expenses we will reimburse them for that cost if they
submit the receipts for them.
Senator Shaheen. What we are hearing from some constituents
is that they had paid the funeral expenses. So, I could to
today to my funeral home.
Mr. Fenton. Right.
Senator Shaheen. I can pay for my funeral, which may not
happen hopefully for a very long time in the future.
Mr. Fenton. I understand what you're saying now.
Senator Shaheen. But if I lost somebody after that January
20th deadline I'm not able to get reimbursed under FEMA's
current rulings.
Mr. Fenton. Yes. Right.
Senator Shaheen. So, can you explain why, and is FEMA open
to changing that? Is that a legislative change that would be
required?
Mr. Fenton. Yes.
Senator Shaheen. It seems to me that is not the intent of
what we meant when we passed the Cares Act.
Mr. Fenton. I'd be glad to look into that specific question
and get back to you. Our intent is not to duplicate other forms
of assistance, like insurance and other avenues of funding.
Senator Shaheen. Sure.
Mr. Fenton. But let me look into that specific issue, and
I'd be glad to work with your office, and get back to you.
[The information follows:]
Any source of payment designated specifically to pay for a funeral
in anticipation of a future death cannot be reimbursed under this
assistance as FEMA cannot duplicate benefits provided by another
source, per Section 312 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5155. This includes burial or
funeral insurance, a pre-paid funeral, a pre-paid trust for funeral
expenses, or an irrevocable trust for Medicare. However, when funeral
expenses exceed the funds intended to pay these costs, FEMA may
evaluate the receipts and other documentation to provide the funeral
expenses not covered up to the maximum amount per funeral.
Senator Shaheen. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Fenton. Now that I understand exactly what you're
saying now.
Senator Shaheen. I also want to follow up a little bit on
Senator Murphy's questions about the supply chain. Because one
of the things that we've heard from companies in New Hampshire
is that they--many of them have altered their manufacturing
capabilities to try and respond to the pandemic. And what they
are concerned about is that the Federal Government gets these
materials from foreign sources, and even though they've been
asked to step up, they will then be in the position of having
to shut down those manufacturing lines or do something
different.
So, can you talk about how FEMA is coordinating with HHS
and other Federal Agencies so that you utilize the Defense
Production Act to ensure that we have an adequate supply, but
that we don't put companies in the position of changing their
manufacturing facilities and then deciding to procure supplies
from other places?
Mr. Fenton. Yes. There are many parts of the Defense
Production Act. And FEMA shares Title I, which is setting
priority orders. But there's other parts with regard to Title
VII that looks at setting voluntary agreements, and Title III
that looks at expansions of stimulating the economy and
stimulus.
I think to your point, what needs to happen is we need to--
and have been doing this for the last about 6 months--is work
with different sectors, especially related to the pandemic to
start understanding of what the capability is within the US
manufacturing, where do the resources coming from, and start to
have those discussions now and be able to share information
from the private sector to the government sector, working with
DOJ and Federal Trade Communication--Commission to share that
information to make better-informed decisions in the future.
I think that's where we're headed right now. That's what
we've learned from this event. You know, I think if you go back
to last summer, it was everyone trying to get whatever they
could from wherever they could.
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Mr. Fenton. And it wasn't a coordinated, collective effort
and continued to work on it through the end of the summer, and
probably not until the end of summer did it really come
together in some way.
Going forward, I think we need to continue to do that, not
only for a pandemic, but for other high-risk events that may
impact the nation's supply chain in any one field. It could be
an earthquake and that damages multiple homes. How do we bring
back on 10,000 homes in a quick period of time?
And so, we need to start having these discussions with
private sector, and there is a way to do that through the
Defense Production Act underneath Title VII and start to share
information so that we're able to leverage everything the
United States has.
Senator Shaheen. And would you expect that FEMA would
continue to be the lead agency on this? Or do you see that
shifting?
Mr. Fenton. Well, I think--Yes. I think we're one of them.
You know, we're one of the key entities to this. We do
deliberate planning for high-risk, high-threat events across
the country. But there's other Federal Agencies that have key
responsibilities within the Defense Production Act: Department
of Commerce, Department of Transportation, Energy, HHS, USDA.
They all need to have responsibility for their specific
functional area, their portfolio.
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Mr. Fenton. But we definitely have a responsibility when
doing the planning for whole of government to make sure there
is a coordinated effort.
Senator Shaheen. Yeah. And that was sort of the concern
that I think Senator Murphy was getting to, is that if we've
got a bunch of agencies who are working on this, who is
actually in charge of prioritizing what needs to be done?
Mr. Fenton. Yes. So, we have responsibility to share the
Title I side of things and the prioritization. We don't have
authority to share Title III and specific expansion of economy
or stimulus to each one of those department agencies. So, the
Department of Energy does it within their organization, HHS
within theirs. Now, we've gained a little bit through an
executive order last year with HHS, but for the rest of them,
we traditionally don't.
And so, one of the things we do is catastrophic planning so
we can identify those gaps so then those agencies can be
responsible for building that capacity. So, I think through the
planning efforts we do with state and local governments, we
should work on identifying where those big gaps are, and those
significant events that we face based on risks in our country
to allow those Federal agencies, then, to take their authority
and build capacity--or at least start the discussion with the
private sector to make sure that we have a well-thought-out
plan, and we're not doing it just in time when the event
happens.
Senator Shaheen. So, I'm out of time, but do you think the
Defense Production Act needs to be changed in any way to
address that concern?
Mr. Fenton. I think it's a good question and it's one tool
of many tools to get it to solution. Other tools are, let's
deal with the risk in front and mitigate the risk. We talked a
little bit earlier about BRIC and negation, and other things.
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Mr. Fenton. And there's many other things we could do, but
I think it is one tool.
You know, I think we can continue to look at it, but I
don't see FEMA having oversight over, like, Department of
Energy on energy. It's not our expertise.
Senator Shaheen. Yeah.
Mr. Fenton. So, I think Energy needs to do that and then be
responsible for it. Or HHS and be responsible for it.
As far as us coordinating the Committee for prioritization,
I think that's something we could do and relates to disasters
in doing that and being able to respond to events and do
priority ratings.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. We should have
Senator Hoeven virtually.
Senator Hoeven. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fenton, I
guess my first question relates to the City of Washburn, North
Dakota. On February 2nd, our Congressional Delegation sent a
letter in support of the city's request for an extension on
their Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant. Can you give me an update
on that request?
Mr. Fenton. Yes. The applications for PDM are in the system
and being evaluated. And I will go ahead and get back to you,
specifically on that request. But I'm not aware of any
decisions being made on the Brick program yet.
Senator Hoeven. Yeah. If you could get me a timeline.
Mr. Fenton. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. I mean, if you could give me an answer that
would be great. But if not, if you could give me kind of an
estimated timeline for a response that would be okay. Thank
you.
Mr. Fenton. Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Can you further describe FEMA's role as it
relates to migrants coming across the border illegally?
Mr. Fenton. Yes. FEMA's role is in support of HHS, and
their authorities and role in CBP. We don't have any specific
authority with regard to the border. We are supporting them
underneath the Economy Act in providing them technical
assistance right now.
Senator Hoeven. Are you assisting with testing and making
sure that illegal migrants that are coming across are being
tested for COVID?
Mr. Fenton. Anyone that is in the United States that is at
risk for COVID would fall underneath our authorities right now
as it relates to the pandemic and being able to reimburse state
and local governments for testing and for anyone who tests
positive to quarantine up to 10 days. Anyone within the United
States that is symptomatic that local government or state
government feels that they need to test, have that ability to
test them and for us to reimburse them.
Senator Hoeven. Is that being done at the border?
Mr. Fenton. That's being done throughout the whole United
States, including the border. And it's not specific to the
border. It's specific to the communities in proximity. And they
have the authority and the ability to do that if they elect to
do that.
Senator Hoeven. If they elect to do it.
Mr. Fenton. Yes. Right.
Senator Hoeven. So, it may or may not be being done?
Mr. Fenton. Yes it depends on each specific state health
and local health laws, or any authority of the county or state,
and it's up to each state or county. For example, I know,
because I'm in Region 9, that California has a very robust
testing program and testing. I do know that there are a number
of non-government organizations down there that are doing
testing of individuals at the border.
But it's specifically up to a state. It's something that's
100 reimbursable if a state or local government decides to do
it. In addition to that, we've sent tens of thousands of test
kits to Texas and other states that they can use, you know,
within their state, whether it be in the southern part of the
state or other areas.
Senator Hoeven. So, your role is assisting if they elect to
do it?
Mr. Fenton. Yes. Our role is to reimburse the costs of
testing for the whole United States. Mandating someone to test
within the United States is a decision up to the local health
official or state health official. We can't mandate testing.
That's their decision.
Senator Hoeven. And in terms of manpower, do you have
adequate manpower? Are you being strained because of the
border?
Mr. Fenton. No. The border is probably less than 200 staff
deployed to the border, or to our headquarters into the
shelters in the southern United States. And it's not impacting
our deployments. We have about 10,000 people out of less than
maybe 13,000 are available for deployment that are deployed
right now. The majority of those are to COVID--to the
vaccination effort or to other disaster activity.
Senator Hoeven. My last question relates to how much COVID
funding that FEMA has received, and then how is that going in
terms of, you know, how much have you dispersed, and are you
sure you are able to get them out expeditiously as needed?
Mr. Fenton. We just received the additional $50 billion of
funding. We are starting to implement the Funeral Assistance
Program that we project $2 billion from last year, I think $2
to $3 billion from this year.
The part of the reopening of schools, public facilities,
transportation, will be a significant additional portion of
funding. Going back and changing the cost share to 100 percent
will be additional funding. As I said earlier $4.5 billion
already in the vaccination effort for the first 90 days.
So, we have sufficient funding right now. I project, based
on the new authorities we received and the appropriation, and
the President's Executive Order that we should have sufficient
funding to get us through to the end of the fiscal year, to
include what would be normally projected disaster activity in
that time of year, which includes hurricanes and fires.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fenton. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fenton. Thank you, sir.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. We'll go to a
second round of questions. We appreciate you sticking with us.
I've just got two.
The first, I wanted to return to this question of
responsibility for supply chain management. As you know,
virtually every state in the nation scrambled to set up their
own supply chain for PPE in particular in the early stages of
the pandemic.
And, I think a simple question that states are asking right
now, is should they be preparing to have to stand up their own
supply chain for the next pandemic? Because if that is the
case, there are decisions, some of them very expensive, that
states will make, for instance, to, you know, keep a
manufacturer in state with the capability to be able to make
certain types of masks or face shields. Or, do we expect that
we are going to sort of solve for this problem, and when and if
the next pandemic hits, states will not have to build their own
supply chain, and there will be an adequate, complete Federal
response, either through stockpiles or through the management
of Federal and international supply chains to meet the need?
What's sort of your advice right now for states as they're
starting to decide how they want to spend money in advance of
the next potential outbreak?
Mr. Fenton. So, I think it's a collective effort. What
we've asked and provided funding to state and local governments
and you is to go ahead and build the capacity. Most states have
built a 60 to some, up to 120-day capacity of personal
protective equipment and other medical supplies that would be
needed for a pandemic.
In addition to that, the Strategic National Stockpile has
built capacity within that. The medical providers--private
sector providers are building additional capacity, and I've
seen hospitals now start to increase their capacity.
I think the reliance on a just-in-time logistics system,
which we've gotten used to, in the United States because it's
been so efficient on being able to deliver resources, works
except when you have a catastrophic event that impacts that
supply chain.
So, you need to build capacity at all levels of government
to withstand when there is a run on a specific resource. And go
ahead and not only build the capacity to allow manufacturing to
catch up, but also to ensure there's sufficient supply to do
that. That's just part of the issue, is building that capacity.
The second part is we need to be able to increase
manufacturing, and how long does that take to do that? Where is
the capacity to do that? Private sectors maybe can retool and
do that quickly. And then, where do the supplies and material
come from to do that?
So, it's a complex decision. I think we all have a part in
that. Private sector has responsibilities to that and we have
to understand maybe where the gaps are within that system to
make sure that we have contingency plans to respond adequately
to that. So, it's a collective effort.
Senator Murphy. So, I mean, I certainly understand that
it's state's responsibility to build up reserves. I do think
it's an important question for us to answer as to whether it is
state's responsibility to build up that, sort of, slack
manufacturing capacity. Essentially pay money to hold it in
reserve.
That is a very specific set of expertise that states prior
to the pandemic did not have and would require every state to
have a level of visibility into their own sort of state-based
supply chain that we normally don't ask--you know, we don't ask
states to get involved in that question in large part because
it's kind of arbitrary what amount of manufacturing you have in
your state when it comes to masks or face shields.
It strikes me that that question should really be one dealt
with at the Federal level. But are you saying--maybe you don't
have an answer now? It's okay. But are you suggesting that the
states are going to sort of--we're going to have 50 different
strategies to create slack capacity for the manufacturing of
medical supplies? Or will that question be more a function of
Federal oversight and policy?
Mr. Fenton. Yes. I think to that specific piece, and in
fact appropriation to HHS to provide that underneath Title III
of DPA, that's where they should then work with private sector
to be able to build that capacity.
And I know that right now, we're working in a number of
efforts, along with HHS, to work with private sector to how to
build a capacity. So, DOD received a billion dollars in the
last appropriation and HHS received, I think, it was $10
billion underneath the Defense Production Act, Title III, to
work with the private sector to build that additional capacity.
And that's, I think, the best place for that to be done at
unless there's something unique, maybe, to a local government
or a role of government with regard to relationships to some
private sector within that area.
Senator Murphy. I just think we have to be as clear as
possible with states as to what their obligations are and what
their obligations aren't. Because they obviously got into the
business of doing all sorts of things over the last year that
they weren't expecting to do, and I think they want to know now
whether those are, sort of, permanent new functions that are
outsourced to them, or whether this was a one-time only
request. So, I look forward to working with you, and HHS, and
the Administration on delivering that clarity.
With Senator Capito's--if she'll allow me, I have one
additional question, which is on outreach with respect to
vaccination efforts. So, we're getting to the point where we
hope there will be an adequate supply of vaccination, and we
will be in the position of a deficit of demand, and that we
will have to be going out and doing outreach to harder to reach
communities, or individuals who are skeptical about vaccines to
convince them of the merits of that vaccination. That, of
course, requires not just having the vaccination site set up,
but having education and outreach efforts funded.
And I want to just sort of ask about the ways in which
states can apply to get that reimbursed. There's 100 percent
reimbursement, but there may be circumstances in which you have
an outreach worker who, for instance, is going out and trying
to contact chronically truant students at school, but who will
also do education on vaccination during that outreach visit.
Do you foresee any difficulty in making sure that states
get adequate reimbursement when some of the outreach efforts
that are going to be necessary throughout the end of the year
may be intermingled with other functions that public health
workers are doing, for instance, that might not be eligible for
reimbursement?
Mr. Fenton. There's a number of efforts going on right now
to ensure everyone has the opportunity to get vaccinated. And
you bring up a number of issues, whether is vaccine hesitancy,
whether it's availability to get individuals vaccinated. I do
think there's specific resources available both in HHS'
appropriation and our own appropriation. And I think those
activities are covered between those appropriations.
Specifically, depending on what the individual is doing, it may
be our appropriation, or it may be HHS'.
Based on your description, most of what we're providing
reimbursement for is the protective measures; the N95 masks,
any protective barriers, you know, testing, anything that is an
immediate protective measure to reopen. And then the other
Federal agencies are funding efforts to maybe do outreach and
investigation. Plus, we are also assisting with a community
outreach campaign right now with HHS, CDC, and state and local
agencies. And we're bringing the vaccine through many different
efforts, to include mobile units, which are anything to do with
actually vaccinating would be eligible. So, all of the mobile
units that we're providing support for, the National Guard, the
vaccinators, all of those kind of things would be eligible.
But I'd be glad to work with your community and
specifically understand the specific issues to make sure we
provide them guidance on the most appropriate funding
mechanism.
[The information follows:]
The Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG) lists
``dissemination of information to the public to provide warnings and
guidance about health and safety hazards using various strategies, such
as flyers, public service announcements, or newspaper campaigns'' as
eligible as an emergency protective measure (see Chapter 2:VI.B,
Emergency Protective Measures (Category B), of the PAPPG Version 3.1,
the version applicable to COVID-19 declarations). Truancy visits fall
outside the scope of this authority, and as such the cost of conducting
a truancy visit would not be eligible for reimbursement. The cost of
producing communication materials for vaccination administration (e.g.
flyers, pamphlets) that may be provided in conjunction with such a
visit may be eligible for reimbursement. The U.S. Department of
Education is administering additional funding appropriated in recent
legislation for other costs incurred by schools associated with COVID-
19 and may have assistance available for such costs.
Senator Murphy. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you. I just have two quick questions.
Looking to the future, obviously, hurricane and wildfire
seasons are sort of around the corner. You and I talked, I
actually asked you, being a native Californian if anything was
on fire, and unfortunately--fortunately, no. And that's good.
But I know that you--can you continue--are you concerned
with the way you're spread out through COVID and everything
else, anticipating fire and hurricane seasons? Or you've
mentioned that you have adequate staffing availabilities for
any disasters, but I was just curious and wondering to know if
you're concerned about what could happen during these two
seasons?
Mr. Fenton. Yeah. Well, I'm in the business of risk
management and prioritization. And so, if there's events that
happen that require a life-saving response, I feel comfortable
that we will always be able to respond to that event with the
Federal Government's capability.
In addition to what FEMA has right now, and still about
2,500 personnel left that are responders that can go out to
events, I'm leveraging right now 500 people from the whole
Federal government to help me with the vaccination effort. So,
I would leverage more on the rest of the Federal Government.
Right now, we have about 9,000 people deployed to do
vaccination and that includes about 4,500 or 5,000 DOD
personnel.
Senator Capito. Wow.
Mr. Fenton. So, it's always a concern. It's something I
watch, and I look at future threat, and I manage that risk to
make sure that we have enough resources. But the response is
bigger than FEMA. It's state and local government, and all of
the capability they bring in. It's all the non-disaster grants.
It's the $2 billion we put out a year to build that capacity.
We continue to do that, to build that capability, so that
collectively we can respond to those events.
Senator Capito. Over the last several years, with your 25
years of experience, I'm interested to know what situation has
been your biggest challenge.
Has it been the COVID response? Or were you--was it a
particular other disaster event that you would say was probably
the most difficult one that you've had--difficult challenge I
would say?
Mr. Fenton. Yes. Well, obviously, the biggest impact I've
ever seen is COVID. It just what it's done to our country, shut
down our economy, the impact it's had, far beyond physical
damage that we traditionally see in other disasters. It's just
been far greater than any other disaster I've been to. So, in
having the whole government, the whole country, and the whole
world affected at once, it's just been significant.
I would put that up there with, you know, 9/11 and Katrina,
on my list of the biggest events that I've been involved with
all for different reasons. And some, geographically unique, but
all emotionally impacted. Or at least the whole country felt
the impacts of those three events. And as far as challenge, I
think we all collectively have the same goal, save people, help
people. It's how we get there, and how we do that underneath
unity of effort. And when we're not unified, it makes it that
much more challenging.
So, it's important that we use the systems, the National
Response Framework, and all of the systems that exist, and the
training that we provide to the whole government--to state and
local government to private sector. How do we involve
individuals, private citizens, involved in that? And how do we
collectively get a unified effort is what needs to happen in
those big events.
Senator Capito. That's interesting. I wanted to ask a quick
question on the Supplemental Firefighter Grants. We put a lot
of money into, let's see--a total of 400 million was provided
for assistance to Firefighter and Safer Grant Programs. Of this
amount, 76 has been obligated in the AFG, the Assistance to
Firefighter Grants.
And I'm concerned about the volunteer firefighters.
Apparently--well, I've gotten numerous anecdotal evidence that
because of the lockdown and with COVID that our volunteer
firefighters have not been able to raise the money that they
would normally--like a boot drive, or a bake sale, or something
else that they really rely on every year to raise a lot of
their discretionary dollars. And apparently, it seems that the
volunteer firefighters--we kept trying to direct them to this
program that sometimes their applications are not either
sufficient, or in a timely fashion, or something like that.
Is there any way that FEMA could be more helpful, or we
could be more helpful to FEMA to get information to our
volunteer firefighters to know how, and when, the best way to
fill out these applications? Because I believe some of the
money has left, that was set aside for our volunteer
firefighters was not actually able to be used in that manner.
Mr. Fenton. Yes. I'm not aware of funding that has not been
used. I know that there is a focused effort of helping the
volunteer firefighting organizations apply for assistance.
We've just implemented our new FEMA Grants system that makes it
a little bit easier to apply and track some of the funding
requests. But I'd be glad to come back and brief you on some of
the efforts that we're doing across the country to help, and
reach out to those organizations to see what the issue is and
if there's any gaps in assistance based on what we've seen in
the last year.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Yeah. We'll follow up on that.
Mr. Fenton. Yes.
Senator Capito. One last question is the Chairman mentioned
in his comments that there is 900 ongoing disasters. And maybe
four or 5 years ago, with the previous FEMA Director, one of
the ideas that was put forward to me was some way to unwind
these disasters to maybe state responsibilities or local
responsibilities to get them off of the--I mean, that's an
awful lot on a plate for FEMA.
Do you have any ideas on that? Or what do you see that's
worked to be able to close the book on some of these disasters
that I know some of them have been on for probably decades?
Mr. Fenton. Yes. I think that sometimes when you take into
account, all of the requirements that are needed to close out
these disasters whether it be requirements for documentation,
building and permits, environmental, and then all the auditing
that sometimes it takes a while to close these disasters out. I
think that looking at some opportunities, whether it be state
management, which we've done in the past, or look at things
that allow for greater estimates across and simplify the
process. So, for example, our simplified procedures that look
at large and small projects. Right now, that bar is a very low
bar. And so, what happens is for large or small projects,
underneath 100, and I think, $50,000. When there's a net small
project underrun, they don't need to request that unless
there's an overrun, right? Which makes the closeout much
easier.
So simply raising that bar would be less complexity in the
closeout part of that, and give a little bit more flexibility
to local governments on how they use any underruns, as long as
it's used toward disaster. They would be able to use that.
Senator Capito. So, an underrun would be like unspent money
towards a specific purpose.
Mr. Fenton. Yes. Let's say you had 10 projects, and you
estimated $100,000 per project, and at the end of the day, you
did it for $870,000 because of efficiencies. So, there would be
some incentive there to local government to, you know, as long
as they reuse that for maybe mitigation or something like that
they'd be able to just end it.
Senator Capito. Yeah. Right. And then close it out.
Mr. Fenton. Right. And they close out much quicker--And
that's the problem now, is that every project is to the exact
penny.
Senator Capito. Yeah. Okay.
Mr. Fenton. And any time you have a program like that,
we're incrementally adding dimes or dollars to close things
out.
Senator Capito. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Capito. Let me finish up
with one last question and that's on the Brick Program.
Obviously, this has been a very popular account. In 2020, FEMA
was only able to fund about 14 percent of requested demand for
pre-disaster mitigation projects.
I had an interesting meeting with some of my emergency
management personnel in Stratford, Connecticut, during the
break. And one of the concerns they raised was concerns
regarding the competitiveness of smaller jurisdictions'
applications for funds when you have this much interest and
particularly a lot of interest from larger jurisdictions. In
Connecticut, we don't have counties, so it's either the State
of Connecticut applying or a municipality that may only have,
you know, 10 or 20,000 individuals. And in fact, on the
shoreline, where you've got some really important national
assets like the Northeast Corridor Rail Line, the Interstate
95. Some of those communities, again, only may have 15,000
people in them and they worry about their ability to compete
for Brick allocations, especially with these bigger
jurisdictions putting together much larger applications.
You shared, coming from Region 9, you've got big
jurisdictions, small jurisdictions. Do you share that concern?
Is there a way to make sure that small municipalities get to
compete fairly alongside big counties for Brick dollars?
Mr. Fenton. Yes. So, within the BRIC Program, there are
some set-asides within there to ensure there's opportunity. A
couple of them are they put aside $20 million just for tribes
so that they're able to compete. As I understand, a little bit
over 60 tribes have already submitted applications for this
Brick Program. Also, for small communities underneath 3,000,
there's an incentive for a modification of the cost share to 90
percent to help them, especially small, impoverished
jurisdictions in that. We are also providing direct assistance
to subgrantees to help them with their application process and
provide technical assistance in doing that.
And so, there's a number of things we're doing right now to
ensure there's equitable opportunity, knowing that if you get
those small communities, they may not be aware of the program.
They may not be knowledgeable on how to apply to it, so we're
helping with the project scoping and setting aside funding to
make sure there's some type of equitable opportunity for them
to participate.
Senator Murphy. Yeah. And you know the problem here when
you're only funding 14 percent, that's a disincentive to apply
in particular for jurisdictions that don't have an established
grant-writing operation. Maybe not as big as disincentive for a
city or a county that's pumping out grant applications on a
regular basis. They just sort of build in a risk tolerance for
grant applications in a way that small communities cannot.
So that's not necessarily your problem. That's a problem
that will fall to the subcommittee when it comes to looking at
allocations for these accounts, but we frankly have exacerbated
this difficulty by not allocating a share of COVID dollars into
the Brick account, and it probably should be funded at a level
closer to $4 billion than $500 billion, but a subject for our
work.
Mr. Fenton. One of the things I did in my region is I for
fire, for example, which was very significant in my region, and
I developed one-sheeters on different types of projects that we
see done repetitively. So maybe special paint that helps with
fire protection, and maybe clearing of brush, and maybe
changing of roof material. And what we've done is created these
to help them understand what these projects are and then
provide the complexity with regard to environmental program
legal issues that they would experience in California
submitting those applications.
So, we've helped them kind of scope these projects out, so
they are repeatable. And then the State of California, through
phased projects, can actually start building these projects.
And my hope is over time that we have them on a shelf, and
build a conveyer of projects and then we just keep on repeating
those types of projects to build resiliency and a harder to
infrastructure or make it more resilient to those threats that
we face.
Senator Murphy. Great. All right. All set. Great. Well,
thank you, Acting Administrator Fenton, for your testimony
today. Thank you for your service to the country.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
The hearing record is going to remain open for one week.
Questions for the record should be submitted to the
subcommittee staff by the close of business on Wednesday, April
21st.
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher Murphy
vaccination support
Question. COVID-19 vaccination programs are primarily managed by
state, local, tribal, and territorial governments (SLTTs) and supported
by the Federal government. HHS purchases vaccines and makes them
available to states and jurisdictions. FEMA supplements vaccination
programs by reimbursing eligible costs and providing additional direct
assistance such as supplies, personnel, and technical assistance at
vaccination sites. President Biden expanded support for vaccination-
related costs by increasing the Federal cost share to 100 percent,
initiated the opening of several federally run vaccination sites, and
other sites operated at the state and local level. As of April 1, FEMA
has obligated $4.5 billion for vaccination-related costs. Further, FEMA
formed a Civil Rights Advisory Group to bolster equity considerations
in SLTT vaccination programs, and FEMA reports that it uses the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index to inform
site-selection of federally run mass vaccination sites.
Please share metrics that show the benefit of these equity
considerations? What adjustments have been made along the way to ensure
vaccines are getting to all communities, including vulnerable and
underserved communities?
To what extent have FEMA programs been suitable to support a
nationwide vaccination campaign? What obstacles has FEMA run into?
Answer. FEMA remains committed to ensuring the impartial and
equitable delivery of programs and services across state, local,
tribal, and territorial (SLTT) vaccination efforts, as required by the
Stafford Act and outlined in recent Executive Orders for Advancing
Racial Equity (EO 13985), Ensuring an Equitable Pandemic Response and
Recovery (EO 13995), and Ensuring a Data-Driven Response to the
Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (EO 13994). FEMA uses the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's social vulnerability index and
population data reported in the 2019 American Community Survey to
identify communities with greatest need to ensure everyone in America
who wants a vaccine can receive one. FEMA supports outreach to
underserved communities by disseminating the DHS statement on equal
access to vaccine regardless of an individual's immigration status,
which commits not to conduct enforcement efforts at operations at or
near vaccine distribution sites or clinics. FEMA also offers language
assistance services to individuals with limited English proficiency.
FEMA continuously analyzes data to make incremental adjustments for
successful and equitable vaccine deliveries. FEMA also measured
progress to achieve various performance metrics across the Community
Vaccination Center (CVC) pilot sites, ensuring the sites are
successfully delivering vaccines to local communities. Each CVC pilot
site is closely monitored for the following information:
--Daily and cumulative vaccine throughput (targets range from 250 to
6,000 people per day based on the size/type of the site).
--Vaccine dose wastage to maximize deliveries.
--Equitable distribution of vaccines across race/ethnicity.
--Ratio of appointments completed compared to appointments booked.
During implementation of the CVC Pilot Program, FEMA increased
race/ethnicity data reporting from 41.79 percent to 81.11 percent,
which is higher than the national average of 56.00 percent. Further,
57.45 percent of the vaccine doses are being administered to
underserved communities.
FEMA's programs are suitable to support a nationwide vaccination
campaign. FEMA Public Assistance has worked with all of our state
partners to ensure that expedited assistance is available specifically
for vaccinations. FEMA has ensured that funding is not a barrier to
vaccine administration by obligating nearly $4.9 billion in vaccine-
related funding to our state and local partners.
FEMA has coordinated with Federal partners since the start of the
public health emergency to identify overlapping authorities and
potential sources of funding in order to avoid a duplication of
benefits to the greatest extent possible and develop a guide to the
sequence of delivery for state, local, tribal, and territorial
governments.
To address gaps in the original eligibility guidance for COVID-19,
FEMA released updated policy documents which further outlined specific
eligibility requirements that were to be met by the applicant. FEMA's
Public Assistance Division has posted these guidance documents on
fema.gov at https://www.fema.gov/media-collection/public-assistance-
disaster-specific-guidance-covid-19-declarations.
fema financial assistance for pandemic relief
Question. Background: FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is the primary
instrument to provide assistance to communities for pandemic relief in
the form of emergency protective measures. FEMA's funding assistance
programs generally operate following disasters like floods, hurricanes
or tornadoes. These events typically take place over a certain period
of time and in a specific area. However, for COVID-19, the assistance
programs are being used nationwide for ongoing, long-term pandemic
response and recovery activities. Under the Trump Administration, FEMA
issued nearly a dozen policies, fact sheets, and guidance documents
describing and modifying eligibility for assistance.
This this is an unprecedented event and some evolution in program
administration is necessary. The National Governor's Association, GAO,
and FEMA itself noted persistent confusion regarding policies states
had to navigate for assistance. How can FEMA reduce the complexity of
program administration?
President Biden issued an Executive Order the day after he was
sworn in directing FEMA to reimburse eligible applicants for the costs
of ``safe opening and operation of eligible public and nonprofit
facilities'', such as schools, healthcare facilities, and transit
organizations. On April 5th, an advisory was issued updating the
implementation policy of the Executive Order clarifying courthouse and
city halls and other entities that provide a public service are also
eligible. Is FEMA comfortable with the current Disaster Relief Fund
balance to accommodate these additional costs? If not, will the fiscal
year 2022 Budget Request address any deficiencies?
Answer. In response to the nation-wide emergency declaration for
the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, FEMA has worked to streamline and
simplify the Public Assistance Program for COVID-19 reimbursements.
Actions taken to date include making direct applications available
through the Public Assistance Grants Portal (grantee.fema.gov),
simplifying minimum documentation requirements and eliminating most
site inspections, expediting funding, and developing ``how to'' videos
and quick guides to provide direct technical assistance to applicants.
FEMA has also worked to develop streamlined trainings and guidance
documents to help applicants navigate the process. All of FEMA's
policies, Standard Operating Procedures, and Fact Sheets are available
to the general public on FEMA.gov. In addition, guidance, job aids, and
tools are available to all Public Assistance applicants via the Grants
Portal at grantee.fema.gov.
FEMA has also created several Resource Roadmaps to assist state,
tribal, territorial, and local government in navigating some of the
challenges and resources available to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
These roadmaps are based on anticipated COVID-19 recovery challenges in
key topic areas. The roadmaps:
--Outline potential solutions and applicable resources, including
Federal funding support and technical assistance.
--Describe how to use CARES Act and other Federal programs to help
solve recovery challenges, avoid potential duplication of
benefits, and reimburse associated costs.
--Inform decisions on how to apply funding to maximize local recovery
outcomes.
The roadmaps are for informational purposes only and are compiled
with publicly available information or with information provided by
sources that are publicly obtained. The roadmaps are available on
FEMA's website at https://www.fema.gov/media-collection/resource-
roadmaps.
The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) has sufficient funding to support
response and recovery needs for COVID-19 as well as other disasters
through September 30, 2021. As of April 14, the DRF has a balance of
approximately $60 billion. Absent any significant unexpected COVID
requirements or multiple new catastrophic disasters, FEMA believes the
current funding available in the DRF will be sufficient to meet fiscal
year (FY) 2021 requirements. As always, FEMA will continue to monitor
DRF resource needs and will update the Congress as needed/requested on
the status of both DRF resources and potential funding needs for new
disasters, as well as the continued recovery from previously declared
disasters.
fema and covid funding oversight challenges identified by the pandemic
response accountability committee (prac)
Question. Background: The CARES Act established the Pandemic
Response Accountability Committee (PRAC) within the Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. The PRAC, comprised of
21 Office of Inspector Generals (OIG), was established to conduct
oversight of pandemic funding. In a June 2020 report, the PRAC
identified key challenges facing Federal agencies. These challenges
include a need for FEMA to improve grant management, disaster
assistance processes, and fraud prevention measures following findings
of inadequate grant oversight for incidents that preceded the COVID-19
pandemic:
[T]he OIG identified a pattern of FEMA management failures in
overseeing procurements and reimbursing procurement costs [prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic], and continues to observe systemic problems and
operational difficulties that contribute to FEMA not managing disaster
relief grants and funds adequately. The OIG also found FEMA's disaster
assistance programs are highly susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse,
which poses significant risk to taxpayer investment. In a climate where
FEMA is already hard-pressed to take additional, proactive steps to
create and sustain a culture of fraud prevention and awareness, the
infusion of CARES Act funding will likely exacerbate these
difficulties. Additionally, in the past 12 years, the OIG issued eight
reports on FEMA's information technology systems capabilities for
processing payments, coordinating with state and local governments,
data reliability, and vast information sharing and reporting
limitations.
How will FEMA change or expand fraud risk management activities
that were underway prior to the pandemic to account for pandemic-
related waste, fraud, and abuse?
The DHS Office of Inspector General found that FEMA's longstanding
information technology deficiencies have hindered response and recovery
operations. Is this getting the right attention at the Department
because FEMA's budget requests have failed to make the necessary
investments in this area?
Answer. FEMA's Public Assistance Division has begun to assess and
improve the procurement review processes at their Consolidated Resource
Centers by defining roles and responsibilities, as well as identifying
criteria for procurement review escalation based on contract risk for
current projects. While preliminary tools have been developed to
facilitate, track, and document training for procurement reviewers,
FEMA continues to adjust and strengthen processes for procurement
reviews.
For FEMA's Individual Assistance Division, minimizing fraud is also
a critical element of FEMA's Coronavirus (COVID-19) Funeral Assistance
Program. FEMA has adjusted processes to include additional controls to
mitigate the potential of fraud and identity theft for COVID-19 Funeral
Assistance applications. To date, FEMA has seen a decrease in the
typical fraud and identity theft that we have seen in previous
disasters. FEMA will continue to monitor and adjust processes, when
needed, to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of fraud controls while
providing financial assistance to those who need it and being good
stewards of taxpayer money.
The Department has continued support for FEMA in addressing its
long-standing information technology (IT) deficiencies and has
supported FEMA's prioritized investments in these areas. Through this
support FEMA has been able to officially close out all findings of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG)
Audit 16-10 ``FEMA Faces Challenges in Managing Information
Technology''.
Since fiscal year (FY) 2020, FEMA has developed its fiscal year
2020-2024 IT Strategic Plan, as well as an associated implementation
plan and an IT roadmap for modernizing FEMA IT. Additionally, the
COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to have operable IT to
support response and recovery operations. Using funding provided from
the 2020 CARES Act, FEMA was able to quickly transition to a mostly
remote workforce and has relied heavily and successfully on a suite of
collaboration tools that were quickly implemented to support internal
and external communication.
As a part of FEMA's ongoing efforts to address these issues, the
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) recently stood up the
FEMA Enterprise Cloud environment in January 2021 and continues to
migrate enterprise services to the cloud ahead of plans to move other
legacy and emergency management service programs in fiscal year 2021
and fiscal year 2022. FEMA will use a cloud computing business model to
deliver IT services (software, platform, and infrastructure). The cloud
business model presents a compelling opportunity for FEMA to address
critical IT issues, including increased cost efficiency, provisioning
speed, flexibility, and scalability. Additional potential benefits from
cloud computing, which support and accelerate existing DHS and FEMA IT
initiatives, include increased data center consolidation, information
sharing, shared services, innovation, and sustainability.
FEMA's 2020 Capability Analysis Report (CAR) on IT Infrastructure,
now validated by the DHS Joint Requirements Council (JRC), identified
necessary capability categories such as optimizing IT service delivery,
cybersecurity capabilities, rapid scalability, and continuity of
operations that represent gaps, threats, and hazards impacting
essential mission operations. The OCIO has identified and is
implementing material and non-material solutions to address these
shortfalls.
FEMA has also been in the process of addressing legacy network
infrastructure, as noted in the fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020
budget requests. The efforts started in fiscal year 2019 with replacing
legacy network switching, continued into fiscal year 2020 by replacing
voice and video infrastructure, and will continue in fiscal year 2021
and potentially in the outyears as FEMA looks to replace legacy
hardware by moving to the cloud. Finally, as the fiscal year 2022
budget is released, OCIO believes you will continue to see the
Department's priorities for addressing technology deficiencies,
including FEMA's ongoing prioritization of addressing cybersecurity
risk to protect national security information as well as survivor data.
Both new and existing technological issues are taken very seriously
by both the Agency and the Department, and we will continue to
prioritize investments in areas that enable response and recovery
operations.
building resilient infrastructure and communities (bric)
Question. Background: The BRIC program was authorized by the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) of 2018. It supports states, local
communities, tribes, and territories as they undertake hazard
mitigation projects, reducing the risks they face from disasters and
natural hazards.
Under BRIC, the President is authorized to set aside from the
Disaster Relief Fund up to 6 percent of the estimated aggregate amount
of funding awarded following a major disaster declaration. For fiscal
year (FY) 2021, FEMA projects using $500 million for BRIC, the same
amount as fiscal year 2020. However, if FEMA calculated the 6 percent
from COVID obligations, a total of $3.7 billion would be available for
BRIC projects.
Is there anything FEMA can share with us about the Administration's
plan to use the $3.7 billion it has the legal authority to set aside
for mitigation projects?
In fiscal year 2020, FEMA was only able to fund about 14 percent of
the requested demand for pre-disaster mitigation projects. What is
FEMA's long-term strategy to address this demand for mitigation
funding?
President Biden highlighted the BRIC program in the Infrastructure
Plan announced last week and emphasized it as a program to ``invest in
vulnerable communities.'' In addition, the President's fiscal year 2022
Budget Blueprint includes an additional $540 million to incorporate
climate impacts into pre-disaster planning and resilience efforts and
will prioritize projects for vulnerable and historically underserved
communities. No other details have been provided at this time. Please
elaborate on the Administration's plans. What is FEMA doing to ensure
mitigation investments are being made in vulnerable communities?
Are state, local, tribal, and territorial governments ready to
invest large sums in shovel- ready projects? What can be done to
increase their capacity ensuring the most effective projects possible?
Answer. Disaster activity and funding levels vary significantly
every year. FEMA aims to avoid extreme funding variation in the
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program by
capturing estimates from large disasters and subsequently allocating
those funds over multiple years. FEMA's methodology to develop the
program's annual funding amounts is based on an analysis of the last 10
years of Disaster Relief Funds (DRF) to approximate a program baseline.
Based on this analysis, FEMA plans to offer BRIC grants with the
funding floor of $500 million per year. This approach is being referred
to as stabilization; the intent of stabilization is to establish a
stable and consistent level of base funding each year to provide
consistency and surety of funding amounts for our stakeholders, making
the program more predictable, and providing them a baseline of funding
to plan against. Even if the National Competition amounts vary,
consistent allocations will help applicants build capability and
capacity--a critical program goal.
FEMA intends to use the Coronavirus (COVID-19) funds as an early
stabilization resource and not jeopardize future funding levels by
expending it all immediately. $1 billion will be made available in
fiscal year 2021 for BRIC. FEMA is now working to finalize the fiscal
year 2021 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). Going forward, FEMA
will continue to review future estimates to ensure that the annual NOFO
amount is appropriate, and make adjustments to future year funding
amounts to ensure that large unobligated balances do not accrue.
Regarding the demand for mitigation funding, recent studies (within
the last 10 years) have shown that there is a significant unfunded
mitigation need across the nation. Many of FEMA's partner organizations
and stakeholders, including the National Emergency Management
Association (NEMA), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and
National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), have conducted research
into specific areas of need for mitigation investments, whether it be
single hazard based or across multiple hazard spectrums. Stakeholders
have frequently indicated that there is also a need to understand what
the real capacity/capability of states, tribes, and territories are in
order to manage the billions of dollars in funding necessary to address
the gap.
The Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG) was established
to organize mitigation efforts across the Federal government as a
result of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. The
MitFLG developed the National Mitigation Investment Strategy as a
single national strategy for advancing mitigation investment to reduce
risks posed by natural hazards and increasing the nation's resilience
to natural hazards. The Investment Strategy's objective is to identify
and measure the effectiveness of mitigation investments and inform
decisions on when and where to make investments. The Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration's (FIMA's) own strategic plan also sets
the stage for FEMA to determine how best to align with state, local,
tribal, and territorial (SLTT) partners on how best to meet their
mitigation needs. Strategic Outcome A (Catalyze community partnerships
to promote sustained and equitable investments in risk reduction),
combined with FIMA's Strategic Objectives A.4 (Align with states on
priority investment for focused risk reduction outcomes) and A.5 (Build
capacity to deliver mitigation grant programs) directly support FEMA's
efforts to both leverage investments in mitigation and improve
stakeholder capacity.
To help build capacity at the community level, our stakeholders
have routinely expressed the need for consistency in FEMA programs.
They want consistency of funding, timeframes, application processes,
and program requirements to the largest extent possible. FEMA
understands that there is significant need for mitigation as
demonstrated by numerous studies as well as the overwhelming number of
applications submitted for the first year. This is not a new
phenomenon: the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and Pre-Disaster
Mitigation (PDM) programs have traditionally been over-subscribed.
To aggressively attempt to get additional funds into communities to
meet their resiliency needs, FEMA is finalizing the fiscal year 2021
NOFO in order to better get additional funds into communities that need
the support.
Additionally, there are more mitigation funds available across the
Federal spectrum than those offered by FEMA. The most prominent source
of funding might be from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), which has both the Community Development Block
Grant--Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program as well as the pilot CDBG-
Mitigation program. Our Agencies continue to work together to ensure
that our program goals, and our funding priorities, support each other
and provide a cohesive set of mitigation funding for our stakeholders.
Within FEMA, the Agency is making it a priority to ensure that
stakeholders are informed of how the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP), the FMA program, and the Public Assistance (PA) program can be
utilized in concert with (or even in place of) the BRIC program. In
fact, FEMA reports on the Agency's Federal mitigation spending under
the Government Performance and Results Act and reported the largest
Agency investment in 2019 at $2,045,325,231. These long-standing
programs can do much of what BRIC can, and the stakeholders need to be
informed as to the appropriate ways to utilize these funds. For
example, hazard mitigation planning can be accomplished under the HMGP,
freeing up BRIC allocation funding for smaller-scale projects or
project scoping activities. Also, many small and larger-scale,
lifeline-focused mitigation projects, while sought after by the BRIC
program, may be funded after disasters through the PA program's
mitigation funding. FEMA is dedicated to improving the training and
education of our stakeholders to support them as they develop
mitigation projects and navigate the various mitigation funding streams
that exist. FEMA is currently developing an on-demand 30-minute
recording about PA mitigation for our SLTT stakeholders. This includes
offering technical assistance (either through Direct Technical
Assistance under BRIC or in project scoping activities) to validate
that applicants and subapplicants are maximizing the portfolio of
funding available to them.
Our Regions and our state applicants are critical to the success of
this educational effort, and FEMA will rely on their participation to
make this successful. A final piece of this puzzle is to develop a firm
assessment of mitigation needs across the country, not just for
funding, but also for investment in education and training. FEMA will
be conducting a comprehensive study of mitigation needs to identify the
needs across the nation. This study is anticipated to be completed by
fiscal year 2023.
Natural hazard disasters disproportionately impact vulnerable
communities, exacerbating existing inequities. Consistent with the
overarching principles of the National Mitigation Investment Strategy,
FEMA and our Federal partners will prioritize the needs of vulnerable
communities and align our efforts to reduce their future risk. This
principle is captured in FIMA's Strategic Plan through the intent to
``deliver our programs with equity'' and ``incorporate future
conditions.'' In fiscal year 2022, FEMA will explore opportunities to
invest in actionable climate change research that can be used by
communities and states to design and build innovative mitigation
projects that address the impacts of climate change. FEMA will also
support and implement Federal flood resilience measures through
Executive Order 11988, and any amendments to this order. These measures
reduce flood risk for Federal investments, including infrastructure,
structures, and facilities; help improve the nation's resilience to
flooding; and better prepare the nation for the impacts of climate
change.
Furthermore, through implementation of Executive Order 13985, FEMA
is undertaking equity assessments for a number of its programs,
including Hazard Mitigation Assistance, and has established an
Executive Steering Group on equity to coordinate efforts across the
Agency. Meanwhile, we are actively addressing equity in our programs.
For example, through our program principles and priorities (in concert
with FIMA's Strategic Plan), the BRIC program encourages a culture of
resilience, aims to increase state, local, tribal, and territorial
governments' capacity, and promotes partnerships for funding larger
infrastructure projects. BRIC provides a critical opportunity to invest
in a more resilient nation, reduce disaster suffering, and avoid future
costs to the DRF. Within the evaluation of subapplications, FEMA
already provides support to vulnerable communities:
--FEMA allows for reduced non-Federal share requirements, from 25
percent to 10 percent, for small impoverished communities
applying as subapplicants to the BRIC program;
--In the BRIC subapplication scoring criteria, extra points are
provided to subapplicants that are small impoverished
communities, as well as points for populations impacted,
outreach and partnerships that all have equity components;
--Within the BRIC program-eligible activities, the Project Scoping
activity exists to assist in project development for small
underserved communities; and
--Direct Technical Assistance provides vulnerable communities with
support for understanding their mitigation needs and developing
strategies to address these needs. FEMA is supporting up to 10
communities in year one and intends to offer assistance to up
to 20 more in year two.
FEMA is also developing a peer mentoring network to provide peer
mentors to vulnerable communities. This network will be an opportunity
for users of our programs to support each other, and participants will
include previous recipients of Direct Technical Assistance.
In order to be ready to invest large sums in shovel-ready projects,
stakeholders have expressed need for increased funding for technical
assistance and capability and capacity building activities as well as
funding for the evaluation and performance monitoring of existing
projects. They have also asked for the expansion of pre-calculated
benefits to make the benefit-cost analysis easier and more predictable,
consistency of programmatic requirements across mitigation programs,
and support for the sharing of lessons learned/best practices from
projects at all scales.
Perhaps the most direct avenue that FEMA can utilize to support the
needs of stakeholders is in the areas of hazard mitigation planning and
project development, recognized by FEMA in the Strategic Plan,
Objective A.1: ``Integrate disaster risk and mitigation into community
planning processes''. Having a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan is
a fundamental requirement for our mitigation programs, and our
applicants and subapplicants understand this. Over 24,100 local
governments have FEMA-approved or approvable-pending-adoption local
hazard mitigation plans. An additional 228 tribal governments have
current tribal mitigation plans. Together, these hazard mitigation
plans cover over 83 percent of the population and represent a good
start to understanding local conditions and mitigation needs. These
plans have identified mitigation/resilience goals, objectives, and
strategies. The next step is to provide lower-capacity communities with
support in the development of action plans that connect their
mitigation plan to the funding sources that exist.
Specifically, through the BRIC program, FEMA currently funds
activities that are designed to improve a subapplicant's capability and
capacity. These capacity and capability-building (C&CB) activities are
enhancing the knowledge, skills, expertise, etc., of the subapplicant's
current workforce to expand or improve the administration of mitigation
assistance. This includes activities in the following sub-categories:
building codes activities, partnerships, project scoping, mitigation
planning, and planning-related activities. FEMA intends to increase the
funds available for these types of activities in the fiscal year 2021
NOFO. FEMA intends to increase the state/territory allocation from
$600,000 to $1 million (a 40 percent increase in funding) and the
tribal set-aside to $25 million (20 percent more funding). This will
provide applicants with significant sources of C&CB funding for their
communities.
One of the most useful activities that a community can undertake
are project scoping activities. Formerly referred to as Advance
Assistance, project scoping has been available under all of the Hazard
Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs for the past several funding
cycles. Within BRIC, activities that communities can undertake with
project scoping funds include scoping and developing hazard mitigation
projects, including engineering design and feasibility studies;
conducting meetings, outreach, and coordination with potential
subapplicants and community residents to identify potential future
mitigation projects; evaluating facilities or areas to determine
appropriate mitigation actions; incorporating environmental planning
and historic preservation considerations into project planning
activities; collecting data for benefit-cost analyses, environmental
compliance and other program requirements; and conducting hydrologic
and hydraulic studies for unmapped flood zones or other areas where
communities propose to submit hazard mitigation projects. Many more
activities are eligible as well that run the range of contracting with
external third-party services for data collection and validation, the
development of multi-community hazard mitigation projects, and the use
of third-party cost-estimation services to appropriately develop
project budgets.
Finally, through Direct Technical Assistance, FEMA provides
additional project planning and development support to communities most
in need of this assistance. The provision of this technical assistance
is done with a focus on developing and expanding our stakeholders'
capability and capacity. Recipients of Direct Technical Assistance are
expected to serve as mentors for future Direct Technical Assistance
communities in an effort to expand and share their experience and
lessons learned, greatly broadening FEMA's training and Direct
Technical Assistance reach.
FEMA is committed to increasing the knowledge and training of our
communities and intends to offer coordination of programs trainings at
future training opportunities.
preparedness grants and potential reforms
Question. Background: After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, state,
local, tribal and territorial governments were encouraged to ensure
their communities have capabilities to respond to high probability or
high consequence terrorist threats. To support these activities, FEMA
administers a suite of preparedness grants which are awarded to states,
urban areas, non-profit organizations, transit systems, and ports. FEMA
also administers some grants that are not specifically focused on
terrorism. These preparedness grants focus on specific hazards--such as
floods--or first responders--such as firefighters.
Administrations of both parties have proposed to consolidate,
change the distribution formula, and/or reduce funding for these
programs. Congress has not enacted these proposals in part because
stakeholders have resisted change without a clear understanding of how
their needs will be addressed.
In lieu of larger grant reform, the Trump Administration required
grantees to commit at least 5 percent of their terrorism grant funding
to each of four specific priorities: cybersecurity, soft targets and
crowded places, intelligence and information sharing, and emerging
threats. The Biden Administration added domestic terrorism as a
priority and increased the amount that must be committed to domestic
terrorism and cybersecurity to 7.5 percent each.
The FEMA grant programs have not changed much since they were
created in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11th.
However, the threat environment has changed significantly during that
time. Is there room for reform to better align grant programs to
current threats?
Although many preparedness grants focus of counter-terrorism
capabilities, FEMA's message in recent years has emphasized `all-
hazards' preparedness. Should DHS and FEMA reevaluate the purpose of
these grants?
Answer. At the direction of Department of Homeland Security's
(DHS's) Secretary Mayorkas, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) is undertaking a comprehensive review of grant program policies,
processes, framework, and risk methodology, focusing on the State
Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI). The Department and FEMA are committed to engaging in a
meaningful dialogue with SHSP and UASI stakeholders to ensure these
programs remain relevant and effective in addressing the current threat
environment, which has evolved greatly since the wake of September 11
when the programs were first created. For example, DHS recognizes that
domestic violent extremism, or DVE, poses the most lethal and
persistent terrorism-related threat to our country today, particularly
by white-supremacist, anti-government, and anti-authority extremists.
We must combat domestic violent extremism in all forms. FEMA held a
series of listening sessions with SHSP and UASI stakeholders in April
2021 to solicit feedback on an individual basis specifically on the
policies, priorities, and risk methodology to inform potential future
changes to these grant programs. FEMA is compiling and analyzing all
the individual feedback and might consider this feedback in preparing
recommendations for Secretary Mayorkas. We will work to implement any
recommendations and any potential incremental updates to the risk
methodology in the future as needed. FEMA is also undertaking a
separate, more comprehensive longer-term review of the risk methodology
to ensure it continues to reflect the changing threat environment
facing the Nation in future years.
southwest border surge response and readiness
Question. Background: FEMA is assisting with the latest increase in
asylum seekers and migrants on the Southwest Border in two ways, mostly
by assisting with unaccompanied children. First, FEMA has been asked to
assist HHS in identifying and acquiring more space in order to move the
children out of Border Patrol's custody into more appropriate
facilities which are more suited to house children. Second, Congress
has provided $110 million in the America Rescue Plan Act through the
FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) to ensure asylum seekers
and migrants released from Customs and Border Protection custody have
food, water, shelter and transportation to their ultimate destination.
EFSP is awarded to local non-profit boards to determine and serve the
needs of asylum seekers and migrants.
Increases in unaccompanied children have occurred before--most
recently in fiscal year 2019 during the Trump Administration--when the
capacity for HHS to take unaccompanied children was also overwhelmed
because the Trump Administration's policies created more unaccompanied
children by separating them from their parents and families. But this
time the increase is happening in the midst of a global pandemic, when
space at HHS facilities is nearly 40 percent less in order to follow
CDC's COVID guidance. Recognizing the root causes of migration are
complex and are partly motivated by the conditions in the Northern
Triangle, it is likely that this will not be the last time we see
increases on our southern border. While the Administration continues to
move out on their plan to address root causes, which will take some
time, improvements are needed in the Federal government's ability to
respond to future challenges at the border.
FEMA has been asked to assist the Department of Health and Human
Services with identification and establishment of child appropriate
facilities for unaccompanied children arriving on the South West
Border. What is working in FEMA's partnership with HHS? What challenges
remain?
What steps can be taken to improve readiness and response for
increasing numbers of unaccompanied children arriving at the border?
Answer. FEMA was directed to support a government-wide effort,
focused on safely receiving, sheltering, and transferring unaccompanied
children who make the dangerous journey to the southwest border. FEMA
has the experience and capability to bring together key resources and
agencies.
FEMA integrated and co-located with the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) and with funding provided by HHS examined every
available option to quickly expand physical capacity for appropriate
lodging for unaccompanied children. The Department's workforce,
including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Federal
Protective Service, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and
members of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Volunteer Force,
are helping provide shelter capacity, security, and other support as
needed.
FEMA will continue to focus on its integration and partnership with
HHS and DHS in order to support their mission of providing safe and
timely reunification of unaccompanied children.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
disaster relief fund
Question. Background: The Disaster Relief Fund has received over
$100 billion in supplemental COVID-19 relief funding, including $45
billion from the CARES Act, $17 billion in the fiscal year 2021 Omnibus
funding bill, and $50 billion in the American Rescue Plan. FEMA is
responsible for allocating this funding and reimbursing states,
localities, and tribes for costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
What additional oversight policies has FEMA put into place to
ensure that all COVID-19 relief funding, including Disaster Relief
Funds reimbursements, are allocated for appropriate purposes and in
accordance with the law?
Answer. FEMA manages and executes Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) funds
received for Coronavirus (COVID-19) requirements in accordance with
statutory, regulatory, and programmatic requirements. FEMA has
established policies, procedures and eligibility requirements for the
reimbursement to states, localities, and tribes to ensure funding
provided complies with those requirements.
inspector general
Question. Background: In March, the FEMA Office of Inspector
General released a report entitled ``FEMA Needs Revised Policies and
Procedures to Better Manage Recovery of Disallowed Grant Funds''.
Specifically, it found that FEMA justified not recovering funds solely
based on the cost, that FEMA regional offices did not track the
collection debts, and that FEMA's internal guidance on the time limits
for collecting debts does not comply with the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief Emergency Assistance Act. The Stafford Act created the
Disaster Relief Fund and outlines the requirements for the allocation
and reimbursement of funds, including those provide in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The report made five recommendations, including
requiring FEMA to update its policy for collecting disallowed grant
funds, requiring regional office to track and maintain records relating
to debt collection, requiring the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
to provide updates on debt collection efforts, requiring FEMA to update
its policies relating to the time limits on the collection of
disallowed funds under the Stafford Act, and requiring FEMA to
regularly update its internal policies.
According to the report, FEMA has concurred with all five
recommendations. What specific steps have you taken to implement these
corrective actions?
Is FEMA planning to take any additional actions to increase
oversight of grant allocation processes, prevent the allocation of
disallowed grant fund, or to improve the collection of disallowed grant
funds?
Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is using an
integrated approach involving our Office of Chief Counsel, Office of
Chief Financial Officer, Office of Policy and Program Analysis,
Regional and Program Offices, and Grant Programs Directorate to develop
and implement sustainable improvements in our recovery of disallowed
grant funds. Most importantly, we are revising FEMA Instruction 116-1-
1, ``Identification and Collection of Monies Owed from Non-Federal
Entities'' to require program offices to maintain records and track the
status of referred debt. As part of this guidance revision, corrective
action plans for procurement related deficiencies will address--to the
extent possible--the systemic underlying root causes of the
deficiencies. In addition, the FEMA Finance Center has been tasked to
provide regular updates to Regional and Program Offices regarding debt
recoveries.
To ensure policy uniformity, FEMA's Recovery Directorate and the
Office of Policy and Program Analysis reviewed and updated the
applicable policy to clarify FEMA's interpretation of the statute of
limitations for debt recovery in order to conform with the Disaster
Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA) (Public Law 115-254, Div. D).
FEMA has taken several steps to improve grant management oversight
over the past few years. Specifically, in May 2019, then FEMA
Administrator Pete Gaynor directed non-disaster and disaster grants
policy and procedures, as well as the Grants Management Modernization
(GMM) program, be aligned under the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD).
The realignment of these functions under one program office reduces
complexity by simplifying and making more transparent both the non-
disaster and disaster grants management processes. By creating easier
ways to coordinate all grants functions within FEMA, we are
streamlining our grant processes, which will ultimately improve the
grants experience for our disaster survivors, grant recipients, and the
internal partners GPD serves. This new structure enables FEMA to
operate efficiently and to effectively adapt to changing policies,
business practices, and the rapidly evolving cybersecurity landscape in
a cost-effective way.
To implement this reorganization of grant management functions, GPD
has developed a comprehensive set of policies and guidance for managing
grants and assumed responsibility over FEMA's Grants Management Manual,
which was originally created in 2018. Currently, FEMA is also
implementing a systematic tracking system for questionable and
disallowed costs to provide ``cradle to grave'' awareness and action on
all debts owed to FEMA.
With improved internal controls and management processes on the
front-end of the grant lifecycle, streamlined processes during the
grant lifecycle, and systematic method of tracking costs at the back
end of the grant lifecycle, we are confident that the issues identified
by the Office of the Inspector General will be resolved going forward.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
resources available to fema
Question. Background: FEMA is a unique agency that is tasked with
responding to complex, often overlapping missions during times of
crisis. This past year was certainly no different. As a part of a
whole-of-government approach to combatting COVID-19, FEMA has helped
communities across the nation to address the pandemic, and has done so
while continuing to respond to major weather events. That includes my
home state of Alaska, where the community of Haines experienced
devastating mudslides, which displaced several families, and where some
areas are still rebuilding after the Anchorage earthquake a few years
ago.
As we move into the summer months, we know that concerning weather
events such as wildfires will become more prevalent.
Are you all planning for a big wildfire season this summer? How are
you preparing to assist people who may be displaced as a result of
fire, hurricanes, or more?
Are there any additional resources that you may need?
What did you learn last summer while balancing social distancing
and providing housing that you will do differently moving forward?
Answer. Regarding the wildfire season, FEMA is following the
extreme and extensive drought conditions in some of our Western and
Southwestern states and the abnormally dry conditions in Northern
Alaska. FEMA is aware of the risk of serious wildland fires in these
areas and is committed to providing funding in support of evacuations
and sheltering for displaced persons within impacted state, local, and
tribal jurisdictions. Additionally, the FEMA Regions are prepared to
process any Fire Management Assistance Grant requests to ensure states
have access to Federal funding for fire suppression services for any
eligible fires.
FEMA continues to review policy, doctrine, and staff readiness to
ensure readiness to deliver mass care and emergency assistance services
this disaster season in a COVID-19 environment. This includes
additional offerings of the L0411 Mass Care/Emergency Assistance
Support for Field Operations Course and the added capacity to offer the
417 Shelter Field Guide Course virtually to community partners that
include, but are not limited to, Civil Air Patrol and Community
Emergency Response Teams.
Lastly, for this disaster season, FEMA will continue to utilize
existing doctrine developed in 2020, including the Mass Care/Emergency
Assistance Pandemic Planning Considerations, along with supporting
documents such as the Delivering Personal Assistance Services in
Congregate and Non-Congregate Sheltering, which remain applicable to
operations even with progress in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination
effort.
The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) has sufficient funding to support
response and recovery needs for COVID-19 as well as other disasters
through September 30, 2021. As of April 14, the DRF has a balance of
approximately $60 billion. Absent any significant unexpected COVID-19
requirements or multiple new catastrophic disasters, FEMA believes the
current funding available in the DRF will be sufficient to meet fiscal
year 2021 requirements. As always, FEMA will continue to monitor DRF
resource needs and will update the Congress as needed/requested on the
status of both DRF resources and potential funding needs for new
disasters, as well as the continued recovery from previously declared
disaster.
Regarding lessons learned from last summer, FEMA Public Assistance
provided policy flexibilities related to non-COVID-19 incidents that
were affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. As COVID-19 still poses
a public health threat, FEMA is in the process of extending the
flexibilities related to non-congregate sheltering through at least the
end of the 2021 hurricane season. Pending the continuation of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services national Public Health
Emergency declaration and other factors, an extension beyond the above
date may be considered.
One major planning initiative FEMA took during the pandemic is to
acquire a number of ``pandemic shelter kits'' to provide enhanced
personal protective equipment and other safety measures in congregate
shelters, as needed.
fema assistance for men, women, and children experiencing homelessness
Question. Background: I recently had the opportunity to visit the
Sullivan Arena and the Ben Boeke Ice Arena, two facilities converted
into congregate homeless shelters at the beginning of the pandemic.
This is one of the largest homeless shelters in America, providing beds
to more than 400 people every day. There are a variety of services that
are located inside, including food services and an on-site medical
clinic operated by key Alaskan organizations. These services go beyond
ensuring that these individuals have a safe place to sleep in light of
the pandemic, they assist individuals in creating a plan to transition
from homelessness to being housed.
Service providers agree that the old, pre-pandemic paradigm--a few
packed day and night shelters concentrated along a single block of
Third Avenue in Anchorage-- is not the path forward. My understanding
is that FEMA is committed to working with the state of Alaska on
providing continued assistance past September 1 to fund this facility.
While I appreciate FEMA's continued resources in this effort, I am
concerned with some administrative barriers in accessing these
emergency funds, which are causing additional challenges for providers
of these essential services. I have concerns that FEMA policy places
unnecessary legal and reporting burdens for non-congregate sheltering
(NCS) for the COVID-19 reimbursement process. NCS is typically not
reimbursed by FEMA, but instead is offered and executed by FEMA when
required as a result of a disaster. FEMA will provide reimbursement
only if NCS is conducted ``at the direction of and documented through
an official order signed by a state, local, tribal, or territorial
public health official. A health order requiring residents to shelter
or isolate is not the appropriate or necessary legal mechanism by which
a state or local government may conduct NCS. The effect of the FEMA-
required order may be achieved through existing local or state
mechanisms already in place under law or ordinance.
Additionally, FEMA requires reporting of shelters by age group,
disability status, meals provided, number of pets, and other
information in order to be eligible for reimbursement. This requirement
does not lend itself to FEMA's reimbursement eligibility standards with
outline ``work and services to save lives and protect property''
(Stafford Act, Section 403) that are ``necessary to eliminate or lessen
an immediate threat'' (44 CFR Sec. 206.225). Aid is needed in the
immediate aftermath of an emergency.
What can FEMA do to streamline its approval process for
reimbursement?
Answer. In response to the nation-wide emergency declaration under
the Stafford Act for the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and in an
effort to streamline the approval process, FEMA, in March 2020,
delegated authority to approve requests for non-congregate sheltering
to the Regional Administrators for the duration of the public health
emergency (see Fact Sheet: Public Assistance: Non-Congregate Sheltering
Delegation of Authority). Further, in December 2020, FEMA waived the
Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide's requirement that states,
tribes, and territories seek time extensions for non-congregate
sheltering operations every 30 days. Traditionally, FEMA requires
states, tribes, and territories to request time extensions every 30
days to ensure non-congregate sheltering operations are still necessary
as an emergency protective measure and to assist applicants in managing
their non-congregate sheltering populations. However, due to the
ongoing nature of the public health emergency, FEMA eliminated the
requirement to alleviate this administrative burden (see Non-Congregate
Sheltering Delegation of Authority Public Assistance Program and Policy
Guide Waiver (fema.gov)).
Generally, FEMA continues to work to simplify the Public Assistance
application process and documentation requirements for applicants. This
includes making communications materials easier to understand so that
programs are more accessible to the public, updating forms used to
collect information from Public Assistance Recipients and Subrecipients
as well as the processes the Agency uses to support these Applicants to
include considerations for traditionally underserved or historically
marginalized communities. Actions taken to date include making direct
applications available through the Public Assistance Grants Portal
(grantee.fema.gov), simplifying minimum documentation requirements and
eliminating most site inspections, expediting funding, and developing
``how to'' videos and quick guides to provide direct technical
assistance to applicants. Additionally, when FEMA recently noticed an
increase in Requests for Information (RFIs), FEMA established an RFI
Task Force to solve why this issue was occurring. The Task Force
successfully consolidated the review of RFIs, and over time, has been
building stronger, independent capabilities at each Consolidated
Resource Center to review applications.
disaster case management program
Question. Background: Although limited ``Individual Assistance''
programs have been made available in Alaska, FEMA has made the Disaster
Case Management program available. This program is authorized under
Section 426 of the Stafford Act. We believe that making this program
more widely available will provide localities with additional resources
to wide varieties of our population, including low income, homeless,
and other individuals and segments of our community disproportionately
affected by the COVID pandemic.
What can FEMA do to increase access to the Disaster Case Management
program?
Answer. The FEMA Disaster Case Management (DCM) program is designed
to augment existing capabilities to support states, tribes, and
territories in assisting survivors of a Presidentially declared
disaster. Each disaster response requires a unique combination of
assistance, and as part of disaster responses where DCM is authorized,
FEMA staff works with state, tribal, and territorial partners to
develop and formulate an approach to case management that addresses the
unique challenges of the communities impacted.
Available DCM-related resources for emergency managers and planners
include the Individual Assistance Program and Policy Guide, which
details application requirements, and the DCM Toolbox. This includes a
model request for proposal template and guidance on conducting a needs
assessment for case management services. FEMA's Regional Offices can
also offer technical assistance and planning advice for developing an
approach to DCM.
vaccinations and resources for addressing covid-19
Question. Background: The President has made it a priority to
expedite vaccinations in the United States. In Alaska, despite facing
unique geographic and logistical challenges, I am proud to say that we
have been doing very well on the vaccination front. This is due in
large part to the great leadership that we have at state, local, and
tribal levels, and due to collaboration with FEMA and DoD, and the
experience of the Alaska tribal health system. In Alaska, we are very
familiar with the risks that a COVID-19 outbreak poses to small, remote
communities who have limited healthcare capacity. We know that there
are other states who also have rural communities, who face similar
risks.
I want to ensure we are making emergency aid available, with the
least amount of burdensome administrative requirements possible. FEMA
Policy #104-21-0004, published on March 15, 2021, places
administratively burdensome reporting upon recipients and sub
recipients as a condition of grant assistance, for vaccine
administration. This policy contradicts the memorandum requiring FEMA
to make ``advanced reimbursement . . . more quickly''. This policy
places assistance ``focusing'' (rather than equity) requirements that
may not be supported by FEMA's authorities in the Stafford Act, Code of
Federal Regulations, or Executive Order. What can FEMA do to relieve
the administrative burdens on recipients of FEMA funds for COVID-19
vaccine administration?
Answer. FEMA Public Assistance (PA) has provided $4.7 billion in
Federal funds to applicants for Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination
support. FEMA remains committed to providing aid to meet emergency
needs and ensuring equitable provision of assistance during the COVID-
19 pandemic, specifically those critical actions that are necessary to
save lives and protect public health and safety. In April of 2020, FEMA
redesigned the PA application process for all COVID-19 events by
developing a streamlined project application and direct application
process, which consolidates and simplifies information and
documentation requirements for applicants. This process is still in
place to help relieve the administrative burden on Applicants.
In accordance with the President's Executive Order 13985, Advancing
Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the
Federal Government, FEMA issued FEMA Policy 104-21-0004, Coronavirus
(COVID-19) Pandemic: Medical Care Eligible for Public Assistance
(Interim) (Version 2), requiring Recipients and Subrecipients of FEMA
Public Assistance for COVID-19 vaccination efforts and associated
activities to submit social vulnerability scores and summary
information to substantiate an equitable vaccine administration
strategy to FEMA. This policy emphasizes the need for Recipients and
Subrecipients to confirm compliance with existing civil rights laws.
Recipients and Subrecipients are asked to collect data and use it to
identify target populations and determine whether they are being
reached. FEMA is not receiving this data, and Recipients and
Subrecipients should not submit to FEMA, personally identifiable
information (PII) to demonstrate compliance with equitable pandemic
response requirements. FEMA will consider the totality of the
circumstances around equity prior to making any determinations and work
with Recipients and Subrecipients as needed to ensure compliance and
provide support.
fema assistance to tribes during covid-19
Question. Background: Tribes are disproportionately affected by
COVID-19. FEMA has acknowledged this in their Initial Assessment Report
regarding response to COVID-19, which was released in January of 2021.
FEMA has reported that since the pandemic started only 15 percent of
all tribes (91 tribes out of the 574 tribes) have been able access the
billions in COVID-19 disaster funds through FEMA under the 2020
nationwide Emergency Declaration or a Major Disaster Declarations under
the Stafford Act. My understanding is that there are some tribes who
had experience engaging with FEMA prior to COVID, who had experience
with the processes of FEMA, while others had never made a disaster
declaration prior to the pandemic and as a result has limited
familiarity with what resources were available and how to receive them.
Native communities have been devastated in the recent past due to
preventable illnesses, such as the flu. Native communities are again
experiencing hardship with COVID-19 and they should have the resources
that they need to make it through.
In FEMA's Initial Assessment Report, FEMA issued a recommendation
(Recommendation 3.3.A), which states that FEMA should ``develop a
tribal nation engagement strategy, supported by consistent staffing and
training, that includes the desired outcomes and resources required to
appropriately support the tribal nations, with flexibility for regional
application. The strategy should identify an approach for the equitable
distribution of personnel throughout each region dedicated to program
delivery for all 574 tribal nations.''
Mr. Fenton, could you please share where FEMA is at in developing
this strategy and when does it plan to implement the strategy?
Has FEMA entered into consultation with tribes on the development
the strategy? If not, when does FEMA intend to consult with tribes to
assure that the strategy can effectively serve all 574 tribes and
address their on the ground needs?
How is FEMA ensuring that all 574 tribal nations have equitable
support and guidance to access the billions of dollars of COVID-19
disaster funds through FEMA?
Answer. FEMA has engaged with all 574 tribal nations to ensure that
they have access to resources, including Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act funds and American Rescue Plan Act funds to
assist with the Coronavirus (COVID-19) response efforts.
FEMA is working on a national tribal strategy and expects a draft
to be completed no later than the end of August 2021.
FEMA will engage in tribal consultation and use the draft National
Tribal Strategy as a discussion point with tribal nations. FEMA will
conduct this tribal outreach and consultation using both virtual
engagements and in-person opportunities, when possible. FEMA has
reviewed, updated, and implemented our Tribal Consultation Policy and
Instructions. Over the past several months, we have engaged tribal
nations in several tribal consultation sessions on a variety of FEMA
policy updates. Most recently, FEMA participated in the Department of
Homeland Security tribal consultation sessions pursuant to the
Presidential Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening
Nation-to-Nation Relationships of January 26, 2021.
FEMA Headquarters and FEMA Regional Offices have provided expanded
services in support of tribal governments across the country in
response to the pandemic since the national emergency declaration on
March 13, 2020. Each of the ten FEMA Regional Offices have dedicated
tribal liaisons within their workforces to coordinate with tribes
located in that respective region. Regional tribal liaisons and
regional administrators serve as the primary point of contact regarding
FEMA assistance, and they serve as the conduit to connect tribes with
FEMA leadership and program subject matter experts, as needed, for
information sharing, technical assistance and resource coordination.
FEMA's Regions have hosted and participated in weekly meetings and
conference calls with tribal leaders and tribal emergency managers to
answer any of their questions throughout this pandemic response.
FEMA is currently working with more than 200 tribal nations using a
variety of funding mechanisms. Under the March 2020 nationwide
emergency declaration, a tribal nation may choose to be a direct
recipient or a subrecipient under a state. Alternatively, under a state
major disaster declaration, a tribal nation may request assistance as a
subrecipient or as a recipient. A tribal nation may also choose to
request their own major disaster declaration. To date, three tribes--
the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Navajo Nation, and the Poarch Band
of Creek Indians--have received their own major disaster declaration.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Murphy. And so, this subcommittee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:18 p.m., Wednesday, April 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at a time subject to
call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Chris Murphy (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Murphy, Capito, Murkowski, Hoeven, and
Hyde-Smith.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
STATEMENT OF HON. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, SECRETARY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRIS MURPHY
Senator Murphy. Good afternoon. I'm going to call this
hearing of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security to order.
As a general reminder, this is going to be a virtual and
hybrid hearing. Some of my colleagues are going to be here
personally, some are going to be virtually. We're going to do
our best to ensure that everybody has a chance to ask questions
when it's their turn.
We also are going to have votes at some point during this
hearing and so our intent is going to be to keep this hearing
running and keep coverage here while we also run down to the
Floor and vote, and I'm glad to be assisted in that effort by
the subcommittee's Ranking Member and prior Chairman, Senator
Capito.
Today, we welcome Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro
Mayorkas, and we express to you our limitless gratitude for the
work of the 240,000 employees across the department. We
recognize the tremendous risks that they have taken and the
sacrifices that they have made, especially during the past year
and a half.
You and I got to visit along with Senator Capito some of
these heroes at the border earlier this year and I know how
humbled you are to be able to lead this group.
The purpose of today's hearing is to review the
department's fiscal year 2022 Budget Request. We eagerly await
the arrival of the full request later this week, but we've got
the Administration's budget blueprint in front of us and we're
going to use that to guide our discussions today.
This blueprint shows us how the department's mission is
changing and adapting. New investments in cybersecurity are
needed in the wake of these unprecedented attacks on our
networks, many of which have consumed the news.
The Coast Guard, faced with critical antiterrorism and drug
interdiction missions, is in need of long overdue
capitalization. Natural disasters are becoming more fierce and
more frequent, and I would like to applaud both you and the
President in your announcement on Monday that a billion dollars
is going to be invested through the Brick Program to help
communities prepare in advance for hurricanes, wildfires, and
other natural disasters.
And as we heard at a hearing on domestic terrorism before
the Full Committee, homegrown violence still presents the most
serious threat to our nation today, and today, this afternoon,
our heart breaks again as we read news of another mass
shooting, this one in San Jose, eight are dead so far.
We don't know the motive but once again we are reminded
that the most serious threat of physical harm to Americans does
not come right now from a foreign army or from immigrants, as
some would have us believe, but from the increasing tendency
towards deadly violence from a small often heavily armed subset
of our fellow Americans.
Now as for DHS's work at the border, which I trust is going
to occupy the bulk of question and answer time here today, let
me say a few things before turning it over to Senator Capito.
So I understand how important the issue of immigration is
to our politics today. I understand that it's a lot easier to
use the issue of migration as a political cudgel than to see it
as a problem that needs to get solved, and today Republicans
often want to take the increased numbers of apprehensions and
presentations at the border and blame it on President Biden.
That scores a lot of political points, gets you booked on talk
shows, but that's not the truth and the truth is still
important.
Migrants, as it turns out, don't really care who the
President of the United States is. Why? Because they come here
for a complex set of reasons, most of which are connected to
life in their home country.
Consider this. In 1986, in the middle of Ronald Reagan's
presidency, we saw over 1.5 million apprehensions at the
southwest border, some of the highest numbers we've ever seen.
From 1997 to 2000, we hovered around the same number during the
Clinton Administration.
Then during the Obama years, despite his policies that
allowed some undocumented children and families to stay, a
policy excoriated by Republicans as an incentive for migration,
the numbers of apprehensions at the border were far, far below
these numbers of the 1980s and 1990s, averaging around 420,000
each year of his term.
Then, despite President Trump's supposedly tough
immigration policies and the beginning of the construction of
his border wall, we saw a surge in apprehensions, the highest
in over a decade, resulting in a $4.6 billion emergency
supplemental in 2019.
The bottom line is that President Trump's rhetoric and the
cruelty of family separation didn't stop people from coming to
the United States because people are coming here in order to
flee violence and economic desperation in their home country.
The only thing that stopped that surge happening in 2018
and 2019 was the pandemic when we shut down the border under
public health authorities.
So what's happened this year? Well, apprehensions have
spiked but that's because some of those blocks I talked about
on children and families entering the country ended and for
good reason.
President Trump was turning around little kids and throwing
them back into the arms of traffickers and criminals. That was
an inhumane un-American policy. We should all celebrate its
end, but also in November of 2020, Mexico enacted a new law.
That meant that they were unable to accept many returns from
the United States of families with small children.
The Trump Administration had ample notice that this law
would come into effect, 2 months, and they seemingly made no
plans. So as a compassionate nation, we chose to house these
families. Yes, some of them have been released from custody
with a promise to appear before ICE (U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement), but so far in this fiscal year, those
that have received a notice to appear before ICE have complied
95 percent of the time. So this claim that there's some new
catch and release policy, it's just not backed up by the data.
I have news for my colleagues. The public health
restrictions on single adults that remain barring them from
applying for asylum cannot by law remain in effect forever. So
when that authority expires and it will, there's going to be a
surge of single adults at the border created by a ban on asylum
cases for a year and a half. That's not anybody's fault. That's
the consequence of the pandemic.
So I'm a new chairman of this committee. I took the job
knowing about the politics that surround this issue, but this
subcommittee does have a history of bipartisanship. Not every
year can we find a way to a budget, but many years, even when
the politics were really hot on this issue, thanks in large
part to then Chairwoman Capito, this committee did find that
path and so I hope that we get to have a meaningful discussion
today about the border and the many other challenges that are
facing the department, and I look forward to being able to work
across the aisle to try to find bipartisan solutions, at least
within our budget authority, to the challenges that you face.
Thank you for appearing before us today, Secretary
Mayorkas.
I'll now turn it over to the Ranking Member, Senator Capito
for opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
calling this hearing and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining
us.
While we don't have, as the Chairman mentioned, the full
budget request, there's certainly no shortage of things to talk
about today, and I know you've been on Capitol Hill since early
this morning. So I appreciate that. You certainly do have a
large job as head of a massive sprawling department.
As I noted this time last year, the department's critical
missions include counterterrorism, trade enforcement. You know,
we only talk about certain aspects of Homeland Security
sometimes, but when you see the massiveness of what you're
dealing with, maritime security, opioid and drug interdiction,
presidential protection, cybersecurity, infrastructure
protection, emergency management, continuity of government, law
enforcement training, countering weapons of mass destruction,
state and local information-sharing, and more, as well as this
past year responding to the pandemic.
On top of that, Secretary Mayorkas, despite what my
esteemed Chairman says, your first 100 days have been dominated
by a border crisis of the Administration's own making.
We are currently in the midst of a historic surge at the
southern border. There were a 178,000 encounters in April and
tens of thousands more entered undetected. Drugs continue to be
a big issue for me. Drugs continue to pour across our border,
including record amounts of fentanyl, which are devastating
states like West Virginia and killing a lot of our people.
Mr. Secretary, you and I traveled to the border a few
months ago and I greatly appreciated your invitation and
willingness to do so. I saw all of this firsthand and the
crossings have only increased since our visit and yet the
Administration continues to insist that the border is secure.
The facts on the ground that I just described apparently
are not viewed as a security or law enforcement challenge but a
more logistical challenge in processing migrants who arrive
with no legal claim to enter the United States. Additionally,
ICE apprehensions and deportations have plummeted and more
criminal aliens are on the streets as a result.
In light of these challenges, the Administration's fiscal
year 2022 discretionary request for the department is highly
concerning. Despite every other agency receiving substantial
increases in funding, the Department of Homeland Security
stands alone as the only department held virtually flat from
last year. This is highly conspicuous thrift from an
Administration that has already enacted and proposed trillions
in new spending.
And even before we get to fiscal year 2022, we need to get
through this current year, this current fiscal year. In fiscal
year 2019, during a lesser surge at the border, the
Administration, and that was the Trump Administration, made a
supplemental request for funds and Congress responded by
providing an additional $1.3 billion to DHS.
This year, we have received no supplemental request from
the Administration, despite the fact that we know the border
surge like the one we're facing now is placing significant
strains on agency resources.
The department does have transfer and reprogramming
authorities, authorities that have been under attack in recent
years, but which I have defended when they are used
appropriately.
So we continue to await the department's plan for financing
the current surge. However, if we are facing costs comparable
to fiscal year 2019, I'm concerned that attempting to cover
such costs from within the department would stretch the
intended purpose of its transfer and reprogramming authorities
and inevitably strain the shared priorities of Congress and the
department.
Finally, I must address the border wall construction pause
which violates decades of budget law precedents put forward by
the GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). Vice Chairman
Shelby and I laid out in great detail the legal case against
this pause and while budget law may be arcane, the impact of
this impoundment on our Border Patrol agents and our country's
security I believe is very real.
Every Administration is certainly entitled to their new
priorities. It is not entitled to thwart laws that were enacted
in previous years on a bipartisan basis. It is not entitled to
under-execute on congressionally-appropriated funds in the
hopes it can eventually thwart them all together.
Despite all the noise, this committee has a history of
working in a bipartisan way to further the mission of the
department. When Administrations include unrealistic or
unjustifiable proposals, we work across the aisle to try to
move forward in a reasonable way. That's what this committee
does and I'm sure that's what we'll do again this year.
Thank you again, Mr. Secretary, for not just being here but
for serving.
Thank you.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Capito.
Following the Secretary's opening statement, each member is
going to be recognized for up to five minutes. We're going to
do it by seniority.
I would now recognize Secretary Mayorkas for your opening
statement.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS
Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Capito, Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.
Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to be here
today.
Thank you. Is that better? Quiet is one thing I've never
been accused of being, but I do want to express our thoughts
and prayers for the families and loved ones of the victims of
the mass shooting, Mr. Chairman, to which you referred in your
opening remarks, the tragedy that occurred in the Northern part
of the California earlier today.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is confronting
serious, complex, and dynamic threats to the security of our
Nation on a daily basis.
Under the Biden-Harris Administration, we aggressively are
pursuing efforts to address our most pressing security
concerns, from cybersecurity to domestic violent extremism
(DVE) to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and
more. This is hard work but that is what the 240,000 colleagues
in the Department of Homeland Security do every day. Their
dedicated efforts keep our communities safe and secure, and the
resources afforded by this Congress help to ensure that we can
meet our mission effectively and recruit and retain our
Nation's most talented professionals.
The President's proposed budget will invest in our broad
mission set, including preventing terrorism, securing and
managing our borders, repairing the broken immigration system,
safeguarding cyber and critical infrastructure, and
strengthening national preparedness and resilience. It will
provide DHS with the resources that we need to keep our country
safe, strong, and prosperous.
While I am unable to address specific details of the
President's budget until it is released officially later this
week, I welcome this opportunity to discuss several key agency
priorities for fiscal year 2022 laid out in the President's
$52.2 billion discretionary budget for DHS.
This request includes approximately $1.2 billion for border
infrastructure improvements to fund modernization of our land
ports of entry and border security technology and to ensure the
safe and humane treatment of migrants in U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) custody.
It also would support our enhanced efforts to combat the
smuggling and trafficking of people, illicit drugs, and weapons
while providing for more efficient travel, trade, and commerce.
We are working tirelessly to rebuild our immigration system
into one that upholds our nation's laws and is fair, equitable,
and reflects our values. To achieve this, the fiscal year 2022
President's Budget includes $345 million for U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS) to address naturalization,
asylum, and other program backlogs. The budget submission also
supports up to 125,000 refugee admissions in fiscal year 2022.
To meet the President's bold vision for combating climate
change, the discretionary budget includes an additional
investment of $540 million above the fiscal year 2021-enacted
level to increase resilience efforts and to enhance pre-
disaster planning.
It will support resiliency in infrastructure, particularly
for vulnerable and historically underserved communities, and it
would resource the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
with the ability to hire additional staff to prepare and
respond to the increasing number of emergencies and disasters
that our Nation has experienced.
In recent months, DHS has made it a top priority to address
violent extremism, which I believe to be the most lethal and
persistent terrorism-related threat to the United States today.
The fiscal year 2022 President's Budget includes $131
million to support innovative methods to prevent DVE while
respecting privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. It also
supports critical research of the root causes of
radicalization, enhanced community outreach, and funding for
locally-driven efforts.
Finally, in the face of increasing cyber threats, it is
critical that we promote resilience not only within the Federal
Government but across the public and private sectors and our
critical infrastructure systems. The recent ransomware attack
on Colonial Pipeline serves as a stark example of this ever-
present threat.
Our discretionary budget submission includes $2.1 billion
for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
(CISA), which leads DHS and interagency efforts to defend
against today's threats and build a more secure and resilient
future.
We will also further strengthen the cyber capabilities of
the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Coast
Guard, the U.S. Secret Service, and U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement's (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations.
The budget also proposes $618 million for needed
investments in research and development and innovation across
DHS, laying a strong foundation not just to respond to the
threats of today but to prepare for and defend against the
threats of tomorrow.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I am
grateful for your continued support for the dedicated public
servants of the Department of Homeland Security and for the
work they do each and every day. I look forward to discussing
the President's fiscal year 2022 Budget in greater detail when
officially released and I look forward to your questions. Thank
you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Alejandro N. Mayorkas
Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Capito, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee: It is a privilege to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of Homeland Security's fiscal year 2022 Budget.
On a daily basis, the more than 240,000 men and women of DHS
respond to our Nation's most serious threats. DHS employees rise to
every challenge, and the challenges are many. DHS is aggressively
pursuing the Administration's priorities and addressing some of the
most critical and evolving threats to the United States. We are
focusing on defeating the COVID-19 pandemic, advancing technology for
border security while promoting a humane and efficient immigration
system, combatting Domestic Violent Extremism (DVE), and detecting,
deterring, and recovering from malicious cyber-attacks. While I am
unable to address the details of the Budget until it is officially
released, I would like to highlight the work we have undertaken so far
at DHS under the Biden-Harris Administration, as well as the priorities
included in the fiscal year 2022 President's Budget.
responding to the covid-19 pandemic
COVID-19 has impacted every facet of the American way of life, and
DHS has been integral to the effort to successfully and equitably
distribute COVID-19 vaccinations across the country.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency helped vaccinate more than
5 million people at our community vaccination sites and remains
committed to assisting government and nonprofit partners to help defeat
this deadly pandemic. FEMA helped stand up over 1,000 federally-
supported community vaccination centers. FEMA has provided more than
$4.6 billion in support of vaccinations across the country.
As Secretary, I have no greater obligation than that of ensuring
the health and safety of our workforce, 80 percent of whom are
frontline or public-facing employees. Five days into the Biden-Harris
Administration, DHS launched Operation Vaccinate Our Workforce (VOW) to
accelerate the administration of COVID-19 vaccines on a voluntary basis
to frontline and public- facing DHS employees. On the first day of the
Biden-Harris Administration, less than 2 percent of our frontline
workforce who elected to receive the vaccine had been vaccinated.
Today, that share has grown to more than 77 percent. Prioritizing
the health and safety needs of the DHS workforce has enabled us to
fulfill our mission even in a constrained COVID-19 environment.
Operation VOW partnered with the Veterans Health Administration, a
world-class healthcare system, to get COVID-19 vaccines into the arms
of our frontline personnel.
Our public health and medical professionals from the Chief Medical
Officer's staff participated in the whole of government approach to
combat the pandemic by serving on the Federal Healthcare Resilience
Task Force, the Medical Countermeasures (MCM) Task Force, and deploying
as part of a tactical medical assistance team. These efforts resulted
in life-saving Personal Protective Equipment preservation best
practices, the accelerated development, manufacture, and availability
of COVID-19 MCMs, and the implementation of novel clinical and
operational interventions that saved lives in diverse communities
across the Nation.
addressing the challenges at the border
Since April 2020, the number of encounters at the border has been
rising due to ongoing violence, natural disasters, food insecurity, and
poverty in the Northern Triangle countries of Central America. This
resulted in a substantial strain on the processing, transportation, and
holding capacity of the U.S. Border Patrol. In response to the COVID-19
pandemic, the recommended temporary holding capacity within all Border
Patrol facilities had also been reduced by 75 percent to allow for
increased physical distancing and to reduce the further spread of the
disease. Compounding this challenge is the fact that the previous
administration dismantled our Nation's immigration system, terminated
the Central American Minors program, and cut hundreds of millions of
dollars in foreign aid to the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala,
El Salvador, and Honduras. As a result, the recent surge in
unaccompanied children presented a serious challenge for DHS and our
colleagues at the Department of Health and Human Services.
On March 13, I directed FEMA to support a government-wide effort to
safely receive, shelter, and transfer unaccompanied children to HHS
care and custody and onward to a verified sponsor. FEMA immediately
integrated and co-located with HHS to look at every available option to
support a quick expansion of HHS's physical capacity for the care and
custody of unaccompanied children, and to support HHS in managing
overall operations. FEMA has deployed more than 100 employees to help
HHS identify locations for emergency shelters, oversee construction,
and manage operations.
Additionally, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) has
trained and deployed more than 350 of its personnel to virtually
interview unaccompanied children and potential sponsors, in order to
provide case management for unaccompanied children in HHS custody at
Emergency Intake Sites (EIS). As of May 4, 2021, USCIS personnel have
conducted nearly 4,000 interviews and recommended more than 2,200
children for release to a sponsor. CBP also constructed additional
soft-sided facilities and stood up the interagency Movement
Coordination Cell (MCC) to bring together colleagues from FEMA, HHS,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and CBP to share a
common operating picture. More than 400 additional DHS volunteers
stepped up to help through the DHS Volunteer Force.
Between March 13 and May 1, FEMA assisted in the activation of
fourteen HHS EIS facilities. EIS facilities are operating in Texas,
California, and Michigan, increasing the potential temporary bed
capacity when fully staffed by 19,987 beds, or 1,999 percent.
This additional bed capacity, along with improvements in the
process of safely releasing unaccompanied children to sponsors, has
resulted in the reduction of the total number of unaccompanied children
in CBP custody from 5,767 at its peak on March 29th to 455 on May 11th.
During this same period, the number of unaccompanied children who have
been in custody longer than 72 hours has decreased from 4,078 at its
peak on March 29th to zero on the morning of May 11th, while average
time in custody for unaccompanied children has fallen from 133 hours on
March 29th to 22 hours on the morning of May 11th. This progress
occurred while CBP encountered 18,000 unaccompanied children in the
month of April. For the seven-day period ending May 10th, CBP
transferred an average of 422 unaccompanied children per day to ORR,
approximately two-thirds of CBP's total unaccompanied child population
on a given day and more than keeping pace with daily apprehensions.
stopping the threat of domestic violent extremism
As threats against the Nation evolve, it is critical that the
Department adapts quickly and efficiently when necessary to meet any
threat against the people of the United States. Domestic violent
extremism is typically fueled by false narratives, conspiracy theories,
and extremist rhetoric usually spread through social media and other
online platforms. The lethality of this threat is all too real, as
witnessed during the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 and
recent attacks across the United States, including against government
buildings, personnel, and minority groups. DHS is prioritizing
addressing this threat while improving the quality of our intelligence
gathering and analysis, information sharing, and DVE detection,
prevention, and response efforts.
Combatting this violence requires a whole-of-government and whole-
of-society approach, which I have already initiated at DHS in
collaboration with key partners, including the Department of Justice,
to help ensure the violence and assault on democracy that occurred on
January 6th does not occur again. DHS has established a new, dedicated
domestic terrorism branch within the Department's Office of
Intelligence and Analysis, and recently established a new Center for
Prevention Programs and Partnerships, replacing the Office for Targeted
Violence and Terrorism Prevention. Further, DHS is increasing training
opportunities for law enforcement partners, including through threat
assessment and management programs related to domestic violent
extremism. DHS also announced an internal review of the potential
threat of DVE within the Department.
In February, I designated, for the first time, combatting domestic
violent extremism as a ``National Priority Area'' for the fiscal year
2021 State Homeland Security Program and Urban Area Security Initiative
grant programs. As a result, state, local, tribal, and territorial
governments are required to spend 7.5 percent of their DHS grant awards
combating this threat. On March 24, the Department made $20 million
available through the Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Grant
Program to help communities across our country develop innovative
capabilities to combat terrorism and targeted violence.
bolstering cybersecurity and critical infrastructure
Our Nation faces constant cyber threats from nation states and
criminal groups alike. Earlier this month, the United States suffered a
significant ransomware attack against its critical infrastructure. Over
the past months, we discovered several intrusion campaigns impacting
the Federal government. As the Nation's lead agency for protecting the
Federal civilian government network and critical infrastructure against
cybersecurity threats, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
Agency (CISA) serves a central role by enabling greater visibility into
cybersecurity threats, strengthening incident response capabilities,
and driving improvements in security practices. Congress recently
empowered and further strengthened CISA through several provisions in
the National Defense Authorization Act that the Department is now
focused on implementing.
On May 12, President Biden issued an Executive Order to bolster our
Nation's cybersecurity and protect Federal government networks. This
Order will empower DHS and our interagency partners to modernize
Federal cybersecurity, expand information sharing, and dramatically
improve our ability to prevent, detect, assess, and remediate cyber
incidents. We are actively working to implement the Executive Order to
help agencies improve their security posture, develop a standard
playbook for incident response, and establish a Cyber Safety Review
Board comprised of public and private sector stakeholders.
In addition to the NDAA and the Executive Order, I announced a
series of 60-day ``sprints'' to mobilize action across the Department
focusing on specific priority areas. The first sprint is dedicated to
the fight against ransomware, a particularly egregious type of
malicious cyber activity that usually does not discriminate whom it
targets. The second is dedicated to building a more robust and diverse
workforce at the Department and beyond. We are currently in the midst
of advancing these sprints before we will turn to better protecting
industrial control systems, cybersecurity in the context of our
transportation systems, and our election infrastructure.
funding priorities for fiscal year 2022
As the Department supports the priorities of the new
Administration, we recognize the opportunities to partner with Congress
in a variety of efforts, both foreign and domestic, to take DHS into
the future. Focusing on advanced technology for border security,
promoting an orderly, safe, and humane immigration system, enhancing
privacy and civil rights protections, and supporting Federal, State,
local, and private entities' efforts to detect, deter, and recover from
malicious cyber-attacks, these priorities directly impact the security
and safety of Americans. The fiscal year 2022 President's Budget will
ensure that we have the tools we need to meet our mission.
While I am unable to address the specific DHS items for the fiscal
year 2022 President's Budget, I would like to highlight the
Administration's priorities that were included in the recent
discretionary request. The President's fiscal year 2022 discretionary
request provides $52.2 billion for DHS, approximately equal to the
fiscal year 2021 enacted level.
The discretionary request provides approximately $1.2 billion for
border infrastructure that includes construction and modernization of
land Ports of Entry; investments in modern border security technology
and assets; and, efforts to ensure the safe, orderly, and humane
treatment of migrants in CBP custody. These investments would
facilitate security screening to combat human smuggling and
trafficking, the movement of illicit drugs and weapons, as well as
provide for the more efficient processing of legal trade, travel, and
commerce through the Nation's Ports of Entry. In addition, the request
includes no new funding for border wall construction and proposes the
cancellation of prior-year wall construction balances that are
unobligated when Congress takes action on the fiscal year 2022 request.
The fiscal year 2022 request supports the promise of a fair and
equitable immigration system that enforces our immigration laws and
reflects the Nation's values. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
identified $345 million in the discretionary request to address
naturalization, asylum, and other program backlogs, supporting up to
125,000 refugee admissions in 2022, and addressing systems and
operations modernization. In addition, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement will expand access to the Alternatives to Detention program
and provides enhanced case management services, particularly for
families seeking asylum.
Along with the ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
discretionary request expands DHS's work with State and local
communities to prepare for the impacts of climate change. The
discretionary request invests an additional $540 million above the 2021
enacted level to incorporate climate impacts into pre-disaster planning
and resilience efforts. This funding level also supports a resilient
infrastructure community grant program, which prioritizes climate
resilience projects for vulnerable and historically underserved
communities. In addition, the discretionary request continues
investments in the incident response workforce to ensure sufficient
personnel are trained and available for deployment to help communities
respond to future disasters. The discretionary request would also
increase the number of FEMA staff equipped to support communities in
order to prepare and respond to disasters in an equitable manner.
The discretionary request provides a total of $131 million to
support diverse, innovative, and community-driven methods to prevent
domestic terrorism while respecting privacy, civil rights, and civil
liberties. This funding builds on the 2021 enacted level, while
supporting critical research on the root causes of radicalization and
enhanced community outreach. The request includes $20 million for
grants to build local capacity to prevent targeted violence and all
forms of terrorism, in addition to approximately $75 million available
under the FEMA Homeland Security Grant Program.
The discretionary request addresses, in a variety of ways, the
challenges and potential threats identified by recent cybersecurity
incidents. The discretionary request provides $2.1 billion for CISA,
which builds on the $650 million provided for CISA in the American
Rescue Plan Act of 2021. This funding would allow CISA to enhance its
cybersecurity tools, hire highly qualified experts, and obtain support
services to protect and defend Federal information technology systems.
The discretionary request also proposes $618 million for investments in
research, development, and innovation across the Department, to lay a
strong and relevant foundation for securing the American public from
future threats. These projects focus on climate resilience,
cybersecurity data analytics, and transportation security technologies
while building on existing infrastructure throughout the Department.
I am honored to support and represent the dedicated DHS workforce.
Their commitment to the dynamic homeland security mission is
unwavering, and I vow to do everything in my authority as Secretary to
ensure they are resourced, compensated, and recognized appropriately.
Therefore, I ask for your continued support in providing the resources
we need to meet our mission.
I look forward to discussing the fiscal year 2022 President's
Budget in greater detail when it is officially released, and I welcome
any questions that you have at this time.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Thank
you for appearing before us today. I know it's been a long day
having testified before the House, as well. So we'll get right
to it.
IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT
I wanted to first ask you a question about enforcement of
immigration laws, especially in light of a curiously timed
article in the Washington Post from last evening. We handed you
a mess and, frankly, we've handed every recent Secretary a mess
by refusing to update our immigration laws, despite having
opportunities to do so, and so you have to make choices when it
comes to enforcement.
During the Trump Administration, I just couldn't believe
the choices that were being made. I couldn't believe the choice
to, you know, round up mothers with medically-fragile children,
separate them from their kids to send them back home. That
didn't seem to make America any stronger.
You and the President have announced some interim guidance
around enforcement in order to make sure that we are in fact
going after the individuals who are here without documentation
that pose a real danger to the country.
There was this article last night in the Washington Post
that suggested something very different and I wanted to give
you a chance to, you know, both characterize the way in which
you are currently choosing to prioritize enforcement of
immigration laws and let you respond to that article.
Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Our objective, in fact our commitment, is a safe, orderly,
and humane immigration system, and when it comes specifically
to the enforcement realm of the immigration system, we intend
to be smart and effective.
I worked for 12 years as a Federal prosecutor and what we
did with limited resources was to assess the threat landscape,
the criminal landscape, and decide what was the most efficient
and effective way of using those resources to have the greatest
public safety impact and that model is no different in the
civil immigration enforcement arena.
We are provided with resources. We assess the issue in the
United States, and we decide how can we use these resources to
have the greatest public safety impact, recognizing that we are
working on a landscape of a completely broken immigration
system that everyone agrees is broken and that is in dire need
of a legislative solution. On that landscape and with those
resources, we will be smart and effective and we also will be
humane.
Senator Murphy. The characterization in the Post that
you're only doing a handful of actions a month, is that backed
up by data you've seen?
Mr. Mayorkas. That data item in the article is something
with which I am completely unfamiliar.
Senator Murphy. Okay.
Mr. Mayorkas. I will say that smart and effective law
enforcement is not to be measured quantitatively. It is to be
measured qualitatively. Who poses the greatest public safety
threat and are we dedicating appropriately our limited
resources to apprehend and remove those individuals, and indeed
this Administration is.
BORDER APPREHENSION NUMBERS
Senator Murphy. I'm going to try to sneak in two other
topics before my time is up.
First, I want to talk about numbers of apprehensions at the
border. These numbers are very high and as we discussed that's
for a variety of reasons, but when you ban adult males from
being--adult single individuals from being able to apply for
asylum, those that have legitimate claims of asylum, meaning
their life is in jeopardy if they go home, are going to do
whatever is necessary to get into the United States, and so my
sense is that one of the reasons that these numbers are high is
that you have individuals who are making multiple presentations
at the border, people who can't apply for asylum, who are
desperate to get into the United States because of the risks to
their body and to their physical safety back home.
Recidivism is a consequence of a Title 42 authority that
doesn't allow a lion's share of individuals presenting at the
border to apply for asylum, is that right?
Mr. Mayorkas. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Murphy. I just think that's an important thing for
our committee to consider.
FEMA MITIGATION FUNDS
Turning now to another topic, I wanted to give you a chance
to talk a little bit about FEMA mitigation. I think it's so
important to be able to shift our spending away from disaster
response to prevention.
My state has a laundry list of projects along our shoreline
that not only houses a big portion of our population but
Interstate 95, the Metro North, and Amtrak line, in which, if
we spent a little bit of money upfront, we could prevent the
next disaster from taking out critical infrastructure, from
displacing many of our citizens.
The last round of BRIC funding, there was $500 million
available but $3.6 billion worth of projects. So you've made an
announcement that $1 billion is going to be allocated. That's
in your current authority.
Do you envision adding on to that number in the budget
request that you're going to make? How did you arrive at the
number $1 billion? It seems like even that is probably not a
big enough investment to be able to provide the return that we
know is available if we put money upfront rather than at the
back end.
Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, the underlying premise of the
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)
funding is the following that if we can spend a dollar on
prevention, we will save much more on the costs of recovery,
and what we decided in reaching that $1 billion amount was that
it's a very significant increase. It's a doubling of the prior
allocation of resources, is how much we can increase that
amount while also achieving the operational efficiencies that
an increase will require.
Programmatically, what can we do, how much can we do at one
point in time, and that is how we reached the doubling of that
figure. It's an extraordinary program and I echo your belief
that dollars spent on prevention is the most effective and
efficient way to spend public resources in addressing the clear
consequences of significant disaster weather events.
Senator Murphy. I'll make one final request and then turn
it over to others.
One of the issues that gets raised in my state on that
account is the belief that given the high level of competition,
it's bigger jurisdictions with larger grant application
authorities that get advantage, and so as we increase the
amount of money, which I think is critical, I hope that you'll
also work with those of us that represent a lot of small
communities and most of our towns along the shoreline in
Connecticut are small communities to make sure that they are
competitive with some of the bigger cities and counties and
state applications that come before the agency.
Mr. Mayorkas. We most certainly will, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I agree with
you on the smaller cities. Obviously a state like mine has all
small cities and towns but have just as devastating effects
sometimes.
I will say this on the resilience issue as we're looking to
negotiate a larger infrastructure package. The President has
asked for resiliency in fairly large amounts. I think it's
interesting to note that under FEMA, it's another $1 billion.
So it'll cut across all different aspects of not just
transportation sector but other aspects, as well. I'm just kind
of making a note of that as I decide what direction to go with
my next offer on that.
BORDER APPREHENSION NUMBERS
Question. You said the facts in the newspaper article were
not--the data was not--it was--you don't know what that data
was. So the data that I just saw from the article was that
there's fewer than 3,000 arrests and that means that of the
6,000 officers, they're extrapolating that that would be one
arrest every 2 months.
What part of the data is incorrect there, that doesn't look
familiar to you?
Mr. Mayorkas. Ranking Member Capito, I am not familiar with
the data that suggests that the ICE officer, the relevant ICE
officer conducts one arrest every 2 months.
Senator Capito. So you don't dispute that there are 3,000
arrests and 6,000 officers?
Mr. Mayorkas. I don't have the data at my fingertips, but I
will provide it to this committee.
[The information follows:]
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) is a large
organization that performs a variety of missions spanning the
immigration enforcement continuum--from identification and arrest, to
detention and case management, to repatriation efforts. As a result,
ICE's Deportation Officer (DO) workforce is responsible for much more
than just executing arrests.
The ICE ERO DO workforce currently has 6,500 funded positions,
approximately 2,000 of which are primarily focused on conducting
arrests. ICE ERO has more than 830 DOs assigned to 139 at-large teams
who work as a group to identify, locate, and arrest priority
noncitizens. In addition to the at-large teams, there are also 1,150
officers assigned to interview noncitizens identified in Federal,
state, or local criminal custody and to assess the case for immigration
enforcement action when appropriate.
Senator Capito. Okay.
Mr. Mayorkas. I will say that the preliminary data that I
have received does suggest that we are apprehending more
serious criminals, more serious public safety threats than
previously was the case.
Senator Capito. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayorkas. That is what smart and effective enforcement
is all about.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
TITLE 42 AUTHORITY
I want to go to the future of Title 42 because I think this
is coming up on us quickly. I think the Chairman noticed this.
You are now able to quickly expel 60 percent of all family
units and single adults suing the CBP's Title 42 authority, and
I support the use of that for right now, but we know there are
test cases in the courts and others, and you and I've talked
about this.
When CBP loses that Title 42 authority, how are you going
to manage what could be about 6,000--well, what is now 6,000
migrants a day when you can no longer expel 60 percent of them?
Mr. Mayorkas. Ranking Member Capito, the Title 42
authority, the predicate for this exchange is that the Title 42
authority is a public health authority, not an immigration
policy authority.
Senator Capito. Right, right.
Mr. Mayorkas. And so, when the public health imperative no
longer exists, we no longer can use that authority.
Senator Capito. Yes.
Mr. Mayorkas. In fact, our use of Title 42 authority is
subject to litigation challenge as we speak.
We have different resources and different authorities at
our disposal. One of them, of course, is Title 8 of the United
States Code, which is in fact an immigration enforcement
authority, the authority to remove individuals who do not have
legitimate claims for relief under United States law.
I should say one important thing and that is that not only
are we building back our asylum program but we are building it
back better. In that regard, when I first joined the Department
of Homeland Security back in 2009, the average length of time
it took to adjudicate an asylum claim from the point of
apprehension to the point of final resolution was about 6 years
and that reflects a broken system.
So one of the things that we are doing is looking at our
regulatory authorities and what we can do to bring greater
efficiency to the process and shrink that time considerably
between apprehension and final adjudication so that, number 1,
we have a system that works, and, number 2, quite frankly, we
deliver results that both the applicants for asylum relief
deserve and the American public deserves.
Senator Capito. Well, and, I mean, certainly you're
anticipating us--I mean, the Chairman even alluded to a surge
when this Title 42 disappears, and I'm wondering along with the
surge for the CBP, there's also going to be a surge for ICE,
and I'm wondering, you know, are you planning ahead for these
kinds of things that you know are going to happen, and what
kind of strategic thought is going into that?
Mr. Mayorkas. We are most certainly planning for it and, as
a matter of fact, when my testimony concludes this afternoon, I
have a meeting on this very subject with CBP, with ICE, and
with the USCIS.
It is our responsibility to plan ahead. That's what we do
every single day and every single year that I have been
privileged to serve in the Department.
Senator Capito. Well, I'm not sure we're quite planned
ahead for the number of children that came over when we saw
those lengthy stays and more maxed facilities kind of maxed out
beyond what their capacity was, but I'll let that one go.
I have one last question in this round related to this. Do
you have knowledge of tent cities that have been set up on the
northern border of Mexico, and I'm assuming those are set up--I
think those are set up for the adults that are awaiting for
this Title 42 authority to go home to do that surge. Are you
aware of that kind of scenario occurring in Mexico right now?
Mr. Mayorkas. Ranking Member Capito, I am very well aware
of Camp Matamoros. It was quite notorious for regrettable
reasons, for the conditions in that camp. It was a product of
the Remain in Mexico policy.
We developed a platform for the safe, orderly, and humane
adjudication of the claims of individuals who were in that camp
and those individuals are no longer in that camp. The platform
that we developed is actually a platform for the future, a
really terrific innovative use of technology to provide a legal
pathway for individuals who have claims for relief under United
States law.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Murphy. Senator Murkowski.
H2B VISA ALLOCATIONS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you, and I'm going to move from
the southern border and head up north here for a couple
questions for you.
You and I have had an opportunity to talk about the
significance of Alaska's fisheries, the fact that about 60
percent of our nation's seafood landings come out of Alaska. We
got a lot of fish, but we don't have a lot of workers, and so
we have been challenged year over year as it relates to gaining
adequate workers. We rely on the H2B visa allocations to help
us meet that. Without adequate processing, the fishermen have
no place to take their fish and not only does it impact the
fishermen and their families but the market that is waiting.
You kept your promise and delivered in advance of a
significant date, which I appreciate, as it related to lifting
the cap. I've had a conversation with you about some of the
limitations of that cap and how it does not directly meet the
immediacy of our issue right now, the need for some additional
flexibility with regard to those visas.
It's been very significant that there is a carve-out for
Northern Triangle countries but again recognizing that we've
got some limitations here in ability to get returning workers,
I had asked if you could look further into whether or not we
might be able to do something for the balance of this summer
but also more to the long term.
This is an issue that is certainly not unique to Alaska but
knowing that we need to be working with one another to address
the authorities under H2B or H2As to prioritize and address
these visa issues as they relate to our seafood processors.
Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you very much, Senator.
Since you and I last spoke, I have delved into the concerns
that you expressed on behalf of employers in the Alaskan
fisheries industry. It is my plan to engage with those
employers next week to hear directly from them with respect to
their concerns, particularly with respect to the obligation to
use returning workers and I want to make sure that they
understand the parameters of that and how broad they are and to
assess whether once we discuss that, whether that really
addresses their concerns and their needs. If not, we will
confer internally and will take it step by step.
With respect to the long-term issues with the H2B program,
I am very well aware of those and I hope that we can design and
implement next year a very different H2B program that addresses
the majority of the concerns with respect to whatever
legislative constraints we have.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we'll work with you on that. With
regard to this summer, though, I will actually be up in the
region next week. I know there is a great deal of anxiety
because the fish don't really care what we're doing back here
in Washington and what our timeline is and so being able to
process these very, very quickly, we were able to work through
some issues with the Serbian Consulate and that has really been
a bit of a relief, but we've got some issues that are urgent
and immediate.
So as soon as you can, put some folks to address this. It
is appreciated.
POLAR SECURITY CUTTERS
Let me ask for my second question for a little bit of an
update here when it comes to Polar Security Cutters. This
subcommittee has been very helpful over recent years with
regards to the PSC Program to ensure that as an Arctic nation,
we actually have vessels in the water that can go through ice,
Polar Security Cutters.
Last year there was some discussion about leasing
icebreakers. We've had a conversation. I suppose leasing but
only, only if it doesn't compromise the Coast Guard's ability
to eventually build up and plus-up their fleet of Arctic-
capable icebreakers.
So I know we're not talking about the not-yet-released
budget, but can you tell me how the Administration plans to
continue this positive momentum on the Polar Security Cutters
and commit to prioritizing the PSC Program and that no funds
will be reprogrammed from the PSC Program to fund a lease?
Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, we are 100 percent committed to
augmenting the Coast Guard fleet. We recognize the importance
of those cutters. We do not intend to compromise the funding of
those cutters, and we will lease to the extent that we can and
only as a bridge during that time that we do not have built and
owned vessels. It will not be at the expense of that.
Senator Murkowski. Good. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman.
Senator Capito. Yes. Senator Hoeven.
BORDER APPREHENSIONS AND RETURNS
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, of the 170,622 persons that attempted to
enter or did enter the United States on the southern border in
April, how many are here and how many were returned to their
home countries?
Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, I will have to get that data to you.
I don't have the numbers at my disposal, but I certainly will
provide the data to you.
[The information follows:]
During April and May of 2021, along the Southwest Border, more than
39,000 individuals were processed with a Warrant/Notice to Appear
(NTA)--Detained, and more than 33,000 individuals were processed with
an NTA--Released. During the same time period, nearly 19,000
individuals were processed with a Notice to Report. Along with those
NTAs, during April 2021, along the Southwest Border, more than 12,000
individuals were processed with a disposition for release that did not
include an NTA. The remainder appear to have been expelled, removed, or
returned, including approximately 61,000 Mexican nationals during April
2021.
ICE is able to report if individuals released by CBP at the border
are abiding by the reporting requirements once those individuals report
to ICE Field Offices located in the jurisdiction of their final
destination.
Depending on where a case may be within the removal process (pre-
or post-final order), ICE will make reasonable attempts to make contact
using many different methods, including contacting known relations or
contacts provided by the individual during processing, tracking the
noncitizen if being monitored via technology, making contact at the
last known address, running database checks to locate, or when
appropriate, referring to an at-large team to apprehend.
I can assure you that individuals who are apprehended and
processed and whom we are not able to expel under Title 42
authority in this current environment are placed into
immigration proceedings.
Senator Hoeven. You mentioned Camp Matamoros and that you
had a platform for addressing those individuals.
Where are those individuals while they're awaiting
adjudication? Where are they?
Mr. Mayorkas. Individuals, Senator, who have made claims
for humanitarian relief under the laws of the United States are
awaiting the adjudication of those claims in the United States.
Senator Hoeven. Right. But that adjudication, that court
hearing date can be out as much as 3 years right now, correct?
Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, that has been the case for years and
years--
Senator Hoeven. You understand--
Mr. Mayorkas [continuing]. and if I may, this
Administration for the first time is actually tackling that
infirmity of process and working to shorten that timeframe for
the delivery of justice for the American public and the
individuals who make claims for humanitarian relief.
Senator Hoeven. Good to hear that you're shortening the
timeframe. What is that timeframe right now because my
indication, or what I have heard down at the border, is that it
is still about a three-year time.
Mr. Mayorkas. It varies considerably, but we are doing a
number of different things to shorten that timeframe as quickly
as possible.
One, we are looking at our regulatory authority and how we
can process asylum claims more effectively. Two, the Department
of Justice is looking at the immigration courts and how we can
use that resource to deliver final results more expeditiously
and efficiently.
Senator Hoeven. And where are the individuals while they're
awaiting that adjudication?
Mr. Mayorkas. They are in the United States of America.
Senator Hoeven. Are they released into the public at large
or how do you track and know where they are so that you can
make sure they go through the adjudication process?
Mr. Mayorkas. Those individuals are in immigration
proceedings. They are subject to an NTA. They have a court date
that identifies a location, a time, and a place, and there are
individualized determinations whether those individuals should
in fact be on alternatives to detention or whether by reason of
what they present from a public safety perspective or risk of
flight, whether they should be detained.
Senator Hoeven. Do you have statistics on how many are
appearing?
Mr. Mayorkas. The appearance rate thus far in terms of
appearing at an ICE facility to report has been very, very
high, and I would be pleased to provide you with data.
[The information follows:]
Of the 45,390 CBP prosecutorial discretion releases in the third
quarter of fiscal year 2021, 5,129 had been issued charging documents
as of 07/09/2021. Given case processing times, the vast majority of
individuals are still pending their first scheduled immigration
hearing. ICE respectfully defers to the Executive Office for
Immigration Review for information pertaining to immigration court
appearance rates.
Of the above, 39,718 have not established contact with ICE to
receive a charging document, and 5,672 have made contact with ICE to
further the charging document issuance process. Of those individuals
who have not contacted ICE, 24,791 are within their 60-day reporting
period while 14,927 are past the 60-day reporting period.
Senator Hoeven. I'd appreciate that. If you could provide,
in addition to what I asked initially is how many have been
returned to their country of origin versus how many stay of the
more than 178,000 came in April, but then also if you do have
expedited procedures, if you could provide me metrics on how
many of those people you actually have track of and appear,
that would be helpful, too.
I mean, this goes to the whole question of do we have
control of our southern border, showing us those metrics is
going to be very important.
As you know, we see people coming across. I've been down
there, and I think for the public to believe that you have
control of that border they're going to have to see those
metrics. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, metrics are very important. Data is
very important, which is why I'm not exactly sure of the
178,000 figure that you cite.
BORDER APPREHENSION METRICS
Senator Hoeven. Well--
Mr. Mayorkas. Is that 178,000 apprehensions?
Senator Hoeven [continuing]. 178,622 persons attempted to
enter the United States via the southwest border in April of
2020.
Mr. Mayorkas. I think are you speaking of apprehensions
because apprehensions at the southern border also can include
recidivism.
Senator Hoeven. Should be 2021. I'm sorry.
Mr. Mayorkas. Also could include the recidivism to which
the Chairman referenced earlier. So those may not be unique
individuals and that may actually--if we're speaking of
apprehensions, may also include the individuals who are
expelled under Title 42 of the United States Code, which is the
public health authority.
Senator Hoeven. Where I'm really going with this is showing
that you have control of the southern border both in terms of
your plan and your metrics so we can see if it is working. If
it is not working, where are we making progress and where are
we not.
Mr. Mayorkas. We will share that data.
Senator Hoeven. That's really what I'm looking for from
you.
Mr. Mayorkas. Most certainly, Senator, you have a right to
that data and we will provide it to you.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Appreciate
it.
Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--Madam Chairman.
BORDER SECURITY FUNDING
Senator Capito. Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank
you for being here and your willingness to participate in this
hearing.
Mr. Secretary, as you are well aware of in combination with
good policy, funding is a critical pillar in providing agents
at the southern border with the tools that they need to do
their job, and I, too, have been there and talked to many of
the Border Patrol agents.
They're required to enforce our Federal immigration and
border security laws and despite the predictable surge of
dangerous illegal crossings likely resulting from maybe
campaign rhetoric and softened immigration policies, we have
also seen reports of a lot of cost increases which is
consistent with many of the Biden Administration's priorities
in its brief 5 months.
Mr. Secretary, what commitments will you give us that any
funding allocated to your department for border security and
immigration enforcement will be used on proven and logical
solutions to resecure our borders and discourage this dangerous
influx of migrants?
Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, you have a hundred percent
commitment from me that the funding we will receive and are
privileged to receive will be used in the smartest and most
effective way for securing our border and enforcing the
immigration laws of this country.
U.S. COAST GUARD FUNDING
Senator Hyde-Smith. And a follow-up to that. With the
agencies under your purview stretched thin while combating the
border security crisis, I am concerned the other areas of focus
may not receive the attention or resources necessary to safely
complete missions and day-to-day operations.
I'm sure we can agree on the strategic value of the United
States Coast Guard and the importance of funding for vessels,
aircraft, and equipment required for these men and women to
carry out their domestic missions, such as drug interdiction,
migrant apprehension, and with all the additional contraband
that we are seeing come across the border daily, do you agree
that we should not draw resources away from the Coast Guard
which is a vital partner in the homeland security mission to
pay for the unplanned and rising cost of the crisis at the
southern border?
Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, I respectfully disagree with the
framing of the question, if I may.
I have worked with the Coast Guard for many, many years,
and I have addressed the challenges at the border for even more
years, from 1989 through 2001 as a Federal prosecutor.
The Coast Guard and other agencies within the Department of
Homeland Security have a complex and varied and dynamic mission
set, and we can accomplish different parts of that dynamic and
complex mission set effectively.
We can in fact interdict drugs, interdict migrants at sea
as the Coast Guard so effectively and nobly does, and address
other challenges, as well.
The United States Border Patrol conducts the interdiction
of contraband, the interdiction of illicit drugs, the
interdiction of migrants through the use of innovation, through
the use of, frankly, the men and women of the Border Patrol
themselves.
We do varied and multiple things simultaneously and we will
continue to do so effectively and smartly and use our resources
appropriately.
Senator Hyde-Smith. I'm just very concerned with the Coast
Guard and their funds being drawn away from that and it's very
concerning to me because they do play such a vital role. So you
can't commit to me that you would not pull away funding from
the Coast Guard to accomplish this to address the rising cost?
Mr. Mayorkas. I commit to you that the funding that the
Coast Guard receives will be used by the United States Coast
Guard to most effectively conduct and accomplish its varied
missions.
Senator Hyde-Smith. That's it. I'm just concerned that
that's going to be drawn upon and it's too important to be
taking that away.
Mr. Mayorkas. If I may, I don't agree with the premise that
we take resources from one mission set and deprive that mission
set of its attention to address another mission set.
What we have is a very dynamic and evolving landscape and
we address the urgencies that we confront as our mission
dictates, and I will not deprive the Coast Guard of addressing
the greatest urgency and the greatest priority as the mission
requires and that commitment I do make to you.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay. I'm out of time. I had one more
question but I'll just submit it.
Thank you.
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith.
Let me, before I turn it over to Senator Capito to ask a
second round of questions so she can vote, let me just
associate myself with the original remarks of the Ranking
Member on this question of the increased expenses necessary to
handle the numbers at the border.
I mean, obviously this is going to have to either come from
other parts of the budget or there's going to have to be a
supplemental made and I share the concern that if it's a
transfer request, there will have to be some difficult choices
to be made and I think having a dialogue now, Mr. Secretary,
between you and the committee about sort of what those
transfers might look like and what impact they may have.
I understand your commitment today that you're not going to
harm the mission of other agencies is a really important one. I
understand there may be some hesitancy to put a supplemental
request before the body because of the debate that that may
stir, but I think early dialogue on this will be really, really
important.
Senator Capito.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION SURGE FACTORS
Senator Capito. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting
me jump in front of you so I can go vote and if I don't see you
again, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I'll see you again, but if I
don't see you again today, thank you.
I wanted to ask a question about the push factors in home
countries as a cause for the current surge of illegal
immigration. In your testimony, you laid the blame on ongoing
violence, national disasters, food insecurity, and poverty in
the Northern Triangle.
However, I'm sure you're well aware that the spike in
individuals is not from Mexico or the Northern Triangle, and
according to CBP's monthly report, nearly 34,000 folks were
encountered that were not in either the Mexico or Northern
Triangle category.
So I'm wondering what your account for that, and we already
have sent $4 billion in foreign aid to the countries in Central
America, but what are we doing to address the rise in illegal
immigration from other countries? We met some of these young
ladies when we were together 2 months ago down there from
Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua, and other countries.
Mr. Mayorkas. Senator, Ranking Member Capito, it's a very
important question and the strategy depends sometimes on the
particular country of origin. Of course, we have seen illegal
immigration or irregular immigration from countries other than
the Northern Triangle, countries other than Mexico,
periodically throughout the years and throughout the decades.
Let me cite one example, and you reference it in your
question is an increase in the amount of migration, irregular
migration from Brazil, and the data that I have read suggests
that that has been occasioned by the economic conditions in
Brazil caused by the pandemic, the closing of businesses, and
the loss of jobs.
We have a particular strategy there that might be distinct
from a strategy that we employ with respect to the Northern
Triangle countries or, quite frankly, some of the European
countries from which we are seeing an increase in migration.
Regrettably, the COVID-19 pandemic has afflicted countries
all around the world and the migratory challenges
correspondingly, not just for the United States but for other
countries of destination.
CYBERSECURITY HIRING
Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you.
I want to ask a question on cybersecurity. This is
something that I'm very concerned about and I'm certain that
you are, as well. You unveiled Cybersecurity Talent Management
System was unveiled in 2019 to not only better align cyber
talent with the right operational needs but to also attract
cyber professionals that are badly needed.
I view these as critical to fill the gaps that are going to
be required. You talked about the ransomware issue. That's just
one small part of it. Believe it or not we have been talking
about this critical need since 2014 when the Cybersecurity
Talent Management System was first authorized.
When will the Cybersecurity Talent Management System go
live, and it's really taken--I know you haven't been there as
long, but it has really taken a long time for the cyber
professionals to be hired into Secret Service, ICE, CBP, CISA.
Where do you see this initiative going?
Mr. Mayorkas. We are going to have probably the greatest
hiring surge in the cybersecurity talent domain that ever has
occurred. Working with CISA within DHS, as well as our
Management Directorate, we have launched two cybersecurity
sprints.
One, of course, was dedicated to ransomware well before the
Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack, which galvanized public
attention and correctly so. Our second sprint is precisely on
this subject about which you inquire, which is cybersecurity
security talent recruiting.
I launched a partnership with the Girl Scouts of America.
One is never too young to start on a path to success to meet a
critical national need, and we have a whole plan that I welcome
the opportunity to share with you, Ranking Member Capito, about
our focus on recruitment and retention of cybersecurity talent,
including reforms to the pay scales, so that we can compete
better with the private sector.
Senator Capito. Well, I know that that is a big issue
because they're in great demand across all kinds of spectrum
and sometimes the government has difficulty--maybe the
government can train everybody so they can go out into the
private sector and make a whole heck of a lot more money. I
think that's an issue, as well.
So I look forward to following up with you on that, and
thank you again for being here today.
Mr. Mayorkas. Thank you.
REPROGRAMMING/TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It's been a long
day for you. A couple more questions.
I wanted to let Senator Capito fit in her questions before
she left, but if you could just respond to the issue I raised.
Again, I think it's a legitimate question as to how we're going
to make sure you have the sufficient funds to pay the increased
bills, as I mentioned in my opening statement, largely out of
control of the Administration, regarding increased numbers of
apprehensions and presentations at the border.
What factors go into your decision as to whether to
transfer money and make that request to this committee versus
come and ask for a supplemental appropriation?
Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, I think it is our
responsibility to look at the resources that we have to ensure
that we are using them wisely, most efficiently, and see what
we can do within the funding that we already have received
before we come back to Congress and ask for more.
We are assessing that now. I would anticipate that we will
indeed seek a reprogramming within the timeframe that we are
permitted, that we will be before you at the end of June.
That's something that we are assessing right now, and we're
very focused upon that, but I think we have an obligation to
look inside before we go outside.
BORDER WALL CONSTRUCTION
Senator Murphy. Let me ask you to talk a little bit about
Senator Capito's letter to you regarding the decision to
suspend construction of the border wall. It's no secret, I
think the border wall is a terrible idea, a waste of taxpayer
money, an invitation to continue to seed these illegitimate
fears of immigrants. It was the foundation of the President's
political endeavors.
But the part of the letter I agree with is that when
Congress does direct the Administration to spend money, the
Administration has a responsibility to spend that money unless
it goes through the processes necessary to apply for a
rescission.
What I've seen, though, is that the GAO in particular has
made some findings about the process used to build the border
wall that are pretty stunning. Most recently, GAO found that 10
of 11 congressional requirements connected to the construction
of the wall were not fully addressed, including, you know,
basic things like the implementation schedule and analysis of
alternatives or even identifying the things that might actually
impact whether it would actually impact our border security
goals.
And so as you're in this review process, have you
identified some of the failings that were noted in that GAO
report, and you also, I think, acknowledge Congress's equity
here, which is to, you know, make sure that notwithstanding our
personal opinions on the wisdom of the funding decision that
there is a responsibility for the Administration to either
spend it or come back to Congress and explain why they aren't?
Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, number 1, we're very well aware
of our legal responsibilities and we indeed are complying with
those legal responsibilities.
I'm also aware of the GAO report and its findings and we
are studying the work that was done and what we have underway
with respect to those findings and making sure that we do not
perpetuate any infirmities of the past.
Senator Murphy. Yeah. Again, pretty stunning list of
infirmities found by GAO, in addition to the fact that the last
Administration waived a whole host of Federal, state, and local
laws that would have required a much more thorough vetting of
construction activities. I would hope that the Administration
is taking a look at the impact of those broad-based waivers, as
well.
DOMESTIC VIOLENT EXTREMISM
My very last question is one regarding the future role of
DHS in domestic violent extremism and we covered this in the
Full Committee hearing, but I was struck by an article that I
hadn't read in anticipation of that hearing but did in readying
for this hearing. It was from back in February and it included
some cautions from the first DHS Secretary Tom Ridge and his
essential sort of warning was that DHS's mission is so big that
to sort of take on a new focus on domestic terrorism may
compromise other mission sets, noting that there are lots of
other parts of the Federal Government, the FBI at the top of
the list, that are already doing work in the space of domestic
terrorism.
This feels to me like an all hands on deck moment, given
that it is the primary threat posed to the nation's security
today, but in answering critics who may say DHS has so many
other things to do, so much existing focus on foreign threats,
does it compromise the mission or contradict or make redundant
other agencies' existing missions on domestic violent extremism
for DHS to get more involved in this space.
I'd love to hear your answer. I'm convinced that everybody
should be a part of this conversation. You've got capabilities
that are unique, but for those that worry that it'll detract
from other missions, what's the answer, and how is the
appropriation from Congress going to help make sure that it
doesn't compromise the other things you're doing?
Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Chairman, a few thoughts, if I may.
First of all, I think that in the homeland security arena,
the threats that we face are and have been and assuredly will
be dynamic and evolving and ever-changing, and my answer is as
follows.
One, we should never underestimate the commitment,
dedication, talent, and capabilities of the men and women of
DHS.
Two, what we need to do is to ensure that those talented
personnel have the tools that they need to address the threat
landscape and to address it with all its dynamism and changes
and evolution.
For example, to give a real-life example with budget
implications, I sat down with the Office of Intelligence and
Analysis and we looked at the fact that when I started in DHS,
the greatest threat, or I should say the most urgent threat,
was from foreign terrorist organizations. Then it evolved to
homegrown violent extremism and now it has evolved to where the
most urgent threat to the homeland in the terrorism environment
is DVE.
Do we have the tools that are capable to address that
dynamism? Do we have the infrastructure, and are we resourcing
it appropriately? One of the conclusions was that we actually
have to increase the technological capabilities at the disposal
of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis so that
infrastructure can address whatever the most urgent threat is,
and specific to DVE obtaining, collecting, and disseminating to
state, local, tribal, and territorial partners real-time
actionable information, while respecting privacy, civil rights,
and civil liberties.
We're actually dedicating the resources and we will be
requesting of this subcommittee resources to build that
infrastructure to deal most effectively with the dynamism and
evolving threat landscape.
Senator Murphy. I appreciate that answer. I think it's well
thought out. I look forward to working with you on that
appropriations request to make sure that there aren't
redundancies created with other agencies who have been in this
space.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing. We've had a busy
afternoon of votes on the Floor. I think it meant that a bunch
of our members haven't been able to appear.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Given the fact that the committee's not going to get the
actual detailed budget until later this week, I'm going to keep
the record open for questions for two weeks from today's date,
ask you and your staff to respond to specific questions that
may be brought to you once we have the full budget in front of
us.
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. The O and P visa process for artists visiting the United
States is critical to international cultural activity. What steps is
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services taking to make the O and P
artist visa process more reliable, and to comply with the 14-day
standard processing time required under statute?
Answer. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is
actively working to promote efficient and fair adjudication of
immigration benefits, in part through updating guidance in the USCIS
Policy Manual.\1\ Notably, USCIS recently issued policy guidance
instructing officers to give deference to prior determinations when
adjudicating extension requests involving the same parties and facts
(including those for O and P petitions, among others) unless there was
a material error, material change, or new material facts that adversely
impact eligibility. USCIS will continue to update and clarify the O-
and P-specific policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual, as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCIS recognizes the 14-day processing goal set forth in INA
214(c)(6)(D) and strives to quickly adjudicate all O and P petitions
while ensuring that the petitioner and beneficiary are eligible for the
benefit sought.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ INA 214(c)(6)(D) states: ``Any person or organization receiving
a copy of a petition described in subparagraph (A) and supporting
documents shall have no more than 15 days following the date of receipt
of such documents within which to submit a written advisory opinion or
comment or to provide a letter of no objection. Once the 15-day period
has expired and the petitioner has had an opportunity, where
appropriate, to supply rebuttal evidence, the Attorney General shall
adjudicate such petition in no more than 14 days. The Attorney General
may shorten any specified time period for emergency reasons if no
unreasonable burden would be thus imposed on any participant in the
process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The shared border between the United States and Canada
remains closed to nonessential travel. This closure has had a
significant impact on families, businesses, tourism and homeowners on
both sides of the border. Are there discussions underway to reopen the
border between the U.S. and Canada or to modify the current travel
restrictions, to meet both economic and public health needs? If so,
when does the Department plan on releasing the details for reopening or
modifying the travel restrictions?
Answer. The United States is maintaining current travel
restrictions due to the uncertainties around the Delta variant and the
rise in domestic cases, particularly among the unvaccinated. The United
States continues to consult with the Government of Canada on the
evolving public health situation. U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) provides up-to-date information via the CBP Information Center
website (https://help.cbp.gov) to keep the public informed of current
travel restrictions for entering the United States.
CBP is coordinating with the Canada Border Services Agency on land
border and preclearance operations related to Canada's decision to
allow fully vaccinated U.S. citizens and permanent residents to enter
Canada for discretionary purposes, as of August 9, 2021. Targeted
restrictions on non-essential travel at our shared land border have
helped the United States in its efforts to mitigate the spread of
COVID-19 while maintaining essential flows of critical supply chains,
cross-border trade, and travel.
Question. I am glad that President Biden recently lifted the
historically low refugee admissions cap set by the Trump administration
and raised the fiscal year 21 admissions cap to 62,500. However, much
work remains to be done in order for the United States to rebuild our
decimated U.S. refugee admissions program and resettle increased
numbers of refugees every year. The Department of Homeland Security
will play an instrumental role in that process. Please describe in
detail the steps that DHS is taking to work toward the Biden
administration's stated goal of resettling 62,500 refugees this year
and rebuilding the capacity of the U.S. refugee admissions program.
Answer. DHS, along with other U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
(USRAP) partners, is committed to rebuilding our refugee adjudication
capacity in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 14012, Restoring Faith
in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and
Inclusion Efforts for New Americans, and EO 14013, Rebuilding and
Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of
Climate Change on Migration. DHS is acutely aware of the work that is
necessary to rebuild the program and meet the revised refugee ceiling
of 62,500. USCIS, a component within DHS, is diligently working with
other partners to reinvigorate our refugee program and increase refugee
admissions.
In particular, USCIS has already taken several immediate actions to
rebuild the refugee program and increase refugee admissions in fiscal
year (FY) 2021. First, after the 11-month long agency-wide hiring
freeze ended this spring, USCIS began actively recruiting to fill all
currently vacant positions that support refugee processing.
Second, USCIS has implemented operational and policy changes to
support remote case processing during COVID-19. Since last summer,
USCIS has been conducting refugee applicant re-interviews via video-
teleconference (VTEL) and recently started conducting initial refugee
applicant interviews via VTEL, where possible. By May 26, 2021, USCIS
conducted 212 re-interviews and 53 initial interviews by VTEL. USCIS is
looking into expansion of this process efficiency to additional
interview locations to the extent feasible.
COVID-19 continues to challenge in-person processing. However,
USCIS has also resumed in-person international refugee processing
circuit rides on a smaller scale. Deployments are based on identified
USRAP processing priorities and are dependent on movement restrictions
issued by local governments due to COVID-19; post-by-post restrictions
issued by DOS; and the ability to safely conduct in-person interviews
while protecting the health of USCIS officers, Resettlement Support
Center staff, refugee applicants, and interpreters.
USCIS has conducted a detailed review of the cases of applicants
who have already had their USCIS refugee interview. USCIS is
prioritizing resources for cases that can be approved for resettlement
in the near term.
In addition to the process improvements outlined above, USCIS is
investing in a case management system that will allow for more
effective tracking of workloads and cases and will provide officers
with additional adjudicative tools. This system is expected to fully
deploy in fiscal year 2022 and will track data on production rates,
details on case outcomes, and other key metrics that will provide
leadership with the information they need to effectively manage future
resources.
Question. I strongly criticized the Trump administration's decision
to utilize Title 42 of the Public Health Safety Act to rapidly expel
large numbers of migrants in direct contravention of existing laws
protecting the right to apply for asylum. The Biden administration has
largely kept in place the Trump administration's Title 42 policy,
despite the fact that the public health rationale for it wanes as
COVID-19 cases hit record lows, nearly a third of Americans are
vaccinated, and millions more get vaccinated each day. What steps, if
any, is DHS taking to wind down expulsions pursuant to the Title 42 CDC
``Order Suspending Introduction of Certain Persons From Countries Where
a Communicable Disease Exists?'' If no steps are being taken to depart
from this Title 42 CDC order and policy, why not?
Answer. The Order Suspending Introduction of Certain Persons From
Countries Where a Communicable Disease Exists was issued by the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC). DHS's role is to assist the CDC with
implementation of its Order. As such, in consultation with the CDC, DHS
may make case-by-case determinations to except certain individuals. CBP
officers/agents may except individuals, with approval from a
supervisor, from the Order based on the totality of the circumstances,
including consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and
public safety, humanitarian, and public health interests. The CDC
recently issued an order confirming the exception of Unaccompanied
Children (UC) from its order.
To address the challenges along our southwest border, DHS has
leveraged the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) coordination
capabilities, activated our volunteer force of employees from across
DHS, and expanded processing capacity.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
h-2b visas
Question. The H-2B visa program is a critical tool for seasonal
employers that need foreign workers to fill temporary jobs when no
Americans are available. I hear frequently from small businesses in New
Hampshire that struggle to find workers during their busy season and
who rely on this program. I have been hearing from small businesses
across my state who are desperate for the release of additional H-2B
visas this year, and I appreciate the decision to provide 22,000
additional visas for fiscal year 2021. I am glad that those visas have
finally been made available and employers can now apply. But I'm
concerned that this number was too low to meet the need, and I am
further concerned that employers may not be able to receive these visas
in time to meet the demands of their busy season.
How did the Administration determine that 22,000 additional visas
was the appropriate number for this fiscal year?
Answer. The Secretary of Homeland Security acted in accordance with
section 105 of Division O of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021,
Public Law 116-260 (fiscal year 2021 Omnibus). Before authorizing the
additional visa numbers, the Secretary of DHS, in consultation with the
Secretary of Labor, considered the needs of businesses and other
factors, including the impact on the U.S. job market and potential
implications for U.S. workers, as well as the integrity of the H-2B
program. The determination to allow up to 22,000 additional H-2B visas
reflected a balancing of these factors.
Question. Given that the demand appears to exceed the allotted
visas, what steps does the Administration plan to take to remedy the
discrepancy?
Answer. The H-2B visa program is one among several employment-based
visa programs that are oversubscribed (i.e., the number of petitions
exceeds the number of available visas set by statute). For example, the
H-1B program is also oversubscribed, receiving far more petitions
annually than cap numbers available, resulting in the need to conduct a
registration and selection process to determine who can file a cap-
subject petition.\3\ DHS supports efforts by Congress to set annual
visa caps that adequately meet demands while addressing the impact on
the U.S. job market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Congress set the current annual regular H-1B cap at 65,000
visas, plus 20,000 under the advanced degree exemption. For fiscal year
2021, USCIS received 274,237 H-1B registrations and selected a total of
124,415 registrations projected as needed to reach the fiscal year cap.
For fiscal year 2022, USCIS received 308,613 H-1B registrations and
selected a total of 115,217 registrations projected as needed to reach
the fiscal year 2022 cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that Congress vests DHS with this authority, DHS will
consult with DOL to determine the number and parameters of any
additional H-2B visas to supplement the statutory annual cap.
Question. Given the time-sensitive nature of seasonal labor, how is
your agency working to ensure employers have the workers they need in
time for their busy season?
Answer. USCIS provides information about premium processing on its
website. For those who choose to use this service, USCIS will provide
an initial adjudicative action within 15 days. This service is widely
utilized by H-2B petitioners. Additionally, DHS is working closely with
interagency partners at the Department of Labor and Department of State
to facilitate processing for H-2B workers.
drug interdiction
Question. New Hampshire has been hit particularly hard by the
devastating opioid epidemic that has swept the nation. We must ensure
that the Federal government is doing everything possible to get
resources to those fighting the opioid epidemic and to stem the flow of
heroin, fentanyl and other deadly opioids into the country. In recent
years, Congress has provided significant increases in funding for
technologies to improve drug interdiction efforts at the border.
Please provide an overview on the Department's progress in
procuring and deploying new technologies at our Ports of Entry and
along the border capable of detecting and identifying illicit drugs
such as opioids and fentanyl?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has procured and
deployed advanced small-scale Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment
that efficiently and effectively identifies dangerous narcotics,
including fentanyl and other opioids. The ThermoFisher Gemini, with a
library of over 14,600 chemicals, enables CBP personnel to quickly,
confidently, and presumptively identify harmful substances with at
least a 10 percent concentration. The Gemini is deployed at CBP
locations worldwide.
To augment the bulk identification technology of the Gemini, CBP
rapidly deployed BTNX Inc. Rapid ResponseTM Fentanyl
Forensic Test Strips (``BTNX Test Strips''), which use the lateral flow
immunoassay test principle to identify fentanyl and fentanyl analogues
in liquid and powder substances. When used properly, BTNX Test Strips
can identify trace levels of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues at
concentrations as low as 20 ng/ml or .000002 percent. CBP's NII and
Laboratories and Scientific Services (LSS) directorates have deployed
BTNX Test Strips and training nationwide, with additional test strips
available upon request through LSS.
Additionally, CBP has worked with procurement, field locations, and
LSS to test and procure enhanced chemical identification capable of
identifying a wide range of chemicals at purity levels less than 1
percent. The MX908 is a high-pressure mass spectrometry (HPMS) device
that identifies a wide variety of chemicals at trace concentrations and
concentrations less than 1 percent.
CBP Operations Support/LSS also stood up Forward Operating
Laboratories (FOLs) at ports of entry to address smuggling of unknown
substances. LSS forensic scientists are permanently assigned to the
FOLs to work side-by-side with CBP frontline officers, providing on-
site, rapid scientific and technical services. Each FOL is resourced
with laboratory equipment for the analysis of unknown substances and
suspected controlled substances. At the height of the opioid crisis in
2018, when fentanyl and fentanyl analogues were smuggled into the
country through international mail, LSS stood up FOLs at the John F.
Kennedy International Mail Facility and Memphis Express Consignment
Courier Facility. As of June 2021, LSS operates 13 FOLs across the
nation, four of which are located along the Southwest land border. Over
the last 18 months, FOLs have analyzed over 23,000 suspected controlled
substances.
To support CBP's deployment of handheld detection technology, LSS
established the 24/7 Narcotics Reachback Center at the CBP National
Targeting Center. The Narcotics Reachback Center provides rapid
adjudication of data collected by CBP frontline offices and agents
using handheld analyzers to presumptively screen suspect substances.
Trained LSS scientists evaluate spectral information in real-time and
provide a presumptive identification of the unknown or suspect
substance to the submitting officer/agent within 30 minutes of
receiving a call. The Narcotics Reachback Center services CBP
nationwide and supports CBP operations where and when LSS is not on-
site.
In addition, CBP leverages license plate reader (LPR) data to
support frontline operations and investigations. LPR data has enabled
CBP to successfully link narcotics trafficking routes and identified
stash house locations as well as other law enforcement functions, such
as apprehending a child rape suspect and identify links as part of a
sex-trafficking investigation.
Question. Does the Department need any additional authorities from
Congress to improve illicit drug interdiction?
Answer. Improvements in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's
(CBP) capacity to interdict illicit drugs at the border is not a matter
of only authority but one of authority, capacity, and logistics. While
the Department can readily identify improvements in interdiction, the
Department must consider first whether CBP may implement such
improvements under its current authorities, whether CBP is able to
absorb the cost of such improvements within its current baseline, and
how such improvements could affect commerce. When the Department is
satisfied that improvements can be introduced within these constraints,
the Department will promote the improvements through the regular-order
budget and the legislative processes.
dhs procurement
Question. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated just how important it
is to ensure that our nation has a domestic supply chain for materials
and items that we may need during a national emergency. We shouldn't
rely on foreign sources to produce these critical items when we need
them the most. What is the Department doing to bolster the domestic
supply chain for items that we may need in the event of a national
emergency?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security, working with its
Components, is executing the requirements of Executive Orders 14001 ``A
Sustainable Public Health Supply Chain'' and 14017 ``America's Supply
Chains,'' which focus on strategies to bolster the domestic supply
chain for national emergencies. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) is working within its delegated Defense Production Act role, and
the Agency continues to engage with interagency partners that receive
funding for industrial expansion efforts, such as with the active
Department of Defense and the future Department of Health and Human
Services Title III programs. FEMA's statutory responsibilities do not
include bolstering the domestic supply chain for national emergencies,
and FEMA has no appropriation for such a purpose.
cybersecurity
Question. The President's budget includes $20 million for a new
Cyber Response and Recovery Fund.
Please provide an overview on how the Department would utilize this
fund to address cyber-attacks.
Answer. The concept of the Cyber Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF)
comes from the Cyberspace Solarium Commission's 2020 recommendations.
As proposed in the President's budget, the CRRF would allow
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) to support critical
infrastructure, including private entities and State, local, tribal,
and territorial governments, in responding to, and recovering from, a
``significant cyber incident,'' as defined in Presidential Policy
Directive (PPD 41): United States Cyber Incident Coordination.
The proposed ``no year'' funding (i.e., available until expended)
would allow CISA to support non-Federal critical infrastructure cyber
response and recovery from a significant cyber incident through the
provision of services, technology, or capabilities. This set up would
provide CISA with greater flexibility for responding to cyber events
that are often unpredictable.
Should a significant cyber incident be declared in the first year
of the CRRF, CISA will emphasize using the Fund, if activated, to surge
cyber incident response capabilities or help victims evict adversaries
from their environments to support the immediate needs of critical
infrastructure entities. The CRRF could be used to support response to
a significant cyber incident and, in some cases, funds for recovery and
reconstitution. Eligible activities could include:
--Technical Incident Response--Services aimed at finding the root
cause of an incident
--Analytic Support--A range of analytical services provided in
response to receiving a request or reported vulnerability, to
include examining the technical issue, code, computer system,
storage medium, and/or physical memory
--Threat Detection--Deployment of threat detection platforms to
identify potential malicious activity using network sensor
systems for detection
Eviction and Mitigation--Support to reasonably assure that an
intruder has been removed from a victim network and known weaknesses
that allowed the initial intrusion have been remediated.
Question. How can DHS increase its cooperation with industry to
ensure that threat information is appropriately disseminated between
public and private entities?
Answer. CISA is continuously evaluating existing information
sharing programs to improve their timeliness, efficiency, and
effectiveness, while also evaluating the potential for new
opportunities to increase threat information sharing with our partners
in government and in the private sector. CISA is currently undertaking
a wide range of efforts, outlined below, to increase cooperation with
industry to ensure that threat information is appropriately
disseminated to our private sector partners.
Pursuant to fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA), CISA will establish a Joint Cyber Defense Collaborative (JCDC)
to coordinate joint cyber planning with interagency and industry
partners. Today, CISA builds and maintains close operational
relationships with key industry partners who provide unique and
valuable insights on current cyber vulnerability and threat
information. These information sharing relationships increase CISA's
visibility and understanding of the domestic cyber landscape and
provide vital support to our cyber defense mission. With the
implementation of the office for joint cyber planning, CISA will
formalize and expand operational coordination with industry partners
through collaborative development of cyber defense operations plans to
protect domestic critical infrastructure. The JCDC will also include
key interagency partners who will bring their own cyber capabilities
and authorities, and will consult with State, local, territorial, and
tribal (SLTT) and international partners. Through integration of these
key partner communities, the JCDC will become the one-stop-shop for
public-private partnership in planning cyber defense operations.
The Secretary of DHS established the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory
Committee, pursuant to fiscal year 2021 NDAA, Section 1718, to bring
together experts from SLTT government, industry, and other relevant
entities to provide advice and recommendations to the CISA Director on
matters related to the development, refinement, and implementation of
policies, programs, planning, and training pertaining to the
cybersecurity mission of the Agency. Per the NDAA, the Director may
task the Committee to examine a variety of cybersecurity topics
including, but not limited to, information exchange; critical
infrastructure; risk management; and public and private partnerships.
This advice could include options to improve timely information sharing
regarding cybersecurity threats. A public version of the Committee's
recommendations will be made available.
In coordination with interagency partners, CISA is defining the
expanded set of the roles and responsibilities established in the
fiscal year 2021 NDAA, Section 9002, Sector Risk Management Agencies
(SRMA). In particular, each SRMA shall facilitate ``in coordination
with the Director, the sharing with the Department and other
appropriate Federal department of information regarding physical
security and cybersecurity threats within the designated sector or
subsector of such sector,'' including--
A. ``[F]acilitating, in coordination with the Director, access to,
and exchange of, information and intelligence necessary to strengthen
the security of critical infrastructure'';
B. ``[F]acilitating the identification of intelligence needs and
priorities of critical infrastructure owners and operators in the
designated sector or subsector of such sector, in coordination with the
Director of National Intelligence and the heads of other Federal
departments and agencies, as appropriate;
C. ``[P]roviding the Director, and facilitating awareness within
the designated sector or subsector of such sector, of ongoing, and
where possible, real-time awareness of identified threats,
vulnerabilities, mitigations, and other actions related to the security
of such sector or subsector of such sector''; and
D. ``[S]upporting the reporting requirements of the Department
under applicable law by providing, on an annual basis, sector-specific
critical infrastructure information.''
CISA is spearheading the NDAA-required report, in consultation with
the heads of the designated SRMAs, which reviews the current framework
for securing critical infrastructure, develops recommendations, and
suggests necessary revisions to the partnership structure. This process
is currently underway, and as the SRMA for eight of the nation's 16
critical infrastructure sectors, CISA will directly apply this expanded
guidance to enhance information sharing between CISA and private sector
partners in these eight sectors.
DHS will stand up a Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB), pursuant to
Section 5 of the Executive Order on Improving the Nation's
Cybersecurity, to review and assess threat activity, vulnerabilities,
mitigation activities, and agency responses to significant cyber
incidents. Through the CSRB, relevant information will be compiled from
CSRB incident reviews, including incident-related decisionmaking
processes, actions, and outcomes; Requests for Information; stakeholder
communications; and incident activity and recovery actions and
outcomes. In addition to administering the CSRB's operation, DHS will
use the results of these reviews to determine necessary and appropriate
enhancements to threat information sharing between public and provide
sector entities.
The Private Sector Clearance Program was established to ensure that
select critical infrastructure private sector owners, operators, and
industry representatives--specifically those who have a demonstrated
and foreseeable need to access classified information--are in
leadership, managerial, or executive level positions and are in a
position to capitalize on the value of the classified information
shared are processed for clearances. Security clearances enable
selected owners, operators, and representatives to access classified
information and more fully participate in the protection of critical
infrastructure and the security of the homeland.
CISA operates the Cyber Information Sharing and Collaboration
Program, which serves as a bi-directional forum for CISA and private
industry to collaborate on significant risks, develop sector and threat
focused products, and provide briefings on new trends, threats, and
capabilities across sectors. This trusted sharing between CISA and a
network of high impact companies, Information Sharing and Analysis
Centers, and service providers allows CISA to better understand the
nature of vulnerabilities pre- and post-disclosure and in turn provided
timely and thorough mitigation guidance.
CISA continues to enhance the Automated Indicator Sharing (AIS)
capability, which provides a machine-to-machine platform for CISA and
the private sector to share threat information and benefit from the
collective knowledge of participant organizations. AIS enables the
real-time exchange of machine-readable cyber threat indicators and
defensive measures, such as information about adversary techniques, to
help the AIS community monitor and defend networks against known
threats and ultimately limit the use of an attack method.
CISA's Stakeholder Engagement Division has requested funding in
fiscal year 2022 to execute a stakeholder mapping initiative as a
foundational component of the agency's broader stakeholder engagement
capability. The stakeholder mapping initiative builds upon CISA's
growing stakeholder data and knowledge base to map individual
stakeholders and stakeholder groups to operational planning scenarios--
in advance of the need--in order to streamline response efforts to
crisis and enable more targeted, efficient strategic planning with
external parties. By leveraging established relationships with these
entities, CISA will maximize its impact on key stakeholder communities
and amplify our value through collaborative partners. Examples of using
these relationships includes bi-directional sharing of sensitive threat
information, targeted promotion of available products and services, and
quick-turn opportunities to collaborate with CISA.
CISA collaborates with the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis
to provide Classified Intelligence Forums. The Classified Intelligence
Forum consists of engagements that provide cleared members of the
private sector as appropriate, with access to draft and finished
analytic products to solicit feedback and gain overall customer
insights that can inform the development of future products or
briefings that those members and their sector counterparts can use in
their decisionmaking processes.
CISA Cybersecurity Advisors (CSAs) offer cybersecurity assistance
to critical infrastructure owners and operators and SLTT governments.
CSAs introduce organizations to various CISA cybersecurity products and
services, along with other public and private resources, and act as
liaisons to CISA cyber programs. CSAs can provide cyber preparedness,
assessments and protective resources, strategic messaging, working
group support and leadership, partnership in public-private
development, and incident coordination and support in times of cyber
threat, disruption, and attack. CISA continues to work quickly and
diligently to hire against existing CSA vacancies and increase the CSA
footprint in the field in order to expand engagement with the private
sector, including in threat information sharing and dissemination.
CISA collaborates with government and industry partners to
strengthen information sharing and incident response coordination
through exercises, such as the biennial Cyber Storm series. Each
iteration of the exercise engages more than a thousand participants in
the simulated discovery of and response to a large-scale, coordinated
significant cyber incident impacting critical infrastructure. The
findings of each exercise are shared with participants and the broader
cyber response community to support continual improvement.
CISA is currently in the planning stages for Cyber Storm VIII,
slated for the spring of 2022. Two of the proposed objectives of this
exercise are to:
- Strengthen information sharing and coordination mechanisms used
during a cyber incident; and
- Foster public and private partnerships and improve their ability
to share relevant and timely information across sectors.
u.s. refugee admissions program
Question. We are in the midst of the largest worldwide refugee
crisis ever recorded. I am pleased that the President has finally
announced his intention to resettle 62,500 refugees in the second half
of this fiscal year. However, the enormous cuts to refugee resettlement
over the past 4 years under the previous Administration have severely
decimated the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program's capacity. What specific
measures are you taking to increase the rate of refugee arrivals in the
second half of the fiscal year to ensure we can meet the Presidential
Determination for this year and to restore the long-term capacity of
our resettlement program?
Answer. DHS, along with other U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
(USRAP) partners, is committed to rebuilding our refugee adjudication
and resettlement capacity in accordance with Executive Order (EO)
14012, Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and
Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans, and
EO 14013, Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and
Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration. USCIS worked to
increase admissions in fiscal year 2021 by developing additional
efficiencies to complete post-USCIS interviewed applications remotely,
resume in-person interviews of refugee applicants overseas, begin
hiring additional staff, and engage with USRAP partners to reinvigorate
our refugee program and increase refugee admissions.
USCIS has taken several actions to rebuild the refugee program and
increase refugee admissions. First, USCIS conducted a detailed review
of the cases of applicants who have already had their USCIS refugee
interview and prioritized resources for cases that could be approved
for resettlement in the near term.
Second, after an 11-month long agency-wide hiring freeze ended this
spring, USCIS began actively recruiting to fill all currently vacant
positions that support refugee processing.
Third, USCIS implemented operational and policy changes to support
remote case processing during COVID-19. Since last summer, USCIS has
been conducting refugee applicant re-interviews via video-
teleconference (VTEL) and recently started conducting initial refugee
applicant interviews via VTEL where possible. By May 26, 2021, USCIS
conducted 212 re-interviews and 53 initial interviews by VTEL.
Finally, while COVID-related restrictions continue to impact
USCIS's ability to increase in-person interviews of refugee applicants,
beginning in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2021, USCIS resumed in-
person international refugee processing circuit rides on a small scale.
Deployments are based on identified USRAP processing priorities and are
dependent on movement restrictions issued by local governments due to
COVID-19; post-by-post restrictions issued by DOS; and the ability to
safely conduct in-person interviews while protecting the health of
USCIS officers, Resettlement Support Center staff, refugee applicants,
and interpreters.
In addition to the process improvements outlined above, USCIS is
investing in a case management system that will allow for more
effective tracking of workloads and cases and will provide officers
with additional adjudicative tools. This system is expected to fully
deploy in fiscal year 2022 and will track data on production rates,
details on case outcomes, and other key metrics that will provide
leadership with the information they need to effectively manage future
resources.
unaccompanied children
Question. I was deeply disturbed by the treatment of children at
our Southern border under the previous Administration, and I have been
very concerned about previous reports of unaccompanied children
remaining in Border Patrol custody for extended periods of time.
What steps has your agency taken to address these problems and
ensure that children are treated safely and humanely when they arrive
at our border?
Answer. CBP makes every effort to process those in our custody as
quickly as possible--especially children. In accordance with the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), CBP must
transfer unaccompanied children into the custody of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)
within 72 hours of unaccompanied children determination, determining
that they are unaccompanied children, absent exceptional circumstances.
To expedite processing of migrants, including unaccompanied children,
CBP has augmented its Southwest border personnel and facilities, and
leveraged available support across the U.S. Government.
U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) prioritizes unaccompanied children
referrals and transfers to HHS ORR, but the ability to do so is
directly tied to ORR's capacity. By March 2021, the number of
unaccompanied children entering USBP custody far exceeded ORR's
capacity to provide placement. In response, and in conjunction with
FEMA, HHS began rapid expansion of ORR's housing/placement capacity
through Emergency Influx Shelters (EISs). USBP continues to work
closely with HHS to expedite the transfer of unaccompanied children
into HHS custody.
DHS successfully established the interagency Movement Coordination
Cell (MCC) to bring together personnel from FEMA, ORR, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and CBP to ensure the rapid transfer of
UCs from CBP custody to ORR custody--whether to licensed bed facilities
or EISs. This interagency approach has been remarkably successful in
reducing the average time in custody that UCs spend in CBP facilities.
Thanks to interagency cooperation and focus on building ORR
capacity, in April 2021, the average number of children in CBP custody
decreased to 2,895 from 4,109 in March 2021--with the number of
children in CBP custody below 460 in mid-May 2021. In March, UCs spent
an average of 115 hours in CBP custody compared to just 26 hours in
May.
CBP has significantly expanded the scope of its trauma-informed
medical support capabilities to ensure children are treated safely and
humanely. For example, CBP now has more than 800 contract medical
personnel providing 24/7 medical support at over 70 facilities along
the Southwest border. CBP continues to enhance its trauma-informed care
practices for children in custody through awareness and training;
trauma-informed medical support; and trauma-informed holding practices.
CBP's trauma-informed medical support includes health interviews
and medical assessments by trained professionals. This includes
behavioral health considerations and emphasizes psychological triage,
psychological first aid, behavioral health referrals, and appropriate
prioritization for transfer. CBP's trauma-informed holding practices
ensure a safe and secure environment that minimizes time in custody,
improves the child's ability to maintain family connection via phone
calls, provides recreation opportunities as feasible, and includes
caregivers who can provide a reassuring adult presence. The role of
caregivers in our facilities now includes providing opportunities for
recreational time for children as operationally feasible. CBP has
always been, and continues to be, committed to the safe and humane
treatment of all individuals in our custody, especially those most
vulnerable.
Question. How is your agency working with the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services to facilitate unaccompanied children's
expeditious release from Border Patrol custody?
Answer. Unaccompanied Children (UC) are typically processed by CBP
at the Southwest Border and then ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
(ERO) transfers unaccompanied children from CBP to the custody of HHS
ORR. Pursuant to the Flores Settlement Agreement, the Homeland Security
Act of 2002, and the TVPRA of 2008, DHS must transfer unaccompanied
children to HHS ORR custody within 72 hours of determining that a UC is
an unaccompanied child except in exceptional circumstances.
ICE continues to partner with CBP and HHS to improve transfers into
the care and custody of ORR. These partnerships have proven to be
extremely effective in reducing the average length of time in DHS
custody, to include decreasing the amount of time that a child is in
transit to an ORR shelter. ICE's effort to partner with CBP and HHS has
resulted in the transfer of thousands of unaccompanied children into
the care and custody of ORR in under 72 hours as required by statute.
CBP implemented a Movement Coordination Cell (MCC) to work with HHS
ORR and other appropriate agencies to coordinate the placement and
expedited transfer of UCs out of CBP custody and into appropriate HHS
facilities and care. The MCC is an interagency effort among CBP, ICE,
HHS ORR, and FEMA. The goal of the MCC is to rapidly transfer custody
of UCs from CBP to ORR. The MCC effort began on March 29, 2021, and
since its inception, the MCC has assisted in reducing the number of UCs
in CBP custody as well as their average length of time in custody. CBP
is also working with HHS/ORR on enhanced data transfer to assist in the
expeditious placement of UCs in appropriate facilities, which would
further reduce time in custody.
In April 2021, the average number of children in CBP custody
decreased to 2,895 from 4,109 the previous month, with the number of
children in CBP custody below 460 in mid-May 2021. In March, UCs spent
an average of 115 hours in CBP custody compared to just 26 hours in
May.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Science & Technology Directorate (S&T)
fiscal year 2022 Budget Request highlights prior year research efforts
and milestones, including Project JUSTICE and the fully operational
sUAS test facilities. The budget overview also lists future objectives
to ``publish JUSTICE demonstration, test and evaluation results, and
associated analyses to DHS Components, first responder and emergency
management service organizations.'' Additionally, the budget overview
states, ``DHS lacks installed technologies to maintain persistent air
domain awareness of all manned and unmanned aircraft in the national
airspace . . . evolving technologies and critically strained resources
make it imperative for S&T to advance technologies that produce
efficient force-multiplying aerospace for operational elements of DHS
and the Nation's law enforcers and first responders.''
In prior year appropriations, including fiscal year 2021, the
committee/Congress acknowledged the critical value in the establishment
of the S&T common test site for demonstration and research of UAS,
provided additional funding for the Demonstration Site to conduct on-
site testing and evaluation of Enabling UAS technologies, and
encouraged the close collaboration with the FAA UAS Center of
Excellence. The DHS UAS Demonstration Site provides an effective and
efficient operational testing and evaluation capacity for S&T and the
operational partners that it supports, including CBP, Coast Guard,
Secret Service, and Nation's law enforcers and first responders.
Numerous exercises are necessary for technology evaluation across a
range of scenarios and environments at the Demonstration Site.
Please provide a spend plan for the fiscal year 21 funds
appropriated for the Enabling UAS Demonstration Site. How will S&T
continue to prioritize previously appropriated funds for the
Demonstration Site to conduct on-site testing and evaluation of
Enabling UAS technologies for DHS components and law enforcement
partners?
Answer. Efforts towards Enabling UAS, including the Enabling UAS
Demonstration Site, are executed as part of S&T's Air Security project,
within S&T's Air, Land, and POE Security program. S&T's fiscal year
2021 Spend Plan includes $2 million for the Enabling UAS demonstration
site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2021 Planned in fiscal
Activity Description Spend Plan Obligated year 2022 Q2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enabling UAS Demonstration Site. Joint Unmanned $2,000,000 $250,000 $1,750,000
Systems Testing
in Collaborative
Environments
(JUSTICE)--Testin
g and evaluation
of UASs.
Total Enabling UAS $2,000,000........ $250,000 $1,750,000
Demonstration Site.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&T will continue to support the Enabling UAS Demonstration Site
through S&T's agreement with the U.S. Army Development Command
(DEVCOM), Ground Vehicle Systems Center and through strategic IAA
partnerships with other U.S. Government entities that enable S&T to
offer value to the Homeland Security Enterprise. With continuing COVID
restrictions the potential for testing & evaluation to resume pre-
pandemic conditions soon remains low. S&T will continue engaging with
the Army and the vendor to administer the residual funding in early
fiscal year 2022.
Question. Mr. Secretary, with the expected surge in flight travel
over the next few months, both business and personal, how is the
Department of Homeland Security making sure TSA is adequately staffed
at airports across the country in order to accommodate this expected
increase? What opportunities are there that would allow TSA to
significantly grow its TSA PreCheck program and can these opportunities
be deployed in time to help with the travel surge that is expected this
year?
Answer. As of November 1, 2021, TSA has hired 7,630 Transportation
Security Officers (TSO) thus far in the calendar year, amidst
unprecedented hiring competition in nearly all industries.
TSA is continuing to innovate on solutions to attract more TSO
applicants and hire more quickly in competitive locations. To increase
hiring volumes, TSA is expanding advertising campaigns to amplify the
``now hiring'' message. In an effort to maintain parity with private
industry pay rates, TSA has also instituted recruitment $1,000 to
$2,000 sign-on bonuses to all TSO new hires through fiscal year 22.
Further, retention incentives are being strategically leveraged to
align TSO pay rates with local wage growth in hard-to-hire markets--
both to retain current staff and attract new candidates. Finally, TSA
is hosting ``expedited'' hiring events in 12 or more competitive
markets per month, including locations such as Denver, Seattle,
Minneapolis, Boston, St. Louis, Maui, and many others. These events
enable prospective TSO applicants to consolidate hiring steps into one-
day and significantly reduce Federal hiring time; which is essential in
this competitive recruitment market.
TSA's Universal Enrollment Services provider, IDEMIA, offers a
nationwide network of over 440 enrollment centers in support of the TSA
PreCheck Application Program, and there is currently plenty of
enrollment center capacity and appointment availability. TSA provides
individuals with a simple enrollment process, including the ability to
start TSA PreCheck enrollment online, which shortens the in-person
enrollment time. On average, an individual can complete the in-person
enrollment process in five to ten minutes for new applicants to the
program. For renewing members, TSA offers the ability to renew a TSA
PreCheck membership fully online, with no in-person visit required.
TSA is also working to expand the number of enrollment providers,
as required by the TSA Modernization Act of 2018. In January 2020, TSA
awarded Other Transaction Agreements (OTA) to Alclear, LLC (CLEAR),
Telos Identity Management Solutions, LLC, and Idemia Identity &
Security USA, LLC (TSA's current enrollment provider). TSA estimates
the new enrollment providers under the OTAs will begin operations by
the end of 2022, but timelines are tentative and dependent on each
vendor's ability to meet TSA's requirements.
SUBCOMITTEE RECESS
Senator Murphy. And so with that, this committee will stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., Wednesday, May 26 the subcommitte
was recessed, to reconvene at a time subject to call of the
Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[The following testimony was received by the Subcommittee
on Homeland Security for inclusion in the record. The submitted
material relates to the fiscal year 2022 budget request for
programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of America's Public Television Stations (APTS) and
the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
Regarding funding to create a new program at FEMA to support public
broadcasting's public safety infrastructure:
the next generation warning system
As this subcommittee considers the FY 2022 Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, America's Public Television Stations (APTS),
representing the nation's 354 locally operated, locally controlled
public television stations, and PBS urge the subcommittee to provide
$20 million for the Next Generation Warning System (NGWS) within FEMA's
Federal Assistance grants.
This new competitive grant program would maintain and enhance
public broadcasting stations' current work to provide alert, warning
and interoperable communications, in partnership with federal, state
and local law enforcement and first responder agencies, and would
enable the incorporation of emerging technology in those life-saving
activities.
public television's role in public safety communications
Public broadcasting has long played a critical role in supporting
local, regional and national first responders and the public safety and
homeland security community. While you may be familiar with the tones
and notices that accompany testing of the Emergency Alert System (EAS)
during radio and television broadcasts, you may not realize the other
important services that local public television and radio stations,
which together reach nearly 99 percent of the American population,
provide:
--Public television, through the PBS Warning Alert Response Network
(WARN), provides critical distribution infrastructure for the
nation's Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system, a unique
public-private partnership between FEMA, the FCC, and industry
established by Congress in 2006 for sending locally-targeted
and nationwide emergency messages.
In 2020, during the first 10 months of the pandemic, over 500
COVID-19 alerts were sent to millions of mobile devices using
the WEA system. In addition to public television stations
providing a diverse redundant path for these and all WEA
messages, PBS has developed an application called Eyes on IPAWS
that provides data analytics and a live feed of WEAs directly
from local public television stations, without relying on
internet access. This tool was piloted by California's Office
of Emergency Services and is now available to any agency.
--Many public television and radio stations, equipped with back-up
communications equipment and power generators, cooperate with
FEMA to serve as their state's Primary Entry Point (PEP) to
provide emergency information to the public before, during and
after incidents and disasters.
. --Since 2016, public television has partnered with the Department of
Homeland Security to conduct pilot projects demonstrating how
stations' dedicated spectrum and infrastructure can be used to
send encrypted data such as video, files, images and text from
local authorities to first responders on the ground or on the
water.
This datacasting technology does not depend on broadband, is
available in rural and remote areas due to public television's
extensive reach, is a one-to-many communications system that never
overloads, and has proven to be a valuable tool in a myriad of use
cases including:
--Improved emergency response:
--In North Carolina, PBS North Carolina has been working with the
North Carolina Department of Informational Technology
(NCDIT)'s First Responder Emerging Technologies (FirstTech)
program and the Department of Homeland Security to use
public television datacasting and NextGen television
technology to deliver an improved and affordable paging
structure that improves situational awareness and response
time for first responders across the state of North
Carolina.
--In Tennessee, public television stations worked with the state to
create a statewide datacasting system that delivers
private, secure communication between first responders and
their management teams in case of an emergency or natural
disaster. The Tennessee National Guard is an important
partner in this project and has affirmed the usefulness of
datacasting in their disaster response efforts.
--Improved interoperability:
--In multiple pilots conducted in partnership with local stations
and DHS, one of the main benefits identified has been the
increased interoperability between responding agencies.
Datacasting allows all agencies to see the same data, at
the same time, regardless of where they are located and how
they might otherwise connect--or not connect--with each
other. This interoperability has significantly improved
response time and success.
--Over-Water Communications:
--A few DHS pilots, including one in Chicago, IL, have proven the
effectiveness of datacasting to reach far offshore, in
areas where traditional communications capabilities are
lacking. Because broadcast towers typically reach much
further than cell or broadband connections--distances of 60
miles or more--datacasting can greatly enhance
communication of urgent information to vessels, including
moving vessels, at sea and inland waters.
--Rural Search and Rescue
--A DHS pilot in a rural location in the state of Washington showed
how datacasting could help with rural search and rescue in
remote mountainous areas that lack more traditional LTE or
broadband infrastructure. Images captured from helicopters
were shared via datacasting with responders on the ground
who otherwise would not have the visual information to
accelerate their response.
--Enhanced School Safety
--In 2018, a DHS pilot conducted in Adams County, Indiana
demonstrated how datacasting could help multiple first
responding agencies in the event of a school shooting. A
drill was conducted in a very rural part of the county that
lacked LTE or broadband connectivity inside of the school,
and datacasting was used to share video feeds from inside
of the school, blueprints of the building, campus maps and
other important data with multiple local and state first
responders.
--Earlier Earthquake Alert and Warning
--For the past few years, the California public television stations
have been working with the California Governor's Office of
Emergency Services (Cal OES) to utilize datacasting to
dramatically reduce the amount of time it takes to alert
first responders that an earthquake is on the way. Public
television stations throughout the state have worked to add
equipment to their broadcasting infrastructure that sends
earthquake warnings to local first responders in seconds.
This work has resulted in the reduction of alert time from
30 seconds to less than 3 seconds.
--Large Event Crowd Control
--Houston Public Media participated in one of the early DHS pilots
which demonstrated the benefits of datacasting for
interoperability of multiple responding agencies. Since
that pilot in 2014, with the equipment remaining in place
at the station level and first responder level, datacasting
has been used by public safety and first responders at
several large events held in the city including: the
Houston Marathon, NCAA Final Four, the Super Bowl, a
Presidential Primary Debate, and more. Using datacasting to
share images and critical information across multiple
responding agencies has greatly enhanced situational
awareness and public safety at these events.
America's public television stations are working to develop more
public safety partnerships that could utilize datacasting to solve some
the nation's most pressing public safety needs.
support for public broadcasting's role in emergency communications
While public broadcasting's public safety capabilities may not be
well known to the public, they have been recognized and encouraged by
the public safety community.
On February 15, 2019 the FEMA National Advisory Council issued a
report on Modernizing the Nation's Public Alert and Warning System,
which clearly recognizes the importance of public broadcasting's role
in public safety and identifies a need for continued partnerships,
recommending that FEMA encourage ``use of public broadcast capabilities
to expand alert, warning, and interoperable communications capabilities
to fill gaps in rural and underserved areas.''
After the 2018 school safety exercise, Shane L. Rekeweg, Sheriff,
Adams County, Indiana said, ``Datacasting has the potential of
providing key visual information to first responders for incidents
where this technology is used,'' he continued ``Today's demonstration
showed that datacasting does in fact provide the quality and quantity
that first responders need for faster response resulting in saving more
lives in critical incidents.''
In an assessment of the use of datacasting, Jack Hanagriff, the Law
Enforcement Liaison in Houston's Office of Public Safety and Homeland
Security said ``datacasting provides the ability to deliver secure,
high-quality data and video to emergency services personnel. Getting
that ``eyes-on'' look at a situation or specific location is a huge
help to the first responders. Having that real-time, crucial video
delivered reliably, lets the different teams know what they're heading
for, and how to prepare for it.''
public safety communications infrastructure funding needed
These critical services, in addition to other public safety
partnerships between public broadcasters and the public safety
community, depend on reliable and resilient public broadcasting
infrastructure. However, in many cases, station infrastructure is being
used well past its expected useful life and is at serious risk of
failure. Such a failure would interrupt the public safety services
public media provides.
A 2017 study commissioned by the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting found that a backlog of $300 million in unmet
infrastructure needs at public media stations through 2020.
This aging infrastructure--transmitters, antennas, encoders,
receivers, power generators and related hardware, software, and
electrical equipment--endangers the ability of public broadcasting to
continue to provide life-saving public safety services.
In order for public broadcasting to remain a reliable public safety
partner, additional infrastructure investments are needed.
We call on Congress to support the investment in this critical
infrastructure through FEMA's Federal Assistance grants.
The new account, the Next Generation Warning System (NGWS) would
help stations replace aging infrastructure that is essential to their
public safety missions. In addition, it will support infrastructure
needed for enhancements to alert and warning and other public safety
communications systems to ensure resilience and the ability to meet the
evolving nature of public safety challenges.
A funding level of $20 million in FY 2022 will begin this much
needed investment in the capability and reliability of public
broadcasting's public safety infrastructure.
______
Prepared Statement of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)
Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Capito and distinguished members of
the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to submit this testimony on
behalf of America's public media service--1,500 public television and
radio stations reaching 99 percent of the American people. The
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) requests $20 million in FY
2022 for a newly created Next Generation Warning System (NGWS) within
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). This funding will reinforce and extend public media's
contributions to public safety and result in enhanced alerting and
warning capabilities that benefit all Americans.
Through local public television and radio stations, public media
offers educational programming designed to support at-home learning,
local journalism that gives Americans the information they need to
respond to the world around them, and content that helps us better
understand our history and each other. Public media's services proved
to be critical over the past year as people sought up-to-date, fact-
based information about COVID-19. Stations responded with broadcasts
featuring local officials, online dashboards and visualizations
tracking the pandemic, podcasts with local health experts explaining
the virus, and public safety announcements spoken in different
languages and local dialects to help encourage vaccine participation.
Local stations' broadcast infrastructure not only provides the
educational and informational content Americans expect from public
media, but it also provides emergency alerting and communications
services at the national, state, and local levels. Often unnoticed
until times of emergency, these services direct people to safety and
transport messages from federal, state, and local emergency management
and public safety officials. Further, national public media
organizations and local stations have resilience requirements
comparable to those of our nation's public safety systems.
Nationally, the public television interconnection system serves as
a distribution point for PBS WARN, an essential part of FEMA's
nationwide Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system. The WEA system relies
upon public broadcasters to ensure the delivery of messages that
include imminent threats to life and safety, AMBER alerts, and
Presidential alerts during a national emergency. Between March 12,
2020, and January 25, 2021, more than 6,470 WEAs were issued by state
and local authorities and transmitted over the PBS WARN system in
different parts of the country. Approximately 525 of those alerts were
for COVID-19, harnessing the reach and ubiquity of mobile device
communications to address a pandemic for the first time.
The public radio interconnection system, Public Radio Satellite
System(r) (PRSS), managed by NPR, receives a national EAS feed directly
from FEMA and distributes Presidential emergency alerts to 1,247 public
radio stations nationwide, including NPR member and non-member
stations. PRSS is also named as a resource in at least 20 states'
emergency plans and many of the public radio stations in these twenty
states serve as Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations. The PRSS national
network of nearly 400 interconnected public radio stations supports
secure, reliable communications during emergencies without relying on
the Internet, which may be off-line during emergencies.
Stations' infrastructure also provides for public safety and
communications services tailored to the needs of their communities. In
times of emergency and disaster, enabled public radio stations use
MetaPub technology to deliver graphic alerts and messages such as
weather forecasts and shelter information. For example, California
stations successfully tested the use of MetaPub alerting during the
Great California Shakeout earthquake drill in 2016 and demonstrated how
stations can bring emergency communications to affected audiences.
During any evacuation in Mississippi, the Mississippi Emergency
Management Agency works with Mississippi Public Broadcasting (MPB) to
broadcast evacuation and traffic information on all MPB radio stations.
MetaPub was also used during the pandemic to direct viewers and
listeners to local resources and the latest public health guidelines.
Public media's public safety capabilities are valued and utilized
by local, state, and federal public safety officials. In 2020,
California's public media stations partnered with Listos California and
the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services on a statewide
media campaign called ``Building Resiliency with Emergency
Preparedness.'' The cultural and linguistic appropriate campaign is
designed to reach diverse and underserved populations and encourage
them to plan for wildfires and other natural disasters. Also in 2020,
the Florida Public Radio Emergency Network (FPREN) partnered with the
Florida Division of Emergency Management to launch a statewide
communications initiative, ``Know Your Zone, Know Your Home.'' The PSA
campaign emphasized the importance of knowing where you live and how
that impacts your hurricane evacuation plans. With a mission to serve
the community combined with trusted partnerships with public safety
officials, public media stations help keep Americans prepared and safe.
Public media's capabilities and involvement in public safety are
evolving with the modern needs of local first responders and the
communities they serve. Increasingly, stations are partnering with
local first responders and emergency management officials to offer
datacasting technology. Through datacasting, the television broadcast
spectrum is used to securely transmit essential encrypted information
to first responders in the field in real-time and without the capacity
constraints of traditional mobile or broadband delivery. Datacasting
applications can include equipping police cars with the ability to
receive school blueprints when a crisis arises; providing access to 24/
7 camera feeds for public safety challenges; and connecting public
safety agencies in real-time.
Initially tested in partnership with the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, datacasting technology has been utilized during
numerous events in the last several years, including the NCAA Final
Four, the Super Bowl, and Hurricane Harvey and the flooding of 2016. In
2018, KVIE public television in Sacramento, CA, worked with the
California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) to test public
television's datacasting capability to more rapidly deliver early
earthquake warnings. The station's datacasting delivered an early
earthquake warning in under three seconds. The previous warning
standard was 30 seconds. Recently, in Tennessee, public television
stations (WKNO, Memphis; WLJT, Lexington; WNPT, Nashville; WCTE,
Cookeville; East Tennessee PBS, Knoxville; and WTCI, Chattanooga)
partner with the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security
to form the first statewide datacasting network.
In June 2018, the FCC's CSRIC Working Group 2 issued a final report
on ``Comprehensive Re-imaging of Emergency Alerting,'' which recognizes
public television's important service in our nation's public safety
system. Section 6.4 states, ``PBS and local public television stations
play a crucial role in protecting communities by using datacasting to
deliver essential information to individuals and first responders.
These benefits are all made possible by public broadcasting stations'
unique reach, reliability, and role across America, and are especially
vital in rural and underserved areas.''
While public media stations are dedicated to serving the needs of
their communities, their ability to provide these life-saving public
safety services relies on technical infrastructure that is often aging
past its expected end-of-life. In 2017, CPB commissioned a
comprehensive System Technology Assessment to understand better public
media stations' technology needs. The station response rate was
unprecedented (73 percent of radio and 92 percent of television
licensees), cataloging more than 60,000 pieces of equipment throughout
the system. The Assessment projected that the system's financial
capacity to address equipment repair and replacement would see a
cumulative shortfall of more than $300 million by 2020. In early 2021,
a CPB survey of only 10 percent of the public media licensees indicated
that there is at least $175 million in equipment needs. Without
resources to maintain and replace broadcast transmission infrastructure
on schedule, as well as recover from the gap in maintenance during
COVID-19, TV and radio licensees of all sizes and types could face
operating challenges nationwide, disrupting the essential public safety
service these stations provide.
Addressing the growing need for resilient public safety
infrastructure, the Next Generation Warning System (NGWS) will enable
the expansion and enhance the reliability of the alert, warning and
interoperable communications activities that public broadcasting
stations are committed to, while providing first responders and public
safety officials with new communication resources. NGWS would allow for
public broadcasting entities to procure, construct, and improve
transmission and other public safety-related equipment and services
that secure and strengthen public media's role in helping protect and
preserve American communities.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
allowing me, on behalf of America's public media system, to submit this
testimony. I appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
[This statement was submitted by Patricia de Stacy Harrison,
President and CEO, Corporation for Public Broadcasting.]
______
Prepared Statement of Customs and Border Protection Agency
Dear Chairperson Murphy, Ranking Member Capito and Honored Members
of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, my name is John Kelton, and I
respectfully request your consideration to approve appropriations for a
device to protect frontline personnel from unintentional synthetic
opioid exposure.
fentanyl and synthetic opioids
Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid 50 to 100 times the potency of
morphine. Carfentanil, another synthetic opioid has a potency
approximately 10,000 times that of morphine and 100 times that of
fentanyl. The same amount of fentanyl necessary to kill a 250-pound
human, roughly two grains of salt, can kill one hundred 250-pound
humans.
illicit synthetic opioids
Synthetic opioids are laced into other drugs such as cocaine,
heroin, methamphetamine, and counterfeit tablets resulting in tens of
thousands of deaths reaching a new record in 2021 thus far. The residue
on fake tablets and fine powders containing synthetic opioids are
easily inhaled during seizures or border checks causing injury or death
to frontline personnel or unsuspecting citizens. There are more than
2000 synthetic opioids, which are not routinely detected because
specialized toxicology testing is required: Some are more potent than
Carfentanil and becoming resistant to opioid reversing drugs.
naloxone and personal protective equipment fall short of exposure
protection
Naloxone commonly called Narcan is an opioid reversing drug which
is provided to personnel in the event of an exposure. The Centers for
Disease Control states, ``more than one dose of naloxone may be needed
to reverse some overdoses. Naloxone alone may be inadequate if someone
has taken large quantities of opioids, very potent opioids, or long-
acting opioids.'' In addition, personnel administering naloxone are at
risk of exposure! General Personal Protective equipment (PPE) i.e.,
masks, gloves etc. are inadequate in preventing situational exposures
and cross contamination of others and equipment.
department of homeland security, office of strategy and policy science,
and technology directorate
Frontline personnel are at risk of deadly exposure without specific
personal protective equipment. A field proven device designated by the
Department of Homeland Security Office of Strategy and Policy, Science
and Technology Directorate, to prevent accidental exposure and
neutralize the threat, has been identified. The handheld personal
protective device deploys in seconds, prevents aerosolization of deadly
analogs of fentanyl and weaponized anthrax, stops cross contamination,
does not prevent analytical or field testing of suspicious powders and
requires minimal training for effective deployment. This device
succeeds when common PPE such as gloves, masks, and naloxone are not
effective.
nationally, synthetic opioid exposures are occurring daily
Reports of frontline exposures are common enough; they barely make
the news. Texas Custom Agent, Michigan State Troopers, Ohio Sheriffs,
Correction Personnel and First Responders, risk their lives to save
lives and the threat of unintentional exposure to synthetic opioids is
a reality because it happens. The coldest comment we have heard was,
``Yeah, but have any of these people died yet?'' I am asking for your
consideration before that 'benchmark' is achieved.
synthetic opioid exposure prevention device for frontline personnel
departments of commerce and justice, science, and
related agencies appropriations bill, 2020
``The Committee is aware of far too many incidents of first
responders experiencing accidental overdoses after coming into contact
with fentanyl or fentanyl analogues,''
lake county sheriff's office lt. john herrell
``All we can do is speak to what we've seen, not only in Lake
County but across the nation, and it is a common occurrence that first
responders and law enforcement fall ill and start displaying signs of
opioid overdose.''
senior medical advisor/customs and border patrol
Dr. David Tarantino stated, ``The most significant exposure risk is
through aerosolized airborne powder,'' when referring to illicit
fentanyl.
centers for disease control policy
CDC Protocol, ``Increase the amount of naloxone on hand, given the
increased amount needed and rate of use for overdoses involving
illicitly manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs.''
president of the american society of anesthesiologists
J.P. Abenstein stated, ``What happens, is people stop breathing on
it. The more narcotic you take, the less your body has an urge to
breath.''
as naloxone becomes less effective, frontline personnel are at
increased risk of injury or death from synthetic opioid exposure
without a rapid containment device
Frontline personnel are at risk of deadly exposure without specific
personal protective equipment. A field proven device designated by the
Department of Homeland Security Office of Strategy and Policy, Science
and Technology Directorate, to prevent accidental exposure and
neutralize the threat, has been identified. The handheld personal
protective device deploys in seconds, prevents aerosolization of deadly
analogs of fentanyl and weaponized anthrax, stops cross contamination,
does not prevent analytical or field testing of suspicious powders and
requires minimal training for effective deployment. This device
succeeds when common PPE such as gloves, masks, and naloxone are not
effective. After presenting this device the United States Customs and
Border Patrol, and Coast Guard view this device as playing an essential
role in the PPE arsenal necessary to protect our frontline personnel
from accidental exposures.
The real threat of unintentional synthetic opioid exposure is a
serious concern which spurred bipartisan sponsorship of the Synthetic
Opioid Exposure Prevention and Training Act. ``The act requires
provisions for personal protective equipment and opioid receptor
antagonists for officers, agents, other personnel, and canines at risk
of exposure to synthetic opioids.''
Synthetic opioids some of which are thousands of times stronger
than fentanyl pour into the United States from China because ``the
companies making fentanyl and other dangerous drugs are subsidized by
the government (AP).'' Synthetic opioids and agents of terror such as
anthrax, have identical routes of exposure. Aerosolization and
inhalation, resulting in rapid absorption through the lungs.
As naloxone struggles to reverse injuries of opioid toxicity,
frontline personnel are at increased risk without a specific device
designed to prevent the exposure and cross contamination of others.
Honored Members of the Homeland Security Subcommittee,
There is a threat from abroad which has killed hundreds of
thousands of Americans and threatens the safety and lives of personnel
we ask to protect our sovereignty and families. Common PPE is not
enough to protect them, nor is naloxone as it becomes less effective
against the strength of synthetic opioids.
I have presented this information to Congressional Leaders and
Senators from Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia, and others with incredible
support, and some of which submitted requests for appropriations to
provide this protection to our frontline personnel. I again, humbly
request that your committee approve the funding necessary to provide
frontline personnel with a handheld containment device with the ability
to prevent the exposure from happening.
Sincerely,
John Kelton
______
Prepared Statement of the Customs and Border Protection
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the
public record in consideration of the Subcommittee's consideration of
the Fiscal Year 2022 appropriations bill for Homeland Security and
associated agencies.
I am originally from southern California and my husband is from
southern Arizona. After a career spent in public service, we moved back
to the West and chose Tucson, Arizona, in large part because of the
fabulous public lands, wildlife and culture of the borderlands. In
particular, we treasure Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and San
Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, especially the Quitobaquito area, and the Coronado National
Memorial. We also cherish the San Pedro River and the Riparian National
Conservation Area, surrounding what used to be (before a wall was
inserted into it), the last free flowing river in Arizona.
We have watched in horror at the despoliation of the borderlands in
the name of ``security''. We have hiked and camped on public lands
within walking distance of the border and never experienced any threat
whatsoever to our public safety. Indeed, a good friend hiked for over
2,000 miles in Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in a two year
period and never saw a single undocumented person. Perhaps even more
impressively, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually
declined to approve the use of military construction funding to build
31 miles of wall along the southern boundary of Cabeza Prieta National
Wildlife Refuge, saying it was a ``low priority'' (General Joseph E.
Dunford, Chairman, Joints Chief of Staff to Acting Secretary of
Defense, Info Memo, 6 May 2019). He was overruled. So now we have a
wall there and a wall in other places that makes absolutely no sense--
where there was little to no border crossings. In some of these areas,
like Guadalupe Canyon in southeast Arizona, incredibly rugged,
virtually impassable mountains have now been blasted and roaded in a
way that actually facilitates cross border traffic, rather than
deterring it. And I know of no one in Arizona--whether a rancher, a
land manager, a recreational user of public lands--anyone at all--who
thinks this place is safer because we have hundreds of miles of road.
This $18 billion boondoggle (and counting) is sliced through, climbed
over or simply opened up with keys (there are hundreds of gates) on a
daily basis.
Tragically, in Arizona alone, wall construction sucked billions of
gallons out of our borderlands which are already suffering from record
breaking heat and drought. Wildlife habitat has been severely reduced.
The culture of binational communities has been ripped apart. The flow
of river and streams has been altered and when we do get rains, severe
flooding, jeopardizing life and property, are anticipated. In one
situation I know about personally, a landowner who stands to suffer
major flooding damage was told by the wall contractors that the family
could always file a tort claim against the U.S. government. In other
words, we--the taxpayers--have spent around $18 billion for a project
that has destroyed much of what was wonderful about this part of the
country, and stands to do considerable more damage. And it will
continue to cost taxpayers. The General Accountability Office estimated
that operations and maintenance cost for the much wall constructed in
2018 would run an estimated 15% total costs each year. Costs of
maintenance of the 2018-2020 wall will inevitably be much, much higher.
I am now asking you to stop the bleeding and start funding the
restoration of the borderlands. While some of the damage is
irreversible, there are sensible mitigation and restoration measures
that can be put in place in many locations. Given the approximately $18
billion spent to date on the wall ($2.4 billion in 2008 and roughly $15
billion during the past four years), the Subcommittee should
appropriate at least $3 billion dollars to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) as a pass through to the Department of the Interior for
mitigation and restoration efforts on National Park Service, US Fish
and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management Land, to the U.S.
Forest Service for work on national forest land and a small amount to
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for work at the
Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve, a wetland of
international importance. The funding should come with direction to
engage in a collaborative process with landowners, border communities,
affected tribal nations and the public regarding what can and should be
done to mitigate at least some of the damage caused by wall
construction.
Further, DHS should be instructed not to use any appropriated funds
to implement 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103 note, the ill-advised provision that
gives the DHS Secretary the authority to waive all laws for
construction of border wall and associated roads.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. I
appreciate the work of the Members of the Subcommittee.
Dinah Bear
Tucson, Arizona
______
Prepared Statement of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
I've spent my career in first response and disaster management, and
I am proud to serve on the board of America's Public Television
Stations because it is clear that their goals completely align with the
nation's goals, especially when it comes to public safety.
As the former FEMA Administrator, I witnessed first-hand the many
challenges facing an efficient and effective post-disaster response.
Local public television and radio stations have resources and
capabilities that help address those challenges and improve local,
state and federal emergency response and homeland security.
One of the most impressive things about public television's role in
public safety is that they reach nearly 97% of U.S. households with a
dedicated broadcast signal. That same broadcast signal has been proven
to be exceptionally helpful in sharing encrypted data and video with
first responders on the ground through datacasting.
This is ground-breaking technology that reaches the country's most
rural and remote areas and it doesn't require a broadband or LTE
signal. The majority of the infrastructure needed to provide these
life-saving enhanced public safety communications services, is already
in place as part of the public television broadcast infrastructure.
There is no need to build out a new system to take advantage of
this technology. And importantly, this technology, known as
datacasting, is natively one-to-many. This means it is not constrained
by the typical bandwidth challenges that broadband and LTE networks
face, even dedicated public safety networks.
America's public television stations, all 354 of them, stand ready
to partner with local, state and federal first responders as a
complement to the communications networks they currently use and those
they plan to use in the future. Partnering with public television means
that first responders could off-load some of their heavy bandwidth uses
like video sharing and other large data files and distribute those
items through public television's encrypted spectrum, freeing up the
traditional communications networks for other communications.
The Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology
Directorate First Responders Group has been very impressed with this
datacasting technology and has partnered with American's Public
Television Stations to conduct several pilots throughout the country
that prove the usefulness of datacasting including in over water
communications, rural search and rescue, large-event crowd control,
school safety and others.
Public television stations are developing critical relationships
with their state's emergency operations including a partnership with
the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services to speed the
delivery of early earthquake warnings, a partnership with the Tennessee
National Guard to use datacasting in its disaster response and
mitigation and a partnership with the North Carolina Department of
Informational Technology (NCDIT)'s First Responder Emerging
Technologies (FirstTech) program to create a new paging structure that
improves situational awareness and response time for first responders
across the state.
These life-saving services are game changers for public safety and
they build on public television's long history of alerting their
communities to disasters and providing critical information to those
communities post-disaster.
But all of this work rides on public television's broadcast
infrastructure, and that infrastructure is increasingly aging and in
need of reinvestment to secure its reliability and resilience.
A Corporation for Public Broadcasting study found that the public
broadcasting system faces $300 million in backlogged infrastructure
needs in 2020.
It is critical that Congress help secure the infrastructure of
these stations that are increasingly playing a vital role in the
nation's public safety and emergency communications systems.
I proudly join America's Public Television Stations in calling on
Congress to create a competitive fund at FEMA, within the Public
Assistance Program, that would invest in public broadcasting's
infrastructure to support the current emergency communications work
being done and allow for the development of expanded emergency
communications and public safety partnerships.
Such a fund would be a prudent investment which leverages the
infrastructure and technology already in place to solve some of the
nation's most pressing public safety communications challenges.
The public safety community is hungry for this capacity and
capability and the nation's local public television stations are
committed to continuing their public safety mission and stand ready to
expand their work to offer datacasting in more communities, build more
public safety partnerships and ultimately save more lives.
[This statement was submitted by W. Craig Fugate, FEMA
Administrator.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO)
Chairman Murphy and Ranking Member Capito, and members of the
Subcommittee, I am David Terry, the Executive Director of the National
Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO). NASEO represents the
Governor-designated energy directors and their offices in the 56
states, D.C., and U.S. territories. One of the key functions of the
state energy offices is Emergency Support Function (``ESF-12'') related
planning, mitigation, and response actions at the state level, as well
as coordination with local governments and the energy industry.
We are in the midst of a severe national crisis. DHS as a whole,
FEMA specifically, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the states must
all work together in a coordinated manner. We will (and are) facing
both expected and unexpected barriers to action. The Subcommittee also
must take specific action to reverse a terrible decision by DHS and OMB
at the end of the last Administration. In December 2020, DHS wrote to
the Speaker with ``poison-pill'' changes to the cyber security title of
the Energy Act of 2020. The final Energy Act of 2020 (which was
included in the 5500+ page end-of-year package that was passed and
signed into law) excluded the cyber security title because of these
uniformed comments from DHS. As was evidenced by the cyber attack on
the Colonial Pipeline, we must put in place far more robust cyber
defenses into our energy systems as well as the rest of the economy.
Included in that cyber title was expanded state actions for energy-
sector cyber security, expanded public-private partnerships, expanded
energy emergency preparedness (including ``all-hazards'') and the
``Pipeline and LNG Facility Cybersecurity Preparedness Act.'' At the
time, this DHS action made no sense, and sadly, subsequent developments
such as the Colonial cyber attack, showed the impropriety of the DHS
objections. The cyber security title of the energy bill would have
begun to make a huge difference. This is not a partisan issue. Cyber
security requires extensive agency coordination, including the ESF-12
function. The state energy offices work closely with our counterparts
in the state emergency management agencies. We recommend specific bill
text that provides:
``The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security shall
coordinate closely with the Secretary of the Department of
Energy (DOE), and the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security
and Emergency Response at DOE, and shall direct all staff to
coordinate closely with the state emergency management offices
and the state energy offices to ensure robust cyber security
and energy emergency preparedness and response is occurring,
including DOE leadership in implementation and preparation for
ESF-12 related emergencies. The Secretary shall jointly convene
regular meetings with state emergency management officials,
state energy officials, and DOE to ensure that coordination and
cooperation is occurring. $20 million is specifically allocated
for this purposes. The Secretary shall report to the
Subcommittee, the House and Senate Homeland Security
Committees, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on progress made,
within 90 days of enactment.''
We recommend that the Subcommittee approve specific funding in the
following areas in the appropriations bill:
1) Full funding of the FEMA BRIC program at $3.6 billion. The
Administration's decision to increase the FY 21 amount to $1 billion is
a very positive step, but more is needed as is greater attention to
critical energy actions within this program.
2) New state emergency planning and response grants of $1 billion,
with 10% of the funds directed to state energy offices, and the
remainder targeted to state emergency management agencies including
coordination between the energy offices, state emergency management
agencies, FEMA and the DOE Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and
Emergency Response.
3) New direct funding to states of $5 billion for public facility
resilience, energy, and water system retrofits to update mission
critical facilities, especially including hospitals, schools, community
shelters, non-profit nursing homes, and first responder facilities,
utilizing private capital for energy efficiency improvements with
federal funds directed to emergency response upgrades (this program
could be operated by state energy offices, who already manage the
existing $5--$6 billion per year in energy service performance
contracting programs). In addition, special provision could be made to
target underserved rural healthcare facilities.
The program recommended in #3, above, would have the double benefit
of assisting states in responding to hurricanes, floods, wildfires,
earthquakes, and other hazards. More energy system resilient facilities
with access to longer term back-up power, efficient HVAC, lighting, and
hot water systems offer far greater reliability and durability of
service for communities.
NASEO remains concerned that FEMA has not been implementing the
Disaster Recovery and Reform Act in full compliance with congressional
direction, intent, and the clear statutory language in the area of pre-
disaster state and local building code training assistance.
We are encouraged by the FY 22 request to provide increased funding
for the FEMA BRIC program. Practical, cost-effective building codes,
voluntarily adopted by state and local governments, require robust
training of code staff and the building trade community to be
effective. The evidence that modern building energy codes result in
more resilient and energy efficient construction and that such codes
save lives and offer greater comfort to residents during a disaster is
abundant.
FEMA had previously chosen to implement DRRA Section 1206 entirely
through the Public Assistance Program. As a consequence, the draft
policy would prohibit activities (1) associated with ``non-disaster
damaged buildings,'' (2) related to ``[a]dopting new or updating
current building codes or floodplain management ordinances,'' and (3)
that extend beyond ``180 days after the date of the major disaster
declaration.''
Where a community has not adopted disaster resistant codes pre-
disaster, post-disaster is the ideal time for that adoption or update.
Post-disaster is also when permitting loads and training needs are at
their greatest. Addressing these challenges through Section 1206 would
allow FEMA to provide support to jurisdictions seeking to ensure that
rebuilding is done to modern standards, which in turn can help impacted
communities be better positioned to weather the next storm. Providing
federal reimbursement for administering and enforcing older and less
resilient codes risks perpetuating an unending cycle of damage and
repair if those older codes are never updated.
DRRA Section 1206(a) permits FEMA to assist communities in adopting
or updating building codes post disaster, in training code officials
and builders on updated or existing building codes, and in boosting
efforts to ensure rebuilding work community-wide is done to code. We
believe FEMA should act now to implement that Section, which is
consistent with the Agency's current Strategic Plan, ongoing
programmatic work, the National Mitigation Investment Strategy,
mitigation research, the DRRA, and congressional intent.
To ensure DRRA section 1206(a) is implemented appropriately in the
near-term, we request the addition of the following report language in
your appropriations bill or converted to bill text:
``The Committee is concerned that the Agency has implemented
Disaster Recovery Reform Act Section 1206 solely through the
Public Assistance program. In so doing, the Agency has not
implemented Section 1206(a), which permits FEMA to assist
communities in adopting or updating building codes post
disaster, in training code officials and builders on updated or
existing building codes, and in boosting efforts to ensure
rebuilding work communitywide is done to code. The Committee
urges the Agency to take immediate steps to implement Section
1206(a) as required under the law, which will ensure that
rebuilding is done to modern standards, helping impacted
communities be better positioned to confront future natural
hazards.''
If the Subcommittee has any questions regarding this testimony,
please contact David Terry, NASEO Executive Director ([email protected])
or Jeff Genzer, NASEO Counsel ([email protected]).]
[This statement was submitted by David Terry, NASEO Executive
Director.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Coast Guard Museum
fifty million dollars for the national coast guard museum
The Subcommittee is significantly misinformed and disinformed on
funding for the National Coast Guard Museum.
Based on letters to the editor of the Day newspaper for many years,
there is a total lack of private and industry contributions for the
present plan of locating the Museum in downtown New London; the public
substantially supports the preferred location at Fort Trumbull.
Another feasible and prudent alternative is a Virtual Museum over
the Internet emanating from the Coast Guard Academy. The Smithsonian
Museum has placed all it exhibits on the Internet, which produces zero
Greenhouse Gases (``GHG'') unlike constructing a wasteful facility
where its embodied energy \1\ employs lots of fossil fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Embodied (accumulated) energy is the total quantity of energy
required to manufacture, and supply to the point of use, a product,
material or service and disposal. It includes the energy expended from
cradle to grave for: extracting raw materials; transporting,
manufacturing, assembling and installing a specific material to produce
a service or product and finally its disassembly, deconstruction and/or
decomposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the one hand, the Chairman is a strong supporter for reducing
GHG contributions to climate change but on the other hand, your
proposed $50 million appropriation for Museum construction embraces and
guarantees future gas emissions unlike a zero emissions Virtual Museum.
Any museum, whether for the Coast Guard or otherwise, is neither a
water-dependent use nor a facility on a site suitable for such use/
facility and will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on future water-
dependent development opportunities and activities.
```Water dependent' means development that cannot physically
function without direct access to the body of water along which it is
proposed. Uses, or portions of uses, that can function on sites not
adjacent to the water are not considered water dependent regardless of
the economic advantages that may be gained from a waterfront
location.''
The federally approved Connecticut Coastal Management Act
(``CCMA'') and Program does not contain either a generic/specific goal
or policy stating or inferring that a museum'' is a water-dependent
use.'' More likely, the proposed development is a ``water-enhanced use
or facility'' based on the legislative debate in 22 House Proceedings
Part 29, pp. 10285-10297 (Connecticut).
Lawmakers specifically rejected language that would have allowed
water-enhanced uses and insisted on the term water-dependent. As the
lawmakers asserted, what isn't enhanced by being on the water,
including hotels and restaurants? The aim was to confine coastal
development to things that can only be done on the waterfront, like
fishing docks, marinas and ferry terminals, since you can't put those
anywhere else. Even fish processing plants are not water-dependent
since they can be built and used anywhere.
The Commandant of the United States Coast Guard prepared the
``Funding Plan for the Coast Guard Museum,'' in its Report to Congress
dated September 11, 2014. The Report was compiled pursuant to a
requirement in Section 213 of the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-293). This plan is now seven
years old; Congress needs to require its update.
The funding plan, which is comprised of the 2008 Strategic Master
Plan and its 2014 addendum, details the public-private partnership
between the Coast Guard and the National Coast Guard Museum Association
(``Association'') and addresses the projected resource requirements of
the Museum based on preliminary designs and plans, which have
significantly changed.
The Coast Guard plans to build the Museum on a very difficult
site--a high hazard flood plain on the wrong side of a high-speed rail
line.
As Subcommittee chair, your intent to fund the Museum at the
downtown New London location is highly unwise and wasteful of energy
and other natural resources. I suggest and request that the
Subcommittee reconsider funding construction of the Museum for $50
million dollars.
I will gladly provide any further information on the history of
efforts to create the Museum, which the Coast Guard originally approved
for Fort Trumbull.
[This statement was submitted by Robert Fromer.]
______
Prepared Statement of National Congress of American Indians
On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the
oldest, largest, and most representative national American Indian and
Alaska Native organization dedicated to protecting the rights of Tribal
Nations to practice self-determination and achieve self-sufficiency,
thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony regarding
Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 appropriations for tribal homeland security and
emergency management grants and programs. Foreign and domestic threats
to homeland security are on the rise. These threats require tribal
communities to develop and enhance homeland security response planning,
training, and exercise efforts. However, funding to Tribal Nations for
critical homeland security needs has remained stagnant for over a
decade.
Without adequate resources dedicated to Indian Country, federal
efforts to create a cohesive and coordinated homeland security strategy
will leave a significant and potentially dangerous gap in security for
the entire nation. Congress and the Administration have a trust
obligation to assist Tribal Nations in protecting all citizens, Native
and non-Native, within their jurisdictions. Until equitable funding is
achieved, Tribal Nations will remain unable to fully participate in
national homeland security strategies, ultimately undermining their
ability to assist in protecting vital infrastructure from domestic and
international threats. NCAI urges the Subcommittee to include strong
funding levels for tribal homeland security and emergency management
programs in its FY 2022 appropriations bill.
Increase Funding to $40 Million for the Tribal Homeland Security
Grant Program: Since 2003, Congress has allocated over $55 billion in
homeland security grant funds to state and local governments. In
contrast, Tribal Nations have only been allocated just over $90 million
during the same period. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has
acknowledged the need for the Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program
(THSGP), but has yet to provide the minimum funding for Tribal Nations
to develop the necessary homeland security capacity to ensure
protection of the nation.
Each year, tribal needs are at least four times more than the
funding amount provided for the program. Of those Tribal Nations that
do apply, several could use the entire amount budgeted for THSGP on
their own. Currently, THSGP is the only resource for Tribal Nations to
develop core capabilities to meet national preparedness goals. The
cascading effects of DHS not ensuring adherence to statutory
requirements for states to pass through funding to Tribal Nations along
with formal denials of, or informal discouragement for seeking, federal
disaster assistance detrimentally impacts public safety and falls far
short of the federal government's treaty and trust responsibilities to
Tribal Nations.
NCAI strongly urges Congress to fund THSGP at $40 million for the
next five years. This would represent a necessary increase over the $10
million that DHS has made available for THSGP in recent years. In FY
2021, Congress appropriated $15 million for THSGP instead of leaving
the additional funding up to the discretion of DHS. Congress increasing
the funding for THSGP is an important step forward for Indian Country.
NCAI now urges Congress to bring THSGP up to the current Tribal Nations
request level of $40 million to meet the needs of Tribal Nations as
they strive to protect all citizens.
Provide $206,640,000 to enable the 574 Federally Recognized Tribal
Nations to Develop Vital Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Programs: Tribal homeland security and emergency management programs
play a key role in Tribal Nations' ability to respond and recover from
emergencies such as COVID-19. In order for Tribal Nations to even
access emergency funding from DHS they need dedicated staff that know
the emergency funding process and that can work with FEMA. During the
height of the COVID-19 pandemic over 80 percent of all Tribal Nations
could not access the billions in life saving funds through FEMA due to
years of little or no funding for tribal emergency management programs.
Tribal Nations are continuously being left further and further behind
in meeting the core capabilities for which the federal government has
provided funding to state and local governments over the past 50 years.
If Tribal Nations were to meet minimum standards that have been
required by the Homeland Security Act and the Robert T. Stafford Act,
along with the standards developed by FEMA, the National Fire
Protection Association, and the Emergency Management Accreditation
Program, a minimum of 1.5 FTEs per Tribal Nation would be required.
This need could be met by providing each of the 574 federally
recognized tribal nations with $360,000 annually and would total
$206,640,000. An investment by the federal government to meet its trust
responsibilities could provide a return on investment of six dollars
for every dollar invested.
Provide $2 Million for the Creation and Operation of a DHS Tribal
National Advisory Council: Federal advisory committees, often composed
of non-federal individuals, play an important role in developing public
policy and government regulations. However, DHS, one of the largest and
newest federal agencies, does not have a National Tribal Advisory
Committee to advise the Secretary on all homeland security matters. DHS
needs this tool to help ensure its programs adequately support the 574
federally recognized Tribal Nations. Congress created the FEMA National
Advisory Council (NAC) in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform
Act of 2006 to ensure ongoing coordination of federal preparedness,
response, and recovery efforts. The FEMA NAC advises the FEMA
Administrator on all aspects of emergency management and currently
includes two tribal citizens.
Tribal Nations are thankful that there are at least two tribal
representatives currently on the FEMA NAC, but are greatly concerned
that the FEMA NAC cannot consider all pressing tribal homeland security
matters. For this reason, Congress must organize a DHS Tribal National
Advisory Council (DHS Tribal NAC) to support homeland security
initiatives in Indian Country. Additionally, Congress should require an
annual report from the DHS Tribal NAC on projects, recommendations,
accomplishments, meetings, membership, and other items. This is
particularly important as threats evolve and since DHS has not made
significant steps toward addressing shortfalls in its support for
tribal homeland security efforts. Congress should provide $2 million
annually for the staffing, creation, and operation of a DHS Tribal NAC
that would report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Provide $10 Million to Enable Tribal Nations to Work Cooperatively
with DHS in Developing Tribal Identification Cards: Tribal Nations have
shown they are willing to comply with the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative for enhanced tribal identification (ID) cards; however,
compliance is often cost-prohibitive. Funding tribal ID cards has
multiple benefits, such as enabling Tribal Nations to provide secure
tribal cards, allowing tribal officials and citizens to continue border
crossings consistent with longstanding treaty rights and agreements,
and allowing entrance to federal offices to conduct business and other
matters. Some Tribal Nations have the human resources and logistical
capacity to produce tribal IDs if materials and technical assistance
are available. NCAI asks Congress to provide $10 million to Customs and
Border Protection for direct assistance to the 574 federally recognized
Tribal Nations for enhanced ID efforts.
Provide $4 Million for Tribal Emergency Management Assistance
Compact Development: Congress funded the development and continues to
fund the operation of the state-to-state emergency management
assistance compact (EMAC)--a mutual aid agreement between states and
territories of the United States. The EMAC enables states to share
resources during natural and man-made disasters, including terrorism.
The 574 federally recognized Tribal Nations are not part of this
agreement. This is an issue, as Tribal Nations are often the first, and
in some cases only, responders to natural disasters in their
jurisdictions. The majority of tribal disasters are never designated
federal disaster declaration status. For this reason, providing funding
to establish and operate tribal EMACs will help strengthen national
homeland security by providing Tribal Nations a first resource between
and among themselves. NCAI urges Congress to provide $4 million for
inter-tribal emergency management compact development.
Additional Indian Country funding priorities for FY 2022:
--Provide $10 million for Tribal Nations to train DHS personnel in
cultural sensitivity. (DHS)
--Provide $2 million for Tribal Homeland Security Centers of
Excellence. (DHS)
--Provide $5 million for Tribal Cyber Security Resilience. (CISA)
--Provide $2 million for COVID-19 after action evaluations and
reports that focus on the federal response in Indian Country.
(FEMA)
--Provide $2 million for National Response and Coordinating Center,
Tribal Desk. (FEMA)
--Provide $1 million for updated Tribal Nations emergency management
training. (FEMA)
--Provide $3 million for the development and delivery of homeland
security and emergency management curriculum at Tribal Colleges
and Universities and tribal non-profits. (FEMA)
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and for your
consideration of tribal homeland security and emergency management
funding priorities for FY 2022.
[This statement was submitted by Kelbie Kennedy
([email protected]), NCAI Policy Counsel.]
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy's (TNC's)
Chair Murphy, Ranking Member Capito and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature
Conservancy's (TNC's) support for fiscal year 2022 (FY22) funding for
specific programs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
TNC is a nonprofit conservation organization working in all 50 states
and in 72 countries and territories to conserve the lands and waters on
which all life depends.
Last year, we witnessed an alarming new record in the United States
as an unparalleled number of catastrophic storms resulted in the
greatest number of billion-dollar disasters since the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration began tallying disaster costs. A record-
breaking 30 named tropical storms and hurricanes played a major role in
this sad milestone, as did the worst year on record for
uncharacteristically severe wildfires in the West. Since just 2005, the
United States has endured just shy of $1.26 trillion in damages from
natural disasters, which represents an alarming and dramatic average
annual increase in previous years and decades \1\. These statistics
represent a trend moving in the wrong direction as we continue to
witness increasingly devastating storms and wildfires wreaking havoc on
our lives, our economy and our environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S.: economic cost of natural disasters 2020 Statista
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a nation, we must improve our ability to invest in work that
reduces the risk of the growing impacts of these disasters. We must
also pay attention to an equitable distribution of federal funding to
ensure low-income communities and communities of color are able to
access these resources. Unfortunately, FEMA mitigation funding has not
targeted these communities, which already have added challenges in
accessing sources of mitigation funding. According to E&E reported
analysis \2\ of FEMA records on the applications for the new Building
Resilient Infrastructure for Communities (BRIC) program, only 10
percent of the applications were from ``small, impoverished
communities'' and this amounted to only 3 percent of the funding being
sought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Environmental Justice: FEMA climate grants pose challenge for
poor communities--Tuesday, June 1, 2021--www.eenews.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, there is more that we can do to prepare for and invest in
reducing the risk that disaster events pose to communities, especially
low-income and communities of color. By investing in actions that
enhance resilience and deliver measurable reduction in risk and
impacts, our nation will experience less loss of life and property.
Communities throughout the nation will be able to bounce back quicker
from these extreme weather events. Due to this need, TNC strongly
supports efforts to build staff capacity and expertise as well as
bolster technical assistance--including investing in data delivery and
geospatial mapping--and pre-disaster mitigation planning, analysis and
overall mitigation actions.
TNC believes planning for and investing in restoring and conserving
nature provides significant contributions to mitigation actions. These
types of natural and green infrastructure projects deliver measurable
reductions in flood, fire and drought risk. These risk reduction
benefits are being realized through conservation and restoration
projects across the United States and in U.S. territories to maintain
and restore the connectivity of rivers and provide sufficient
floodplain areas. These projects can include protecting headwaters of
watersheds to improve the quality of downstream waters, implementing
sustainable forest management practices, restoring coastal natural
infrastructure like coral reefs and dunes, and constructing green
infrastructure in urban areas. In addition to reducing risks, these
projects provide many other benefits that enhance resilience and
support and protect humans and nature, such as filtering pollutants,
reducing erosion, protecting breeding grounds for fish and shellfish
and enhancing recreation. To further advance this work, working with
the global infrastructure consulting firm AECOM, we recently completed
a guide, ``Promoting Nature-Based Mitigation Through FEMA Mitigation
Grants'' (www.nature.org/femaguide), to inform local communities and
states as to how to successfully secure FEMA mitigation funding to
invest in nature-based projects.
flood hazard mapping and risk analysis program
Flood maps are critical to providing accurate information that
feeds into essential community-level vulnerability assessment and risk
reduction planning, yielding enhanced resilience. Up-to-date,
scientifically sound and environmentally and socio-economically
indicative flood maps inform risk and vulnerability. Flood maps
underpin wise land use, including decisions on where not to develop and
where to conserve lands that might aid in reducing flood risk. And yet,
FEMA maps are woefully inadequate in capturing flood risk. A study
published in Environmental Research Letters by TNC and other scientists
demonstrated that approximately 13 percent of the U.S. population is at
risk of flooding. This is more than three times what is captured by
FEMA flood insurance rate maps, which are used to estimate the amount
of the U.S. population at risk. The study used new mapping techniques
that should be considered to bolster FEMA's current mapping methods.
TNC also has extensive experience in providing flood and land use data
to inform strategies that reduce risk through the development of our
Coastal Resilience Tool.
According to a panel of experts convened by the Association of
State Floodplain Managers, it will cost between $3.2 billion and $11.8
billion to produce updated flood maps for the nation and another $107
million to $480 million annually to keep those maps updated.\3\ The
funding level of $263 million for FY20 and FY21 for the Flood Hazard
Mapping and Risk Analysis Program is simply inadequate to update and
maintain FEMA flood maps. At a time when needs for accurate mapping are
so great because it can help drive risk reduction decisions, we ask
that this amount be greatly increased to address the need. We
appreciate the requested additional funding of $273 million in the
president's budget but, unfortunately, this amount is not enough to
address the need. TNC requests funding of up to $800 million for the
Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program in FY22. This amount
should be in addition to any amounts allocated to mapping from revenues
derived directly from the flood insurance policy fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ASFPM's Flood Mapping for the Nation. 2020. https://
www.floodsciencecenter.org/products/flood-mapping-for-the-nation/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
building resilient infrastructure and communities (bric)
Proactive actions before any specific disaster hits promotes and
facilitates planning and measures that increase resilience and reduce
risk, compared with the reactive, immediate actions needed following a
disaster. With nearly all federal investments in mitigation occurring
after a disaster, the importance of pre-disaster mitigation is
essential. Through the passage of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act
(DRRA) in 2018, Congress created a new program intended to replace the
annually appropriated Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund. Launched this year,
BRIC is to be funded with up to 6 percent set aside from the Disaster
Relief Fund (DRF). This will enhance funding for pre-disaster
mitigation work and could result in a meaningful increase in funding
for pre-disaster mitigation investment. While we appreciate the $500
million that was dedicated to this program in FY21, reporting indicates
that this amount did not represent a full 6 percent allocations as
defined in the statute, and it continues to be uncertain exactly how
the percentage of DRF funds to dedicate to BRIC will be calculated and
invested in BRIC in FY22 and beyond. And as demonstrated in the first
round of applications for this funding, the demand for funding totaled
$3.6 billion far exceeded the available funding. We also greatly
appreciate the president's recent announcement of dedicating $1 billion
in funding to this program for FY22. We also call on Congress to
include report language that ensures funding of at least the full 6
percent (as defined in the DRRA of 2018) of DRF funds for BRIC for
FY22. Additionally, we strongly encourage the Committee to request that
15 percent of future rounds of BRIC funding be reserved to fund nature-
based mitigation projects, which have been proven to provide
significant hazard risk reduction benefits during natural disaster
events while also providing additional social, recreational and
environmental co-benefits year-round.
national flood insurance program mitigation grants
Much of the National Flood Insurance Program Mitigation Grant funds
are targeted at mitigating losses to structures that repeatedly flood.
Addressing the select structures that incur the greatest cost from
repeated damage is the fiscally responsible option. There are known
strategies, both structural and nonstructural, that are proven to
reduce or eliminate flood damage, and thus this funding ultimately
saves costs by reducing or eliminating that future risk. The funds pay
for flood proofing measures, such as elevating structures, and are used
to permanently remove structures from areas of repeat flooding. TNC
supports a minimum funding level of $175 million in FY22 for the
National Flood Insurance Program Mitigation Grants.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit TNC's recommendations for
the FY22 Homeland Security appropriations bill.
[This statement was submitted by Sarah Murdock, Director, U.S.
Climate Resilience and Water Policy, The Nature Conservancy.]
______
Prepared Statement of the Nation's Fire and Emergency Services
department of homeland security, federal emergency management agency
(fema) programs--firefighter assistance grants, u.s. fire
administration, urban search and rescue system
On behalf of the nation's fire and emergency services, we write to
urge your continued support for programs that enhance our nation's
readiness and emergency response capabilities: the Assistance to
Firefighters (AFG) and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response (SAFER) grant programs, the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA),
and the Urban Search and Rescue Response System (US&R).
afg and safer grant programs
Funding
The AFG and SAFER grant programs are imperative to addressing the
needs of more than one million fire and emergency services personnel
while providing an economic stimulus to American businesses. AFG and
SAFER have been eminently successful in providing fire departments and
EMS agencies with the tools, training, and staffing needed to safely
and effectively protect their communities. As you begin work on the
Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 appropriations process, we encourage you to fund
these programs at the authorized level of $750 million each.
Demand for these programs has consistently been significantly
higher than the supply of available funding, and equipment costs have
continued to rise while funding has remained relatively low. The most
recent analysis from industry experts estimates that since 2018, the
average cost for turnout gear has increased around 14%, while the cost
of fire apparatus has increased around 16%. Even today, costs are still
continuing to increase.
In addition to costs, demand for fire and emergency services
response has also continued to grow. According to NFPA data, in 2011,
fire departments responded to just over 30 million calls in that year.
By 2018, the annual number of calls had risen to approximately 36.7
million, a 22% increase. Furthermore, not only did the overall number
of calls increase, but the number of calls across most response
categories increased. In 2018, fire departments responded to more calls
for medical aid, mutual aid, hazardous materials response, and other
conditions than before. During the COVID-19 pandemic, fire departments
and EMS agencies have shown that they are ready, willing, and able to
respond to new and evolving emergencies-while continuing to respond to
existing threats-but they require federal support to do so.
The AFG and SAFER grant programs improve response capabilities
across all emergency response areas. They also provide funding for
crucial fire prevention and safety programs targeted toward high-risk
populations. As demand for fire and emergency response continues to
rise, we must ensure that our fire and EMS personnel have what they
need to keep themselves and their communities safe while also
strengthening prevention efforts to improve the safety of civilians and
personnel alike. This requirement is squarely in the federal interest
and necessitates federal investments at the authorized level.
Waiver Language
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought new challenges to fire
departments and EMS agencies. To ensure that the AFG and SAFER programs
can continue to function effectively in these conditions, we ask that
you include the following waiver language in the FY2022 DHS
appropriations bill:
safer
In making grants to carry out Section 34 of the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229a), the Administrator
shall grant waivers from the requirements in subsections (a)(1)(A),
(a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(E), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4) of such Act.
afg
In making grants to carry out Section 33 of the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229), the Administrator
shall grant waivers from the requirements in subsections (k)(1) and
(k)(3) of such Act.
These waivers will help ensure that vital grant funding gets where
it is most needed: into the hands of local fire departments and EMS
agencies. The SAFER waivers will also allow departments to retain and
rehire personnel-critical to attaining and maintaining the appropriate
staffing levels to keep communities safe.
u.s. fire administration
Another issue we bring to your attention is funding for USFA. USFA
plays an important role at the national level, ensuring that the fire
service is prepared to respond to all hazards. Each year, USFA provides
training to approximately 100,000 fire and emergency service personnel
through the National Fire Academy (NFA). Through the vital funding of
the State Fire Training Grants, USFA is also able to support much-
needed training in the states, and thus reach a larger audience.
Additionally, USFA collects important data and conducts research to
reduce the threat of fire and other dangers in local communities.
Unfortunately, over the past decade, USFA's budget has remained
relatively stagnant and well below the authorized level of $76.5
million.
At a time when fire and EMS personnel are facing climate change
threats, including increasing numbers of natural disasters like
hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires; more medical calls than ever
before; the evolving challenge of responding on the front lines of a
global pandemic; the continued scourge of structural fires, including
home fires; increasing numbers of calls for hazardous materials
response; and much more, it is essential that the agency tasked with
supporting America's fire and emergency services is properly resourced.
Therefore, our organizations request full funding of $76.5 million
for USFA in FY2022 to ensure that it can continue its mission to
support our nation's fire and EMS personnel and work for a fire-safe
America.
urban search and rescue response system
Lastly, we request your support for US&R funding. As the nation's
only self-sufficient, all-hazards, ready-response force, US&R is
essential to our nation's homeland security. Given its crucial
importance, we are extremely concerned with the program's consistent
underfunding. The average cost to maintain a US&R team exceeds $2
million. Unfortunately, recent appropriations have only covered a
portion of the necessary costs, leaving local governments responsible
for filling the gap and, thus, impairing local public safety. We urge
Congress to increase funding for the program to at least $50 million in
FY2022.
We remain grateful for your continued leadership in ensuring that
America's fire and emergency services are prepared to protect the
public from all hazards--both natural and manmade. As you continue
developing legislation to fund these programs for FY2022, we urge you
to consider our recommendations to ensure that our nation's first
responders can continue to protect and serve their communities safely
and effectively.
Sincerely,
Congressional Fire Services Institute
Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association
Fire and Emergency Manufacturers and Services Association
International Association of Arson Investigators
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Association of Fire Fighters
International Fire Service Training Association
International Society of Fire Service Instructors
National Association of State Fire Marshals
National Fire Protection Association
National Volunteer Fire Council
North American Fire Training Directors
Congressional Fire Services Institute/Fire Apparatus Manufacturers'
Association
Fire and Emergency Manufacturers and Services Association/
International Association of Arson Investigators/International
Association of Fire Chiefs/
International Association of Fire Fighters/International Fire Service
Training Association/
International Society of Fire Service Instructors/National Association
of State Fire Marshals/
National Fire Protection Association/National Volunteer Fire Council/
North American Fire Training Directors
[This statement was submitted by Michaela Campbell, Director of
Government Affairs for the Congressional Fire Services Institute, on
behalf of the undersigned organizations.]
______
Prepared Statement of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is a self-funded,
global non-profit organization founded in 1896 dedicated to ending
losses from fire, electrical, and related life safety hazards. With the
unabating wildfire crisis in the U.S., NFPA recently launched Outthink
Wildfire(tm), an initiative to advocate for policy change in five key
areas that will stop the destruction of communities by this hazard. We
write to ask for your support for key federal programs.
The five tenets are: 1) all homes and business in areas of wildfire
risk must be retrofitted to resist ignition; 2) current codes,
standards, and sound land use planning practices must be used and
enforced; 3) local fire departments must have adequate resources to
protect their communities; 4) fuel management on federal and non-
federal lands must be a priority; and 5) the public must be well-
informed and motivated to embrace their role in reducing wildfire risk.
While action on these fronts is urgently needed at all levels of
government, Federal programs need to play a key role in ending the
devastating wildfire losses communities are now experiencing as
discussed in this letter.
mitigating wildfire severity
NFPA supports the Administration's FY2022 proposal to provide $1.7
billion in funding for high-priority hazardous fuels and forest-
resilience projects to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), in addition to
the proposed $340 million to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for
hazardous fuel treatments on its lands. As identified in the National
Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy, denser, more continuous fuel on
landscapes now outside of their natural ecological fire regimes is a
major contributor to the severe wildfires that threaten communities and
drain Federal fire suppression resources. The U.S. must increase the
rate of fuel treatments, including prescribed burning, to address the
millions of acres now at high or very high risk of wildfire.
In addition to increased resources for hazardous fuel treatment
projects, NFPA supports programs that enable collaboration between the
USFS and its partners, assist state and private land managers in
restoring forest health, and encourage landscape-scale restoration
projects. For example, the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
program has been successful in reducing fire risk and achieving other
management objectives through a stakeholder-driven process aimed at
minimizing conflict.\1\ Given the National Cohesive Strategy's call for
increased landscape-scale fuel treatment and forest health projects,
funding this program at its authorized level of $80 million can help
continue and expand on its success. Similarly, the Landscape Scale
Restoration Program should receive $20 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See e.g., Schultz, Courtney, et al. (2017) Strategies for
Success Under Forest Service Restoration Initiatives, Ecosystem
Workforce Working Paper, Number 81 (https://tinyurl.com/38b3cpz4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, NFPA supports a robust budget for forestry research,
including programs to better understand wildfire behavior and landscape
treatment strategies, as well as programs to develop new wood products
and markets to create more financial incentives for hazardous fuel
treatment. As part of that funding, the Joint Fire Sciences Research
program should receive $8 million each for the USFS and DOI. NFPA also
believes research funding for the built environment aspect of wildfire
resilience should be increased and thus supports the Administration's
proposal to increase funding for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), particularly for efforts to improve resiliency
through building codes.
assisting state & local fire departments
State and local fire response resources play a major role in
preparing for and responding to wildfires on both public and private
lands, making the USFS funds provided by the State Fire Assistance
(SFA) and Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) programs critical to public
safety. According to the National Association of State Foresters,
members of state and local fire departments are the first to respond to
80 percent of wildfires. Findings from NFPA's 2016 Fourth Needs
Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service \2\ that the majority of fire
departments with wildfire response responsibilities lack sufficient
training and personal protective equipment reveal a significant gap in
safety, for both the responders and the lives and properties of the
communities they protect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Fire Protection Association (2016) Fourth National
Needs Assessment, https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-
and-tools/Emergency-Responders/Needs-assessment, (Eighty-eight percent
of U.S. fire departments-some 23,000 departments-provide wildland and/
or WUI firefighting services, but 63 percent of those have not formally
trained all of their personnel involved in wildland firefighting on
these skills. Only 32 percent have all of their responders equipped
with appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE), and 26 percent do
not have any of the necessary PPE at all. Only 27 percent of
departments have a health and fitness program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SFA and VFA are critical safety programs for supporting wildland
urban interface (WUI) communities, funding hazardous fuels treatment in
the WUI, supporting fire planning projects, and helping to train and
equip state and local responders. SFA also supports public education
and community capacity development programs like Firewise USA(r) and
the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network. These programs teach WUI
residents how to lower wildfire risk to their homes and support
community mitigation activities. Therefore, NFPA supports funding the
State Fire Assistance program at $88.5 million and the Volunteer Fire
Assistance program at $20 million.
mitigation for communities
The National Cohesive Strategy also identifies the need for fire
adapted communities-communities where homes and businesses are
retrofitted to resist ignition and wildfire safety codes, standards,
and land use planning practices are applied. According to the U.S. Fire
Administration, the Nation has over 70,000 thousand communities in
areas at risk from wildfires, home to 46 million housing units.
Preparing for wildfire through creating defensible space and home
retrofits can greatly reduce the risk of loss. NFPA supports the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and the Administration's
proposal to add $540 million in new resources to programs tasked with
helping communities undertake pre-disaster planning and make
investments in resiliency. The USFS' Wildfire Hazard Severity Mapping
for Communities program also supports community risk assessment and
hazard mitigation planning and should continue. In addition, NFPA is
also highly supportive of proposed efforts to improve resiliency and
safety in HUD-assisted housing with an additional $800 million in new
investments.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our views on Federal support
for reducing wildfire risk to communities. NFPA strongly urges the
Committee to support a robust budget for wildfire mitigation and we
stand ready to provide any addition information that would be useful.
Sincerely,
L. Seth Statler
Director of Government
Affairs,
National Fire Protection
Association
______
Prepared Statement of National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU)
Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Capito and distinguished members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide this
testimony. As President of the National Treasury Employees Union
(NTEU), I have the honor of leading a union that represents over 29,000
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers and trade enforcement
specialists stationed at 328 air, sea, and land ports of entry across
the United States and 16 Preclearance stations.
CBP is the largest component of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) responsible for border security at the ports of entry, including
anti-terrorism, immigration, anti-smuggling, trade compliance, and
agriculture protection. CBP also simultaneously facilitates lawful
trade and travel at U.S. ports of entry that is critical to our
Nation's economy.
CBP Staffing at the Ports of Entry: For years, NTEU has advocated
for the hiring of thousands of new CBP Officers, hundreds of new
Agriculture Specialists and non-uniformed trade operations personnel
that are needed based on the agency's own Workload Staffing Model
(WSM), Agriculture Resource Allocation Model (AgRAM) and Resource
Optimization Model for Trade Revenue (Trade ROM).
Pursuant to these models, in FY 2021 House Appropriators sought
$171 million for 1,150 new CBP OFO positions including $91 million for
850 CBP Officers, $10 million for 100 support personnel and$30 million
for 200 agriculture specialists. Senate Appropriators did not clear any
funding bills but recommended $8 million in FY 2021 funding to hire 50
new non-uniformed trade positions to carry out CBP's trade mission to
strengthen trade enforcement actions. However, in the end, the final FY
2021 funding bill did not include any funding to increase staffing for
CBP OFO.
CBP's staffing models are dynamic and reflect the impact of the
pandemic on CBP OFO staffing needs. Based on CBP's most recent staffing
models, CBP needs to hire approximately 1,700 CBP Officers, 400
Agriculture Specialists and 200 non-uniformed Trade Specialists.
NTEU requests that the Committee include in its FY 2022 DHS
appropriations bill funding for CBP OFO new hires up to levels required
by the CBP's dynamic workplace staffing models for CBP Officers,
Agriculture Specialists and Trade Specialists. Therefore, NTEU is
asking the Committee to provide at minimum $160 million in direct
appropriated funding for CBP ``Operations and Support'' in FY 2022 to
fund the hiring of at least 800 CBP Officers, 240 CBP Agriculture
Specialists, 200 CBP Agriculture Technicians, 20 Agriculture Canine
Teams and 50 non-uniformed trade enforcement specialists and associated
operational support personnel.
To further support this staffing request, NTEU joined a coalition
of 28 port stakeholders, including Airports Council International-North
America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S. Travel Association on a
letter dated May 4, 2021, to this subcommittee urging funding for new
officers so the agency will be prepared for an influx of passengers and
cargo at the ports-of-entry once the current international travel
restrictions are relaxed and eventually lifted.
As the letter states, ensuring CBP staffing is an economic driver
for the U.S. economy and an additional 800 CBP Officers would not only
reduce wait times at ports of entry, but also provide new economic
opportunities across the United States. ``While the volume of commerce
crossing our borders has more than tripled in the past 25 years, CBP
staffing has not kept pace with demand'' the coalition wrote. ``Long
wait times at our ports-of-entry lead to travel delays and uncertainty,
which can increase supply-chain costs and cause passengers to miss
their connections. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, border
delays result in losses to output, wages, jobs, and tax revenue due to
decreases in spending by companies, suppliers, and consumers.''
Furthermore, acknowledging the ongoing CBP Officer staffing
shortage at the ports, CBP again finds it necessary to solicit CBP
Officers for temporary duty assignment (TDY) to San Ysidro, Otay Mesa,
and Calexico land ports of entry, which began on May 16, 2021.
According to CBP, the TDY is necessary to support the workload and
operational challenges facing the San Diego Field Office, such as wait
times in excess of four hours. OFO anticipates the TDY to run in three,
62-day phases and tentatively ending on July 18, 2021, with the
possibility of additional phases. These TDYs will be filled by CBP
Officers currently assigned to air and seaport locations and will
generally exclude northern and southern land border POEs.
Lastly, in order to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, since March
2020, travel through the northern and southwest border land ports has
been restricted to essential trade and travel. These restrictions are
reevaluated monthly and there is an expectation that these essential
travel restrictions may be lifted as early as June 21. If these
essential travel restrictions are indeed lifted, I have heard from NTEU
leaders that the current staffing at land ports will be unable to
maintain inspection and processing functions to address the expected
increase in traffic flow in a timely manner. At the San Ysidro port of
entry, the current TDYs will need to be extended or wait times at that
port will become untenable. With the end of essential travel
restrictions, the surge of travelers, as well as asylum seekers,
through the land ports threaten to overwhelm port functions. To end the
need for TDYs, it is up to Congress to address the ongoing port
staffing deficit by authorizing and funding CBP OFO new hires in FY
2022 and subsequent years until the staffing gap identified in the
workload staffing models are met. Without addressing the ongoing CBP
Officer staffing shortages, allocating adequate staffing at all ports
will remain a challenge.
Unfortunately, the FY 2022 President's DHS budget request is
essentially flat and includes no increase in funding for CBP OFO new
hires. NTEU greatly appreciates the President for including a pay raise
for federal employees in his budget proposal and new CBP funding to
address the annualization of the FY 2021 pay raise, the FY 2022 pay
raise, the associated FERS contribution and funding for certain port
modernization projects.
CBP Agriculture Specialist Staffing: Currently, there is a shortage
of approximately 430 Agriculture Specialists nationwide according to
CBP's own data-driven and vetted Workload Staffing Model. Last year,
Congress approved P.L. 116-122, the Protecting America's Food and
Agriculture Act of 2019. The new law authorizes CBP to hire 240 CBP
Agriculture Specialists, 200 CBP Agriculture Technicians and 20
Agriculture Canine Teams per year until the staffing shortage that
threatens the U.S. agriculture sector is met. NTEU's appropriations
request includes funding to hire the first wave of CBP agriculture
inspection personnel authorized by the newly enacted statute.
CBP Trade Operations Staffing: In addition to safeguarding our
nation's borders and ports, CBP is tasked with regulating and
facilitating international trade. CBP employees at the ports of entry
are critical for protecting our nation's economic growth and security
and are the second largest source of revenue collection for the U.S.
government--$74 billion in 2020. For every dollar invested in CBP trade
personnel, $87 is returned to the U.S. economy, either through lowering
the costs of trade, ensuring a level playing field for domestic
industry or protecting innovative intellectual property. Since CBP was
established in March 2003, however, there has been no increase in non-
uniformed CBP trade enforcement and compliance personnel. Additionally,
CBP trade operations staffing has fallen below the statutory floor set
forth in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and stipulated in the FY
2019 CBP Trade ROM. To maintain CBP's trade enforcement mission, NTEU
requests that Congress provide funding in FY 2022 for 50 additional CBP
non-uniformed trade personnel.
User Fee Shortfalls: Due to the pandemic's continued disruption of
fee generating international travel and commerce, user fee collections
have fallen precipitously which has necessitated the need for emergency
funding to prevent furloughing CBP OFO personnel at a time when
international trade and travel volume is beginning to return to pre-
pandemic levels. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA)
and Immigration and Agriculture Quality Inspection (AQI) user fees
currently fund up to 8,000 CBP Officers and 2,400 Agriculture
Specialists. To address the user fee shortfall, we were pleased that
Congress provided $840 million in FY 2021 emergency appropriations to
maintain current staffing of CBP Officers. Projected CBP trade and
travel volume data shows an estimated user fee shortfall of up to $1.4
billion through the first quarter of FY 2022. Congress also provided up
to $635 million through the end of FY 2022 in supplemental funding to
USDA to cover the user funding shortfall that funds CBP Agriculture
Specialists staffing.
U.S. businesses rely on the safe and efficient movement of goods
and people across our borders and are all working to safely resume
international travel and travel. Keeping current CBP Officer staffing
levels will be necessary to successfully transition into a more robust,
safe, and delay-free travel environment and improve cargo movement.
Losing the hiring and staffing advances that they finally started to
gain after years of effort and much appreciated funding support by
Congress will negatively impact cross-border travel, passenger
processing and trade facilitation in future years as the economy
returns to normal.
The critical issues that American businesses are facing to recover
from this pandemic require quick, decisive action so that our
government can best facilitate the flow of travel and trade as the
economy recovers. Without Congress again providing supplemental funding
or reprogramming existing funds to support these CBP Officers between
now and the end of FY 2022, we are gravely concerned that this loss of
user fee funding will result in furloughs at a time when this workforce
is most needed to facilitate the flow of legitimate travel and trade as
the economy recovers.
NTEU requests that the Committee, either through reprogramming, a
supplemental funding bill, or in its FY 2022 DHS appropriations bill,
funding to replace user fee shortfalls for CBP OFO salaries and
expenses and to mitigate dependence on user fees to fund salaries and
expenses of CBP OFO personnel. This CBP OFO funding request will help
to ensure that current CBP Officer staffing levels are maintained as
trade and traffic volumes increase. NTEU implores you to provide this
funding now so that CBP Officers can stay on the job during the
economic recovery. CBP employees at the ports of entry already face
many challenges in the course of their work and concerns about their
health and safety or of being furloughed as the country reopens for
business should not be among them.
NTEU also strongly opposes any diversion of COBRA user fees. Any
increases to the user fee account should be properly used for much-
needed CBP staffing and not diverted to unrelated projects. In 2015,
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act indexed COBRA
user fees to inflation. However, the Act diverted this increase in the
user fee from CBP to pay for unrelated infrastructure projects.
Indexing the COBRA user fee to inflation is projected to raise $1.4
billion over ten years-a potential $140 million per year funding stream
to help pay for the hiring of additional CBP Officers to perform CBP's
border security, law enforcement and trade and travel facilitation
missions. Diverting these funds has cost CBP funding to hire over 900
new CBP Officers per year since the FAST Act went into effect. These
new hires would have significantly alleviated the current CBP Officer
staffing shortage.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this FY 2022 appropriations
request for CBP Officer, Agriculture Specialist, Technicians, Canine
teams, Trade Operations, and mission support new hires at the ports of
entry to build on the CBP OFO staffing advances enacted in prior
appropriations bills. NTEU greatly appreciates your efforts to continue
building on CBP OFO staffing advances made in recent years, and we urge
you to provide FY 2022 funding to replace any user fee shortfall to
maintain the current number of CBP employees and to hire needed
additional CBP OFO employees to adequately staff the nation's ports of
entry as our economy rebounds from the pandemic.
[This statement was submitted by Anthony M. Reardon, National
President, National Treasury Employees Union.]
______
Prepared Statement of Science and Technology Directorate
To: Senate Staff for Senator Peters, Congressional Staff for
Congressmen Johnson, Ryan, Joyce, Axne, and DesJarlis.
My office, the Office of Engagement and Partnerships in the
Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate,
works to identify existing technologies that can be quickly utilized by
members of the Department to fulfill their missions to protect our
country. In the course of evaluating these technologies, we were
briefed by a company that can protect our law enforcement officers and
first responders against the danger posed by the aerosolization of
dangerous substances such as opioids.
This device is called BLOC(tm); a handheld device enabling an
individual to immediately encapsulate potentially lethal powders such
as fentanyl and anthrax. It is the only patented technology of its
kind, currently deployed in the field, and is coincidentally
manufactured in Ohio and Michigan.
The COVID-19 Pandemic has resulted in increased synthetic opioid
use, overdoses, and exposures. Because this technology was specifically
designed to neutralize the threat of aerosolization of lethal powders,
it offers a viable solution which can also be applied to other drugs
and residues of homeless populations.
As opioid abuse and homelessness increase, law enforcement agencies
are transitioning to de-escalation techniques utilizing social service
personnel. These personnel enter locations with substantial threats of
exposure to synthetic opioids, fecal matter containing COVID-19 and
unknown powders. This device protects them from exposure, as well as
innocent people and those suffering from Opioid Use Disorders.
Based on the information provided, BLOC(tm) has been field-proven
effective by first responders, law enforcement, corrections, and US
Military Citizen Support Teams (94th CST). The efficacy of BLOC(tm) was
confirmed by EAG Laboratories, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal
Investigations and recently by the United States Department of
Agriculture, who stated, ``It has far reaching capabilities to include
neutralizing weaponized powders such as Anthrax''.
This office facilitated presentations of this device to the U.S.
Coast Guard, US Customs and Border Patrol, and the Office of Countering
Weapons of Mass Destruction who recognized the benefits of BLOC(tm) to
personnel engaged in drug interdiction and national security.
The ability of this new technology to immediately contain lethal
compounds provides a viable solution to the threat of exposures
identified in the Synthetic Opioid Exposure Prevention and Training
Act. As your office continues to safeguard the personnel at risk from
synthetic opioid exposure, I wanted to inform you of this new
technology for your consideration.
Respectfully,
[This statement was submitted by Robert B. Newman, Jr., Director,
Office of Engagements and Partnerships, Department of Homeland
Security, Science and Technology Directorate.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
America's Public Television Stations (APTS) and the Public
Broadcasting Service (PBS), Prepared Statement of..............
75.............................................................
Capito, Senator Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from West Virginia:
Statement of
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), Prepared Statement of.
78.............................................................
Customs and Border Protection, Prepared Statement of the.........
81.............................................................
Agency, Prepared Statement of................................
79.........................................................
Fenton, Mr. Robert J., Jr., Senior Official Performing the Duties
of Administrator for Federal Emergency Management Agency.......
1..............................................................
Prepared Statement of........................................
7..........................................................
Summary Statement of.........................................
5..........................................................
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prepared Statement of.......
82.............................................................
Hyde-Smith, Senator Cindy, U.S. Senator from Mississippi,
Questions Submitted by.........................................
71.............................................................
Mayorkas Hon. Alejandro, Secretary of Homeland Security..........
39.............................................................
Prepared Statement of........................................
45.........................................................
Summary Statement of.........................................
43.........................................................
Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska, Questions
Submitted by...................................................
33.............................................................
Murphy, Senator Christopher, U.S. Senator from Connecticut:
Opening Statement of
Questions Submitted by.......................................
24.........................................................
National:
Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), Prepared
Statement of the...........................................
84.........................................................
Coast Guard Museum, Prepared Statement of the................
85.........................................................
Congress of American Indians, Prepared Statement of..........
86.........................................................
Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Prepared Statement of the
92.........................................................
Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), Prepared Statement of.......
94.........................................................
Nation's Fire and Emergency Services, Prepared Statement of the..
90.............................................................
Nature Conservancy's (TNC's), Prepared Statement of the..........
88.............................................................
Science and Technology Directorate, Prepared Statement of........
97.............................................................
Shaheen, Senator Jeanne, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire,
Questions Submitted by.........................................
65.............................................................
Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana, Questions
Submitted by...................................................
32.............................................................
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Page
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Additional Committee Questions...................................
24.............................................................
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC).........
27.............................................................
Disaster:
Case Management Program......................................
35.........................................................
Relief Fund..................................................
32.........................................................
FEMA:
And Covid Funding Oversight Challenges identified by the
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC)..........
26.........................................................
Assistance:
For Men, Women, and Children Experiencing Homelessness...
34.....................................................
To Tribes during Covid-19................................
36.....................................................
Financial Assistance for Pandemic Relief.....................
25.........................................................
Inspector General................................................
32.............................................................
Preparedness Grants and Potential Reforms........................
30.............................................................
Resources Available to FEMA......................................
33.............................................................
Southwest Border Surge Response and Readiness....................
31.............................................................
Vaccination Support..............................................
24.............................................................
Vaccinations and Resources for Addressing Covid-19...............
35.............................................................
__________
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Additional Committee Questions...................................
63.............................................................
Addressing the Challenges at the Border..........................
45.............................................................
Bolstering Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure.............
47.............................................................
Border:
Apprehension:
Numbers
Metrics..................................................
56.....................................................
Apprehensions and Returns....................................
54.........................................................
Security Funding.............................................
57.........................................................
Wall Construction............................................
61.........................................................
Cybersecurity....................................................
67.............................................................
Hiring.......................................................
59.........................................................
DHS Procurement..................................................
66.............................................................
Domestic Violent Extremism.......................................
61.............................................................
Drug Interdiction................................................
65.............................................................
FEMA Mitigation Funds............................................
50.............................................................
Funding Priorities for fiscal year 2022..........................
47.............................................................
H2B VISA Allocations.............................................
53.............................................................
H-2B Visas.......................................................
65.............................................................
Illegal Immigration Surge Factors................................
59.............................................................
Immigration Law Enforcement......................................
48.............................................................
Polar Security Cutters...........................................
54.............................................................
Reprogramming/Transfer of Funds..................................
60.............................................................
Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic..............................
45.............................................................
Stopping the Threat of Domestic Violent Extremism................
46.............................................................
Supplemental Funding.............................................
58.............................................................
Title 42 Authority...............................................
51.............................................................
Unaccompanied Children...........................................
70.............................................................
U.S.:
Coast Guard Funding..........................................
57.........................................................
Refugee Admissions Program...................................
69.........................................................
[all]