[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
_________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California, Chairwoman
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
GRACE MENG, New York
PETE AGUILAR, California
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mrs. Lowey, as chairwoman of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Darek Newby, Michael S. Herman, Robert Joachim,
Kris Mallard, Karyn Richman, and Elizabeth Lapham
Subcommittee Staff
_____
PART 2
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Page
Department of Homeland Security--
Office of Inspector General...................................... 1
Federal Emergency Management Agency............................ 67
Securing Federal Networks and State
Election Systems................................................ 123
United States Coast Guard..................................... 167
Transportation Security Administration ....................... 199
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_______
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-150
WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
NITA M. LOWEY, New York, Chairwoman
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California KEN CALVERT, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia TOM COLE, Oklahoma
BARBARA LEE, California MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota TOM GRAVES, Georgia
TIM RYAN, Ohio STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
DEREK KILMER, Washington MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
GRACE MENG, New York CHRIS STEWART, Utah
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
PETE AGUILAR, California JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois WILL HURD, Texas
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
NORMA J. TORRES, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ED CASE, Hawaii
Shalanda Young, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2020
----------
Wednesday, March 6, 2019.
OVERSIGHT HEARING--DHS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
WITNESS
JOHN V. KELLY, SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The subcommittee will come to order. I
welcome everyone to the first Department of Homeland Security
Subcommittee hearing of the 116th Congress and my first hearing
as chair.
I would also like to welcome and acknowledge two new
members of the hearing, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Grace Meng
on the Democratic side, and I have been--and Mr. Rutherford
also is a new to the committee and Mr. Aguilar.
I have been a member of this subcommittee since it was
established in 108th Congress, following the horror and the
tragedies of 9/11. I served as ranking member in the 114th and
the 115th Congress. My first experience as chair of the
subcommittee was finishing the fiscal year 2019 DHS spending
bill. Based on that experience, I can attest to the fact that
the role of chair is never easy and much more than merely
funding the various DHS agencies.
Members of the subcommittee do not always agree. In fact,
at times, we strongly disagree on funding and policy matters.
My experience, however, is that those disagreements are founded
on the belief of what is in the best interest of our country.
Our subcommittee has always had a strong tradition of
collegiality, professionalism and bipartisan support for the
Department's many important missions.
As our members work together to protect our homeland, it is
my intent that my tenure as chair will continue that tradition
of commitment to bipartisanship, fairness and public service. I
can think of no better partner to join me in that effort and
the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Ranking Member
Fleischmann, also a longtime member of this subcommittee. I
would now like to turn it over to Ranking Member Fleischmann
for his opening remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I wish to
congratulate you on your ascension to this position. It's not
only well-deserve but we all look forward to working with you.
And to my colleagues on both sides of the dais, this
subcommittee is a subcommittee I have actually been on since I
have been with--been an appropriator. So it's a privilege and
we look forward to working together.
I would also like to join in welcoming are Acting Inspector
General Kelly to the subcommittee today. Thank you, sir, for
being here. We look forward to hearing from your testimony.
And Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for your work in
the efforts of all your staff--we have already started work
very well with staff on both sides of the aisle, and I
appreciate that--to keep on the details and oversight of this
massive Department across the billions of dollars, the
multitude of programs and the thousands of agents, officers,
mariners and all the employees to help protect our Nation and
keep our people safe without waste, fraud or abuse.
Thank you, Mr. Kelly; I look forward to hearing your
testimony.
And Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
I would like to go over some housekeeping matters. The
order in which members will be called for questioning will be
based on the seniority of those who were present when the
hearing was called to order, alternating between majority and
minority members. Also, to ensure that everyone has ample
opportunity to ask questions, I would ask each member to keep
their turn to the allotted 5 minutes per round.
Mr. Kelly, thank you for joining us this morning. There are
many critical areas for oversight of the Department of Homeland
Security. Therefore, it is fitting to formally begin our
hearings with the Office of the Inspector General, which is
perhaps in the best position to inform us how the Department of
Homeland Security is doing. Mr. Kelly, we look forward to your
testimony, we will submit the full text of your official
statement for the record. Please begin.
Mr. Kelly. Madam Chairwoman, ranking member and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today.
My testimony will focus on four areas: family separations,
unannounced inspections at ICE detention facilities,
Departmental efforts to hire and train border patrol agents and
immigration officers, and finally oversight of FEMA disaster
assistance work.
Concerning family separations, in May 2018, DHS in concert
with DOJ established a zero-tolerance policy for adult aliens
illegally arriving in the United States minor children. In
response to that action, I deployed a team in June to conduct
unannounced visits at CBP and ICE facilities.
As a result of those visits, we had six observations.
First, DHS was not fully prepared to implement the zero-
tolerance policy. Second, the lack of fully integrated
immigration information technology systems made it difficult
for DHS to track separated parents and children.
Third, DHS urged asylum-seekers to come to ports of entry
for processing, but, at the same time, CBP regulated the number
of asylum-seekers entering the ports. This likely resulted in
additional illegal border crossings. Fourth, CBP detain
children for extended periods and in facilities for short-term
detention. Fifth, the lack of reliable data poses an obstacle
to accurate reporting on family separations. Sixth, DHS
dissemination of inconsistent or inaccurate information
resulted in confusion among detained parents about the
separation and reunification process.
We also had four observations of the CBP facilities we
visited; our observations cannot be generalized to other times
or locations. First, the facilities we looked at, they
generally appear to be in compliance with the detention
facility standards. Second, the children had access to hygiene
items and clean bedding.
Third, we did not encounter issues with temperature,
ventilation, access to emergency medical care, supervision, or
access to phones. Fourth, for all the CBP facilities we visited
children had access to food and snacks and did not complain of
hunger.
As for ICE inspections, we have conducted unannounced
inspections at ice detention facilities since 2016. In 2017, we
inspected five detention facilities and have significant
concerns about the treatment and care at four of those
facilities, where we observed potentially unsafe and unhealthy
conditions.
In 2018, we issued two reports. Our inspection of ICE's
Essex County center we observed extreme mishandling of meats,
including spoiled meat. This can spread salmonella, listeria
and E. coli.
This resulted in detainees filing grievances. One detainee
wrote, for dinner, we were served meat balls that smell like
fecal matter. Another detainee wrote, the food we received has
been complete garbage, it's becoming impossible to eat. It gets
worse every day. It literally looks like it came from the
garbage dumpster. ICE agreed with our recommendations and are
working on resolving those findings.
For ICE's Adelanto center, we issued a Management Alert
because we observed braided bed-sheets, referred to as nooses,
hanging from 15 cells we visited. This is a real threat. In
March of 2017, a detainee died after being found hanging from
his bed sheet in a cell at this facility. Again, ICE agreed
with our recommendations and are addressing our findings.
Concerning the hiring and training of law enforcement
officials, CBP and ICE continue to face significant challenges.
In November 2017, CBP awarded Accenture a contract totaling
nearly $300 million to recruit and hire 7,500 agents and
officers. We determined the Accenture contract did not provide
the promised hiring results, yet CBP Accenture--paid Accenture
over $13 million for start up costs, recruiting expenses and
other expenses. In return, Accenture processed two job-accepted
individuals.
If CBP achieved its hiring goals, our recent audit
determined that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers
did not have the capacity to train all the law enforcement
officers CBP and ICE intended to hire. This is because FLETC
does not have the facilities or the funding to satisfy the
increase in training required by the hiring goals.
As for FEMA oversight, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria
made landfall in a four-week period during August and September
2017. These storms rank as three of the five most expensive
storms in U.S. history. One of the chief challenges FEMA faces
in post-disaster environment is a vulnerability of fraud and
abuse. Thus, OIG's criminal investigators play very active role
during the post-disaster period. Currently, investigations
related to FEMA represent about 30 percent of our open
investigative caseload.
For almost a decade we have been issuing annual FEMA
capping audit reports. Those reports consolidate FEMA audit
related findings and recommendations. We designed them to
inform FEMA about significant and systemic issues of non-
compliance and program deficiencies. These reports show that
FEMA does not manage disaster relief grants and funds
adequately, hold states accountable for properly managing
disaster relief funds, or provide adequate monitoring and
technical assistance to sub-grantees.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I will be
pleased to answer questions from you or the members of the
committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
In January, the OIG issued a report finding that ICE has
repeatedly issued waivers to contract detention facilities that
are in violation of performance standards. Largely in response
to that report, the statement accompanying the fiscal year 2019
funding act for DHS directs that the ICE director shall have
sole authority to provide waivers. It also requires the
director to notify the House and the Senate subcommittees when
waivers are issued.
At what point does the issuance of waivers to performance-
based standards at a facility begin to make those standards
meaningless?
Mr. Kelly. It is--Madam Chairwoman, it is not good to issue
waivers to the standards. Because if you start issuing waivers
to the standards, the compliance starts to decrease and it
creates an environment where they will be asking for additional
waivers.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. So what you are saying is----
Mr. Kelly. That they are not----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That there really aren't any
circumstances where a waiver should be given?
Mr. Kelly. We shouldn't be--they should reduce the number
of waivers.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Last June, the OIG issued a report
finding significant weaknesses in ICE's detention facility
inspection process. In response to that report, Congress
provided significant new funding to the Office of Detention
Oversight with the intention of increasing the number of
inspections for each facility from once every three years to
twice per year.
How do you think more frequent inspections by the Office of
Detention Oversight will impact compliance with performance
standards? And what other steps could ICE or this committee
take to improve compliance?
Mr. Kelly. Madam Chairwoman, if you are encouraging them to
conduct more frequent inspections that is good. The report that
you refer to pointed out that there were multiple types of
inspections that ICE performs. And we pointed out that some of
the inspections are not thorough enough and other inspections
that are thorough enough are not done as frequent as possible--
as need be.
If your recommendation is to make sure that those thorough
inspections are done more frequently, that should improve
quality.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And what plans does your office have to
continue its oversight over ICE's detention facility
management?
Mr. Kelly. We can--have been doing unannounced inspections
at the ICE facilities, as I mentioned, since 2016. And our goal
is to continue those unannounced inspections.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. On another topic, we continue to hear
reports about the slow speed of disaster recovery from recent
disasters, in particular from the 2017 hurricane season. Next
week, we will hold a hearing on FEMA's recovery efforts related
to 2017 and 2018 disasters.
Members of this subcommittee and the Subcommittee on
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development will be
traveling to Puerto Rico next month to see and hear firsthand
how the recovery process is proceeding. And based on funding
specifically provided by Congress to provide oversight of these
activities, what is your current assessment of how things are
going, particularly in regard to recovery efforts in Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and are the delays we hear
about real? And if so, what do you believe to be the crux of
the problem?
Mr. Kelly. Madam Chairwoman, I have been doing disaster-
related work since Hurricane Katrina, and it is sad to say that
the recovery process is not nearly as quick as it needs to be.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And when do you expect to publish formal
findings on FEMA's activities related to Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands?
Mr. Kelly. We have a number of audits going on at this
time. We have some audits published on Puerto Rico response.
But we have a large body of work addressing the 2017 disasters
and we will continue to--to issue reports on--on those
disasters.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And I would like to highlight the fact
that the Inspector General for DHS is serving two customers,
both Congress and the secretary----
Mr. Kelly. That is correct.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And the relationship between an Office
of Inspector General and the leadership of the agency it
oversees varies across the government and--during different
administrations.
How closely do you work with the secretary, her senior
leadership and her senior leaders within the Department's
components? And is your strategic planning done in isolation or
with input from these agency leaders?
Mr. Kelly. Madam Chairwoman, I would say that the
relationship that I and the--my agency has with the
Department's senior leadership is very good. Every month, I
meet with the deputy secretary to go over issues. Every month,
either I or my chief counsel meets with the Department's chief
counsel to discuss issues of concerns.
I am--I communicate almost on a weekly basis with the
Deputy Secretary concerning issues. I would say that we have an
excellent relationship with the--the highest levels within the
Department. The relationship with the components is--is a work
in progress, depending upon which agency it is, it is better
than the others but it is not--it is good, but it can improve.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
General Kelly, good morning again, sir. I went to the
border--southwest border about a month ago to see the situation
at three land ports of entry. It was a powerful trip to see
what we were asking our border agents to do, to manage the
influx of people presenting at and between the border
situations.
I think everyone on the trip felt that CPB needs more
agents. However, your audit report of last week regarding CPB
hiring outlines a troubling situation with planning and hiring
at the agency. My first question, sir, is how best would you
describe the Department's response to not hiring up to the
level mandated by this committee nearly eight years ago?
Apathy, confusion, good intentions overrun by other demands,
how would you characterize it, sir?
Mr. Kelly. I would say probably the latter. They have good
intentions. They want to hire the agents; I don't think there
is any desire for the Department or CBP not to hire the Border
Patrol and ICE officers.
But there is a challenge to hiring them. There's a
relatively--the number of people that are applying for the
positions are not always adequate to fill all those positions.
They have to have a very rigorous process of bringing them
onboard. We have been critical of the Department and CBP
specifically for not strategically addressing this issue.
The report that you refer to pointed out that back in 2011
this committee demanded that they have a plan. They provided
that plan to this committee in 2013, you said that that plan
was inadequate and they haven't really come up with a better
plan since then. And that--that is pretty much what that report
said, I believe.
It--the--but it is a challenging situation to get those men
and women to perform those functions, it's a difficult issue
and it's not an issue that just--the Border Patrol and ICE has
with hiring with law enforcement officers, that is a
government-wide problem.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. The fiscal 2019 statement of the
manager's direct CPB to brief the committee's monthly on its
progress toward the development of the staffing model. How
confident are you that the agency is up to this task? And then
as a follow-up, what questions should we be asking, sir, to
keep the Department on track?
Mr. Kelly. I don't want to judge as to how good they are
going to be able to do something that they are planning to do
that we have not looked at. We have historically found that
they have had challenges in this area. The--we have identified
problems with polygraphing and making sure that they are
interviewing the right individuals in the past.
I would look for their metrics, because often the
Department has had poor metrics as to evaluate how well they
are doing their job. And I would hold them accountable to their
metrics, and try to make sure that their metrics make sense and
that they are sufficient to achieve their goals.
Mr. Fleischmann. Combining the issues in the report about
hiring with the issues you highlight in the November 26th audit
report about training capacity, I see that the Department has
had a busy year ahead to--to address the stated
recommendations. Say CPB successfully completes a staffing by
the end of the year, other than issues of training and specific
dollars for new hires are you also looking at CPB's
capabilities to successfully onboard many new agents?
Mr. Kelly. The answer to that is yes, we have looked at
that. We issued a report, I believe, in 2017 or 2018 addressing
issues with onboarding the individuals. The--it is going to be
a challenge. The CBP--or, I am sorry, FLETC simply does not
have the facilities or the funding to perform all the training
that is required.
Mr. Fleischmann. As a follow-up to that comment, sir, would
the agency be able to successfully undertake a massive hiring
effort?
Mr. Kelly. They would be challenged.
Mr. Fleischmann. Can the agency administratively field
successful applicants?
Mr. Kelly. They will be challenged to achieve their goals.
They have not achieved their goals in the past. I believe last
year was the first year that they actually had a net increase
in the number of Border Patrol agents and it's a relatively
small increase that--it doesn't address the 7,500 increase that
is the goal.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, General Kelly.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, thank you for being here today. I
want to get into what our chairwoman talked about a little bit,
about your unannounced inspections.
I think in the fiscal year 2019 spending bill the
congressional report obligated the Office of Inspector General
to continue its program of unannounced inspections at all the
CBP and ICE facilities. We know that--that you have found in
some of those unannounced inspections some really bad
conditions that needed to be dealt with.
And my question, to our knowledge, the OIG has been able to
conduct a relatively few amount and is that because of your
budgetary restraints? What do you need to be able to do more to
have these unannounced inspections? Because from what I have
seen so far, that is probably the best accountability we have
when you have these unannounced inspections.
Mr. Kelly. We appreciate the funding that this committee
provides to the DHS OIG. The--and we will use the funding that
you provide--provide us, and the instructions that you provide
concerning that funding to achieve the goals that you are
looking for. We do have to balance a lot of different issues.
We have disaster issues, we have Coast Guard issues, there are
other issues with CBP and ICE, we also have the Secret Service
and we have a lot of the departmental programs that we also
have to address.
The chairman mentioned a strategic process that we have for
hiring individuals--or, I am sorry, for performing the work
that we do. And that looks at the highest risk programs within
the Department. After becoming the Acting Inspector General, I
revamped our jobs start process to make sure that we are
addressing the highest risk areas within the Department.
Homeland Security is not like some of the other agencies
that are--that is relatively static. We have a very dynamic
environment that we need to be able to adjust our goals and--
and priorities to what is the most important thing to both the
Congress and to the Department because we are dual----
Mr. Ruppersberger. And you are right about that. I believe
that when we started the Homeland Security we had way too many
missions with not a lot--not enough manpower or resources to do
the job in many areas. And thank goodness, when the Coast Guard
came over, they too do a lot without resources, but they at
least are an old organization that was well managed, so it's a
real challenge.
I am going to get into one area before my time is up that
you weren't prepared to talk about today, but that is in the
issue of cybersecurity.
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, the--again Homeland Security
has a tremendous amount of responsibility and missions because
of the new laws we passed throughout the years. And could you
discuss with me where you think our cybersecurity programs are
today? Do you feel that we need more--more manpower and
technology to do the job that we have been given?
You know, I think this is so important. One the biggest
threats we have in our country, cybersecurity. That I would
hope that maybe it would be considered a separate agency with a
direct line to the President or whatever, to just make sure we
get the funding and--and the priorities.
But at this point, I also know that cybersecurity has been
elevated in the Department too maybe that might help. Could you
discuss that issue, please?
Mr. Kelly. I would say that it is a work in progress. And I
agree with your assessment that this is one of the highest risk
areas that the--the Federal Government has. I have directed
some of our staff to do that work in the cybersecurity area.
That is a very technical area and is very difficult to attract
and hire the people with the right capabilities to do that
work.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Do you work at all with NSA? I know they
have no jurisdiction in our country, but they have a lot of
expertise. Do you meet with Inspector General?
Mr. Kelly. Actually, I belong to the Inspector General of
the Intelligence Community. And we meet regularly once a
quarter. So the answer to your question is yes, I do meet with
him and I know Bob Storch personally.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Are you in the process of rendering a
report on cybersecurity--you know, with these----
Mr. Kelly. I believe I have an ongoing engagement in that
area.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I would like to hear more about
that and I will have my staff contact you.
Mr. Kelly. OK.
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK, thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Chair Roybal-Allard, I appreciate
the--having this hearing.
Welcome, General Kelly----
Mr. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate you being here and giving us an
update on what you found at the border and some of the areas of
responsibility that you have. I, you know, certainly this is an
issue that is occupying a lot of our time, as it should, the
issue of issue immigration--the bigger issue of immigration but
also the securing our border, both on the south and the north,
which I happen to have in the state of Washington is a concern
as well.
And I don't think any of us on the panel or in Congress
would agree--or disagree that something has to change. And to
that end I, myself, went to the border to see firsthand. In
fact, I think I was there a similar time that your inspectors
were at McAllen.
Mr. Kelly. I was down there with that group myself.
Mr. Newhouse. Oh, is that right?
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Newhouse. Yes, it was kind of warm that day, if I
recall.
Mr. Kelly. It was. [Laughter.]
Mr. Newhouse. I came away fairly certain in the opinion
that we have to ensure that DHS has the tools that they need to
do their job that we are asking them to do, and that we should
also have proper oversight on how we treat people that are
wanting a better life for themselves and their families.
And in my time there, I--like I said, I toured some of
those same areas. And while I don't--I am not going to say I
disagree with your report, there are just parts of it that I
think need some clarification for me. And if you would----
Mr. Kelly. Okay.
Mr. Newhouse. If you could address some of that, it has to
do with the separation of the family units, whether they would
be at a port of entry or between ports of entry. I would also
make the point, I don't--I would agree with you that we don't
have enough men and women at the border, as either Customs
officials or Border Patrol agents. Like I said, we are asking
them to do a near impossible job and we need to give them all
the tools that they need in order to be successful.
So could you talk a little bit more about the zero-
tolerance policy and what you witnessed there? Can you tell me
if--in your opinion, if a family came and presented themselves,
was that an immediate--because of the zero tolerance, was that
an immediate flag to separate these family units?
I would just like to have further clarification because I
think--from what I understand in the DHS's response to your
report--that they are, in my words, saying that you
misrepresented or at the very least conflated their process
that they use. So I would just like some clarification on
whether you witnessed families automatically being separated.
Mr. Kelly. The response that the Department had to that
report, they said that we presented it not as clearly as--that
there was a difference between family separations and the zero
tolerance. And that is correct, there--that is two different
policies. But one is caused by the other, so you can't really
separate them but they are two different policies.
And that is what--how we responded to that question as to
what was the--why--when they pointed out that we didn't
describe it--they said it made it--we made it sound as if it
was the same policy, when in fact it was not. And if you
actually look at the report, we don't say it is the same policy
but one does cause the other. So that is--does that answer your
question?
Mr. Newhouse. But did you see families being separated?
Mr. Kelly. When I was physically there, did I observe the
separation of individuals? I didn't. I don't know if some of
the other inspectors that--when we were down there did.
Mr. Newhouse. But you, I am sure, talked to people about
that----
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Newhouse. The fact that some of that happened. Any
reasons given for that?
Mr. Kelly. Well, the policy is--DHS's policy is that an
unaccompanied child--or a child should not be with someone who
has been violating the law or needs to go to--for processing.
At that point in time, the child is separated from the adult.
Mr. Newhouse. I see, okay. Got you----
Mr. Kelly. There was--there were situations where they
talked about when the parent went to see the judge, sometimes
that the child was--when the parent came back, the child might
have been moved off to some other place because of some of the
time requirements for moving the children--because they are
only supposed to be there for a limited amount of time.
Mr. Newhouse. Well, I see my time is expired. But I
appreciate your answers. And like I said, this an area of great
interest----
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Newhouse. And concern. So thank you very much.
Mr. Kelly. The issue that was--the Department had with us
was a nuance on which--there are two policies but one causes
another--the problem.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, chairwoman. Thank you, Ranking Member
Fleischmann.
And thank you to, General Kelly, for being here and for
your service to our country. I wanted to ask about processing
delays at USCIS. They have reached crisis levels threatening
American families, businesses and many vulnerable populations
seeking humanitarian relief.
USCIS's proposed fiscal year 2019 budget requested the
transfer of over $200 million in fee revenue out of USCIS into
ICE. The budget specifies that that money would be used for the
hiring of over 300 ICE enforcement officers. And this appears
to represent part of USCIS's larger shift towards prioritizing
immigration enforcement over the service-oriented adjudications
at the core of the agency's mandate. What is the OIG doing to
ensure that USCIS carries out its duties and services?
Mr. Kelly. We do have some engagements at USCIS, but I do
not think that we are looking into that specific issue. I can
get back to you at a later date to let you know whether or not
we actually do. But off the top of my head, I don't know of any
engagements that we have in that area but I can get back to you
on that.
Ms. Meng. That would be great. As you probably know, the
backlog has more than doubled in just the last year, from about
1 million to the current backlog of 2.3 million. So I would
appreciate that.
I also wanted to ask about an article that came out last
week, I think it was the Huffington Post, about Adnan Asif
Parveen, a Muslim man who was arrested and detained in Texas.
According to this article, CPB officers gave him pork
sandwiches to eat for the entire duration, 6 days, of his
detainment and ignored his religious dietary restrictions.
Has there been or will there be any investigations into CBP
and its treatment of detained individuals? And in the interest
of time, I will just ask my other question. What protocol is in
place to ensure that religious and dietary restrictions of
detained individuals are met?
Mr. Kelly. I don't know the answer to that question but we
can get back to you on that. And I am not sure if we have
opened up an investigation. We could have, but I am not sure.
And that would be probably different than an audit but we can
get back to you on both of those issues.
Ms. Meng. Okay, thank you.
And then back to the family separation issue real quick.
What is the policy of families which are--who are separated at
the border in terms of phone calls? If a mother is separated,
whether her children are still at the border or elsewhere in
the country, what are the policies for making calls?
Mr. Kelly. There are phones available. But at times it's
difficult to make some of those calls because it is--you don't
know where the individual necessarily might be.
So as I mentioned in my oral remarks, we did notice that
there were phones available. But that doesn't necessarily mean
that they are going to be able to communicate because they
might not know the telephone number that they would need to be
calling to. They might not know the area code and a variety of
different things.
Ms. Meng. Right. When--I know that you mentioned the
ability to access phones. However, when many of us were at the
border Port Isabel and McAllen, we spoke with moms who said
that they hadn't been able to make phone calls.
Many of these moms had the piece of paper with the phone
numbers of relatives in this country that they wanted to call
and it was very inconsistent across the board. Some moms were
allowed to call once a week, some mom hadn't--moms hadn't been
able to make phone calls for weeks on end.
Mr. Kelly. I know some of the detention facilities that we
went into there were phones in the areas where the mothers were
at. Whether or not they could get through to those locations, I
can't tell you the answer to that.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Kelly, thank you for your service and for being here
today. I am concerned about the second point in your testimony
regarding technology. The OIG report published in September
2018, you noted that DHS did not have readily the technology
infrastructure that was needed to track family separations when
the President's zero-tolerance policy was created.
You also note that there is inoperability between HHS, CBP
and ICE that have all separate information technology systems
to track immigrants entering the United States. The big issue
was that CBP did not have a category for family units, as we
understand, and unaccompanied children in their records,
including allowing a system that didn't match those records.
Last week, I attended a meeting with the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus and HHS Assistant Secretary Johnson. And during
the meeting, she expressed that she would like DHS to share
with HHS the list of parents who were separated from their
children and that contact information. Can you share with us
whether DHS has access to the I.T. portals that currently house
information related to undocumented parents and children who
were separated specifically between CBP, and ICE and ORR?
Mr. Kelly. As a result of that report, I ordered a audit of
the information technology systems that exist within CBP and
ICE to see if they can--how well they can track the--both
parents and the children that were--that came across through
to--into the United States. That is an ongoing audit and as
soon as that is completed we can get that to the Department. We
expect it to be completed sometime this summer.
Mr. Aguilar. And how long will the Department have to
comment on that before it's released?
Mr. Kelly. Thirty days.
Mr. Aguilar. Will your report also talk about the
operability between ORR and CBP and ICE?
Mr. Kelly. We have worked with ORR when we are down at the
border. We did see the individuals from HHS. And there has been
a recent HHS-OIG report addressing the--also the challenges
with the data that is sent to them.
Mr. Aguilar. In your opinion, should there be one portal
that is--that can be accessed by HHS and ORR as well as CBP and
ICE?
Mr. Kelly. Ideally? Personally the answer is yes. And we
are trying to--we are--we have an audit going on that is
addressing some of those challenges, though----
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. Will your audit--will the result of that
audit shed better light on this issue and whether that is
possible?
Mr. Kelly. I intend--I expect that the answer is yes.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, sir.
In January of 2019, there was an HHS-I.G. report that
indicated that the total number of children separated from
their parents is unknown. With that in mind, do you anticipate
that report will also shed some light on--on that number moving
forward?
Mr. Kelly. The answer is yes, but I do not know if we are
going to be able to give a definitive answer to the--your
question.
Mr. Aguilar. But you might get to some of the issues that
cause the answer being unknown?
Mr. Kelly. That is the goal of that work, yes.
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. Would you say that the President's--that
President Trump's decision to announce a zero-tolerance policy
with little notice highlighted the existing weaknesses between
the information systems related to unaccompanied children? And
would you say that DHS is prepared to handle any other surprise
policies that the president may announce with?
Mr. Kelly. I am on record for saying that they were
unprepared for the zero-tolerance policy. And that caused
difficulties. I am also on the record that the Department was
not prepared for the travel ban that was established in January
of 2017. And I--our major management challenge report that we
issued late last year talks about the challenges that the
Department has addressing some of these policies that they
don't get an adequate time to plan for the consequences of.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate your answer. Following up on Mr.
Newhouse's point, when the secretary went on TV and said,
quote, we do not have a policy of separating families at the
border, period. And she indicated that that was misreporting,
that it was irresponsible and unproductive, what was--what was
your reaction to that?
Mr. Kelly. I don't know. I don't have an answer to that
question.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Kelly, thank you for what you do. Let me talk to you
about the staffing model for Border Patrol.
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Cuellar. I believe in 2011, this committee directed CBP
to submit a five-year staffing and deployment plan for Border
Patrol. They came up with a plan but it did not meet the goals
for border security. So again, the committee requested them to
come up with a staffing and deployment plan by December 1st, of
2013. I believe we still don't have that plan, is that correct?
Mr. Kelly. That is correct. We issued a report just
recently that pointed out that you did require them in 2011 to
prepare a plan. The plan that they provided to you in 2013,
that was delivered to you, the committee said was unacceptable
or not--it did not satisfy their needs.
And our report that we just issued said that the plans are
still not adequate to satisfy the needs of the committee. The
Department concurred with our recommendations; however, they
tried to minimize our findings. But we also, in our response to
their comments, told them that we think that our findings are
solid and that they need to get a plan to satisfy the needs for
the committee, and it is not simply to satisfy the needs of the
committee, it's actually to satisfy the needs of what their--
their responsibilities.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes. And I think under a recent report, you
said that you found that Border Patrol lacks the data
procedures needed to determine whether it is meeting workload
requirements related to investigative law enforcement
activities, and Border Patrol officials are not consistently
schedule agents work duties, or accurately document actual work
hours and duties completed.
Mr. Kelly. Yes. And I think we identified a large number of
hours that they couldn't account for.
Mr. Cuellar. Did they respond to that?
Mr. Kelly. They concurred with our recommendations. They
did--we are seeing an uptick in concurrence with our
recommendations, but then tried to address the message to say
that they are doing a better job than we are portraying. And I
don't think that that is an accurate assessment.
And you will see in our reports, when they tried to take
that approach, we point out that their positions are--they are
doing improvement--they have improvements. But it is not
adequate to address the challenges. And so we are not saying
that they are not trying to improve and we are not making--we
are not saying that they are not making any improvements, but
they are just not up to what they needed to do.
Mr. Cuellar. Right. And as you know, Border Patrol is short
I think about 2,200 personnel.
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Cuellar. CBP or, you know, the folks at the ports are
doing a little better. In fact, we added money to hire--what is
it, about 600 and then if they use some of the fees they can
double the amount. Air Marine, there are three uniforms down
there----
Mr. Kelly. Yes, yes.
Mr. Cuellar. I keep telling my friends that. They said it--
there are three colors there, the green Border Patrol, blue the
folks at the ports of entry----
Mr. Kelly. Right.
Mr. Cuellar. And then the brown--not UPS as one of my
friends said, but it's actually Air Marine. And Air Marine is
short on pilots also.
Mr. Kelly. And we have a report out that points that out.
We pointed out that the request--CBP requested flights from Air
and Marine, and over fiscal years 2015, 2016 and 2017 Air and
Marine was only able to provide--I believe it was 18, 20 and 17
percent of the requested number of flights.
Mr. Cuellar. Right and that is--we see at the border,
Border Patrol is asking for more air coverage and--but they
just don't have the hours or the personnel to cover that.
Let me ask you a quick question. Based on your evaluations
of compliance with ICE detention standards, how do ICE
detention standards fare compared to other U.S. law enforcement
agencies?
Mr. Kelly. I can only evaluate what DHS is doing and what
ICE is doing. We have not initiated a review that goes across
to look at what is going on at the Justice Department or for
the Bureau of Prisons. That is something that is probably
beneficial but we have not done that. We would have to do that
in concert with the Inspector General up at Department of
Justice.
Mr. Cuellar. If you all decide to do that, let us know.
Mr. Kelly. Okay.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. All right, Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Kelly, glad to have you here and I
appreciate your responding to what appears to have been a wide
array of topics.
Mr. Kelly. I try to answer them. Some of the questions, I
don't have answers to but we will try to get back to the
members on the questions we don't have answers to.
Mr. Price. Well, your, of course, your mandate covers the
entirety of the Department and I am going to ask you about
another subject that we have actually asked you to investigate.
And I am not--this was in December, I am not going to ask
you to anticipate the results of that investigation, although I
would appreciate some kind of timeline as to when we might
expect an answer. And also, I want to ask you about a couple of
questions the investigation involves that perhaps you do have a
ability to respond to at this point.
Just very quickly, I won't go into the details of the case
except to say that that this involves an arrest and deportation
of one Samuel Oliver-Bruno in November 23 of last year, a
decades-long resident of North Carolina, no significant
criminal history, U.S. citizen, teenage son, a very seriously
ill wife. He received a stay of deportation in 2014, the use of
prosecutorial discretion by ICE in subsequent years but he was
denied further relief by ICE under this administration in 2017.
Forced into taking sanctuary in a local church to avoid
being deported and being separated from his ill wife. His
second stay of deportation was denied by ICE in 2017, so he
decided to seek deferred action status from USCIS, from another
agency. He was given strict instructions to appear at a USCIS
office to provide biometrics for that application. But when he
did so, guess who was waiting there, ICE. And he was sent to a
detention facility in Georgia and--to await what looked like a
sham appeal and he was shipped out of the country.
This was, of course, an obvious case where prosecutorial
discretion, and compassion and commonsense might have been
applied. But I want to ask specifically about this interagency
aspect which is unique and, I think, needs to be addressed.
It appears that ICE officials used the CIS request to lure
Mr. Bruno--Oliver--Bruno out of sanctuary and to apprehend him.
Now, the ICE officials say they learned about this from social
media, they may or may not have. But in any case, when he went
to CIS, there--there they were. And they took him--took him
into custody and all appeals up the line have failed.
So you can imagine, coupled with the--these random and
unnecessary ICE raids proliferating throughout North Carolina,
we just have a significant erosion in public trust. So I am
very concerned about this. But I know you will have particular
focus on this interagency problem. And so that is what I want
to ask you about.
Are there any protections within the overarching DHS
framework to ensure that two DHS agencies don't coordinate
arrests in a fashion that seems to entrap immigrants? What more
needs to be done to establish a clear separation between these
two different legal processes?
The man in good faith is leaving sanctuary to go to CIS and
there they are waiting for him. That certainly looks like
entrapment, but I am not asking you to judge that. I am asking
you to judge if there is any protections within the existing
law or practice to prevent that kind of coordination.
And then, when this does exist, can you point out where
in--where this may exist or where there is a double interest
and interest in a person from two agencies, who says ICE
prevails? ICE's interests prevail or ICE priorities are given
more weight than the laws that are guiding USCIS? So why--why
should that be or is it so?
So not anticipating your investigation, although I do want
to know when we can expect some evaluation from you, I wonder
if you could address those two issues.
Mr. Kelly. I am familiar with your request. The--I am not
familiar with the specifics of what we have done on your
request, so I will have to get back to you at a later date.
And--but I don't know the answer, nor do I know the answer to
whether or not--how the two components within Department of
Homeland Security are sharing information.
Mr. Price. So you have never dealt with this in prior
investigations, or?
Mr. Kelly. I have not. We have--I am not familiar with that
issue.
Mr. Price. As far as you know, is this a unique case? Any
other similar situations that have come to your attention?
That--see, I think if they did come to your attention probably
you would know about it. It is a--quite a striking set of
circumstances.
Mr. Kelly. It coming to my attention, the answer is no. But
that does not mean that it--that other people within my
organization are not aware of that and can speak more to the
point on that. Right--so I would--I would have to get back to
you on that question. I can't give you a definitive answer.
Mr. Price. All right. Well, my--I know my time is expired.
But to the extent you can respond to my two questions regarding
the provisions for coordination between these two agencies and
which agency takes precedence in a situation like this, I--it
is obviously pertinent to this case, but it also is more
broadly pertinent. So I would appreciate your response.
Mr. Kelly. I agree with you. But I can't give you a
definitive answer. I will have to get back to you at a later
date.
Mr. Price. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That completes round one and we do have
time for a second round----
Mr. Kelly. Okay.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Kelly, as you know, the mission of the DHS is vast. And
carrying out its mission ranges from disaster relief grants to
states to massive procurements of aircraft and vessels, to
developing cutting-edge technologies to protect the public. And
your office produces a number of documents, including a five-
year strategic plan, and annual performance plan and semi-
annual reports, which ideally outline your priorities and
performance.
How do you assess DHS's major vulnerabilities and allocate
your resources to ensure you are focused on the best use of the
Department's funds? And is there a direct relationship between
the strategic documents that you produce and the priorities of
your budget request?
Mr. Kelly. As an oversight agency, we have our most--the
only reason why we exist is to keep you, the Congress, and the
administration timely informed about problems that exist within
programs under their purview. So within our strategic plan, our
goal is to make sure that is basically three issues. Is the
Department operating efficiently and effectively? Are we hiring
the right people? And do we have the right tools to execute our
mission?
The issue concerning the work that we do, as I mentioned
earlier, we have recently revamped and established a new start
process where we are looking at what is the most important
issues that affect the Department. When I took responsibilities
as the Acting Inspector General--actually, my predecessor
stopped the annual work plans that they had because they
basically represented what was important 2 years before they
started work. And in a dynamic agency like Homeland Security 2
years is almost a lifetime.
We can't decide what was important 2 years ago for what we
are doing right now because we would be doing completely
different things. So we are taking all the requests coming in
from Congress, we are taking the requests that we get in from
the department and we also take the subject matter expertise of
the people that have been doing this work for an extended
period of time and blend that and have all the senior
executives sit down on a weekly basis to make sure that we are
doing the right work.
I think that has been very beneficial. We have been
operating this--in this fashion for nearly a year and it
enabled us to immediately go down to the border last summer.
And to address some of the ICE detention facilities that we
believe are a higher risk and that--they are the facilities
that you need to hear about, such as the facility in Newark,
New Jersey and Adelanto, California, as I mentioned in my oral
statement.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. You mentioned that your primary mission
is to keep Members of Congress informed.
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. So are your resources sufficient to
effectively carry out that mission and if you had more
resources where would you focus?
Mr. Kelly. If we had more resources we would focus those
efforts on the highest risk areas and those right now are some
of the border issues and also some of the disaster issues that
we would be that are important issues to get into.
We do appreciate the funding that the department--I am
sorry--that the committee provides to us. But we could use more
resources and each year both my predecessor and I have
petitioned for additional resources to address our needs.
We do appreciate the supplemental funding that we received
for the 2017 disasters. That enabled us to do some very
important work in those areas; it has kept our criminal
investigators very active and--but we certainly can use more
resources. The issues that affect the department are high-risk
areas, they are very dynamic and they need to be addressed
quickly, not the typical I.G. audit that talks about issues
that are 3 or 4 years old and said that things didn't go well.
That is not a very effective way of running an I.G. shop and I
have tried to modify that process.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And just finally, do you communicate
directly with OMB or does your budget request always flow
through the department?
Mr. Kelly. We communicate and I have had meetings with OMB.
We do submit our budgets to the department but we also have
separate meetings with OMB, I have met with them personally on
a number of occasions and I know my predecessor has. And then
we also have special meetings just with your staff and I have
worked with member--a number of the staff that are sitting
behind you on what our needs are.
So that is one of the nice things about being an Inspector
General that if we--the department doesn't give us what we need
we have the authority to come directly to you and let us know--
and let you know what we need.
I often point out to the members of the staff and the
members that you are usually our biggest proponents because we
are your eyes and ears to find out what is going on and we are
the quickest way of getting information to you about the
challenges that the department is facing.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And we appreciate your responsiveness to
us. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you again, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Kelly, thank you again, sir. Next week the subcommittee
is holding a hearing with FEMA regarding the recovery efforts
in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands after 2017 storms.
In your testimony you highlighted your work with the affected
areas, such as deploying staff and establishing joint field
offices. And you state that as a result of that deployment your
staff identified several areas where additional more
comprehensive, traditional audit work was needed.
Can you share what areas that worked you have identified in
Puerto Rico and are challenges you see in Puerto Rico different
from what you are seeing in Texas and Florida, sir?
Mr. Kelly. I also went down to Puerto Rico shortly after
the disaster and I was quite shocked at the devastation that
existed on that island. I have spent--visited numerous islands,
lived in Hawaii for a period of time. I spent an extensive
amount of time in Guam and I was extremely surprised to see how
vast the island of Puerto Rico is, it is much larger than
either of those two islands--or Hawaii, the chain of islands.
And the challenges that they were facing were far more
difficult than I have experienced--I have seen FEMA have to
experience in some of the mainland disasters that they have
dealt with. So it is a very difficult thing for them to do. But
FEMA's responsibility--when your name is Federal Emergency
Management Agency you are expected to be able to manage
emergencies.
And the--if you are a U.S. citizen, you are expecting the
Federal Government to provide the assistance that is necessary
when you go through a level of disaster that is--was pretty
unprecedented.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. I am sure you are working
closely with the department and FEMA on programs and efforts
underway in Puerto Rico, when we meet with FEMA next week what
questions should we be asking the agency on the record in
regard to the 2017 storm recovery.
Mr. Kelly. I would ask them to compare their response and
recovery rate to other disasters and see if their metrics for
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands compare favorably to other
disasters that they have dealt with.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Your testimony highlights 8
listed persistent and systematic vulnerabilities with FEMA
programs. Are these challenges you see across the country with
respect to the disaster programs? Are they limited to one
state, one storm, or one type of disaster? What is your view?
Mr. Kelly. The biggest problem that we have with FEMA is
that they don't hold states accountable. And that is the--that
is the most significant problem that we have with FEMA because
by not holding the states accountable they basically tell
everyone that the policies that they are--that exist, you know,
you can do them or you can't do them--or you can comply. If you
don't comply with the policies, we will find a way out of it.
And it is a lot like the waivers question that I had
earlier at ICE detention facilities. It is not good to
basically waive a lot of things because then you are creating a
culture in which individuals believe that they don't have to
comply with the requirements, the requirements that were setup
to protect the tax dollar--the taxpayer and the people that
were affected by disasters. That balance is important.
And when you do waivers or don't hold people accountable,
the taxpayer is the one who loses. Because the American
taxpayer is very generous, they want to make sure that people
that are affected by disasters are made whole. But what they
don't like is when people are getting away with things that
they shouldn't be getting away with.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
Madam Chairman, I will yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
On June 27, 2018, ICE's New York field office announced
that starting immediately removal proceedings at the Varick
Street Immigration Court in New York City would be conducted
exclusively by video teleconferencing. Immigrants detained by
ICE would appear by video feed from the county jail at which
they are held, disconnected from the court, their lawyers,
evidence presented by the government and their case.
ICE's policy of denying in-person hearings when immigrants'
liberty, family unity and potential exile is at stake is a
cruel extension of the Federal administration's aggressive
efforts to deny immigrants equal justice and due process. What
steps can you take to ensure that immigrants and their families
have meaningful access to due process?
Mr. Kelly. The facts and circumstances of the--of what you
just described to me, I am not aware of. The--that is doing
some more work in those areas are the kind of things that if we
had more resources we could probably do some more work in those
areas. If we get requests from members of Congress, we consider
them to be a--things that we try to do. We do get--I probably
get a letter from members almost--probably it average nearly
once a day for various different issues.
But what you just described does not sound very nice. It
doesn't sound to be the kind of principles that the United
States wants to stand for. It is very similar to the issues
that Congressman Price mentioned earlier about teaming up and
going after individuals. But I am unaware--I was unaware of
what you just described.
Ms. Meng. So would it help if you did receive letters----
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Ms. Meng. And communication information----
Mr. Kelly. We----
Ms. Meng. About lawsuits that might be going on?
Mr. Kelly. Communications from Members of Congress to our
office are always desired because our statutory requirement is
two-fold. It is to keep Congress and the administration timely
informed about problems.
We take our dual reporting relationship very seriously and
if anyone in my office--they joke how often I bring up our
statutory authority and what we need to do in our
responsibilities. Because it is, you know, here he goes again
talking about the dual reporting relationship, it is very
important to us.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, sir.
And another situation that is going on around across New
York state courthouses, reports by the Immigrant Defense
Project reported that ICE arrests across New York courthouses
increases by 1,700 percent in 2018 compared to 2016. ICE
arrests at courthouses impede the ability of the courts to
effectively deliver justice, deter victims from seeking justice
and compromise public safety. We have heard from so many public
defenders and defense attorneys about agents showing up in the
courthouse, in public areas where folks are trying to be with
their families.
This figure is astounding. And in 2018, as you know, ICE
had issued guidance on civil immigration enforcement actions
inside these courthouses. Will the OIG investigate or audit the
immigration enforcement actions at courthouses and its effect
on public safety?
Mr. Kelly. Again, I was unaware of what you were just
describing. We do annually meet with the NGOs to have them talk
to us about some of the issues of their concern because we
don't want to be tone-deaf to issues of various different
groups.
They have--I don't remember them talking to us about those
issues, they were typically talking--their biggest concerns
were border issues and also the travel ban. They were not
just--I don't remember them mentioning these issues to us. So
again, you are telling me things that I am a little unaware of
and the best I can do is try to get back to you on some of
these things.
Ms. Meng. Sure. Thank you. As you know, families are being
separated and defendants are not showing up to court because of
this issue. So we will make sure that they are getting you the
proper information.
Mr. Kelly. Okay.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Mr. Kelly, I think you will be
getting a letter of request from us on these issues.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Kelly, part of your testimony and your written
testimony in particular, they talk about FEMA and the
responsibility to manage disasters.
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Newhouse. And I just wanted to further the thinking--or
the--some of the questioning Mr. Fleischmann was asking you
about. You reading between the lines, you--it seems to me you
are expressing some frustration, some of the systemic problems
and operational challenges that FEMA has.
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Newhouse. And it is across administrations, it has been
a situation for quite some time. But you state that they remain
ineffective at holding grant recipients accountable for
properly managing disaster funds. You cite 2016, 2015, 2014,
even back as far as 2010 issues with accountability holding
states accountable for managing grants. All of those, if they
are not frustrating to you, they are certainly--reading that is
frustrating to me.
And in your comments you talk about encouraging FEMA to
take steps to--for corrective action. And I guess, you know,
part of this is on Congress, too. Is Congress not listening to
some of the recommendations of the Inspector General on what
could be done or other things? I would just like to have a
further conversation so that we don't just measure things after
the--after all this money goes out the door and then--and then
the same thing happens the next year.
Mr. Kelly. Yes. I am very much against the types of
recommendation or the types of FEMA audits that basically are
spilt milk type of things. I am looking at more systemic
problems that exist and how to correct those systemic problems
and that is holding states accountable.
My predecessor wrote a letter, and I will share that with
the committee, to Chairman Johnson about some basic challenges
that FEMA really needs to take to correct their longstanding
problems. That letter is about a year and--maybe two years old
and it is still current. It is something that really needs to
be addressed and some of it could probably take legislative
changes to--to hold people more accountable.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Yes, I would appreciate seeing that.
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Newhouse. And if there is something that we should be
looking at doing or at least having that conversation, Madam
Chairman, it seems like it is incumbent upon members of this
committee to do so----
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Newhouse. And so--because inevitably we will have more
disasters and can----
Mr. Kelly. It is--yes, you can't stop them.
Mr. Newhouse. Yes. And so we need to get better at this.
Because, as you say, we are--we have precious taxpayer dollars
that we are responsible for, and want to make sure that people
that need the help, and that----
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Mr. Newhouse. The money is used as efficiently as possible.
Mr. Kelly. It averages more than $10 billion a year that--
--
Mr. Newhouse. Ten how many?
Mr. Kelly. $10 billion a year we spend on disasters.
Mr. Newhouse. Billion, 10 billion. Yes.
Mr. Kelly. So it is a sizable investment that we make and
it is an investment that we need to make. And I think our
citizens and communities deserve to be made whole. But they
also--FEMA needs to be held accountable and to make sure that
the people that they are giving the money to are--are also held
accountable.
Mr. Newhouse. Absolutely. Because that--any money wasted is
money that can't go to help the next----
Mr. Kelly. Correct.
Mr. Newhouse. Group of people out of their disaster
situation, so. Thank you very much, again. I appreciate you
being here today.
I yield my time back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Chairwoman Roybal-Allard.
Mr. Kelly, I wanted to talk with you a little bit about the
I.G. issue in a report in November that highlighted some of the
management challenges that DHS faces, and specifically
mentioned the acquisition program that is--that is high risk.
And the report stated that building the--the planned wall along
the Southern Border will highlight continuing challenges that
DHS faces in its acquisition program, which frequently incurs
cost overruns as a--and as the report stated, quote,
contributes little to the mission-related outcomes.
A separate GAO report published last year recommended that
DHS analyze costs associated with the barrier segments. And the
report concluded that, without key information on cost,
acquisition baselines, and the contributions of previous
barrier and technology deployments, DHS faces an increases risk
that the border wall--end of the quote, that the border wall
program will cost more than expected and take longer to build.
The report highlighted that DHS agrees with the recommendation.
Based on GAO's findings and your work within the
acquisition space, my feeling that key information on the--
these programs is missing. How do we know that the budget
request that DHS is submitting to us are in line with
projections? And based on those reports, it seems like the
agency isn't working with the best data, how should Congress
respond in your opinion?
Mr. Kelly. Our major management challenge report highlights
acquisitions as being a difficult issue. The biggest challenge
that the Department has in acquisitions is the components
operate often by themselves and it is difficult for the
Department to hold those components accountable for--for what
they are submitting and actually executing.
The Department does not have--and the entire Federal
Government does not have a very good track record of delivering
acquisition projects on time or within budget. The types of
things that you should be looking for are the performance
metrics and the underlying support that is being used to come
up with the--with those cost estimates to see if they are going
to get things done in a timely fashion.
Mr. Aguilar. The larger the project, the more risk
associated as well, correct?
Mr. Kelly. That is correct.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, I appreciate it.
In your testimony, you also talked about the Essex County
Correctional facility issue in New Jersey. And the Fiscal Year
2019 bill that the chairwoman worked incredibly hard on
provided over $400 million in additional humanitarian relief
that is supposed to be spent for food for detainees, medical
care, infant formula, diapers and those humanitarian expenses.
Looking forward, how can the OIG help us to keep DHS
accountable for using these tax dollars in the manner in which
Congress prescribed and what are some of the priority areas
that we should be looking for?
Mr. Kelly. The continuation of doing unannounced
inspections. Unannounced inspections at ICE detention
facilities is a very good way to identify deficiencies because
they don't know when we are coming. So if we--if they know when
we are coming, they can get everything nice and clean or make
sure that people are fed, they have got good food.
But if we just show up there unannounced, there is always
that element of surprise that a facility needs to be in good
shape because the--the I.G. might be showing up and identifying
some significant deficiencies, as the one in Newark and in the
one in Adelanto, California, so.----
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Thank you, I appreciate it.
And just building off of what you said earlier, I hope you
feel from us you are hearing that you don't just have the
authority to come talk with us if you need additional budget
dollars to carry out these inspections, but we hope you feel
the obligation to do that as well.
Mr. Kelly. I appreciate that support.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, thank you.
Building off of what Mr. Price and Ms. Meng mentioned as
well, I did want to highlight one article that I will happily
send to your--to you and your team. A young man named Hector
Baca Gutierrez, who I have met, at the age of 17 came to the
United States from Nicaragua. He was given a notice to appear
and didn't show up in the 1990s. He adjusted his status in 2001
and--by his father and it was approved in 2018. So he was on
his path to become a lawful permanent resident.
He was sent a letter by ERO, by ICE, asked to show up and
then when he showed up he was detained for 25 days. No criminal
record, hard worker, worked two jobs, husband, father, detained
25 days. So when the department comes to us and asks for
authority, and there are cases like this, where individuals who
don't have a criminal record are detained it--it frustrates us.
And when they are sent letters that seem to lure them come
check in with the sole purpose of detaining them it gives us
concern.
So I will share that article with you, just building on
what my colleagues indicated. Those types of policies I think
need to be reviewed. Thank you so much.
Mr. Kelly. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Mr. Kelly, I want to stay on the subject of ICE
enforcement, the policies and practices attendant to that.
Again, focusing on what you may have studied or encountered in
the course of your particular responsibilities. But I must tell
you I do have a prompt. I had a recent occasion in my
district--recent occurrence in my district that makes this a
matter of special urgency for me.
We, on this subcommittee, I think it is fair to say, have
focused over the years on the priority enforcement program and
other efforts to prioritize dangerous people for detention and
deportation, to make certain that prosecutorial discretion
was--which must be exercised one way or the other--to make sure
that it is exercised to prioritize dangerous people for
removal.
And you know very well that the administration currently
has been moving in the opposite direction with--once again,
workplace raids, a lot of seemingly random pickups of
individuals and the percentage of those who are criminals who
are being deported is down.
But we had an example of this in North Carolina in just the
last few weeks. The new wrinkle was this though, and this
frames my question: ICE justified these raids as the direct
result of several counties lawfully ending their engagement in
voluntary immigration enforcement agreements with the agency,
287G agreements.
These are voluntary agreements. Multiple Federal courts
have ruled that ICE detainers are either voluntary or that
they--blanket detainers exceed ICE's own statutory authority.
So I have two narrow questions and two broader questions. But
it--they are rooted in this recent experience.
First of all, just practices that ICE is bound to honor.
What is the responsibility of ICE officials during enforcement
actions to identify themselves as Federal immigration
officials?
And, secondly, are there internal rules or guidelines that
prohibit or discourage ICE officials for traveling in vehicles
that say Police on them? Sure it's not the first time you have
heard those questions. I would like to clarify what the
responsibilities are.
And then two broader questions: Is it department policy, as
far as you know, to conduct more enforcement operations in
localities that have recently ended 287G programs? Very simple
question but an important one.
And then, finally, what about prosecutorial discretion? Is
the department focusing any longer on arresting dangerous
criminals? President Trump says they are, says it many times.
But nearly 1/3 of the individuals taken into custody by ICE in
these raids in North Carolina were collateral arrests, wrong
place wrong time. And, in fact, there's a quote from the
Atlanta ICE Field Office Director, if they are in the wrong
place at the wrong time, my officers will take enforcement
action.
Is that where we are? Is that ICE policy as far as your
observations would confirm it?
Mr. Kelly. I will have to get back to you on that. I don't
know a definitive answer. I apologize.
Mr. Price. Get back to me on which of the questions?
Mr. Kelly. On--you basically had four questions. I don't
know the answers to any of those questions.
Mr. Price. Well the two are very narrow questions about
what the responsibilities are when raids are being carried out.
The question about identifying themselves as Federal
immigration officials and using the Police designation--these
have been debated for year and--and--you know--as you know,
charges have gone back and forth about what the practices are.
You--can you tell us that?
Mr. Kelly. I don't know the answer to your question.
That--whether or not they can or cannot use Police on----
Mr. Price. Well that of course doesn't require an
investigation. That would be a simple statement of department
policy and I would appreciate you getting back to me on this.
And then these broader issues, is there or is there not a
department policy to target jurisdictions that have recently
terminated 287(G) agreements?
Mr. Kelly. I do--we have issued a number of reports on the
287G program. Most of--all of those departments did not paint
the department in a positive light. But to--I don't know the
definitive answer as to know--as to whether or not they are
targeting communities that have terminated those programs.
Mr. Price. Well we might need to request a more formal
inquiry on that.
Mr. Kelly. Okay.
Mr. Price. But to the extent you can respond to these
broader issues as well, that question and also the one about
how discretion is being exercised.
We obviously would find that information useful and then we
can maybe follow up with you as to what kind of specific
inquiry to your office we should frame.
Mr. Kelly. Okay. All right, to the best of my knowledge we
have not looked into those specific issues. But if we have I
will get a definitive answer back to you. If not, we will see
what we can do on that.
Mr. Price. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Kelly, I have one final question
that I would like to add to the record. As you are aware, the
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 authorized FEMA to
establish a pilot program for public assistance alternative
procedures. And we understand from FEMA there have been at
least 7,800 projects with over $14 billion in grant funds
approved under this pilot program.
The law specifically tasks the Inspector General to look at
the effectiveness of the program and focus on six specific
areas of interest. In 2018 the OIG issued a brief report with
some recommendations but it largely concluded it was too early
to evaluate the program's effectiveness.
Do you believe the report that was issued complied with the
statutory mandate and, in the near future, do you plan to issue
a follow up report that more fully evaluates the effectiveness
of the pilot?
Mr. Kelly. The answer to your second question is we are
going to be doing an additional work that answers all those
questions. To--answer to your first question is: To the best
extent possible with the limits of data. We couldn't make a
determination as to whether or not--as to the true benefit of
the 287G program--I am sorry the 428 alternative procedures
program because there were only, I believe, about 10 percent of
the projects completed.
A lot of the projects were very multi-year, expensive,
complicated projects that are going to take awhile to complete
and to make a determination on 10 percent of the projects that
were completed would--would not be a sound decision. So we--we
have to see what FEMA has completed on some of these more
complicated to give a true answer.
As a general rule, the alternative procedures, which is
basically a fixed priced type of grant--as a general rule as
what the--the Federal acquisition regulations say is that
straightforward uncomplicated projects should be done using a
fixed price method. More complicated, more sophisticated issues
require--are better done if there are cost type of contracting
or the type of--or types of grants that FEMA does
traditionally.
So for--for the very complicated multi-year issues, the FAR
recommends that it is being handled though cost type of
contracting, or this would be cost type of grants, so. But for
smaller projects fixed priced are much better.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Since there are no further questions,
the hearing is concluded.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 12, 2019.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
WITNESSES
PETER T. GAYNOR, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
I welcome everyone to the first Department of Homeland
Security Subcommittee hearing with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency of the 116th Congress. I especially welcome
Mr. Gaynor. I believe this is your first hearing as acting
administrator, so welcome.
Mr. Gaynor. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. This subcommittee has a long bipartisan
tradition, and emergency management issues are a prime
principle as to why. Disasters do not distinguish where they
strike by party affiliation, and helping disaster survivors and
their communities in the wake of a disaster is a goal we all
share.
Most of the members of this subcommittee come from States
that are frequently struck by disasters. My home State of
California is a prime example. Our State has been struck by
catastrophic and deadly wildfires, and now is being affected by
rains and floods that can be devastating, especially in the
burned areas. We greatly appreciate FEMA's efforts to help
disaster survivors and their communities in California.
FEMA has a demanding job. Congress has given FEMA very
broad and flexible authority and a difficult mission. We ask
FEMA to help people in communities prepare for, respond to, and
recover from some of the worst days they will ever face. FEMA
employees do this frequently, and with long periods away from
home and family. We fully recognize that no matter how many
times FEMA does amazing things, it is usually the things that
don't go well that get reported in the media and to Members of
Congress.
While this subcommittee is very supportive of FEMA, its
employees and its mission, that does not abrogate our
responsibility for vigorous oversight. During this hearing, as
we work with you going forward, we intend to ask tough
questions. This is not to make things more difficult, but to
ensure we are fully informed as part of our responsibility to
see that FEMA carries out its mission in a fast, efficient, and
effective manner.
Next month, members of the subcommittee and the
Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban
Development will travel to Puerto Rico to see firsthand how
recovery efforts are faring. While that will be the focus of
our trip, it is not the exclusive focus of this hearing or our
oversight activities.
I would be remiss if I did not convey our thoughts and
concerns to those impacted by the recent tornadoes in the
southeast, especially in Alabama. Mr. Gaynor, I understand you
were recently there and that your colleagues at FEMA have been
working with State and local partners in response to these
disasters. We look forward to your assessment of the situation
during this hearing.
Again, thank you for appearing before the subcommittee
today. And now I will turn to my colleague, Ranking Member
Fleischmann, for his opening marks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank
you, and let everyone know on both sides of the aisle that, Ms.
Roybal-Allard, it has been an honor working with you in your
capacity as chairman. I am the ranking member, but we have had
several visits so far, and I appreciate the way that things are
going so far. Thank you very much.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Gaynor, thank you for joining us
today. I represent the people of the Third District of
Tennessee, Chattanooga all the way up to the Kentucky border.
And in my tenure in Congress, FEMA has done an outstanding job
in dealing with the disasters. We have had tornadoes, now we
are going through floods, but FEMA has always answered the
call, and I want to thank you on behalf of my constituents.
Whenever a disaster hits one of our communities, sir, we
all hope that FEMA and the first local responders will be on
the scene to bring a sense of order and safety to the chaos.
And then with the rebuilding, a process that can take months,
in some cases even years, we look to FEMA and your partner
agencies. We devote a lot of money to recovery and rebuilding,
sir, and we expect FEMA to show communities and States the way
to get up and running. We expect a lot, the communities expect
a lot, but we also expect FEMA to be good stewards of the
billions of taxpayer dollars we provide every year. We are
looking forward to hear that FEMA did both, effectively and
efficiently, help communities out of the worst thing that could
have happened, got them back on their feet, and can say to the
taxpayers and the Congress, we were good stewards of the funds.
I look forward to your testimony, sir. And I thank you
again for being here today.
Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
Before we begin with the testimony, a few housekeeping
items. The order in which members will be called for
questioning will be based on seniority of those who are present
when the hearing was called to order, alternating between
majority and minority members. Also, to ensure everyone has
ample opportunity to ask questions, I would ask each member to
keep their turn to the allotted 5 minutes per round.
So, Mr. Gaynor, we look forward to your testimony and we
will submit the full text of your testimony for the record.
Mr. Gaynor. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairwoman Roybal-
Allard and Ranking Member Fleischmann and members of the
committee. My name is Pete Gaynor, and I am the acting
administrator of FEMA. And on behalf of Secretary Nielsen and
the administration, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to provide this committee with an update on the
2018 and 2017 disaster recovery efforts.
The United States experienced six major hurricanes and five
historic wildfires across these 2 years. Between January 2017
and December 2018, the President approved 143 major disaster
and emergency declarations. Additionally, FEMA supported 202
fire management assistance grants. These two disaster seasons
were significant in their devastation of life and property, as
well as the cost to the affected communities and taxpayers.
Specifically, in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands,
we faced many unique challenges throughout the long-term
recovery process. FEMA supports the government's recovery plan
and will work to continue with our partners in Puerto Rico, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, other Federal agencies, and with Congress
to find strategic solutions.
After working closely for several months, I am pleased to
announce that FEMA and the government of Puerto Rico came to an
agreement last week on the government's financial control plan.
The government of Puerto Rico has certified that they have the
required fiscal controls, accounting procedures, and project
administration in place to assume responsibility to facilitate
their financial--disaster recovery.
We have found that success in emergency and response and
recovery depends on a response that is locally executed, State-
managed, and federally supported. We must work with State and
territorial governments to ensure that they are planning and
budgeting for emergencies now and building the necessary
capability to handle such disasters.
We continue to support recovery efforts from Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma nearly 14 years ago. FEMA and our
partners recognize that this legacy recovery model is no longer
acceptable and fiscally unsound. We will continue to work
deliberately and methodically to ensure the outcome of any
recoveries is to build a more resilient and prepared Nation.
A cultural shift towards outcome-driven recovery was a
recommendation from FEMA's 2017 After-Action Report. We are
working hard to meet those findings and make all necessary
improvements to our internal processes. This unprecedented
scale, rapid succession, and intensity of disaster in recent
years has stretched response recovery capabilities across the
whole emergency management community, to include our private
sector and voluntary partners. It will take unity effort across
this community to ensure we are prepared and able to help
people before, during, and after disasters.
FEMA helps build capacity through providing preparedness in
other grant programs to support our citizens and first
responders. Such efforts are critical in allowing States and
local governments to focus on small disasters while FEMA
focuses on catastrophic disaster response. Eighty percent of
all declared disasters incur obligations of $41 million or
less, while 50 percent of all disasters cost less than $7
million.
Aligned with the key focus areas in the After-Action
Report, FEMA's 2018 to 2022 Strategic Plan was published 1 year
ago this week. This plan builds on existing best practices and
identifies new initiatives geared towards our mission to
achieving three overarching goals: build a culture of
preparedness, ready the Nation for catastrophic disasters, and
reduce the complexity of FEMA.
As part of our goal of readying the Nation for catastrophic
disasters, FEMA took the initiative to update the National
Response Framework. This rewrite focuses on the stabilization
of critical lifelines in coordination across infrastructure
sectors. Lifelines provide an indispensable service that enable
key businesses and government functions that, if not properly
restored, could risk the health and safety of communities
impacted by disasters.
FEMA continues to build a culture of preparedness by
focusing on pre-disaster mitigation to build resilient
communities. In 2018, Congress took significant steps to
support this effort with the passage of the Disaster Recovery
Reform Act. This transformational legislation will assist the
Nation in reducing risk and increasing preparedness in a more
meaningful and tangible way.
Thank you for support in passing this bill. I look forward
to our continued partnership and support from this committee,
and we will continue to meet the disaster needs of the Nation
and ultimately help people in their time of greatest need. So
thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaynor follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.
I would like to begin by asking a couple of questions with
regards to what is happening in California. It is my
understanding that there are several residents in my home State
that were impacted by the 2017 Tubbs wildfires who are still
not back in their homes and are approaching FEMA's 18-month
limit on temporary housing assistance. What is FEMA doing or
what can it do to help survivors who have been unable to
rebuild within the timeframe allowed by FEMA's Housing
Assistance Program?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, ma'am. Just as background, I think post-
disaster housing for this country is a big problem, and I think
it is even more problematic in locations where wildfires
occurred and especially in the most recent wildfires in Butte
County. I don't think FEMA will ever be able to deliver all the
post-disaster housing needs that may be incurred in a disaster,
and this is where we need partnership from States and locals to
help us deliver that housing disaster requirement.
I spent almost 10 years as a local emergency management
director and a State director, and I think the solution is not
for the Federal Government to say this is a housing solution
that we place upon you, but to have the local and State
governments develop their unique housing needs, and we will
help meet those needs with Federal support.
So with the specifics of your question, I don't know all
the details, but I will find out if there is a hangup in that,
and I will be happy to follow up with your staff.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. We would appreciate that.
Mr. Gaynor. Thank you, ma'am.
[Mr. Gaynor responded for the record:]
On March 19, 2019 FEMA approved the State of California's request
to extend the period of assistance for Direct Temporary Housing under
the Individuals and Households Program for DR-4344, California. The
period of assistance for pre-disaster owners is extended to July 10,
2019, and the period of assistance for pre-disaster renters is extended
through May 10, 2019.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Also, Mr. Gaynor, California, including
Los Angeles, has been struck by devastating wildfires over the
last 2 years, as we have discussed. Wildfires are sometimes
only the first part of a disaster cycle that can later include
flooding and mudslides with heavy rainfalls on the burned
areas. In fact, I understand from emergency managers back home
that there have been recent evacuations in California due to
flooding in these previously burned areas.
The recently enacted Disaster Recovery Reform Act provided
FEMA additional authority to mitigate these risks. Can you
provide an update on the situation in California, steps FEMA
and the State are taking to mitigate against the occurrence of
future wildfires, floods, and mudslides, and how FEMA's new
authority is being used in that regard?
Mr. Gaynor. Thank you, ma'am. And I think you are
referencing the DRRA section about post-disaster or hazard
mitigation post-fire. The new authority gives us the ability to
add specifically to FMAGs, a post-disaster mitigation. I think
what we love about DRRA is it also tags on 6 percent of the
total disaster cost for pre-disaster mitigation.
If you looked at the numbers today, I think California will
have access, when all the costs are in, to somewhere between
$400 million and a billion dollars of pre-disaster mitigation
funds that they could apply across the State to reducing fire
risk. I know the State has taken actions over the recent couple
months; they have a new fire plan that is really their roadmap
about how they are going to attack fire risk. They also passed
some laws to improve, the reduction of biomass and trees in the
forest to, again, reduce that fire risk.
I think we are all in sync about pre-disaster mitigation.
And from our point of view, we would rather invest in pre-
disaster mitigation than pay that bill after. It is all tied
together with landslides and mudslides. It is management of
this risk that is really what is at the heart of this. But I
think now with funding from DRRA, we are in much better shape
to address that problem.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And just quickly in the time I
have left, I mentioned in my statement what was happening in
Alabama, that you had recently visited there. Can you provide
an update on what you saw and how FEMA is assisting disaster
survivors and their communities?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, ma'am. I had the great honor to fly down
with the President and the Secretary on Friday. Senator Shelby
and Rep. Rogers accompanied us down there. Lee County was
impacted by an EF-4 tornado, 170 mile an hour winds. Actually,
I had never been to a tornado of that scale ever. And if you
can just imagine taking your house, the contents of your house,
your clothes, your car, your trees, everything that you own,
times 300 of your neighbors and put it all into a blender and
then pouring it back out on the Earth, that is what this place
looked like. Pretty devastating.
The President signed an emergency major declaration for Lee
County, and within a couple hours, we had about 171 FEMA
employees down there trying to deliver assistance to those
survivors. A very devastating tornado. And that was just one of
six or seven tornadoes that touched down between Alabama and
Georgia that day or early that week.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. OK.
Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And, again, Administrator Gaynor, congratulations in your
appointment. We look forward to working with you, sir.
Acting Administrator Gaynor, as you have probably heard,
many counties in Tennessee, my home State, have been hit hard
in recent weeks with historic levels of flooding. In some
neighborhoods, in Hamilton County, my home county, the flood
waters continued to rise as recently as last week. In response,
several counties in Tennessee are applying for grants from FEMA
to mitigate the impact of this disaster. And our Governor, Bill
Lee, is closely evaluating the situation to determine the
strain on State resources.
In cases where the governor, working with State and local
officials, determines that more help is needed, can you
describe the process FEMA utilizes to make a recommendation
concerning a Presidential disaster declaration?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, sir. And I will just use my experience as
a local and State director. What usually happens after
disaster, there is a series of data collection to see what
amount of disaster is actually out there. They call them
preliminary damage assessments. So it is a team of local,
State, and Federal partners going out there to assess damage.
From that, the State or the county or the locals will write a
request for disaster assistance. The governor and the State's
emergency manager will probably evaluate that to see if it
stands up to the law and on merit. And then the governor has
the discretion to forward that to the President for action.
It comes through the FEMA region, so the FEMA region
responsible for Tennessee will look at it and they will forward
it to FEMA headquarters. We will evaluate it again, and then
ultimately we send it to the President for disposition.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Is the process more
challenging when the damage is more spread out and not
concentrated?
Mr. Gaynor. It is challenging in trying to tally up what is
damaged and what is private, what is public, what has
insurance, what doesn't have insurance. All those things go
into economic factors. So it really depends on the uniqueness
of the location, but I am sure the emergency management
director in Tennessee has been through this a few times. We
offer technical assistance if there is any problems trying to
assess the status of their initial assessments.
Mr. Fleischmann. My final question on this part, sir, is
are there steps that the agency can take to reduce the holding
period and expedite the process, sir?
Mr. Gaynor. The holding period as in relation to?
Mr. Fleischmann. I guess the holding period in regard to on
your all side.
Mr. Gaynor. It typically doesn't take too long, and I will
just use Alabama as an example. I think within a few days the
President approved it. So, again, not every disaster is equal.
They are all unique in its own way. Some take more because they
are more complicated, some are pretty straight forward and gets
a little faster.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Gaynor, last week, this
subcommittee heard from the Acting Inspector General, Mr.
Kelly, on a number of topics across the department, including
FEMA. When I asked the IG what questions we should include in
today's hearing with FEMA and the 2017 and 2018 disasters, he
did not pause when answering. Ask him to compare their response
and recovery rate to other disasters and see if their metrics
for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands compare favorably to
other disasters they have dealt with.
So I ask you, sir, how do your metrics compare to Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands? And should I assume from Mr.
Kelly's response that the numbers were not good?
Mr. Gaynor. I can't reference if there is a report or some
document that Mr. Kelly is talking about. But I can say in what
I do know about the scale of Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin
Islands from Hurricane Maria. It is a disaster on a scale that
we have really never seen. And it is not your typical disaster,
it is complicated. It is obviously on an island. There are lots
of thorny issues that predated the disaster that we are trying
to work through.
It is one of our biggest risks, I think, for FEMA. We are
all in with the government of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. We have committed a major part of our resources at
FEMA to be on the island advising them. So it is at the far end
of the scale when it comes to complexity and recovery.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
Madam Chairman, I will yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar disappeared.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you for being here. And we know
you have a very difficult job, and we are just here to help you
out and give you oversight and ask you some questions.
So, first thing, I want to talk about, in the last 2 years,
the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season I know caused 3,300
fatalities. You know, we had in 2018, the wildfires, and killed
a hundred people, and, you know, I know how much time that you
spent on that. But I want to talk about--I guess we are getting
a little parochial here, but that is who we represent there,
and I represent the State of Maryland and the Port of
Baltimore. And I have a lot of water in my district also.
But I want to talk to you about the issue of the grant
program, which is really important, I think, in my district,
Port of Baltimore, and every port, I think, in the Nation. And
FEMA's Port Security Grant Program is a lifeline to both large
and small seaports across the country. And my--and for this
reason, I was discouraged at the administration's deficient
funding request at $36 million for this Federal assistance
program.
Now, this program was included in the original Department
of Homeland Security authorization, and was funded at $100
million, was a cut from $100 million to $36 million in the
recently passed minibus. And this is a clear evidence that
Congress recognizes the need to support our ports.
Now, each year, America's ports generate about $4.6
trillion of revenue and employ over 23 million people
throughout the country. And the Port of Baltimore, which I
represent, alone generates $310 million in State, county, and
municipal tax revenues, and that is not including all the other
amount of moneys that--it is one of the biggest employers in
our State and a lot of other States.
Now, with the expansion of the Panama Canal, which are a
lot larger ships, you know, coming in, we don't expect to see
an increase in containers moving in and out of our country,
especially the East Coast. The bottom line is that the economic
impact of seaports cannot be understated, and according to the
Brooking's Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence,
it would only take a small attack on our ports to grind U.S.
Congress to halt within days. I think we saw that in the L.A.
Port strike years ago. Thus, the need for port security cannot
be understated.
So for this reason, I feel strongly that we need to protect
our maritime infrastructure. And my question, do you believe
the Port Security Grant Program has been a valuable tool in
combating terrorism and drugs and building infrastructure
resiliency?
Secondly, I can say the Port of Baltimore, which received
about $1.18 million in 2017, they put these Federal dollars to
use improving their cybersecurity and upgrading their physical
access points. And, finally, to me, a cut in this program
implies the ports have shored up all their vulnerabilities,
which they have not. So, basically, the question, you know,
what is--do you feel that it is a valuable tool? What is the
status? Where are we? And we are going to look at this issue on
our committee.
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, sir. And I am going to go back to my time
as a local emergency manager in the city of Providence, we had
a port, and I was----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Is that why you talk a little bit
differently than--I am teasing.
Mr. Gaynor. Perfectly fine for me, sir. It sounds perfectly
logical.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Boston. Boston-type.
Mr. Gaynor. I was a recipient of port grants, and I know
how important those can be to any port. I think if you go back
to 9/11 and draw a line on non-disaster grants, especially in
Homeland Security grants, there has been a steady decline in
funding over those years. I do think that the port grant is a
valuable tool to all ports.
There is a great demand on Homeland Security grants. Ports
are one of those risks in a big portfolio. I was not part of
determining how much each grant got, really above my pay grade,
but it is an important tool for States and local ports to buy
down their risk and be more resilient.
I will be happy to look into the status of the current
grant year, where we are on that. And it is a competitive
grant, so the better program that you put forth, the better
results you will yield on the far end.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. And we know, you know, the drug
issue we have now, I think the majority of our ports, a lot of
the fentanyl from China is coming in through the ports. And you
know how many people are dying every day in our country,
hundreds and hundreds. Thank you.
Mr. Gaynor. I will be happy to follow up on the number.
[Mr. Gaynor responded for the record:]
Yes, the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) has been a valuable
tool in reducing security risks and increasing the resilience of the
Nation's seaports. Since 2005, DHS has awarded more than $2.7 billion
through the PSGP to port authorities, facility operators, and state and
local government agencies that are required to provide port security
services. This funding has been directed toward the implementation of
Area Maritime Security Plans, Facility security Plans, Vessel Security
Plans, and Port-Wide Risk Management Plans as a means of addressing
identified vulnerabilities.
In fiscal year 2018--the most recent awards under PSGP--recipients
within the Baltimore port area received a total of $2,749,948 in
funding. The FY 2019 PSGP was funded at $100 million, the same amount
appropriated for the program in FY 2018. The FY 2019 PSGP application
period opened on April 12, 2019. Applications are due by May 29, 2019
and final awards and allocations are expected in early August 2019.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. Okay. Good. Appreciate it.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Rutherford. He is gone.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to talk a little bit about the Federal
contracting regulations versus State and local. And just to
give you an idea of some of the problems that that has created,
including the reimbursement procedure, obviously.
Keys Energy in southern Florida still has a $42 million
FEMA filing from Hurricane Irma. However, Key Energy to date--
and FEMA's released $15 million to the State so far, yet Key
has only received $1 million of the $42 million that they are
owed. And in the meantime, they have to take out loans to make
up for those costs, and now they are paying interest on those
loans and the--so the storm is still getting more expensive
every day, to the tune of $2,400 every day it is costing Key
Energy.
And so my question is, is there any way we can break this
logjam where FEMA gives money to the State, who is then
supposed to disburse it to the locals, those with the loss? Yet
oftentimes what comes back is FEMA says, well, your contract
doesn't fit our regulations exactly, so you have to, you know,
redraft all these contracts. Well, they fit the State and local
contracts regulations when they were drafted.
Is there some way we can agree that if they have--if they
have met the State and local requirements, that they have met
Federal requirements?
Mr. Gaynor. Congressman, I don't know the particulars about
this exact issue, but, in general, if you receive Federal
money, you have to follow Federal purchasing guidelines. I
mean, that is in the statute. We encourage recipients of all
types of grants, whether it is disaster grants or non-disaster
grants, to make sure they follow the rules when they use that
money. We pay particular attention to not only following the
rules, but documenting along the way what you did to make sure
that the State can reimburse you. So this is all by
reimbursement.
If the State contracted Key Energy to do something, the
contract is between the State and Key, and the first response
is to make sure that the paperwork and the contract and all the
things are right. We will reimburse them based on the document
they submit. We take a hard look at it because we are concerned
about waste, fraud, and abuse, and if there is some
irregularity, it may get kicked back. But I would be happy to
look into the details of this. I mean, I just don't know them.
[Mr. Gaynor responded for the record:]
There are 10 Project Worksheets for the Key West Utilities Board
for Hurricane Irma (DR-4337). The status of each project, as of April
5, 2019, is provided below (for exact payments that have been made
through the state to the utilities board, please contact the Florida
Department of Emergency Management).
Mr. Rutherford. Why are these contracts that are--you know,
why can't they be accepted, number one?
But let me ask you another question too, because another
issue that we have is, you know, these cities--for debris
removal particularly. They enter into a contract with a
provider for that removal, and so, you know, they give a pretty
good price, you know, per ton of debris. Yet when the storm
hits, they get a price from somebody in south Florida for twice
as much as that contract. They pull all their people out of
that contract area and they go south or wherever that other
location is and make twice the money. Somehow we need FEMA to
help us hold these people accountable for the contracts that
they have.
Do you have any recommendations on how we might be able to
address that issue?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, sir. There is a lot of money in debris,
and the bigger the disaster, the more money there is, and it
can be pretty competitive. There is not many major debris
contractors around the country that can perform large-scale
missions, and so they probably look for the top dollar.
We advocate for State and locals to have pre-disaster
contracts with some of these vendors or service providers----
Mr. Rutherford. The contracts are worthless, though,
because they leave you and go elsewhere.
Mr. Gaynor. I am not sure what we can do about that. I am
just saying the best practice is, we are trying to convince and
encourage State directors and local directors to have these
pre-disaster contracts. Better to have a contract than to have
no contract at all. I would rather be on their list than not on
their list.
Mr. Rutherford. Maybe they can't get FEMA dollars if they
violate a contract. That would be a great idea.
And let me close with this real quick, because I know my
time is running out. On your sustained whole community
logistics operation, I know that for Irma, there was an amazing
amount of prepositioning of goods for Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands and Jacksonville, particularly. Mike Crowley and
TOTE, two of our Jones Act maritime vessels. That worked
exceptionally well when--as soon as the port opened, those
goods and services were pouring into Puerto Rico there in San
Juan. The problem was distribution throughout the country, you
know, because of roads and bridges.
Was FEMA actually part of that staging or did they do that
on their own?
Mr. Gaynor. I can't speak to the exact specifics of that
storm. I will tell you what we have, we have a very robust
logistics capability within FEMA. Food, water, generators,
tarps, you name it, we have it.
Mr. Rutherford. It was very impressive. If you guys were
part of it, I don't know.
Mr. Gaynor. I would like to think that we were a part of
it. And, again, I will go back to my local and State director
hat. The hardest part to getting those whether it is a bottle
of water or an MRE, into a hand of a survivor, is that last
mile. That is the hardest part.
Mr. Rutherford. That is the hardest part.
Mr. Gaynor. And we are built on locally executed, State-
managed and federally supported. So if the local is broken and
the State is broken, it comes to us.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you. My time has expired.
I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Welcome, Administrator. I come from a State that has had
many disasters in recent years, and we are having recovery--we
are undertaking recovery efforts now and appreciate FEMA's
cooperation. It has been a good relationship, and we, of
course, want it to continue.
And one question that has arisen, I want to raise
specifically with you today, which has to do with the STEP
program. That is a funded--that is a program funded jointly by
the State and FEMA, and what it is aimed at is residents who
might, with some temporary repairs, continue to live in their
homes while the longer term repairs are being made. That is a
good idea for them. It keeps them in the community, it keeps
them able to work and so on, and it also saves the government
money in resources, not having to put people in congregate
shelters and hotel rooms and other disaster housing.
Now, I know FEMA hasn't standardized the STEP program
across the States, and so there is a certain lack of
predicability that makes the program difficult to administer
for emergency management officials. At least that has been the
experience in our State. For example, we were denied a recent
extension request, and given an April 22, 2019, deadline to
complete STEP repairs on between 3,000 and 4,000 homes, mind
you, hit by Hurricanes Florence and Michael last fall.
I am sure you know, Hurricane Florence was the Nation's
second wettest storm in 70 years. It killed 31 people. It
caused an estimated $17 billion in damage. Our emergency
officials, believe me, are making good progress, good progress
on the STEP program. But the sheer magnitude of the hurricanes
that hit our State have to be considered, or at least we think
they should be considered. So I will ask you a couple of
questions in light of this experience.
First, can you explain your process for determining the
length of time States have to implement their STEP program?
And, secondly, what factors do you consider when a State needs
an extension or applies for one?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. This goes
back, I think, to the original housing question. Post-disaster
housing is a problem. It would be our preference to keep people
in their homes, and I think that is why we created the STEP
program. It is relatively new. We are using it in Puerto Rico
and U.S. Virgin Islands to great success.
On this very issue, I talked to Governor Cooper last week
about this extension, and I heard him loud and clear about why
he needs it. And so we are going to reevaluate the program.
Typically, it runs 180 days. We are going to look at it again
and, hopefully, we will resolve it to everyone's satisfaction.
Mr. Price. Good. I appreciate that.
Is there anything in the interim? Maybe I should just take
that as a good answer and leave it at that.
What are the questions you are dealing with here as you
consider how to deal with extension requests?
Mr. Gaynor. Again, I think each disaster is uniquely
different. Some jurisdictions are more capable than others.
Weather gets in the way of repairs. I think we are experiencing
this out in USVI and Puerto Rico. Weather gets in the way of
repairs, and it is out of the applicant's control, so we take
all that into consideration. We are trying to assess our risk,
making sure that we spend the money correctly within the
statute that directs it. All of this goes into making,
hopefully, a good, reasonable decision that benefits both
parties.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you. That sounds like a good
approach.
Secondly, I want to ask you about the Disaster Recovery
Reform Act of 2019. I was pleased when the Congress passed the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act last year, the first comprehensive
emergency management reform package since Hurricane Katrina.
The law included a number of reforms. That should be very
helpful to North Carolina and other States hit by disasters,
especially some of the changes made to the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program. The DRRA established new rates for program--for
the program and expanded the definition of allowable management
costs, and that is what I want to focus on.
Can you please tell me when FEMA will release the new
management cost guidance? And I also understand FEMA is working
to implement this policy with a goal of having a system to
allow States to submit applications for management costs by
early 2019. Can you please share a timeframe for when you
expect to have the grant management system fully functional?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, sir. Like I said in my opening statement,
we believe DRRA is transformational. And building a more
resilient Nation, I think the hazard mitigation 6 percent based
on a disaster is going to be groundbreaking to actually invest
those dollars pre-disaster. When it comes to management costs,
we are trying to work through the 49 unique sections in that
act. We actually had a meeting a couple weeks ago with
congressional staffers on our progress. I would like to think
we are making great progress on many of the sessions.
I don't know the exact status of the management cost
section, but I would be happy to follow up with you on that on
where we are. But overall, I think we are in a positive trend
to get some of those DRRA sections on the street and
implemented.
Mr. Price. Let me just say, Madam Chairman, just to
respond, that we would appreciate that material on those
timeframes. That will be very helpful.
[Mr. Gaynor responded for the record:]
FEMA published interim guidance in November 2018 implementing DRRA
1215. Interim guidance and supporting documentation for the Public
Assistance and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs can be found on FEMA's
website, at https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/174133.
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
The HMGP Management Costs Interim Policy was published in November
2018 implementing DRRA 1215. The Interim Policy applies retroactively
to major disaster declarations on or after August 1, 2017. On February
28, 2019, FEMA deployed system updates to allow application submissions
for management costs.
The Interim Policy provides greater flexibility to state, tribal,
territorial, and local governments. Specific changes include:
A revised definition of management costs to include
indirect costs and direct administrative costs.
Revision of the maximum management costs rate of up
to 15%, including up to 10% for the Recipient and up to 5% for
the Subrecipient.
Elimination of the $20 million cap.
FEMA will evaluate this interim policy as it is implemented and
will incorporate management costs into the next version of the Hazard
Mitigation Assistance Guidance (2015).
Further, job aids and training development/delivery are underway.
Currently, FEMA is evaluating the need for developing a reasonable cost
policy for HMGP.
Public Assistance Grant Program (PA Program)
The PA Management Costs Interim Policy was published in November
2018 implementing DRRA 1215, and additional supporting documentation
and resources were published in early 2019. The Interim Policy applies
retroactively to incidents declared on or after August 1, 2017.
Recipients and Subrecipients with incidents declared from August 1,
2017, to October 4, 2018, may choose between using the Interim Policy
or continuing to use existing FEMA regulations and policies related to
management costs. The Interim Policy provided recipients and
subrecipients until March 15, 2019, to notify the Agency of their
selected option. The deadline was extended to April 15, 2019, for
Puerto Rico emergency and disaster declarations for Hurricanes Irma and
Maria.
The Interim Policy provides greater flexibility to state, tribal,
territorial, and local governments. Specific changes include:
A revised definition of management costs to include
indirect costs and direct administrative, costs.
Revision of the maximum management costs rate of up
to 12%, including up to 7% for the Recipient and up to 5% for
the Subrecipient.
Elimination of the $20 million cap.
Elimination of lock-in amounts and the associated
process for determining the lock-in amount.
Further, a Standard Operating Procedure and fact sheet on the
Interim Policy were issued on February 11, 2019, and job aids, system
changes, and training development/delivery are underway. Currently,
FEMA is evaluating the need for developing additional reasonable cost
guidance. In the interim, FEMA will continue to apply the current
reasonable cost job aid for PA projects until a working group can
analyze and recommend more holistic, fulsome guidance.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Gaynor, for being here today. And I agree,
you started off saying sometimes it is the local and State
solutions are the best fit for communities, because all States
and communities are different, and you know, those are the
professionals on the ground, and, you know, and one size
doesn't always fit all, especially if it is coming from this
city.
I would like to first start out by thanking you for the 12
storm shelters that FEMA has provided to Forrest County in the
State of Mississippi. You know, we attract tornadoes,
hurricanes, ice storms. You name it, we get it. And I want to
thank FEMA, especially the Hazard Mitigation Program Grant for
that. I know the supervisors and the community are especially
appreciative of that, because if we can save one life, it is
really much worth it.
I would like to shift to something. In about 60 days, NFIP
is going to expire again. And I don't know how many times it
has expired since we reauthorized it. I know in 2013, the
Biggert-Waters Act was introduced, and soon thereafter, when
communities all across the Nation started to realize that their
rates were not only just going to go up $25, $30, but
thousands, and in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars on,
you know, the homeowners flood insurance policies, we kind of
stepped in and realized that--in fact, the author of the bill,
Congresswoman Waters, said the unintended consequence were
these drastic rate increases.
I am continuously nervous about if any reforms that we make
to the flood insurance program, that we get it wrong again.
And, you know, if people don't--if they have a mortgage and
they are required to have flood insurance and they can no
longer afford the flood insurance, that home can be deemed
insecure, and the banks are therefore forced to basically begin
taking back that property to protect their asset.
I do think there are reforms that can be made to the NFIP
program, but, you know, this is a program that Congress created
in 1968, and, you know, I am concerned that, you know, when you
are messing with people's largest single investment, which is
their home, we got to be very cautious, we got to be very
studious on how we approach this.
And I do appreciate what we have done, some of the past
actions, some of the reforms weren't good. I know we are trying
to inject the private market. At the same time, we are tossing
out terms like we need to make the program actuarially sound.
Well, that all sounds well and good, but we also got to protect
our homeowners. And we do have a homeowners protection caucus
that was created as a result of Biggert-Waters, I am one of the
co-chairs.
And I would like to ask you, are you seeing, as the efforts
of privatization--the private market enter into the flood
insurance market, is that taking place? And, if so, what do we
do to prevent private companies from cherry-picking, taking the
most safe policies and undercutting the government NFIP rate,
and then leaving all the more unsafe properties in a reduced
premium pool with probably higher and more increased in rates?
That is just a concern of mine, and that was a concern of many
of my colleagues when we made--we killed the last NFIP reform
bill.
Mr. Gaynor. All great questions, Congressman. First, at
FEMA, we believe an insured home is a valuable home. To answer
your first question how many extensions has NFIP had, 42. It is
time for some reform, we believe that. This past year or these
past 2 years, we added about 200,000 new policies.
I think part of the issue with NFIP is when it comes to
giving insurance policies, we are the only insurer in those
locations; there is no other insurers to divide that risk up
into. So when there is a disaster that requires NFIP, it really
hits hard.
Now, 1 inch of water in a home is $25,000 worth of damage.
FEMA gives individual assistance or you can get up to $35,000
of assistance if you meet all the different wickets. On
average, we only give out about $2,600. But if you look at
insurance, what we have given out for the same kind of damage,
you get $109,000. So, we would rather have insured homes,
because, first of all, insurance pays first, but it is better
for everyone.
FEMA will not make you whole. FEMA is a bridge to get you
to the next, safe, warm, and dry location, but we are not going
to make you whole. So insurance is infinitely important for us.
Last--in 2017, we bought reinsurance for NFIP, and we saved
the taxpayers a billion dollars. And I think we are going to
try to do that again. So we are all in on making sure we try to
rethink flood insurance, because it rains in every State,
right? It floods in every State. Look at Houston, it flooded
where, it had never flooded before. So, again, an insured home
is a valuable home.
Mr. Palazzo. And we have seen this in a lot of the storm
events over the past several years, Madam Chairwoman, where,
you know, the rivers never flooded out the communities; it just
seems to be happening more and more, and that is why perhaps in
the second round of questions I will ask you about all perils
insurance as well.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And thank you, Administrator, for being here today. I
wanted to ask about language access issues during and after a
disaster. Language access has often been an issue for limited
English-proficient individuals, including and especially those
of the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities.
As evident from Hurricane Katrina, FEMA wasn't equipped to
communicate with the Vietnamese American community then in New
Orleans. When Hurricane Harvey hit, an API organization such as
API Vote had to step in to translate information that FEMA
officials were releasing because it was only available in
English and Spanish.
Hurricane Katrina occurred in 2005, Harvey in 2017, which
is about 12 years. What had FEMA done in between to improve
language access since Katrina?
Mr. Gaynor. Ma'am, I think we recognize that making sure we
get our message out to the entire community is important. I
can't speak to the specifics of what we have done to improve
that. I will get back to you on that. But I will just use an
example; if the U.S. military can have a piece of technology in
their hand to translate, it would seem that we could do the
same thing for meeting survivors in a disaster area. But I
would be happy to get you some information about our strides in
that and what we are doing and maybe what we plan to do.
[Mr. Gaynor responded for the record:]
FEMA ensures all applicants receive critical, accessible, and
understandable preparedness and disaster assistance communications,
regardless of language proficiency. To best assist all survivors, FEMA
provides the following:
Disaster information in languages identified through
demographic analysis of the impacted area;
FEMA continuously works with the 12 languages as
identified by the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
(PKEMRA), but life-saving information in plain language to the
public, including printed materials can be translated into more
than 200 languages, Braille and large print. Video products
that are produced includes captioning (multilingual), American
Sign Language (ASL) and audio description and accessible on
FEMA's website.
Staff to identify language needs and connect
disaster survivors to applicable translation services;
Video Remote Interpreting for American Sign Language
or on-site translation at Disaster Recovery Centers;
Appropriate referrals for applicants with
disabilities and others with access and functional needs who
also have Limited English Proficiency.
FEMA's Community Partners Branch in
Intergovernmental Affairs works with over 100 organizations
whose constituencies include diverse populations who require
products and materials in various languages. These partnerships
help FEMA further increase our distribution of preparedness
materials in multiple languages and utilize their relationships
with these populations and increase preparedness in these
communities. Preparedness publications in seven top tribal
languages have been produced and will be posted on fema.gov
this summer.
FEMA has also increased the availability and
visibility of preparedness brand, materials, and messages
through its Ready.gov and Listo.gov (Spanish-version of
Ready.gov) pages. Preparedness information and materials are
also readily available in more than 10 other languages besides
English and Spanish.
We are striving to increase accessibility even more.
In 2018, FEMA provided translations in 18 languages and
delivered more than 700 translated documents in support of
requests across various disasters.
During the last two years, FEMA staff has worked to
include an American Sign Language interpreter on several pre-
scripted videos to update the video library and FEMA's YouTube
page.
The Ready Campaign partnered with USFA to leverage
their pictogram contract to develop hurricane preparedness
materials in a pictogram format, and will continue to look for
opportunities to expand this capability further in meaningful
ways.
Additionally, the FEMA Puerto Rico Facebook page
routinely posts preparedness information in Spanish for not
only Puerto Rico, but all Spanish-speaking audiences. This
included a major 2018 hurricane awareness campaign.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Yes, I would love to work with you to make
sure that we are working with organizations around the country
and to help you and FEMA do as good a job as possible.
My other question is, there were reports in the media that
following President Trump's public declaration, he wanted no
more disaster funds going to Puerto Rico, and that
administration officials started telling agencies, HUD
specifically at the time, to block money appropriated by
Congress for Puerto Rico.
Do you have any direct or indirect knowledge of any actions
taken by the Trump administration to block disaster recovery
money from going to Puerto Rico?
Mr. Gaynor. Ma'am, what I do know is that the approved
disaster money through disaster process is how we deliver
services to those impacted. Other conversations with HUD, I am
not familiar with. But we have money appropriated through the
process and we are using that to deliver the best disaster
relief to our survivors.
Ms. Meng. So as far as you are concerned, you don't have
any knowledge of those actions taken by the Trump
administration?
Mr. Gaynor. I do not.
Ms. Meng. Do you or your team staff have any knowledge of
any communications made with the Trump administration on the
same topic?
Mr. Gaynor. I do not, ma'am.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Thank you. And then back to--sorry. So I
know that in July, FEMA issued an After-Action Report assessing
its response to the 2017 storm season. This report included
recommendations to address staffing needs, increase FEMA
readiness stocks outside the continental U.S., et cetera. What
actions has FEMA taken to meet these recommendations?
Mr. Gaynor. When it comes to what we call the CAD or the
Caribbean Area Division, which is how we manage Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands, we have done significant work to make
sure that we have commodities on island. Between the islands of
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, we now have eight
warehouses for commodities on island, and more commodities
stateside that we can tap into.
So we are trying to learn our lessons from Maria and making
sure that we don't repeat that again. But we have taken
significant steps to improve our commodities.
Ms. Meng. And that would help get supplies out to people
around an island more efficiently than had happened after
Maria?
Mr. Gaynor. That would be the theory. Again, I think the
hardest part for a local emergency manager and State emergency
manager is that last mile; you can have it, but you have to
transport it or you have to get it in the hands of the
survivors. So the last mile is the hardest mile. But there are
adequate resources and commodities on the islands for a
disaster.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a quick question that is more locally focused.
According to NOAA, Hurricane Irma was the strongest hurricane
ever observed in the open Atlantic Ocean. After barreling
through Florida, 6\1/2\ million customers in my State were left
without power, and the winds, rain, and flooding left a trail
of destruction and debris.
Memorial Healthcare System, a safety net provider which
operates six hospitals in south Florida, including a level one
trauma center which is headquartered in my district, cleaned up
the mess around its facilities, spent money on clearing road
debris, extra labor and mitigation. However, 15 months after
their initial application with FEMA for the total reimbursement
request of approximately $7 million, Memorial Healthcare has
received not $1.
Mr. Gaynor, you discussed in your testimony the actions
that FEMA is taking to consolidate and update your individual
assistance policies, but what is FEMA doing to simplify and
streamline the process for reimbursements for emergency
healthcare providers like Memorial? Because 15 months is far
too long, far longer than is reasonable to expect them to have
to wait.
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, ma'am. Again, I don't have the exact
details of the Memorial Health issue. I would be happy to look
into that and see why it is taking so long. Again, I will just
go back to each disaster is very unique and----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My question specifically is what is
FEMA doing to simplify and streamline the process for
reimbursements for emergency healthcare providers like
Memorial? I certainly am familiar with the complexity of
dealing with the aftermath of a storm, since I live in south
Florida.
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, ma'am. We have implemented the grants
management system. It is--or I should say, part of the new
public assistance delivery to better account for paperwork,
track reimbursements, and make sure that the paperwork is all
correct before we go down a long road and decide that something
is missing early on in the process and have to go back again
and back again. I think this is part of the frustration with
locals and States that we get to the end and we realize that
something is missing. This new PA policy project and GMM will
track these initiatives to make sure that we try to speed it up
as fast as we can.
Again, it can be complicated in certain circumstances, but
our goal is to deliver the fastest relief to our survivors.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I will be honest with you, your
response doesn't really give me a lot of confidence that you
have got a system in place that is headed towards improving the
situation.
FEMA was plagued with contracting problems following the
2017 disaster season. In October 2017, FEMA terminated a
contract after just 20 days with Tribute Contracting, which was
supposed to deliver 30 million meals in Puerto Rico. The
contract was reportedly worth $156 million dollars. Tribute
delivered only 50,000 of the 30 million meals it was supposed
to. According to media reports, Tribute was a single-employee
business with no large-scale disaster contracting experience,
and had already been barred from contracts with the Government
Publishing Office when FEMA entered into its contract with the
company.
Similarly, FEMA had to cancel a $30 million contract for
tarps or plastic sheeting when a newly formed company called
Bronze Star failed to deliver the urgently needed supplies.
Mr. Gaynor, in the aftermath of these failed contracts for
supplies that can mean life or death for disaster survivors,
what steps has FEMA taken to make certain that it only
contracts for goods and services with companies that actually
have the capacity to perform? And do you look to see if a
company has been deemed ineligible for contracts with other
government agencies before you contract with them?
Mr. Gaynor. Ma'am, so to your point about the contracts, we
executed for Maria approximately 2,000 contracts. Of those
2,000 contracts, three of those contracts failed to work and we
just cut them off at no expense to the Federal Government. The
Tribute contract, they supplied, I am going to say, 50,000
meals at about a quarter million dollars. We got the food, we
paid them, and then we ended the contract.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. But what are you doing to make
sure that mistakes--grave, gross mistakes like that don't
happen again?
Mr. Gaynor. So we have increased our cap on contracts to
make sure we have more capacity among the contracts that we do
have. And we have plenty of commodity contracts available. So
if one----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I am sorry. Before my time
expires, I just have one more. Following Hurricane Irma, then
Florida Governor Rick Scott's office overrode pre-negotiated
debris removal contracts and entered into debris removal
contracts at extraordinarily inflated prices. Specifically,
Governor Scott's office signed contracts in Monroe County that
raised significant concerns about potential waste and fraud.
What consequences are there--piggybacking on what
Congressman Rutherford asked you, what consequences are for
this kind of waste, fraud, and abuse practices? I mean, it
doesn't make--your response, frankly, to his question doesn't
make any sense to me. You throw up your hands and you just say
there is very little you can do?
You control hundreds of millions of dollars in
reimbursements, and you can certainly put in place
accountability practices that ensure that when rules are
broken, when policies are violated, that you prohibit
reimbursement from particular entities in the future. Do you
not have any policies like that in place?
Mr. Gaynor. We do, ma'am. We use, for instance, the 270
policy in Puerto Rico, oversight on how a State spends its
money through manual drawdown. They can't draw money down until
we approve it. There are many different controls that we have.
I am not familiar with the Florida issue with Governor Scott,
before my time; I would be happy to look into it. I am not sure
if we did anything. You know, what actions we took, I just
don't know. But I would be happy to get back with you with an
answer on that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
I yield back.
[Mr. Gaynor responded for the record:]
Through the Public Assistance program, FEMA
reimburses applicants for eligible debris removal projects.
FEMA does not enter into contracts for debris
removal services nor does FEMA remove debris from disaster
declared areas.
FEMA continues to write and approve reimbursement
for Hurricane Irma debris removal projects as documentation is
received from local officials.
FEMA's Procurement Disaster Assistance Teams (PDAT)
assist applicants with adhering to Federal procurement
standards, as well as FEMA policies and guidance associated
with Public Assistance grants. In FY19, PDAT has provided 77
training sessions in 8 regions, 18 states, and 43 cities to
date.
We recommend contacting the Florida Division of
Emergency Management or the disaster-declared counties for any
questions pertaining to contracts they entered for debris
removal services.
The Chairwoman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And now we are honored to have the
chairwoman of the full committee, Mrs. Lowey.
The Chairwoman. Well, I appreciate the honor. I do wish I
had roller skates on today, but I am happy to be here. I am so
sorry that I missed so much of the meeting, but welcome, and I
appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion with you.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, Governor Cuomo
directed New York State entities to provide assistance to
Puerto Rico, including assistance provided by New York Electric
Utilities to repair the electric grid. This effort was
coordinated by the New York Power Authority, which happens to
have headquarters in my district. NYPA's efforts are an example
of mutual aid with State and local governments provide
assistance to each other in the aftermath of a disaster.
It is my understanding that the New York Power Authority is
continuing this partnership to provide assistance, not only to
Puerto Rico, but also to the U.S. Virgin Islands before,
during, and after disasters. Can you help me understand how
this type of mutual aid supports FEMA's efforts? And is there
anything we can do in Congress to better support and facilitate
mutual aid?
Mr. Gaynor. Thank you, ma'am. Thanks for inviting me today.
EMAC, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact is a State-
to-State agreement between governors to exchange staff,
equipment, and commodities during a disaster. So a governor can
ask another disaster for help. It is one of the core things
that we rely on at FEMA. Kind of a first-level ask before you
ask the Federal Government; you know, do you have it within
your State? Can you get it from one of your neighbors? Can you
get it from across the country? And it really is the core of
how we do good emergency management in the United States.
Specifically for the Puerto Rico ask, there were 92 EMAC
requests fulfilled by 27 States. Pretty amazing support from
fellow governors in Puerto Rico's worst time. I think that is a
shining star, on neighbor helping neighbor in this case, to
make sure that you have all the necessary things that you need
to deliver, to survivors. Commodities or police, fire, all
those, resources went to Puerto Rico, and probably to some
deficit to a State that let it go and didn't have access to it.
So, again, this business of emergency management is a team
effort. So from State to State, from our private partners, from
our volunteers, from other emergency management across the
Nation, it all has to be a team. No one person has all the
capability to do it themselves, and we cannot be successful
without it.
What you could do, I am not exactly sure. I think EMAC
works pretty well. I know the National Guard has some issues
with how they get repaid. I don't know the exact details of it,
but I would be happy to see what we can do to improve that.
The Chairwoman. Good. Are there many other of these
helpers, these States, that were sending supplies? Are they
still involved or have they all gone home?
Mr. Gaynor. I don't know if any States are still down
there. I can check. I would imagine that most of those
resources have gone home, but I will check.
The Chairwoman. I just wondered. Now, as you know, to carry
out its programs, FEMA, as well as State, territorial, and
local governments, rely on contractors. Recently, The
Washington Post highlighted issues of payments to contractors
for the Sheltering and Temporary Essential Power, or STEP
program, in the U.S. Virgin Islands. This program provides
critical assistance to residents making repairs to their homes,
and we understand that it is also being used in Puerto Rico.
The contractors described in The Washington Post article
work under a contract with the U.S. Virgin Islands, but they
cannot be paid until FEMA approves project worksheets for work
they have done nearly a year and a half after these hurricanes.
Now, we understand that the U.S. Virgin Islands made a request
for the funding in question in fall of 2018.
Now, I understand this is a complex situation. Can you tell
me how much funding is currently pending for the STEP program
in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico? And what is the
status of the project worksheets? Are the project worksheets
related to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands taking
longer than usual? And, if so, why?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, ma'am. So when it comes to U.S. Virgin
Islands and the STEP program--which is a success in Puerto
Rico. We did 110,000 homes in STEP. We hoped we won't do that
many homes, but we hope to have that great kind of success in
USVI.
And this, as I understand, is in two parts. The first part
of the STEP program, USVI was completed. We reimbursed the
Virgin Islands with $180 million for that program. They have
drawn down some of the money, but they still have some money
that they have not drawn down, which they could use to pay
contractors, approximately $60 million that is still left.
The second phase is really aimed at roofs in USVI. That
project worksheet is called Project Worksheet 100 and is with
USVI right now. And they are trying to validate some of the
costs in there. As soon as we get that back at headquarters, we
will turn it around, and we will make sure that we properly
fund that--and reimburse that project worksheet.
The Chairwoman. So the timeframe is how long from delivery
till you can approve it?
Mr. Gaynor. Just for context, everything over $5 million
has to go to the Department, Homeland Security, and OMB for a
review. So we can get it out the door pretty fast if it is all
in order. And then we send it to the Department for review and
then OMB for final review, and then we will transfer that
money.
Can't tell you how long that is going to take. I think when
we get it back from them, we will have a better timeline. But I
would love to keep you updated on where we are on that.
[Mr. Gaynor responded for the record:]
In December 2017, FEMA activated the Sheltering and
Temporary Essential Power (STEP) program. Through this program, FEMA
reimburses the territory for basic emergency repairs while allowing
Virgin Islanders to remain in their homes as a form of shelter while
permanent repairs are performed.
More than $283 million in funding has been provided to the
territory for the STEP program through FEMA Public Assistance. The
Virgin Islands Housing Finance Authority (VIHFA) administers this
program and calls it Emergency Home Repairs VI (EHRVI).
More than $248 million has been obligated to the
territory to support all eligible construction expenses.
More than $35 million was obligated to the
territory for project management, including costs associated
with travel, billeting of off-island labor and central
warehousing of materials.
As of April 19, USVI has drawn down more than
$220 million.
At the request of USVI, EHRVI was extended until April 15,
2019. The requested two-week extension of the program will allow the
territory to maximize the use of its contractors to complete those
homes that are pending completion.
Understanding the unique needs of the territory, FEMA made
several significant policy changes to expand the STEP program to better
serve survivors, including:
Increasing the STEP program cap per home from
$20,000 to $25,000;
Providing the ability to waive the cap per homes
on a case-by case basis under certain conditions;
Authorizing roof repairs to residences that
received Blue Roof installations; and
Extending the program period of performance
through April 15, 2019.
The Chairwoman. I would appreciate an update. And I am
wondering, is this typical, that kind of--roughly, how much
time does this process take?
Mr. Gaynor. The scale of Maria is mind-boggling how much
money that we are trying to deliver. Billions of dollars in
both Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. This is a project
worksheet of $278 million. This is a large, large worksheet.
Typically, they are not that size. So it just takes longer
because it is just more complex. But that doesn't mean it has
to be slow.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. That concludes round one, and so we will
start a second round of questioning.
Mr. Gaynor, section 20601 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2018 gave FEMA flexibility to make repairs or replace certain
types of facilities to industry standards, regardless of their
pre-disaster condition for disasters in Puerto Rico. We have
heard from the Commonwealth government and others that FEMA is
implementing this authority in a manner that appears to be much
more limited than Congress intended, with a potential result
that few projects will fully benefit from this authority.
Can you explain FEMA's interpretation of this legislation
and why there is a sense that this is not being carried out as
intended?
Mr. Gaynor. Thank you, ma'am. First, I think we want to
thank you from FEMA for passing the BBA, as it is known. It
really allows us to do things that we could not do before any
disaster. The rules pre-BBA require that we only could restore
to pre-disaster conditions. As you all know, in Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands, that is not the case. So this allows
us to restore to industry standard. So thank you for that.
And our goal in both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands is to build it back better. We believe that we are
implementing BBA with the congressional intent. However, we
have preexisting other statutes, Stafford Act statutes, that we
are trying to blend to make sure we get it right the first
time.
I was in Puerto Rico a couple weeks ago and met with our
Puerto Rican counterparts, COR3. And I think we are in
agreement with more than less. We are still in disagreement
about what BBA looks like for certain projects. I think on one
end of the scale, one can interpret that BBA says everything is
brand-new. on the other end of the scale, maybe it is just a
repair. So we are trying to come to some common ground about
how we resolve that.
We are full partners with the government of Puerto Rico on
this. I don't think this is really going to be a stumbling
block as we move forward. Again, some of these projects are so
large, it just takes time to get through it. But I think we are
in agreement more than we are not.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Do you think that these issues can
be addressed administratively by FEMA or is additional
legislation needed to reinforce congressional----
Mr. Gaynor. No. I think we have all that we need. I think
now we are just trying to get down to the details. If a school
is completely destroyed and the roof is in, well, maybe you
need a new school. But if you go to a different school (and
there is 1,100 of those schools in Puerto Rico) and maybe the
front door and the windows are blown out, now, does that rate a
new school? Again, we want to be good stewards of the Federal
dollar. So we are having these discussions about, how to get to
yes.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I understand that this authority
is limited to critical services, which is a specific term in
the Stafford Act that refers to facilities, such as you
mentioned, schools and utilities, but not others such as police
or fire facilities. Do you think an expansion of this authority
to additional types of facilities is warranted? And, if not,
why not?
Mr. Gaynor. I am not sure how far we are on discussion on
some of these issues. I would have to get details about some of
these issues and questions about, will we get to yes on some of
those. But I would be happy to get back to you about the status
of that. Again, I think we are closer to yes than not.
[Mr. Gaynor responded for the record:]
The current authorities are sufficient. The administration
requested the authority provided in Section 20601 of the Bipartisan
Budget Act in order to address certain types of critical infrastructure
in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) that were antiquated
or in disrepair when Hurricanes Irma and Maria hit. In particular, this
authority was necessary to address the power systems which consist of
highly interconnected and interdependent components and would have been
impossible to restore without addressing the pre-disaster condition of
those antiquated or poorly maintained components. For other types of
damaged infrastructure that lack this level of interconnectedness and
these types of interdependencies, FEMA believes that existing programs
will be sufficient to allow Puerto Rico and USVI to rebuild in a
resilient manner. These existing programs include Public Assistance,
Section 406 mitigation, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and funds
available from other federal agencies, such as CDBG-DR, as well as
private resources.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. The Commonwealth government has
expressed concerns that the 270 process imposed by FEMA has
been a cause of delay in disbursing disaster funds, thereby
delaying projects. And we understand that this is a manual
validation of costs and documentation. We have also heard that
FEMA and Puerto Rico have just reached an agreement to have the
Commonwealth take over this process.
Can you explain what the 270 process is, its purpose, and
how it works?
Mr. Gaynor. So pre-removal from Puerto Rico was a process
where we looked at all the paperwork to make sure it is in
order. We had some problems early on in the disaster where an
entity drew down money without proper documentation. So
typically, you would have to show, invoices for material,
supplies, labor costs, all those kind of things, before we
actually let you take that money from the treasury. And so we
put restrictions on it, because we are allowed to do that, to
make sure, again, we do proper due diligence on this funds.
We have been working with the government for a year on
their internal control process. We agreed on that last week,
and we removed all the controls. So now the government will
have the first shot at reviewing all their paperwork. We will
sample that as we go to make sure they are doing all the things
we want to do. If we think the risk becomes too high, we have
the option to go back to 270.
I don't think we will have to do that. I think we are going
in the right direction, and I think this is good for both
Puerto Rico and FEMA.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. So you expect, then, that this will
improve the pace of recovery in Puerto Rico?
Mr. Gaynor. I do, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And, Acting Administrator Gaynor, I really appreciate the
lines of questioning. It has been very informative for me and
for us. Thank you, sir.
I am intrigued, sir, by the idea of working with your local
partners to improve local capacity to deal with smaller scale
disasters. How do you define smaller scale, sir?
Mr. Gaynor. That is in the eye of the beholder. I come from
the smallest State in the union, Rhode Island. We are just an
average-sized county in Texas. So what is big for Rhode Island
is not so big for Texas. And this is part--I think this is part
of our challenge, to get--to right-size to make sure that we,
don't create the California size and we don't create the Rhode
Island size; we create the size that works for everyone.
Again, having been a local and State emergency manager,
there are some obligations to make sure that you as a local
emergency manager can execute the plan for your mayor, and as a
State director, that you can execute your plan for the
governor. As the FEMA director, I am making sure that I can
execute the plan for the President.
But the whole system has to work together. It is just not
FEMA. A bigger FEMA is not the answer. It is all of us working
together to a common cause.
Mr. Fleischmann. What would be the incentive for a locality
to take on the responsibility for response and recovery?
Mr. Gaynor. I would ask, again with my local hat on, would
I want to manage my own disaster or would I want the Federal
Government to manage my disaster? I think I would rather chart
my own course.
So we would, I think, conceptually, you know, depending on
what size it is, and again, 50 percent of all these assets are
under $7 million, we could just block-grant the agreed-upon
disaster cost to a local, and they would manage it under all
the Federal rules and regulations and they would be responsible
for their--what we call now is outcome-driven recovery. Their
recovery, not necessarily our recovery.
And just as you know, this is the governor's plan for his
recovery. We support the governor's plan. We don't implement a
Federal plan at the local or the State level. Again, I think it
is just good business.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
The FEMA integration teams, or FITs, are in 18 States. I
would ask you to kindly provide the committee with a copy of
the 18 States that are participating.
Does FEMA approach the States to participate or do they
come to you all?
Mr. Gaynor. It is a little bit of both. I think at first,
Administrator Long was trying to sell this program, we had to
go out there and sell a little bit. Right now, there are 18
active FIT teams. All 50 States and territories have signed up
for FIT teams, and we are trying to meet that goal.
And, part of the goodness in this FIT team is, typically,
you only see the Federal Government when a disaster occurs, and
that is not a good time. So we want to embed our FEMA team to
make sure that the plans and the processes are integrated from
State to Federal and from State to local. And those FIT teams
are there. They act as consultants for the State, when it comes
to Federal programs, to make it more streamlined. There is a
lot of goodness in FIT teams, and we fully support them.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Does FEMA assume the cost of the
teams, and how long does a team stay with the State?
Mr. Gaynor. It is. We just realigned what kind of people we
assign there. So it comes at a high, basically. So what we are
doing is something else, but I think this is more valuable to
the agencies to have these FIT teams in these States.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
[Mr. Gaynor responded for the record:]
These are the 18 States that have FIT teams:
1. Arkansas
2. California
3. Guam
4. Hawaii
5. Idaho
6. Indiana
7. Louisiana
8. Missouri
9. Nevada
10. New Jersey
11. New Mexico
12. North Carolina
13. Oklahoma
14. Oregon
15. Rhode Island
16. Tennessee
17. Utah
18. Virginia
Madam Chair, I will yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, first, I just want to go over a
background. Now you have done all the work. You have had so
many different plans really working very hard in different
areas. You had the wildfires, the hurricanes. All those issues.
When you start to rebuild some of your, I guess, standards
or whatever, do you teach or talk about rebuilding so that you
are not going to have the same problem again? As an example, I
am hearing from a lot of people on the waterfront, Chesapeake
Bay area, and from now on when you have to rebuild, you can't
have your home on the water. It has to be on a garage or
whatever it is underneath.
So where are you as far as standards on rebuilding to make
sure that we don't continue to put money into the same areas
that have the same problems, unless someone changed their mind,
like global warning?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, sir. Great question. You know, part of the
difficulty is some of these repetitive issues. You have a home,
you have a disaster or a flood, you get money from the Federal
Government, you rebuild in the same place. That happens a
couple times. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for us. The
challenge is most of these changes are local code changes, and
locals really own their, own domain. So whether it is a city, a
town, or a State, building codes, zoning codes, it really has
to start with them. I think we can try to pressure best
practice. And there are some great best practices around the
country. But it really has to start locally.
We would prefer not to keep paying for the same disaster
over and over and over. To me, that is insanity. And so we need
to work a little bit harder on making sure that locals have a
program to make sure that they build in a resilient way so you
avoid that risk.
Mr. Ruppersberger. (Off mic) you had some leverage there.
We were going to be building back in those areas (off mic)
insurance companies or other groups other than just the locals.
Mr. Gaynor. And I will have to check my facts. But I think
if you use hazard mitigation money for a repair and it happens
again, (I will--I may be half right on this) you are prohibited
from using that again, I think, for a repetitive disaster. So
you would have to do something to actually improve that
property to make it more resilient before you got another
disaster handout.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Jumping over--you know, being from Biloxi, Mississippi,
living my entire life on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, of course,
you know, I hear a lot of references to Hurricane Katrina. I
think that was the first bad storm to have hit America, and it
was unprecedented. And I think the level of the storms since
then are matching in some cases, maybe exceeding the severity
of that storm. But that is pretty much a benchmark storm.
And I don't know, but where would I go to find the best
practices for FEMA? You know, I do know, several years after
Hurricane Katrina, we were in Congress, and I was asking
questions. And it is like, how are we making the same mistakes
that, you know, FEMA made during Hurricane Katrina. And it
might not have been mistakes. It might have been lessons
learned, because it was such a disastrous storm.
Is there a repository for best practices? So I am assuming
we are sharing them with the local EMAs and the State EMAs and
things of that nature. And where could I find those?
Mr. Gaynor. We do have a great repository of lessons
learned from DHS on down. And we want to be smarter about how
we are thinking about recovery, the legacy of Katrina. And I
will give you some context. This week--or over the past 6
months, we found out this week that we are still spending
money, 13 years later for recovery at the tune of, for this
particular project worksheet, $4.5 million for disaster
recovery 13 years ago.
What we want to do is not do actual cost anymore. We want
to do fixed cost. And this is what 428 alternate procedures is
about. This is how business is done in America. You want
something done, I give you a price, I perform the work, I get
paid.
You know, legacy recovery is not that way. It is actual
costs. And if you have no incentive to move faster or move
smarter, 13 years later, you are still paying on a disaster. We
just need to change the way we do this recovery. But I would be
happy to supply, in a tangible way, all the after-action
resources that we have.
[Mr. Gaynor responded for the record as follows:]
FEMA has many best practice repositories available to the
public on our website, including our Mitigation Best Practices
Portfolio, and our Incident Public Alert and Warning System Best
Practices webpage. FEMA also posts various disaster After Action
Reports online that highlight best practices and lessons learned
related to each disaster.
FEMA Program Areas and Cadres also maintain disaster
SharePoint sites with toolkits that provide updates related to policies
and processes learned from disasters. FEMA Regional Operations with
Continuous Improvement Working Groups maintain internal trackers that
identify lessons learned and issues that arise during disasters.
Additionally, the Continuous Improvement Program tracked observations
containing best practices from initial response to recovery for the
2017 Hurricane Season.
Mr. Palazzo. I know after Hurricane Camille, there was
actually a congressional report produced on the recovery
efforts by the Federal Government. I think I lost those during
Katrina, but maybe I can get a set from the Library of Congress
or someplace, Archives.
Now, obviously, Mississippi is grateful for the financial
assistance post-Katrina recovery to the tune of over 3-point
something billion dollars. We would not have been able to
recover as near as well as we have. And our whole mind-set was
not to just build back, but build forward.You know, mitigating
against future storms and be smart with the money, because we
knew it was a gift from the Federal Government and the American
people. So please trust me, I mean, we are extremely grateful
to everyone that supported our recovery.
Now, I do have something that has been--some concerns that
have been popping up lately, is that FEMA is kind of like
second-guessing. Years after the work has been done, they are
asking for money to be returned. And I know continuously there
has been a lot of turnover amongst FEMA staff. So there may
have been a FEMA project director onsite in 2007, work may have
been done. And then, you know, in 2013, someone is looking at
the paperwork and saying, well, oh, why did they do this? That
is not right.
But at the time, we feel like some of these projects where,
you know, we followed FEMA's guidance, we did it to the T, we
did exactly what they want, and now they are kind of being
unfair changing the rules after the money has been expended and
spent and asking for it back.
Is that something that you are seeing or hearing from
other, maybe, storms? And what can we do to alleviate that?
Because there has got to be some documentation to say, yeah, we
approved it. We can't go back 10 years later and say, hey,
city, you know, you owe us, you know, $30 million because we
don't think it is--you spent it right, second-guessing what was
done during the initial recovery.
Mr. Gaynor. So I have personal knowledge of this as a State
director of FEMA trying to take money back from the States, so
I know the pain of that. And this goes to the legacy of how we
did recovery. If you can imagine, if you started a project in
2007 and it doesn't close out until 2014, and you have all that
paperwork that you have to go through to actually get
reimbursed, it can be an impossible task.
What we have done, learned from those lessons learned is
what we have implemented across the country, but specifically
in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, is validate as you
go, right? So, maybe there is a big payment that happens. Take
all that work that was done, all that paperwork, all those
forms, and validate it and call it closed. And then we will
never go back to that. And then move on to the next chunk.
So it is a new program. I think it is going to prevent
clawbacks in the future. That is what we call it, a clawback.
And we want to avoid that, because it is not good for us and it
is not good for the community that was impacted by the
disaster.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. Well, thank you.
And, Madam Chair, I don't know how much time I have, but
can I just ask one quick question in terms of Puerto Rico?
You know, I have heard from several people on the island
that they would like to see the category A bucket extended,
because there is so much more work to be done. And we know if
we go to the local match, Puerto Rico just doesn't have the
money.
Can you tell me a little bit about category A? Is there a
chance that it will be extended? Just your thoughts on that.
Mr. Gaynor. Recovery is difficult. And we found that
recovery happens best when all partners, and specifically the
government--so whether it is a State government or the
Commonwealth, has skin in the game where you use your local or
State dollars to contribute to the end result. And we are
calling it outcome-driven recovery.
So when you have incentive--and this goes to the actual
cost and the fixed cost, if you have a fixed cost, we believe
that you have more incentive to do it faster. If you have
actual costs but no skin in the game, you are just going to
hand the bill to the Federal Government, it goes on forever and
ever and ever.
I think the administration gave Puerto Rico a lot of time
on categories A and B. I want to say 8 months. And I think the
10 percent share that they have is well within their means to
fulfill. They can use HUD money. It is actually in this plan on
how to make up that 10 percent.
So we think it is reasonable. We think it is going to
achieve a faster outcome when the State or the Commonwealth has
skin in the game and invest their own dollars in it. Without
it, it just keeps going on and on and on.
Mr. Palazzo. Mr. Gaynor, thank you. Thank you for your
public service, and thank you for being here today.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. You are welcome.
We have just a little bit more time for either additional
question or some comments, so I do have one last question.
In 2017, FEMA implemented the new delivery model to
administer the public assistance program. And it has been used
in most of the recent disasters since then, including, for
example, in Los Angeles County. However, it is not being
implemented in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Can you briefly explain what this new delivery model is and
why it was not used in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands?
Mr. Gaynor. Yes, ma'am. I think we are not using it in
there because it was a pilot program. And by the time we got it
online, we had already started the traditional process in
Puerto Rico. And to go back, from what I understand, it was
going to be too difficult, too time-consuming, and really
doesn't and will not get us to the end result faster.
So it is just really a way to make sure you account for all
those things that you do in recovery in a systematic way using
technology to track all that. We are using it in other places
around the country. We are just not using it in Puerto Rico
because it was a pilot and it wasn't really ready for prime
time, and so we just said, let's not make our life more
complicated. Let's just go with what we know, and then we will
put that program throughout the country at other opportunities.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. So have you had time to assess this new
delivery model? And, if so, can you share any results?
Mr. Gaynor. Only anecdotally. I think positive results. One
of my former State directors in Massachusetts gave us a
demonstration on it. I think it was very positively received.
It has been a few years now since I have been updated on that.
But I would be happy to go back and see where we are on that,
uptake, and what the customer satisfaction rate is on that. I
would be interested myself to see how we are doing.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I would appreciate it.
[Mr. Gaynor responded for the record as follows:]
The Public Assistance (PA) Program is FEMA's largest grant program,
historically averaging $4.7 billion in assistance each year and
accounting for 51 percent of the grant dollars administered by the
agency. In 2014 and 2015, to identify improvements to the effectiveness
of the Program, FEMA conducted an in-depth diagnostic review, analysis,
and outreach that demonstrated the need for significant changes in the
way FEMA implements the Public Assistance program. As a result, FEMA
developed a new business model for PA Program delivery and is
implementing those changes. The delivery model has three basic
elements, which support a simplified and streamlined grant application
process:
Simplified roles and responsibilities, and re-
trained Federal staff;
Cloud-based customer relationship and program
management software known as The PA Grants Manager and Grants
Portal; and,
Pooled resources so multiple disaster operations can
tap into trained experts when developing PA projects. We call
these Consolidated Resource Centers (CRC).
Additional details about the new PA delivery model and related
phases in the process are outlined in this fact sheet.
FEMA conducts customer feedback analysis on the PA delivery model
to continually improve our processes. From January 2016-April 2019, on
the Initial Survey, 594 of the 724 (or 82%) of the respondents reported
they were either ``satisfied'' or ``very satisfied'' with the initial
PA engagement. When asked in the Assessment Survey about their
satisfaction with the entire PA process, 1,114 of the 1,358 respondents
(82%) were either ``satisfied'' or ``very satisfied.''
Mrs. Roybal-Allard. Any further questions or comments?
Mr. Palazzo. I could go on for hours.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 13, 2019.
SECURING FEDERAL NETWORKS AND STATE ELECTION SYSTEMS
WITNESS
CHRISTOPHER KREBS, DIRECTOR, CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY
AGENCY
I am going to make my opening statements brief this
afternoon in order to maximize time for questions.
Director Krebs, congratulations on being named the first
director of the Department of Homeland Security's Cyber
Security and Infrastructure Security Agency.
We have spoken about some of the challenges that you and
CISA have faced, and I want to reaffirm my commitment to
helping you address those challenges. As you know, election
security has been a major focus of this subcommittee.
For the second year in a row we have supported significant
increases to your budget to address the vulnerabilities to
ensure that our election system is secure and reliable.
Director Krebs, thank you again for being here and I would
now like to turn to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee,
Ranking Member Fleischmann for his opening remarks.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate
those remarks.
Director Krebs, thank you for being here today, and I
appreciate you visiting our office and congratulations on being
the very first. That is outstanding for this very important
agency.
Director Krebs, the importance of our government cyber
security cannot be underestimated. So much of what we do is
through networks, from getting $20 from an ATM to our military
weapon systems. Our society today is dependent on safe and
secure networks.
Further the principle of fair and accurate election voting
is paramount to our democracy. And because of this, we need to
be ever vigilant to protect our critical infrastructure from
foreign nations and criminals who seek undermine our economy
and government.
As you know, the Oakridge National is in my district in
Oakridge, Tennessee. While Oakridge is sponsored by the
Department of Energy, it partners with a number of federal
agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security to
conduct high level research in many of these areas.
I will have a few questions later in my rounds about CISA
and how it works with Oakridge. I think the good work that you
do combined with the good work at Oakridge does is a great
value for the taxpayers' dollar, plus we can best bring
safeguards to our nation and its critical infrastructure
working together.
I look forward today to your testimony and to the questions
from my colleagues as we hear from you about your initiatives.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. First, for some housekeeping issues. As
in other subcommittee hearings, members will be called based on
their seniority and those who are present when the hearing
started. I would also, would ask that every member stick to the
5-minute time they are allotted to allow everyone to have time
to ask their questions.
Also, my understanding is, there is a problem with the
microphones, and so, make sure that you have them on.
Please proceed.
Mr. Krebs. Thank you. Chairwoman Roybal-Allard, Ranking
Member Fleischmann, members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today.
This hearing is timely, as I recently announced, five
operational mission priorities for the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency over the next two years. Two of
those priorities, federal network security and election
security, we will discuss today.
In both Federal network security and election security,
agencies whether Federal, state or local are responsible for
the security of their networks. CISA's job is to make their job
easier as they managed their risk. In this sense we are the
nation's risk advisor. We work to understand risk, share our
understanding with those that can best manage that risk, and
provide targeted support to help them manage their risk.
On Federal network security our approach is three-fold.
First, we define for agencies what secure is. Second, we
provide tools and technical assistance to agencies to better
secure themselves. And third, when needed or appropriate, we
act to intervene or intervene to ensure secure and resilient
systems.
In all, this is a particularly challenging undertaking, and
there is room left for improvement in a number of areas,
including establishing and enforcing a security baseline across
the government, analyzing the data we have and collect, and
accounting for new technologies like Cloud and mobile. And yet,
there is no question that cyber security and federal networks
is stronger than it was just four years ago.
Through our approach, our understanding of what is
happening across networks is improving. IT capabilities
government-wide are on a path to prioritization and
standardization, and leadership awareness at the cabinet level
is increasing, leading to better accountability and more
consistent implementation of policy and guidance.
I would like to briefly highlight a few areas of measurable
progress. Through our Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation
program, we are protecting over three million assets across the
Federal civilian enterprise.
Before 2016 there was no over-the-top understanding of how
many devices were even out there. Through our Intrusion
Prevention System that uses classified signatures, from 2016 to
July 2017 we stopped 13 campaigns launched by 16 different
advanced actors.
Through a Binding Operational Directive we issued in 2015
we reduced the time agencies were taking to patch critical
vulnerabilities from an average of 219 days to today's average
of around 20 days. In many cases this is better than industry.
In 2017 we issued a Binding Operational Directive to
require the removal of Kaspersky antivirus products from
federal networks.
And finally through a Binding Operational Directive in 2018
we have enforced stronger email and web security standards with
the federal government leading all industry sectors in
deploying DMARC to stop email-based phishing attacks.
We have made our directives public and available for the
network defense community. Just recently, we issued an
emergency directive to protect federal networks from a global
campaign tampering with what is essentially the internet's
phone book. We heard back from numerous stakeholders outside of
the federal government, including a large metropolitan chief
information security officer that they followed our guidance,
but did not have to, and yet they did.
Cyber threats also pose a growing risk to our nation's
critical infrastructure. Perhaps the highest profile threat we
face today are attempts by nation state actors to interfere in
our democratic elections. Ahead of the 2018 midterms, we surged
our efforts and over 550 CISA employees throughout the agency
worked with all 50 states and over 1,400 local and territorial
election offices to raise awareness of the threat, provide free
technical cyber security assistance, share threat mitigation
information and otherwise empower state and local election
officials to secure their systems.
Our efforts to Protect 2020 are already underway. Protect
2020 will focus on broadening the reach and depth of assistance
to state and local election officials and their private sector
partners, emphasizing the criticality of election auditability,
prioritizing the need to patch election systems, and developing
state and locality-specific cyber security profiles that
officials can use to manage risk.
In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for its
continued support of CISA and our mission. The additional $33
million provided in Fiscal Year 2019 for election security
helps ensure that election security is here to stay at CISA.
Additional resources provided over the years for our
federal cyber security programs that helped raised the baseline
of cyber security across the federal enterprise and have
mitigated countless threats to federal networks and critical
infrastructure. We at CISA are committed to working with
Congress to ensure that our efforts cultivate a safer, more
secure and resilient homeland.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krebs follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
Director Krebs, in fiscal year 2018, Congress provided an
additional $26 million for election security efforts by the
National Protection and Programs Directorate which is now the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Congress also provided $380 million to the Election
Assistance Commission to help secure elections through grants
to states.
In the fiscal year 2019 appropriation we provided $33
million to CISA to continue and expand its efforts. How did
CISA use its fiscal year 2018 funds, and did you see a
significant improvement in state election security efforts
compared to the 2016 election, and to what extent is CISA able
to coordinate with the Election Assistance Commission to better
leverage the use of its grant funding?
Mr. Krebs. Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. I have said it before
and it was an initial earlier draft of my opening statement,
but I have said that 2018 was the most secure election held in
the modern era here in the United States.
What we did with that $26.2 million in 2018 was help
broaden and build additional capacity in the agency. What I
mean by that is additional risk and vulnerability assessment.
So the actual technical services that are free, voluntary, and
confidentially provided to state and local officials. So we
provide those services that prior to 2016 had never happened.
So let me give you a metric for example of why things were
different in 2018 compared to 2016.
In 2018, we had deployed network intrusion detection
sensors, and those are things that look for communication with
malicious internet infrastructure. So for 2018 we had deployed
sensors that covered about 90 to 92 percent of state and local
networks that managed the voting process, 92 percent.
Prior to 2016 it was about 32 percent. That is a
significant improvement based on Congress' recognition of our
role and empowering us with part of the 26.2 million.
We were also able to conduct a number of exercises. In fact
we had an exercise last August with 44 states and the District
of Colombia. It was a 3-day exercise, had never been done
before.
You had a hearing with FEMA yesterday. They do an exercise
every year called the Great Shake-out, an earthquake-focused
exercise. We are going to take the same approach every year,
whether it is a presidential, a midterm or off cycle, we will
do an election security exercise every single year to help
support our state and local partners.
For the upcoming year of 2020, we will continue to build
our capacity, continue to build the services needed to support
state and local governments. In terms of the Election
Assistance Commission, that $380 million, we used some of the
free services we provide through which we were able to develop
an understanding of what the real weaknesses in state and local
systems are, and we used that to develop with our partners in
the state and local government guidance to help inform how they
are spending that $380 million.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. In May of last year the administration
published a federal cybersecurity risk determination report and
action plan. And the report stated that 71 of the 96 agencies
or 74 percent that participated in the risk assessment process
have cybersecurity programs that are either at risk or high
risk. And this strikes me to be pretty alarming.
And so the GAO noted in the December, 2018 report that they
have considered Federal information security to be a
government-wide, high-risk area since 1997. So we have been
working on these issues for at least 22 years and yet it seems
that our adversaries continue to outpace us in our efforts to
secure our agencies' networks.
In fact, as you noted in your testimony just this last past
January you issued the first emergency directive to Federal and
civilian agencies because of another known cybersecurity
threat. Can you provide more context about what the current
federal cybersecurity risks are, and what kind of damage can
this cause to federal government operations and to the public?
Mr. Krebs. Yes, ma'am. So my sense of things is that
federal networks will always be a high-risk space because of
the level of threat that we see in the cybersecurity space. The
emergency directive is a great example of something that we,
frankly, there was, as I mentioned in my opening, basically
tampering with the internet's phone book, a simple way to put
it. But it is not something that we had monitored for, that we
were actually tracking because we hadn't seen it happen at
scale.
As soon as we realized that it was happening, we were able
to implement services and a set or recommendations to hardening
infrastructure and improve monitoring.
Again, things are better than they were in 2016, so we are
tracking a series of metrics of improvement. They are not
measurements or metrics for success, because it is really hard
to measure success in cyber security, even the highest
organizations have difficulty with that. But we have
demonstrable improvement in terms of the systems we are
providing.
The thing we are focusing on right now is getting systems
more secure by design and by deployment. And so, as I look to
the work that Congress has done on IT modernization and that
the administration has done on IT modernization that is an
opportunity for us to make common investments to ensure that
that the next iteration of what Federal networks are more
secure, so we are not doing security by bolt-on.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Director Krebs, thank you again, sir. As I mentioned, I
represent the Oakridge National Laboratory which includes a
cybersecurity division. As I understand it this division does a
lot of work with DHS, S&Ts, transition-to-practice program.
The core part of this mission is to bridge the gap between
research and the private sector which requires a transition
process that allows for technology to mature, and partnerships
with the marketplace to form.
Through TTP, DHS S&T is leading the successful transition
of federally funded cybersecurity technologies into broader use
through commercialization and adoption by end-users. The TTP
program has three main goals, identify promising technologies
that address an existing or imminent cybersecurity need that
impacts national security, increase utilization through
partnerships, product development efforts and
commercialization, and finally, sir, to improve the long-term
ability of the Federal Government research organizations to
transition technology more efficiently.
My first question to you is what is the relationship
between CISA and DHS S&T?
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir, I have actually a very close working
relationship with the senior official performing the duties of
the Under Secretary which is the title I used to hold, Bill
Bryan over at S&T, and through his revitalization process at
S&T, we have shifted to a much closer alignment between what my
requirements are as a network defender, a support element for
network defenders and their actual research and development
programs. We are seeing a much tighter alignment between what
they go out and solicit for, and what my requirements are.
I have a small R&D budget, relatively speaking, along the
order of, I want to say somewhere in the neighborhood of $4.5
million. The cyber research and development budget at S&T is
much, much larger. Again, we have to make sure that we are
aligning and not just going off and doing good idea projects.
One of the areas of interest including working with
Oakridge is the Silicon Valley Innovation Program that S&T has.
I was just out in San Francisco last week and the week before
and met with their folks. They have very good relationships
with those innovators and the venture capital companies out in
the Valley, that we can really tap into to get ahead of the
next threat.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. As a follow-up to the question
how is CISA working in coordination with DHS, S&T to leverage
and deploy new technologies into the marketplace?
Mr. Krebs. So in part through the TTP process that you have
mentioned. It is, again, it is identifying our requirements,
what are the things we have identified that may be useful
across federal networks, but also soliciting input from the
critical infrastructure community and help sorting out what the
opportunities are for research with S&T.
Mr. Fleischmann. How is DHS, whether CISA or S&T or other
elements, sir, leveraging the new cyber technologies coming out
of our universities and national labs to protect our election
cyber system, sir?
Mr. Krebs. So specific to elections, we work with NIST, but
primarily the Election Assistance Commission has that core
election relationship with the community, again, providing
technology assistance or security assistance to those
stakeholders.
One of the things that we just recently completed with one
of our national labs is, as they were developing a technology
we brought into our lab and worked with them on basically red-
teaming or really breaking down the equipment and finding out
through the design process what the vulnerabilities might be,
so that when they deliver a product, it is secure by design.
Mr. Fleischmann. One final question, what new technologies
are being used to defend and monitor our U.S. election systems
for cyber intrusions or manipulations, sir?
Mr. Krebs. So I touched briefly on the sensors that we have
deployed, that DHS has deployed. But I do want to step back a
little bit on election security, as we go out there and get a
better sense of what election offices and jurisdictions and the
systems they have deployed look like, we are reinforcing the
basics of patching, multi-factor authentication, training to
spot what a phishing email looks like. It is really just
focusing on the basics.
Sometimes a lot of the infrastructure even within the
federal government is not mature enough to accept some of these
new technologies that are coming out. So while we continue to
look for new technology and security opportunities, it is
really hitting the basics hard and that is going to be one of
our focuses for Protecting 2020.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Director Krebs.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Director, thank you. Let me ask you about elections. I was
the secretary of state for the state of Texas, so I got
familiar with elections. And as you know, there are a couple of
things.
One is when you look at the election infrastructure it
covers so many things, whether it is ICT, capabilities, fiscal
assets, technologies for the registration or the validation the
casting, the transmission, the tabulation, the reporting of
votes, the certification, the auditing, the verification of
election. It is a series that you have to go through and there
are always opportunities in the different steps.
Then on top of that you have got, for example, Texas has
254 counties. That is only the state of Texas. So how are you
helping all 50 states, and then how do you go down to
especially the small rural counties that say, nothing is going
to happen here. How are you all doing that type of outreach? I
mean is there a systematic way of doing this?
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir, there is. So when we stepped back and
looked at it there are about 8,800. I think the number changes.
In some states there are up to 1,800 jurisdictions, voting
jurisdictions in the states.
So we have to kind of look at this in a one-to-many
approach. And so, what we do is work with secretaries of state
like you used to be to reach out and down into the
jurisdictions within each state.
So last year in the run-up to 2018, we developed, it was
called the Last Mile Initiative. And basically it was a poster
that went to each jurisdiction in participating states. And I
think at this point we have 33 participating states, but we
knocked out 19 states in the run-up to 2018, and that is the
states that wanted to do it, we got through 19. And that is it
is awareness building.
So it is here are the threats, here are the potential risks
in the election process. It really is like you said, a system
of systems. Here are the things you can do to address and
mitigate those risks, and then here are the resources available
from the federal government including signing up for the multi-
state or the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and
Analysis Center to do, sign up for a cyber hygiene scan, to
participate in an exercise.
So it is really, first and foremost it is increasing
awareness and then bringing them into some of the free
voluntary services that we provide.
Mr. Cuellar. So do you have an idea, you said 88?
Mr. Krebs. It is about 8,800, and in the run-up to 2018 we
were able to work with 1,400 of them, and our goal, our top
priority for 2020 is extending and broadening that reach.
Mr. Cuellar. So 8,800, you have covered 1,400?
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. So how do you reach the rest?
Mr. Krebs. Persistence, persistence, yes, sir. It is,
again, we started from a common denominator pretty much of
zero. In 2016 there was no relationship between the Department
of Homeland Security and state or local election officials. We
are starting from scratch.
Last February we, working with the election community,
established the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and
Analysis Center or the ISAC. And at that point I believe it is
about 1,500 local members in all 50 states. That over the
period of time that that developed, that is the fastest growing
ISAC of any other sector. So there is progress, there is
commitment, but this does not happen overnight.
And the one thing that I have found that is most critical
and you can't buy it, is trust. So we have had to put an
enormous amount of boots on the ground time, out across the
United States to meet, to work, to do exercises, to have a cup
of coffee and just get to know these folks and let them know
who we are and what we do, and that we are not here to take
over elections. We are here to make sure that their elections
go smoothly, go safely and go securely.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
Mr. Krebs. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And welcome, Director Krebs, I appreciate you being here.
You made the statement that 2018 was our most secure election
so far, and that is a great statement to be able to make. So
thank you for your efforts to make that happen.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Excuse me, Dan. They are having trouble
hearing us so we are going to have to speak up a little bit and
get closer to the microphone.
Mr. Newhouse. So eat the microphone. I appreciate your
efforts to make our elections more secure. I think the American
public really wants that and appreciates the government's
effort to do that, and so, just a couple of questions
surrounding that.
You have been with Mr. Cuellar's line of questioning,
touching on a lot of that as some of the others too but you
made the points. I think you laid out three general things that
you are going to do to work on for 2020. So I wanted to give
you an opportunity to expound on that, so we will be able to
come back in 2 years and say that 2020 was the most secure
election we have ever had.
And then also as we talked about before the meeting stated,
the whole subject of security clearances, is that impeding
agencies' work, your work, and is there anything that we can do
to help in the whole area of making sure that clearances are
provided to the right individuals for the right levels, so just
a couple of enquiries there?
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir. So on priorities for 2020 I created a
new hashtag last week at a conference out in San Francisco. We
are calling it Protect 2020. I mentioned it in my opening.
We have three primary areas of focus. One is increasing
that reach, getting as close to 8,800 as we can possibly get by
2020.
The second one is really getting to the bottom of where is
the risk in the system of systems that is elections. Part of
that though is understanding that we still need to really focus
on the basics, and so, that is why we are prioritizing
organizations really improving patch management. You still find
that systems out there are either legacy or old systems that
haven't been patched recently and are still open vulnerability.
And as we increase that reach, as we increase this
understanding of where the risk is, we are also going to
develop and have already developed tools that we can drop on
top to say I am working with you now, we understand what your
risk is, I have this capability. I can scan the internet facing
systems of any organization, and we require it across federal
government, but I can do it with state and locals, and tell
them you haven't patched that system and that is out touching
the public internet. That is probably vulnerable and it might
be a good way for a bad guy to get inside. So you may want to
take care of that.
And the third piece is once we get our understanding of
where the real risk is, informing the conversation on the Hill
and state capitals, on the resources whether it is people,
equipment, funding, whatever, of what it is going to take to
get these systems to where they want to go. That is probably
the biggest policy conversation ahead of us, is what it is
going to take to get these systems where they need to be and
who is going to pay for it?
On the security clearances piece, the process of security
clearances has always been a bit of that albatross over the
Federal Government. It takes a little too long for the highest
level of clearances. I think it is in the 17-month period.
Fortunately, the Department of Defense is prioritizing and
focusing on that. I have all the confidence in the world that
they will be able to knock down those wait times.
At the same time we can do things to make our lives easier.
We can declassify and we can stop over-classifying. So I have
certain authorities that I can read people in and give them
short term clearances. I also have declassification authorities
in certain spaces. So we need to be looking at this problem
from both ends.
I do have the ability and actually the honor of sponsoring
a program called the Private Sector Clearance Program, where
from across the 16 critical infrastructure sectors, I can
sponsor clearances for network defenders and other security
officers. And that is something that we take very seriously and
we are looking to streamline that process as much as possible.
But again, keeping in mind that having a security clearance is
not a silver bullet and there is not necessarily a treasure
trove of information on the other side of that wall.
Mr. Newhouse. Keeping it in mind that we don't want to
compromise any systems in place.
Mr. Krebs. Absolutely, yes, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. And one of the difficulties I would imagine
is with the election system you have got 50 different systems
out there, right?
Mr. Krebs. Well at least. Congressman Cuellar mentioned
that Texas, Texas, 283, is a bottom-up state, home rule, all
that. And so, you are having purchasing decisions happening at
individual county levels. It further complicates it.
But back to the clearance piece really quick. A lot of what
makes information classified, particularly at that much, much
higher level that network defenders don't need. They don't need
the sources and methods. They really want to know the tactics,
the techniques and the procedures against which they can defend
themselves.
Mr. Newhouse. Again, thank you for being here. I appreciate
it.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay.
Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you.
Welcome, glad to have you before us. I appreciate your
testimony. I want to ask you to elaborate a bit more on your
staffing successes, and I am referring here of course to the IG
report last month that indicates that it has, staffing has been
a hindrance. And that to secure our election infrastructure we
need to pay attention to that.
I know you are paying to it, but I wonder what kind of
progress you can report between department leadership changes
and a prolonged management vacancy in CISA and insufficient
resources.
The inspector general has reported that DHS' efforts to
complete its election infrastructure planning have been
delayed. The inspector general also found that CISA did not
have enough dedicated election infrastructure staff and that
you have not clearly delineated the roles, responsibilities and
procedure that the staff should have. I am sure you are
familiar with this.
As many have said, we are clearly approaching the 2020
election season. It is critical to ensure that our
infrastructure for these purposes is properly supported. So a
couple of questions.
What steps are you taking, have you taken to hire more
dedicated election infrastructure staff and to finalize the
detailed strategy in advance of the 2020 election cycle? And of
course are there ways that we can or should assist you in
achieving the staffing goals?
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir, thank you. As I mentioned in my
opening, in 2018 and the run-up, over the course of let us a
month or so we had over 550 employees within the Cybersecurity
and Infrastructure Security Agency working election issues.
Was that every single day? No, because we are not election
administrators, we are not election experts. State and locals
are not looking to me to help them understand how to run a
better election. What they are looking to me for is
cybersecurity advice and physical security advice.
And so, when I talk about dedicated election staff, when we
started in 2016, when we stood up our program for election
infrastructure we had zero election infrastructure specialists.
We established a task force that brought in detailees from
across the, in some cases the Administration but primarily the
Department of Homeland Security. And then over time as we were
running up and surging into the election, I was also building
institutional capacity so that I don't have to have a
taskforce, I have a sustained, sustainable program.
We made a series of strategic hires. We are still making
strategic hires. I actually hired someone off the Election
Assistance Commission who is a renowned election security
expert. We just recently brought in through a support
mechanism, through a contract a local election security expert.
So we are building that core that sits here in the national
capital region that more than anything, they are kind of air
traffic controllers for getting security resources out to state
and local governments.
Again, I have got over 200 people in the field at any given
moment and I can bring that number up and down based on what
the threat is, but at any given point, I have got somebody out
there in the field doing elections and that will only increase,
that will only surge as we run up to the 2020.
Reinforcing the importance of this mission in DHS and CISA
through appropriations, 59 million between 2018 and 2019 is
huge, because I am building capacity that is here to stay, that
is sustainable.
In addition, that is building capacity that can go shift to
other threats as they emerge, whether it is the grid, whether
it is another industrial control systems issue, we are building
depth. The highlight for me beyond the fact that it was the
most secure election in modern era, is that I used elections to
better coordinate across the interagency with the Department of
Defense and the intelligence community, so not just we are
better for elections, we are better for every other critical
infrastructure sector.
Mr. Price. Well, I appreciate that and it is hard for
someone in our position to assess this simply because we are
not certain what standard you or the IG is measuring staff
adequacy against. So maybe I could just focus it as my time is
running out here.
Focus a little more on your assessment on that report, I
mean do you accept the implied benchmarks that the IG was
using, the implied staffing levels that would be optimal, or do
you differ from that and either way, what remains to be done as
far as you are concerned?
Mr. Krebs. I think there may be some differences in
management style and how to execute in a highly dynamic threat
environment. I am not focused necessarily on building static
staff, I am focused on building broader capacity, that as the
threat environment shifts, I can bring to bear all the
resources necessary.
So, I think we did a pretty darn good job in the 2018
election, I think the results prove it, I think our
stakeholders would support that and we are only going to
continue our approach as we go forward into 2020.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much
for being here this afternoon. You know, it seems like in this
cyber world, if we look at the attacks on systems, private
industry and others, I am curious how much self-defense if I
will call it that, how much self-defense are businesses allowed
as far as responding to and attacking those who are attacking
them?
Or is it always just blocking, are we never punching back
and who makes that decision?
Mr. Krebs. So while I may have legal training, I am not
necessarily an expert in the CFA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act and some of the other legal pieces.
What we focus on is network defense, the blue team side.
And so, yes, in some cases it could be perceived as taking
punches, but it is hardening the things we know they are going
after. So----
Mr. Rutherford. But do we ever respond to those sources
that are attacking us?
Mr. Krebs. That is----
Mr. Rutherford. By trying to take them out?
Mr. Krebs. That is the domain of the Department of Defense
and I am sure in a different setting they probably would be
happy to talk about those issues but we are purely on the
defense side. And sometimes I kind of liken us to the geek
squad or whatever. You know, we are there to help those that
own the networks, that own the infrastructure be better.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. And so----
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir. There is certainly a role for levying
consequences though against foreign adversaries and that is,
again, I mentioned that Department of Defense there are already
a range of tools, there are sanctions, indictments, other
diplomatic actions, there are a range of tools. But CISA we are
purely on the----
Mr. Rutherford. You are not focused on that.
Mr. Krebs. Network defense.
Mr. Rutherford. So, as you have gone through a great 2018
cycle and you are looking at different election software,
hardware, is there a list that CISA is saying, This stuff
really works well. Hey guys, don't use this again, it doesn't
work well. Is there an evaluation system that you are making
available to the different states and localities?
Mr. Krebs. So under the Help America Vote Act from the last
decade, the Election Assistance Commission is responsible for
working with NIST and other organizations, they have a
certification process and this is the equipment that EAC has
certified. Each state legislature and in some cases local under
Article I Section 4 of the Constitution is then responsible for
administering the elections.
Each state has their own process for how they use that
certification list, how they do testing, every state is a
little bit different but----
Mr. Rutherford. But they are there for the----
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir. And so we do work with EAC and NIST on
providing technical expertise. One of the areas that we are
focusing on right now is as equipment is being developed
because new equipment is always in the development process,
working with vendors to help them, again, secure their
equipment by design.
Mr. Rutherford. I can't tell if I have any time left. In
the other 16 categories, energy I guess is one I am sure. How
are we doing in those fields as well? Have you seen a lot of
tremendous improvement here in the last couple of years? Since
CISA is kind of starting to pull everything together it seems
like.
Mr. Krebs. So, I think every year there is increase
awareness of the threat. Just I mentioned last week I was at a
conference in San Francisco, it is the largest cybersecurity
conference in the world.
The general feel, the sense is that things are a little bit
better, primarily because of the decision makers, the
executives, the people that own the risk, that manage the risk,
the CEOs, the governors, the boards, the general counsels, they
are highly attuned to what the threat is and what their risk
is, and so they are focusing resources to address the risk.
But, the basics are still hard, configuring systems the
right way, patch management, enabling multifactor
authentication. The basics are still hard to do and we are
going to keep hammering on the need to do the basics until the
basics get done and then we will move on to the hard stuff.
Mr. Rutherford. Two and a half, three years ago we were I
think really behind the curve.
Mr. Krebs. Yes.
Mr. Rutherford. How much better do you think we are now
than we were three years ago?
Mr. Krebs. So I mentioned in my opening that I like using
the federal networks as a good baseline because I can actually
really measure that quite well.
Prior to 2015, the average time to patch a critical
vulnerability was something on the order of 219 days, now it is
averaging about 20 days, and I bet we can probably do better
than that too. That is dramatic improvement. That is dramatic.
And if you can't measure it, you can't improve it so we are
continuing to look for what those indicators of improvement
are.
Mr. Rutherford. Well, you guys keep up the great work. I
appreciate what you are doing.
Mr. Krebs. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. And I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, director. I know what it is like on
this side of the table now, you are doing well here. I will
testify to Mr. Fleischmann and Ms. Roybal-Allard. No, I am okay
at my current position, thank you. Thank you, congressman,
appreciate that.
Director, I wanted to drill down a little bit more, you
have been talking about obviously the importance of measuring
these connections and these touches, 8,800 jurisdictions total,
you said you have worked with 1,400. Can you classify the
nature of that? Can you tell us a little bit more and drill
down, those 1,400, did they come to you and seek support? Were
those ones that you proactively went to? And how would you
describe those 1,400 touches? Is there any one area that jumped
out more?
Mr. Krebs. You know, it is hard because every state is
different. It is hard to really characterize of those 1,400
what the buckets are. But in some cases, give you an example,
there is a state down south that required at the state level,
all counties to sign up for the election ISAC and sign up for
our cyber hygiene scan, that external internet facing scanning
capability.
And right off the bat, I got a bunch of, my participation
level went up. So, we focus in the run-up to 2018 on building
relationships and a level of trust and comfort with the state
elections because we understand they have roles of positions of
authority in their states.
But, again, not every state is the same. So we look for
opportunities through other one to many communities, whether it
is advocacy groups or associations of election officials. But
sometimes it is really just about getting out there and going
to various meetings, not necessarily in the big cities, but
sometimes it is getting on a commuter plane and going to county
level meetings.
Mr. Aguilar. Sorry to interrupt, but can you call the state
elections officials in other states and tell them to share that
exact story?
Mr. Krebs. We absolutely do. But their ability to
influence, so in Texas for instance, it is more of an advice
role from the state election director down. And that is just
the way elections are run right now. So it is, to us it is
about awareness, awareness, awareness.
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. How do you ensure that those local
jurisdictions then follow through? So let us use that as the
example that one that reached out that had others sign up for
hygiene, the checks? How do you ensure that they are using that
appropriately and if that isn't just one person getting the
training and then that person moves on or retires in two
months. How do you ensure continuity?
Mr. Krebs. So on the hygiene scanning, that is a biweekly
thing, right? We do it every week, it just kind of rolls
through, they get a report. And then from there it is
persistence, it is following through, it is following up with
touch points.
And we can look at some of these things and say this one
looks particularly concerning, are you taking care of it? So,
again, to a certain extent it is almost risk-scoring what the
results that we are getting back are.
Mr. Aguilar. As you are doing analysis and as you are
looking and saying, okay, this one looks a little risky, this
jurisdiction these things jump off the page, how many would you
classify in a high risk category of they should be contacting
your and they should be working with you or are they should be
doing things that they are doing, what would you call that
category and how many do you think would fall into that?
Mr. Krebs. I don't know if I have a name for it, but what I
am looking at right now and I mentioned and used auditability.
So there are five/six states right now that are of particular
concern, five states entirely don't have voter-verifiable paper
trails. So South Carolina and Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey,
and Delaware, everybody knows this, this isn't classified, they
know it.
They don't have a paper record, it is all machine-based.
Pennsylvania has about 83 percent I think of their voting
population, vote on machines, they don't have the paper trail.
So those are areas of particular concern. And my primary focus
and area of encouragement would be get them off those machines
onto something that produces paper that leads to an
auditability outcome.
The good news is all five of those states and Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania legislature I think passed a bill that said, Thou
shall do this by the 2020, those other five, they are all on
the path. They have all either demonstrate it through
legislative action, through a procurement action, or whatever,
they are all moving that way. So we monitor, engage, continue
to help along.
Mr. Aguilar. And would you say those five deserve a little
bit more discussion and help along the way to verify that they
are getting there from an auditability perspective of paper
ballots?
Mr. Krebs. So on the verification side, I am more thinking
about how do we get them there? And that is going to be
technical assistance, there is going to be a resource question,
some states may not have budget it appropriately to get that
done, particularly by 2020. So whatever we can do to help them
get there is what we are focused on.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you for being here today and thank you to
our chairman and ranking member for holding this important
hearing. I wanted to ask about STEM education, I am concerned
that our nation's education institutions have not been keeping
up with the pace of our growing need for cyber talent.
For the past several years DHS has partnered with the
National Integrated Cyber Education Research Center to provide
K through 12 cyber security curricula and hands-on professional
development for teachers. I know that the center has been
funded through a series of DHS grants since 2012. Last year it
got $21.5 million for a period of five years. What metrics does
your agency use to assess the effectiveness of this program and
other similar DHS-funded programs?
Mr. Krebs. So on the CETAP program, last year I believe was
$4.3 million, we have 12,000 educators in the program across 11
states and they are able to engage 1.8 million, I think it is
1.8 million students.
That is good, that is not good enough. There is a role here
for everyone, it is a whole of nation effort. So we continue to
work with foundations, the private sector, large companies that
are invested in ensuring that when they get into hiring actions
15, 20 years from now that they have a pipeline.
So there are a number of efforts afoot right now, there is
the National Cyber Education Program I think is working with
Discovery Education. We are looking at ways that we can partner
with other efforts recognizing that Congress doesn't need to be
footing this bill entirely that, again, this is a whole of
government approach.
And I have got to say that I am as invested in this, this
is probably the thing I am most passionate about across the
portfolio. I have five kids that are in or will be in the
public education system here in Northern Virginia and I know
what the offerings are right now, and then I have to pay for
after school programs. You know, that is one way to do it but I
think we have to mainstream STEM education much, much better
than we are. And, again, there is a role for everyone, not just
government, but the private sector as well.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. And do you think the curricula of this
center and this program or just programs in general, are they
preparing them properly to fit the needs of what our country's
actual cyber security workforce needs?
For example, we have heard random stories about the kids
who are studying this curriculum, but don't necessarily match
the needs of actual programs or what the workforce is in the
government or whatever the needs are, that they don't
necessarily match with their learning. Is that something that
you have seen or?
Mr. Krebs. So, I don't believe I have done a specific audit
of the curriculum against what the hiring requirements are for
the federal government, recognizing that the federal government
cyber security workforce demands are quite diverse.
It is more of a general STEM education-base that they can
go into any technology field including cyber security. To me, I
think there is some sense in making sure that sound development
processes are focused on, rather than purely on cyber security
because there is a certain fatalism associated with it is
always going to be insecure, so we have to have cyber security
expertise.
I want to put a lot more focus into secure by design,
secure by design, that way we don't need to worry so much about
the big apps on the cyber security side.
Ms. Meng. And my other question is about shortages of
qualified cyber security professionals already in the federal
workforce. Workforce recruitment and retention has been
challenging, especially when competing with the private sector.
Cyber security professionals and the federal workforce are
paid by the GS level system and maybe you offered a recruitment
or retention incentive of up to 25 percent of their basic pay
but there are still difficulties in staffing. Is CISA looking
into maybe a new pay scale for cyber security professionals and
are you taking steps to recruit and retain some of these
professionals?
Mr. Krebs. So a couple of years ago, Congress passed a law
that directed us to pull together this program and we are in
the final stages of developing, that program is called the
Cyber Talent Management System.
And the point behind the system is that the GS approach the
government uses right now for hiring is not tailored to the
unique education, certification, approaches, processes,
whatever for the cyber security workforce. And kind of the
point is, if I have someone that goes to a two-year college or
maybe no college at all and yet has demonstrated experience
where they could be incredibly technically proficient at 22, 10
years' worth of experience effectively, how do I account for
that?
Are they a GS4 or a GS11? You know, by the standards that
we have in place right now, I can't reward that person and pay
them the way they could be paid in the private sector. So it is
about balancing the way that we can bring people in.
That program, we should be making our first hires under
that program this year. We will have to have a transition
between the current system and the new system, but in the
meantime, we are looking at what you mentioned, the 25 percent
retention rates, we have a very exciting mission. So it is
about making the job that much more exciting for them in the
meantime.
Ms. Meng. Would that apply to returning the federal
employees too, if they have gone to private and want to come
back?
Mr. Krebs. Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, there is a
program called Scholarship for Service where current college
and graduate students, I want to have dedicated pipelines in
the Nation's colleges, universities of all sizes and stripes
and be able to bring in steady drumbeat every single year.
And if they come in, they work for me for 5 or 6 years and
they go out to the private sector, I am okay with that. I am
okay with that because they know who I am and they know how to
work with me and they will come back.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. First of all, I am glad you are here. I
think you are on the right track. I know we had a meeting and I
just want to make sure that you have the resources to do the
job, because it is a big job and we have a long way to go. And
once we get where we are, we have got to keep innovating, you
know that.
I am going to get into the area of trusted internet
connections. On one area I have a concern with the
modernization there. The goal of this program is to consolidate
department and agency connections to the internet. And the
general theory is that if the federal government has less
connections to the internet, then our intrusion, detection, and
prevention capabilities like Einstein, which it helps us to
detect and prevent common cyber attacks will be more effective.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Krebs. In the traditional on premise environment, Yes,
sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Now first, can you give us an
update on the TIC modernization and how many TICs does the
government have and what is your goal?
Mr. Krebs. I will have to get back----
Mr. Ruppersberger. It is kind of in the weeds, I know.
Mr. Krebs. Well I----
Mr. Ruppersberger. It is important to get it on the record.
Mr. Krebs. The thing that I was alluding to in my initial
response is that in the traditional or historic on premise
environment of having a server room and having a data center
where you know where the equipment is and you can really sit on
the pipes and focus them down, TIC was important.
Going forward, as particularly we shift through IT
modernization to Cloud because Cloud is efficient, it is
scalable, it is flexible to meet modern workforce demands, TIC
won't work because TIC actually undermines the low latency and
high speed and flexibility of the Cloud.
So what we are doing is shifting to a model in a series of
pilots right now where instead of me putting an Einstein sensor
in----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Explain to the committee what Einstein
is.
Mr. Krebs. Einstein is, well, one of three things, it is an
intrusion detection system, so you can kind of see the bad
stuff that is coming in and out and then the intrusion
prevention system which filters email, which if you see the bad
traffic, it actually stops it and diverts it to another space.
The problem is you have to sit on that pipe to look at the
email and the net flow, and the traffic and how it is working.
But if it goes to the Cloud, the whole point of the Cloud is
you have this distributed environment with traffic bouncing
back and forth.
So the alternative model which in the end will actually be
more efficient and save the taxpayer money because we are not
owning the infrastructure, it is we are setting a set of
outcomes, security outcomes and requirements for the Cloud
provider, saying, this is the kind of information we need, you
guys need to send it back to us and then we can analyze it.
So it is not about putting the equipment out and looking at
it as it goes out, instead it is they have got it, they will
tell us what they are seeing, and then we can alert on that.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, counter to the idea of
reducing the connections to the internet, the federal workforce
is actually moving in the opposite direction, and with more and
more employees working remotely which is the future, by the
way, and off of the cellular devices and tablets.
Now, there is a large push in the government to consolidate
our Cloud infrastructure as you talked about to further reduce
our attack surface, would you agree to that?
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. All right. How is CISA adapting
its network security strategy to the changing federal
workforce, and do you intend to start incorporating more
endpoint protection and endpoint detection in response to
protect the users at the edge of the network? Did you
understand what I just said?
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir. So through the Continuous Diagnostics
and Mitigation program that we rolled out a couple of years
ago, we are going through a capability enhancement, basically
the life cycle.
And we historically called them phase one, phase two, phase
three, phase four. What we are finding now is that it is better
to go through phases based on the capability of the
organization. Some agencies are just more sophisticated than
others.
But to your point, we are really focusing what the next
couple of years look like for mobile and for Cloud. Some
agencies are going to be able to take some of the Cloud and
mobile capabilities sooner than others. But it is in the CDM
lifecycle or the phased approach.
But as I mentioned, we are ultimately going to shift from a
model where we own the infrastructure, we own the sensors and
instead, we are putting out a baseline policy and a series of
outcomes that we are looking to achieve. And so we have
everybody playing by our rules rather than we are doing the
operations and maintenance on equipment, and ultimately I think
we are going to be more effective and I think we are going to
be able to do it faster and I think we are going to be able to
use the private sector's agility to get those better secured
outcomes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And you are going to need more resources
and money, so it is so important you maintain this relationship
with our committee and our staff, so we know where you are
going to be next year and the year out, because this is going
to get more difficult and it has more needs as we move to the
future.
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. We have been joined by the chair of the
full Appropriations Committee, Ms. Lowey.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. I don't have my roller skates on
but there are a lot of hearings going on at the same time
today.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I like to see you in roller skates, you
are pretty good.
The Chairwoman. I will show you pictures of me----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
The Chairwoman. When I was 8. At the age of 8. Excuse me.
First of all, I would like to join my colleagues in welcoming
you, Director Krebs. DHS' inspector general released a report
about the department's efforts to secure our nation's election
infrastructure.
According to that report, state and local officials'
rampant mistrust to Federal Government assistance critically
harmed the DHS's ability to secure election infrastructure. I
understand that some states are sensitive to what they perceive
as Federal overreach into their election systems, however,
integrity and trust in our election processes are fundamental
to our democracy at every level. And I know you face
significant challenges in threading the needle.
In 2017, election infrastructure was brought under the
government facilities critical infrastructure sector within
DHS. I would be interested to know, how did that move change
your relationship with state and local governments?
Mr. Krebs. Ma'am, prior to that designation, that was
before I came on board in March 2017, I think Johnson made that
on January 7, 2017. The easy answer is relatively just prior to
that designation, there really was no relationship.
So it probably got worse as a result of that designation,
but there wasn't much further down to go from there. So what I
have focused on since day one of March 2017 is getting us to a
place where we have a trusted relationship with state and local
election officials.
The Chairwoman. I would be interested in knowing how does
CISA work with entities like the Multistate Information Sharing
and Analysis Center, the Election Infrastructure Information
Sharing and Analysis Center, the Election Taskforce, and
others.
Mr. Krebs. So the multistate information sharing ISAC, it
is based in Albany, New York. It is an organization that we
actually fund through a grant or contract, and they provide
resources to state and local governments. A lot of the tools
and capabilities in some cases that we provide to federal
agencies, they are able to provide out to state and locals.
The MS-ISAC as we call it, they started, founded with state
and local officials the EI-SAC, the Election ISAC. So we work
with them day in, day out, throughout the 2018 election in the
run up, we provided technical alerts, we provided intelligence,
we provided basic trend analysis of what was going on out there
in the world, and they were able to send to their members.
By the election, they had 50 states, all 50 states and
1,400 election, local jurisdictions participating in the ISAC
which is a historic number relative to any other sector. Now,
bad news is there are 8,800 or so jurisdictions, so we still
have room to go, but we started from zero and I think we have
made pretty good progress and we will continue to focus there
for 2020.
The Chairwoman. That is really impressive. So I just wonder
how we can continue to improve these relationships and how do
you address the concerns that some state and local governments
have about working with CISA like federal overreach? How do you
deal with it? How do you build confidence?
Mr. Krebs. You know, it doesn't happen overnight. It is
investing a lot of personal time, a lot of miles out there. I
spent a good deal of last summer in the run-up and actually
pretty much all of 2018 out there on the road, just meeting
with secretaries of state, meeting with local officials,
letting them know that we are here to help.
We are not here to take anything over, we just want to make
sure that they are successful in their jobs as election
administrators. But really, it is all about trust, it is all
about letting them know that we are here to help, and when I
get the question of how do you think you did, I sometimes get a
little uncomfortable in asking that question and say
particularly if I am testifying in front of an authorizers
panel and I am next to a state election official and say, I
don't know, ask him or her.
And generally speaking, I think the response has been
pretty good across both sides of the aisle. This is not a
partisan issue, I take a nonpartisan approach and I think,
again, the proof is in the participation.
The Chairwoman. And what percent is left that you haven't
been able to interact with?
Mr. Krebs. So on the local side, I am not a math guy,
right? But we have worked with over 1,400. So we have got a big
number left out there. 7,400.
So we will get there and it is just going to take time, it
is going to take boots on the ground work, it is going to take
advocacy. You all actually have a role as well when you go
home, when you go back to your districts, if you can work with
your counties, if you can work with your voting jurisdictions
and say, hey, are you working with DHS? Are you working with
CISA? They are here to help you, they are not taking anything
over.
The Chairwoman. And I wonder about is with all the talk
today, cyber security and the past election and who leaked what
to who, I don't want to get into that stuff today, but I who I
am not an expert in all that stuff.
Believe me, I just worry who is dreaming up the next
challenge for the next election. Do you get into any of that
stuff?
Mr. Krebs. Absolutely. That is what keeps me up at night. I
know what they did in 2016, I know what they tried to do in
2018, what are they going to do in 2020? So we have got to make
sure that we are covering down on the basics.
We have got to make sure that they can't get in through the
last approach, and try to be a little creative. The one way
that we are going to be able to do this is we have to engage
the American public, we have to let them know that there are
bad people out there that try to do bad things, but you know
what, we have got a system here that works and we are doing
everything we can to protect it, we have to restore faith and
confidence in the American people that this is not a system
that is about to tip over and fall down. That we are doing the
right things and I think we are going to be successful.
The Chairwoman. I hope so. I wish you good luck.
Mr. Krebs. Thank you.
The Chairwoman. But I think those are the questions that
really----
Mr. Krebs. Yes, ma'am.
The Chairwoman. Keep me up at night because so many of us
were blindsided. We still don't have all the facts, although
the facts may be out there but they are not believed across the
board, across parties and I just think this is so serious and
we really have to work in a bipartisan way and figure it out.
Mr. Krebs. Yes, ma'am.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I think it keeps a lot of us up at
night.
Okay. That completes the first round. So we are going to go
on to the second round. And I would like to go back to the
federal cybersecurity risk. You talked a little bit about the
obstacles that you face in getting ahead of our adversaries.
But what I would like to ask you is, are agencies
appropriately prioritizing their budget request to ensure these
risk are mitigated and to the extent that funds are budgeted
for this purpose, are they being used effectively, and would
more funding help in this effort?
Mr. Krebs. So I do think that with more we can do more, but
we--we have to get back to the question of the basics. We
continue to have outdated legacy infrastructure out there, and
with the turn--the changeover in the administration, one of the
statistics was there is $60 million being spent on Federal IT
and about $40 million of it was operations and maintenance, and
a lot of that is keeping legacy systems up and running.
We have--we have got to get out of this model where we are
just paying to patch and paying to keep the old stuff running.
We have got to modernize. But that is--but that is in and of
itself not going to fix. I am excited about the IT
modernization efforts, because it means we have an opportunity
to shift from the security bolt-on mentality where I am adding
security solutions on top and instead, we can design and
configure and deploy IT secure--securely.
Now, the remaining challenges that we have at least in the
civilian non-DOD, non-intelligence community space, we still
have decentralized model which means every agency and 99 some
odd agencies, every agency is responsible for their own IT and
their own security. So what we are focused on right now,
working with OMB, is defining what a security baseline looks
like for all agencies, centralizing services.
Some agencies just can't do the job, so I can help them do
it for them, identifying and enforcing policy to ensure
consistency of approach. Again, the more that we get into a
centralized approach and that is not just on the federal, the
executive branch side, but also on the congressional oversight,
there is still decentralized oversight, decentralized budget
and appropriations, if we can bring it all together, if we can
bring it all together, that is going to be make it much easier
to manage.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Director Krebs, you mentioned in your
testimony under the heading supply chain risk that you are
taking steps to secure the actual hardware agencies use to
build their networks and the software that runs them. Can you
describe what these risks are and where they come from? And
have you encountered issues on any federal networking resulting
from this type of risk?
Mr. Krebs. So this is the emerging issue right now that I
have found, it is supply chain risk management. It is really,
really hard because of the lack--the lack of transparency in
whether it is hardware or software, firmware of the build
process, who is four, five, six layers down.
We have encountered software or--or supply chain challenges
and vendor management challenges over the last couple of years.
Congress passed a bill last Congress on federal supply chain
security that set up a federal acquisition supply chain
council, so thank you for that. It is an important process that
is, from our position will address some of the issues that we
experienced during the Kaspersky binding operational directive
process. So yes, we have experienced issues in the federal
government, Kaspersky was one of them. We identified is as a
threat or as a risk to information security, risk management
posture, and we eliminated, we removed it, required the removal
from networks and Congress subsequently mandated by statute.
So we are in the early days of figuring out what supply
chain risk management looks like for the federal government and
we are implementing the legislation, the statute. There will be
a council stood up, DHS will be a key member, we will look at
the standards, the processes. There will be adjustments to
regulations and acquisition processes, but it--we have tools
now that we didn't have this time last year.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Can--can you just remind me what kind of
damage was done by Kaspersky?
Mr. Krebs. So on Kaspersky, it--it wasn't that there was
necessarily damage, there was the potential--potential for
damage, but most importantly, it was an untenable risk
position. So the way I look at the Kaspersky issue was that it
was this anti-virus product which had effectively wide, broad
access to equipment below a level against which you monitor,
effective anti-virus products bring the information they
collect back to a central collection point. It just so happens,
in that case, it was in Moscow, and we know that there are a
series of laws in Russia--and other laws that intelligence and
law enforcement services over there can compel access to
information.
So basically, if you work that chain back, FSB, GRE or
whatever, the Russian services potentially had access to
civilian networks. Untenable position, ripped the equipment
out.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. What tools exist today to help
agencies identify the hardware and software they are using that
is vulnerable?
Mr. Krebs. So there--there are a range of both kind of hard
tools and soft tools, more through contracting processes you
can require the prime contractor to identify second, third,
fourth tier subcontractors. There are open source tools that
can map supply chains and identify where in those, where in the
process those risks are. Those are the sorts of things that we
are looking at, what those tools and capabilities are that we
can pull into the supply chain council and issue guidance and
issue contracting language, model contract language to
departments and agencies.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I have several other questions,
but my time is up. So Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Director Krebs,
in your testimony, you referenced initiatives CISA is taking to
mitigate supply chain threats as one way of securing out
networks and infrastructure. Do these efforts include election
equipment?
Mr. Krebs. So we do work with the election community, state
and local election officials, the vendor community, the
Election Assistance Commission in this to provide threat
awareness and security best practices. We do have a pilot
program that we are in the initial stages of as I mentioned
earlier where we are working with a vendor, we are taking their
equipment as it is in the development process and we are
basically red teaming it. Meaning, we are trying to attack that
box. We are trying to hack into it. And we then provide the
findings back to the vendor and say, Here are some of the
things you need to work on.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. As a follow-up to that sir, do you
believe the Election Assistance Commission and their partners
at NIST have developed voting system guidelines and
certification processes that adequately take supply chain risk
into account?
Mr. Krebs. So the--it is kind of a temporal question, but
they are in the process right now of developing or receiving
comments, I am sorry, on the voter--the voluntary voter systems
guide, voting system's guide 2.0. They have just--the EAC that
just recently got--reached a quorum where they could issue it.
So that process is ongoing right now.
So I haven't reviewed the--the guidance in detail recently,
but it is--it is certainly progress.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Help America Vote Act or
HAVA was enacted in October of 2002, nearly 19 years ago when
the Hanging Chad was the greatest threat to our democracy. Fast
forward to today and we are looking at challenges we would
never have dreamed of back then. The Election Security Act was
included as a separate title of H.R. 1. How much input or
communication did the department have in crafting the Election
Security Act and do you feel your concerns were incorporated
into the text?
Mr. Krebs. So over the course of the last Congress, we
provided technical assistance on a range of election security-
related legislation with the Election Security Act, with the
secure act, I can't recall the specific name. So over the last
Congress, we did provide technical assistance.
You know, when I look at section 3 of H.R. 1, there are a
lot of things that we do already in there. You know, we will
provide technical assistance to anyone that--that requests it
whether it is a vendor or a state and local government.
Mr. Fleischmann. The Election Security Act has a number of
new requirements and about four new grant programs by our
count. One question, do you find your best work with the states
comes about because you have collaborative and voluntary
relationships?
Mr. Krebs. I think our best work comes from, with state and
locals, they come because I have a service that--that they need
and they trust.
Mr. Fleischmann. All right, I think that about does it.
Thank you, Director Krebs. Again, I want to thank you and your
department for an outstanding job. Well done, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. I want to ask you
about the international context of this--of this challenge.
Based on press reports and other reports we hear, it is
sometimes hard to distinguish what the level of involvement is.
I mean there are disinformation campaigns, there is hacking
into the election-related communications, the famous email
cases, there is hacking into the actual voting equipment, the
countries in which there has been serious interference seem to
include, according to reports, Montenegro, Moldova, Ukraine, a
number of European situations, I wonder how much--how much do
we monitor this, how much do we know about it, how much do we
learn from it?
This is partly a question about the relationships your
agency has with, of course, with the intelligence community,
with Defense, with State, with other--other government agencies
and exactly what the division of labor is with respect to
international monitoring and international cooperation. It is
also a question though about how you would assess the state of
play here. Do we have the kind of international agreements and
understandings we need to monitor what is going on and
understand what is going on, to--to devise protections in a
cooperative way, to have mutual warning systems and so on.
So I am asking you for an assessment of what we--what we
know and what we have yet to achieve in terms of understanding
and dealing with this internationally.
Mr. Krebs. Sir, you--I think you laid out the three vectors
appropriately and that is how they are characterized in the
intelligence community assessment after the 2016 elections. It
is--it is the technical lacking of election equipment, it is
the disinformation, the--the campaign to sow discord and
divisiveness across the American people and then the hacking
lead campaigns and political operations and campaigns.
In terms of the level of--well, let me--so I am--my team
leads the domestic efforts of protecting election equipment.
The FBI is responsible for the disinformation campaigns, the
discord and divisiveness and countering those efforts and then
there is the hacking lead piece where we do work very--we work
with political campaigns, particularly the national parties to
help them secure. In fact just last week, I met with a number
of folks on that that count.
Internationally, the intelligence community is all over
this. They regularly track these activities. They work closely
with their international--with their partners overseas. What we
are doing within CISA right now is kind of collating the--our
lessons learned from 2016 and 2018 and then going to our
international partners particularly in Europe as they are about
to face, there are national level votes coming up and then
there are also the European Parliament votes that are coming up
in a matter of months.
And we are just offering our experience and our findings
and saying, You know, these are some of the things that we
found useful. We did some kind of innovative things I think of
working with the media of raising awareness and education, the
things we are doing and where the risk really is.
Mr. Price. CISA is engaged in this directly.
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Price. With international counterparts.
Mr. Krebs. Just last week, again, out in San Francisco at
the RSA conference, I met with probably 30 to 40, I lost count,
of my international partners and the hot topic is election
security. So we shared our experiences, the things we found
useful. I am going to send basically a travel team more sounds
like kind of a European vacation for spring break, but over to
Europe to share our experience and the best practices and tips
that we have.
Mr. Price. Do you feel, by virtue of these international
contacts and your access of course to our other agencies, do
you feel like you have a good fix on the full range of
techniques and how advanced the different classes of actors
there might be?
Mr. Krebs. I will admit that part of this experience of
engaging with our international partners is there are tools
being deployed and techniques being deployed in certain spaces
in the Baltics for instance that we haven't seen here yet. So I
want to figure out what that is going to the chairwoman's point
of what are you thinking for 2020? What do you think they are
going to do? I don't know yet. I haven't seen it yet, but maybe
they are using it somewhere else and if I can go spot it over
there, I can go--I can get ahead of it here.
Mr. Price. Well, that is really why I am asking, it is
clearly relevant, urgently so.
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Price. And I would think a bellwether of what we might
see here.
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Price. And you are confident you have those--those
links out?
Mr. Krebs. Yes, I will be spending part of April over in
Europe to do just this. We host delegations of international
partners virtually every week, whether it is Europe or Asia-
Pacific. We are working this every single day and we are
working with our partners every single day.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Director, I am--
I am going to follow-up on this international kind of angle
here as well, but let us switch it over to private industry,
you know, the strength of any chain is only as strong as the
weakest link. And so what is CISA's relationship with private
industry abroad, particularly when we look at issues like
China? You know, I am hearing some of the property theft as
high as--well, I have heard a lot higher than that, I have
heard a trillion, so, who knows what the number is?
But it is it is obviously significant. Can you talk a
little bit about what are we doing working, what does CISA
doing working with those private industries to combat these
attacks on their intellectual property?
Mr. Krebs. So two kind of--two ways to address this
question. One is what is happening overseas that we may not
have seen here yet and that is what certain countries are maybe
doing, in Ukraine or the Middle East or elsewhere. So we work
with our international partners and we work with their domestic
industry to, again, get ahead, try to get ahead of what the bad
guys are doing, and so that we can bring that learning back
here and harden our domestic infrastructure. So that is point
one.
Point two is the U.S. companies traveling overseas,
engaging overseas we are working to build awareness and share
strategic intelligence. And what by that, I talked about this a
lot last week, but China has kind of told us what their areas
of interest are. They have set out a plan for strategic sectors
of where they want to grow and how they are going to get there.
So what we do is we look at those strategic sectors and we
engage domestic companies that play in those sectors.
And we try to make, we hope they understand that they are
our target, they need to make sure they are taking care of
their networks and we can help them. But the risk level is
going to change. So if you play in those sectors, your risk is
at this level, a five let us say. If you do business with
China, a Chinese company or Chinese government, then your risk
is a little bit higher, maybe a seven. If you operate in China,
your risk is then, I don't know, quote Spinal Tap here, your
risk is an 11.
It really does matter where you operate and what space you
operate in and how you do business. Do you outsource your
services?
Mr. Rutherford. So do we have any guidelines for them or
are there any CISA requirements?
Mr. Krebs. We have guidelines--Yes, sir. So requirements,
no. We are a voluntary organization, but we are in the midst of
an awareness campaign in--in December 20th last year, the
Department of Justice indicted a number of Chinese hackers
related to a global hacking campaign.
So what we have done is a series of webinars, outreach,
engagement, working with our industry partners to help them
understand what the Chinese did and some of the things that we
can do collectively and individually to protect against those
sorts of attacks. This is--I mentioned in my opening, I have
five strategic priorities for the next 18 months to 2 years, 2
of them federal networks and elections.
Number one, China supply chain, 5G.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay, thank you very much. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes. I would like to know your thoughts
on how the CISA's successes or failures can be communicated to
the subcommittee, again, because of preparations, what tools
and things you need. And I know you brought this up in your
opening statement, I needed to be at another event, so I
couldn't be there, but I have always had problems or concern,
that DHS' cyber mission and not yours but just generally is
that I don't know how we are doing it in this field. It is
evolving and I think since you have been here your position to
stabilize to an extent, but I think we have to go a long way as
far as educating this committee.
And you have a good team, you have good people, though I
don't think you have enough people or resources, but that is
another thought and you have got your budget and we are going
to deal with that. But can you expand upon your risk
management, your metrics as far as determining your successes
or failures as it relates to where you are so this committee
can deal with that and understand more other than just showing
up for a hearing, ask staff to do the work.
Because I am really concerned, I know that--I represent NSA
and I have been dealing with cyber since I have been in
Congress and I am really concerned. It is such a major, other
than nuclear weapon, this is probably one of the most dangerous
threats that we have in the world and in this country too, and
we haven't, even destructive attacks and that type of thing. So
I want to find a way that you can continue to communicate, let
us know where you are and not because someone from the
administration says you got to do this, you got to do that.
I mean this is serious and I know you have credibility and
you want to do what is right. So do you have any ideas on how
we can deal with this and what metrics we can use to do it?
Mr. Krebs. So the metrics distinguish us from NSA because
this is----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, probably different, I understand.
Mr. Krebs. It is not apples to apples. They have control
authorities over the----
Mr. Ruppersberger. They have got the--they have got the
resources and they do it--and you have got a mission.
Mr. Krebs. And so we are a voluntary organization for the
critical infrastructure community. We do have certain
authorities over the federal government and that includes
setting baselines, deploying tools. Congress has helped with
that through some of our--what is known as Einstein Program.
And we--well, where we are going to be most successful whether
it is in the federal government or in the critical
infrastructure community is by providing something of value.
One of the key areas of focus right now for our Continuous
Diagnostics and Mitigation program, we just entered the defend
phase. What this really means is we are buying at scale to
provide a resource to an agency cheaper than they would be able
to get otherwise, whether directly through GSA or effectively
on the open market.
Einstein 1, Einstein 2, what we do is we aggregate all
sources, commercial sources, open source, we bring everything
together. Again, no agency would be able to do, buy every
single threat feed out there and bring it all together and
clean it up and package it. It just--it doesn't scale and it is
not the right way to do government.
So while we have these tools, these services, these
capabilities we are pushing out there, adding a value below the
price point somebody would be able to do otherwise, we are also
looking at where from a defense in depth perspective, we can be
the most effective. And really it is things like the patch
management, Binding Operational Directive 15-01, we said thou
shalt patch, federal agencies patch critical vulnerabilities in
30 days.
What we found is they went from 219, 219 days to about 20.
That was purely because of a policy. So I need to be looking in
that stack of defense in depth and say where else can I have a
high return on investment that doesn't just saddle a CISA with
one more thing that they need to do on a daily basis. And that
is--that is really our area of focus right now.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And I think that is laudable, but here
is one concern. You have different agencies. Sometimes these
agencies have been given independence. They have their techs,
some are not very good, some are better. Now, it seems to me
you, as the oversight, need to deal with that, not only deal
with it with the administration, but deal with it with us,
because if you have--if you don't have that coalescing of
everyone together, you are talking about the tools. You have
talking about the oversight that we still have--we haven't done
what we need to do in dot gov, you know that. And it is going
to take more than just what you are seeing here today.
It is going to be Congress working with the administration
and to make sure that if we have got a lousy department because
of their boss or because they don't have the technology, then
we are in trouble. And you talk about the chain, the weakness
of the chain.
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir. We are working with the Office of
Management and Budget right now and Suzanne Kent the CIO,
federal CIO on establishing a security baseline. And this is
what every agency's profile from an outcomes perspective, in
particular, should look like.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And that is really important to me on
where we think what we are going.
Mr. Krebs. Absolutely yes. And----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, are you finished?
Mr. Krebs. Yes. So--so as we, again, as we go through this
IT modernization process, as Congress continues to invest in
better citizen services, if we hit the baseline, then we are
much better off than where we are. And if an agency can't do
it, I am there as a backstop to help them get there.
Mr. Ruppersberger. You work very closely with the FBI
because they have the jurisdiction here too.
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Because they really improved a lot I
think from where they started and where they are.
Mr. Krebs. It is a whole government approach and I just--I
am--I didn't think that I would necessarily see this level of
cooperation across the intelligence community at the Department
of Defense, the law enforcement community.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And----
Mr. Krebs. So we are--we are--we are a lot better than we
were certainly four or five years ago, just, again, I think it
is the awareness, the sense of urgency and the desire to just
jump in and take--and try to tackle the problem.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Mr. Krebs, thanks for
joining us. In your prepared testimony, you stated that one of
the highest profile threats we face today is attempts by nation
state actors to maliciously interfere in our democratic
elections. You went on to describe the work that CISA did in
the lead-up to 2018 midterms to assess federal partners, state
and local election officials and private sector vendors in
better defending their infrastructure from malicious actors.
In August, the heads of the National Security Agency said
that Russia was still trying to influence and disrupt our 2018
midterm elections. Did Russia attempt to interfere on our
elections in 2018?
Mr. Krebs. So the departments were all here is to assess
whether there was a material impact. The secretary alongside
the attorney general, the acting attorney general at that time
issued a statement a month or so ago that said there was no
material impact tied, attributed to a nation state on the 2018
election.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The question is, did they attempt?
Mr. Krebs. I would--I would have to go and look back
specifically at DNI Coats'----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Material impact is different than an
attempt.
Mr. Krebs. But Russia is an active player in this space.
They continue to try, they will continue to try. I would be
disappointed in them if they didn't try again in 2020. They are
here to stay.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. So if Vladimir Putin denied
that they were attempting to interfere in our elections, would
you believe him?
Mr. Krebs. My job is to help state and local election
officials protect our systems.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I know, given what you have just
said--given what you have just said, if Vladimir Putin denied
that Russia is attempting to interfere on our elections, would
you believe him?
Mr. Krebs. You know, I base on what I see. We see activity.
The intelligence community was very clear in their statement in
the report of 2017. Russia, they tried to interfere,
absolutely.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So you would not believe Vladimir
Putin if he denied their intentions.
Mr. Krebs. I believe in the intelligence community. They
said he did it, he did it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Did any nation state beyond
Russia attempt to interfere on our elections in 2018? And did
any non-state foreign actors attempt to interfere on--in our
elections in 2018?
Mr. Krebs. So generally the landscape is pretty active
right now. I think in part Russia gave the playbook in 2016,
but everybody has a different style and different objectives
they want. The best--you know, I describe it this way.
Russia is trying to disrupt the system. They are trying to
create havoc. They are trying to undermine the American
people's confidence in our system of democracy. China on the
other hand, very, very active. I think the FBI director has
said that they have active counterintelligence investigations
in every--in all 50 states or every field office, whatever
their metric is. But they are trying to manipulate the system
to their advantage.
China is--you know, you are only successful in China if
they let you be successful. They are trying to shape global
politics in their favor so that they are the prime----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So are they making attempts to
interfere in our elections process?
Mr. Krebs. They are--they are absolutely engaging and
influencing the political process.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. In what is China engaging in that
activity?
Mr. Krebs. Well for one they--as I mentioned, they are very
active in local politics. They get local politics get influence
money into the process. So yes, this is--I am stepping well out
of my area of expertise, but you know, I--they are active.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So Ms. Yang's potential ties to
China could be related to those efforts?
Mr. Krebs. I am not sure.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The individual who was the owner of
the massage parlor in Palm Beach County where Robert Kraft was
and 40 others were caught and who contributed to President
Trump's campaign in the 2016 election.
Mr. Krebs. I would have to defer to the Department of
Justice on that one.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. To your knowledge, what
methods did nation states and non-state actors deploy in an
attempt to interfere in our mid-term elections and were they
preventable?
Mr. Krebs. So in terms----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Just as you describe with China I
know, I can see the difference between Russia's efforts and
China's, but are--are the non-mechanical attempts to interfere
preventable?
Mr. Krebs. Non-mechanical, you mean like social media, are
you talking about manipulating the press?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Things that are not related to
influencing the outcome of our elections in our systems and
voting processes and the like.
Mr. Krebs. So we are very focused on the technical tactical
on network hacking of state and local elections especially and
increasingly, particularly as we are in the midst of a
presidential cycle, working with political campaigns.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And just--just one more question
because I don't know how much--I can't see how much time I have
left.
Okay, given President Trump's insistence that Russia did
not interfere in the 2016 election, how can we have confidence
that this administration is taking the threat seriously and
that you have the authority and independence needed to fulfill
your responsibilities?
Mr. Krebs. I have been in meetings with the president when
he said he believes the intelligence community report, he has
assessed them. He said it publicly, I will take him at his
word. That is what I go on. I operate with the state and local
officials, below the headlines. That is my job.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And you are given the authority and
independence needed to fulfill your responsibilities.
Mr. Krebs. Absolutely. And again I think the proof is in
the pudding. You go ask any state or local election official
that has worked with us whether we are of value to them and
have we been helpful or we have been in any way restrained.
Again, I think--I think the proof is in our performance.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good to know. Thank you. I yield
back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Could you have--sure, absolutely.
Mr. Rutherford. I want to follow-up on Mr. Ruppersberger's
question about what kind of matrices can you provide to us,
this committee so that we--so that we see the value and the--
and the progression of what you are doing. And I was thinking
about these binding operational directives that--that you guys
have the capacity to put out. At agencies, they are binding on
these agencies.
I think one measurement could be how many of these BODs do
you put out and then how well, following up on how well those
agencies are responding the way you are asking them to respond?
And I would be very interested in that kind of measurement
going forward.
So I appreciate Dutch bringing that up.
Mr. Krebs. So all of the binding operational directives at
this point have been publicly posted. I think also the
compliance metrics and we across the board, we have had the
kind of--the compliance that we would want.
Mr. Rutherford. And----
Mr. Krebs. Right. You know when we find--let me give you an
example, the recent emergency directive which is the first
emergency directive which is based on an emerging threat and
something we are greatly concerned about in January that we
ask--we asked agencies to do four things.
One of those things was enable multifactor authentication,
which means harden the security access and authentication
measures on the systems that manage the domain system--domain
name system of records. What we found was that some agencies
had outsourced the DNS records management to a third party, to
a contractor, and when they asked the contractor to enable
multifactor authentication, the contractor said, We can't. We
just--we technically can't do it.
Aha, so this is one of the challenges of contracting and
outsourcing processes, there is push and a pull. So what we
then do is work with that agency on road mapping how to get to
a provider or maybe this is something that the Department of
Homeland Security can do down the road. We can build that
infrastructure to provide a DNS management system for the
interagency. So these are the sorts of things that we are
working towards.
Mr. Rutherford. But that is the kind of thing that I
think--that I think Dutch was talking about and I would like to
see because it shows me the bang for our buck going forward.
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And we are really in a new phase now and
we are pioneers. Ten years from now it is going to be a lot
different. We have got to stay ahead of the curve and educate,
workforce, everything.
Mr. Krebs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Is that the end of the hearing?
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes, unless----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well I do have something that is kind of
a joke, but all the matters are over with, semi, when Chris and
I gave--when Chris and I gave a cyber-speech in Baltimore, so I
had my staff as his staff. Is there anything that, a joke, and
we were all apprehensive and didn't want to say hey, you know.
Don't say it came from us.
Mr. Krebs. I came prepared, don't worry.
Mr. Ruppersberger. But he loves colored socks. What are
they today?
Mr. Krebs. They are a little camo.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Oh yes, they are--they are conservative.
Mr. Krebs. You know, I was prepared.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, you got it.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And the hearing is adjourned.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 26, 2019.
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
WITNESS
ADMIRAL KARL SCHULTZ, COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
Admiral Schultz, I want to welcome you to your first
hearing before the subcommittee, and we are pleased to have you
testifying before us today.
I would also like to thank you and the thousands of
Coasties you have the privilege of leading for your service to
the Coast Guard and our country.
Nearly a year into your tenure as commandant, we look
forward to a good discussion of your observations and visions
for the future.
As the fiscal year 2019 bill, I was pleased we were able to
provide the Coast Guard with over $10 billion in discretionary
funding. We funded important investments to recapitalize the
Coast Guard's air and marine assets, including for the Coast
Guard's first polar security cutter to replace the current
aging family of icebreakers.
I want to acknowledge that the government shutdown was
difficult for the Coast Guard families. The Coast Guard was the
only armed service that worked without pay for those 5 weeks.
But I was pleased that in our enacted bill we were able to
support those men and women with resources for more staff,
increased pay and increased subsidies for childcare.
Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2020 request for
the Coast Guard was less promising. It proposes an overall
reduction to the Coast Guard budget of over $700 million,
including a reduction of more than $1 billion to the
procurement account. We look forward to hearing from you today
about your fiscal year 2020 request and whether it would
provide the resources that you need to support your important
and varied missions.
I personally want to add that I look forward to seeing some
of the assets and capabilities of the Coast Guard in my home
state next month, when a number of my colleagues and I come to
observe DHS operations in San Diego and Long Beach. Thank you
again for joining us, and I look forward to our discussion.
I would now like to turn to the distinguished gentleman
from Tennessee, Ranking Member Fleischmann, for his opening
comments.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Admiral, I just want to take a personal note of thanks to
you, to the government shutdown. You represented the Coast
Guard and the men and women who serve you in exemplary fashion.
I want to thank you for sending Admiral Ray to Chattanooga for
Coast Guard Week, and to all of the men and women who serve us
in our great United States Coast Guard, a heartfelt thanks.
This is a very special subcommittee, but I--I can assure you,
there's tremendous bipartisan support for what you do, and I
thank you, sir.
I can see that the priority in this budget is to support
the men and women of the Coast Guard. Reading through your
written statement, it is apparent that your goal is making sure
the people on your command are taken care of, and that they
have the resources they need because they give so much to our
country each and every day. I will have some questions about
some specific investments later.
However, I also see the procurement account where OMB is
proposing to short-fund some of the programs that are a
priority of the Congress, which we have seen before across the
committee. I have some questions about those investments, as
well.
I look forward to working with you and the chairwoman as
she puts together the bill to address the needs across the
department, sir. Thank you again for your testimony today, and
for your service every day, sir, and I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Before your testimony, I would like to
take care of some housekeeping items. The order in which
members will be called for questions will be based on the
seniority of those present when the hearing was called to
order, alternating between majority and minority members. And
to ensure that everyone has ample opportunity to ask questions,
I would ask each member to keep to the five minutes that they
are allotted.
So, again, Admiral Schultz, thank you again for joining us
this morning. Please provide a brief summary of your testimony,
and we will enter the full text of your testimony for the
record.
Admiral Schultz. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman Roybal-
Allard, Ranking Member Fleischmann, members of the committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today and ask that my
written statement be entered into the record as you noted,
Madam Chairwoman.
First, on behalf of the men and women of the United States
Coast Guard, please accept my profound gratitude for your
unwavering support, including the recently enacted fiscal year
2019 appropriation and the 2018 hurricane payment supplemental
funding. These were meaningful steps towards delivering a Coast
Guard that's ready, relevant and responsive to meet the
American needs and expectations, what the American public
deserves.
Yet our work is not done. If you take away just one thing
from this hearing today, please remember this: Readiness. We
must be ready: ready to push our maritime border 1,500 miles
from our shores; ready to preserve the $5.4 trillion in
economic activity that flows through our Maritime Marine
Transportation System annually; ready to support the geographic
combatant commander needs around the globe; ready for the next
hurricane season, which is just around the corner; and ready to
put our cyber-authorities to use as we adapt to 21st century
threats.
Without question, building and sustaining readiness is my
top priority. And we are at a critical juncture, a tipping
point of sorts. Almost a decade of near-flatline operations and
support funding, Coast Guard readiness is eroding, just like
the other armed services.
Yet unlike the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard
funding is categorized as nondiscretionary or non-defense
discretionary, which means we are excluded from the effort to
rebuild our military, and continue to find ourselves outside
looking in when it comes to material operations and support
plus-ups. In 2017, Department of Defense received a 12 percent
boost in operations and support funding, while the Coast Guard
received a 4 percent increase.
Yet the Coast Guard military contributions are innumerable.
Every year, we profoundly--excuse me--we proudly expend over $1
billion on defense-related activities in direct support of the
combatant commanders. But the $340 million of defense readiness
dollars that we receive for this work has not changed in 18
years.
As an example of our growing defense portfolio, the
National Security Cutter Bertholf is supporting the Indo-
Pacific commander operating in the South China Sea right now,
enforcing U.N. sanctions against North Korea and protecting and
advancing U.S. interests throughout the Western Pacific.
Though we strive for relentless resilience to execute
Homeland Security and Defense operations, our purchasing power
has, in fact, declined. If we continue to neglect our growing
backlog of deferred repairs on our capital assets, including
shore infrastructure, we will lose ground in the fight to
defend our homeland from the evolving threats challenging our
nation.
Despite these challenges, I am extremely proud of the Coast
Guard's contributions. In 2018, as part of the Department of
Homeland Security's layered security strategy, and in support
of Joint Interagency Task Force South, our surface and aviation
assets interdicted 209 metric tonnes--that's 460,000 pounds--of
cocaine, more than all other federal agencies combined, and
apprehended more than 600 suspected smugglers.
Disrupting transnational criminal organizations at sea
where they are most vulnerable helps reduce what we call the
push factors that are responsible for driving human migration
to our southwest land border. As I speak today, National
Security Cutter Waesche is patrolling in the Eastern Pacific.
Our national security cutters have exceeded performance
expectations by every metric, and now we must focus on a
transition from outdated and costly medium-endurance cutters--
our 210s and 270-foot ships--to a planned fleet of 25 highly
capable offshore patrol cutters, which will be the backbone of
the Coast Guard's offshore presence for decades to come.
In the polar regions, your Coast Guard's the sole surface
presence to protect our rights and project sovereignty. As
access to the region expands and interest from China and Russia
grows, it's in our national interest to be there to enhance
maritime domain awareness and build governance in this
economically and geostrategically competitive area. In the high
latitudes presence equals influence.
Two weeks ago, our sole operational heavy icebreaker, the
Polar Star, 43 years young, returned from a 105-day patrol to
Antarctica, where it's conducting the annual McMurdo Station
breakout, enabling resupply of this vital national interest.
These missions take a toll, and Polar Star's crew worked
miracles to keep their cutter mission-viable, battling a ship-
board fire, numerous electrical outages, and combating engine
room--just off the ice edge, we put embarked Coast Guard and
Navy divers into the frigid Antarctic Ocean to effect repairs
to the shaft seal. I am proud of their efforts, and I remain
concerned, however, that we are only one casualty away from
being a nation without any heavy ice-breaking capability. New
icebreakers cannot come fast enough.
And thank you for the $675 million in the fiscal year 2019
appropriation. Coupled with the $300 million in prior years'
appropriations, I am pleased to report we are on track to award
the detail, design and construction contract in 2019 to keep
this vital program on schedule.
Finally, I appreciate the administration's support for a
number of initiatives that invest in our greatest strength, and
that is our people. While modest, they represent tangible
investments towards what I call the mission-ready total
workforce; for instance, critical investments in our marine
inspections workforce and to our cyber-security operations.
That builds upon the capabilities that facilitate the $5.4
trillion of annual economic activity on our nation's waterways,
while protecting maritime critical infrastructure from attacks,
accidents and disasters.
A dollar invested in your Coast Guard is a dollar well
spent, and with your continued support, the Coast Guard will
live up to our motto, Semper Paratus--always ready.
Madam Chairwoman, I would just like to add thank you for
your gracious remarks this morning on behalf of our Coast
Guard. It was very gracious of you, ma'am and Ranking Member
Fleischmann.
I stand ready to answer any questions, and appreciate the
opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Schultz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Admiral.
Admiral Schultz, during the partial government shutdown,
the press rightfully focused on how it affected the Coast Guard
families. I want to personally express my appreciation for the
men and women of the Coast Guard who continued to protect our
country despite the difficulties that it caused for them and
their families.
However, I would also like to point out something that I
don't think is getting enough attention: the lasting and
persistent effects of that shutdown.
Could you spend a few minutes sharing with the subcommittee
some of the effects of the shutdown--some of the effects that
the shutdown had on the Coast Guard beyond the obvious effect
of morale?
Admiral Schultz. Yes, Madam Chairwoman.
Let me start by saying, as we head into a critical calendar
event, which is, you know, the 1 June start of the annual
hurricane season--we have come off three busy hurricane
seasons--you will have a ready, full-up Coast Guard ready to do
the Nation's business here.
The lingering effects of the shutdown, I think we are 75
percent reconstituted. Some things that we never get back, we
had to defer boat maintenance periods. Those are our fleets of
hundreds of small boats. Cutter maintenance periods, some of
that just got pushed to the right.
We had furloughed contracting officers, so you just can't
do that kind of work. That is not recoverable. My oral
testimony really accentuated, as did my written testimony,
readiness being my top priority. So for an organization that is
struggling with readiness, the shutdown does not help that. It
sort of exacerbates that.
But that said, ma'am, I think we are about 75 percent, 80
percent there. In the next month or so, I think we are going to
be back to a good place. Things like parts on the shelves, our
big parts warehouses out in Baltimore, mostly staffed by
civilians, and that is in Mr. Ruppersberger's district there,
they are what we call the surface forces, logistics center, the
warehouse. There is some catch-up ball. But if we have been
able to pay our bills, restock our shelves, and we are on the
road to recovery.
The one thing we just can't get back is some of that
deferred maintained. But we will get after that. The Coast
Guard is a pretty darn resilient and adaptable force, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, I am sure that it is frustrating
to be faced with these inefficiencies and wasteful byproducts
of the shutdown when you have limited resources and that you
have worked so hard to attain.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. But I appreciate the fact that as
always the Coast Guard does a lot with little.
Admiral Schultz. We are trying to change. I mean, we are
trying to do more with more, but----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And I am trying to help you change
that.
Admiral Schultz. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Admiral, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, we were pleased to be able to support the
procurement of the new Coast Guard assets in our fiscal year
2019 bill, including for of the first Polar Security Cutter to
replace the aging Polar Star, and to begin to fulfill the needs
of the Coast Guard in the Arctic and Antarctic. And I know you
have prioritized expanding activities in the Arctic during your
tenure. Could you highlight for us the importance of the
missions the Polar Security Cutter will undertake?
Admiral Schultz. Absolutely, Madam Chairwoman. And we are
very appreciative. The $650 million on top of the previous
year's appropriations will allow us to do this contractor work
here in hopefully the next 4 to 6 weeks.
The Arctic is no longer an emerging area. The Arctic is a
national priority. And today the Coast Guard is really the only
surface presence up there. And we are not in the Arctic much.
We were up there with our ice ship, the medium endurance
breaker, medium breaker Healey, in the fall for serving three
customers, National Science Foundation, Office of Naval
Research, and the NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
But that ship really--medium breaker, providing important
science work that supports the Nation's interests there, or one
heavy icebreaker is really limited to its annual trip down to
McMurdo, the trip I talked about. We go down and we break in to
the McMurdo ice station. This year, we broke through about 18
miles of heavy ice. Last year, it was more than 70 miles.
The U.S. Antarctic program is undergoing their major
recapitalization. For the next 5 years, 4 or 5 years, they have
got about a $450 million there. They are absolutely critically
relying on the Polar Star and relying on the Polar Star's
ability to make a path for the Ocean Giant, the replenishment
ship. So we are at a critical juncture there.
The first Polar Security Cutter, ma'am, absolutely just
gives us some ability to replace Polar Star, and that is
predominantly going to be focused on going to Antarctica. It is
really when we get into Polar Security holes number two or
three when we have some capacity to increase our presence. And
I testified by noting presence equals influence in the Arctic.
We won't really push into that until we are into those
subsequent Polar Security holes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. I was surprised to see that the
president's request proposes just $35 million to continue the
Polar Security Cutter program, which I understand would simply
continue, as you said, support for the program office. And I
remain concerned that the administration's budget isn't aligned
with the funding projections in your 5-year capital investment
plan as well as the program of record for certain assets.
Do you feel confident that the fiscal year 2019
appropriation is sufficient for procuring the first PSC? And
are you comfortable not having additional procurement funding
in fiscal year 2020 for the long lead time material for the
second PSC, for instance?
Admiral Schultz. Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the
question. First and foremost, the $675 million did include $20
million towards long lead materials for the second Polar
Security, as you and the committee know, and for that we are
very appreciative. Third-five million does allow us to maintain
the program. We have yet to award the detailed design
construction contract, and that is imminent, as we talked
about.
There are clearly, if you go to our CIP, there was, you
know, a bigger number there. There are clearly potential
advantages in buying additional long lead materials earlier,
such as azimuth pod propulsors and things like that. There are
some, you know, economic benefit of buying those early and
buying them in quantity. But we can absolutely press forward
with the $35 million on the Polar Security Cutter, anticipating
a larger number in the 2021 budget, as we start marching
towards the second Polar Security Cutter acquisition.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. OK. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Again,
Admiral, thank you for being here and for all that you do for
our great nation.
Admiral, in fiscal year 2019, in the omnibus, the conferees
provided $340 million, sir, for six new fast response cutters.
On increase over the 2019 budget request, there are still
cutters outstanding under the program of record. The 2020
budget request only provides $140 million for two new cutters.
Admiral, why is the Coast Guard proposing a reduction to this
program? And my question would be, are the cutters no longer
needed, sir?
Admiral Schultz. Let me start in reverse order, if I
could, Congressman Fleischmann. The cutters are absolutely
needed. We would love to continue momentum towards our domestic
program of record of 58 fast response cutters with the support
of the Congress. We have four of six that are overseas deployed
in support of the naval central Fifth Fleet commander working
for CENTCOM that you also funded, and I think that is a great
story.
Ideally, 58 fast response cutters domestically, six fast
response cutter to support our contributions to the CENTCOM
theater, that would be the desired end state. The two fast
response cutters in the 2020 budget are really a reflection of
the reality, and we are one of 22 agencies that resides within
the Department of Homeland Security. As a service chief, as
component head, I am tasked to manage to a top line.
We talked about the readiness challenges, a little bit of
flat funding for the good part of the last decade here under
the BCA levels. And, sir, bottom line it comes down to making
trade space in the budget to support the OPC and other ongoing
acquisitions programs.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Thank you. The building
contract stipulates that orders are to be made in increments of
four, six or eight cutters. Will the contractor accept an offer
to build only two cutters?
Admiral Schultz. Sir, we will have to go back to the
contract, if the enacted budget reflects the two. We will have
to see what the maneuver space there, how we can work on the
shoulder appropriations here, sir.
Ideally, we have seen tremendous support from the Congress
here on our--what we now call PC&I, our former AC&I acquisition
budgets. Just frankly, I think on average, the committee and
the Congress has plussed us up about $600 million, and the FRC
program has been, I don't want to say a favored program, but a
program that the Congress has very much embraced. So there is a
little bit of, I guess, aspirational strategy as we had to play
to a top line here, too, sir.
So we will work and see what is in the realm of contractual
flexibility and maybe hold out a little bit of hope that this
might be a program that Congress remains keenly interested in
supporting.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Is the $140 million an
estimate on OMB's part for the cost of two cutters? Or is the
price stipulated in the contract?
Admiral Schultz. Sir, I have to go back and give you an
answer. The $140 million is the two hulls and some other
program, I think, costs in there. But, sir, I would like to
take that one for the record and circle back with your staff,
if that is amenable to you.
Mr. Fleischmann. That is fine, sir. Yes, sir. After the
funding in 2019, how many cutters remain outstanding on the
program of record, out of how many total, sir?
Admiral Schultz. Sir, I have got to get you back on the
numbers. We are starting the crew, an additional four in the
2020 budget, so we just took acceptance of the 33 hull down in
Key West last week here. I had the privilege of commissioning
the 31st.
I believe at the end of the day, sir, with the proposed
number, that it gets us to 54. But I would like to bring that
back to you on that other question. I will just pair those two
together, if that is adequate.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. I see also that once again the
budget proposes to skip a year of funding and acquisition for
the HC-130J project. I know the HC-130 is important. To quote
the budget request, HC-130J is a major contributor to
performance of the Coast Guard's statutory missions with
specific contributions to DHS and the Coast Guard program of
maritime law enforcement, maritime response, defense
operations, and maritime transportation system management.
Admiral, I am probably not the only member of this
subcommittee with this question. But what is the rationale for
eliminating the funding in the 2020 budget request, sir?
Admiral Schultz. So, Congressman, on the HC-130J program,
the HC-130J are absolutely great aircraft. C-130s writ large
are great aircrafts. The Js are going to get us a leap forward
in technology. We fielded the first two Js of the fleet we have
to date up in Alaska, and by the end of this fiscal year, we
will have five C-130J operating from Kodiak. Then we will roll
into our second air station next year out in Barbers Point.
The 2019 omnibus included funding for a 16th C-130J. We are
absolutely appreciative of that. Not a surprise to the
committee, but we have not included the C-130Js in our budget
ask in previous years. That is, as we make top-line decisions,
that is one that just has not been able to fight into the mix.
But the Congress has seen fit that that aircraft is absolutely
essential to our maritime patrol, long-range force laydown,
sir, and I think I will constrain my answer to that.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Thank you, Admiral. Madam
Chairwoman, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, Admiral, it is
good seeing you.
Admiral Schultz. Good to see you, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. We spent a couple days this weekend in my
lower part of my district, in the McAllen area, with Senator
Jon Tester. Let me go over a topic that we talked about
yesterday, and that was--as you know, the Coast Guard has
probably the best re-enlistment rate of any military branch.
Around 92 percent of the first year Coast Guard re-enlisted
last year, and more than 40 percent of the Coast Guard enlisted
recruits are still active after 20 years, and I believe 60
percent of your officers stay active after 20 years or more.
But there seems to be a problem with females, in one
particular category. Coast Guard is losing nearly 50 percent of
the year group between 10 and 12 years of service among your
female officers, and so my question again is, what are we--you
know, why is that happening? And what are you all doing to make
sure we keep them----
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir. Well, thank you for the
question. And thank you for the privilege of traveling with you
throughout lower Texas there. That was very insightful I hope
for Senator Tester. It is always a pleasure for me to get down
there and see what our DHS team is doing, sir.
You know, on women's retention, we are taking the final
results of a women's retention study I believe next week, if
not the following week. This has been a yearlong effort. We are
very excited to better understand decisions women make. If you
look at our ranks, across our ranks, officer, enlisted,
combined, we are less than 15 percent women Coast Guard
employees in the workforce. That is approximately 50 percent.
So we are not competing to maximum advantage that we need to.
What we found in that study in the initial results are, you
know, the first 0 to 4, 0 to 5 years of enlisted member,
woman's career, or female woman officer's career, the pace is
pretty steady. From about 5 years to when you get out here to
the--you know, about the next 12 years of their career, you
start to see a delta. That delta is somewhere between 12
percent and 13 percent. It is pretty consistent in both the
officer and enlisted ranks. So it is not the 50 percent delta,
but it is about a 12 percent difference.
And what we are trying to do is really understand, what do
we have to do in there? And what adjustments can we make to
make sure the Coast Guard is, you know, an employer choice for
all men and women? We do have some challenges there, and I
think the study has helped us understand that.
We went out and did focus groups in more than a dozen
locations in the Coast Guard. We spoke to more than 1,000
women. And this was from Alaska to Hawaii, East and West Coast,
the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico. We had a great dialogue. We
had some men sitting at the table to understand the impacts
that are not just specific to women's retention, so we could
segregate out the facts.
And, sir, I think we have an action plan. I have stood up
when I came onboard here and we have actually got the bodies in
place, a seven-person team, what we call the personal readiness
task force. Sometimes in the past, we have done studies, but we
have not done a good job of actioning studies. This task force
has been poring through the early reads of the plan. They are
waiting for the final results. And we are going to get off to
the races and do some things that make us an employer choice.
Equally so, hopefully we can drive up that women's retention.
And some of that, sir, is more flexible policies, flexible
policies for family members, for child givers, you know,
caregivers. We bumped up--it is 41 days, just shy of 6 weeks,
for child birth, for a new mother, a new parent. And then there
is an additional 41 days, gets you a total of 12 weeks,
secondary caregiver is upwards of 3 weeks. So that is about the
max we can go. I don't think any other service is quite as
forward leaning as that.
We are looking at focusing on areas like child development
centers. That is obviously an issue as we look at this early
results that affects people's lives. We are a geographically
disperse workforce along the coast in many high cost areas.
Childcare ranges from $1,000 a child on the low end to $2,500
on the high end. And the committee was wonderful in giving us
$2 million last year for childcare subsidy. I have got about
1,060 children enrolled in that. And I would say more than 50
percent are in those high-cost areas. So that is is very
helpful. And, sir, we are just leaning in to make a difference
here.
Mr. Cuellar. All right. Well, thank you for that. And just
to finish this, I also appreciate the partnerships that you
have with the minority serving institutions.
Admiral Schultz. Absolutely.
Mr. Cuellar. And if you don't mind, maybe one of your
staffers can give us a list as to who you are working with, we
would appreciate it.
Admiral Schultz. Absolutely.
Mr. Cuellar. Because that is good for pools of applicants,
but also in the STEM areas and other areas it will be helpful,
too.
Admiral Schultz. Absolutely.
Mr. Cuellar. Not only to you, but to your country.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir. We have a lot of good news
stories going on, and we will get you a list of that, and would
welcome your interest in participating with any of those
institutions, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Chair Roybal-Allard.
Admiral, welcome to the committee.
Admiral Schultz. Thank you, congressman.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you for your leadership and the work
you do with the men and women of the Coast Guard as they carry
out their mission. We appreciate it very much. Thanks for the
update today on how things are going.
I am interested in your--I guess your unmanned systems. I
understand that you have had some experience recently with
those. The Stratton, I believe, is the ship that----
Admiral Schultz. Stratton is a national security cutter,
absolutely, sir. We have deployed what we call a small UAS--and
I don't want to get ahead of your question, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. No, that is--I just wanted to give you an
opportunity to talk a little bit about that, educate us
somewhat on how that complements the NSC's operations, and how
could you--or how could we together expedite that?
Admiral Schultz. So with the support of the committee, sir,
we are now fielding a recent contract award in December to
Insitu. They make the ScanEagle. It is a small UAS, about 8-
foot wingspan.
Mr. Newhouse. Just happens to be in Washington State. That
is a coincidence, I am sure.
Admiral Schultz. Sir, you can launch that ScanEagle off the
back of a flight deck on a national security cutter. It is got
about a 12-hour endurance profile. The cutters that have sailed
with that, on some of the prototype work we did, the sailors
don't want to go out without it again. It is that much of a
game-changer. It is terrific.
The National Security Cutter Stratton that you spoke about,
I think, had the ScanEagle involved in about 28 interdictions
tied into the removal of 40,000 pounds of illicit cocaine at
sea.
Mr. Newhouse. Oh, my.
Admiral Schultz. So there is a lot of potential. We are
the--there is a $9.2 million ask in the 2020 budget here that
is before you. That will allow us to put small UAS capability
on two NSCs a year. One of the things I said in my state of the
Coast Guard, I would love to see if there is a means to
possibly accelerate that, because it is truly game-changing
capability.
We are actually doing with a little bit of money we had in
prior years' appropriation. We have done a land-based test in
Puerto Rico back last spring, and here in early April we are
going to do another land-based test down out of Corpus Christi,
TX, as well, so fantastic capability at sea. We are trying to
see what this might do as a land-based opportunity, as well,
sir.
Mr. Newhouse. As well as at sea.
Admiral Schultz. As well as at sea.
Mr. Newhouse. It certainly seems like it extends the reach
of the Coast Guard and it extends your capabilities, so it is
exciting to be able to watch this technology be put in place.
Admiral Schultz. Congressman, we have a national security
cutter in the Eastern Pacific where 85 percent of the drugs
transit at sea. That area is--if you took the United States and
sort of turned it about 30, 40 degrees its axis, that would sit
in the Eastern Pacific. We have the equivalent of about six to
seven ships there on a given day, Coast Guard cutters. That
would be like patrolling North America with six or seven police
cars.
Mr. Newhouse. Wow.
Admiral Schultz. The key enablers there are over the rise
in boats. Our national security cutters can deploy three boats.
It is really maritime patrol, aircraft responding to
intelligence. It is far reaches. These ships are going out west
of the Galapagos. So a maritime patrol airplane comes out there
in response to intelligence, has an hour or 2 on-scene, finds
the target. That national security cutter is still hours away.
The plane runs out of gas. You can use all your planes just
staying on top.
The UAS allows us to bridge that gap. We can get that UAS
50, 70 miles away from the ship. That is 3 or 4 hours of time
you buy where the UAS sits on top, whether it is electrical,
optical, infrared. The smugglers do not see it. The ship can
see what is going on. When they get there and launch their
boats, it is a much safer situation.
So truly game-changing impactful capability, and we are
very appreciative of the committee's support for the
capability.
Mr. Newhouse. Good, good. Well, we look forward to
continuing working with you on that.
Admiral Schultz. Sure, thank you for the question.
Mr. Newhouse. Yeah, thank you for your answer. Thank you,
Madam Chair. I will yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah, first, Admiral, I have a lot of
respect for the Coast Guard. I really didn't work with the
Coast Guard until I came here. You always seem--you seem to be
there for our Americans whenever you need to be. You don't have
a lot of money. I think it was a good move for you to come into
the umbrella of Homeland Security, and I think you are probably
the most competent operation that we have there.
And I hope we can help the others bring up to where you
are. And you have been underfunded. And people on this
committee are going to try to help you any way we can. And I
know the chairman and ranking member feel that way, too.
As you said, I represent a portion of the Coast Guard yard
in Curtis Bay. We were able to secure about $25 million in the
recently passed omnibus to address your need for a new travel
lift. And it is essential infrastructure which will allow those
stationed there to performed dry dock maintenance on their 500-
ton, 150-foot fast response cutters.
Now, this was listed as one of the top three major
acquisition systems, infrastructure projects on the Coast
Guard's unfunded priorities list. My question--does the $25
million cover the full cost of the project? And could you
provide a tentative timeline for its completion?
Admiral Schultz. Absolutely, Mr. Ruppersberger. So, first
off, appreciate the committee's--I think it was $22.5 million
towards that project. We have a program, what we call the RDAP,
recurring depot availability program. We have been doing that
with the 87-foot coastal patrol boats at the yard. It has been
a very great program, great results. We are modeling that for
these new fast response cutters we are fielding.
The $22.5 million buys us the infrastructure for the pier
work, some building work. There is a paint booth component of
that. There is actually about another $5 million piece for the
actual travel lift, but we are going to be able to support that
through the capital working fund the yard has. So that is the
appropriate way to fund that.
So I think, sir, at the end of the day, we should be in
good shape. And I think it is 2021 and 2022--2021 I think will
be--we will have some of that infrastructure work, 2022 we
should have that facility up and running, sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger. All right, the other question I have is
the icebreaker. I know our chairwoman cares very much about
this. The Russians consider the Arctic to be the next frontier,
with environmental changes, ice and permafrost is retreating,
exposing valuable land and navigable waterways. New
opportunities are rising for oil and gas drilling, as well as
access to untouched fisheries.
Now, we have both Russia and China have recognized this
development and are scrambling to establish a foothold in the
region. In this regard, America is coming up short. Russia
currently has 44 working icebreakers, seven of which are
nuclear-powered, while the United States has two in operation.
You just said maybe even one. And I know putting new breakers
in the water is just as high a priority for you as it is for
all of us I think on this committee.
Now, my question is, what impact would an unchecked
Russian-China presence in the Arctic region have on our
national security and sovereignty? Also, there is a moratorium
on fishing and unexplored, untapped oil reserves in the Arctic
outside of our exclusive economic zones. Do you feel that
without American assets in the region, we will be able to
enforce international law and stake our claim to the natural
resources?
And lastly, I have heard in the past that the Coast Guard
needs three heavy and three medium icebreakers to counter
Russia and China's influence in the Arctic. Is this number
still accurate, so we can focus our goals to help you?
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir. Well, let me start in reverse
order. So my strategy--I have talked about consistent with the
high latitude studies has been a minimum of six icebreakers. I
frame that conversation as three that are Polar Security or
heavy breakers, like the one we are talking about awarding here
in the coming weeks, and then three potential medium or less
capable breakers.
There is probably a conversation that is some hybrid of
that, but that is consistent with the high latitude study.
Russia does have upwards of four dozen icebreakers, and your
numbers are correct, seven nuclear, building more breakers.
I would say the Russian Arctic, you know, when you look at
Russia's border in the Arctic, they do have a long Arctic
region. We are not sensing Arctic presence here off of the U.S.
Alaska Arctic. But Russia is deriving 20 percent of their GDP
from the Arctic. They are re-establishing themselves in bases.
They are looking at taxing northern sea routes, shipping.
So they are going to derive a lot of economic benefit,
which makes Russia a more difficult global partner here, I
think, when their economy gets stronger. Right now, they are
meddlesome. With more resources, they are more meddlesome, more
globally reaching.
Up in the Arctic here off Alaska, where we are really
looking to project more presence. You know, presence does equal
influence. China has been up there, you know, 4 of the last 6
or 7 years with the Xue Long, their research ship. They have
just launched the second icebreaker, the Xue Long 2, last
summer. I anticipate that being operational in the not-too-
distant future. They are talking about building a heavy
breaker.
They are not an Arctic nation. They are a near Arctic self-
declared state. And they are up there. They are doing--you
know, obviously, they have interest. They are paying attention
to us fielding fifth-generation fighters to places like
Elmendorf. They are paying attention what we are doing with
undersea cabling.
As you mentioned, Arctic is rich in natural resource. About
13 percent of the untapped petroleum are in fairly shallow
water depths up there for potential deriving here for our
energy needs, 30 percent of the untapped LNG, trillion dollars
of rich minerals that we care about. So the Arctic is a
geostrategically important place, sir. And we do need to pay
attention what China is doing.
China is also in the high latitudes of Antarctica. They are
building additional science stations down there. And I think
the Coast Guard, as the face of the U.S. surface capability in
the high latitudes, you know, we can't get there fast enough.
My strategy was six, three, one. The one was now. And with the
help of this committee, we are going to get after that one
here. So that is a great--this is 12 years in the making, and
we are very appreciative of the committee's support.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I know the chairwoman feels that
way, too, so this committee is going to try to help you any way
we can because it is national security.
Admiral Schultz. Thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Because I call on Mr. Palazzo--I
apologize for that discussion that was back here--but we are
being told that votes are going to be in just a few minutes. So
it will be an additional 15 minutes that we will have. So if
everybody can ask their questions the first round, and because
otherwise you may have to be here for a half hour to 45
minutes.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, ma'am. I will try to shorten my
answers, too, ma'am. I apologize.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. So, Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Commandant----
Admiral Schultz. Good to see you, sir.
Mr. Palazzo. Great to see you, too. Really appreciate what
your coasties are doing. I know the shutdown was tough on them
and their families, and hopefully moving forward legislatively
we can find a way that that doesn't happen again. But we
appreciate their service and especially their sacrifice. Please
pass that message along on behalf of this whole committee. I
think one--you are going to find some bipartisanship when it
comes to our Coast Guard here.
My remarks pretty much aren't new to your predecessor. I
think I have asked some of these same questions. And there has
been a lot of talk about the southern border, but there is also
a maritime border. And I think coast states and eastern and
pacific, as well, it is a border that we take very seriously.
And I know just from news reports in February of 2019, I
believe you all, the Coast Guard sees 17 tons of cocaine, that
is almost 35,000 pounds of street value of almost $500 million.
And I think the more that we squeeze the southern border to
secure it, to protect Americans, we may be seeing some
increased activity on our seas and in our maritime domains.
Can you tell me a little bit about what the Coast Guard is
doing on the war on drugs? Again, last year, you seized--more
than half of all cocaine seizures came from the United States
Coast Guard, which, by the way, thank you for keeping those
deadly drugs out of our communities and out of our states. I
think it is extremely important. But I will give you a moment
to talk about it.
Admiral Schultz. Sure. Well, Congressman, I would say
this. Thank you for the support. I mentioned earlier we
interdicted about 209 metric tons last year. If you look at the
last 3 years, 1.4 million pounds of illicit, uncut cocaine. We
rolled up about 1,600 smugglers at sea. Our Coast Guard
strategy is to push the border far from U.S. shores. So we push
the border about 1,500 miles off the coast of southern
California, off the Gulf Coast.
We interdict large loads of cocaine at sea when most
vulnerable. Those drugs--their destination isn't California by
sea. Their destination is Mexico. Their destination is
Guatemala, El Salvador, the Central American corridor, where it
gets broken down into smaller loads, associated violence,
corruption. It creates instability in governments. So those are
the push factors that have people, families like ourselves with
children that live in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, the
northern triangle country, that make the difficult decision,
because there is no future for their children in their home
countries, to send them up through Mexico to try to get to the
southwest land border in Texas and California.
So our work, I think, is absolutely seminal. It is
apolitical work. I think there is bipartisan agreement that
stopping those drugs at sea do help the push factors. And we
are very proud of the work we do down there. We partner with--
CBP provides, you know, almost 40 percent, 50 percent of the
maritime patrol aircraft.
We partner with international--with U.S. Southern Command.
So I am a force provider of the Coast Guard to SOUTHCOM. We
commit to four ships around the calendar year. We strive to be
somewhere six to eight ships. We are about 6.7, 7 plus the last
couple years, and we remain committed. It is consistent with
our Western Hemisphere strategy, sir, and we remain committed
to the fight.
Mr. Palazzo. And we are glad you are committed to that
fight, and we want to give you the continued resources.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Palazzo. Whether it is ships or technology or the
UAS's that Congressman Newhouse mentioned, to expand your
ability to--I want my colleagues to have time to answer, but I
can't pass this question up. The Jones Act, why is it important
to our economic and national security?
Admiral Schultz. Sir, the Jones Act--my predecessors have
stood for the Jones Act. The Jones Act is important to the
security of the nation. The merchant fleet here, our ability to
move military supplies in a military outload to support--let's
say we had a large theater war in the Pacific and that part of
the world. That is important.
You know, I think economically, you know, folks have
invested in that. The Jones Act gets attacked that there are
cheaper ways to do business. I would say, I think there is a
lot. The Jones Act has been in place here for about 100 years
here, and it serves a very important--continually important
service.
I think before there is any meddling with the Jones Act,
people should really step back and have an informed
conversation about all the puts and takes and the impacts to
national security.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Commandant. I yield back.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Admiral. Good to have you here with
us. I will shorten my comments here and ask a question very
quickly. I think it is an important question.
I don't want to pass by the opportunity to thank you for
the good work your people did in North Carolina and the
Carolinas generally with Hurricane Florence last summer. They
saved many lives in my state, and we once again--the Coast
Guard distinguished itself in these disaster----
Admiral Schultz. Sir, we are pleased to partner with your
very capable emergency response folks in the state of North
Carolina. It is a good team effort down there.
Mr. Price. Yes, sir. We know that is true, but you are the
best, and we are very grateful. I want to move directly to your
operations and support budget, which has been basically flat-
lined for the last 8 years. In your state of the Coast Guard
2019 message, you mentioned that this has resulted--and I am
quoting you now--this has resulted in deferred maintenance, a
strained and undersized workforce, and antiquated information
systems.
Let me, if I might, stress the workforce piece of that and
ask you to comment on it. You are an extraordinary
organization. You have always done more with less. But that
shouldn't preclude you from getting the funding increases you
need. It doesn't make sense that you are providing--we are
funding new vessels. We are funding new functions. But without
an increase in maintenance funding, support for your personnel
and their families, it just doesn't fit. All need to go
together.
So we want to know how we can best help you achieve your
workforce goals. Where do you see the most urgent, unmet needs?
And what is the overall challenge you have with respect to
recruiting and retaining personnel? Are your benefits
competitive? Are your salary increases competitive? I mean,
what would be your prescription? More money, yes, but more--but
maybe spending that money in some strategic ways. What would
you suggest for addressing these needs?
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir, thank you for that question.
Consistent with my comment to the chairwoman about, you know,
retention of women, we need to recruit in different places. We
need to retain more--recruit and retain more underrepresented
minorities, more women. There are some resource components, you
know, recruiting, more recruiting officers.
We cut back our recruiting officers years back to make
space for capital assets. I would say when you look across the
DOD services, tuition assistance is a benefit they give their
folks, so you can do some college work and derive a benefit. We
have capped our tuition assistance for active-duty members at
50 percent. We were doing this every year, and it was very
frustrating folks. We just said we can't get above 50 percent.
That is a competitive tool.
With the support of the--with the 2020 budget includes $2.7
million to do tuition assistance for reservists. We have not
offered a reservist tuition assistance in more than a decade.
So if you are a young member in the Coast Guard and you have
served your nation 4 years, 8 years, but there are other life
callings you want to do, family situations don't always serve,
I would like a reservist to look--or Coast Guard active duty
member look and say, boy, I really love the culture, I love the
work, but I have other things in my life. I have to take care
of ailing parents. It is not, you know, my spouse's career.
Offering tuition assistance to reservists is an attractive
thing to keep them in. Right now they are jumping ship and
going to go join the National Guard, drill in their local
armory. We require them to drive 300 miles to drill because we
don't have reserve people everywhere, but that ability to offer
the reservists some tuition assistance is game-changing.
I talked about child development centers. We really--you
know, we don't live on big bases. If you go over here to JBAB,
Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, they have a state-of-the-art
facility. They feed the kids. They are investing. They are
hearing the noise about housing across the nation. There is a
clarion call on DOD with all the defense leaders when they come
up here about, what are you doing with housing? Less than 10
percent of my workforce is in housing. Some of that housing is
old. We have had very little money to invest in that housing.
We have got a $1.7 billion backlog, so we are fixing broken
roofs on buildings. But those things all, you know, factor into
people's willingness to stay. It is the best workforce,
brightest workforce we have ever seen. One of the big assets
that will be coming forward in the 2020 budget has $14 million
in the PC&I line item is for IT, or what we call C5I
infrastructure, command, control, communications, computers,
cyber, and intelligence. That used to be C2 when I was a young
guy, command and control. But now our mission platform that
supports all our technology is very old, congressman, and we
have got to make some investments.
So I think all these things factor into a Coast Guard that
is attractive to the best and brightest in America. We have no
trouble recruiting people. I want those people to stay in. And
Congressman Cuellar talked about, you know, almost 40 percent
are enlisted people go to 20, 58 percent of our officers go to
20. Blended retirements start on the 1st of January, so at 12
years now, you do a thrift savings plan, you derive a 2 percent
benefit a year, so you get 40 percent plus your TSB, it is
going to be hard to get folks to 20 unless they see the Coast
Guard really committed.
It is electronic health records. There is money in the 2020
budget for that. We are appreciative. It is a sufficient number
of docs and things like that, sir. So a lot of those things
speak to that attractiveness and being an employer of choice.
Mr. Price. Good, thank you.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Admiral, and thank you, Chairwoman. I
will try to speed up my phrasing of the questions. Thank you
for your service. Wanted to talk a little bit more about the
workforce diversity in terms of if the Coast Guard is planning
to allocate any funds, any steps you will be taking.
And I know that the Coast Guard is releasing a study on the
retention of women. And is there anything like that in the
works in relation to diversity and recruitment?
Admiral Schultz. Yes, ma'am. So working backwards, based on
this study, it was through the HOSAC, working with Rand, our
homeland security advisory group, we intend to launch a study I
think as soon as this summer, an underrepresented minority
study, about retention, attracting and retaining
underrepresented minorities. We are using this women's
retention study trying to get that perfected. I thought we
would have these results maybe before the end of the last
calendar year. With the shutdown, we lost a little time, but
now we are kind of doing the puts and takes. We will get the
final results.
That will help us get out the door more effectively. So
that is coming. This personal readiness task force is an action
body. So you are going to see some--I made some announcements
last week about where we have women, moms, new parents that
step out of the workforce. In the past, if you are a small
geographically remote unit, small number of people, and you are
a woman and you are pregnant and you step out to go take care
of your new child or adjust to your new family situation, there
is a certain pressure on you, because your colleagues kind of
feel like you are jumping ship.
And now we are going to take reserve surge capacity, send a
body to that chair--the work goes on, you can step out, we are
trying to create a space where family and work are not mutually
exclusive. You can find the balance. We are supportive. We are
working on more permeability for the workforce, more
flexibility.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, sir.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Just real briefly, Admiral, specific to the
kind of SOUTHCOM, you know, AOR in the Pacific, it is my
understanding that our ability to identify drug smuggling in
the Pacific, building off of what Mr. Palazzo was talking
about, is far greater than our capacity to interdict.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aguilar. And so a good day on the water is equivalent
to--from a value and a tonnage perspective, probably a year at
a port of entry. And so what more can we do to assist in these
efforts? We know you partner with other countries, and that is
amazing, but what can we do? And is this an issue of we need
more ships? Would adding a naval LCS to these efforts help, as
well?
Admiral Schultz. Well, I would say this, Congressman.
Thanks for your question. Absolutely, that is part of the
conversation here. The ships that we are building, continuing
to focus on recapitalizing our offshore patrol cutters,
replacing those 52-year-old, soon to be 60-year 210 cutters,
the 30-plus-year-old 270s, the OPC program, if we can maintain
momentum on that, that is essential. Things like the small UAS
that Congressman Newhouse, asked about, potentially some
longer-range MQ-9-type capabilities. We are interested in that.
Maritime patrol aircraft, the C-130s are absolute contributors
to that. CBP, continued support for CB pier and marine.
I think those are the key enablers. You know, we can always
use more ships. I am not going to sit here and say, you know, a
Navy combatant--I understand the demands on the CNO. He has got
an increasingly difficult--Russia, we talked about that
earlier. He has got a lot of challenge and problem sets in the
South China Sea. The Navy lost a couple missile shooters here,
you know, the Fitzgerald and the McCain.
So I would say maintaining momentum on what we are doing
and some of the people things I think would make us the most
ready Coast Guard we could be.
Mr. Aguilar. We would love to talk about future resources.
Thank you.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, sir, thank you.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Admiral, I apologize for us all having
to leave.
Admiral Schultz. Madam Chairwoman, I understand.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. We will submit others for the record.
Admiral Schultz. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And thank you very much.
Admiral Schultz. And thank you for the privilege of being
here. Thank you.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, April 2, 2019.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
HON. DAVID PEKOSKE, ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION SERCURITY
ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The Subcommittee on Homeland Security
will come to order.
Administrator Pekoske, I want to welcome you to your first
hearing before this subcommittee.
We are pleased to have you testifying before us today.
Members of the public likely interact with the TSA and its
employees more than any other component of the Department of
Homeland Security.
While air travelers do not always express their gratitude
during the process, we do appreciate what the TSA and its
employees do to protect our nation.
During the partial government shutdown earlier this year,
TSA personnel worked without pay. This was a burden for
transportation security officers, in particular, because they
earn much less than other civil servants. TSA workers overcame
great personal hardship to continue carrying out their duties.
There were even reports of personnel sleeping in their cars
because they could not afford the costs of continuing to come
work.
I hope you will convey our continued support and
appreciation for your workforce. I know that you share our
concerns and have been an advocate for them.
After making significant new investments in your workforce
and to equip it with advanced security technologies in the bill
for the fiscal year 2019, I was disappointed to see that the
president's fiscal year 2020 budget proposes a cut to TSA's
funding.
Many of the cuts are repeats from the past 2 years based on
the elimination of activities that the Congress has repeatedly
voted to continue--the Visible Intermodal Prevention and
Response teams, known as VIPR; the law enforcement officer
reimbursement program; and TSA staffing at exit lanes.
There is also a disconcerting mismatch between the budget
and the expected growth in travelers, and once again, the
budget relies on a proposal to increase the passenger security
fee, which is outside of the jurisdiction of this committee and
is unlikely to be enacted.
Mr. Administrator, I know the budget request reflects the
funding limitations you are forced to live under, but it will
be difficult to fill in the funding holes that the budget
creates. We look forward to hearing more about the budget
request for fiscal year 2020 and whether it would provide the
resources that you need to support your critical missions.
Thank you again for joining us, and I look forward to our
discussion. I would now like to turn it over to the
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, Ranking Member
Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Madam Chair, thank you, and, Mr.
Administrator, thank you. I apologize for the delay. We have
been voting on the floor. It has been extremely busy today.
Mr. Administrator, I echo the chairwoman's thanks for
coming to testify before the subcommittee today on the
Transportation Security Administration's fiscal year 2020
budget request. Thank you, sir, for reaching out last week to
meet with me and my staff in your budget priorities. I really
appreciated that. Put a lot of things in perspective.
I know we talked about this when we met, but I just wanted
to reiterate on the record what an outstanding job the TSA team
does in Chattanooga at the Chattanooga Airport. I actually told
them that I met with you and I appreciate that.
With all the traveling we do between our districts and DC,
you can have a great experience or a lousy experience, and
often that experience can start with the TSA screening process.
For many Americans, TSA might be the only face-to-face
interaction they have with a homeland security employee. You
have a great group in Chattanooga, sir.
I will have some questions as we move into that part of the
hearing. I look forward to your testimony, sir, and I thank you
for your time today. Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you. Before your testimony, just a
few--I look forward to your testimony. And we will put the full
statement into the record.
Mr. Pekoske. Chairman Roybal-Allard, Ranking Member
Fleischmann, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you very much for the opportunity to appear before you this
afternoon concerning the president's fiscal year 2020 budget
request for TSA. I value your oversight and support and thank
you for your critical contribution to our mission's success.
It is an honor and privilege to lead the men and women of
TSA, and I very much appreciate both of your comments on the
TSA workforce this afternoon. In my view, they embody our core
values of integrity, respect, and commitment, and as both of
you have mentioned, that commitment was so plainly evident
during the recent 35-day lapse in appropriations.
I am immensely proud of this team of professionals who
include screeners, explosive experts, canine handlers,
intelligence and vetting personnel, domestic and international
inspectors, federal air marshals, providers of critical support
services, and a highly skilled headquarters staff. It is our
mission to ensure that our transportation systems used by
hundreds of millions of people per year and a lifeblood of our
economy remain secure. We are hard at work, and with your help,
to provide better security faster.
This includes the CT, or CAT scan X-ray technology you
funded in fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 for carryon
bags at our screening checkpoints, and its continuation in the
president's budget request for fiscal 2020. It also includes
the credential authentication technology, or commonly referred
to as CAT by its acronym, that you similarly supported to
strengthen our performance at the very first position in our
screening checkpoints, the increase in the numbers of screeners
to reflect the strong and sustained growth in passenger air
travel, and increases in our canine capability for both
passenger and air cargo screening.
The fiscal year 2020 request seeks $7.2 billion, partially
offset by $4.2 billion from the aviation passenger security
fee. It has two overarching priorities. The first is continued
investment in checkpoint technology, in particular the CT, or
CAT scan technology, and the credential authentication
technology. And I will talk about each one separately for just
a few moments.
First, with respect to the CT, or CAT scan X-ray
technology, 5 days ago, we were awarded our first major
contract for 300 X-ray systems. Your demonstration of support
for this long-term acquisition was key to our success in
obtaining a price that was substantially less than our budget
estimates. Not only will this technology provide vastly
superior security, but it will also be more convenient for
passengers, eventually eliminating the requirement for
passengers to take laptops, liquids, aerosols, and gels out of
their carryon bags. The fiscal year 2020 request contains $221
million for approximately 320 more of these X-ray machines and
the associated baggage handling systems.
The second piece of the technology is the credential
authentication technology. And the fiscal 2020 budget continues
the large-scale investment in this technology, deploying
approximately 500 additional CAT units that will improve
identity and travel verification, improve risk management, and
also result in more convenience for passengers who will no
longer need to present their boarding pass in most situations
at the screening checkpoint.
The second key priority, first being technology, the second
is right-sizing our workforce. As you have noted, commercial
air travel continues to grow at 5 percent per year. This
requires an increase in the size of our screener workforce and
the staff who support them. This budget seeks over 1,000
additional screener positions that will allow us to maintain
our screening throughput standards.
Additionally, we have been hard at work in raising the
global bar of aviation security. This effort is focused on
security measures at the 280-plus last point of departure, or
LPD, airports around the world. An increase in our
international footprint is needed and is requested in this
budget.
Finally, to respond to a changing threat, we revised our
concept of operations for the federal air marshal service that
allows us to make a modest downward adjustment to the size of
this very important component of TSA, while enhancing
operational effectiveness.
I would also note that we have identified efficiencies in
certain aspects of TSA operations that results in approximately
$160 million of program reductions to partially offset the need
for growth in other areas.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss TSA's
resource needs at today's hearing. I hope you and your staffs
have found us very responsive to your requests for information.
I am committed to being as open and transparent as possible and
am always available to discuss any aspect of TSA's operations
with you.
I look forward to responding to your questions this
afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pekoske follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you. Administrator, as I mentioned
during my opening statement, TSOs and other TSA personnel
diligently worked without pay during the recent partial
government shutdown. Can you tell us how TSA managed this and
kept its workforce on the job and whether the shutdown has had
an impact on recruitment or retention?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. The way we managed it is
multifold. First and foremost, one of the things that I saw
when I first came into this position over a year-and-a-half
ago, as I traveled around the airports around the country, was
the deep commitment of the men and women of TSA to the mission.
This is a mission that compels performance on the part of men
and women in this agency.
As I said in my opening statement, I saw that commitment up
close and personal during the 35-day lapse in appropriation. I
think that was a significant driver for people to continue when
it was very hard to report for work and do a very difficult
job, but they all recognize how critical it is to the safety
and security of passengers going through our systems.
Additionally, thanks to the authority that you provided in
law, we have a 2-year appropriation for our operations
accounts. And so that allowed me to use unobligated fiscal 2018
funds, and we were able to do a number of novel things as a
result. We were able to, for example, provide bonuses to our
frontline screening workforce, with the idea to get as much
cash into their checking accounts as we possibly could. And so
that was one aspect that we were able to exercise because of
the unique authorities that TSA has.
Additionally, we were hugely rewarded, I think, by our
airline and airport partners for the dedication of that
workforce. Across the entire system, we had expressions of
generosity and donations of food and other support to our
frontline workforce that really was very meaningful to them.
Additionally, passengers as they were going through the
screening checkpoints, recognized the fact that the screeners
that they encountered, if they are a regular traveler on a very
routine basis, were now working, going on at the very end of
the shutdown for almost 5 weeks without receiving pay. And just
the expressions of appreciation, gratitude, and the fact that
passengers expressed that they valued the work that the TSA
workforce was performing meant an awful lot to the workforce.
Finally, I would say that from my perspective my focus is
always going to be on the frontline of the organization. And I
have asked all of the leaders within TSA to similarly focus on
the frontline, to walk around, have a conversation, understand
what challenges our employees might be dealing with, and do
whatever they can to remedy them. And so we have essentially
used the authorities the Congress has provided to the fullest
extent of the law, and I think that has paid us big dividends.
And the shutdown impact, with respect to attrition, has
been so far actually less attrition, but I am fully mindful of
the fact that, you know, individuals sometimes make a decision
to stay or leave employment with an employer, but don't
exercise that action for several months afterwards. And so we
are going to keep a very close eye on our attrition rates. But
so far, immediately after the shutdown, they are lower than
what we have had in the past.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And what lessons did you learn
during this period that would be relevant in the future if we
have another shutdown or some similar type of situation?
Mr. Pekoske. A couple of key lessons. One is, first and
foremost, to continue to have that appropriations flexibility,
so that we can look at 2 years' worth of appropriations versus
just one. The second is to take a look at potentially--and I
know there are a number of bills up here on the hill--to look
at potentially making the aviation passenger security fee
available to TSA either on a regular basis or during a lapse in
appropriations. And that would give us a funding base to be
able to pay the men and women within the agency.
The other thing that is really important to emphasize here
is that the screening workforce comprises the vast majority of
TSA, roughly 50,000 of 63,000 employees. But there are an awful
lot of employees that were also similarly working that weren't
visible to passengers. And they were also impacted by the
shutdown. This includes all of our personnel that do vetting
operations, that basically look at passenger information before
passengers board flights to be able to assess risk by
passenger.
All of our Federal air marshals that provide in-flight
security. All of our inspectors at airports around the country
that ensure airports and airlines are complying with the
regulations we have put in place. And then finally, all of our
international staff that--we have a number of measures in place
at those last point of departure airports that I mentioned,
that has been a significant work driver. Two hundred and eighty
airports and we have four series of different requirements at
those airports.
And so the entire organization really pulled together. But
I think it really--at the end of the day--boils down to
continued, sustained leadership involvement and leadership
action with respect to our employees and then the leaders
having the flexibility to be able to ensure that the frontlines
are able to deliver the services that are so important to the
public.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr.
Administrator, hello again. Mr. Administrator, I have a
question. I am concerned about the threat posed by the largely
unmonitored movement of high-ranking hazardous materials on our
nation's highway network and about TSA's difficulty to address
this vulnerability as directed by Congress and as required by
law.
Section 1554 of the 9/11 Act of 2007, Motor Carrier
Security Sensitive Material Tracking, requires the TSA, sir, to
develop a program to facilitate the tracking of highway
security sensitive materials, HSSMs. Currently, I understand
that the TSA has no visibility in the movement of these
dangerous materials on the nation's highways.
Compounding this, I understand that TSA lacks the basic
programmatic data on the shipments, the number of shipments,
quantities shipped, and the original destination and routing of
the shipments. Mr. Administrator, I was pleased with the
commitment you actually made, sir, during your confirmation
hearing to revisit the surface security provisions of the 9/11
Act and to implement those that TSA has yet to address.
However, TSA has not prioritized this R&D program and worked
stopped about a year-and-a-half ago with the Fedtrak R&D
project about half completed.
I understand that there has been some preliminary
discussion around an approach to implement a tracking center in
an industry-funded public-private partnership at no cost to the
taxpayer. My question, can you tell me what, if any, plans TSA
has to restart and complete the work on Fedtrak R&D?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. Thank you for your question. And
also thank you for your comments about the Chattanooga
workforce.
And I did talk to the federal security director for that
airport and personal relay the comments that you made, and he
was very appreciative of your comments and your involvement and
your support of TSA.
With respect to your question, I said at my confirmation
hearing that I am very concerned about the level of effort that
TSA is able to put forth with surface transportation security
writ large, whether it is trucking, freight rail, mass transit,
pipelines, over the road buses.
And one of the things that we have done to address that is
we are in the midst of a restructuring which will put under the
direct control of an assistant administrator for surface
transportation security operations, so we elevated the position
up a notch that oversees surface. And then we are also in the
process of giving that assistant administrator direct control
over a lot more resources than she previously had direct
control over. And this includes all of our surface inspectors
that are basically collocated with our inspectors at airports
around the country and also a regional staff to be able to work
closely with FEMA for contingency planning and response and
also for surface transportation security.
Additionally, I know from looking at my own budget that we
are underinvested in research and development. And that is
something that is not reflected in the fiscal 2020 budget,
because we are not ready yet to put specific initiatives
forward to do that, but we will be in our fiscal 2021 budget.
And this applies both at the screening checkpoint and also at
our surface transportation efforts.
And so I pledge to you that I will keep a very close eye on
this, and you will see as we complete our restructuring a
significant increase in the resources directly attributable to
the surface training security.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir, thank you. And as a follow-up,
can you speak to the potential return to the taxpayer in terms
of preventing a serious incident, sir?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir, and that is something we are always
very mindful of is the--you know, the ROI is enormous on almost
every aspect of what TSA performs. And we do have, in my view,
a very robust risk assessment and risk management process that
kind of looks across the spectrum of what we are asked to
secure and makes decisions as to where we need to spend that
next available dollar so we do get the highest return on
investment for the taxpayer.
But that is the constant part of our process. And I just
recently amended the risk assessment and management process to
the point where annually it is briefed to me and my senior
staff as to what risks we think we are facing and how we are
going to manage and mitigate those risks, and then quarterly
updates after that, so it is constantly on our plate as we look
at our own resource allocations, our own policy decisions, that
we keep that in clear focus.
Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Administrator, thank you. I believe my
time is up. Madam Chairman, I will reserve for round two.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Sure. First, thanks for being here.
When TSA first started, there were a lot of problems. I
think that there wasn't really adequate training, and I think
also there needed to be a theme with the people who worked
really on the frontline that they were in the service business,
they were representing homeland security, and that there is a
way to deal with your job and working with people, and that has
changed. I think TSA, whether under your leadership or before,
but I see that you have better training. I think the people--I
fly out of BWI airport a lot in Baltimore, but the people are
really friendly, they do the job the best they can, and they
are professional. And that is what you want, because they are
still representing the government.
So whatever you are doing there, keep it up. And I want to
acknowledge the employees of--and again, I am sorry that
unfortunately for different reasons--I am not going to get into
any politics here--but that you couldn't be paid while you were
working. And that can't--should not happen again.
I want to get into the issue of--I think you have expedited
the recurring process for fielding computed tomography, CT
technology, known as a gold standard in the aviation security.
You know, I was a former ranking member of the Intelligence
Committee and done a lot with terrorism, and to this day, I
still think that one of the key areas for terrorists is the
airplane. And so you have that burden with you, and you have
got to keep up that on a regular basis. And I hope you are
communicating with intelligence agencies and other groups, too.
I am also pleased that you have just bought over 300
technology screening with Smiths Detection. Why I am pleased
about that, they are in my district. So I want to make sure
that it was a competitive bid and all that, okay, just to
cover. But they--tell us why you picked them and why their
technology is so good.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. Well, CT----
Mr. Ruppersberger. And I have one other question, so try to
make it quick.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. CT is a game-changer for us and the
screening checkpoints. It provides an image that is much
clearer for the operators to see and you can move that image
around 360 degrees, so you can see bag and look at it in the
opposite direction, see underneath. That is why laptops don't
need to come out of carryon bags.
Mr. Ruppersberger. That is good.
Mr. Pekoske. It is huge. And not only that, but the ability
to detect explosive levels that we are concerned about is night
and day compared to the current technology that is out there.
So the current contract award, very pleased with the way that
process went. We did it within a year, which is unheard of in
federal procurement. We were able to do that because we had a
great staff to be able to execute on it. We had great support
from the Department of Homeland Security. And also our private-
sector vendors and our private-sector partners, airlines and
airports, were all in on this, very, very competitive process.
And you saw the results.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah, I have my next--whole back and
neck--I have two artificial shoulders, two new knees, and five
screws in each foot. That is an orthopedic surgeon's dream.
But, you know, I always got nailed every time. And with that
new--when you put up, it seems that you passed through that
without all of the checking and that type of thing.
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir----
Mr. Ruppersberger. I would give that as an example. You
don't need to talk about that, my body----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pekoske. Well, we have a solution we are looking at for
that, too.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Good, well, that is great. The other
thing I want to get into is--and this is a little bit more
controversial--local airports employ able and component
security guards, but the level of training at TSA is so
superior to--second-to-none right now in this agency. And I
believe your agency should be staffing exit lanes. That is a
controversial issue, because the president's budget cut that,
and they did the same last year.
And the--last year, I think Congress was able to put in $77
million back in the budget. And again, we are dealing with it
again. And, you know, hopefully our colleagues come together
and push for full funding. And this is not a cost that the
regional airports can really afford and a lot of the other
things that they have to deal with.
Customs and Border Protection is using the same mechanism
to our seaports. I represent the Port of Baltimore, too, to
pass the buck to local governments. And there are certain
responsibilities we have and so we are going to attempt to do
what we can to protect our country, but my opinion, now, I
don't want to put you in a bad situation, especially with the
boss you have. You never know where he is going to be
sometimes, and so you don't have to comment on this.
I just want to say that we really feel that this should be
your responsibility. We have got money in the budget last year,
and we are going to try to do it again this year. I am saving
you, son. I don't want you to have to comment on this.
Yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Welcome, Administrator Pekoske. I am sure I
am going to say that wrong. Well, thank you for being here. You
have a unique position, I guess, at least at TSA of being kind
of the face of the federal government to a lot of people in
this country. And it is an opportunity, and I just want to
compliment your staff being as professional and efficient as
they are when I go through airports, and also for providing
that positive face of the federal government to the general
public. So thank you for the hard work that you have in front
of you, but also for the professional way you carry it about.
So I wanted to follow up a little bit on the chair's
question, even though I wasn't in the room. I understand the
question of retention was part of what you were thinking. One
of the concerns are that some airports continue to face the
difficulty of retaining TSOs, particularly on a dynamic hot
economy, competing.
In the Seattle region, in particular, of course, whenever I
fly in and out of twice a week, I know you have been able to do
temporary bonuses and some retention incentives for tight labor
markets like that. But I am curious how this budget proposal
will allow you to tackle some maybe larger reforms of less
temporary things to change how you might address this issue,
perhaps increased compensation could really lead to better
retention of TSOs.
So in light of that, can you tell me what maybe some of the
long-term goals are at the TSA to recruit and retain, and also
certainly how we can help implement and expedite that plan?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for your
comments. And Seattle Tacoma Airport is a very, very busy
airport, and we place a lot of emphasis on making sure we have
the proper staff there, because of the volumes that are going
through that airport, and also the proper number of canine
teams to help us with security.
There are several things, though, that we are doing with
respect to the workforce. I think you are right that our
attrition rates are too high. And Chairwoman Roybal-Allard had
the same observation. And that is due to a number of factors,
including the pay levels and including some of the things that
we do within TSA that are totally within our control to be able
to adjust.
When TSA was formed in 2001, the law that is the baseline
for TSA was signed by President Bush on November 19, 2001, so a
very short period of time from 9/11 until the establishment of
the agency. That Aviation and Transportation Security Act
provided an awful lot of authorities to the TSA administrator
to be able to manage the screening workforce. And what I am
looking to do is to be able to exercise the full extent of
those authorities to be able to improve job satisfaction within
the workforce, to be able to look at overall pay and
compensation issues, so that we begin to address them in a
systematic way.
To get at that, we have already put out a TSO,
transportation security officer, career progression plan.
Because when I came into the agency, there was really no career
mapped out for somebody who came in and wanted to be a member
of the screening workforce. And so we mapped that out. We
published it. We came to this subcommittee and asked for some
reprogrammings to be able to execute it.
Mr. Newhouse. So illustrating where a person could be in 5
or 10 or 15 years?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. As a member of the screening
workforce and also what training we would provide them, what
pay raises would come along with that, and also within TSA--you
know, I mentioned in my opening statement all of the different
aspects of performance in TSA, you know, vetting, federal air
marshals, international inspectors. We are doing a much better
job now of laying out those opportunities to the workforce so
that they know that, hey, if I aspire to be an inspector, for
example, that I do have a career path that allows me to do
that.
The other thing that we are doing that is very significant
is, I have convened a blue ribbon panel to look at our delivery
of human capital services within the agency. That panel is due
to report back out to me within the next 30 to 60 days. And I
asked them just to take an independent look at how we manage
our human capital and come back with some recommendations. That
will be the basis for how we proceed with respect to resource
issues going forward, but I will give you a very good example
of that.
I have all the authority in the world under law to provide
longevity increases for my employees. By and large, we don't do
that, however, because we were constrained by categorizations
of funding in the budget. But I can provide longevity increases
every 52 weeks, which is much better than the general schedule
can. It is every 2 or 3 years.
And so I want to step back and take a look at, hey, what
makes sense for longevity? Where do we reach the point where
people we know are making decisions as to whether they stay or
they go? And ensure that we recognize experience at those key
critical points. And I would be happy to come back to this
subcommittee once I have that blue ribbon panel report and just
lay out for you what they said, independent group of folks not
employed by TSA who are experts in human capital management.
Final thing is that my focus is on leadership and on
properly taking care of the entire workforce. And that is where
I ask all my leaders to focus their time, as well, so that we
are keenly aware of what the needs of the workforce are.
Mr. Newhouse. Good, good. Well, I would be certainly
interested in seeing that if it comes available, and also
looking for ways that we can work with you as you meet the
growing needs of travelers in the country and the growth at
airports that we are seeing, as well. So thank you very much
for your questions. I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Price.
Mr. Price. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome,
Administrator. We are happy to have you, and appreciate your
testimony.
Let me turn to the area of general aviation and ask about
your work in that area, and in cooperation with general
aviation stakeholders. The recently enacted FAA reauthorization
act included provisions which encouraged more focus on TSA's
efforts with general aviation airports and operators, and
specifically encourages a dedicated general aviation
representative. And part of the rationale for such a dedicated
staff person is the desire to support general aviation's
efforts to encourage and improve secure operations.
This includes efforts to modernize existing security
programs, particularly in specialized areas, like the DCA
access standard security program and gateway airports, which
are used to provide access during temporary flight restrictions
for special events and so on. A number of these efforts
underway.
I think it is fair to say that the progress in most of them
has been limited so far. So that leads to my question. What
steps are being taken by TSA to encourage modernization and use
of these programs in a responsive and timely manner for
stakeholders? How are you prioritizing programs such as DASSP,
gateway, and other security programs used by general aviation
aircraft to increase operational flexibility?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. We spend a lot of time making sure
that any interest group having to do with aviation security or
surface transportation security has a clear entry point into
the TSA organization and somebody that can champion their
issues so that would be an expert and be able to reflect on a
short notice question generally what that segment of the
industry would desire.
Additionally, we have the Aviation Security Advisory
Committee that is a group of volunteers who has provided
invaluable advice to me as the administrator. And I use them
extensively. And I know general aviation interests are well
represented there.
I have met with individuals from the general aviation
industry over the course of my time as the administrator. I am
very familiar with the concerns that they have. We did, in
fact, look very specifically at the DC special access area and
the regulations attendant there, too, and determined that what
we had in place made sense given the threat that we still see.
But we said that we would be willing to look at ways that we
could provide an equivalent level of security by potentially
doing something a little bit differently.
And that is generally an approach that we have taken with
industry, is to say, hey, here is the security outcome that we
need to achieve. This is our mission. This is the outcomes that
we need to achieve. And then how would you propose that we
achieve those outcomes? Because I want to hear from the
industry as to what specific ways and measures--these are folks
that are all running businesses--that they have a certain
perspective that I think is incredibly valuable to our decision
process. And that is the process we use is, hey, here is the
threat, here is the outcome, tell us how you would achieve that
outcome. And then we work together to then determine what
specific measures we put in place.
Mr. Price. And can you give us some estimation of the state
of play with respect to these efforts? How successful have they
been? How far along are they? What would be maybe an example of
the progress you hope to make?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir, I will give you an example with
commercial non-general aviation. I think that is the best
example. We were facing a threat that had to do with powders
being introduced into a cabin of an aircraft. We were able to
bring representatives of the major carriers into TSA
headquarters, all had security clearances. We revealed with
them at a certain level what that threat entailed and told them
what security outcome we wanted to achieve.
We went back and forth in this process for about 2 months
and then came up with a series of measures that the true
success of it is that we significantly raised security at our
domestic airports and our international last point of departure
airports, and most passengers never even noticed that something
had happened. And the nuanced change was that we asked
passengers to take large volumes of powders out of their
carryon bag.
And then we put certain protocols in place. We had to
decide what volume and then how we were going to resolve what
those powders were. But that was a very successful process that
actually has been adopted by other countries as a result.
So my point is, as open as we can be, a lot of
collaboration, and then a clear explanation as to why we go
down a certain path.
Mr. Price. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, Mr.
Administrator, for being here today. I want to, as a frequent
flier through LaGuardia Airport in Queens, New York, very
grateful to you and the TSA agents who work there who I see at
least twice a week. So thank you for your commitment.
I wanted to ask about reports from the House Committee on
Oversight from the fall 2018, revelations about the hostile
work environment, history of sexual harassment and retaliation.
Wanted to know if--what has been done to address this issue
from an institutional perspective? Has anyone been terminated?
Have there been new trainings? And how can we ensure that
employees are able to report malfeasance without any sort of
retribution?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, thank you for the question. And I have
been very, very strong on this issue. I think that job
satisfaction, workplace environment are things we control
largely. And we need to make sure, one, we comply with the law
and, secondly, that we create an environment where every person
who is an employee of TSA can succeed.
And so what we have done--specifically to respond to your
question--is, yes, we have provided a lot more training. But I
think what is important is what the leadership emphasis is. And
I published in a couple of documents--first one was the new
strategy for TSA that I published about a year ago. And one of
the core values that we put into the TSA strategy was respect,
because that was not a core value of the agency.
And to me, that means respect for each other in the
workplace and also respect for passengers as they receive the
services that we provide. First core value is integrity,
second, respect, the third is commitment.
The other thing that we did was when we published the
administrator's intent, which is a document that basically
says, hey, while I am the administrator of this agency, here is
what I am going to do to execute on that strategy. In the
administrator's intent, I put a whole series of leadership
principles. The very first leadership principle is caring for
your people, because I want to create a leadership culture that
gets at these longstanding inside TSA job satisfaction, work
environment issues.
I am happy to report a couple things. One is that our FEV
scores, the federal employee viewpoint survey, that survey that
is done every year of every single federal agency, shows
noticeable progress across all dimensions. We didn't go down or
stay the same in any dimension. We went up in every single one.
Additionally, if you look at the complaints that we
receive, those complaint rates are way down from this year over
last. And so I just look at those trends to say, hey, are we on
the right track here? And what else do we need to do?
Finally, I have asked every leader to be open and
accessible to the people that they work with. And the only way
you are going to do that, if you are a federal security
director at LaGuardia airport, the only way you are going to
have a feeling for how well your people feel about the job that
they perform and the people that they work with is to walk
around and to talk to them. You can get them one on one and
just ask them questions, give them the opportunity to get to
know you and you them.
And then you will get some direct feedback. And as I travel
around, I get a lot of direct feedback. And I can tell almost
instantly how an airport operates, you know, after about 3 or 4
minutes on the ground, just in a couple of interactions with
people.
Ms. Meng. Great. But had--from the revelations from that
hearing, had anyone been terminated or what were the results?
Mr. Pekoske. From the hearing, the incidents that were
referenced in that hearing go back several years. And what I
said at the hearing was, I am not going to go back and
readjudicate things that happened several years ago, because as
long as I am told that the process was not fundamentally flawed
and decision-makers made decisions with the facts that were
available to them, that I wasn't going to go reverse those
actions.
But that we would take very quick action on any future
incidents that have occurred, and that is what we have done.
And so, you know, I--in many cases, the actions that were the
subject of that hearing had already been taken and involved
agreements between the employees affected and the agency. So I
really couldn't undo those from my perspective.
Ms. Meng. Okay. So, I have a second quick question about
religious and racial profiling. Since 2012, over 700 complaints
have been filed against the TSA using the FlyRights app,
addressing mistreatment and discrimination. In contradiction to
TSA protocol, Sikh Americans have been required to remove their
turbans, Muslim Americans have been interrogated about which
mosques they attend, for example.
To ensure that this type of profiling does not occur at
airports across the country, what types of accountability
systems are currently in place?
Mr. Pekoske. A number of things. First, we screen on
average 2.4, 2.5 million passengers a day. And that number 700
goes back to 2012. So if you look at the volume of passengers
to put that number 700 in context, but there are still 700
people who had a complaint. I am very mindful of that.
And we have a process that we have that allows people to
register a complaint and then us to get back to the
individuals, do whatever investigation is deemed necessary at
that point in time, and try to resolve these as expeditiously
as we can.
Additionally, I have made it a point as I am traveling
around the country to visit different groups around the
country, just to be able to establish that connection from the
top leadership of TSA with different communities in this
nation. So we are trying to make sure that we have a very good
dialogue.
And, you know, we have a multicultural day every year in
TSA. It is widely attended. And the attendance is growing year
after year. So I think our levels of communication are very
good.
Final point I would make is that when we see a passenger
who has a complaint, first thing we do is we, one, ensure that
our officers were following our standard operating procedures.
And I will tell you that in almost every case that is the case.
So then we back up our officers. Our officers were following
our procedures.
But then the second question is, are our procedures still
the appropriate procedures? Because every case we use to kind
of re-review our procedures to make sure they are appropriate,
given the security concerns that we have.
Ms. Meng. Okay, thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thanks, Administrator,
for being here. And I know I missed your answer to questions
related to the shutdown and working without pay. But your folks
do an amazing job each and every day.
But I did want to ask, specific to those issues and morale,
how is morale among TSA employees? And if you could benchmark
that against things from years past. You know, where are we at
today?
Mr. Pekoske. I think the best indicator of morale is that
federal employee viewpoint survey, because it is every year. It
is the same questions. And last year, for example, that was
what is called a census year, which means that every single
employee was issued an e-mail invitation to participate in the
survey.
Our performance on that FEV survey is constantly improving.
We went up in every single category across the board. And I
think our average increase was 3 percentage points, which is
pretty good, given the size of the agency.
Mr. Aguilar. What is the response rate? How many people?
What is the percentage?
Mr. Pekoske. I will have to get back to you on the record
with that, but I want to say it is something around 19 percent
or so, which is actually not a bad response rate. But one of
the things that we are going to do this year, is because most
of our employees are doing shift work at a screening checkpoint
and they only have a limited number of computers to access, is
to continue to make a push--because I want to see is as high a
level of participation as we can, because that will give me
more confidence in the results.
[Mr. Pekoske responded for the record:]
In 2018, 22,888 TSA employees completed the Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). This represents 38.9 percent of the eligible
workforce at the time of the survey, as determined by OPM. Although TSA
hopes to improve on this number in the 2019 survey, it is comparable to
other government benchmarks. For example, the 2018 government wide
response rate was 40.6 percent, and the response rate for DHS was 41.3
percent. In Headquarters, TSA had a response rate of 57.2 percent, well
above the government average. And while response rates are much lower
in the airports (37.5 percent). TSA is encouraged that many airports do
participate in FEVS at high levels. For example, Detroit Metropolitan-
Wayne County Airport (DTW), a Category X airport, had 61 percent
participation. TSA's largest workforce, Los Angeles International
Airport (LAX), had 52 percent participation. These participation rates
are due to local leadership, support, and planning.
The timing of the survey, which is administered by OPM, occurs in
the midst of the busy summer travel season. The vast majority of the
TSA workforce serves on the frontlines and has limited access to
computers during shifts. However, TSA is committed to encouraging every
employee to participate in the survey. TSA believes that employee
participation in the FEVS is driven by two factors: ease of access to
the survey and a belief that TSA takes action on survey results.
Regarding ease of access, TSA encourages local leaders to break
down barriers to taking the survey. For example, many airports set
aside time when employees are scheduled to attend training, and have
access to computers, for FEVS participation. This year TSA will also be
piloting tablets at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) checkpoints
to determine whether improved mobile access will boost response rates.
To help employees understand why FEVS Matters, TSA is directly
engaging employees across all internal communications platforms to
improve employee understanding of how survey results are used. TSA
solicited local success stories, describing how the 2018 results were
used at the local level to drive improvements, and stories are being
shared with the larger agency each week, leading up to and during the
2019 FEVS administration period. Each success story is shared via the
National Shift Brief, iShare homepage, TSO Advisor blog, and multiple
TSANews app channels. TSA is also highlighting how leadership values
employee input in making TSA a great place to work by highlighting the
leadership team's ongoing efforts to include every level of employee in
the agency's decision making process.
As OPM is again deploying the survey as a full census, TSA intends
to make the most of this opportunity to hear from the full TSA
workforce.
Mr. Aguilar. Appreciate it. News reports have mentioned
that a team of TSA agents made a trip to Saudi Arabia with the
goal of helping Saudi Arabia with aviation security and
technical assistance. Can you expand on that, that government-
to-government relationship? And how long is it scheduled to
continue?
Mr. Pekoske. That government-to-government relationship
actually started out with a technical cooperation agreement
back in 2008. And really the process from 2008 to today has
been a series of visits to really understand what the Saudi
government was seeking in terms of our expertise and where we
could best help them out.
And so there have been a series of visits back-and-forth
over the intervening years. We signed an MOU--we being the
Department of State and TSA--in September of 2017 as to how we
were going to operationalize the requests that the Saudi
government had made. But to date, where we sit right now is we
are still going back and forth on scheduling and figuring out
exactly what we are going to provide, but we haven't actually
provided any training at this point.
Mr. Aguilar. Does the MOU talk about timeframe?
Mr. Pekoske. The MOU goes out, I think, until 2023, if my
memory serves me correctly.
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. I yield
back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to
follow quickly on the heels of my colleague from California
with a question, or really a statement, about our TSOs.
These are folks who are abused and ridiculed for just doing
their jobs. Abuse and ridicule is not in their job description,
but one would think it was, given how I have witnessed--and I
know so many of us have witnessed them being treated. And then
on top of that, they went through a government shutdown and did
those same jobs without pay.
So have we now fully paid all of the TSOs that did not
receive pay during the shutdown?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. And in any large organization, you
are always going to have a very small percentage of people
unrelated to the shutdown or just--that have pay issues that we
work very quickly to resolve. But a lot of the pay issues that
we had immediately following the resumption of full operations
and appropriation were mostly related to system issues with the
pay system itself. It wasn't the actions that we were taking;
it was actually executing through the pay system.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay, thank you. I know you are
aware on January 6, 2017, a man walked into the baggage claim
area of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport,
collected his luggage, removed a firearm from that bag, opened
fire on his fellow passengers, and murdered five people and
injured six others.
The aftermath of that shooting rampage was nothing short of
chaos, mostly due to a lack of coordination. The takedown of
the suspect was immediate. Since that date, I know I have been
working closely with TSA and with our airports and our airlines
to ensure that we have a more effective model for ensuring
coordination between federal, state and local law enforcement
at airports so that the response to similar incidents, because
we had one at LAX, we had one at JFK, can be swift and
coordinated.
And so after researching and talking with many airport
professionals, I am convinced that this can most effectively be
accomplished by establishing unified operations centers in
airports, which I had the good fortune to talk to you about in
my office the other day, that would serve as a centralized hub
for coordination during a security incident, like what we had
at our airport.
So can you share with us whether you agree that a unified
command-and-control center at airports, particularly the Cat X
airports, would improve the response to security incidents?
Mr. Pekoske. I completely agree that having a unified
operations center at any large airport--actually, any airport--
is very beneficial to the day-to-day operation of the airport
and certainly to the operation of an airport when there is an
emergency like what happened at Fort Lauderdale airport,
unfortunately.
And I also believe that the best model is to have them up
on a day-to-day basis and not start them when you have an
emergency, because that loss of time and just the coordination
that needs to occur, precious seconds are lost and that really
counts, as we saw in Fort Lauderdale.
There are provisions in the TSA Modernization Act that have
us set some guidelines for airport operation centers, and we
are on pace to do that, because I want to see that in writing
and publish that as an agency. And then we have scheduled in
the Mod Act a brief to members on this very topic. So I am
looking forward to both those opportunities.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Great. And I look forward to working
with you as we discussed on my legislation so that we can
further actualize that concept. And lastly, I wanted to just
touch on the advanced imaging technology that since 2015 has
been approved and utilized by our international partners at
some of the world's busiest airports.
The newer, next-generation AIT technology used in Europe
and internationally has been at the Transportation Security Lab
since 2014. Data from TSL assessments clearly indicate that
this new technology performs better than TSA's current
technology. It is less intrusive. It makes it a little bit
less--quite a bit less confrontational for our TSOs where there
is an alarm.
Can the TSA leverage the performance data of our
international partners to reduce the time and TSA resources
needed to accelerate the validation of the new AIT technology
and make it available more quickly for airports to equip new
terminals?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am, absolutely. In fact, we have
already certified that technology, which means that we have
tested it in our labs and we have said it meets the performance
specifications that are required for use in our screening
checkpoints. So we are already doing that.
And to your larger point, we worked very, very closely with
all of our international partners on their technology
advancements so that we don't repeat each other's good work and
that we benefit from the lessons that each other learns.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Administrator, the administration's
budget request for transportation security officer staffing
would accommodate a passenger growth rate of 2.5 percent. But
it estimates that the actual passenger growth rate is expected
to be 4.5 percent. Why is there a mismatch? And wouldn't that
result in an expansion of wait times at checkpoints?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am, you are correct. The resources we
are requesting will basically accommodate a 2.5 percent
increase. We know it is 4.5 percent or 5 percent. But we also
know that in certain airports around the country, we really
can't add any more people, because we are maxed out in terms of
the number of screening lanes that we have. And so that is a
factor, is the fact that in some airports you just can't add
any more lanes, even if you knew you needed to. And we
essentially wait with the airports with infrastructure
improvement projects to give us that additional capacity.
Also, we were looking for ways to become ever more
efficient in the screening operations that we conduct. And I
will give you two really good examples. For the CT, the CAT
scan X-ray technology that we are looking at, that will
eventually make us much better to be able to specifically
isolate in a carryon bag, if the bag alarms through the X-ray,
what specifically we need to look at. And that should speed the
process along.
Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz mentioned the AIT
technology, and she is right. With the current technology, our
false alarm rate is higher than what we would all like it to
be. The new technology that we are looking at brings that false
alarm rate down. And so what that means is that we have--when
we need to do a pat-down of a passenger, it is more likely than
not that there is an anomaly, something on that person's body
that alarmed the machine.
And so the technology advancements should improve our
efficiency overall. But we are just in a position that with the
top-line resources that the department has and the TSA has, we
really can't get up to the full 4.5 percent. I don't think we
really need to. And settling it at 2.5 percent is I think a
very reasonable place to be at this point in time.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. The budget request recommends the
elimination of three programs that Congress has repeatedly
endorsed--the visible intermodal prevention and response teams,
the LEO reimbursement program, and TSA staffing of exit lanes
at certain airports. Are the elimination of these programs
based on assessments that they are poor investments of tax
dollars? Or are there other reasons that you can talk about?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. All three programs are very
valuable programs. And they are appropriate investments. The
VIPR teams are appropriate investments. They provide security
in surface transportation and airport centers. The law
enforcement reimbursement reimburses our law enforcement
partners who provide a presence at our screening checkpoints.
And I think both of those are very valuable programs.
It really is an issue of when you look at, you know, a top-
line budget number, not just for TSA, but for the entire
department, what kinds of tradeoffs do we have to make to stay
within that top-line budget number? And there are some
difficult choices that are made in any process like that.
But what I would say, without question, that those are
important programs. We are just fiscally not able to support
them in this budget.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Now, if we were able to find
additional resources, what would you recommend in terms of
these three programs? I mean, that we could fund all three or
if we have budget constraints, could you tell us the order in
which you would prioritize these?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. I would prioritize them VIPR
first, because the VIPR program also provides ground-based
assignments for federal air marshals. It gives them a chance to
rotate from being in an aircraft on a regular basis to being in
a ground-based assignment. It is good for the physical well-
being of our federal air marshals, and it is also good for
their family and just kind of stabilizes these schedules much
more so than being in the air. So I would put VIPR first.
I would put law enforcement officer reimbursement second.
And then the third--and only third because I think we might be
able to get some technology solutions for this--is exit lane
staffing, because when you think about it, we ought to be able
to put a technology in place that prevents somebody from coming
in the reverse direction in an exit lane.
And so I would rather push on the technology solution for
that rather than the people solution.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, again, Madam Chair. And Mr.
Administrator, thank you for this very thorough hearing.
Sir, I understand that the TSA is in the process of
updating key screening technology at our airports in order to
keep passengers safe from threats that continue to evolve. I
think using contractors in certain airports and registered
known traveler programs, like TSA Pre and Clear, are areas
where we have tried to make screening process faster and more
efficient not only for the TSA, but also for the traveling
public.
How is TSA using commercial technology to improve
efficiency of operations at the checkpoint?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, almost everything at our checkpoints is
either commercial off-the-shelf or an adaptation of commercial
off-the-shelf technology. And that is where we are proceeding
for most of the technology infusion for the next several years
in our screening checkpoints.
But in answer to your first question, about research and
development, there are some aspects of what we need to do at
our screening checkpoints that there really is not a commercial
solution available and we just need to get into some basic
research and development on those items.
And I also think it is really important to be able to apply
the security processes that we do based on the risk that
passengers present. And that is where that credential
authentication technology comes in so importantly, because just
think from a technology perspective, we are going from taking
somebody's driver's license or passport and visually examining
it, putting an ultraviolet light on it or looking at it through
a magnifying glass, and then trying to compare what is on the
credential with the passenger in front of the officer to the
point where those credentials get inserted into a machine and
the machine comes back and says, yes, this is a valid Florida
or a valid California or a valid Tennessee driver's license.
And then the really good part about it is that it
automatically pulls the information from the credential, so it
will pull the name, gender, and date of birth from the
credential, and in real time, while the passenger is standing
there, send that information back to our Secure Flight
database, which will return a result that will say, yes, this
is a bona fide pre-check passenger. This is a standard lane
passenger. This is someone who needs additional screening.
And the other part is, it will also say, and this passenger
has this flight today. So we will see the travel information.
We will validate the credential. The image will come up on a
screen. And so what ends up happening for the officer is,
rather than being heads down, trying to match some very small
printed info with the passenger in front of them, the machine
takes care of a lot of that automatically, and then all of the
information comes up on a screen. So you are looking more at
the passenger, which I think is very beneficial from a security
perspective. And it gives you the opportunity to have a
conversation with the passenger, as well.
So I think the technology part of this is going to be
critically important for not just passenger convenience, but
really for security effectiveness, because this is also from an
identity perspective very significant improvement.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. How has TSA fostered
relationships with the private sector, specifically, when it
comes to new technologies?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, the reason we were able to move the
computed tomography acquisition so quickly is because of our
relationships with the private sector and because of the
authorities that you have provided in law. We can accept gifts
of technology from the private sector, as long as it is
certified for operation in our screening checkpoints.
And so what we were able to do is do a lot of operational
test and evaluation with equipment that was gifted to us from
the private sector, which sped along that acquisition process.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. As you move forward with rolling
out new systems, sir, are you collaborating with your partners
to continue best practices to keep the security lines moving?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, sir. We collaborate on everything, and I
am always interested if there are better ways that we can
collaborate that we will do them, because I want to make sure
we have good, robust dialogue with our partners.
Mr. Fleischmann. Good. Very briefly, the fiscal year 2020
budget request proposes to draw down funds from the aviation
security capital fund to finance additional CT screening
machines. I wholeheartedly endorse increasing the number of CT
scanners in our airports, and I agree that purchasing the
scanners using the aviation security capital fund meets the
eligibility criteria for the fund.
However, I have concerns that the dollars in the fund have
already been spoken for and have been allocated to very
worthwhile security projects already on the drawing board for
airports around the country. Can you say with certainty, sir,
that this purchase will not have an unintended effect on
delaying security projects already on the books?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, the reason why we chose to go that route
was because we felt that it would not have an effect on
projects that were already on the books, but we also viewed
this as a one-time event.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. One final question. Is the
proposal one-time deal for fiscal 2020? Or do you anticipate
using this accounting practice again?
Mr. Pekoske. Sir, we will evaluate it every year. But at
this point, one time on 2020.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had
one additional question. And I know we already touched on the
FAMS program, as well as the VIPR program. But having been
involved in safety issues in my legislative agenda for many,
many years, I really have sympathy for the difficulty
associated with directly correlating the tangible benefits of
programs that are intended to prevent harm, like the FAMS
program, and I know the DHS IG expressed concern over the
contribution that--to aviation security that the FAMS has, FAMS
being the air marshals, for those that don't speak acronym.
So having said that, and knowing that we have safety
programs that we utilize to make sure that we can put obstacles
in the path of someone who might try to do someone else harm,
and there is not really a way to measure, per se, what we
prevented from occurring, can you explain how you are
modernizing the FAMS program to address threats faced today?
And then also just in terms of--you alluded to it on a previous
answer, but I mean, I don't think people really realize how
debilitating it can be on the human body for an individual to
fly and go up and down and up and down. I mean, I know how
debilitating it is just to be a commuter, but to fly, you know,
three or so times a day.
Can you address whether you believe there is some value in
giving the air marshals some ground-based assignments, like the
VIPR teams, which certainly also provide a valuable service so
that they have a visible deterrence at airports, which would
obviously help us expand our reach in terms of protecting
people, and also address the impact--the physical impact on our
air marshals?
Mr. Pekoske. Yes, ma'am. We just changed the concept of
operations for how we deploy the federal air marshals. And I
can't really go into a lot of detail on that new CONOPS in this
setting, but suffice it to say that the new CONOPS results in
much more effective employment of a very, very valuable and
limited resource.
I would also say that, you know, I have great admiration
for our federal air marshals. They perform a difficult job. It
is not easy sitting in a plane for hours on end. If you are on
a domestic deployment, sometimes three flights in a given day,
just three takeoffs and landings, that is fatiguing. And they
have got to be alert all the time.
And so we changed the concept of operations to be much more
risk-based. And I think it has an awful lot more fidelity to
it. And we also changed the way we place the air marshals in
aircraft to be able to execute on that concept of operations.
Once we put that in place, we agreed with the inspector
general in that we did not have good measures. And like you
said, it is very hard to measure prevention, right? But
nonetheless, we can measure certain things that will give us
sort of a surrogate for how we are doing. And as we published
this new CONOPS will be a set of measures that we will put in
place to be able to assess the importance of this important and
really this last layer of security. That is what I think about
all the time is, you know, we spend a lot of money in all the
vetting operations, very, very important for us to do a lot of
money in our screening checkpoints, a lot of money in checked
baggage screening.
We do really want to have that last line of defense with
the Federal Air Marshal service. And as you have correctly
stated, it is hard to be a flying federal air marshal for 6, 7,
8, 9, 10 years on end. And so one of the things that we are
looking at is, how do we better manage that very important
force of individuals for us? And part of that analysis is, can
we identify more ground-based assignments to give them a bit of
a break, and also importantly, to use their significant
expertise?
I mean, these folks are experts in law enforcement. They
are experts in aviation security. We can really get a lot more
value, I think, by doing it that way.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Absolutely. And, Madam Chair, I
think it is important to just remind people, as we got a very
unfortunate reminder at FLL, that our transportation security
officers are part of the layers of protection. Safety, to be
successful, requires layers of protection, because you need one
there, and when that fails, then you have another. And, you
know, you can't have infinite layers, but the air marshals are
one of those layers and, like you said, the last line of
defense.
And what we were reminded about--and I think many people
weren't even consciously aware--that our TSOs actually are
there to protect the airplane. And so we do have some work to
do to educate the traveling public about what the role of the
various security and safety responsibilities are at the
airport, law enforcement, TSOs, the VIPRs, the air marshals,
and make sure that we continue to move forward on the
discussion that has been sparked from FLL and other airports on
the run, hide, fight concept, and who is responsible for
actually making sure that we can support the airport and
protect passengers that aren't traveling--about to travel on an
airplane.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I just have a follow-up question on the
issue that was raised by the ranking member about the
credential authentication technology. How long will it take to
get to full operating capability?
Mr. Pekoske. Madam Chair, we should be able to purchase
about 500 of the credential authentication technology systems
in fiscal 2019. And then the budget requests another 300 or so
more. It is going to take us about 2 more years after that to
get the full operating capability, but we are going to be very
smart as to how we deploy these systems.
And we are going to start with our pre-check lanes, because
one of the concerns the Congress has expressed and I share is
that we need to make sure that the individuals who voluntarily
give us their background information and their biometrics get
some noticeable, tangible benefit from their investment in the
pre-check program. Because for us, this now becomes a trusted
traveler, and we adjust our security based on that.
And so I want to put the CAT machines--I want to put
technology where it will help accelerate a pre-check passenger
or a global entry passenger's passage through security so we
can focus our efforts more so on the individuals that need a
little bit more attention.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Has there been any issue with regards to
the Clear program, anything that has raised any concerns about
that?
Mr. Pekoske. There is a difference between the trusted
traveler programs and a registered traveler program. A trusted
traveler is a government program where we have the full
background of individuals and we vetted those individuals and
we also have their biometrics.
A registered traveler program is--exists for the sole
purpose of validating identity. It doesn't do any government
vetting of those passengers. And some registered traveler
clients are standard lane passengers and some are pre-check
passengers. It kind of varies across the board, alternative the
predominance are pre-check passengers.
And we are looking at, how can we best integrate all the
capability across? But with the credential authentication
technology, because that is going to have risk-based
information on passengers, that is a very critical, important
function in our screening checkpoint. It is basically your
entering argument to screening. And that is something, given
that the information that is available to the officers,
particularly as we get this live connection with the
technology, that is so integral that it is a government
function in our view.
And so we are exploring with our registered traveler
partner how we move forward given that the CAT deployment is
really beginning now and it is going to be in earnest in fiscal
2020, as well.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do you have any further questions?
Mr. Fleischmann. I am good. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. We still have a little bit of
time, so I am going to just leave it up to you. Are there any
questions that we didn't ask that you wished we had or any
additional information that you would like to provide the
subcommittee?
Mr. Pekoske. A couple things, ma'am. I appreciate the
opportunity, because it is rare that a witness gets this
opportunity. You will see in a very short period of time our
first capital investment plan that kind of lays out what we
know we need to invest over the future years' homeland security
plan. And it is going to be constrained by the levels that the
administration has approved in the FYSP, which is a logical
presentation, but at least you will get to see all of the
projects that we envision, so you can understand the scale of
the technology investment that we think is needed.
You know, we have talked about the CT X-rays and we have
talked about the credential authentication technology. Those
are two that are already underway. CT, you know, to give you
kind of a sense of scale, we are going to have 300 with this
current fiscal 2019 purchase that we just made. Another 300 if
the fiscal 2020 levels get approved. That is 600, but we have
about 2,400 X-ray systems in the entire 440 airports that are
federalized.
So it makes progress, but we have still got a long way to
go. When Congressman Wasserman Schultz was talking about the
AIT technology, the technology you put your hands over your
heads, that is not even an acquisition program at this point in
time. Now, as I mentioned to her, we have certified that
technology, which means that if an airport or an airline wants
to gift it to us, they have got some standards of performance
that the machines need to meet that we--and we will tell them
which machines are certified to those standards of performance,
so we can accept those gifts, but there is no formal
acquisition program for that.
So just context of, hey, you know, more technology
investment is needed. And I would be most happy at anybody's
convenience to sit down with you and kind of lay out the threat
and then look at the capability of the existing screening
system, and it will really illuminate why we need to make these
technology enhancements--and the other thing is, you know, I
think that has a big effect on the screening workforce.
You know, when you are working with more up-to-date tools,
particularly the onbody anomaly detection, for example, if you
don't need to do as many pat-downs as you are doing--because
nobody likes to be patted down and nobody likes to conduct a
pat-down--if we can get technology that gives us more certainty
in that process and better detectability, I think it is a win
for passengers and certainly a win for screening effectiveness.
The other thing that I would emphasize is how important the
human dimension of what we do is. And you all know that--you
have all expressed appreciation for the work of the TSA
workforce. One of the things that has been really something
that I reflect on all the time is how complex an agency this
is. You know, most people think of TSA and they think of the
screening checkpoint as the only part of the agency, and it is
a very important part, and certainly the most visible part of
TSA. But there is a lot of work that TSA does that most people
don't realize that we are doing.
They don't see the checked luggage that is going to go in
the hold of an aircraft that we inspect. They don't see our
inspectors walking around airports making sure that there is
compliance with our airport security plans and our carrier
security plans. They don't see all of the international
inspectors that we have all around the world making sure that
if you get on a flight at an airport that has a direct flight
to the United States, that we have a presence there and we are
looking out for the security levels in those airports.
They don't see all of the individuals that work in our
intelligence enterprise, that do all the very important vetting
work that is important to be able to make sure that we have
properly assessed the risk by passenger. And they really don't
see everybody that needs to support that enterprise. And we
have got thousands and thousands of very dedicated employees
that make sure, you know, that our IT systems are up and
running, that our pay systems are up and running, that our
human capital systems are up and running.
And so it is a very complex enterprise. And I am very proud
of every single person in the agency, because without--you
know, we need everybody to be able to perform our mission.
Congressman Wasserman Schultz talked about the Federal Air
Marshal Service. They are designed to be not visible to
passengers. And I am so glad that we have that layer of
security.
So I would just, you know, take the opportunity just to
emphasize in my opening statement, I said, hey, there is two
really important things we need in this budget, technology
investment and investment in our workforce. And I really
appreciate the flexibility of this subcommittee in working our
reprogramming requests along the way as we want to move some
money around to be able to accomplish some of the initiatives
that we know we can self fund, but we just need to change the
nature of the funding. And you have been very, very helpful in
that regard, and we very much appreciate it.
And you see a couple of--actually, three uniformed officers
behind me. We made a change in our policy in TSA about a year
ago, where I wanted to see a uniformed presence in the agency
and I wanted to have transportation security officers--and they
were all supervisory transportation security officers--I wanted
to have them nearby all the senior leadership, so that when we
were having policy discussions affecting our workforce, that we
had people that actually represented the frontline right there
in the discussion so that they could give us their input.
And then also over my right shoulder is a member of the
Federal Air Marshals Service also on our front office staff
that provides me that same perspective from a federal air
marshal perspective. And it is really valuable in that a TSO
may not call me, but they will definitely call Charles--or Pam,
and they will--and an air marshal will call Cara, but they may
not call me.
And so we are just trying to improve the levels of
communication. But really, I sincerely--I said in my opening
statement that I appreciate the oversight that you provide,
because your questions cause us to constantly think about what
we are doing to make sure that we have thought it through, and
you and your staffs have been there to support us every step of
the way. And so we really appreciate it.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, welcome to all of you, and thank
you for everything that you do. As you can tell, there is
bipartisan support and we will do everything we can to help you
to continue to protect our nation.
Mr. Pekoske. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
Mr. Pekoske. I appreciate it. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Thanks.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Gaynor, Peter T.................................................. 68
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Answers to submitted questions............................... 105
Kelly, John V.................................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Answers to submitted questions............................... 45
Krebs, Christopher............................................... 124
Prepared statement........................................... 126
Answers to submitted questions............................... 166
Pekoske, David................................................... 200
Prepared statement........................................... 203
Answers to submitted questions............................... 232
Schultz, Admiral Karl............................................ 168
Prepared statement........................................... 171
Answers to submitted questions............................... 195