Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2022, Part 5 (House Hearing)
Summary
Part 5 of the hearings "Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2022" before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, chaired by Matt Cartwright. The part lists hearings on the Federal Bureau of Prisons pandemic response, the Department of Justice's Covid response, the National Science Foundation's Fiscal Year 2022 budget request, NOAA climate services and the Economic Development Administration's role in pandemic response. The first hearing, on March 18, 2021, has Michael Carvajal, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as witness. The record closes with Mr. Alvord answering Mr. Aderholt on how EDA administered CARES Act funding and plans for the American Rescue Plan Act.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2022, Part 5 (House Hearing).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/house-hearing-117th-congress-commerce-justice-science-and-related-agen-0e17200027/
, SHA-256 9e9802adfeb4c2d70ab1c565de71902a9f139beb208b8dc9049e1a99250bc60a.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
___________________________________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania, Chairman
GRACE MENG, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
ED CASE, Hawaii BEN CLINE, Virginia
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland MIKE GARCIA, California
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Bob Bonner, Jeff Ashford, Faye Cobb, TJ Lowdermilk,
Shannon McCully, James Wise, and Nora Faye
Subcommittee Staff
___________________________________
PART 5
Page
Covid Outbreaks and Management
Challenges: Evaluating the Federal
Bureau of Prisons Pandemic Response and
the Way Forward.........................
1
Management, Performance Challenges,
and Covid Response at the Department of
Justice.................................
45
The National Science Foundation's
Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request.........
107
Increasing Risks of Climate Change and
NOAA's Role in Providing Climate
Services................................
181
Oversight of the Economic Development
Administration's Role in Pandemic
Response................................
253
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
___________________________________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-187 WASHINGTON : 2021
___________________________________
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BARBARA LEE, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TIM RYAN, Ohio
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
DEREK KILMER, Washington
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
GRACE MENG, New York
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
PETE AGUILAR, California
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
NORMA J. TORRES, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ED CASE, Hawaii
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
KAY GRANGER, Texas
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BEN CLINE, Virginia
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
MIKE GARCIA, California
ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
TONY GONZALES, Texas
Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2022
----------
Thursday, March 18, 2021.
COVID OUTBREAKS AND MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES: EVALUATING THE FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS PANDEMIC RESPONSE AND THE WAY FORWARD
WITNESS
MICHAEL CARVAJAL, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Mr. Cartwright. Let us gavel in and begin. As this hearing
is fully virtual, we have to address a few housekeeping
matters. For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by
the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not unmuted
yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to unmute
you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will go ahead
and unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock on
your screen that will show how much time is remaining. At the 1
minute remaining, the clock will turn yellow. At 30 seconds
remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to remind members that
their time has almost expired. When your time has expired, the
clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next
member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the
chair and ranking member. Then, members present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of
seniority. And, finally, members not present at the time the
hearing is called to order.
Finally, House rules do remind me to say to you that we
have set up an email address to which members can send anything
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or
markups. That email address has been provided in an advanced to
your staff.
The subcommittee will come to order. Good afternoon. This
is the subcommittee's first hearing in the 117th Congress, and
I am humbled to be taking over the gavel from our great Jose
Serrano, the CJS chair in the last Congress. CJS had become
synonymous with the name, Chair Jose Serrano, and I know that
those are big shoes to fill. We miss him terribly.
I do look forward to working together, virtually, and I
hope soon in person, with my terrific colleagues on both sides
of the aisle of this subcommittee. I have a great partner in
Congressman Robert Aderholt. And I know we both want to work
collaboratively and productively toward many common goals.
I would also like to take a moment to welcome a few new
members to our subcommittee, Representatives David Trone of
Maryland, Ben Cline of Virginia, Mike Garcia of California, as
well as one returning Member, Representative Dutch
Ruppersberger of Maryland. I am so glad to have you all join us
for the 117th Congress. I would also like briefly to introduce
and welcome all members of the subcommittee whom I have not yet
mentioned, Representative Grace Meng of New York, Charlie Crist
of Florida, Ed Case of Hawaii, Brenda Lawrence of Michigan, and
Steve Palazzo of Mississippi. I feel fortunate and humbled to
have such a wonderful group of members on this subcommittee,
and I am confident we will achieve many great things together.
Turning to the business of the subcommittee today, we
undertake one of our key responsibilities: oversight of the
Federal agency operations and programs that we fund. We welcome
today Michael Carvajal, Director of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons or the BOP, in his first appearance before this
committee. Director Carvajal began his career with BOP in 1992,
assuming increasingly responsible positions in BOP institutions
in Texas, Kansas, and Louisiana before being appointed a
northeast regional director in 2016 and the assistant director
for the correctional program division in 2018. He was named
Director of the Bureau in February of 2020.
It is an overused expression: Timing is everything. It
would appear that you, Director Carvajal, took on your job when
BOP's world was about to be upended. We can debate how much
everyone was prepared to deal with the impact of a global
pandemic, which the World Health Organization announced on
January 30, 2020. But, in hindsight, the 6 weeks that elapsed
between the time, that time and the March 13, 2020, White House
emergency declaration was a terribly precious time, and I
believe we have to examine the opportunities to protect the
very vulnerable population that BOP missed during this critical
juncture.
Director Carvajal, you inherited an agency responsible for
the safety, security, and the welfare of over 175,000 inmates,
147,122 facilities owned and operated by the BOP itself, and
about 37,000 BOP officers and staff. Over the past year, you
have seen a 13-percent reduction in the overall inmate
population, and a 15-percent reduction in the population in BOP
facilities, and you have 1,000 fewer officers and staff. This
is the lowest BOP inmate population in over 20 years. These
figures shed light on the challenging circumstances you have
dealt with and your reaction to it. And a part of the story are
these unfortunate numbers: 225 inmates and 4 BOP employees dead
from COVID-19. I repeat that: 225 inmates and 4 BOP employees
dead from COVID-19, and over 47,000 inmates and 5,000 staff
contracting this disease and recovered.
Now, although, BOP has grappled with massive logistics
issues over the past year, managing a huge medical program,
quarantine operation, and an ongoing security concern, I
believe there are questions that need to be answered about
whether or not BOP is meeting its safety responsibilities to
its staff and its inmates.
While the BOP system is vast and it sprawls across the
country, I do believe BOP has struggled uniformly to implement
proper safety standards and policies. I have received reports
from correctional staff, inmates, even other correctional
offices with BOP facilities that--congressional offices with
BOP facilities that treatment, testing, quarantine policies and
general safety measures over the past year are simply not up to
par.
To help BOP cope with the unexpected cost of the pandemic,
Congress appropriated $400 million in two different emergency
supplementals in fiscal years 2020 and 2021. As such, today, we
will want answers about how BOP used and is using those funds.
We want to make sure every possible measure is being taken and
every dollar is being spent for the purpose of protecting those
within the walls of the BOP facilities. Specifically, did you
have adequate protective equipment? How did you make deployment
decisions for that equipment? Were inmates and staff properly
isolated and movement managed safely and promptly to reduce the
risk of spreading disease within BOP or among the general
public? Did BOP take full advantage of options to move inmates
out of crowded quarters, such as through home confinement or
compassionate release? Overall, how shall we assess BOP's
treatment of those in its custody and the dedicated staff who
work around the clock to carry out BOP's corrections mission?
The examination of BOP's operation during the pandemic is
not the only matter that deserves close examination in today's
hearing. We would also like to hear how BOP is addressing other
things, like reducing overcrowding and the use of staff
augmentation, an issue I have contacted BOP about on several
occasions in the past; grappling with the continuing threat
from contraband, such as opioid drugs like fentanyl; and
implementation of the First Step Act. In addition, we would
like to hear how BOP is addressing the ongoing and urgent
challenge of its aging facilities and infrastructure.
So, once again, welcome, Director Carvajal, and we look
forward to your testimony. At this time, I want to turn to my
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, for his comments.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for yielding, and I appreciate you,
Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. And I am, like
you say, pleased to be first here for the first official
hearing of the fiscal year 2022 appropriations cycle.
And even though we have talked on several occasions, I want
to formally congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on your role as
chair and wish you well in this new role that you will be
undertaking. I look forward to speaking with you and also to
find ways that we can fund programs that foster American
competitiveness, enable new discoveries in science both here,
on this Earth, and also in space, and the capability of
Federal, State, and local law enforcement, just to name a few
of the diverse and vital missions that are under the purview of
this subcommittee. I, along with my staff, stand ready to work
alongside you and your staff to continue the spirit of the
camaraderie that we have shared on this subcommittee and has
been a hallmark of the subcommittee for many years.
On that note, I appreciate you recognizing all of the
members, the new members of the subcommittee. Of course, from
the Republican standpoint, we have two new Republican members.
First, we have Congressman Ben Cline. He represents the Sixth
District of Virginia. He was a member of the Virginia House of
Delegates. He chaired the Committee on Militia, Police, and
Public Safety. And he is also a former member of the Judiciary
Committee. And we look forward to him sharing his perspective
with the subcommittee.
Also, Congressman Mike Garcia, he represents California's
25th District, and he is a decorated former naval officer and
businessman.
Congressman Garcia, thank you for your service to our
Nation and look forward to your insight as well, particularly
in aviation and aerospace expertise, as well as economic
development.
I am pleased today, at this point, to turn to the witness,
and also, like, Mr. Chairman, as you welcomed him, I would like
to welcome Director Carvajal as well.
This hearing is an opportunity for us to hear about how the
Bureau of Prisons is addressing the many challenges involved in
preventing the spread of the coronavirus among the Bureau of
Prisons' inmate population. Also, I think it is important for
us to learn about how the President's executive order mandating
the closure of all BOP contract operating institutions is
affecting your operations, particularly with respect to its
unusual and untimely purpose. The displacement of thousands of
inmates while in the throes of pandemic, which has taken the
lives of, as mentioned, over 200 of your inmates already. So,
with that, I look forward to discussing these matters with you
today.
And, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. And thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
And at this time, Director Carvajal, you are recognized for
your opening remarks. Please try to keep your statement to 5
minutes. And, remember, as always, your full written statement
will be included in the record, so that enables you to keep the
5 minutes.
You are recognized, Director Carvajal.
Mr. Carvajal. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman
Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and members of the
subcommittee. It is my privilege today to speak on behalf of
the 37,000 BOP corrections professionals who work day in and
day out to support our critical law enforcement mission. I am
committed to ensuring these dedicated men and women are guided
by the values of respect, integrity, courage, and professional
excellence. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the
Bureau's response to the pandemic, along with our efforts to
provide inmates with the necessary programming to return to the
community and to their families.
I have spent the majority of my professional life and
career service to this agency. After serving in the United
States Army, I joined the Bureau of Corrections Office and
moved up through the ranks to my current position as Director.
I care deeply about our work and the personal sacrifices that
the Bureau's law enforcement officers make.
The Bureau currently confines approximately 151,000 inmates
in 122 Federal prisons nationwide, as well as 200 community-
based facilities and 10 private facilities. Almost 80 percent
of our inmates are serving terms for drugs, weapons, or sex
offenses with 41 percent of those being medium- to high-
security offenders.
The pandemic has made the safe management of those
offenders even more challenging. And, yet, we continue to
maintain low levels of serious assaults while addressing
reentry needs.
However, it is with a heavy heart and despite our best
efforts, that I must report there had been 4 deaths, 4 staff
deaths and 225 deaths related to COVID for the inmates.
It has been suggested that the Bureau is spreading COVID
within our communities. Contact tracing performed often reveals
that the virus entered our prisons from the communities. A
review shows that our institutions generally follow the same
spikes in recovery seen in the communities where they are
located. Therefore, it is vital that we will work together, the
Bureau and the public, to combat the spread.
I thank each of you for your continued support in providing
the resources needed to manage this pandemic. Our response has
often been mischaracterized in public forums. This is
unfortunate. Since, from the first days of the pandemic, we
have worked closely with the CDC. We have developed a response
plan that reflects the best available guidance from the
Nation's leading experts. We continue to assess and update the
plan by welcoming external stakeholders into our facilities for
audits and to assure procedural compliance. These reviews, in
addition to our own internal assessments and inspections, both
scheduled and unannounced, are ongoing and assist us in
developing best practices.
Since the passage of the CARES Act through existing
authorities, we have transferred almost 23,000 inmates to home
confinement. We have been transparent regarding our mitigation
plans, our operational adjustments and data, including staff
and inmate COVID cases, testing numbers, and now, fortunately,
vaccine administration. Our public website contains a
comprehensive overview of our current status and is updated
daily.
We are thankful that the Bureau was provided the Pfizer and
Moderna vaccines. I am proud to say that we have administered
over 80,000 doses to staff and inmates. The Bureau was
recognized for leading all jurisdictions and Federal entities
in having the highest percentage of vaccines administered per
doses allocated in the United States.
In addition to responding to COVID-19, several of our
facilities in Texas recently faced a severe winter weather
event. Despite the unexpected impact on the surrounding
infrastructure, including rolling blackouts, frozen water
lines, and resource distribution, we were able maintain our
operations. At the request of FEMA, we also assisted the State
of Texas during the emergency by providing logistical support
and supplies to several local municipalities. Our staff have
responded to these continuous challenges with dedication and
resilience, and I am extremely proud of their work.
An ongoing criticism of our agency has been a lack of
appropriate staffing and a reliance on augmentation and
overtime. We are committed to addressing these concerns by
increasing our staffing levels nationwide and, more
importantly, retaining our staff. We have initiated a hiring
campaign focused solely on external hiring to maximize our
staffing levels. All available recruitment and retention
incentives, marketing strategies, and social media are being
utilized to reach potential candidates and to retain staff.
I am honored to speak on behalf of all the Bureau's staff
who work tirelessly to mitigate the spread of this virus. We
are all carrying out our very important mission. This is
challenging, but it is vital to the safety and security of the
public, our staff, and to the inmates entrusted to our care.
Chairman Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and other
distinguished members of this subcommittee, this concludes my
statement.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Director Carvajal.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
Director Carvajal, roughly, 40 percent of BOP's budget is
for inmate care and programs, of which about $1.3 billion is
for inmate medical care. Given this and the inherent risks
posed by contagious disease in the close quarters of
corrections facilities, where getting up close and personal is
the daily life there, it seems prudent that BOP would already
have robust plans for pandemic contingencies already in place.
And I would imagine this would include some form of decision
hierarchy and options for escalating responses, adapting to
changing conditions, and knowing when to throw out the playbook
and call in outside help and resources. While recognizing that
few anticipated the scale of this global pandemic, in your
view, did BOP plans in place in 2020 include sufficient plans
for a systemwide infectious disease outbreak?
Mr. Carvajal. Thank you, Chairman. That is certainly a
question that should be answered. And I will tell you that the
answer to that is, yes, we have contingency plans. I think the
Bureau of Prisons has a well-documented positive history of
dealing with pandemics before: influenza outbreaks, measles,
chicken pox, Ebola, and things of that nature.
However, as you are certainly aware, and I was actually--my
infamous quote when I said ``I don't think anybody was ready
for this'' shortly after I got this position, what I was
referring to is what we have all seen in this world is that
this COVID was--it is huge. We learned a lot of things on the
fly. One of the big things that is different here was the
ability to social distance and how that played a factor.
Prisons, as you know, Chairman, are not made for social
distancing. So that was one of the more obvious lessons we
learned that----
Mr. Cartwright. Let me stop you there. I only get 5
minutes. I want to have three questions here in 5 minutes.
Really, that to me, you said, yes, there were plans in place.
And my question is, were such plans widely understood by BOP
personnel, and were they adequately trained on them, including
steps and consequences?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Chairman. As you mentioned, in late
January, our medical director, as late as January, last week of
January, had already implemented a task force specific to COVID
with the medical folks and had sent out guidance. So we were
already working on what was going to occur and distributed to
the medical folks. Probably, in retrospect, what we could have
done a little better was spread that out to everyone else along
the medical folks. One of the first briefings that I received
first as a new Director was on COVID. And I will tell you that
it was very enlightening to see what was going on. But that is
one of the lessons learned. But I am happy to say that we
were--our medical people, we are already on this.
Mr. Cartwright. That is what I am after: What are the
lessons learned. And the question is, what forward-looking
plans have you put in place based on the lessons learned to
ensure you are prepared for any future disease outbreak
situations?
Mr. Carvajal. Chairman, we have done a lot of best
practices lessons learned. We established COVID compliance
review teams for just that to review facilities. We send many
unannounced. We stocked up on PPE. One thing that I am happy to
say is that in--traditionally, we keep a high amount of PPE. I
tell you, I was very nervous and worried about obtaining it
early on. As you well know, everyone was out to get it. But I
was happy to know that we had a good stockpile already. We
built a national logistics center, a regional logistics site,
and we ensure that there is appropriate PPE. We at no time ran
low on PPE, but we were concerned about appropriate usage of it
and control of it.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. That leads to my next question. How
well-resourced was BOP in its facilities, its staff, and
logistics and supplies to deal with the pandemic?
Mr. Carvajal. Well, Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, we
traditionally have contingency plans for everything. So we had
the base things in place. Where I think that, as I mentioned
earlier, that we were prepared, was the magnitude of what the
pandemic entailed. So we scrambled as everyone else to ensure
that we got appropriate PPE.
As far as our procedures, we have been in lockstep with the
Centers for Disease Control and other organizations from day
one. My medical director speaks to them at a minimum weekly. So
our plans were actually used to assist and develop a
correctional pandemic request plan. So I would say that we were
working through that, evolving as we went.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. The last question I have it
relates to the transfer of inmates from one place to another.
That happens all the time in the BOP. It has always happened.
But as I mentioned, you know, in an emergency and in a new
situation, you have to be ready to throw out the playbook and
adapt to new circumstances. What did BOP do to adapt to the new
circumstances? Once it became clear--all you had to do was read
the newspaper to realize that taking somebody's temperature
wasn't enough to make sure that the disease wasn't being
transmitted. What did BOP do to adapt to that knowledge?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Chairman. As I said, we have been in
lockstep with CDC and consulting with them. Our procedures
were--from the start, we started quarantine and isolation
procedures, enhanced screening. I know that you mentioned the
movement. I certainly know we were scrutinized for that. What I
will say is that we are statutorily obligated. The courts never
stopped. They slowed down, and I appreciate that. But we had to
relieve all of those local and county facilities and take
inmates that were designated to us. Essentially, sir, it is our
mission, so I couldn't stop and not take in inmates.
Mr. Cartwright. That is all I have for now. I am going to--
I yield to Ranking Member Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you. Can you hear me? Am I coming
through?
Mr. Cartwright. Yes.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Good, well, Director Carvajal, you
stated in your testimony that the Bureau of Prisons does not
control who the court places in your actual system. But the
President stated in a recent executive order, without any
evidence that, quote: ``To decrease incarceration levels, we
must reduce profit-based incentives to incarcerate by phasing
out the Federal Government's reliance on privately operated
criminal detention facilities.''
The question that I would have for you is I would just want
to clarify with you since you are currently the Nation's
foremost authority on the prison system, is it judges--and it
is not prison operators or administrators--that actually make a
sentencing decision? Is that correct?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman, I would agree.
Mr. Aderholt. And are you aware of any profit-based
incentives that are influencing prison sentences by our Federal
judges?
Mr. Carvajal. No, Congressman, I personally am not aware of
any.
Mr. Aderholt. Thanks. And as I had alluded to this past
January, the President signed an executive order that
eliminated the use of privately operated detention facilities,
which ends all agreements with detention contractors. What
would happen to the people who work at these facilities--and
literally there are thousands of people who work across the
Nation from Big Spring, Texas, to Moshannon Valley,
Pennsylvania, to Baldwin, Michigan, and their local economics,
given that the President literally took away the jobs with
signing this executive order--for example, Baldwin, Michigan,
where North Lake Federal Correctional Institute is located, it
has a population of roughly 1,100 people. North Lake employs
260 people. And I realize that this is a rhetorical question,
but what type of impact would this have, even though, like I
said, I know you are not responsible for it, you know, just get
your thoughts on what impact it will have overall?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. It is difficult for me to
answer that question because I am going to say that there is an
obvious impact. I can't sit here and tell that you human beings
aren't going to be impacted because that is obvious if there
aren't jobs available.
Unfortunately, I don't have control over what the privates
do. We have contracts. My concern--my responsibility as the
Director is to ensure that we utilize taxpayer money
appropriately and that I manage the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
And in order to do that, I have to maintain and make sure that
we are appropriately utilizing the funds, obviously, that you
so graciously give us. And I need to make sure that there is a
need for those beds.
And I will say, Congressman, that back last year, late
November, December, we were in the process--we had already
evaluated this. And in my previous position as assistant
director, I actually oversaw the privates. We already made the
decision, because of bed space needs and not needing it, to
expire some of those contracts through natural progression. So
we didn't know anything about this executive order until it
came out. But we had already made that decision for the
contracts that are currently being closed. I do want to point
out, sir, those had nothing to do with executive orders. That
was an internal decision based on what we are supposed to be
doing, and that is effectively using our funds.
Mr. Cartwright. You are muted, Mr. Aderholt?
Mr. Aderholt. How is that? Just, you know, I just want to
point out that our loss of vital good-paying jobs is not only a
problem with an executive order like this, but you noted that
the Bureau of Prisons instituted a 14-day quarantine protocol
for any necessary inmate movement. And the CDC guidelines on
the inmates' quarantine recommends housing quarantine inmates
are, quote, separately in a single cell with solid walls and
solid doors fully closed, followed by separately in a single
cell with solid walls but without solid floors. That sounds
like solitary confinement which I know BOP tries to minimize as
much as possible.
My question is, is the Bureau of Prisons following those
CDC guidelines in isolating thousands of inmates who are or
will be transferred out of the contract operating facilities
for our 14-day period?
Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, the short answer to that is yes.
But I will note that the--I actually don't like the medical
term ``isolation.'' For the reasons you said, we don't like to
do that. Here is something that we learned during COVID.
Because the CDC told us that we should be doing that and my
medical professionals have advised me to, on the correctional
side, I mean, I struggle with that for the reasons you said.
But, yes, we tried to follow as much as possible the isolation
guidelines. We are mandated to do that. We did. But what we
have done to mitigate the other area of leaving them in
isolation, medical isolation--there is a difference--is that we
do enhanced screening. They are checked on twice a day, and we
make sure that staff are engaging them and making sure that
their needs are met. So we understand the other challenges that
that brings, potentially, with mental health and things like
that. But I have to listen to the experts. And I don't make
these decisions in a vacuum. My medical director advises, and
then we use that information to make the best decision, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
And I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. At this point, we recognize
Representatives Charlie Crist for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Crist. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate the
opportunity to be in this important hearing, our first. And I
want to thank the ranking member, Aderholt, who--I went to the
same law school. Not with, but the same law school in Alabama.
So thank you, Director, it is wonderful to have you with us
today. As you know, then Attorney General Barr directed the
Bureau to prioritize the release to home confinement of
vulnerable and qualified inmates. Presently, BOP has about
7,500 prisoners under home confinement. And your website
indicates the total number placed in home confinement since
March 26 of last year is over 22,000. What have you learned
about the use of home confinement during the pandemic, and has
it been underutilized, and could the Bureau do more to leverage
this opportunity?
Mr. Carvajal. Thank you, Congressman. That is a great
question. And I will tell you that, first of all, that we have
utilized the authorities given to us as directed by Attorney
General to the best we could, according to the guidance that
was given to us. The numbers that you mentioned are there.
What I will say that it created us a quagmire is that the
current statute for home confinement is for a reentry for
inmates at the end of their sentence. The statute--the CARES
Act didn't change that. So what that did is we have been
applying inmates for home confinement for COVID reasons under
that statute which created some challenges. Okay.
Mr. Crist. Sure.
Mr. Carvajal. As you are well aware, you said we have about
7,500--about 4,500 of those currently are CARES Act home
confinement. So we maximized the use of our authority as bests
as possible. The Attorney General gave us the criteria, and we
followed that, sir.
Mr. Crist. I have a question. So of the existing low-risk
inmates, how many have not been put into home confinement? Do
you know offhand?
Mr. Carvajal. No, Congressman, I don't know the exact
numbers.
Mr. Crist. If you can get it for me, that would be great. I
would appreciate it. Yes, you will do that? Yes? Please.
Thanks.
Mr. Carvajal. Yes.
Mr. Crist. So I am curious, in the area of nonviolent
marijuana convictions, do you have a breakdown of how many of
those individuals have been given home confinement?
Mr. Carvajal. No, Congressman, not specifically. But I will
tell you that one of the----
Mr. Crist. Can you get that?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, I can.
Mr. Crist. That would be great. Thank you. I appreciate
that very much. I think I just have one other. We all know how
important it is to get vaccinated, especially vulnerable
populations and our frontline workers. And I understand that
corrections officers and the staff of the Bureau of Prisons
facilities have been offered the vaccines. Can you speak to how
many employees have taken you up on the offer or what
percentage?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. Everyone in the Bureau of
Prisons employee-wise has had the opportunity or been offered
the vaccine. And, approximately, right at about 49 percent have
accepted it. We certainly are continuing to encourage it and
offer it. So, if someone changes their mind or wasn't
available, they can tell us if they want it, and we will make
arrangements to make sure they get it.
Mr. Crist. How many employees do you have?
Mr. Carvajal. We have currently a little over 37,000,
Congressman.
Mr. Crist. 37,000. Why do you think that less than half
have opted to be vaccinated when it has been offered to a
hundred percent? Does that strike your mind?
Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, I wish I could answer that, but
I certainly can't force it on anyone. I will tell this: I am
vaccinated, and I encourage all of my staff to get it. That is
the best I can do.
Mr. Crist. I am, too. I am, too. And not to interrupt, I am
just having a conversation. I am, too, and I am grateful for
that. And, you know, there is about a hundred of my colleagues
that have been offered the opportunity to be vaccinated as
well, and I am heart-broken that they are not vaccinated, not
only for them but for people that they may socialize with, even
if socially distanced appropriately, that may end up infecting
them or being infected themselves and dying. I mean, it boggles
my mind. Do you have any opinion on that, as a leader in our
country?
Mr. Carvajal. Sir, as a leader, the Director of the Bureau
of Prisons, my responsibility is to encourage my staff to take
the available protections, and that is what I have done. I
certainly respect people's personal choices, though.
Mr. Crist. Oh, yeah, I do, too. I do, too. It is just that
I don't comprehend it very well. Maybe that is my fault.
Anyway, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it
very much, sir. And keep up the good work and setting a good
example.
Mr. Carvajal. Thank you.
Mr. Crist. Of course.
Mr. Cartwright. I recognize Representative Steven Palazzo
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Director Carvajal, thank you for being here today. As
we progress through the pandemic, there was a quick realization
that senior living facilities were a recipe for rapid community
spread. That same notion of how close communal living created a
risk to controlling the spread of COVID was realized by a less
sympathized type of facility, our prisons. Myself and my office
received several calls and texts from family members in a panic
about their elder loved ones and their fate sitting in a prison
during the pandemic. They closely watched as Attorney General
Barr release updated directives regarding home confinement. It
got to a point where it was clear that these family members in
prison who were nonviolent offenders were qualified for home
confinement per AG Barr's directive, but the BOP had taken no
action on getting these individuals out. My staff resorted to
reaching out to legislative affairs staffers within the BOP to
move these cases along.
It is my opinion that cutting off visitors created a huge
problem. There was no transparency for families as to how
prisoners were actually being treated in the new COVID
environment. Families were now even more worried about the care
of their relatives and the lack of communication from BOP and
the prisoner themselves only exasperating things.
So my question is, what are the lessons learned from the
COVID situation of BOP, and how will this overall process be
improved?
Mr. Carvajal. Well, thank you, Congressman, very good
questions. First off, I will tell you that the decision to stop
visiting was a very difficult one. I certainly understand,
after spending 30 years in this agency, the importance of
visiting. And, certainly, it is part of our reentry process,
the effect that that family contact has. So I weighed--that
weighted heavily on me.
But, first and foremost, as you stated earlier, our
responsibility is to make sure that we protect and keep
everyone safe, inmates, their families, and staff. So we had to
think through that. I am happy to say that, as lessons learned
and we adjusted to COVID on how we can mitigate these things, a
lot of our institutions were able to come up with creative ways
to build barriers and safely do this, make appointment systems,
things of that nature so that we could reunite the families
with the inmates. That is important. So those are some of the
lessons learned.
We have done the same things you see the schools are doing
and restaurants, put up barriers, you know, spread people
apart, limit the amount of folks in there at one time. It was a
difficult decision, but I think it was important to do it at
the time.
Mr. Palazzo. Yeah, I appreciate that response.
Also, throughout this pandemic, how many people were
actually released to home confinement from BOP?
Mr. Carvajal. Well, as I stated earlier, Congressman, over
23,000 transferred to home confinement. They are still in our
custody. A lot of people believe they were released, but they
haven't been. And, of course, there is the compassionate
releases. I am aware of about 3,000 of those. I will tell you
that, off my head, people have released out of our system. And
I don't have that current number, but I can certainly follow up
with you total releases over the year. I can follow up with you
on that. I am sorry, sir, I can't hear you.
Mr. Palazzo. I didn't even touch the mute button, but
somebody muted me. I will find out who that is later. Can you
briefly describe the actual criteria for the compassionate home
confinement?
Mr. Carvajal. Okay. So, Congressman, it is a little bit--I
know it is difficult. I have trouble remembering it sometimes,
but the home confinement criteria is separate. The
compassionate release criteria, the key there is extraordinary
and compelling circumstances that wouldn't have been known at
the time of sentencing. That is what makes it so difficult. It
isn't listed. There is a lot of criteria. It is a very serious
situation to look at. And the fact of COVID, obviously, it is
COVID risk and medical. So it is not a timely process. And,
essentially, what the compassionate release does is they are
asking me to make a motion to the court to undo a sentence that
was imposed by a judge in a court. That is not a quick process.
How we alter that is we--everyone that submits a packet for
compassionate release, we review automatically for home
confinement because that is quickest way to get somebody into
the community and the safest way.
Mr. Palazzo. So, addressing those release for home
confinement, do these folks ever go back to prison?
Mr. Carvajal. That is a great question, Congressman, and we
haven't got there yet. The statute did not--it didn't say
whether or not--there was no guidance there. It didn't change
the rule. I will tell you out of the numbers there we have
discussed that with the oncoming administration, and I am
waiting to have further discussion and see what we will do. But
we do have a plan should we need to take him back.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. Director, thank you so much for
your time. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you. And the chair recognizes
Congressman Ed Case for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Director, I join everybody else in thanking you for
what is a tough job in any event but especially over the last
year. So thank you for your service and for all of the folks
that serve with you.
I really just need to follow up on Congressman Crist's
questions relative to vaccinations. Let me just ask you a
question that it seems that we dance around. Are you able to
compel your correctional officers who work in close quarters,
about the closest quarters in the country, a highly difficult
environment to start with, but, you know, tailor-made for the
spread of COVID, are you able to compel them to be vaccinated
as a condition of employment?
Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, I have asked that question early
on because of the obvious scrutiny, and, you know, the
questions we get, and the answer to that is, no, at this point
I cannot. The reason I cannot is because the vaccines, as they
are issued now, have not been FDA-approved. They are under
emergency use authorization. So I can't compel them to.
Obviously, we have a collective bargaining agreement. So,
at that point, should we ever make that decision, once we are
authorized, I still have to negotiate that process
appropriately and respecting people's rights because it will
become a condition of employment. And if someone refused the
vaccine, potentially may not have a job. So it is a little bit
more of a process, but at this point in time, no, sir, I cannot
compel them to take it. I can just make it available and
encourage it.
Mr. Case. You cannot compel them to take it because it is
not fully FDA approved, and because it is not fully FDA
approved, somehow there is some condition about this vaccine
that calls into question whether it is a fit--I am not sure I
follow the connection between the FDA approval and your ability
to compel.
Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, I certainly understand because I
don't fully understand it myself. As you are aware, I get
guidance and counsel from people. So, between my medical
personnel, my legal personnel, and my personnelists, the human
resource side, we have had extensive conversation. I assure
you, if I could compel it, just for the sake of--to me common
sense, I would do it. But I do have to follow the rules, sir,
and I respect that. So I can get back with you at which point
that changes, but that is the best I can explain it to you
right now.
Mr. Case. Are you able to compel the inmates of the prisons
to take a vaccine? The same reasoning, or are they not subject
to collective bargaining agreement? Is the approval side of it
still applicable from your understanding?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, the guidance I have been given,
Congressman, by my medical folks and my general counsel on the
legal aspects is the same reasoning is that I can't compel an
inmate. We do offer it. We encourage it, but I can't make
anyone take the vaccine.
Mr. Case. And same question as Mr. Crist asked you as to
the officers, have you actually offered the vaccine to all
inmates, and what is the percentage of acceptance versus
refusal?
Mr. Carvajal. Great question, Congressman. As I stated
earlier, 100 percent of our staff have been offered. On the
inmates, and no dose goes unused with us. So we offer it--we
get the right vaccine. We offer it to the staff. If they choose
not to take it, we use it on inmates. There is a priority list
for the most vulnerable. At this point in time, about 25
percent of the population has been vaccinated. By July, the
last thing I was told was by July, 100 percent of inmates will
have been offered the vaccination. Okay. So I hope that----
Mr. Case. And so that is a slightly different answer than
the question I asked. The question I asked was, of the inmates
offered, how many have said, ``Okay, I will do it whenever it
happens,'' and how many have refused? Is the percentage roughly
half as it was the case with the officers themselves?
Mr. Carvajal. All right. Congressman, I apologize because
that makes it clear. I don't know the answer to that. I do know
that we utilize it, so I don't know exactly the percentage of
how many are refusing it or opting not to take it. But I can
follow up with you on that. I am sure we have those numbers.
Mr. Case. Thank you very much. Let me make an observation
in the very few seconds I have remaining, sir. The fact that
one half of the officers are declining to take a vaccination
that is available to them in this charge or situation is
unexplainable. I don't know how to explain that. You have
something like almost 40 percent of the inmates that have been
now infected, it seems to be in one way, shape, or form by
COVID, if I understand your statistics correctly, I apologize,
Mr. Chair. I just want to make this point something is wrong if
one half of the officers that can take it, don't. And I don't
know whether that is a lack of information or a misinformation
or some misunderstanding in the officer force, but it is a
public health matter that that many declined to take it. And
something is wrong there. So I will leave it at that, and I
hope that there is an answer to that at some point.
Mr. Cartwright. The chair recognizes Congressman Ben Cline
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Cline. I thank the chairman. I look forward to
contributing to the subcommittee's work. I want to thank the
ranking member and all of my colleagues on the subcommittee.
And it is great to be a new member.
I will take a slightly different approach to the questions,
follow up on my colleague Congressman Palazzo's questioning
about home confinement because I do think that the
constitutional and other questions around forced vaccinations
kind of--well, present themselves pretty clearly.
But, Director Carvajal, since March 2020, BOP has
transferred over 23,000 inmates to home confinement. How has
the BOP monitored the significant increase in inmates outside
of its facilities?
Mr. Carvajal. Well, Congressman, the majority of those
inmates, 94 percent of those inmates in community confinement,
including home confinement, are monitored by contracts. I want
to stress that that is one of the reasons is we really look at
who we put out because we do take public safety and weigh that
heavily. Those 94 percent monitors or contracts, they are not
law enforcement officials. Okay. They are simply providing
oversight and contracting. The other 6 percent are monitored by
the United States Probation Office through electronic
monitoring.
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
I was a prosecutor for several years. It was local
prosecution, but same dynamic applied. You had home confinement
with ankle bracelets or monitoring. We had several instances
where there were violations of home confinement. Have you seen
any increase in the rate of violations of home confinement
since you have transferred all 23,000 inmates to home
confinement?
Mr. Carvajal. That is a good question, Congressman. I am
aware of 21 people being brought back in secure custody. Only
one of those was a new crime. The other ones were violations. I
don't know the numbers prior to that, Congressman, but I can
certainly look at them. But I am aware of the 21 since passage
of the CARES Act.
Mr. Cline. Okay. Thank you. And do you recall what that new
crime was?
Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, as I said, I was trying to
remember it. No, sir, at this point, I don't, but I can
certainly follow up with you.
Mr. Cline. I would appreciate that. Now, in terms of the
contracts, are those specific to the kinds of technology that
has to be used in a home confinement, the terms of their
confinement, or is it pretty much left to the contracting
agency?
Mr. Carvajal. No, sir, in the statement of work, we spell
out the requirements. It is for electronic monitoring. There is
a few exceptions because it has to do with, you know, either
disability or something of that nature. It is a very small
percentage. The majority of them, the vast majority of them are
electronic monitoring. Of course, there is also now cell phone
monitoring and tracking, things of that nature, but that is
predominantly what we do. We write that in the statement of
work to make sure that they can meet the obligations that we
want.
Mr. Cline. Now, is the statement of work pretty clear on
reporting requirements in cases of violation where any and all
triggers of the devices have to be reported back to BOP so
these companies can't hide a lot of the malfunctions or
violations that might be occurring?
Mr. Carvajal. Well, Congressman, I don't specifically know
the answer to that, but I will tell you that we do checks on
the contractors, obviously. Quarterly, we do unannounced checks
on them and things of that nature. So we do monitor that. But
to answer your particular question, I don't have that
information. I can certainly follow up with you, sir.
Mr. Cline. That would be great. I am just encountering this
subject for the first time. So can you tell me how many
different contracting businesses there are? I mean, are there
dozens or hundreds, or how many?
Mr. Carvajal. I believe the last count we had approximately
80 different vendors we used. So, you know, it varies. It goes
up and down. But it was 80 the last count.
Mr. Cline. Okay. Thank you very much. I see my time is
running out.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger for 5
minutes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, first thing, I left this committee about 10 years ago,
and when I had the opportunity to come back, I decided this is
where I wanted to be. I think the issues we have to deal with
are extremely important. I think we have got a good team on
both sides of the aisle. And I think if we work in a bipartisan
way, we can get a lot accomplished. There are a lot of issues
on the table now in what jurisdiction we do have here.
Now, I know your employees are hardworking individuals. It
is a tough business. I was a former prosecutor years ago and
had to deal somewhat with the prison guards. And they really go
all out and do as much as they can, and they need to be
protected, including from COVID.
Now, these hearings are about us getting answers and
holding you and your agency accountable, but it also should
provide us with guideposts to help address gaps, shortfalls,
and problems. Now, the recent data--not really the recent data.
I know, by the way, we can't force vaccination. But can't your
medical team determine how prison staff not getting
vaccinations are impacting rate of infections in prisons? Is it
causing a boomerang effect of prisoners or staff getting
infected? I know two other members also addressed this issue.
And I think we have to address it because the numbers are real
that we are having some problems in this regard.
Now, the recent data from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health states the COVID-19 cases are often detected
among staff before prisoners. Compared to the rest of the U.S.
population, cases in prisons are 3.2 times more prevalent among
prison staff and 4.6 times more prevalent among prison
residents who then die from COVID-19 at a three times higher
rate than same-age populations.
Now, given this, would you characterize COVID-19 to be a
graver danger? And I have four different questions. Would you
characterize COVID-19 to be a grave danger? Would you be
willing to submit to a Federal safety standard to protect your
employees? What are you doing to prioritize vaccine
distribution and uptake among prisoners and staff? And what
prevents the Bureau from adopting more transparent process for
compassionate release? You get that?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. I will tell you that we--as
I stated earlier, our medical director and his team are in
lockstep with CDC. So I get--I am not a doctor, so I have to
listen to those experts. Sometimes, I will be perfectly honest
with you, Congressman, I don't like the decisions I have to
make. I don't like the guidance I am given, but I do listen to
them because they are the experts. So I follow that guidance
closely.
And as you stated, with a vaccine, we are certainly--I
mentioned that we were recognized for vaccine distribution.
That is because--that is one of the things that, I think, we
did rather well. We had a plan in place and we issued it, and
we encourage everyone to take it. So that is something that, I
think, is a positive.
As far as making sure that people are safe, we certainly do
that. I think that is a commitment we make all the time to make
sure that we are doing everything possible to protect the
inmates and the staff. You mentioned the staff of the
vaccination. That is one of the reasons that we prioritize
staff over the inmates, because the potential for them, because
they come and go into the community--so inmates are actually
protected under the umbrella if staff are vaccinated. That is
one of the reasons we do that.
And, sir, I think I missed another part of your question,
if you could----
Mr. Ruppersberger. What about the percentage of guards that
are not taking shots voluntarily? And I know you have issues
dealing with it legally, but it seems to me there has got to be
a way to change that number, because if the guards aren't being
protected, then the inmates aren't being protected. And that is
a big issue and it is a big problem. And I would hope maybe you
are under the umbrella of Justice that we really take a look at
that and ask Justice and your attorneys to look at that.
Because it is going to happen if nobody has the shots and these
people--the guards on the outside get infected, and I am really
concerned about that. I think it is one of the big issues.
And let me say this. You have a tough job and everybody who
works in prisons have tough jobs, and you have got to have
integrity. You have got to work as a team to back each other
up. It is not an easy job, and it is very easy for us to
criticize because a lot of things happen in prison that don't
happen other places.
But I think until we deal with that issue and as long as
COVID's around, until we smash it out, I think we really have
to focus on guards protecting themselves so they protect your
inmates. Because that is their job, basically.
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, sir, I understand. I will tell you I am
committed to providing that information and education, and we
continue to encourage. Because I agree that we should have as
many vaccinated as possible, but as I stated earlier, sir, I
can't make anyone take that vaccine.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, you know, we have got to look into
that. I know that is what you are saying and I am not arguing
with you. I think we really have to focus and see when you have
certain jobs--if you want to operate on somebody in this
country, you have to be a doctor, and it is the same thing
here.
We know that people are getting COVID and we can't stop it
because they refuse to get a shot. It is not enough.
So, Mr. Chairman, I really hope that we can focus on that
one issue itself, because I think until we do, we are still
going to have a lot of problems. And I read you the numbers
from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine for that reason.
Mr. Cartwright. It is a point well taken, Congressman
Ruppersberger.
And I want to now recognize Congressman Garcia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure and
an honor to be on CJS. This is my first subcommittee hearing.
And thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt, for the kind welcome.
Director Carvajal, I want to thank you for your service to
our great Nation, not only in your current position and prior
roles in the corrections industry, but as an Army personnel man
as well. So thank you, sir.
This issue of privately managed versus BOP-operated
facilities in the midst of the COVID pandemic, using COVID
deaths as a measure of merit, as the metric, if you will, which
entity performed better than the other? Were the privately
owned, privately operated facilities more successful at
preventing COVID deaths than the government ones or vice versa?
Mr. Carvajal. No. Congressman, that is a tough question,
because I think that even one death, obviously, weighs heavily
on me and it is--you know, they weigh heavily on me, even one.
Mr. Garcia. Sure.
Mr. Carvajal. One is too many. But I will tell you that it
is hard to compare that because our numbers are so different.
And, no, I don't have any data as far as percentages and all
that. I will tell you, though, that I do believe that our staff
have done a great job, considering the circumstances and what
we have learned. I am happy to say there is only six inmates in
the hospital right now, zero on vents, and I think, again, that
shows that we have gotten a handle on this somewhat, but I do
not have the numbers that you are talking about. I can
certainly look them up and get back with you on that. As far as
the----
Mr. Garcia. That would be great. I think that is one of the
metrics that is probably one of the most important if we are
looking at this seriously in how to prevent it in the future.
The number of deaths seems to be a metric we should be
tracking.
You mentioned early in your testimony that some of the
privately owned contracts expired due to a lack of demand. Is
it reasonable to infer from that statement, then, that from a
capacity perspective, the BOP is actually doing well right now
with what you have?
Mr. Carvajal. What I can tell you, Congressman, is that we
obviously have increased capacity. That was one of the things
that we took into consideration. Now, the last few years, our
population has trended downward. You know, it is really hard to
predict a year or two out how many beds we are going to need,
but somehow our research people have seemed to hit it pretty
close. We are not predicting an increase. Certainly if
priorities change with, you know, the front end, you know, we
will see an increase, but that hasn't shown the case.
And because we put the 23,000 on home confinement and
through natural releases--you know, we release about 40,000 a
year in general, we are at capacity right now. Right now, we
have about 55,000 empty beds in our system right now.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. And in a nominal world outside of a
pandemic, such as the one we have where we have early release
options, would that be about the same vacancy rate or would you
foresee the demand rising above the levels of capacity right
now that you have?
Mr. Carvajal. Again, Congressman, I don't know the exact
numbers because I haven't looked at them, but I will tell you
that our population was downward trending, so to speak. So one
thing we are doing is taking advantage of this. We established
some target pops. One of the best practices--I think this is
related to what we have been talking about--is that we couldn't
social distance, as I stated a couple times.
What this lower capacity has allowed us to do, though, is
spread that population and those open barracks. So we put a
target percent of 50 percent capacity, and that also led to
making it safer in the prison. Now, obviously, we won't always
have that ability, but we are revisiting how we put capacities
on those low open dorm types because of what we learned during
COVID.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. Yeah, and I would just--you know,
obviously, those low-efficiency models are unique hopefully
only to a pandemic and that is not something we should be
striving for in the end.
In your estimation, at the State level, there were some
prisons and jails that decided to release more inmates probably
than the 23,000 that are within BOP even. In your estimation,
did that save more lives than it ended up costing? Did that
save more prisoners from dying of COVID than it did victims
dying of actions as a result of prisoners on an early release
program?
Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, I can't answer that question
because I don't know the data and I don't have it. So it would
be pure speculation, and I don't want to do that, sir.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. I am out of time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you, Director.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
At this time, the chair recognizes Congressman David Trone
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a long-going interest in the criminal justice
reform, and the Bureau of Prisons is certainly key to that.
Director, I met with you in my office and your staff 6 days
on March 3, 2020, after you came into office, and we had a
wonderful meeting. And we gave you a whole list of things we
wanted responses to because it was--you were new, and we never
got those responses.
Then on March 31, we followed up with a letter with all of
our questions and we never got a response. On April 17, we
followed up with another letter and we never got a response. On
4/23, my staff met with your staff, and we never got a
response. So we resent the letter this week because we have a
new sheriff in town, President Biden.
I am on this committee now, which has some oversight, and
just a yes or a no, because I recommend to the Biden
administration that you and your staff are incompetent and be
fired.
So my question for you is, can I get a yes to answering all
of our questions?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Trone. Thank you. That would be just great. One year
later.
Next question. I have been made aware the number of BOP
facilities, including one in my region, returned FSA funding
for long-term investments to help with eligible occupational
training. We would like an answer on that, if you could, in
writing as the number of dollars returned and what facilities
returned them and why exactly they couldn't use those dollars
to help the eligible occupational training programs which were
put into effect to help reduce our criminal--our prison group
of FSA funding.
Can you get that information to us?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, I will, Congressman.
Mr. Trone. Perfect. Thank you.
The other issue I have suffered a bit of setbacks on is
data collection. I think we need data in your system, and a lot
of our requests are about that. The IRC recommended real-time
recidivism data that shows outcomes, related information to
effectively evaluate FSA pattern, what they call risk
assessment instrument, and your rehabilitative programming.
This would require significantly expanded data collection,
evaluation, dissemination of post-release outcomes, because we
are all about outcomes, so I can drive recidivism lower,
including data about rearrests, unemployment, employment, and
other post-indicators of incarceration.
What plan does BOP have to undertake this clearly necessary
expansion of data collection, tracking the progress of our
incarcerate individuals from prison to reentry, home
confinement, et cetera, and then later into supervision? And
what resources does your office need so we can make this all
happen?
Mr. Carvajal. Okay. Thank you, Congressman. First of all, I
do recall our visit, and it was a good visit. And I will tell
you that I will certainly look into--the first I am hearing
about these nonresponses. I assure you I will not make an
excuse. I will find out what happened. There is a clearance
process. It certainly shouldn't take a year, so my apologies on
that, sir. No disrespect intended.
I will also tell you, given the opportunity, that we are
going to address these issues. I won't talk about what happened
before, but I am here now and I will look at the data. I know I
asked the same questions. Part of the money we are using for
First Step Act is to work with outside vendors and contractors
to do just what you are saying. I don't know why it wasn't done
before, sir, I can't answer that question, but we are committed
to going forward.
Mr. Trone. Okay. You get me that information back on the
money that was returned, where it was returned, and why we
couldn't execute the money that you were given to help our
returning citizens.
Thank you.
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Trone. Quickly, we will follow up some more later, but
private sector partnerships. We have got to give folks a fair
shot at employment, and it shouldn't be just because of their
criminal history that they are excluded.
So you launched the Bureau Ready to Work initiative in June
of 2019 to improve reentry outcomes to work directly with
employers to hire individuals. My company has hired over 500
returning citizens. And the question is, what were the lessons
learned from the Ready to Work initiative, and are you planning
another iteration of this much needed program?
Mr. Carvajal. Well, Congressman, I know I remember
discussing that program with you, and I certainly support it. I
will tell you that, right now, I am not familiar with any
numbers on that program. We have obviously been dealing with
COVID. Now, I get reports on a lot of things. One thing that I
certainly will get back to you on is the returning of money. I
am certainly not aware of that. But I will find these answers
for you, Congressman, and follow up with you.
Mr. Trone. Thank you.
I yield back.
And we will follow up at this point also in writing too, so
we have a beautiful trail, which I like.
Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
At this point, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Grace
Meng for 5 minutes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to Doctor
and Director Carvajal for being here and for your work.
I have two questions. One is about pregnant inmates, which,
as you know, are especially vulnerable population. According to
national guidance, pregnant women should receive regular
prenatal care, screening, diagnostic tests.
Recent GAO findings indicate that the BOP's policies on
pregnancy-related care don't align with national guidance.
Specifically, national guidance has 16 pregnancy-related care
topics, BOP policies fully align on only 8 of the 16.
Just wanted to ask, what policies does the BOP have in
place to ensure that pregnant inmates have access to regular
quality prenatal care, and also, what sort of data is kept--
does the BOP track related to pregnant inmates?
Mr. Carvajal. Thank you, Congresswoman. I know that I
certainly very much interested in this, you know, pregnant
inmates and making sure that they are safe. I will follow up
with my medical director. I am not familiar with--I am familiar
with what you are talking about, the recommendations and all
that, but I am not familiar of why we aren't there. I will
certainly find out.
I will tell you that during COVID, we have gone above and
beyond to make sure that those pregnant females are taken care
of. There is only seven in our custody. The only reason that
they remain in our custody, not in the communities, because
they don't meet the criteria or they have mental challenges,
things of that nature. So it is an important topic.
I will tell you that--and this goes to Congressman Trone
and a couple of these other issues that--of our failures in the
past. I have established a task force recently, after speaking
and meeting with GAO, to address some of these issues. And,
again, I won't make excuses about why we haven't done
something. All I can tell you is, given the opportunity going
forward, we are going to address these things, and that task
force is going to help me get the plans in place, find out
where the breakdowns were, and identify these issues so that we
can make sure that we don't repeat these things, and we have
that information for you going forward.
Ms. Meng. Great. Thank you.
And then I have another question about the issue of
solitary confinement. Last year, NPR reported the use of
solitary confinement in prisons as a response to curb the
spread of COVID-19. Prior to COVID, there were about 60,000
inmates in solitary confinement. Last June, when this was
reported, the numbers were in the hundreds of thousands, in
both Federal and State prisons.
Knowing that solitary confinement can cause serious
physical and psychological harm and is actually an
internationally recognized form of torture, wanted to ask, how
many inmates are in solitary confinement today, how many are
there due to COVID, and how long, on average, are inmates kept
in solitary confinement?
Mr. Carvajal. Okay. Congresswoman, good questions. I know
that this is a big topic in my previous assignment and,
honestly, coming up the ranks. I am very familiar with we call
special housing. I don't use the word ``solitary confinement''
because it is not reflective of what we do. I understand your
concerns with it, but we don't put people in there. The average
stay is about 75 days for special housing.
The answer to your question about how many in there for
COVID. Zero. Should be zero. Now, we do have medical isolation,
so we can't confuse these things, but we should not be--I am
not aware of anyone--my expectation is that no inmates are in
the special housing unit because of COVID. Now, I have to
explain this. What I will say that there have been times where
inmates who were in special housing, because that is where they
were quartered, contacted COVID. So we obviously manage them
there. So there is some differences there, but today, this
morning, there was a little over 8,500 inmates in special
housing, to answer your other question.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. Can I just ask the followup? So the
8,500 inmates who are in there for about, on average, 75 days,
do they have access to phone calls, to, you know, to the
outside world?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congresswoman, they do. They are a
little bit more restricted, depending on if they are in there
for a disciplinary infraction. Obviously, there are sanctions
that go with that, but, yes, inmates in special housing are
afforded phone calls, the same opportunities as the inmates in
general population, as much as possible, but keeping in mind
that that is a secure area.
So, yes, they do get access to phone calls, not as
frequently as inmates in the general population, though.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
At this point, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Brenda
Lawrence for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Hello?
Mr. Cartwright. Congresswoman Lawrence, I want to say, you
may--it looks like you are logged in twice.
Mrs. Lawrence. Oh, okay. So I will leave----
Mr. Cartwright. Now it looks like you are logged in once,
but we can't hear you.
Mrs. Lawrence. So I am very special. I have to be on here
twice.
Mr. Cartwright. [Inaudible.]
Mrs. Lawrence. May I start now?
Mr. Cartwright. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much.
I want to say thank you, first of all, to my Chairman
Cartwright for yielding and I look forward to working with you
as a second term member of CJS and under your leadership is an
honor for me. I want you to know I serve as the co-chair of the
Democratic Women's Caucus, and I want to focus on issues faced
by too many female inmates during this pandemic.
According to records, at one such facility, the Danbury, a
minimum security facility called The Camp, 34 of 50 inmates
tested positive for COVID. According to other records, there
was a lack of hand soap in the women's bathroom, even though
CDC guidelines specifically stressed the need to constantly
wash your hands.
In some instances, female inmates were rushed to other
makeshift sleeping areas, often without notice, forcing them to
leave behind critical, medical, and feminine hygiene products.
So, Director, I find these reports to be incredibly
disappointing. In the midst of a global pandemic, can you
explain why many female inmates are not given access to basic
female hygiene products?
Mr. Carvajal. Congresswoman, I will also say that I find
that unacceptable and I find it hard to believe. And if it
happened, then I would like to know when and where, so that I
can do something about it. I will also say that we have had
many reports of things like this. As I stated in my comments,
they are often mischaracterized or exaggerated.
What we have done to counter that is I have implemented
these teams to go unannounced. In cases such as that, in some
facilities, I have even dispatched high-level assistant
directors unannounced to put their eyes on these things because
we take them very seriously.
I absolutely don't expect that to occur in one of our
facilities. There is ample soap and water. There is ample
supplies. There is ample feminine hygiene products. I will also
say this: There are times when my dispenser has been out of
items, and I always remind people that they just need to ask
for them.
So I have heard those things, Congresswoman. I agree they
are unacceptable, but I don't believe that to the level where
people didn't have them.
Mrs. Lawrence. Okay. You are familiar with The Camp,
correct? The facility called The Camp?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, ma'am, I am. I was regional director in
that region. I have visited that facility. I am very familiar
with it.
Mrs. Lawrence. So is it true that 34 out of 50 inmates
tested positive?
Mr. Carvajal. Congresswoman, I don't have the information
for that exact facility, but I have no reason to doubt your
numbers, especially if you got them off our website, which are
updated daily. And we have had outbreaks at different places.
I know Danbury was affected early on, so it is very
possible, but I do not know and cannot confirm those exact
numbers. I will certainly follow up with you.
Mrs. Lawrence. Well, a couple things I want followed up on
as well. The COVID-positive women allegedly were placed in a
men's visiting room and did not receive over-the-counter
medication to assist with fevers and body aches. Not only were
the women forced to sleep under brutal circumstances, they were
not provided the basic necessities to treat these symptoms.
I need to know, because I have visited prisons, and I have
been told that, because of the budget, that each facility is
given the same budget. And so because female products cost
more, women are not given the adequate amount. And I would
appreciate--so in this report, and I will get you the report in
case you haven't seen it, a pregnant inmate shared a story of a
bunkmate who had developed a cough, yet you know the Bureau of
Prisons was not able to quickly respond with testing inmates in
these populated conditions.
Were pregnant inmates granted priority status for
consideration of home confinement?
Mr. Carvajal. Congresswoman, first of all, I would like to
follow up with you to get that information, because if that
occurred, I want to know about it. It is the first I have heard
about it. I will answer your other question.
Yes, they were. When pregnant females, when COVID hit, as
we learned more about it, we made sure that we had ample space
in our RRCs and our programs to get them out as quickly as
possible, again, taking into account that I still have to
follow the rules and the law and public safety.
So at current time, there is only 15 pregnant females in
the Bureau of Prisons, seven of them are in custody in our
facilities and it is because they don't meet the criteria to go
out to the community, otherwise, I would have already placed
them there.
So, yes, they are given ample consideration. We do
everything possible to get them into community placement.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. I thank you, Congresswoman.
We are going to start a second round. We will be called to
votes probably within 20 or so minutes, so we will get as much
of the second round in as we can before we go to vote.
I will recognize myself for another 5 minutes of questions.
Director, I became a Congressman in January of 2013. In
February of 2013, Eric Williams was killed. He was a
correctional officer, 34 years old, at USP Canaan in Wayne
County, Pennsylvania. He was patrolling on his own in USP
Canaan, and he was jumped by a vicious, violent criminal by the
name of Jessie Con-Ui. Con-Ui jumped him. He had a shiv. He
stabbed Eric Williams over 200 times, and Eric Williams died.
I dare say you have got to know Don Williams, Eric's
father, since then, and you are very familiar with this whole
story. But it happened in my backyard when I was a brand-new
Congressman, and it shocked me that Eric Williams was made to
patrol on his own. And there was absolutely no doubt in my mind
that if he had had a partner patrolling with him, that never
would have happened.
And so this question of augmentation, of using statistics
to talk about the correctional officer to inmate ratio has come
up, and it has been a thorn in the side of the whole system the
whole time that I have been in Congress. You mentioned it. You
mentioned your commitment at the top of this hearing. You
mentioned your commitment to increasing that correctional
officer to inmate ratio, which is clearly the answer for
tragedies like that.
Would you tell us exactly what you have in mind? What is
your plan, and how can we be assured that you are not going to
include psychologists and art teachers in your statistics?
Mr. Carvajal. Thank you, Chairman. I am very familiar with
the Eric Williams story, and I certainly had the honor to meet
Mr. Williams and get to know him when I was regional director
up there. I was a warden in a high-security penitentiary when
that happened, and it certainly hits home. So that stuff
bothers me. And I will tell you that, when I told you that we
are working on this, I am absolutely committed to addressing
those issues.
Now, I have to explain--and I am sure you have heard this,
because I know you are very familiar with the facility and with
the agency, but augmentation has always been a part and always
will be of the Bureau of Prisons. We are all correctional
workers. That is what allows us to actually function in times
like COVID. The key there is the overreliance. That is what I
am committed to making sure we get rid of.
And I certainly agree with you, Congressman, that using
other staff at correctional posts is not a good idea when we
overrely on it. So we have started a hiring initiative. I
mentioned that. 100 percent of staffing. We are committed to
doing that. What makes that difference--I know it sounds like
it should be common sense, but what makes that difference is we
did something different.
I shut down all internal selections. Now, that came with
some scrutiny obviously. I am holding people's promotions up,
but we can't have it both ways. I want to focus all resources
to fill those 100 percent vacancies. Okay?
So, obviously, more staff in those units, those prisons
makes us safer. That is the number one commitment.
The other thing we are willing to do, and we started doing,
and you may have seen it in the GAO audit, was that we have
been scrutinized for how we staff our facilities. So I am
taking advantage of this time with our capacity low and we are
reviewing our capacity of each facility and we are making sure
that we have the appropriate number of staff at each facility
by security level, by mission, by operation, to make sure that
we can adequately program but keep people safe. And that sounds
very basic, but it is difficult to do. Our staffing guidelines
are somewhat antiquated. It is time to modernize them, and we
have begun that process.
So my commitment going forward, Chairman, is that we are
going to do everything possible to make sure that incidents
like that don't happen again, and that we put the appropriate
number of staff. I look forward to working with the department,
and we appreciate the support from this committee in providing
us those resources.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, it is not just for the protection of
the correctional officers; it is also for the safety of the
inmates.
What I will ask you is will you make a commitment to share
with me and this committee, this subcommittee, the actual CO
numbers, leaving out all of the other noncorrectional officers,
share those CO numbers as compared to the inmate population?
Mr. Carvajal. Okay. So right now, Congressman, I told you
we have a little over 37,000--I was talking in approximates
because these numbers change----
Mr. Cartwright. I don't mean right now; I mean----
Mr. Carvajal. Oh, yes, Congressman.
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. Every couple of months moving
forward, so we can all work together on the project.
Mr. Carvajal. Absolutely, sir. Right now, we have about
13,500 correctional officers. 1,200 vacancies specifically that
we are working on.
So, yes, I will share them.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
And I am going to recognize Ranking Member Aderholt for 5
minutes.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, Director, I know that the Bureau of Prisons contract-
operated facilities provide a wide range of programs to serve
their inmates, many of which have been made priority under the
First Step Act and that have demonstrated that they reduce
recidivism. These include literacy programs, job training,
residential drug abuse programs, anger management, and mental
health treatment.
My question is, can the Bureau of Prisons guarantee that no
inmates' programs or treatments will be interrupted or won't be
discontinued or diminished as a result of complying with the
executive order that I mentioned about the closures?
Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, if I understand and I heard you
correctly, I can't guarantee that, sir, not for the reasons you
said, though. In the normal course of running a prison, we
often run into issues where we have to stop programming. And as
I stated earlier, through COVID was an example, where we have
crisis and it does affect it.
What I can do is commit to you, though, that we are going
to implement the First Step Act and make sure that inmates have
all the available resources to earn those time credits and to
get those opportunities. That is half of our mission.
Everybody thinks that we just keep them in. Well, the
safety and security is half of our mission, but the reentry and
providing those programs is just as important. So we are
committed to doing that, yes, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. Yes. So there could be some programs or
treatments that would be interrupted if this executive order,
when it is put into place?
Mr. Carvajal. No, sir. I can't directly relate it to the
executive order, because I don't believe--if I am understanding
your question, that doesn't have anything to do with the
ability of us to provide programs.
Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Well, I guess my question is that, if
they have to be transferred, then there will be interruption
with some of these programs and--so that is what I was
referring to.
Mr. Carvajal. Okay. Yes, sir. I understand now. Yes, sir,
obviously in the course of any transfers, we do interrupt
programming. One of the things that we are trying to do to
mitigate that going forward across the board is to make sure
that we have consistent programming throughout, so that if an
inmate transfers from one location to another, that he can
resume his programming at the other place. And we try to do
that as much as possible.
Our goal is for them to successfully complete programs, so
that is always viewed. And we have even made adjustments so
that an inmate could finish a program, because that is our goal
is to get them to complete these programs.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. And bear in mind, I understand that,
you know, I think there is a role for private prisons, just
like there is a role--but we also need to have the Bureau
running prisons, so I understand there is a partnership there,
where there is room for both. But it is not uncommon, as you
know, to hear people say that contract-operated facilities are
less safe than Bureau of Prisons managed facilities.
But isn't it true that the 2016 Office of Inspector General
report on Bureau of Prisons monitoring contract prisons showed
that privately managed facilities, that they audited and
performed better in several key categories, including fewer
suicides, fewer positive drug tests, fewer drug confiscation,
less inmate sexual misconduct, and just overall grievances? Is
that correct?
Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, I am familiar with what you are
talking about. First thing I would like to point out is that,
as silly as it sounds, it is like comparing apples and oranges.
The inmates that we place in the privates are low-security
criminal alien population with not a lot of disciplinary on
them. They have short sentences. They are waiting deportation
in many cases. So they don't get a lot of our serious
offenders. We keep those ourselves.
And I will tell you also that we follow the guidance given,
sir. We are required to follow the executive order.
I will tell you that we have worked well with the privates.
As you mentioned partner, I will say that. We rely on them. We
have in the past. So it is not my position to talk about
whether or not they perform better or not.
I will tell you this: They have met their contracts, and
that means that they have performed with what we expect them to
do within the statement of work.
So with that said, sir, you know, we have to follow the
executive orders, and that is the best I can tell you on that.
But it isn't any decision made because we don't think they are
performing; I am just doing what I am told to do.
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah, but the bottom line is, you don't
believe that contract facilities that you oversee are unsafe?
Mr. Carvajal. If I believe that the contract facilities are
unsafe? Was that the question, sir? I want to make sure I
understood.
Mr. Aderholt. No. I am saying you don't believe that any
facilities that you are contracted with that you oversee, that
they are unsafe places for the prisoners. Is that correct?
Mr. Carvajal. No, sir, I don't believe that. They are
meeting their obligations or we wouldn't utilize them. They
have to meet the standards or we won't use them.
Mr. Aderholt. Yes, sir. That was my question. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congressman Ed Case for 5 minutes.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Chair.
Director, I am still stuck on my prior line of questioning
and trying to understand that a little bit further, just so I
can try to isolate what the actual issues are.
You previously said that roughly half of the correctional
officers had, thus far at least, declined to be vaccinated,
even though, as I understand it, the vaccine, the 80,000 doses
that you testified were available, were made available first to
the correctional officers. Is that right, first of all?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman, with one exception. They
are made available to all of our staff. 100 percent of our
staff, unless they were on leave or something, it has been made
available. And for those who weren't available, they can
request it at this point.
Mr. Case. Okay. Understood. I guess the point I am trying
to make is that you could have had, with the available
vaccinations to date, you could have had 100 percent in your
officers if they had decided to all take it, right?
Mr. Carvajal. I don't know, Congressman. I mean, I
understand what you are saying that, you know, the simple math,
but, you know, keep in mind that we have all staff. You know,
we have about 13,000 correctional officers, but I am talking
about all of our staff, the 37,000 that have been offered.
Certainly if they accepted, you know, we very well may be at
100 percent.
Mr. Case. Yeah. Well, I am just taking 37,000 and times-ing
it by two. That is, you know, less than the 80,000. So I am
just making--we don't have to get into the exactness of this. I
am just saying that, in my understanding, virtually all of your
correctional officers could have been vaccinated to date and
yet didn't. And so your answer when I asked you why not was,
you said, can they be compelled to do it? You said, A, the
interpretation of FDA emergency versus permanent approval and,
B, you made mention of the collective bargaining agreements.
So let me just tick off the collective bargaining agreement
side of it for these purposes. Have there been discussions with
the representatives of the collective bargaining units for the
correction officers about taking the vaccine? Is that a subject
of negotiation right now? Are there conditions being placed on
whether officers will or won't take it? For example, is there a
disagreement over, you know, hazard pay or something like that?
Mr. Carvajal. No, Congressman. If I am understanding your
question, the answer to that is no. Now, I will tell you that
we have had informal discussions. We have open line of
communication with the union, but at this point, we have not
approached them formally, because as I stated earlier, sir, I
listen to the experts, and in the case of the vaccinations,
what my doctor, my medical director tells me and his staff and,
of course, the legal side of the house and then there is the
labor side.
We have informally discussed this with the national union
executives. We have informally, though. We haven't done any
formal type of approach, but we are in constant discussion with
them.
Mr. Case. Okay. So at this point, it seems that, whether we
like it or not, we are in a voluntary situation. And
voluntarily, you could have those discussions with the
collective bargaining union representatives. But let me cover
the other side of this equation.
Do you have the sense that the--what is your sense of why
half of the correctional officers have not been vaccinated?
That is much, much higher than any sense I have of the general
population in terms of would you take it if you could. My
understanding is that is somewhere around three-quarters, give
or take.
In any event, it doesn't matter. It is 50 percent versus
higher, I think you would say, for the general--so I am asking
the question, why do you think that is? Are they--what kind of
information are they being given about the benefits of
vaccinations, especially in the context of their work
environment where it is absolutely tangibly a risk, you know,
to themselves and to their fellow officers and to the folks in
those institutions? Why do you think that they are not taking
this in higher numbers? And what do you think you can do about
it?
Mr. Carvajal. Well, Congressman, what I can do about it is
what we have continued to do is that we absolutely encourage
it. We set the example. Most of our leaders were the first to
take it. And a lot of times, again, to go back to our
relationship with the union, our union leadership has partnered
with us to make that example and encourage the staff.
Mr. Case. Have you distributed information to all
correctional officers saying this is the objective science,
public health recommendations of taking a vaccination? This is
the reality. Is that out there in the field?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, it is, Congressman. And I will tell you,
I have also done video messages. We encourage it at every level
to encourage them to take the vaccine.
The one question that I can't answer, sir, is what I think
about it because it would be purely my opinion and that is
irrelevant here, because I can't make a determination for
someone to make a personal choice whether or not they are going
to be vaccinated and--you know, certainly I have an opinion on
that, but I don't think it is appropriate to share it. I will
just tell you that I respect that of someone making that
choice, and I will leave it at that.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Director. I would
suggest that perhaps you can ask them to understand what more
you--if you haven't already, some systematic asking of them
doesn't violate their privacy. They can answer or not.
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, sir. Point taken.
Mr. Cartwright. We are now going to move to Mr. Palazzo for
questions. And I would ask that Congressman Palazzo keep to 3
minutes so we can get through the remaining members before we
have impending votes and we don't have to adjourn and try to
come back.
Remember, all members can submit written questions that
will be transmitted to the witness and will be expected to be
answered.
The chair recognizes Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I may be like some of the other members on this call, a lot
of this is new to me. So I appreciate the director's patience
with us in helping to explain, you know, and prying answers to
our questions.
Just sitting on the call, you know, I started having other
questions. Why were private prisons--what is the history behind
the private prisons? What brought them into creation? And do
they specialize in a certain class like the criminal aliens?
Can you provide some context, please?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. I would be probably
stretching it if I told you I knew the history of why we use
them. I will tell you what I know. From the last part of my
career or when we started using them or if there was mandates,
I don't know the answer to those questions. What I will tell
you is this: We have partnered with them. At the peak of our
population, when we were at 220,000, we absolutely needed their
bed space, and that is how this was utilized. That is why they
maintain and we tend to send them the criminal aliens. They are
usually 150-month sentence or less, you know. They are not in
for violent crimes at times like that. That is who we place in
those prisons. And then we keep the people that we need to
manage on our side. But that is the best I can do to tell you
that we relied on their bed space at one point. We just don't
need it now.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. How many people are actually in
private prisons? How many inmates, Federal prisons?
Mr. Carvajal. Today, sir, about 13,000 or so. Again, the
number changes daily.
Mr. Palazzo. And these private facilities, were they
constructed with private dollars or is these dollars that the
Federal Government provided? What will happen to those
facilities if the contracts are not extended and what also will
happen with the prisoners? Where will they go?
Mr. Carvajal. Okay, Congressman. So the inmates, obviously,
we will take back into our custody and spread them out through
our capacity as appropriate.
As far as answering what happens to the prisoners, number
one, there is only one prison that we own that was a private,
and we took it back over when we closed it down for structural
reasons. That was Taft. So that is in our inventory. That is
our facility.
As far as all the other facilities, the 10 that we
currently have, they belong to the private, sir, and I can't
answer what they will be used for. You would have to ask the
vendors about that. But they are not our facilities. We just
pay them to house our inmates.
Mr. Palazzo. Okay. I do appreciate that. And I know the
government, from time to time, identifies things to privatize
because sometimes they can save the taxpayer dollars in these
tight, and soon to be even tighter, fiscal times. We need to
make sure that we are keeping costs low and quality of services
high.
So, again, Director, thank you very much.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
And the chair recognizes Mr. Ruppersberger for 3 minutes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Hello? Can you hear me? Okay, great. Got
it. Show time.
I want to get back to the question of safety standards in
prison. High rates of preexisting respiratory and cardiac
conditions are factors that can exacerbate the spread of COVID-
19 among the 2-plus million people incarcerated in American
jails, prisons, and correctional facilities.
Now, policies that have potential to curb the spread of the
disease include the early release of prisoners unlikely to pose
a risk of re-offending, implementing strong infection control
practices, and using widespread testing. Now, health and safety
standards in prison is the key to maintaining health in prison
populations and also health staff in the prisons.
In Baltimore, part of my district, a class action lawsuit
has been filed over the rapid rate of infection, and prisoners
are saying they are not being kept safe, nor given the cleaning
products necessary to keep themselves safe.
So I have two questions, basically. How many of your
facilities do you believe meet standards for safe ventilation?
And, secondly, is your medical staffing and standards of
medical care for residents merit all the current needs where
there is likely to be continued gaps in services? And if not,
what are those needs?
Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, I think the easy answer to tell
you is a yes. We abide by the standards. We undergo ACA
accreditation. That is a third party who comes in and looks at
us. It is a very stringent process. We have our own internal
processes. We have the OIG and the GAO who are always reviewing
our facilities.
And as far as the medical standards and processes, we have,
again, accreditations that they go through. And certainly we
deal with the CDC, other public health organizations like that.
So to answer your question, if we aren't up to standard, we
are pretty much told by someone or we figure it out on our own.
To date right now, yes, we are up to standard, sir, and we take
that very serious. In fact, it is something that we commit to
do doing, making sure we are running a safe environment.
As far as, again, the ability for someone to have the
safety net inside the prison, when we know about these things,
we certainly look into them. I have heard of many of these
allegations and I assure you, before I became director, there
was no such thing as unannounced inspections. And I have done
many of them. In fact, most all of our facilities have
undergone inspections for the reason you said, to ensure we are
doing what we are supposed to.
Mr. Ruppersberger. All right. It is still in my crawl from
the last questioning, the fact that you have prison guards that
refuse to take a test and you don't have the authority to say
that is part of your employment when, in fact, by not taking a
test, these prison guards can infect, you know, prisoners who
have to be in that prison from COVID.
To me, that is very difficult, and we have got to find a
way to work around that. For whatever reasons they have for not
taking the test, we cannot allow that point of view to affect
the health, safety, and welfare of those prisoners. And that
is--really, we have got to focus on that. Again, I am just
bringing it up for emphasis.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. The emphasis is noted and appreciated.
And the chair recognizes Congressman Ben Cline for 3
minutes.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
I wanted to ask about the majority of BOP inmates in
contractor-operated facilities who are sentenced criminal
aliens. What is happening to them upon the closure of these
facilities? Are they just being--is there any effort to, after
they are finished with their sentence, deport them, or what
kind of consideration is being given to where they are being
transferred?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. Very good question. The
determination to whether or not they would be deported is--ICE
makes that determination. We have an immigration hearing
program. We have, I believe, 24 sites. We work in close
coordination with ICE. They hold those hearings. They make the
actual determination of whether or not to deport somebody.
To answer the first part of your question, those inmates
currently in the privates that are closing, they will be
absorbed back into our facilities. We will do our best to keep
them and certainly in the areas somewhat where they were, but
it will be on bed space availability and the needs of the
agency, though.
Mr. Cline. All right. Can you outline for me, going back to
my original questions about home confinement, some of the
factors that you consider as you determine whether to send to
home confinement?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, sir, I can. There is a bit of a list
here, so please cut me off if you think I am going--
Mr. Cline. Is severity of the offense one of the factors?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes. There is four hard criteria,
Congressman. The easiest thing to tell you is that you cannot
have a primary offense of violence, a sex offense, a terrorism,
or have a detainer. Those are nondiscretionary. If you fit into
one of those categories, we are not putting you out, because
public safety is also in there. We take that very serious.
Mr. Cline. Prior record?
Mr. Carvajal. Sir?
Mr. Cline. Is prior record considered?
Mr. Carvajal. Prior record, yes, sir. Well, disciplinary
history inside is looked at, but there is several other--I call
them discretionary because we have looked at those, and we have
a committee at times that review them and we make sure that we
are maximizing the use, keeping, in fact, public health, public
safety, as well as the inmate's safety.
Mr. Cline. What about immigration status, is that----
Mr. Carvajal. Oh, absolutely, sir. If you have a detainer,
you can't go out on home confinement.
Mr. Cline. All right. Thank you. I don't have any other
questions. I appreciate your help with that.
Mr. Cartwright. Sure. One followup from Mr. Cline's
question. He mentioned prior record. I think what he meant was,
suppose you are in for a nonviolent marijuana offense, but in
the past you have had a violent offense on your rap sheet that
you got convicted of. Is that considered?
Mr. Carvajal. Congressman, the answer to that is yes,
because we look at each individual and we assess them in
totality of the circumstance. All of that is taken into
consideration. In those cases where something like that, we
would reach out through the Department of Justice to the United
States Attorney's Office and get their input, maybe something
to follow up on to see what type of crime it was or if it fits
that. But, yes, it is looked at and is taken into
consideration.
The U.S. Attorney's Office also has the ability to provide
us information on objective to that of whether or not they
support us releasing that individual.
Mr. Cartwright. Very good. Thank you.
I recognize Mr. Trone for 3 minutes.
Mr. Trone. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let's talk about the First Step Act. This was a step in the
right direction, totally bipartisan, very good work done by
Congress and the President. And in fiscal 2020, Congress
included $75 million funding to begin implementation. In fiscal
2021, we included $400 million to begin--to move forward
implementation.
Part of the First Step Act implementation required the
Independent Review Commission do a report. That report came out
just recently in December. The report found, and I quote: Even
a full return to pre-COVID BOP programming levels will not be
sufficient to make available the, quote, evidence-based
recidivism reduction programs and productive activities for all
eligible prisoners in Bureau custody by January 2022, when it
was required by the FSA legislation. The Bureau requires
significant additional appropriations in order to muster the
personnel and programming access necessary to achieve that
goal.
So what kind of programming and how much additional funding
will be required for all eligible prisoners in the Bureau's
custody to access some really good things--occupational
training, educational classes, behavioral therapy, drug
treatment--that are all required by the FSA?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. Thank you. First, we
certainly appreciate the $409 million provided by this
committee in our budget and we are going to put it to good use.
With some of the things you mentioned, we have over 80
evidence-based recidivism reducing programs and productive
activities. Even through COVID, even though it did hinder our
ability, we still had 51,000 inmates enrolled in those programs
and productive activities, and over 21,000 of them had a
completion.
So I read the report, sir. I was a little bit shocked about
the IRC's recommendation because we work closely with them. We
are expanding capacity. We are utilizing the funds provided by
Congress to ensure that we hire up. That is part of our hiring.
A lot of those were First Step Act positions, specific to
expand the programs you mentioned--vocational career technical
education, things of that nature.
Mr. Trone. We are running out of time, but, quickly, could
you get back to us in the office in writing? We have got 9
months to get completed as a First Step Act, a bipartisan piece
of legislation required. And the IRC said it will not happen at
the current rate. So we would like to know how it is going to
happen in the next 9 months, and if it is not, what you need so
we can help you implement the First Step Act as Congress and
President Trump initiated? Thank you.
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, sir. We look forward to working with the
department to ensure that we have the resources to implement
it. We are committed to making this happen, Congressman. I
assure you.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. The chair recognizes Mr. Garcia
for 3 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Carvajal, thanks again. I empathize with you and
for you sitting in a body of legislators asking you why you are
not mandating a regulation that you have no control over. That
seems like it would either come out of the legislative branch
or an executive order of some sort. I don't support mandatory
vaccines as a qualification to work in any capacity. But I also
think it is rational that, if that path is taken, it should be
directed from the Federal Government and not up to individual
directors within Federal agencies. So I apologize for the many
questions on that to you.
I would like to ask for two pieces of data if we can get
submitted to the record. The first is to my first question
earlier, a metric of percentage of death rate within both the
privately operated and also BOP-operated facilities. And then
the second, if we can get a count of victim deaths as a result
of early release prisoners in the midst of the pandemic. I
think those two metrics, I know are not in front of you but
should be attainable; if we can get those added to the record,
just part of your testimony, that would be fantastic. Does that
sound doable?
Mr. Carvajal. Yes, Congressman. I am not sure what it would
take to get those, but I will certainly follow up with your
office and let you know that we can either provide them to you
or why we cannot.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
And I will just end with a question. How is correction
officer and staff retention and recruiting right now? And if it
is suffering or depressed in any way, what can we in this body
here, especially in the subcommittee, do to help you attract
and retain talent?
Mr. Carvajal. Thank you very much for that question,
Congressman, because that is one of our biggest challenges.
That is what we are doing with our hiring initiative. As you
know, I mentioned staff retention also.
I am happy to say that, even through COVID last year, as
tough as that was, we hired over 3,800 staff, but we lost as
many. So, again, to balance out. So we are working on
retention, and we are trying it do things to improve safety and
make sure that staff know we are committed to doing that.
I think, Congressman, the biggest thing that we could get
from this body and really all of the Members of Congress is
positive support. Certainly, people that live in your
constituency, tell them we are hiring. Tell them we are hiring.
I have jobs available. I see millions of people out of work,
and we are hiring right now. And we have great jobs, and it is
a great way to do public service. And our slogan: Come work on
the inside. That is what we can use from you.
We appreciate the resources that this committee has
provided. We certainly put them to good use. But I think
helping with this positive message in the community that we are
not a broken organization. We certainly can use improvement. I
am committed to doing that. But we have jobs available right
now. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir. And I am committed to
supporting you in that effort as well.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
And members, that concludes our second round. And we are
going to stop there. And I am going to remind all the members
that we have provided you an email address, which you can use
to submit written questions to Director Carvajal. And he has
evidenced a willingness to go ahead and answer those.
And, Director Carvajal, we are going to take your promises
at face value and, in that light and in that spirit, look
forward to working with you to keep us posted. We need to know
these answers to properly fund the Bureau of Prisons and make
sure you have the tools that you need to carry out your mission
in an ethical, in a humane, and in a practical way that the
American people expect. So thank you for joining us. This is
the end of the hearing. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you
all very much.
[Clerk's note.--The Department of Justice did not respond
to additional questions for the record in time for publication
of this hearing]
Wednesday, March 24, 2021.
MANAGEMENT, PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES, AND COVID RESPONSE AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WITNESS
MICHAEL HOROWITZ, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Cartwright. Let us gavel in and begin.
At this hearing, we are fully virtual, so we have to
address a few housekeeping matters.
For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition, for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
If I notice you have not unmuted yourself, I may ask you if you
would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by
nodding, staff will then unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When
your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will
begin to recognize the next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the
chair and ranking member. Then, members present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of
seniority. And, finally, members not present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
So good morning, everybody, and welcome to our second CJS
hearing of the year.
Today, we welcome Michael Horowitz, Inspector General for
the Department of Justice, a position he has held since 2012.
He has also served as Chair of the Council of Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency, which is comprised of all
73 Federal Inspectors General.
Prior to leading the Office of Inspector General, he spent
a decade in private practice, during which time he also served
as a commissioner on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and, from
1989 to 2002, he served in a range of significant positions as
a Federal prosecutor and within the Department's Criminal
Division.
The Inspector General occupies a unique position, with
responsibility to oversee the operation and performance of the
Department of Justice and promote the Department's integrity,
efficiency, and accountability. This is especially important
now when we are struggling to recover from a global pandemic.
In 2020, OIG, Office of Inspector General, received $2
million to oversee DOJ administration of $1 billion in CARES
Act funding. This is on top of its important work in overseeing
a sprawling $33 billion department.
We will be especially interested in hearing your
observations about how DOJ is addressing its COVID-19
challenges and correcting any missteps it might have made
during the pandemic, including its administration, as I said,
of $1 billion in CARES Act funding.
In its 2013 edition of its ``Top Management and Performance
Challenges for the Department,'' leading your list of six
priorities, General Horowitz, were ``the growing crisis in the
Federal prison system'' and ``safeguarding national security
consistent with civil rights and liberties.''
Seven years later, the lead was, quote, ``public confidence
in law enforcement and protecting civil liberties,'' unquote,
and, quote, ``use of sensitive investigative authorities,''
unquote, followed by ``planning in response to a global
pandemic,'' and ``a safe, secure, and humane prison system.''
Now, I know these lists don't represent a priority order.
It is hard not to be struck by the consistency of these
challenges, while noting the nuances and the changes that seem
to resonate with the times. I will be interested to hear your
thoughts on the persistent nature of these challenges, in
addition to what specific steps are being taken to ensure they
are being addressed.
I also expect today we will cover a wide range of topics in
addition to those already mentioned. We will begin with a focus
on DOJ's performance in handling the pandemic and also focus on
the challenges DOJ faces in dealing with the tragic events such
as the January 6 insurrection and the rise of violent extremism
in our Nation.
We will want to the hear about how DOJ is dealing with
other significant challenges facing the Department, such as
efforts by the Department to improve police and community
relations; to advance civil rights and civil liberties; racism,
hate crimes, and the rise of violent crime in our cities; the
never-ending scourge of opioid trafficking; foreign influence
and cyber threats; and the challenge of protecting voting
rights and institutional integrity.
So, once again, welcome, Inspector General Horowitz. We
look forward to your testimony.
And, at this point, I want to turn to my distinguished
ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, for his opening statement.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, good morning, Chairman Cartwright. And
it is good to be with the subcommittee virtually this morning.
And I appreciate your yielding for this hearing that we are
having this morning. I am pleased to be here to discuss the
Department of Justice management, performance challenges, and
COVID response with our witness, the Honorable Michael
Horowitz.
Mr. Horowitz, let me just say we value your efforts to
promote integrity and efficiency at the Department of Justice.
And, of course, we have worked with you for many years now and
we can attest that you have led by example. You have led the
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General for, I think,
close to 9 or 10 years now, and you have proven yourself to be
effective as well as impartial and dedicated to your work. And
we appreciate your willingness to answer sometimes hard
questions. And we appreciate your command of all the many, many
programs and activities at the Department of Justice, from the
matters that dominate the national headlines down to your
detailed oversight of your own annual budget.
And I would be remiss if I did not express my gratitude to
you also for serving in a most critical role during an
unprecedented time, and that is your role in leading the
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, heading up the
effort to prevent and to detect waste, fraud, and abuse and
mismanagement and to mitigate risk associated with trillions of
dollars in Federal spending. That is no small task, but we know
you are up to the challenge.
I look forward to the opportunity to discuss with you today
several challenges that face the Department of Justice,
including the crisis at our southern border, challenges facing
Department of Justice detention components, and the scourge of
child exploitation.
Chairman Cartwright, thank you again for holding the
hearing today, and I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
Well, Inspector General Horowitz, you are recognized at
this time for your opening remarks. This is not your first
rodeo; you have testified many times in front of congressional
committees and subcommittees. So you know it is a 5-minute
rule. Please try to keep your statement to 5 minutes. And, as
always, your full written statement will be included in the
record.
You are recognized, Inspector General Horowitz.
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you very much, Chairman Cartwright,
Ranking Member Aderholt, members of the subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on
management and performance challenges at DOJ and its COVID-19
pandemic response.
In our most recent top management challenges report, as the
chairman indicated, we identified nine specific challenges
facing the Department. In light of recent events, I am going to
briefly focus on five of those challenges. They are: countering
domestic and international terrorism; protecting against cyber-
related threats; strengthening public confidence in law
enforcement; responding to the global pandemic; and managing
the Federal prison system, a challenge that has been on every
one of the reports since I have been Inspector General.
First, countering domestic and international terrorism.
Enhancing national security and countering domestic and foreign
terrorism threats remain top priorities for DOJ and for good
reason. The OIG is continuing to conduct vigorous oversight of
DOJ's efforts to address these growing threats. Indeed, shortly
after the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the OIG initiated a
review to examine DOJ's role and activity in preparing for and
responding to those events. And, as our past oversight
demonstrates, the terrorism risk includes threats from both
domestic violent extremists and homegrown violent extremists.
We will continue to closely monitor and oversee DOJ's
counterterrorism programs and activities.
Second, cyber-related threats. The recent SolarWinds
incident demonstrates the vulnerability of IT systems and
presents a clear warning that DOJ must remain vigilant. I am
coordinating with my IG counterparts at agencies impacted by
the SolarWinds incident and assessing how we can best conduct
additional oversight work in this area. My office also
continues to conduct our periodic audits of DOJ IT systems
pursuant to the Federal Information Security Modernization Act,
or FISMA. Those reviews regularly identify important
recommendations to improve DOJ's IT security posture.
Third, strengthening public confidence in law enforcement.
As events over the past year demonstrate, strengthening public
confidence in law enforcement and protecting individuals' civil
liberties is of paramount importance. We are currently
reviewing the DOJ's response to events in Washington this past
summer and separately investigating use-of-force allegations
involving DOJ personnel in Portland, Oregon.
Additionally, DOJ must ensure that, in exercising its law
enforcement authorities, its components adhere to policies
designed to protect individuals' privacy. Our December 2019
review of certain FISA warrants found fundamental and serious
deficiencies. Further, an OIG follow-on report identified
significant compliance concerns with the FBI's FISA factual
accuracy documentation process. The OIG is continuing to
monitor the DOJ's and FBI's implementation of recommendations
from these reports.
Fourth, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The DOJ faces
a variety of challenges in this area, including preventing the
spread of the virus among Federal inmates and detainees in BOP
and U.S. Marshals custody. The DOJ also must effectively manage
about a billion dollars, as the chairman noted, in CARES Act
funding and operate the Nation's immigration courts in a manner
that minimizes risk while preserving individual rights.
Over the past year, the OIG has devoted substantial
resources to these oversight efforts, from conducting 16 remote
inspections of BOP facilities to reviewing the Marshals Service
COVID-19 response. In the coming months, we will release our
oversight reports on the Executive Office for Immigration
Reviews' response to the pandemic, the BOP's use of home
confinement, and OJP's handling of the CARES Act grant funding.
Fifth, maintaining a safe, secure, and humane prison
system. This has been a regular challenge we have identified.
And, most recently, we found that, despite a declining inmate
population, the BOP continues to experience significant
staffing shortages of correctional officers, medical staff, and
other positions. These shortages and associated safety issues
require continued vigilance and is an area the OIG continues to
conduct important oversight in.
Lastly, I want to thank the subcommittee for its continued
bipartisan support of our office, which has advanced our
ability to promote accountability and deter future misconduct.
The support has enabled us to better manage the growing volume
of critical digital forensic evidence we need for our work,
take steps to modernize and secure our IT infrastructure, build
a data analytics capability to advance our audit and
investigative efforts, and timely respond to the increase in
whistleblower complaints that we received.
The complexity and volume of our work, however, continues
to grow, as do demands on our cyber forensic capabilities, our
IT infrastructure and security, and our ability to conduct
classified audits, reviews, and investigations. We look forward
to continuing to work with each of you to address these issues.
I appreciate, again, the opportunity to testify today, and
I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may
have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Carter. Well, thank you for your testimony, Inspector
General.
And we now move to the question period. I will recognize
myself for the first 5 minutes of questions.
In 2013, your office completed an exhaustive review of the
Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division that built on
previous reviews by your predecessor. Your analysis spotlighted
management, policy, and personnel issues that hindered DOJ from
carrying out its historically prominent mission in protecting
all citizens' voting rights.
Now, we are not going to go into that report in detail
right now, but I have to observe, there couldn't be a more
critical time than right now for a strong, active Justice
Department effort in this area.
The 2013 Supreme Court's Shelby County decision helped open
the floodgates to an increasing number of administrative and
legislative actions in States and localities nationwide, often
under the guise of addressing nonexistent voter fraud, so-
called fraud, to make it harder for citizens to register and
cast their votes.
While, of course, it may be a good idea to update the
Voting Rights Act, in the near term we do depend on the Justice
Department to take a lead in forceful action to combat
suppression and protect efforts to facilitate the exercise of
this basic right of democracy, the right to vote.
I am going to ask you three questions, and I am going to
get them all out so I don't have to interrupt you in our 5
minutes, the first session.
Number one, how would you assess the performance of the
Department in general and the Voting Rights Section in
particular in carrying out its responsibilities to protect
voting rights in the past two election cycles?
Number two, in its fiscal year 2021 budget and performance
summary, the Civil Rights Division highlighted many missions
but only a one-word reference to voting, protecting the rights
of military servicemembers. What performance measures--
investigation, prosecutions, settlements--are available to help
evaluate the division's performance in this critical area? What
statistics would you point to? And if more data is needed, what
metrics would you recommend the Department collect?
And, number three, do you think the Civil Rights Division
has the capacity to be proactive in countering potential voter
suppression actions, either through litigation or other means?
And, if not, what steps could be taken within current law to
increase their effectiveness in such efforts?
Take it away, Inspector General.
Mr. Horowitz. Great. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So all
very important questions. And agree with you, this is a
fundamental issue with our democracy, is the right to vote.
Let me take the last one first and then double back to the
others.
I do think the Department has a series of tools available
to it in the Voting Section to be proactive. I think that is
one of the things we look at regularly when we do our reviews,
is understanding how the Department is using its authorities
and whether it is simply sitting back, waiting for problems to
come to it, or, as I think management of any department program
requires, thinking about where the law and needs are going,
where issues are developing, and taking steps to address that.
Clearly, the Department needs to operate within the bounds
of the law--statutory law, Supreme Court interpretation of it.
I am going to avoid giving them legal advice, because that is
clearly not something that Inspectors General are there to do,
to give the legal advice. But I do think there is the ability
to look at these issues proactively and it is important to do
that.
With regard to the fiscal year 2021 report that you
reference, I certainly think voting is such a fundamental issue
that it requires careful consideration, analysis, and more
than, I would suggest, a word in a report. This has been a
challenge we have seen, actually, also across the board, in
terms of performance measures and metrics. The Department
generally does not do a good job in that space.
And we could talk about it in a variety of different
contexts here. I think one of the things that the Department
tends to do--and, having been a prosecutor, I saw this in U.S.
attorneys' offices--is talk about output. ``Well, we indicted X
number of cases this year, 5 percent more than last year;
therefore, we must be doing a better job.''
That is not the measure. The measure is, are you addressing
the need and the issues and having an impact in those spaces,
not just, you know, putting more people in jail, arresting more
people. That can be one measure but certainly not the sole
measure.
And I think, in the voting space, it is important for the
Department, when it puts together its strategic plan, to think
about what they should be looking at beyond simply outputs. How
many cases did we bring, that shouldn't be the measure. The
measure should be, how do we impact the ability of the public
and citizens to exercise their right to vote.
And I think, frankly, they are best positioned to think
through those issues. We are very well-positioned to look at
whether they have done an effective job of that. And I am happy
to--we have already engaged with them on this issue, and happy
to engage further with you on and your staff on.
And then, finally, how to assess how they have carried out
their responsibilities in the last two election cycles. First
of all, they have responded to our earlier recommendations from
the report you referenced and made those changes. I can report
that we have not seen the kind of complaints that led us to
undertake that earlier review, which were quite concerning,
about the various abuses and issues that were rising within the
section. So I think, from that standpoint, there is an ability
to have some comfort.
But I think the challenge--and we have talked to the
division about this--is, in light of Shelby County and
understanding where district courts and other courts were going
in terms of implementing that decision and what space was still
available, I think, from what we heard from the Department, it
took some time to understand that.
So I am not sure, frankly, as I sit here, where we are in
this past cycle. We would have to go back and look at them,
given how recent it is. And, in terms of 2016, it was so soon
after Shelby that I am not sure--and will be happy to follow up
with the Voting Rights Section--as to whether they had had
sufficient time to react to the Shelby County decision to
undertake whatever changes they needed to take in advance of
the 2016 election.
But I will follow up with the division. We have not done
oversight work in that space, and I can certainly follow up and
get back to you, Mr. Chairman, on that issue to try and look at
and see what they did in 2016 and what they did in 2020 as well
as in the intervening 2018 congressional election.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Inspector General. That is
hugely important, and let us continue to follow up on that.
At this time, I would like to recognize Ranking Member
Aderholt for his questions.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, thank you.
Again, good morning, General Horowitz. Good to be with you
today. I want to ask a little bit about the border crisis,
focus a little bit on that.
The Trump administration, as you know, took real specific
steps to try to end the pull factors that incentivize illegal
immigration into the United States. For example, President
Trump implemented the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, pursuant to
statutory authority, to send a message to foreign nationals
that, simply, that because they make it to the United States
and claim asylum, they will not be released into the United
States while awaiting their immigration court proceedings.
My first question would be to you is, do you think the
termination of this particular policy has revived the prior
pull factor that we had?
Mr. Horowitz. So, Congressman, given our oversight
responsibilities at DOJ on the immigration are focused on
Executive Office of Immigration Review--because DHS has primary
responsibility for charging decisions and border control--I am
not, frankly, in a position to speak about how the ``Remain in
Mexico'' policy either impacted stops at the border previously
or if the removal of it is doing that now, frankly.
I can certainly follow up with our counterparts at DHS OIG
to see what they are seeing. And I have certainly seen their
earlier reports as we were doing some of ours on EOIR's
handling of this. But, at this point, given where CBP exists,
which is at DHS and not at DOJ, I am going to be limited in how
much insight I have personally into that issue.
Mr. Aderholt. Did you see anything from the reports that
you could share with us?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know currently how this is playing
out. I have seen reports that DHS OIG previously has put
forward identifying areas where those programs could be
improved and, you know, addressed further on the border. But I
would really have to defer to them on what they have found and
analyzed, because these are not oversight efforts we have
undertaken at the border.
We have looked at some issues about cooperation and work
between FBI and DHS at the border on the law enforcement side,
because that is also a DOJ responsibility, but not specifically
on the DHS border control authorities.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, during the Trump administration, you
assessed that there was a lack of coordination between Federal
agencies with respect to immigration policies and procedure.
And we are now seeing significant policy reversals, such as
ending the ``Remain in Mexico,'' as I mentioned, and a
moratorium on removals. And there appears to be a domino effect
on migration, crime, and a struggle to obtain adequate
resources.
Has the Department of Homeland Security--and maybe you can
shed some light on this--has the Department of Homeland
Security coordinated with critical Department of Justice
agencies, such as the United States Marshals Service, the U.S.
attorneys, and our immigration courts, with regard to policy
changes?
Mr. Horowitz. That has been an area we have looked at and
have expressed some concerns recently, specifically in a report
we did about coordination between FBI and DHS counterparts on
border-related security and criminal issues.
And we recommended, for example, there that FBI and DHS,
HSI in particular, enter into agreements and understandings so
that they could better deconflict, better coordinate. And,
interestingly, FBI agreed with our recommendation, as did the
Department, but HSI did not. And so that recommendation
actually remains open.
I know the prior Deputy Attorney General actually raised
this issue and this concern about the unwillingness to enter
into such an arrangement with DHS counterparts, and that is
still a problem today. And it is a problem I have heard about
repeatedly, which is the potential conflicts between DOJ
components and DHS components. And it is an area where we need
to keep oversight of and leadership of both agencies and to
follow up.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
I see my time is almost up, so I will wait until the next
round to go for the next question.
Mr. Cartwright. I thank my colleague Mr. Aderholt.
And the chair recognizes Congressman Crist for 5 minutes.
And, Congressman Crist, you are muted.
Mr. Trone. Matt, are you calling on me?
Mr. Cartwright. The chair has recognized Congressman Crist
of Florida.
And, Congressman Crist, you are muted.
All right. At this time, we are going to skip over and
recognize Congressman Trone for 5 minutes of questions.
Go ahead, Congressman.
Mr. Trone. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you today, Inspector General Horowitz, for
joining us, and thank you for the important role that you play
at the Department in auditing programs and activities.
On mental healthcare, last year, I visited a State prison
in my district that houses over 1,300 inmates. At the facility,
the warden told us they had a budget for two mental health
professionals but only one was currently on the job; they
couldn't find another. This facility was not part of BOP, but
it painted a picture of mental health treatment access, you
know, at our Nation's prisons.
As you may recall, in January 2020, the Department and OPM
granted the BOP authority to pay its physicians and dentists
according to the Title 38 pay plan, which governs compensations
for medical professionals at the VA. The result was higher pay
than the BOP would otherwise have been able to offer.
Your 2020 report on top management challenges for the
Department makes it clear that, despite the increase in
staffing that using the Title 38 pay led to, BOP healthcare
staffing is still far below where it needs to be, especially
due to COVID.
Could you elaborate on what additional actions BOP should
take to improve healthcare staffing levels, particularly mental
healthcare professionals?
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Congressman. That is a very
important question and issue that we have focused on and have
issued reports on, in our top management challenges and prior
reports, identifying the mental health issue as a significant
problem for treatment not only of inmates while in prison, but
the public needs to understand that it is critical to helping
inmates who will get out of jail in the Federal system--very
few inmates are in there for life--to transition to the
community. These inmates will be getting out of prison, and so
we all have an interest in making sure they are treated as they
need to be treated.
And there is this perpetual staffing challenge for the BOP
on the mental health side. I think, first and foremost, what we
identified was a commitment--in terms of a need--is a
commitment to focusing on this issue and doing everything
possible to address the staffing shortages.
They are oftentimes institution-specific problems. Some
institutions have greater challenges than others. And so there
isn't a one-size-fits-all in a Federal prison system that is
120-plus prisons all over the United States, some in rural
locations, some in urban locations. And I think, first and
foremost, that that is what has to occur, is a dedicated focus
to that issue in terms of staffing.
We have also identified issues with regard to placing
inmates in particular isolated housing units that tends to
exacerbate mental health issues as another problem and concern
that the BOP has to address. Because it is both a treatment
problem and a staffing problem, and both of those issues need
to be addressed.
I am sorry, you are muted, Congressman.
Mr. Trone. To help get them this focus, which we all agree
is needed, and the sense of urgency. Because the recidivism
rate, at 75 percent 5 years out, is costing taxpayers, you
know, $80 billion a year. You know, what should we on the
Appropriations Committee in fiscal year 2022 do to get them the
resources to help with mental health in the incarcerated
individuals?
Mr. Horowitz. I think a couple things.
First, a recent GAO report highlighted the overall weakness
in the BOP's assessment of its staffing needs. That applies
across the board. I think what the BOP needs to do is come
before the committee, the Department, and assess aggressively
and effectively its staffing needs in each of these areas,
mental health being a very specific one that it can do, and
needs to come forward and say, ``this is our staffing
expectations, we need to hit this target and, at a minimum,
reach the 90 percent threshold,'' which is generally their
standard, and figure out how to get actions taken to both
identify potential applicants and get them on board in a timely
manner through the challenges of the Federal hiring system
generally.
I am sorry, you are on mute, Congressman.
Congressman, sorry, you are on mute.
Sorry, Congressman, you are on mute. I didn't hear the last
question.
Mr. Trone. Yeah, it jumped on mute there. I have a slew of
questions. We will have to wait until we come back again,
because our time is expired right now.
But call on me when we are ready to go again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
And, at this time, the chair recognizes Congressman Ben
Cline for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Inspector General Horowitz. It is good to see you.
I appreciate the chairman and Ranking Member Aderholt for
holding today's hearing. Ensuring that our justice system is
operating effectively and efficiently in accordance with the
law is essential. And it is so important that we maintain
transparency and accountability in government. And I applaud
the IG for his office's efforts to conduct aggressive and
thorough oversight.
You know, when you are talking about addressing COVID,
responding to COVID, one of the areas that has been of concern
to me is, the lockdowns that have been put in place by my
Governor, several other Governors, have led to spikes in drug
abuse--opioid addiction was already a problem in my district--
but suicide rates, domestic violence rates, a number of
unrelated issues that have seen an increase in rates since
COVID.
And, with regard to opioids, the Northwest Virginia
Regional Drug and Gang Task Force reported just this week there
have been at least 12 deaths and 41 nonfatal overdoses this
year in the region. Three of those fatal overdoses and 13
nonfatal overdoses have occurred since March 16. And the
increase is likely due to a combination of receiving Federal
stimulus money and the presence of fentanyl-laced heroin.
What is the Department of Justice doing to better
coordinate with local law enforcement to combat this deeply
concerning increase in overdoses ravaging our communities?
Mr. Horowitz. So what we saw in our opioids report that we
issued 2 years ago now was the Department, through the Drug
Enforcement Administration, undertaking an effort, really for
the first time in a significant way, to try and look at not
just the law enforcement issues but to look at it through its
regulatory landscape and partner with State and local officials
at the law enforcement level and at the healthcare level. And
so we saw they were doing a better job of that, but they were
in a pilot program at that point and needed to expand that
effort.
That was one of the main issues we saw, was the shift,
again, from law enforcement to regulatory. But one of the
concerns we had with the Department's ability to respond was
weaknesses in its data information and ability to assess that
data. And so what we looked at, over the years, you could quite
clearly see, as the ever-increasing production thresholds were
growing--which DEA is the one who allows to grow--you could see
that spike coming, if you looked at and carefully assessed
where numbers were going, not just deaths but demands for
increased production.
And what we said in that report is, the Department and DEA
needs to look for trends like you are saying, like you are
referencing, and try and get ahead of them, back to the earlier
discussion I had with the chairman about being proactive, using
the data to be proactive, partnering in a proactive way with
local partners. Because the folks from your county and your
community are going to see this problem first. They are the
ones you want to hear from. And I think there needs to be a lot
more of that going on. And that is what our report said.
Mr. Cline. Great.
In your testimony, you discussed the $850 million in grant
funding DOJ received as part of the CARES Act. How is the DOJ
and your office monitoring the disbursement of these grant
funds to ensure that taxpayer resources are being administered
and used for their intended purpose?
Mr. Horowitz. So we have already done two, what I would
say, quick-hit looks at that so that we could identify whether
it was being managed effectively in the initial stages. And we
found generally it was by the Department's Office of Justice
Programs.
The critical question is going to be, as we now look at it
down the road, where the money went to. Were the recipients and
the sub-recipients using it appropriately? And, frankly, in our
past grant work, that is usually where we found the challenges
for the Department, not so much on how the Department is
assessing grants and giving them out, but how the Department
was assessing whether the downstream recipients were using them
appropriately--the grantees, the sub-grantees. And that is
where our work is going to lead us to now, now that the money
has been out.
So the initial report back is, the Department seems to have
managed it effectively from its end in terms of getting it out,
but we need to figure out if the money went to the right
people, places, and it had the right impact.
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. My time has expired.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
And, at this point, the chair recognizes Congressman Mike
Garcia for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Inspector General, for taking the time with
us today. I have several questions, but perhaps we will save
some of them for the next round.
The issue that you addressed at the beginning about
strengthening public confidence in our agencies at really all
levels of law enforcement but, obviously, in this domain with
what you have purview over, from an accountability--I think
that goes both ways, not only in terms of law enforcement
conduct and not abusing their power, not abusing suspects
during the custodial phases, but also making sure that we are
holding folks who are committing crimes accountable.
There is a perception that I hear very frequently, not only
in my district here in southern California but also, you know,
throughout the West Coast and in D.C., that folks are, frankly,
flabbergasted that we can have major cities in our country be
overcome by rioters for extended periods of time without really
seeing, in their opinion and the perception is, enough law
enforcement coming in to actually stop this type of civil
unrest--riots, looting, and arson.
We see examples in Portland, where it has been now 9
months, 3 weeks, and 3 days of not just peaceful protest but
also looting and vandalism to small businesses over an extended
period of time. We see in cities like Seattle, where we have,
you know, six city blocks' worth of territory being overtaken
by rioters and creating these autonomous zones.
There seems to be an unanswered question as to how that can
happen for such a long period of time without seeing either the
Federal Government get involved to the point where we are
squashing this type of behavior, still allowing for peaceful
protests but not allowing the vandalism and the tens of
millions of dollars that we have incurred as a result of the
civil unrest--the riots, the looting, and the arson.
In your opinion, are we doing enough at the Federal
Government level within the DOJ and all the equities below that
to ensure that we are earning the trust of our constituents and
the public in terms of just law enforcement in these regards?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, thank you, Congressman. And that is an
issue that we are looking at, both in connection with the
events last summer as well as the events at the Capitol, the
insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, is trying to
understand those events from the DOJ perspective.
And, by the way, we are coordinating with our counterparts
at the Interior OIG, which has authority over the Park Police;
DHS OIG, which obviously has authority over Secret Service and
other law enforcement; and the Department of Defense IG, which
has, obviously, the National Guard. So we are looking at it
from the DOJ perspective and coordinating with our counterparts
across the IG community.
Having said that, obviously, first and foremost, the
responsibility is at the local level, and the Federal
Government needs to be there to support and work
collaboratively with local law enforcement, and not come in
and, as a general matter, unless you are protecting a Federal
courthouse or the Congress or other locations like that, to
usurp local law enforcement.
You know, our questions that have been raised--I will speak
to DOJ specifically--with regard to some of the events last
year, which is, how well-prepared are DOJ law enforcement
personnel to serve in what are traditionally local law
enforcement responsibilities, in dealing with civil unrest,
issues at the Capitol, things like that? And that is also one
of the issues we are looking at. It is not clear to us what
kind of training, for example, BOP officers got before they
were put in place, FBI officers were put in place. And so that
is another question we are looking at.
Mr. Garcia. And is there an opportunity or benefit to look
at potential venues to help shape decisionmaking, at least, or
inform decisionmaking at the lower city levels, county levels,
in the interest of preventing these, what start as smaller
protests and smaller episodes of looting and rioting, from
becoming longer-extended periods?
I mean, yes, it is a local issue, but over time these start
influencing other cities throughout our Nation, and it becomes
a Federal problem really quick, right?
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah. And this is where the joint task forces
are so critical, at the local level. And that is something we
have been looking at from the standpoint of FBI, which have
task forces and obviously runs the Joint Terrorism Task Forces
across the country, working with DHS. The DEA has many task
forces, as does ATF, for the, respectively, drugs and gun
issues and violent crime issues.
And one of the things I will just mention we are looking at
is, we have an audit that will be out soon on body-worn
cameras. And I mention that, even though it isn't, perhaps,
obvious to people what is the connection between body-worn
cameras and the relationship of Federal law enforcement to
local law enforcement, there is a direct line there. Because,
as we all know, most large cities, most large police forces use
body-worn cameras; Federal law enforcement does not. That has
led to local law enforcement questioning participation in task
forces. Because, in some instances, it is local law, actually,
that requires the body-worn cameras.
And so it is very important for the Federal law enforcement
community to address that issue and to make sure it is working
closely with their counterparts to deal with some of the
challenges, like body-worn cameras, that can come up that you
might not think about in the first instance, but when you see
this over and over again over the last several years, it is
really quite critical to address, and something that I think
this committee and other committees will need to think about.
Because one of the things we are hearing about, as we are
talking about this issue at the Department, is the resource
issue and the cost issue, which----
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. As you know, you have funded at
the State and local level through the Department's Office of
Justice Programs. They have given out over $100 million to
support that. But it isn't happening at the Federal level.
Mr. Garcia. Understood.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
At this point, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Brenda
Lawrence for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Last week, our subcommittee heard from the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons. And one of the things that I am
zeroing in on is the treatment of women, particularly the
Federal inmates, when it comes to receiving proper care and
access to feminine hygiene products.
In your testimony, you highlighted several remote
inspections that evaluated the BOP's effort to control COVID.
Mr. Horowitz, based on the review of these reports, can you
speak to any specific findings associated with access to female
hygiene products for inmates, and did you see any trends across
the country?
Because when we asked this question of the Director, he
said he would have to look into it and get back to us.
Mr. Horowitz. So, Congresswoman, that is a very important
issue. We actually did a report shortly before the pandemic
that specifically addressed some of the female healthcare
issues in prison--female inmate issues generally, but that
specific issue as well. And, as a result of that review, the
BOP implemented a new policy with regard to feminine hygiene
products which was consistent with the recommendations and our
views that we saw.
I can promptly get back to you on the current status of
that. We did not, I will just mention, as part of the pandemic,
follow up specifically on that issue when we were doing our
remote inspections, because we already had the open
recommendation on----
Mrs. Lawrence. Okay.
Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. The issue.
But I can certainly get back to you. That is a very
important issue and something we have been on top of and want
to see implemented effectively.
Mrs. Lawrence. So I want you to know that, in visiting some
of the prisons and jails across the country, the issue of the
budget, where they said the women in prison get the same budget
as the men, but men do not need medications to help navigate
through menopause, they don't have the female hygiene products.
So that is a different line item.
And so that is one of the things I am concerned about. And
because they say that we are treating them equal, women
inherently have different needs that would be a different line
item. So that is what I am looking for. And I want to see those
recommendations.
But before I close, I want to commend the Office of the
Inspector General for undertaking investigations into a few
pressing issues. Taking steps to understand how to strengthen
public confidence in law enforcement is incredibly important.
And the last question I have: We started a program in the
State of Michigan where nonviolent, like, blue-collar inmates
who wanted to learn a skilled trade or to be given some tools
to make them a productive citizen when they leave. And we
actually start training them once they reach that term where
they are close to probation, and then they are getting job
offers before they leave prison.
And we know that skilled workforce is a really big issue.
Can you share with me what your opinion is of that? And can we
do that at our Federal prisons?
Mr. Horowitz. We certainly can do that. And one of the
things that we have done as we have looked at these issues is
look and see what the States are doing. Because what we have
found in many areas is that the Federal prisons can learn a lot
from what State systems are doing, and sometimes--and many
times, frankly, those systems have been further along in some
of these areas.
And two things come to mind on the Federal side that we
have worked on and looked at:
Federal Prison Industries, that is a very important program
to help give skill sets to inmates to transition out. I go back
to what I said earlier. Inmates in the Federal system are
invariably going to be getting out of jail. These are not
inmates who are in for life sentences.
Mrs. Lawrence. Exactly.
Mr. Horowitz. These are inmates who are going to be back in
our communities. We want them to be skilled. We want them to
have mental health treatment. We want them to have good
healthcare. We want to make sure they can move into a
productive life----
Mrs. Lawrence. Yeah.
Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. Right? Because then they don't
go back to prison, they don't engage in violent crimes. It is
very important.
So Federal Prison Industries, we have identified a series
of challenges that they have faced. And we have recommendations
out there, and we will be happy to get them to you and your
staff, on how that can be improved. There are many ways to do
that, to give the vocational skills necessary to our inmates.
And then, on our Release Preparation Program review, what
is the Federal prison system, the BOP, doing to get inmates
ready for that transition?
Mrs. Lawrence. Uh-huh.
Mr. Horowitz. We have also looked at, by the way, halfway
houses, and we have identified concerns there. It is not clear
to us whether the BOP, with the hundreds of millions of dollars
this committee is investing in halfway houses, whether you are
getting the value for that that we think we should be getting.
There really hasn't been a hard look at that. And so there
is a real question of whether transitioning inmates to halfway
houses helps or hurts, as opposed to inmates who have homes to
go to and communities to go to, transitioning them there
through various release preparation programs. So, happy to
engage further with you on that.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you. And I want you to know that I
would be willing to work with you to remove any barriers.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mrs. Lawrence. And thank you for
raising that important question about the efficacy of halfway-
house efforts and the advisability of spending that money.
At this time, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Grace Meng
for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Inspector, for being here today.
I wanted to echo the comments and questions and concerns of
my colleague Representative Brenda Lawrence about ensuring that
inmates have sufficient menstrual hygiene products in our
facilities. As you know, Congress passed legislation where
inmates are supposed to receive these products, be able to
receive and access them free of charge. And so, you know, just
wanted to echo her concerns as well.
I wanted to ask about this last year or so where we have
seen increased instances of hateful attacks and crimes against
Asian Americans throughout the country. The Asian-American
community has really been screaming for help for more than a
year. And we are very thankful for President Biden's executive
memorandum which addresses, finally addresses, this issue.
I also want to thank so many of my colleagues, including
the leadership of the Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, and so
many others, who have expressed solidarity and stood up in
support of the Asian-American community in this country in
Congress in the past year.
And, while I am glad to see the Department of Justice
stepping up to work on combating discrimination, you know, if
you could tell me, I am curious--two questions.
One, what actions, if any, did the Department of Justice
take last year, in 2020, to address the discrimination and
violence against the Asian-American community?
And, two, has the Department faced any challenges in
addressing this anti-Asian violence? If so, what are they? What
can Congress do to help?
Thank you.
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Those are obviously very critical issues. And I will, first
of all, follow up on what occurred, you know, last year. I
don't have any data right now in front of me, but that is a
very important question, something I am happy to touch on.
The Department does and can address these issues in
multiple ways. Obviously, the tragedy in Atlanta, the tragedy
this week in Boulder demonstrates some of the issues here.
And it is not necessarily just from a law enforcement
standpoint. The Department's Office of Justice Programs has
grant-making authority and issues grants to deal with
discrimination and hate crimes and these issues. And so it can
look to be more effective and focused in where it is looking to
address serious issues like this.
The Civil Rights Division, obviously, is involved in not
only prosecuting hate crime issues but in providing
educationand support to local communities on those issues.
And one of the things we have looked at in the past when
issues about gun violence have come up--and I have had
discussions at prior hearings with this committee on a
bipartisan basis about, how can the NICS program, the
background check system, be improved? How can ATF, from a
regulatory standpoint, be more effective in its work? And those
are issues we have written about and identified as challenges
for the Department.
And so I think all of those things are areas where the
Department of Justice, at the Federal level, can work with
local communities to try and address these problems.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
And then, you know, I am just also curious, I know that--so
many of us are pushing two pieces of legislation. One would
also have a component where counseling is recommended or
required as part of sentencing, as well, for people who may be
convicted of hate crimes.
What do you think about that? And, you know, just curious
about your thoughts on that.
Mr. Horowitz. Sure. Absolutely. You know, I was on the
Sentencing Commission, as the chairman mentioned, in the 2003
to 2009 period. And, obviously, given our oversight
responsibilities of BOP, we look at these issues.
I think it is very important that there be strong programs
in place. It is an area that we have written about and had
concerns about, frankly, over the years, is the strength of the
BOP programming in particular areas. When we have looked at
these, what we have seen is strong programs at some
institutions and, frankly, paper programs at others, where they
were going through the motions.
And I think it is very important, again, with 120-plus
institutions around the country, that the BOP work to
institutionalize these programs so that there be one,
effectively, all across the country. Because, as we know, as
all of us know from the BOP, inmates are spread throughout the
country, and there isn't one institution that, for example,
deals with only inmates who are convicted of hate crimes; they
could be at many institutions.
So it is a very important question, something I am, again,
happy to speak with you further about, Congresswoman.
Ms. Meng. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Congresswoman Meng, a lady that
we already knew was a fabulous multitasker, and now she has
upped her game.
We move to a second round of questions. At the outset, I am
recognize myself for 5 more minutes of questions.
We have been talking about the Bureau of Prisons, Inspector
General. And your office has monitored the Department's use of
a billion dollars in CARES Act funding. It has also carried out
many so-called ``remote inspections,'' unquote, of diverse BOP
institutions.
Your reviews, while not exhaustive, have shown variation in
BOP preparedness and response and opportunities missed that
might have reduced rates of transmission, illness, and possibly
saved lives.
Now, while I know your office is working on what you call a
capstone analysis of lessons learned from BOP's pandemic
response, what preliminary observations can you offer now about
overall readiness before the pandemic struck in facilities and
equipment, protocols and training? What have they fixed, and
what should they make a priority going forward?
Mr. Horowitz. Uh-huh. So, several issues that I think
remain to be addressed and I have raised with Department
leadership.
First of all, testing. What we found was BOP was ill-
equipped to deal with what it needed from a testing regime. And
so what we saw in multiple institutions was BOP taking the
steps it needed once an inmate became symptomatic but not being
able to test other inmates to see if they were asymptomatic.
And what they learned as they started to get more testing
available is that the spread resulted from asymptomatic inmates
being left behind because they couldn't test. Even with the
vaccine, testing needs to continue, and they need to have that
testing capability, first.
Second, certainly many BOP institutions are going to be
challenged by their limited space to quarantine. And they need
to in advance think about that and be in a position to have
inmates located in institutions where they have greater room--
which they do in some--to quarantine and think about managing
inmate populations at facilities that have greater problems
with quarantining.
Third, staffing. Staffing shortages exacerbated the
problems that the BOP had. From a correctional officer
standpoint, we saw institutions where officers were being asked
to do 18-hour-plus days, because they had to get people to the
hospital, inmates to the hospital, which requires correctional
officers to take them there, and then had to keep people
behind, obviously, to fill those positions.
Medical issues, same thing, staffing. We heard over and
over again from healthcare professionals about how the
shortages significantly impacted and strained their ability to
respond to the COVID pandemic. Those have to be addressed.
And then----
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. How about home confinement and
compassionate release?
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah. Yeah.
Mr. Cartwright. Your report suggests those may have been
underused tools. Is that a fair statement? And, if so, what
could BOP do better to leverage those tools?
Mr. Horowitz. Exactly the next one I was going to mention,
which was, they were not prepared to deal with on a granular
level the compassionate release issue. We have written about
this for many years, that the BOP has not effectively used that
authority. We identified that again in these reviews.
What it needs to do is have a commitment from top-down, to
the warden level and at the highest levels of the BOP, to
prepare in advance and look in advance at its inmate roster and
assess inmates who are capable of moving to home confinement.
And this is where halfway houses come in also. The current
structure provides, generally speaking, that inmates go to
halfway houses first. That, to my mind, is a problem in a
pandemic. There is not necessarily a value in going from an
institution to a halfway house if you could go to a home,
precisely because you want to be quarantined or socially
distanced.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay.
Last question, which is a big question. BOP received $100
million in CARES Act funding, supplemented by $300 million more
in the fiscal year 2021 appropriations bill. Can you share any
preliminary observations about how well those funds have been
used?
Mr. Horowitz. So we have seen evidence of their push to
address some of the staffing issues. I can't give you a
granular level at this point, but we can follow up on that and
see how that money has been used. And we certainly will with
regard to the COVID-related funding, as we continue to follow
up on that.
But that, I would say, is one of their highest-priority
needs from the work we have done, is filling those staffing
gaps on the correctional officer side, the mental health side,
the healthcare side generally.
It is an issue that not only goes to the security of the
institution, but it goes overall to the well-being of
correctional officers and inmates. It is a cross-cutting issue,
you know, on all fronts.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for saying that. You know that is
a big concern of mine, the staffing shortfalls, and we will
continue to focus on that.
And, at this time, I would like to recognize Ranking Member
Aderholt for 5 more minutes of questions.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear
me?
Mr. Cartwright. Yes.
Mr. Aderholt. And my clock is not appearing. I am having a
little bit of technical difficulty, so you might just speak up,
Mr. Chairman, when my time has elapsed.
In response, Mr. Horowitz, to the persistent management
challenge, your office has stated that, quote, ``despite the
critical nature of utilizing performance data, many department
components lack either meaningful performance measures or data
necessary to evaluate their programs,'' end of quote.
In 2018, in response to recommendations from your office
and the GAO, the Executive Office of Immigration Review
implemented new case completion metrics. And that was an effort
to ensure that immigration courts were operating efficiently
and also operating appropriately.
President Biden has pledged to roll back the immigration
judge performance metrics that have helped lead to a record
number of immigration cases being completed. Given the
immigration caseload and its growth of nearly 60 percent in
less than 2 years, to what extent does eliminating the case
completion metrics concern you?
Mr. Horowitz. So, you know, I continue to think it is very
important to have metrics available to assess effectiveness.
You know, I am not in a position at this point to assess how
that may or may not affect the case movement. We are not,
obviously, looking at that right now. But I do think--and I
agree with you completely--it is very important to have those
kind of metrics in place and, if these are going to be changed,
that there be other metrics that are appropriate to make an
assessment.
There needs to be an ability to move these cases forward.
We have identified this as a problem specifically with regard
to the Executive Office of Immigration Review, as you know from
our reports about their problems years earlier. And so this is
something that I am certainly happy to have us continue to
follow up on to see what is happening with those metrics and
what it means for case management.
Mr. Aderholt. Do you have any reason to believe that the
performance metrics impeded due process?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know whether they did or did not, as
I sit here today. We are doing a review on the video-
teleconferencing capabilities and how the Department and EOIR
was handling those and its overall docket. And so I will have
greater insight into that in the coming months, as to how that
program has worked.
I will say, during the pandemic, what we saw was, the
weaknesses in EOIR's video capabilities early on and its
technological limitations adversely affected their ability to
continue to move forward. So they do need to continue to move
forward on their IT infrastructure and architecture.
Mr. Aderholt. You mentioned about the importance, that you
felt like it was important that we do have the metrics there.
How can case completion benchmarks improve efficiency of the
docket? And how can the Justice Department utilize such
benchmarks without being accused of imposing quotas on their
immigration judges?
Mr. Horowitz. So, you know, I will give a parallel to what
we do. We have time-completion standards for our agents and
general goals, but we are also sensitive to the notion that we
don't want cases pursued overly aggressively to try and meet a
deadline that in some cases shouldn't be applied or close cases
simply because someone can't meet them where there could be
some wrongdoing.
It is similar on the judicial front. You want to have some
metrics in place, some timelines in place for how to manage
cases, but you also want to build in flexibility for what are
inevitably going to be more complex matters, more challenging
matters, so that you are not doing a one-size-fits-all with
every single case. And I think that is very important to build
into these metrics.
And then being able to do what we do, frankly. The first
line of accountability is at the management level. EOIR and the
Department need to look at what is going on and say, these are
working well or not going well. And then we are there as, I
will say, a second line of defense to go and see if that
oversight is being done effectively and, if not, to report out
our recommendations for how to improve it.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, notwithstanding the pandemic that we
have gone through over the last year, what do you see as the
most significant factors that are driving this burgeoning
caseload at the Executive Office of Immigration Review?
Would it be too few immigration judges? Is it the
difficulty in the hiring process? Is it poor case management--I
mean, completion performance? Is it continuances? Lack of
courtroom space? What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Horowitz. Yep. So we have heard those issues across the
board, in terms of challenges and issues. Clearly, as the
caseload increases, there is a certain point at which you can't
simply expect judges to handle more and more cases. They are
going to hit a maximum threshold. And so resources clearly
become an issue as the caseload continues to burgeon.
We have heard about concerns about space and available
space. We have seen challenges with paper filings and paper
dockets and what that means in today's world. Paper dockets,
frankly, don't make much sense except as a backup, not as a
primary tool. And so moving electronically your operations
would increase efficiencies.
So, in some respects, I think it may well be an all-of-the-
above, but I think in the next few months I will have a better
sense for you of perhaps which ones are more significant than
others.
Mr. Cartwright. And, Ranking Member Aderholt, that is 5
minutes, if you are not keeping track, if you can't see that.
Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. So thank you for those questions.
And, at this point, the chair recognizes Congressman Dutch
Ruppersberger for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First thing, I want to ask you about the SolarWinds attacks
as it relates to the Department of Justice and actions to
address this problem moving forward.
Now, the SolarWinds cyber attack showed our cybersecurity
vulnerabilities, from major corporations to a large number of
Federal departments and agencies. The Department of Justice
also had the unfortunate honor of having a secondary attack
against DOJ systems that allowed the attackers to access 3
percent, or 3,500, of the Department's emails.
SolarWinds is alarming, because this shows how vulnerable
our systems are, but this attack also shows us that, with a few
tweaks from the attackers, an intelligence-gathering mission
could easily move toward malicious destruction.
Now, my questions: Number one, can you update us on DOJ's
response and what steps the Department is taking to mitigate
this, moving forward? And how have you worked with CISA and NSA
to help formulate what DOJ has done right and what they have
done wrong?
And then, also, can you give us an update on what your
interactions and discussions with other department Inspectors
General have produced? Have you come up with best practices or
found common entry points to Federal IT networks?
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Congressman. Obviously, the
SolarWinds issue is a critical issue for the Department and for
the government----
Mr. Ruppersberger. For our country.
Mr. Horowitz. And for the country. Absolutely.
I am going to be limited in what I can say in this setting
about, frankly, any of the information----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah, and I understand that.
Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. That we have learned. So I am
happy to follow up with you in a classified setting to talk
about that further.
But I can tell you, we have been in touch with department
officials, the CIO, to make sure we are aware of and understand
what occurred and where the weaknesses/vulnerabilities might
have been. Because we continue to do our FISMA-related work,
and we need to know that for that purpose, as well as,
obviously, the implications here of that.
I have also been in touch with other IGs, including the NSA
IG and others in the intelligence community. This has been a
topic of conversation among those of us--and I am one of them--
in the Intelligence Community IG Forum. And we are comparing
notes--and, again, I will be limited in how much I can say
here--but we are comparing notes across our information that we
have gathered to try and understand how we can pursue oversight
in this space and ensure that the agencies we oversee are
taking the steps they need to take to address it.
And, again, I am happy to talk about that further in a
classified environment.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah. And, you know, SolarWinds was such
a wake-up call. You know, I mean, we were dealing with Russia
and China, and then we have the Iran and North Korea and that
type of thing.
Just one other issue that I think came up was the fact that
high-level department officials were using personal devices to
conduct government business. Now, has that been rectified? What
was that issue?
Mr. Horowitz. So we have seen this in multiple situations,
frankly, where line agents up to the former FBI Director were
using devices, personal devices, to engage in government-
related business. As you know, as everybody in the Federal
Government knows, that is a security issue. And we need to
address that. The Department needs to address it.
We have made multiple recommendations on that. It is both a
training issue and an accountability issue, frankly. You need
to not only train people, but then, if they cross a line, you
need to address it.
And it doesn't matter whether it is the highest-level
official or the line prosecutor, agent, non-prosecutor, non-
agent. We have to drill that into people's heads, that they
can't use personal devices--in very limited circumstances it is
allowed, but they can't use personal devices for sensitive
information usage. It is an easy passage into our systems.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Well, thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
Over to Congressman Cline for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to shift gears a little bit. You talked about
strengthening public confidence in law enforcement, so I want
to go down to the portion of your testimony that talks about
protecting individuals' privacy and the dual reports on FISA:
the December 2019 review finding fundamental and serious
deficiencies in connection with FBI applications for FISA
warrants and a March 2020 follow-on report identifying
significant concerns with the factual accuracy documentation
process known as ``Woods Procedures.''
Can you talk a little bit about the Woods Procedures, what
problems your office uncovered when reviewing the failures of
the FBI to follow those procedures, and whether you are
confident that they are now in compliance with Woods Procedures
to ensure that each fact in a FISA application is supported
with documentation?
Mr. Horowitz. So the Woods Procedures were put in place, as
you know, Congressman, about 20 years ago by the FBI following
failures that were identified in FISA court proceedings, and
they are designed to ensure that the FBI documents every fact
asserted in a FISA.
And the concern we have identified recently, after doing
our December 2019 FISA report, was widespread problems with
documentation. We found issues where we couldn't find a Woods
file and neither could the FBI. We identified numerous errors
in terms of documentation in FISAs where there was a Woods
file.
And that doesn't mean, necessarily, that the underlying
FISA was not supported ultimately by probable cause. That,
obviously, is for a court to decide, not the OIG. But it does
show a sloppiness that can lead to the problems that led to the
implementation of the Woods Procedures 20 years ago.
So we are about to issue our final report on that, so you
will see that soon. But what our concern is is that the FBI
take the steps it needs to ensure that people understand the
importance of getting every fact right and that slip-ups here
or there can lead to bigger and bigger problems.
And so we are seeing steps being taken by the FBI
leadership to do that. And we are going to follow it carefully,
as is, I know, the FISA court, which has also issued orders in
this regard because of its concern.
Mr. Cline. And I thank you for that. I don't know exactly
what your timeline is for your final report, but I am glad to
hear it is coming soon. What you have characterized as slip-ups
I would call something different--intentional lies, quite
frankly.
Let me follow up. Three provisions of FISA expired last
year. Has your office looked into how the FBI is functioning
without those capabilities?
Mr. Horowitz. So let me just--on the slip-up, my comment
about slip-ups, that was about not the reports we had done
earlier but, rather, what can happen if you ignore this. You
end up with maybe minor failures, but----
Mr. Cline. Gotcha.
Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. They become bigger failures.
That is what I meant, just to clarify.
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
Mr. Horowitz. So, in terms of the expiration of the FISAs,
I don't know exactly how it has impacted them. I know it became
a concern about a year ago, when the expiration occurred, but
I, frankly, have not been engaged by the Department and have
not engaged with the FBI in how this has impacted them over the
last year during the pandemic.
The pandemic has impacted, frankly, our ability to do some
of this followup work because of the travel restrictions and
the restrictions on getting into SCIFs and other limitations.
Mr. Cline. Are you aware of any special rules that exist
when submitting a FISA application to surveil a political
campaign?
Mr. Horowitz. So the Department has, in fact, now put in
place new procedures and rules to address that concern and that
issue. So there are now some procedures in place.
We are going to follow up. We are getting the reports of
those; it has been told to us. We are going to continue to
follow up on that to ensure effective implementation and to
make sure what we are being told is, in fact, accurate.
Because, as you know, we don't simply accept what we are told.
We certainly take it in, but then we do the followup to make
sure it, in fact, has taken place.
Mr. Cline. I appreciate that.
And has your office or anyone at DOJ taken a position on
whether a FISA hearing should be held any time the government
seeks to conduct such surveillance on a political campaign?
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, I don't know what the Department's
position is on that. I think it has been widely understood how
significant an event that is and how a decision like that, as
we noted in our report, really needs to go to the highest
levels of the Department--the Attorney General, the Deputy
Attorney General--and not be left, as could have been the case
previously, to much-lower-level employees.
Mr. Cline. Thank you for that information. Appreciate that.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
And, at this point, the chair recognizes Congressman Trone
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I could just follow up quickly on the comments
Congresswoman Lawrence made, if you could get back to my office
on three points.
Mr. Horowitz. Uh-huh.
Mr. Trone. And I will have my staff reach out.
One is the value of and your thoughts on halfway houses, if
it is a good idea, a bad idea. But we sometimes just keep
spending money----
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Trone [continuing]. Because we spent it the year
before. I like change, and we don't want to spend money we
don't have. We want to spend it to be effective.
The second point would be the data and insights on release
preparation programs. My visits to prisons--and I have seven in
my district--have not been that encouraging.
And the third point would be skills training for that. And
I would say that has been not encouraging either.
To follow up on those points, your 2019 report--``The Top
Management and Performance Challenges Facing the DOJ'' was the
name of your report--found recidivism reduction remains a major
challenge. The commission said nearly half the Federal
offenders released in 2005 rearrested within 8 years. Effective
reentry programming is an important part of this, we all agree.
So the Bureau has faced challenges collecting the data. And
this is what Congressman Cline has been talking about, and I
completely agree with him. Data is gold to make good decisions.
So connecting this data regarding performance and effectiveness
as it relates to recidivism.
So what findings has the IG made on the biggest
contributors to the lack of accurate and reliable performance
data regarding the Department's programs? And what
recommendations do you have so we can address this data
insufficiency issue?
Mr. Horowitz. So, Congressman, you know, you raise several
important points.
And, first and foremost, one of the challenges we have seen
in the Department's data collection efforts is, frankly, the
challenges of its own IT systems and infrastructure and its
capacity and capabilities. We now have a data analytics
capacity and capability, thanks to the committee's support for
that effort, that is far advanced compared to what the
Department's components can do, including the BOP.
As an example, when we started to look at healthcare
records, we learned that most BOP institutions still got paper
records. They weren't using electronic medical records. When we
looked at recidivism issues, we found the Department wasn't
effectively tracking and gathering data so that it could make
an assessment of recidivism rates and figure out which programs
are working, which programs aren't.
When we did our compassionate release review for elderly
inmates and compassionate release just generally, we ended up
doing our own recidivism review by getting information about
the inmates released, going to the FBI and getting the
recidivism data from the FBI, and comparing it. But that is the
kind of information I think should be readily available to
department leadership when they are looking at something that
critical, like compassionate release or release preparation
programs.
Mr. Trone. All right. So how do we get your department to
lay out what we need to bring the BOP into the 21st century? I
mean, because without these data we can't address recidivism.
We are going to keep spending $80 billion a year.
We need to invest up front, get the data. Then we can
understand the outcomes. Then we can get solutions. But we have
to go ahead and bite the bullet and get the data collection
done. And if they are using pen and pencil, that is a loser.
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah. And, look, it starts with--first of
all, we have made recommendations in this regard, and we can,
you know, as we are talking about the three issues you
identified, add this to the list.
We have made recommendations about this. I think,
primarily, it involves the Department leadership working with
BOP leadership to figure out what are our priorities, how are
we going to get to a space where we can get the data and
collect the data and be in a position to make assessments, and
then go, you know, obviously, through the budget process to
support it, whatever is needed there.
But there needs to be long-term thinking. I think that is
one of the things that sometimes can be a challenge with
budgeting one year at a time and, frankly----
Mr. Trone. Right.
Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. When budgets don't get done
until the fiscal year is 6 months in.
Mr. Trone. Let me ask one more quick question, if the
chairman will indulge me, that follows up on this exact point.
Send me the other data you mentioned. I would like to see that
also. Add that to my list.
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah.
Mr. Trone. But part of this reducing recidivism is linking
community-based programs to prisons, especially substance use,
mental health, and employment. And it is especially now true
with COVID.
So what has the IG has found regarding efficacy of these
community programs and social support services provided by the
residential reentry program management centers we just spoke
about versus to those on home confinement?
Mr. Horowitz. So we haven't done our own undertaking to
look at the community-based programs to, ourselves, sort of get
into the local communities and look at this. What we have done
is looked at the halfway houses and gone and said, okay, what
is the evidence that you have that the halfway houses are
working well, that the programs that they are supporting are
working well?
And, again, we are stuck with an absence of data. So that
is, again, an area where we have made recommendations that the
BOP needs to look at halfway house programs and look at those
community-based programs and are they working effectively. Is
it better than, for example, sending people to their homes
instead of a halfway house? And if it is, you are talking
about, obviously, a substantial amount of money that can be
reinvested in other places.
But until you actually know what you are getting, what your
money is buying from the halfway houses, beyond what you assume
it is buying, you are not going to be in a position to figure
out what is the best and highest use of the money. That has
been our challenge over the years.
Mr. Trone. Agree. Thank you so much.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
The chair recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Inspector General, I just want to kind of button up the
tail end of the conversation we were having in the last round
with regards to the body cams.
Do you have an explicit ask of us here in this committee to
help with the funding to make sure that we are getting the
body-cam hardware, firmware, software, as well as all the--a
lot of the costs on the body cam is actually on the maintenance
and the documentation and the memorialization of the videos. Is
that already something, in work with us, that you are
requesting?
Mr. Horowitz. It isn't. We are finishing up our audit and
our review that we are going to get to the Department and
publicly to you about these issues.
And partly that is going to be--you know, that is one of
the issues we are seeing, is, again, as you just indicated, you
can't go down the road of body-worn cameras until you have the
policy in place on how to deal with it and an understanding of
what kind of funding and infrastructure you are going to need,
like local communities have figured out. How is it going to--
not only what kind of cameras are you going to use, but what
are you going to do with the data? How long are you going to
keep it for? Where are you going to store it? Security issues
around that. Right?
All of those things that local communities have figured
out, that has to happen at the Federal level.
Mr. Garcia. Yeah. Okay. Good. Well, I think we are all
looking forward to that. I think the feedback we are getting
from local law enforcement, to include sheriffs, municipal
county police departments, is that it is benefiting not only
the police officers but also the public. It has taken a lot of
the ambiguity out of, you know, the arbitration and the, sort
of, determination within a lot of these audits and
investigations on the back side. So looking forward to
supporting you, hopefully sooner rather than later.
You mention in your testimony we had shortages and what
sounded like recruiting and retention issues in terms of
personnel. Can you touch on what is driving that? And, more
importantly, what can we do to help?
I know, as the headcount gets more and more constrained,
they get overworked, that actually aggravates the retention
problem, which then makes it tougher to recruit as well, and it
is sort of a death spiral in many ways. How can we stop this
bleeding, and how do we kind of turn it around and help you get
whole again?
Mr. Horowitz. Uh-huh. So I think the challenge, for
example, for the BOP, in some locations, is a pay challenge.
These are extremely challenging jobs, as we all know----
Mr. Garcia. Sure.
Mr. Horowitz. --And if you are in a metropolitan area,
paying one rate, it is going to be a hard time getting that
recruiting undertaken.
And then I can speak to the challenge just generally about
onboarding personnel from my own agency and from every other
government leader I have heard. It is a challenge getting
people on. It can take months and months and months. The lag
time--it is easy to lose somebody. If people want to leave,
they leave within a few weeks. It can take months to get a
hiring announcement out. And then you have to get people
through the background checks, the drug testing, all the things
that go with being hired as a correctional officer in
particular.
So I think there needs to be a sustained effort to figure
out how to move forward and anticipate you are going to have
departures better so that you can get ahead of losing people at
some level.
Mr. Garcia. Right.
Mr. Horowitz. And that is a challenge.
Mr. Garcia. It doesn't seem--it may be aggravated in the
last, maybe, year or so with this push to defund the police and
law enforcement, but it is still not something that is
unpredictable. It is something that a lot of organizations and
businesses deal with regularly, especially with the cost of
living and the impending inflation challenges.
Do you think that we are adequately capturing the need to
attract talent? If it is a money problem, are we doing a good
enough job of baking that into budget requests so that we can
actually get people on board, so that we can actually keep
people on board, so that we can throw more personnel and
resources at the background investigations and the security
clearance process if that is needed? Is that adequately
captured in the budget request right now at the DOJ level?
Mr. Horowitz. I think that is a very important issue that
you have identified, Congressman. And the GAO report recently
about the Bureau of Prisons on this highlights it, right? It
is, you need to step back and think about what are your
staffing needs and what are the metrics that support what you
are asking for? And what they found was the BOP hadn't done
that basic work that it needed to do.
And then they need to sit down in the budgeting process,
and they need a seat at the table at the highest levels that
say, this is what we need. And then they need to be able to
come to you and they testify and say: Appropriators, here is
what we need to do this job effectively and to secure and make
the prisons safe.
I will give you a parallel. We are doing this review right
now in judicial security--an extraordinarily serious issue that
the Marshals have responsibility for. And that report is going
to be out in the next couple of months, maybe sooner than that.
We are finishing it up. And that is a similar question: What
are your metrics for what you need to protect judges? Sit down
and have an honest discussion at the highest levels of the
Department and with the appropriators, and let's figure out
what you need to make sure that judicial security is handled
appropriately.
Similar issue to the prison security. I just think that----
Mr. Garcia. Yes.
Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. That kind of thinking has to go
on, and it is critical, as you said.
Mr. Garcia. Yeah. I am new to this game, and I am blown
away that that is not fundamental in this process already.
But I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Thank you, Inspector General.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
And we are going to move to a final lightning round.
And, Inspector General, you have worn down most of this
subcommittee, so you can brag about that back at the office.
But I want to pick up where we just left off. You were
talking about the Federal Marshals Service, and that is
something that I have been interested in.
The U.S. Marshals Service has really had a daunting
challenge with the pandemic. It had a detainee population of
61,000, 70 percent of them under intergovernmental agreements,
IGAs, spread across 873 State and county facilities. Detainees
have to be moved between facilities and courts and are at high
risk of spreading contagious disease. You found the Marshals
Service facility oversight plans were inadequate--you found
that--and that they did not ensure CDC guidance was followed.
You also observed that the Marshals Service did not apply the
same scrutiny to monitoring its IGA facilities as compared to
contract-managed ones, in part because they lacked the control
that existed with the contract arrangements. You also noted
that the Marshals Service transported prisoners without testing
to confirm they were COVID-negative.
And the Marshals Service generally agreed with your
findings and committed to implement the six recommendations in
your audit by the end of this month. Are you confident that
they will? And please explain why or why not.
Mr. Horowitz. Well, we will see. The proof will be in the
details. So I am hopeful they will. I will hold my answer on
whether I am confident they will until I see what they report
back to us. But they told us their commitment is there, I
believe in what they have said to us, but we will test it when
we get it, their report on this.
It is very important, as you said, that they take these
steps. We have learned a lot in the last year from the BOP and
the Marshals. They can do much better than occurred a year ago,
and we will see. This will be the first report back from them
on that.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. Let's stay in touch about that.
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah.
Mr. Cartwright. Finally, I want to talk about violent
crime. In 2020, the Department of Justice launched several
initiatives targeting violent crime, particularly in seven
cities that were seeing a surge in violence, notably Operation
Relentless Pursuit, followed by Operation Legend, which also
involved cooperation with State and local law enforcement.
There has also been an increase in targeted violence,
specifically hate crimes, such as the recent attacks on Asian
Americans in Atlanta and elsewhere, the 2019 massacre at the El
Paso Walmart in Texas, the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting,
and, of course, the Charleston church shooting in 2015.
Your office is currently reviewing DOJ's strategic plan and
accountability measures, including coordination across
prosecution, law enforcement, and grant-making components. The
review will also assess the Department's strategic plan for
aiding communities that are confronting significant increases
in homicides and gun violence.
Have you any preliminary observations or recommendations
for actions the new Attorney General can take to best leverage
DOJ resources to deal with violent crime?
Mr. Horowitz. I will say, at a high level, what we have
seen is that, in connection with violent crime, the first and
foremost critical piece of that for the Federal Government is
strong, as you indicated, partnerships with State and local law
enforcement and, beyond State and local law enforcement,
community leaders. It is not going to work as the Feds run in
with their law enforcement and fix the violent-crime problem.
It has to be a cooperative, close working relationship.
Having been an AUSA and a prosecutor in Manhattan back in
the 1990s, you know, it is clear that the local law enforcement
is on the ground and understands communities better than
anyone, if they are doing their jobs right. And that is where
the partnerships have to come up. Community leaders know that.
They understand where the violent crime is. They understand
where the gang problem is, right? They are the ones that need
to have that working relationship with Federal law enforcement.
So, first and foremost, I would say, that would be my first
recommendation in that regard to whoever is thinking about a
program like that, is it is unlikely that the Federal law
enforcement is going to be able to do it alone and go it alone.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz.
And I am going to recognize Mr. Garcia again for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will be very brief, Inspector General.
Just in your professional opinion and everything that you
have seen throughout your career, do you think at the DOJ
level, whether it is the FBI, DEA, ATF, the Marshals, and I
think also to include BOP, that we are doing enough as a Nation
right now to hold the folks who are involved in these
international, these transnational criminal organizations that
are facilitating this crisis at the border right now--it is not
a new thing. It has gotten worse over the last 3 months, but it
has been an ongoing struggle for our country.
This is something that, if we don't do it correctly, it
actually aggravates your problems internally. It aggravates the
recruiting and retention problems that you have with your
personnel.
But, at a macro level, it is absolutely one of the biggest
threats to our Nation's security right now, and it is a Federal
problem, right? This is happening in a few States along our
southern border, but these people are being smuggled and then
indentured as servants throughout the 50 States of the Nation
here.
Are we doing enough? And, in your opinion, what should we
be doing, if you don't mind just giving us your perspective?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I will just say, from a DOJ perspective
and just generally from having dealt with issues that are
broad-based and cross-cutting, I think very important that this
is--the border issues are not just a DHS issue, a DOJ issue, a
State Department issue--pick your agency.
Mr. Garcia. Right.
Mr. Horowitz. To address that and look at that--and the
transnational crime problem is a perfect example of that--there
are law enforcement agencies, obviously, at DOJ that need to be
involved in that, as, obviously, prosecutors need to be
critically involved in that, but DHS has key responsibilities
that they have to work effectively with DOJ law enforcement.
There can't be an us-versus-them mentality.
They need to be engaged with the State Department, because
they have primary responsibility for managing overseas posts.
When law enforcement goes and works in-country in many foreign
countries, as you know, that we are operating, they work
through the Ambassador, so you have to have a strong State
Department relationship, right?
And I could add other entities as well. The intelligence
side of the house needs to be engaged, because you need strong
intelligence to deal with these issues. And, while the FBI is
an intelligence agency, they are obviously not a go-it-alone on
that; they need foreign counterparts to be part of that
discussion as well.
So I think that is something that, as people are looking at
border issues, transnational crime issues, the hard questions
to ask are, how are you addressing it not only internally from
your own budget priorities and your own strategic plans, but
how are you making sure that you are leveraging the needs that
you have from State Department, DHS, foreign agency
counterparts, intelligence community counterparts?
Because the problem isn't going to be solved by saying,
``Go, FBI, to the border.'' And, frankly, I don't think it is
solved, necessarily, by saying to the border prosecutors--and
we saw a little bit about, you know, this challenge--``Go
arrest everybody.'' That didn't get to the outcome that people
wanted either, and even the most supportive prosecutors raised
concern about that as well.
So I think that is really what has to happen. And that is
really one of the learnings from our ``zero tolerance'' policy
report, is the importance of the whole-of-government approach
and not just saying--the Department, a handful of people
saying, ``Let's go try and do this and see what happens.''
Mr. Garcia. Yeah. Well-said. That makes sense. I completely
agree and resonate with that. That is a very good point. My
inference from your comment is that we really, right now, are
not optimized from one department or agency to the next,
outside of the DOJ to others. So I think we should work for
that.
At a very macro level, I think our strongest challenge
right now--and these are my words, not yours; I don't want to
put you in a bad position--but we don't, as a Nation, have a
holistic approach to this challenge right now. And it feels
like it is a strategy of denying that there is a problem and a
whack-a-mole approach at certain State levels who are trying to
do the right thing while our Nation is being overrun by a very
porous border and illegal immigrants.
So I am hopeful that this administration can provide us
with that holistic national security strategy to hopefully end
this crisis soon and allow the various agencies to start
working together in the interest of making sure that we can
survive as a Nation.
Thank you, Inspector General, for your time.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
And, Inspector General Horowitz, you have a long way to go
before you wear down Representative David Trone, who is
recognized for another 5 minutes.
Mr. Trone. I am sorry, sir. You have been a trouper. I
really thank you. But this is an area of special interest to
me, the Bureau of Prisons.
I want to pile on Chairman Cartwright's comments about the
U.S. Marshals Service. I have a lot of excellent members of
AFGE in my facility in Cumberland, Maryland. And many of them
also work in the facility in Hazelton, West Virginia, but live
in my district. And these members have been very adversely
affected by what the Marshals' lack of COVID protocols have
been. And after a bout of that, we had over 82 inmates and
numerous staff come down and test COVID-positive. So we
appreciate your input on this.
Let's jump over to the First Step implementation. Criminal
justice reform we got out of the gate. It wasn't a big step,
but it was the first step. We have a declining inmate
population and, as Chairman Cartwright mentioned, significant
staff shortages.
The First Step Act required the IRC to do a report--and we
spoke last week to the head of BOP about this--that said: Even
a full return to pre-COVID BOP programming levels will not be
sufficient to make available evidence-based recidivism
reduction programs and productive activities for all of the
eligible prisoners in custody by January 2022, as the First
Step requires.
So we are not even getting done what we said we were going
to do. And I am sure there are a lot of excuses for that. But,
at the end of the day, can you just tell us a couple things,
short and sweet, that we have to help to address the staffing
shortage?
Because if we don't get the staffing right, as Mr. Garcia
talked about, it is a vicious cycle. We lose the existing
people, we spend money on training, and we don't achieve our
outcome, which is reducing recidivism.
So what do we need to get done to help reduce these,
recruit, retain?
Mr. Horowitz. So I think, first of all, the BOP has to come
up with its institution-by-institution issues. Some
institutions are not understaffed. Other institutions are
significantly understaffed. They have to come up with, what is
our shortage of correctional officers, what is our shortage of
healthcare workers and other staff, and come forward and get to
the Department's leadership and get before the appropriators
and say, here are our shortages, here is how we have calculated
and determined them, and this is the funding we need to meet
those challenges. First step.
The second action is then to proactively plan and address
those shortages, rather than wait for vacancies, rather than,
frankly, wait for decisions to be made, necessarily. Given the
months' lag--again, I am doing this in my own agency--we hire,
often, ahead of vacancies, because I know every year I am going
to have X number of retirements or resignations. And I have 500
employees. It is a lot easier with 30,000 employees to
understand, right, what the annual turnover is likely to be. I
think that proactive planning is critical.
But I really think it starts with reading the GAO report,
understanding what your staffing needs are, institution by
institution.
Mr. Trone. So I couldn't agree with you more. I own a
business with 200-and-some locations around 27 States. I have
11,000-plus employees that work for me. And we do our staffing
8 weeks in advance. We never look at today. We look at where we
are going to be in 2 months from now to take up that lag time.
And we anticipate retirements. In the management ranks, we
anticipate, you know, folks are going to turn over. So we
overstaff to properly staff. And we do that thoughtfully, and
that gets us better outcomes. So we are totally aligned on
this. It is just Management 101.
Can you have your team figure out how my team can get a
report? Because it is----
Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
Mr. Trone [continuing]. Facility by facility.
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Trone. In my 200 stores, I have 150 that are perfect; I
have 25 or 30 that are struggling; and I have 20 losers, and
they just generally aren't focusing on staffing. Generally, it
is a lack of focus. It is not always the people just aren't
there. That is what they say. And they say they don't have
enough pay. That is what they say. But a lot of that is just BS
and that the people are there but they aren't prioritizing
staffing first.
And if you don't have enough people and you don't have the
right people, you will never be successful. This is not
complicated.
Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
Mr. Trone. So, if you can get us the report on what the
staffing is, the allocated staffing at those multiple hundred
facilities, and then where they are today, and then we can
force-rank them worst to best. And then we can try and push BOP
as to say, you can do better than this. Because we can't meet
the first step, we can't do what we have committed to do to
these returning citizens, and then it costs taxpayers lots and
lots of money.
So I appreciate your help.
Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely. Look forward to working with you
on this, Congressman, because I agree. I could talk about these
issues for a long time.
Mr. Trone. Yes. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
And, General Horowitz, thank you for your testimony here
today.
I remind you, as I remind all members, that further
questions may be submitted to you in connection with this
hearing. An email address has already been circulated to all
the members and their staffs. And so, General Horowitz, you may
be getting further written questions, and we will appreciate
your prompt answers to those.
Mr. Cartwright. Again, thank you for attending today,
General Horowitz.
And this hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 14, 2021.
THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET REQUEST
WITNESS
SETHURAMAN PANCHANATHAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Let us gavel in and begin. As
this hearing is fully virtual, we have to address a few
housekeeping matters.
For today's hearing, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. If I notice you have not unmuted yourself,
I may ask you if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you
indicate approval by nodding, staff will then go ahead and
unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time. You will notice the clock on
your screen that will show how much time is remaining. At the
1-minute remaining mark, the clock will turn to yellow. At 30
seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to remind
members that their time has almost expired. When your time has
expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize
the next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the
chair and ranking member. Then members present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of
seniority, and finally, members not present at the time the
hearing is called to order.
And, at last, the House rules require me to remind you that
we have set up an email address to which members can send
anything they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings
or markups, and that email address has been provided in advance
to your staff.
All right. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
morning, everyone. Today, we welcome the Director of the
National Science Foundation, Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan. And
Dr. Panchanathan is relatively new to the National Science
Foundation, having been confirmed to the Director position on
June 18 of 2020. Dr. Panchanathan is a computer scientist and
engineer, and comes to us having served as a leader in science,
engineering, and education for more than 30 years.
Prior to joining NSF, Dr. Panchanathan served as Executive
Vice President of the Arizona State University Knowledge
Enterprise where he was also Chief Research and Innovation
Officer. He was also the founder and the director of the Center
for Cognitive Ubiquitous Computing at ASU. In 2014, he was
appointed by President Obama to the National Science Board
where he chaired the Committee on Strategy and served as a
member of the External Engagement and National Science and
Engineering Policy Committees. As Director Of NSF, Dr.
Panchanathan is funding work at the frontiers of science and
cultivating the next generation of STEM leaders. His efforts
will be critical, not only for renewing America's global
leadership, but also for rebuilding our Nation's crumbling
infrastructure and creating family-sustaining American jobs in
communities, large and small.
Just as science will be a key to our recovery, so too has
it been in our fight against COVID-19. I applaud NSF for the
more than 1,000 COVID-19 rapid grants it has awarded to help
understand, combat, and recover from this pandemic. I also want
to thank all of our scientists and researchers who cracked the
code of the coronavirus and developed safe and effective
vaccines. Science is getting us out of this pandemic faster
than anyone could imagine possible. You remember when we first
got into it, they were talking, the virologists, the
epidemiologists, they were saying no one has ever done this in
less than 3 or 4 years. Here we are, 15 months later, and we
are already looking at the light at the end of the tunnel.
Fittingly, the President's discretionary request for fiscal
year 2022 includes historic investments for NSF. In all, the
budget proposes $10.17 billion for NSF, a 20 percent increase
over the 2021 enacted level. I was pleased to see the proposed
funding boost for research and development and plans to broaden
the mission of NSF in order to accelerate the translation of
basic research into new technologies in areas such as
semiconductors and advanced computing, advanced communications
technology, and advancements in energy and biotechnology.
NSF will play a critical role in discovering and advancing
new technologies, including those that will reduce emissions
and create sustainable solutions. As someone who truly believes
that climate change poses an existential threat to our planet,
I was especially pleased to see that the President's budget
proposes essential investments in climate science, clean
energy, and sustainability research. The $1.2 billion for
advances in climate science and clean energy-related research
would allow us better to understand the dynamics of the earth's
climate systems, its impacts, and how we can better help our
communities and those across the globe to plan a better future.
The discretionary request also includes a 50 percent
increase, or $100 million, over the fiscal year 2021 enacted
levels for programs that aim to increase the participation in
STEM of underrepresented groups. America has incredible talent
across our country, across socioeconomic and racial lines, in
urban areas, in rural areas. Too often, we have not fully
utilized this talent and not given enough opportunities and
inspiration to young people who need it.
Such investments, which grow our domestic STEM talent pool,
are long overdue. If you look at the wealth created in this
country over the last couple of generations, so much of it
stems from technological and scientific innovations. Companies
exist now that are at the top of the Fortune 500 that did not
exist a generation ago, and they are only there because of
science and technology improvements.
I also want to talk about the investments included in this
bill--in this budget for construction of and upgrades to the
major NSF facilities, such as the Vera C. Rubin Observatory,
and the McMurdo Station. They illustrate the administration's
commitment to NSF programs for science, the academic community,
and the next generation of scientists, mathematicians,
astronomers, and engineers across the country as they continue
their important research.
I am looking forward to the furtherance of innovation that
will inevitably result from future scientific advancements. I
am a strong supporter of NSF and its mission to promote the
progress of science, and prepare us for the technologies of
tomorrow.
So, thank you once again, Dr. Panchanathan, for joining us
today, and I look forward to discussing the NSF's fiscal year
2022 budget request with you.
At this point, I would like to yield to Ranking Member
Aderholt for his opening statement.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, good morning, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman. It is good to be with everyone virtually this
morning. And thank you for holding this important hearing with
the National Science Foundation and the Director. As I say, I
am glad to be here with you even though we are virtually
meeting today for the fiscal year 2022 budget for the NSF with
our witness, Director Panchanathan. And, thank you, Dr.
Panchanathan, for being here, and for being able to allow us
this time with you to address some of the issues that members
have on their minds.
We are here today at an important time in our Nation's
history. Of course, it goes without saying that the global
pandemic has caused a lot of--so much loss and suffering, but
at the same time, it has illustrated the speed at which the
scientific community can mobilize to discover solutions which
provide adequate resources, as the chair has pointed out.
The need to mobilize has perhaps never been greater. The
United States has long been the world leader in science, and
also in technology investments, that have transformed our lives
and has fueled our economy and has secured our Nation as a
whole. But for the last decade, we have seen a tremendous surge
in similar investments from China, and that is coupled with
efforts to acquire U.S. intellectual property that they are
trying to do unlawfully.
In many respects, technology is being used as a modern
battlefield. As the National Science Board testified last year,
China has now likely surpassed us in terms of total research
and development expenditures. Industries of the future such as
artificial intelligence, advance communications, and quantum
information science, while already reshaping the world we live
in, are still in their infancy in terms of what we actually
understand. We are in a race to learn, and the stakes are high.
At the same time, we see the world's climate changing, and
first, there are differences of opinion, of course, of what all
contributes to that, but we must figure out how to mitigate and
adapt our changing world. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I
firmly believe that the United States' ability to enhance the
security and the quality of life of its citizens depends upon
investing in and maintaining our Nation's status as a world
leader in scientific research and development. Exactly how we
do that is another matter.
While we likely agree on the bigger goals, we may find
ourselves, from time to time, in disagreement over the
priorities and details once we are faced with limited
subcommittee allocations. Nevertheless, I remain committed to
working with you and the rest of our colleagues on this
subcommittee to find a bipartisan path forward in the coming
year.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing.
Thank you for our distinguished witness for taking the helm at
the NSF, especially during this important time of our history,
and Mr. Director, I look forward to your testimony.
And I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
And, Dr. Panchanathan, you are recognized at this time for
your opening remarks. I ask that you please try to keep your
statement to 5 minutes. And always remember, your full written
statement will be included in the record. And you are
recognized, Dr. Panchanathan.
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you. And good morning, Chairman
Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and members of the
subcommittee. It is truly an honor to appear before you today
to discuss NSF's many amazing accomplishments and how we can
activate innovation at speed and scale for the benefit of all
Americans.
I would like to start by thanking this committee for the
continuing support for NSF. It has enabled NSF to advance
research and innovation and bring remarkable benefits to our
Nation.
For the past seven decades, NSF has played a leading role
in building U.S. leadership in science, engineering, and
technology, and has an incredibly strong record of investing in
the brightest minds with outstanding ideas. The internet, 3D
printing, the economic theory underpinning spectrum auctioning,
and kidney exchanges. Companies like Qualcomm, and even PCR
testing, which has been critical to the fight against COVID-19,
are just a few examples of the outcomes and benefits of NSF's
investments. NSF also has a rich history of fostering the
entrepreneurial spirit that permeates the research enterprise.
I would also like to thank Congress for the funding in the
CARES Act, and the American Rescue Plan. The pandemic has had a
profound impact on the research community, especially early
career researchers. NSF will invest these funds wisely, helping
the most severely impacted and most vulnerable.
For the first time in decades, the United States leadership
in science and engineering is facing intense global
competition. Other nations, especially China, are investing
vast resources in basic research and industries of the future,
like artificial intelligence. The United States needs to take a
comprehensive approach to R&D investment that brings science,
engineering, and technological innovations to market much more
rapidly. Doing so requires tightly integrating curiosity-driven
research and use-inspired outcomes.
My leadership team and I have crafted a bold vision for the
agency. First, we must advance the frontiers of science and
engineering research into the future. Through strategic
investments, NSF steers the frontiers of discovery and
innovation and produces breakthroughs that keep the U.S. at the
forefront of global leadership.
Second, we must ensure accessibility and inclusivity. There
is tremendous untapped potential throughout our Nation. Every
demographic and socioeconomic group in every geographic region
is full of talent, and must be inspired and given the
opportunity to participate in STEM.
Finally, America must lead by our actions and our values.
We will work with like-minded partners who share these values,
and we must and will take the necessary steps to safeguard
taxpayer investments. The foundation for this vision is
partnerships. They are powerful tools to leverage resources and
develop more impactful results.
NSF has a history of cultivating and fostering environments
where partnerships thrive. Over the past few weeks, the
administration has released the American Jobs Plan and the
fiscal year 2022 discretionary request. These proposals invest
in research and development across the government. The
proposals also include increased investments at NSF, including
a $50 billion investment in a new technology directorate, and a
20 percent increase to the NSF budget in Fiscal Year 2022.
The budget request increases funding for fundamental R&D
and will strengthen NSF's ability to champion the basic
research that is critical for our future.
In addition, we know there are opportunities for
transitional impacts in all science and engineering fields that
hold enormous potential benefits. The proposed directorate will
be a cross-cutting platform that leverages, energizes, and
rapidly brings the innovations to market. NSF will not abandon
our current mission or be redundant with other mission agencies
who are doing vital work. We all know we have a large gap in
bringing fantastic individual ideas to market and society. This
is our opportunity to rapidly change that.
The budget request also invests in increasing the
participation of underrepresented groups in science and
engineering, which is exceedingly important for our Nation.
Advances in technologies, such as artificial intelligence,
quantum information science, and even the technologies we
cannot even conceive of will influence the global balance of
power for generations. We must commit ourselves to this
challenge so that we are leaping forward and ensuring that the
race for global leadership is not even close.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
With the continued support of this committee, and the Congress,
NSF will bolster fundamental research across all fields of
science and engineering, and unleash rapid innovations,
securing our future for generations to come. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and Ranking Member.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Dr. Panchanathan. We are
now going to proceed to our question period. I will start by
recognizing myself for 5 minutes of questions. And, Doctor, I
would ask that you--I have a few questions to cover in 5
minutes, and I would ask you to keep that in mind when
answering. Try to keep it to about a minute or so for each
answer.
First, the President's budget requests, asks for
significant increases in funding and investment in America that
he envisions will create millions of good jobs, rebuild our
country's infrastructure, and position the United States to be
a world leader and out-compete China. I think we can all agree
that to be a world leader in science and engineering, we need
to invest heavily in world class, cutting-edge research
infrastructure.
So the first question is: How does this proposal compare to
the investments being made in China and other countries in
research and development and creating the technologies of the
future? Do you feel this budget sets us up for success in
competing internationally?
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you look at
the investments, specifically in China, the last few years,
China has been investing four times as much in terms of growth
than the United States, and they are catching up to us. And so
clearly, we are at a moment where it is exceedingly important
that we make sure we are investing in fundamental research as
well as the transitional research, both at the same time, so
that we can out-compete and leap forward in terms of
progressing. It is not about even being close, as I said in my
remarks. It is about leapfrogging and being way ahead in terms
of our innovation abilities. So to that end, Mr. Chairman, we
need to commit ourselves to robust, sustained investments in
R&D as called for in the President's job plan as well as the
fiscal year 2022 request. I think this is an exceedingly
important time. It is a very important moment for us to show
that we are not going to let any other nation out-compete us.
Mr. Cartwright. Very good. Now, secondly, the request
included a proposal to create a new directorate for technology
as has also been suggested in the National Science Foundation
for the Future Act and the Endless Frontier Act. This new
directorate would focus on applied research. Given NSF's
history of supporting basic scientific research, curiosity-
driven research, as you say, how do you envision incorporating
this new direction with the rest of NSF's focus on basic
research?
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I have been
observing the vision of NSF as DNA. One strand of the DNA is
the curiosity-driven research. The other strand of the DNA is
the youth-inspired research. These are highly intertwined and
synergistic. That is what NSF has been, and now we are going to
accelerate the progress into the future.
So I envision the directorate to be horizontal, a
horizontal that weaves through all the verticals of the other
directorates so that we are leveraging what the other
directorates are inventing, making possible, and energizing, as
well as transmitting rapidly in partnership with industry and
others, so that we may get the technologies out to the
marketplace in a rapid fashion.
Mr. Cartwright. Very good. And, thirdly, a 2018 report from
the National Science Board said the board's conversations
underscored the genuine concern that U.S. investments in mid-
scale research infrastructure are far outpaced by those of our
European, Japanese, and Chinese counterparts, unquote. Now, I
know that NSF has been working hard to strengthen its mid-scale
programs. Can you tell me if the mid-scale programs remain a
priority for the agency, and how you are working to address the
need in that area?
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Absolutely. Mid-
scale is a top priority for the agency for the reasons that you
outlined very clearly. So we are very grateful to Congress'
support, including increased funding for mid-scale too and the
MRESC programs. This is a very important funding, and makes
possible critical research instrumentation in the U.S.
This is a very important time, as I was saying earlier, to
advance our scientific ideas. For example, this has made
possible the first of a kind [inaudible] For new science in the
high magnetic field frontier at Cornell University, for
example. That is just one example. So the demand is huge. We
see billions in proposals, so I would say Mr. Chairman,
absolutely a high priority, and we need to be investing heavily
in this area.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. And just to finish things off,
my ears aren't what they used to be, Dr. Panchanathan. Did you
say China is outspending us 4 to 1 on basic research?
Mr. Panchanathan. In the rate of increase. They are
investing at the rate of 4 times higher than what we are
investing, and so that is a significant, steep climb for them.
Clearly, they have been lagging behind, and they are catching
up to us fast is the message that I was trying to communicate,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you.
I would like to yield to the ranking member, Mr. Aderholt,
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Director, or Dr. Director, the deep south is culturally
diverse, as you know. It is a geographic region of the United
States, and historically, it has lagged behind in many economic
indicators, including scientific research and development. When
we think about diversity, I think geographic diversity should
be included in our consideration so that families and students,
professionals everywhere in the country, have opportunities to
participate in higher education and also in research.
Included in your budget, you take the strong step of
requesting a roughly 50 percent increase in programs that aim
to increase participation from individuals who are
traditionally underrepresented in science and engineering. If
Congress provides the increases for these and other programs
across the agency, how would this idea of geographic diversity
impact your plans, and to invest in the future of areas such as
the deep south, for example, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee,
Georgia, and just the Appalachian region as a whole?
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much for asking this
question again. You know, a center pillar--when I outlined the
vision when I came to the agency, the center pillar of the
three pillars that I outlined was accessibility and
inclusivity. Having myself come from a State that I have seen
firsthand that talent and ideas are everywhere. They are not
limited to any geographic part of the United States. They are
all across the socioeconomic spectrum that you can think about.
I have committed myself to ensuring that we are inspiring,
motivating, and making possible talent in every part of our
mission, because it is exceedingly important if you want to
out-compete China. The domestic talent should be unleashed at
full force and full scale, and I am deeply committed to that.
So to the investments, therefore, we are going to be
unleashing not only new programs, but strengthening existing
programs. Some of the pilots are working. And so we want to
make sure that we are going to have the diversity that you
point out rightly across the geography as well as socioeconomic
demographics. We livened up and so that prosperity is
everywhere. Prosperity everywhere will only guarantee
prosperity of our Nation.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. And when you say that diversity
across, I mean, obviously, the deep south would be included in
that, correct?
Mr. Panchanathan. Absolutely. Absolutely. I will give you
one example. We launched AI Institutes last fall. And the seven
AI institutes--when I came here, I said the AI Institutes
project is going to be called AI in Every State, because every
State should be energized and be leveraged in terms of their AI
capacities, so AI in Every State. We have 20 States covered
with the first seven institutes. We now have eight more
institutes coming up. And I expect that soon, we will have
every part of the region, including the great south, to be
partners in terms of evolving this unbelievable ecosystem of
prosperity through technologies like AI being enabled.
Mr. Aderholt. Speaking of artificial intelligence, the
previous administration proposed a significant increase in the
National Science Foundation's investment in artificial
intelligence for the current fiscal year, and Congress provided
the agency with the flexibility and the authority to invest up
to the requested level of $830 million.
My question is, how does the NSF plan to invest in
artificial intelligence in the current fiscal year, fiscal year
2021, under the new administration? And if it is less than $830
million, the agency proposed and Congress authorized, where is
NSF choosing to spend the difference in this amount?
Mr. Panchanathan. So basically, what I can tell you is AI
investments remain very robust in the agency. And what I would
like to point out is, having been a computer scientist myself,
and AI is my field of expertise, I can tell you with certainty
that AI investments are not only in the directorates that you
would think, such as computer information sciences or in
engineering, but almost in every directorate, because AI has
the potential for not only advancing the fundamental part of
AI, but also the application of AI.
We are partnered with USDA, NIFA. We are partnered with the
Department of Transportation. We are partnered with the
Department of Homeland Security. And you will be happy to know
that I have leveraged this by accessing more capital from
outside partnerships. The combination of Amazon, Accenture,
Intel, and Google, have invested $30 million now. We have
attracted that investment to augment the AI investments.
So I can tell you that the AI investments are very robust
in the agency. And if you look at the companion technologies
that make AI possible, that is a very, very significant
investment portfolio in the agency. And, so, we are not, by any
means, walking away from the AI focus in the agency. I can
assure you of that.
Mr. Aderholt. And you are planning to spend that $830
million as currently proposed?
Mr. Panchanathan. So as I was saying, I don't have the
exact numbers in front of me, but I am happy to share that with
you offline. Happy to share that with you. But I can tell you
that because we are looking at every part of what AI influence
is in terms of how we are looking at the technology
advancements and the impact of the technology, you know. We are
looking at it in the broad-based way in which NSF is investing,
and we will be happy to share the data with you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. That would be helpful.
And just in closing, how does the National Science
Foundation plan to invest in the coming fiscal year? And, of
course, you mentioned that it is going to be all over, but do
you plan to really closely follow the recent recommendations of
the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence?
Mr. Panchanathan. So we are definitely participating and
closely watching and monitoring the NSCAI recommendations, and
these are, as you know, recommendations that many of which we
share, because we are part of the dialogue, and also
contributing to some of these ideas and thoughts that come to
the NSCAI.
So I can tell that you we are very synchronized with NSCAI
in terms of how we are looking at what AI can do in the future,
including the concepts of how we might address the
technological progress, the application domain, as well as
issues such as privacy, security, ethics, as well as what can
we do in terms of implicit bias and other recommendations that
are coming out. So, clearly, we will be tracking that very
closely and see what we can do.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
At this point, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Grace
Meng from New York.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr.
Panchanathan, for being here and for all your work.
I had a question in general about more support for early
grantees. President Biden unveiled the contours of his budget
last week, requesting $10.2 billion for NSF, a 20 percent
increase from last year's funding level. I think this is great
and will help maintain U.S.' scientific leadership globally.
Last year, the National Science Board released its Vision 2030
report, including recommendations to increase the
attractiveness of conducting academic research in the U.S. such
as increased investment to fund a higher percentage of highly
rated proposals.
I have heard from scientists that there is just not enough
early career funding programs to keep those interested in
pursuing STEM careers. Oftentimes, those early STEM researchers
have great ideas and proposals but don't have funding to pursue
their agenda, so we often lose them to the private sector or
altogether. Can you discuss how a 20 percent budget increase
would help NSF fund more earlier career applicants?
Mr. Panchanathan: Representative Meng, thank you for the
question. While I cannot talk to the details right now because
it doesn't come out until the President releases the budget, I
can give you enough information in terms of how important early
career researchers are to the scientific community, to
academia, as you rightly point out, and to NSF.
And so one of the things that we are doing is we are--as
you know, the career awards are like the pinnacle of success
for young career investigators. So one of the things that we
have done, even in the COVID situation, as you know, the COVID
situation has had tremendous impacts at so many levels, and
let's pick the early career investigators who have just joined
academia, and are having a lot of difficulty in terms of making
sure that their ideas are going to be funded and fostered as
they move into the future. So thanks to Congress for the $600
million allocation that we got. And even before that, we
prioritized at NSF to make sure that early career investigators
are not put through any hardship in terms of taking their ideas
and advancing their ideas so that they might be successful into
the future.
So our fundamental concept here is to see that we have to
build the bedrock or the foundation of what NSF is. That is
early career investigators. Only can we build this future on
this bedrock of the foundation, so we are constantly seeing how
we might increase the attention to early career investigator
ideas, and see how we might be able to support them in times of
difficulties like what we are facing in COVID right now, and
also, to make sure that we are looking at disproportionately
affected individuals, and disproportionately affected
institutions. This is something that we are keeping close track
on because some are more affected than others, and we are
making sure that those folks get the support that is necessary
to advance their ideas.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. I had another question about President
Biden's action to combat anti-Asian American hate in our
country. NSF was included in President Biden's order recently
highlighting its critical research to prevent and address bias
and xenophobia against Asian American communities. The
announcement mentioned that NSF is currently supporting more
than 100 grants across the country, totaling more than 33
million in investments. These projects will help us reduce the
frequency and severity of these violent attacks against Asian
Americans. How can this subcommittee be helpful in supporting
the President's initiatives through NSF? And as these projects
are being completed, how is NSF helping the researchers spread
their word publicly to help us combat hate?
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you again. You are absolutely
correct. So NSF is putting an intense focus in understanding
the fundamentals of this problem, as well as tackling this
problem head on, in terms of how we might be of support to the
scientific community that has these ideas that help mitigate
such challenges through education, to other kinds of mechanisms
by which we can demonstrate that we are taking care of the
vulnerable.
This is a broad portfolio of things that we look at in
terms of addressing racial inequity. And this is something that
has clearly drawn the attention of NSF, and we have put a lot
of effort and emphasis on this, Representative Meng, and I am
happy to share the details with you. I know that in the short
time we have, I may not be able to give you all the details,
but we have a complete compilation of the project that you
talked about. These projects, you know, investing over $30
million, as you rightly you point out, these projects really
address the core problem, and also what we might do to
systemically avoid this in the future, or mitigate this in the
future and what we might do to further be of help.
So we will most certainly come to the committee. You are
always very helpful, and we appreciate that. We are grateful
for that, and we will come to you with specific things that you
might need in the future. Thank you so much.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Doctor.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
At this point, the chair represents our friend from
Mississippi, Representative Steve Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Aderholt. Director Panchanathan, thank you for being
here today. I am happy to see that the NSF is building the
research vessel Gilbert R. Mason which will operated by the
Gulf Caribbean Oceanographic Consortium led by my alma mater,
the University of Southern Mississippi, and the Louisiana
University's Marine Consortium. The entire Mississippi Gulf
Coast Community looks forward to the Gilbert Mason coming
online.
I would also like to make an open-ended comment to you,
Director, regarding NSF vessels and shipbuilding. I am a huge
supporter of not only the Jones Act, but of American-made
shipbuilding. When NSF considers contracts for barges like the
current proposal for McMurdo Station and equipment, I just want
to strongly encourage you to require that these things be built
in the United States for the Buy American Act.
Now, switching over, the FSCORE program has been
instrumental in building infrastructure within Mississippi's
research universities that has enabled scientific
competitiveness, increased Mississippi's pipeline of science,
engineering, and mathematics talent, and attracted external
scientific expertise to Mississippi.
One excellent example is the University of Southern
Mississippi Center for Optoelectronic Materials and Devices. So
my question: With the new administration, do you see any
degradation in support for this program?
Mr. Panchanathan. Representative Palazzo, thank you for the
question. You know, as I was saying earlier, ideas and talent
are all across our great Nation. And NSF's responsibility, as I
see it, is to energize those ideas and talents so that our
Nation will be competitive in every form, and this is the time
to be competitive. And I don't see slowing down on that. In
fact, I see intensification of the work that we need to do in
every part of our Nation, in all aspects of the scientific
community.
So, I can only say, Mr. Palazzo, specific details of the
project you talk about, I am happy to go back and look at them
in great detail. I know that these are tremendous contributions
that are being made for advancing our technological aspirations
and also translating those technologies into industries of the
future.
[The information follows:]
NSF's mandate is to promote science nationwide. Therefore,
NSF remains committed to EPSCoR and to harnessing the talent
for innovation that exists throughout the United States. Any
individual, regardless of geographic or demographic background,
might be inspired to pursue a career in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research and innovation--
and the participation of people with different backgrounds
strengthens the research enterprise by bringing varied
perspectives to the table. In accordance with 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1862p-9 (2011) EPSCoR funding `'shall continue to increase
as the National Science Foundation funding increases.''
EPSCoR allows NSF to truly fulfil that duty, making sure
that `'across the nation'' means across all of the nation, not
just places fortunate enough to have extensive research
infrastructure. EPSCoR enhances the research competitiveness of
targeted jurisdictions (states, territories, commonwealth) by
strengthening STEM capacity and capability. To achieve this
goal, EPSCoR aims to stimulate research that is fully
competitive in NSF disciplinary and multidisciplinary research
programs. These activities promote and catalyze STEM workforce
development, broadening participation, and economic growth.
Developing research capacity in participating institutions of
all types and serving varied student populations is an integral
part of EPSCoR's vision and mission.
Since Mississippi became eligible for NSF EPSCoR funding in
1987 and across Presidential administrations, NSF EPSCoR has
demonstrated a sustained investment in Mississippi's STEM
activities. Total NSF EPSCoR funding to Mississippi since 1987
is approximately $125 million with approximately $86 million
coming through Research Infrastructure Improvement (RII)
investments, and nearly $39 million through EPSCoR co-funding
support. In addition, total NSF funding leveraged through
EPSCoR co-funding is approximately $74 million. Furthermore,
since FY 1987, NSF has awarded over 1,970 grants for total
funding greater than $690 million. As of FY 2021, there are
over 190 active NSF awards totaling $113 million in
Mississippi. Among active awards, NSF EPSCoR has funded through
its RII program or co-funded in conjunction with other NSF
directorates at least 45 active awards in Mississippi. Examples
of these activities in Mississippi include:
RII Track-1 Mississippi EPSCoR: Center for
Emergent Molecular Optoelectronics (CEMOs); \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
showAward?AWD_ID=1757220&HistoricalAwards=false
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RII Track-2 FEC: Emergent Polymer Sensing
Technologies for Gulf Coast Water Quality Monitoring; \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
showAward?AWD_ID=1632825&HistoricalAwards=false
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RII Track-2 FEC: Collaborative Research and
Education on Synergized Transformational Solar Chemical Looping
and Photo-Ultrasonic Renewable Biomass Refinery; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
showAward?AWD_ID=1632899&HistoricalAwards=false
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RII Track-4: Understanding Reaction Transport
Coupling in High-Temperature Thermochemical Energy Storage
Systems; \4\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
showAward?AWD_ID=2031701&HistoricalAwards=false
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RII Track-4: Evolutionary Genomics of Multispecies
Ecological Interactions, \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
showAward?AWD_ID=1929136&HistoricalAwards=false
So I know one of the things that I have been talking about
is not only to train talent, as you said, but also assemble
ecosystems of prosperity, of industry and entrepreneurship,
around these excellent centers that you mentioned that we need
to have everywhere. So I look forward to working with you in
order to make sure that we unleash these amazing innovation
centers everywhere.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Doctor. I appreciate that,
and I hope you will be committed, or can commit to as the NSF
budget increases that the FSCORE program perhaps could
proportionally increase as well, because it is a great program.
Pivoting real quick, my favorite subject, China. I
appreciate you mentioning that in your testimony, that we have
to recognize, we can no longer ignore China. They are just not
a place to buy cheap--you know, domestic or cheap goods, but
they are an economic peer, and, perhaps, could be a military
adversary in the future.
When I first came to Congress, we had hearings, and we were
talking about the technological gap, 25 years, 30 years. And
since then, as you mentioned, they are either our equals, or
they have exceeded us, and they didn't get to the top by
spending. They got to the top by cheating and stealing, and
now, they are at the top or beyond. They are spending, as the
chairman mentioned and as you mentioned, at four times higher
than America on research and technology.
So I have seen, with some Federal agencies over the years
that they have a cavalier attitude towards protecting America's
national secrets, research and industry, paid for by the
American people only to see it again improperly taken or stolen
and then exported to foreign countries. Could you tell me what
is the attitude and the culture at NSF for protecting and
safeguarding American technology? And are there any recent
incidents to where technology may have been stolen, and if so,
who was behind that?
Mr. Panchanathan. Representative Palazzo, at NSF, we
believe in terms of the research that it gets enriched by the
collaborative work that we do with like-minded partners across
the globe. So, for us, like-minded partnership will share our
values, like, who we can trust and who we can respect with
integrity. They are working--so I have been developing these
partnerships across the globe like U.K. and Ireland and Canada
and others who believe in this work together can produce even
greater things.
But on the other side where we have more of the
innovations, there are more translating into the industrial
environment or applied research. Clearly, there are protection
mechanisms that we fund, you know, in universities and so on.
Having come from university where I led that particular
portfolio, I can tell you that the intellectual property
protection mechanisms are being put in place.
So we, at NSF, took this step last year addressing this
issue by creating a Chief Officer for Research Security
Strategy and Policy who is working in collaboration with other
agencies, particularly intelligence agencies, in ensuring that
our policies and protocols and practices are put in place
working closely with our Office of Inspector General, to make
sure that we are ensuring that these kinds of unethical
practices are not something that they can get away with.
So I think we are working very hard to do that at the same
time, but that is in partnership with the Federal Government,
as you can imagine. So NSF is doing everything to see how we
can have fundamental research prosper through global
partnerships with like-minded partners, as well as protecting
mechanisms.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Director.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
The chair recognizes Florida's own Charlie Crist.
Representative Crist, take it away.
Mr. Crist. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And,
Director, thank you for joining us today. It is an honor to
have you.
In your testimony, you highlight some of the great work
that the NSF has done to help combat COVID-19, including
supporting research that helps us better understand how the
virus spread and technology to attract the outbreaks. Can you
discuss what lessons the National Science Foundation has
learned over the last year, in leveraging research and
development during this crisis to help bring the virus under
control?
Mr. Panchanathan. So thank you for the question. You know,
at NSF, thanks to the CARES Act investments, we have launched
over 1,000 projects in a rapid scale to address this pandemic.
As you know, the decades of investment that NSF has made in
basic bio research, in engineering research, in computing
research is essentially now being contextualized so we can find
these rapid solution pathways that we are working on and
understand the virus, understand the spreading mechanism as
well as finding solutions that can be translated rapidly so
that we might address the problem at hand.
So, in terms of COVID-19 projects that we have funded
through the CARES Act, not only the CARES Act funding directly
has been applied, but NSF has invested additionally to the tune
of $200 million, unleashing these 1,000-plus projects, in order
that we might address this COVID pandemic.
At the same time, we are also using, as I said, the $600
million investment that you all kindly made in NSF to see how
we can help the community that is out there that is suffering
because of COVID-19 impacts, the scientific community, so that
the ideas that are there. And most of the scientific community
being embedded in the COVID-19 pandemic, are all trying to see
what they can do to contribute even more in terms of addressing
this pandemic proactively rather than reactively, how might we
be more resilient as a Nation to these kinds of activities, not
only the pandemic, to other kinds of things that you would
relate to very well, Representative, as natural hazards, you
know, how might we prepare ourselves proactively rather than
reactively. And so this resilient portfolio is something that
we are putting forth at NSF to see how we can address this.
So I just want to make sure that we are trying to do this
in a comprehensive way so that this moment that we have taken,
we have learned a lot from this moment. We are learning a lot
from this moment, including that there is sort of a light that
is there in this that we can look up to is that we know that
remote learning is possible now with high quality. Yes, there
are challenges.
So how might we then use the same remote learning capacity
to now include talent from across our Nation, rural and urban
areas? So these are kinds of things that COVID-19 is teaching
us to do better, to be more resilient, to be more inclusive,
and also to be more proactive rather than reactive.
Mr. Crist. Great. Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
I am curious, too. Has the NSF taken the innovative steps
to look at these variants that we are now experiencing? As a
Floridian, you know, we are one of the top States in variants,
and I think they suspect primarily from the United Kingdom. But
I am curious if you have had the opportunity at NSF to delve
into some research as to these variants, what causes them, and
what we can expect in the future from them?
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative Crist. We rely
on the scientific community, which is constantly looking and
innovating and finding solutions, or proposing to find
solutions to us. We welcome those kinds of proposals. Clearly,
these are in the mix of thinking in terms of what the
scientific community can and should do as we move into the
future.
So NSF has engagement with the scientific community, the
key players in this. And if I will repeat that, we are clearly
tuned in, if that is what you are asking us, tuned in to what
is going on so that we might serve better, as I said, much more
proactively, to understand these things, how these things
mutate and, therefore, cause, you know, increasing problems
like what you are seeing today.
Mr. Crist. To follow up on that, and I can't see the
countdown clock, Mr. Chairman, so let me know when I am running
low, if you don't mind, and----
Mr. Cartwright. You have 1 minute, Charlie.
Mr. Crist. I am sorry?
Mr. Cartwright. You have 1 minute remaining.
Mr. Crist. Great.
On the variants still, now, my understanding just reading
news accounts is that the variants are more deadly and also
more infectious. And, so, my question, I think, is twofold: Do
the current vaccines have the capacity to stop them as well as
they do the original COVID-19 virus? And on top of that, what
should we expect in terms of other variants developing from the
virus?
Mr. Panchanathan. Yeah. This is something that I probably
am not able to answer at this point in time because it is still
being investigated right now. And much of this lies in the
domains of the National Institutes of Health, the researchers
that are working really hard on this, CDC and others. So I
would say that is exactly the thing that is being investigated
is how might we find how solidly are we protected right now,
and how can we protect ourselves better into the future?
Mr. Crist. I appreciate that. Thank you. If there are
experts within the Science Foundation, if you could forward
those to the committee, that would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
The question of what new viral variants may arise and how
effective current vaccines will be against them is an active
area of research in the scientific community. While some of the
researchers engaged in those efforts may be supported by NSF,
it is primarily in the domain of NIH, CDC, and other agencies
to secure answers to assess immediate risk and to mitigate
impacts of these variants on public health. There are program
officers at NSF who are scientific experts in viral biology
generally, but they are not experts on this particular question
of coronavirus variants and vaccine effectiveness against them.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Crist.
The chair recognizes Representative Ben Cline of Virginia
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and
Ranking Member Aderholt holding today's hearing. Ensuring that
America continues to lead in science and technology is critical
to our continued economic success. The United States has always
been on the cutting edge of research and development, so it is
vital that we continue to innovate here in America and promote
policies that enable the private sector to flourish from
breakthrough discoveries at our research facilities and
universities. At the same time, we must also ensure taxpayer
dollars are being used effectively and transparently to
maintain the trust of citizens in government-funded research.
I want to thank our witness for joining us. I am learning a
lot about the NSF, the work that you do here in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, many of our major universities. I
have noted the request for increase in your budget from $1.7
billion increase to $10.2 billion from its current level, which
is also an all-time high, I believe.
So I wanted to see how you were doing with expenditure of
the taxpayers' funds. I went on your website to look at some of
your audits. I commend you for the number of audits that you
do. You seem to go through all of your grant recipients on a
regular basis over the past several years. I did note one that
I just wanted to kind of follow up on. It is an OIG report from
May of last year about the vehicle fleet that you all have, and
how you all keep track of the vehicles that are titled at your
major facilities and at grant recipients' facilities.
A number of suggestions were made at the conclusion of this
OIG report, and, again, this was in the middle of the pandemic
in May of last year. They recommended three things: that you
conduct a complete vehicle allocation methodology for all
vehicles in your motor vehicle fleet; you develop internal
guidance to insure that NSF regularly establishes and documents
a vehicle allocation methodology; and you complete standard
operating guidance for NSF staff.
Can you tell me, with certainty, that you have completed
those three recommendations from the OIG and that you have a
firm grasp now on your vehicle fleet and how many are in that
fleet?
Mr. Panchanathan. Representative Cline, thank you so much
for your question. I can tell you that we take these audits
very seriously. We work with the OIG in a partnership mode, and
we meet with the OIG regularly, and we are always listening to
their suggestions, their recommendations, and we work closely
in partnership with them. And we also follow up on the things
that they bring up and highlight.
So I can tell you that this is something that we most
certainly are taking the necessary steps from the NSF
perspective.
The specific things we talked about, I will be happy to
follow up with you on this, you know, in terms of what we are
doing and what recommendations we have taken and how we are
following up. I will be happy to do that with you and your
office. I can tell you that this is something I take personally
very seriously, and OIG and I have a strong partnership.
Mr. Cline. Well, I appreciate that. And I was hoping you
would just say yes, that an OIG report with recommendations
about a year old have been implemented. I see in fiscal year
2017, one major facility recipient did not report 16 federally
owned vehicles it purchased with award funds from the office,
16 vehicles purchased with taxpayer dollars that they didn't
report. That is a good bit of funds that should have been
reported.
In that 2017 report, it said there were 560 vehicles
purchased with award funds, 500 at major facilities. It just
seems like there is some money not being kept track of within
NSF, and I would think it would be a priority for you guys to
get a handle on something as widespread as vehicle purchasing,
so that you can come to us and say with certainty, we manage
our funds well, and we need that 20 percent increase.
Mr. Panchanathan. Absolutely, Representative Cline. I tell
you right now. We manage our funds well. And, yes, there are
isolated incidents like this that we look at OIG's reports and
immediately act on them. We don't delay action on them. I can
assure you that, because that is what I meant by saying the
specific partnership with OIG is to make sure that we are
listening to them, we are acting on them, and absolutely we act
on them right away.
The specific details, I thought it might be best that if I
follow up with you and the office and give you the details of
how we have followed up. It is not that we have not followed
up. We follow up every one of them, and make sure that we are
acting right and that the taxpayer funds are being used most
wisely and appropriately. And you can rest assured that we will
never waiver from that, and we are constantly seeing how we can
do better.
Mr. Cline. Excellent. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
The chair recognizes Representative Ed Case of Hawaii.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, Dr. Panchanathan, it
is a pleasure to have you with us. First of all, I want to
start by expressing my own appreciation to the National Science
Foundation for your investments in world class research and
development in Hawaii, ranging from astronomy with the Gemini
Observatory, the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope, the world's
most powerful solar observatory, and the potential Thirty Meter
telescope, of course, which is the largest and most powerful
telescope on the horizon anywhere in the world which is under
consideration as we speak along with your investments in
atmospheric research, oceanographic research, and other R&D
which is specific to my part of the world, so I appreciate
that.
I do want to follow up on some of the questions that my
colleagues have posed along the lines of the safety and
security of our national research and development, especially,
and I will say with respect to China because the questions were
raised with you as to China's investment in R&D and compare to
it our own. But as I think we can all know and acknowledge and
realize at this point, from China's perspective, it is a lot
better for us to do the R&D and then for them to take it as
opposed to them, you know, spending on it themselves. And they
are busy doing that and have been doing it for some time, and
there is no sense in anybody denying that anymore. It is a
reality. And so the question to you, and many of my colleagues
got at this, but number one, specifically, what is the National
Science Foundation doing to assure that doesn't happen?
I know that you do have a series of, and have had a series
of internal investigations that get at, basically, foreign
penetration of R&D through grants, and, again, singling out
China as one of those foreign agents from intellectual property
theft, as well as basic counterespionage in some cases.
Your numbers seem to be lower than other Federal R&D
organizations such as the NIH which has been plagued in this
area. But what specifically is the status of your current
investigation? And just as important, do you feel that you have
the resources, the raw resources, to counter this within the
NSF, you know, money-wise, you know, personnel-wise and
otherwise?
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you for the question again. I just
want to put out a clarification because the China numbers
talked about, and I presented these numbers. The clarification
I want to present is that China is not spending four times the
U.S., but the annual rate of investment growth of China's
progress is 17 percent growth rate, annual growth rate, whereas
ours is a 4 percent growth rate, so that is where the four
times comes about. It is the growth rate rather than the actual
expenditure. I just want to clarify that.
Mr. Case. Yes. Understood. And they are probably spending
four times at an accelerated rate of growth on taking our
research and development also. So the same question back to
you. How are you doing? What do you need?
Mr. Panchanathan. What we are trying to do is this balance
of trying to make sure that the fundamental research is
prospering, and also protecting what needs to be protected, as
you rightly said. Our taxpayer investments have to be used
wisely in terms of protecting those things and not let them get
away with taking those things that we should be protecting in
the first place. And that is why we developed this Chief
Officer for Research Security and Strategy and Policy, and we
have equipped that office with people, and we are constantly
looking and evaluating at how many more resources would be
required. But as you know, at NSF, our partnership is with the
Office of Inspector General, who is a strong partner in getting
this done with us. And, therefore, it is not that NSF does it
alone. NSF does it with the OIG to make sure that we are
ensuring that what needs to be protected gets protected.
But in addition to that, there is one more dimension. Since
the work that we fund happens in institutions like academic
institutions, we want to make sure that those institutions are
also partners in ensuring that we are collectively working
together and putting in place policies and procedures and
practices that ensures that the protection happens at every
level. And, so, that is something we are working very, very
closely.
Lastly, we have been working very closely, as I said, with
the intelligence agencies, as well as our other counterpart
agencies, and learning from each other and seeing how we might
do better at NSF every day. And this is an evolving problem, as
you know. It is a growing problem as some of us see it also, so
we are trying to see how we might make sure the best practices
are learned from each other, put in place by putting in a
ecosystem context rather than just NSF by itself.
Mr. Case. Do you have enough resources to do what you think
we need to do with your agency, with your Inspector General,
with the research institutions that you work with to adequately
protect our R&D? Do you have enough? Just quickly, because I am
out of time.
Mr. Panchanathan. Yeah, no. In this context, I will
directly answer your question. This is why the Fiscal Year 2022
budget increase is very, very critical. So part of the
investment that they are looking at as a group of this
enterprise also in terms of the research security aspects of
it, so we are going to be directing resources to ensure that we
have enough resources in place for the problem that is it
evolving and growing, as I mentioned to you. Absolutely. I need
more resources as part of the fiscal year 2022 plan.
Mr. Case. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, Dr. Panchanathan, you are doing a
fine job fielding all these questions, but we are not done with
you yet.
At this point, the chair yields to Representative Mike
Garcia of California for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr.
Panchanathan, for this testimony. This is obviously very
important. A comment, maybe, and you are welcome to give me
your feedback on it and then a couple of questions within the 5
minutes here, so, hopefully, good, succinct answers if you can.
But I get a little leery of round numbers in these drills.
When something goes up, you know, 10 percent or 20 percent, it
would be an amazing coincidence that that is actually the right
number, right, whether it is too high or too low. So I would
just say that from a fidelity-and-resolution perspective on
what this money is doing, more detail is better. More
substantiation for the individual line items is appropriate.
And especially, given our Nation's debt, you know, my visceral
reaction is I am not a big fan of seeing Federal programs go up
when our Nation's debt is what it is at. That is not to say
that, you know, we are targeting this budget, per se, or I am
targeting it or questioning it. I just think seeing the detail
underneath that 20 percent is critical as we move forward. I
know that is not the forum today for this.
I will ask, though, specifically about cybersecurity. This
is one of the biggest threats to our Nation right now. We
talked about, you know, protecting our research from China.
Those discussions we just had are a byproduct of an overarching
program focused on cyber, and I am reluctant to say
cybersecurity, because it is not just the defensive side of
this, it is also the offensive side for multiple purposes. I
don't see the word ``cyber'' or ``cybersecurity'' really too
often.
So that is question one. What can we do under the NSF? Or
what are you doing to help develop the cyber techniques and
algorithms to not only protect us, but also keep us on the
leading edge of capabilities in the cyber domain.
The second question I have is relative to advance
manufacturing techniques relative to China, especially. I don't
see that in here as well. We are really dependent and entirely
too dependent on China right now for things like our CNC
machinery, our four-axis, five-axis equipment that helps our
manufacturing industries build things in our country. When we
need those machines, we buy them from China right now. We don't
know how to build or develop those machines organically.
And advanced manufacturing techniques are advancing very
quickly, and I think we, as a Nation, are being outpaced by,
especially China and our European peers.
So cyber capabilities and advance manufacturing
capabilities, if you can touch on those relative to the
directorates you have laid out in the budget that you have
requested?
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative, for the
question. And, first, I want to say that the investment in NSF,
you can think of it as a return on investment that is hugely
impacting the Nation as we move forward. We have had tremendous
ROI from NSF investments, and I am happy to share that with you
at a different time, because this is an investment that is well
worth the taxpayers' investments for what they are being able
to generate. I mean, like you--one small example, and I move
on. If you look at the digital libraries project in the mid-
1990s that we funded, the annual report of the project simply
said, we founded Google. That was the report. And, so, we all
know where Google took us. And so that is what I mean by real
return on investment. There are many examples.
[The information follows:]
As mentioned in testimony, over the past seven decades, NSF
has funded research, researchers, innovations and innovators,
and world-class infrastructure that has garnered incredible
benefits to the nation. The internet, 3D printing, the economic
theory underpinning spectrum auctioning and kidney exchanges,
and even the polymerase chain reaction testing technique that
has been critical in the fight against COVID-19 are all
examples of the outcomes and benefits of NSF investments. Many
of the technologies and industries that are the focus of
national conversations around competitiveness today--artificial
intelligence, quantum information science, advanced
manufacturing, advanced wireless and biotechnology, to name a
few--are rooted in sustained NSF support for research at the
frontiers of science and engineering.
To learn even more about the impact of NSF's investments,
plesae see NSF's Brought to You By write-ups.\1\ These essays
organize the impacts of NSF investment by category: national
security, Antarctic research, disaster preparedness and
response, science learning, facilities, ocean discoveries, and
irreplaceable innovations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/btyb/index.jsp
Now, let me dive into the cyber question that you asked.
Being a computer scientist myself, I can tell you. The cyber
technologies, the ideas, the science, and the practices, all of
this is influenced because of several decades of investment
that NSF has been making in computing and informatics and other
areas. So I just want to put that out there because, you know,
it is not new. We have been working on this for a while now.
There is tremendous intensification on cyber-related
technologies and cyber-related ideas. There are many, many
programs to name, but we have to look at--for example, one
thing I would say is an interdisciplinary program on secure and
trustworthy cyberspace, which is a powerful program of not only
taking what we know in terms of technology, but how people
behave. You will agree that the social behavior of science as
part of the technology building is exceedingly important to us
to guard ourselves as we move into the future.
Now, the other part is very important, you would agree
also, is we need to train people who are sensitized to cyber
principles and cyber technologies and cyber ideas. And so, we
have got a cyber core program which we have launched, and this
is training the next generation of cyber professionals. And
this is a service kind of a program where we fund the people,
and they serve a particular number of years, because they have
been funded through this program.
So this is a fantastic program and in partnership with
industry which I am a big believer in. We can do even better
things to make sure that we are protecting ourselves. So that
is the cyber response very quickly.
The last thing on advance manufacturing. Our engineering
directorate has launched several advanced manufacturing
programs over the decades. Today, 3D printing is what we
invested in the 1970s which made additive manufacturing
possible, and we are intensely focused on advance manufacturing
centers in our engineering directorate, of course, in
partnership with commerce and others. We are very, very
committed to that. You are absolutely correct. We need to be a
lot more independent----
Mr. Garcia. Absolutely.
Mr. Panchanathan. In terms of how we look at this as a
Nation, so thank you so much.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Doctor. I appreciate those
highlights.
I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thanks, Mike.
The chair, at this point, recognizes Representative Dutch
Ruppersberger from northern Maryland.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
again, Dr. Panchanathan, and we appreciate the information that
you are giving us.
I want to talk to you about China, which I know Mike
Gallagher has raised the issue, Palazzo has, and also, as it
relates to STEM competitiveness. I spent 12 years on the
intelligence committee, and I actually do represent NSA, so I
have put a lot of my focus on the issue of cybersecurity and
those issues.
We face a lot of threats as it relates to China. China is
our strategic and economic competitor. China's President Xi has
a plan to push past everyone into the next set of emerging
technologies like AI, quantum space. China pushes out great
engineers. And I know our quality of engineers is better, but
China is right there.
Now, we spend about $500 million on STEM programs to create
a STEM workforce. Can you give me an assessment of how are we
doing in that area? One area of concern that I have which has
been echoed by employers in my district; how do we bridge
research education with the day-to-day cybersecurity matters
that exist in the world today, and because there seems to be a
disconnect between academia, research, and real-life execution.
Now, given the shortage of cybersecurity professionals, the
focus on building a pipeline of future talent, starting in
grade school which is, in my opinion, very important, and the
known opportunities that exist to be more inclusive of diverse,
underserved populations, what opportunities or investments
would NSF prioritize to address cybersecurity workforce
shortages that exist today, and might also look at increasing
the number of women and minorities in that field? Now, are we
graduating enough workforce to meet the current and future
needs for the government and private sector?
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much, Representative
Ruppersberger. I will tell you that it is--I call it the
``missing millions'', the talent you talk about. There is
tremendous talent in our Nation that needs to be brought to
life, inspired, and motivated all across our Nation. So, we
need to do everything to make sure that the domestic talent is
at full force, at full scale for us to compete against
countries like China. We need to do a lot more than what we
have been doing so far.
And when you talk about investments we have been making in
STEM, it is at various levels, Representative. First, how do we
motivate these K-12 students to be inspired by STEM, which
means that you need teachers who are inspired by STEM, who
teach STEM. And therefore right there, there are programs at
NSF which are inspiring new teachers who are much more oriented
towards STEM, and that they can, in turn, inspire some talented
(ph) STEM kids. At the K-12 level, we have several programs
that ensures that STEM talent, and the pipeline of STEM talent
is being doubled up at a higher level specific to the kinds of
demographic that you talk about, you know, girls,
underrepresented minorities, feeling that STEM is for them as
much as for anybody else. And that is why we are doing a number
of things in terms of programs addressing that.
Then to the next level, these are things that I look at as
pathways. Some of them may go into a community college pathway.
Some of them may go into an internship program. Some of them
may go into a 4-year degree program, or a university program.
We want to have all the pathways ready for STEM talent to
exercise itself. And, therefore, we have the workforce that we
talk about at speed and at scale.
And specific to the examples that you pointed out, in your
own district, for example, we have Townsend University as a
national center for excellence in cyber operations as just one
example. That is in partnership with a number of entities. It
is managed by NSA with six Federal partners that includes NSF.
And NSF Cyber Core program which is the scholarship program
that I talked about for service has provided Townsend with $2.5
million to prepare a cybersecurity workforce of the future as
one example. And, also, we have in the case of the National
Cyberwatch Center, Prince George's Community College, again,
investment in terms of ensuring.
So NSF is working, is clearly identifying the problem that
you are talking about, Representative, but we are acting on it.
We are ensuring that they are investing in programs not just
only in research universities, but as you say, across the
geography in community colleges and other places to make sure
the talent everywhere is shared to get ready for the future
that you talk about.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thanks, Dutch.
The chair recognizes for 5 minutes Representative Brenda
Lawrence of Michigan.
Mrs. Lawrence. Hello, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for
this opportunity. I wanted to talk to you today about diversity
and the STEM workforce. Recently, President Biden announced his
administration's American Jobs Plan, including an effort to
invest heavily in workforce development through registered
apprenticeships and strengthening the pipeline for more women
and people of color to access these opportunities.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there has been an
increase in participation in STEM fields among women. We went
from 8 percent in 1970, to 27 percent in 2019. However, you
know, that is a far, far cry from the 48 percent of women in
the labor workforce. Women make up more than half of the
workforce in social sciences and math, but remain substantially
unrepresented in engineering and computer occupations which
make up over 80 percent of all of the STEM fields.
Can you explain to me how NSF is working to expand access
to STEM careers, and what steps are you taking to ensure the
participation of women in these fields? And I ask this question
serving as the co-chair of the Women's Caucus and as a vice
chair of the Black Caucus. And I believe strongly that in order
for America to move forward, we must have all hands on deck,
and we must utilize all of our workforce. So I will yield back
for your response, and thank you so much for this opportunity.
Mr. Panchanathan. Representative Lawrence, I cannot agree
with you more. So, you know, having been a computer science
unit head, and this is over 3 years ago, the first thing I said
is how do we inspire more women, more girls, and more
minorities to think about computing and engineering as their
career pathway? And for that, I go back to the previous answer
that I gave is we need role models. We need inspiration that we
need to build, and NSF is addressing that at so many levels.
Let me walk through some of them. We have the NSF Advance
Program, which is focused precisely on how do we get more
representation, more gender diversity. We have the NSF Includes
Program. Through all of these programs, what we are trying to
do is ensure that we have more faculty members who are also
supportive for women so that they become the role models for
nurturing more of the talent. So high school teachers as well
as faculty members in universities that people look up to and
say, ``I can be that.'' So we are trying to generate this, set
of programs that allows for these kinds of inspirations to
happen.
At the same time, we are also targeting programs
specifically to ensure that supplements to awards are made in
order that we might then target those for including talent from
a broad demographic, including gender diversity. So we are
working hard on those programs also at NSF to make sure that we
are, as you said, this growth from 8 to 27 percent, while it is
nice to see a growth, but it is nowhere near enough, and so we
are actively looking at how we can do more through a variety of
programs.
The next thing we are looking at is how industry
internships make possible people feeling more enthusiastic
about wanting to look at potential career pathways for
themselves.
So, these are ways in which we are trying to see how we can
move people of all backgrounds to be successful in a STEM
career. And as I said, I used the word ``pathways'' in the
previous response. We also need to make sure that sometimes
they may not necessarily enter a university right away. They
enter the community college system, and we want to make sure
that the community college pathway also is seamless in terms of
getting to a university pathway.
So we are seeing how we might make possible programs that
energize these kinds of pathways so that talent from all
perspectives are aggregated in order that we meet the demands
of our Nation and the talent that our Nation truly has, which
has to be manifested.
So we are deeply committed at NSF. I can tell you from my
own personal background and experiences and watching the first
time, I can assure you that this needs to be done with a lot
more urgency--I always use these words in my vision--
strengthening at speed and scale. This is the moment for us as
a Nation to do it for precisely the kind of things that you are
talking about as well as the other situation that we are in,
which is facing this global competition that we need to be far
ahead of.
I always say, we should never be looking behind to check
our competition. We should be so far ahead that we never have
to check our competition, and that is what we need to do at
this point in time.
Mrs. Lawrence. Doctor, do you know your current statistics
on the amount of women who are currently in your department or
the amount of minorities?
Mr. Panchanathan. I can tell you that it is a significant
number, and I am so pleased to say that NSF is a very, very
inclusive environment. I can get the exact numbers to you, and
you will be pleased to see the diversity at NSF. I came
recently to NSF, as you know, and I looked at the diversity
profile of NSF. It is really phenomenal. But I will tell you
one thing: As soon as I arrived at NSF, 2 weeks later, I
launched the Racial Equity Task Force. I said, I want to
understand any barriers, any barriers for any talent to
progress through, and achieve their aspirations and goals.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6187A.046
So I am delighted to report that our Racial Equity Task
Force led by our leader of the Office of Diversity and
Inclusion, Rhonda Davis, is doing an amazing job in terms of
identifying potential barriers to achievement and
accomplishment. And under my leadership, you can rest assured
that that will be a principal focus for me.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much.
And I yield back, Madam--I mean, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mrs. Lawrence.
And the chair at this point recognizes the gentleman from
Maryland, Representative David Trone, for 5 minutes. You are
muted, Mr. Trone.
Mr. Trone. There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Doctor, for all your help today.
Broadband. The President, in the New Jobs, American Jobs
Plan, proposes $50 billion over 8 years for the new Directorate
of Technology at the NSF. We know the key on economic
development is robust, future-proofed, internet infrastructure.
Recently, the University of Maryland, Baltimore County received
a rapid grant from NSF to increase high-speed wireless. Can you
speak to some of the other research investments that you have
done related to broadband and internet access that NSF
supported, and also how you see NSF's role in expanding
broadband infrastructure and increasing high-speed internet
accessibility?
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative Trone. That is
a very important point that you are making here, is how do we
expand access? By having the infrastructure that enables the
access. What we have learned from COVID, as you know, as I was
mentioning earlier in my remarks, is that when you have access,
then you can provide the learning opportunities for people
anywhere and everywhere. You can even provide job opportunities
for people anywhere and everywhere.
When we talk about addressing the needs of the rural areas
and urban areas and across the geography of the Nation, this is
a very, very important infrastructure element. I am pleased to
report that NSF has been focused on this from a research
perspective, also from the point-of-implementation perspective.
Just last week, I announced a project Orcom grants, and these
are the mechanisms that we worked with, for example, in this
case, in partnership with Smith Futures. And, we launched
several projects in terms of ensuring broadband accessibility
for a variety of communities that are not served as well right
now.
We have also been working on a partnership with industry,
in a consortium partnership with industry to a program called
Power. The Power program is also providing greater broadband
access, and they are taking templates of those pilots so that
we might learn from that so that we might do it all across the
Nation.
So NSF is very, very active, not only in terms of what we
are investing, but we are trying to partner with industry,
partner with other entities that have agreed to co-invest with
us so that we can do even more than we are able to do alone.
Clearly, the President's budget, the President's new budget and
increases will play a significant role as well as the American
Jobs Plan, and the investments being proposed will be--they
will make a big difference in terms of how we have
connectivity.
And it is through connectivity that we are able to ensure
equity, equity and participation by all, and prosperity
everywhere. And this is something that we are deeply committed
to at NSF.
Mr. Trone. I got it. Internet. Rural. We talked a minute
ago. We have got 9 million students in rural America, 20
percent of all of our kids in rural. We need that bigger STEM
skilled workforce. How do we get these investments to help
drive it in rural America, STEM jobs, et cetera?
Mr. Panchanathan. So there are many initiatives on rural
STEM, specifically at NSF. I will tell you, for example, our
Education and Human Resources Directorate currently has 350
active awards and 21 programs precisely addressing rural STEM,
because I agree with you that we need the talent in rural areas
to be energized and also become entrepreneurs of the future
where there is regional economic development, not the talent
goes somewhere else. The talent is right there. And so, we are
trying to see how, and I am very excited about the American
Jobs Plan investment, because we want to create these
innovation accelerators, innovation centers everywhere, in all
parts of the Nation which takes the local expertise. For
example, it could be agriculture, or it could be, you know, in
the Gulf region, in native shipbuilding. It can be various
topical areas across the Nation, but we can actually build
centers of excellence where jobs are created, training happens,
inspirational STEM time happens everywhere, and therefore, we
can ensure a robust economy as we move forward.
Mr. Trone. Let's quickly jump to opioids. COVID and opioid
deaths devastating communities. It is all hands on deck for the
opioid epidemic that is followed and driven by COVID. NSF's
Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences has done a
tremendous amount of work supporting research, pain management,
and neuroscience of addiction. Can you share with us some of
the findings of that research?
Mr. Panchanathan. So, thank you again for the question. As
you directly said, NSF supports various projects, many, many
projects which address this epidemic that we are facing right
now. As you said, we are looking at addiction. We are also
looking at the role of illicit supply networks in allowing
access to opioids. We are looking also at projects that address
the secondary effects of the opioid crisis on families. We are
also looking at how the user technology can combat the
epidemic, and also nonaddictive therapies for pain which is
what gets people in trouble in the first place.
So with NSF support, the work continues. The researchers
are working across various directorates, including our
fantastic Social Behavioral Sciences Directorate, how to use
new data set approaches to incorporate many types of data,
analytic and visualization techniques that explore the complex
web of biological, behavioral, and social factors that
contribute to addiction.
So we are also looking at new technologies that reduce
cravings, target addiction-riddled brain circuits, for example,
and prevent opioid toxicity. And these are the kinds of things
that are in development right now by funded projects from NSF.
So there is a network of science techniques being used to track
opioid supplies, informing police tactics to interrupt supply
chains.
So taken together, I can tell you that NSF has got a lot
more work to do and make a lot more work possible. But taken
together, these activities promise to deepen our understanding
of the causes, the pathways, the diagnosis, prognosis, and
treatment of addiction.
Mr. Trone. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, David.
Dr. Panchanathan, we are going to go to a second round of
questioning, and I am going to recognize myself for another 5
minutes of questions.
The first thing I want to do is discuss COVID-19. You have
been questioned a fair amount about that. One question you
haven't had is how is the scientific research community itself
handling COVID-19? Have you been monitoring how all the men and
women who are actually doing this research are holding up?
Mr. Panchanathan. Absolutely, Chairman. We have been
closely monitoring the scientific community and seeing what the
impacts are. And I can tell you, the impacts are mostly at what
we call the transition points. An undergraduate student, for
example, is about to graduate who is engaged in a research
project, wanting to finish their undergraduate research
project, and, therefore, go and get a job in industry; a
graduate student who is finishing their Ph.D. Program and
trying to get a job in industry or academia; an early career
researcher or a post doc fellow is trying to get a job, and
then being held back because of the inability to be able to
complete their work in a comprehensive way; an early career
researcher is not being able to launch into their career as
fast as they would normally do. And, of course, the mid-career
researchers and others. The entire scientific system has been
affected, and so, we are keeping a close track on that.
And then on top of that, as you know, Chairman, it has also
affected disproportionately certain researchers and certain
scientists. For example, women who are caring for their
families, and caring for elders, and at the same time, trying
to do all the things that they have to do at home, managing
both at work and family responsibilities. So this has made it
very, very difficult, and so, we are keeping a tab on every one
of those. Our program officers are talking to every individual
and providing help and relief, if possible. We are grateful for
the $700 million investment, grateful to all of you, and that
is made a huge difference.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for that. Well, Dr. Panchanathan,
I must tell you that it is a particular joy of mine to chair
this subcommittee, because I have an abiding faith and belief
in the power of American ingenuity and its ability to solve
basically every major problem that we have in this country, and
maybe in this world.
We need to power America by utilizing domestic resources in
an environmentally responsible manner, finding newer, better
uses for older forms of energy, production, and investing in
sustainable, clean energy technologies to reduce our greenhouse
gas emissions. The question is, as compared to the fiscal year
2021 investment of $850 million, how will a $1.2 billion
investment for climate science impact our ability to fight
climate change?
Mr. Panchanathan. So, clearly, the $1.2 billion investment,
and again, thanks to the President's proposal for fiscal year
2022 which is exceedingly important for us to understand. As
you know, NSF has been working in the area of climate modeling
and other climate science activities for several decades,
climate-related activities. So we are now strengthening at
speed and scale, as I often say, in this aspect also.
So here we are, trying to see how we can expand the work
that we are doing under the USGCRP, as well as clean energy
technology portfolios. But I want to say that it is not just
limited to only that. We are also looking at climate from a
comprehensive perspective. Every directorate at NSF, whether it
is computing directorate, or engineering directorate, biology
directorate, GEO directorate, social behavioral center
directorate, education and human resources directorate, and
mathematical and physics directorate. Every one of them are
focused on this important problem of how we can look at
mitigation, adaptation, resilience, and how might we be more
effective and be much more proactive in our responses.
I will give you one example, if I may. When we launched the
AI Institutes last year, one of the AI Institutes was on
climate and weather at the University of Oklahoma,
understanding weather, and how might we then be much more
proactive rather than reactive, how to be much more
sophisticated in modeling, how to be much more sophisticated in
all our endeavors. So I am very happy to say that NSF is in the
frontiers of how to do this, but we are also doing it in
partnership with agencies like NOAA, NASA, the Department of
Energy, and others. And it takes an all-of-government approach,
as you know, to do this, and we are very happy to be a
significant part of that.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, Dr. Panchanathan, you mentioned
climate modeling just now. And, of course, climate modeling and
weather forecasting can help prepare our communities for the
impacts of climate change. What investments is NSF making in
these fields? And how are you collaborating with other entities
working in the area? And do you feel we are providing the data
and information that leaders need to make informed decisions?
Mr. Panchanathan. Absolutely. You know that our long-term
support of the National Center for Small Business NCOB is a
huge part of how we look at modeling for mitigation purposes,
modeling for understanding so that we might prepare better.
And, so, we are working, as I said in an earlier response, in
partnership with other agencies like NOAA and NASA, and the
Department of Energy and others, so that we might be prepared,
much more ready and prepared, for any eventualities that
happen.
And we are constantly innovating. We are constantly looking
at new ways of doing things, a fusion of disciplines rather
just than a discipline approach only. We are, right now,
thinking about an impact earth system modeling effort and how
might we look at planting modeling in order to be able to
understand the complex efforts, the complex influences much
better to be able to prepare better for the future.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Doctor.
The chair recognizes Ranking Member Aderholt for another 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to refer to the lessons learned from the Recovery
Act of 2009. The 2009 Recovery Act stimulus package provided $3
billion infusion of funding for research at the National
Science Foundation, but it later created a fiscal cliff as the
level of funding was not sustained through the annual
appropriations process. There is some evidence that this was
more harmful than it was helpful to the research community when
the stimulus actually ended, as there were suddenly far more
trained researchers than there was funding. The President is
now proposing $50 billion in stimulus funding for the National
Science Foundation, and far more is proposed in the Endless
Frontier Act.
What were the lessons learned from the Recovery Act, and
how do you propose ensuring that we would avoid creating
another cliff if Congress were to provide another such infusion
of these funds?
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative Aderholt. The
way I see it, this is not a 1-year investment, per se. As I
understand it, it is a multi-year investment. So that is the
first thing I wanted to say.
But I also wanted to say that one of the central pillars of
my vision, and the foundation of it is partnerships. So when
you look at development of the innovation centers that we are
talking about, innovation accelerators that we are talking
about, we are constantly looking at how we might partner with
other agencies and industry particularly, so that we might
bring resources to the table to sustain some of the programs
that we are going to be starting here through these
investments. And that partnership also includes local and
regional governments in the future, because at the end of the
day, we want to build ecosystems of prosperity in every part of
the Nation.
So you can imagine that economic development activities
that will be spurred by the technological innovations that they
will make possible as well as the scientific discoveries that
made the technology innovations possible, simply because of the
fact that when you see the actual return on investment, as I
talked about earlier, as return on investment starts to take
shape, people will be willing to build and invest and scale
further.
So this is an all-in approach rather than just only a
certain amount of resources allocated to NSF only. But NSF is
always mindful that such resources will be leveraged, and will
be energizing basic research as well as transformational
technology-oriented research.
So I can tell you that what we have today, even, does not
look anywhere near enough to what we need. I will give you an
example. Today, with the proposal that we have and the ideas
that we are leaving on the cutting room floor that have been
recommended as highly fundable ideas, excellent ideas that
needs to be invested in, we are leaving almost 100 percent of
those ideas. We are only funding 50 percent of what we receive
that could be funded. So right there, a doubling of NSF budget
today is going to make possible to unleash those ideas.
We cannot leave those ideas behind on the chopping room
floor because that is what happens when we leave them behind.
We are now inviting our competition to leap, to catch up with
us. We are also inviting our competition to take advantage of
those ideas that we are not investing in, and trying to see how
they can invest in those and leap forward, so we cannot let
that happen.
So right here today, I can tell you, Ranking Member, that
we need double the investments just with what we have today at
NSF. Now, you add on top of that what we need for these
innovation accelerators, what we need for the entrepreneurial
ecosystem to be, you know, flourishing, what we need to have
the SBIR, CPS programs achieving the full spectrum of their
potential. I can tell you a quadrupling of the funding is just
barely enough to be able to take us to all the ideas being
unleashed so that we might be far ahead of the competition that
I talked about. This is the time to do that. This is a very
important thing, important time for us to do that. It cannot
be, as you said--you know, it should not be a cliff, but
clearly, the way I look at it is that it could be a sustained
investment, not only because of what the Federal Government
does, but also what we do through our partnerships in moving on
us forward.
Mr. Aderholt. Sure. Yeah. We just want to make sure that we
don't get into creating a cliff like we did in years past, and
so, that is what I wanted to bring to your attention.
Let me move a little bit about the foreign government
talent recruitment programs. I do want to follow up on one
thing. The Inspector General reported that failure to properly
disclose membership in the foreign government talent
recruitment programs and there was other deliberate misconduct
that could have criminal and civil ramifications.
Their office has shared with us that the FBI requests for
help from NSF inspector general has increased by 1,000 percent
in the last 6 months.
Do you think this surge in this FBI activity is an
indication that the problem is getting worse, and that,
perhaps, the NSF needs to do more? Is it an indication that NSF
efforts are working and helping to bring more people to
justice, or what do you think is going on with that?
Mr. Panchanathan. So when you talked about the NSF
approach, you know, as I was saying earlier, we launched this
new chief office of cybersecurity strategy and policy, and she
is working with a team of people within NSF, but more
importantly, in partnership with our OIG, and, more
importantly, in partnership with the intelligence agencies,
including the FBI, so that we might ensure that we are giving
it the due attention it deserves in order to make sure we are
acting on things we need to act on as an agency.
But as I said earlier, more importantly, we want to make
sure that the partnership with the community of where the
science happens, where the people are, namely, the universities
and other entities, to make sure that we are able to work
together in partnership to get the job done. And, so, that part
is focused on intensely. I can tell you that there is a lot of
intensity and intentionality here at NSF working in
partnerships with OIG, the agencies, and the community.
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah. My time is up, but I just want to
mention that that number is very alarming, and, you know,
certainly we all, and I know you do take that very seriously,
so thank you.
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Case is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Case. Thank you again, Doctor. You know, we talked in
my earlier questions, and you have answered a number of
questions on foreign attempts, especially China, to essentially
get our R&D for free. And one corollary of that, unfortunate
corollary, is that oftentimes many of our communities feel
targeted inside this country by our discussion and concerns.
And in the case of China, we have a number of Chinese American
community members, scientists who are concerned that they
have--in your own internal review of potential influence by
foreign governments have targeted, or may have targeted, their
organizations or communities for special consideration. And, of
course, that is of great concern to all of us that
investigations be fair and balanced and not targeting any one
community based solely on ethnicity, or, for that matter,
national origin. These are citizens of our country.
What can you say to them as to your efforts to assure that
these investigations do not go in that direction? Certainly,
the requests from that community is for greater transparency so
that there is an understanding that that is not happening. I
understand that there has to be a balance in investigations
between transparency and effective investigations, so it is a
balance that needs to be found. Nonetheless, this concern under
the current atmosphere I think is particularly one that we
should very much be sure that we are not making the wrong moves
on.
So what is your response? What is your effort to assure, in
particular, the Chinese-American community, but it could be
many other communities, for that matter, based on your
investigation?
Mr. Panchanathan. Representative Case, that is a good point
that you are making, and I will tell you. The word that you
use, which I will reflect back, is balance. How do we balance
our approach in a way that we are protecting what needs to be
protected without seemingly appearing that we are targeting
anybody, or any particular segment of a population or
investigators? At the same time, protecting what is the
fundamental research which is important for the scientific
community to, in fact, enrich itself. We will enrich ourselves
by ensuring that we are having the right partners at the table.
So we are doing everything possible. And the first thing I
would say, having come from an institution where I was the
officer responsible at the university for ensuring that our
investigators were following the right protocols and
procedures, is education.
And, so, we are putting a lot of emphasis on training and
education so that people don't get into trouble in the first
place just because of, maybe, ignorance or maybe because of
oversight.
So we want to make sure that we first understand that most
people are trying to do the right thing, and we want to promote
that behavior, and reward the behavior and compliment the
behavior, and more importantly, enable the behavior by training
and education and things of that nature.
So that is something that we will be focused on with our
partners, because as I said, our partners are academia, and the
work happens in academic environments, and the other folks
which we fund to make sure that they are fully aware of the
risks, but also to make sure that they are educating the people
to make sure that they are not getting into practices that
would get them into trouble. So we are focused on that.
And at large, not only in this situation, and even the
question that Representative Meng asked, we are ensuring that
every community feels safe, and that their work is being
rewarded and recognized, that they are being invested in for
advancing our Nation's prosperity, our Nation's
competitiveness, that we are never shying away from doing that.
And so, this is a real balance, and so this something that I
think we are working very closely, as I said, with our
partners, and we are also ensuring that we are presenting our
points of view to our partners so that in the balance context
that you are talking about that we are keeping these things in
mind, that people don't walk away or be exploited because of
the fact that they feel alienated. And so, we are trying to
balance that very carefully. And to the extent that NSF is a
player in this, in trying to solve this problem and address
this problem, we are trying to do the best that we can. And we
are--it is an evolving threat. I can assure you that we are
taking it very seriously because a number of questions have
talked about this. It is an evolving threat. We are taking it
seriously. We are doing it through strong partnerships but very
mindful of the fact that people don't feel alienated or singled
out.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Director. I would strongly urge your
personal vigilance in this area. This is a very difficult time,
especially for our Asian American community, and investigators
with the best intentions can get carried away, so please watch
this very carefully.
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you. Will do. Will do so.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case.
And Mr. Cline is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Panchanathan, approximately 80 percent of NSF research
and education funds are typically awarded to colleges,
universities, and academic consortia. Of the remaining funds,
roughly 13 percent goes to private industry. Can you tell me a
little bit about the trend lines on that? Is that an increasing
percentage, a decreasing percentage, or fairly steady?
Mr. Panchanathan. So basically--thank you for the question.
First of all, I want, Representative Cline, if I could take a
moment because you asked a question in the last session, and
you said that it would be good to get some answers. The Fleet
Report. Recommendation No. 3 has been completed, and
recommendation No. 1 and 2 will be completed by September 2021.
Mr. Cline. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Panchanathan. And, also, I wanted to say that we have
had, you know, clean audits for several years at NSF. So, I
just want to make sure that you are assured that we always are
focused on doing the right thing and will always do the right
thing.
Mr. Cline. And for the record, I will state that the OIG
report did say that you were in compliance with the Federal
management regulation guidelines, but that they had some
suggestions, so I applaud you for jumping on those and taking
care of them. Thank you.
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much, Representative.
To answer your question, we are increasingly working on how
we might translate technologies and have meaningful societal
and economic impact activity. So we do this in two ways,
Representative Cline. One is what I call direct partnerships.
Just in the last year, we have had probably close to, you know,
tens of millions of dollars of partnership resources that our
industry partners have brought, or our foundation partners have
brought, so that we might tackle problems together for the
betterment of the nation and the advancement of the nation.
So at the same time, the other partnership is what we call
indirect partnerships. These are when we fund a project, for
example, in academia through a center, like engineering
research centers, they then bring in industry resources
together to have the largest impact possible, not only the
basic science, but also the translational technology that comes
out of it so we have impact through--that resource that
brings--is brought to the table. So when we talk about this
increase, I can tell you that the increase is happening also
because of the fact that we are able to bring new resources
through indirect and direct partnerships. So I would say that
first.
The second thing is, that is why I am very, very
enthusiastic about the President's fiscal year 2022 budget. The
Directorate of Technology is being proposed, and this will be a
cross-cut initiative where it is going to leverage a lot of the
technologies, the future technologies like AI, quantum,
biotechnology, and others. But, more importantly, it is also
going to leverage the future of the future of the industries.
What do I mean by that? Let's take AI, for example. AI
didn't happen magically today. AI happened because--because I
am a researcher in the field, I can tell you. AI has been a
sustained investment by NSF and other agencies for the last
four to five decades, and today is now a rich, powerful
technology that we all want to rapidly make sure that the
marketplace and society gets enriched by that technology focus.
So NSF is also making sure that happens, and happens at
speed and scale. We are also working on technologies that are
not even seen as technologies that will happen a decade, or two
decades from now. That is why we are keeping the Nation ready
always. That is what is unique about NSF. That is what is very,
very powerful about NSF. And that is why as an NSF director, I
can say this, but I can tell you even in my past role, this
agency is really the shining light for our Nation. It is the
plight of our Nation. It is what people outside think of us as
gold standard. And so, we need to invest in this like no
tomorrow in order for us to be able to leapfrog and never have
to look back at our competition.
So I look forward to the support of the entire committee
and the entire Congress, and this is what is going to make it
happen. So I really appreciate your time.
Mr. Cline. Thank you. I, again, want to reiterate you have
been in compliance as a result of most of your audits.
I want to talk to you about your ability to ensure
accountability within the grant recipients. So how do you
engage with grant recipients to ensure that the funding is
being used effectively for R&D, and for its intended purposes
and just to ensure accountability within the grant recipients
through your OIG?
Mr. Panchanathan. Yeah. So, first of all, we have our own
financial affairs office. We call it BFA, Budget, Finance, and
Awards Management office. It works very closely with the
awardees, the organizations like universities and other folks
that we award money and make sure that the budget is clearly
outlined, and that people are geared to spending outlined in
the budget. And any deviations, if at all, have to be justified
ahead of time and be approved. And, so, there is a very strict
process at BFA in terms of money, how money is being dispensed
because these are taxpayer funds and have to be spent very
wisely, so we are very, very careful of that. And any
deviations to that, which we see occasionally that happens as
you saw from the audited books, we take that very seriously and
ensure that OIG recommendations are followed through with that
very, very clearly with our constituencies, and when
appropriate, we take necessary actions to ensure that that
never happens again. So we have a tight mechanism of
accountability.
Mr. Cline. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
Mr. Ruppersberger, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, thank you, again.
My question is about NSF and quantum. I was pleased to see
the President's budget requested a huge--or a proposal for a
new NSF directorate to expedite technology development in the
areas that are critical to the U.S. competitiveness in areas
like quantum and space.
Now, Maryland is a global leader in quantum science. We are
home to academic, Federal, and industry leaders in this space
such as my alma mater, the University of Maryland, the Army
Research Lab, and the University of Maryland startup company
called IonQ, all of which are working together to build
powerful computers and develop secure communication networks.
Can you provide me more details about how this new
directorate will advance quantum technologies and space? For
example, what kind of research partnership will it support? How
would it work with other Federal science agencies that support
quantum technology, including the defense and intelligence
agencies.
And as if quantum isn't enough, if we have any time, I
would like to get into the issue of space, too. But if you
could handle this first, and it is within my time, I would like
to hear your points on that issue.
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative. You are
absolutely correct. Quantum is one of the future technologies
that we need to ensure that we are doing everything to
strengthen speed and scale. So the technology directorate that
you are talking about is a horizontal, and the horizontal
essentially works with all the verticals. So much of the
quantum work happens in our mathematical and physical sciences
directorate, in the engineering directorate, as well as in our
computing information science and engineering directorate, and
others, too. But these three are the predominant directorates
where quantum work happens.
So we are ensuring that these quantum ideas that are being
worked out in the labs, in the academic labs and other places,
are energized and leveraged so that the technology directorate
can quickly invest and see how we can rapidly bring them to
market.
At the same time, we are also looking at what needs to be
done in quantum in basic research terms, so that we might be
prepared for the technologies of tomorrow for quantum, through
quantum computing efforts. And then to your point that you
made, this has to be in partnership with fellow agencies who
are also working on this imperative. Our Quantum Institutes
launch last year was done in partnership with the Department of
Energy, so we are looking at every partnership possibility.
So I will tell you when I took over as the director in July
of last year, the first 2 or 3 weeks, I reached out to every
agency leader, and I told them, how can we partner together,
because I always believe 1 plus 1 is not 2, but 1 plus 1 is 3
or more. Let us work together on grant challenge problems, and
quantum was one of them. AI was the other.
And so, we are looking at all these problems, and space you
mentioned, and we signed a Memorandum of Understanding with
NASA so that we might do even more work with NASA, because
there is a lot of synergy of purpose here, but we also have
uniqueness that we all bring to the table. And that is why
bringing our assets together can be exceedingly valuable. And I
can assure you that this technology directorate is going to
have partnership as its DNA expressed even more strongly than
what NSF has been doing in the past.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And I like that answer.
Could you also just explain, from your point of view, that
is not classified, why quantum is so important, that we do
better than China and Russia, and our other countries like
them?
Mr. Panchanathan. So the speed at which we are able to
sense, the speed at which we were able to process, the low
energy consumption of quantum technologies, and more, makes it
an elegant technology for scaling into the future. We already
have, as you know, a representative in our handheld devices,
you know. Billions and trillions of devices and transistors in
there, consuming a lot of power. But then the speed of
computing that is the Moore's Law--I don't want to go into the
technical details, but being a computer scientist, I am afraid
I will do that.
So the Moore's Law has limits to what can be done with
semiconductor technology. So quantum takes it to the next level
in terms of how fast we can compute, how efficiently we can
compute, how effectively we can compute. That is just one
example. Same thing with texting and others. So this is why
quantum is a very rich technology paradigm, and that is why so
much focus has been on quantum.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thanks, Dutch.
The chair recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you,
Doctor, for the excellent testimony.
You mentioned the establishment of the new directorate
leadership in emerging technologies. You briefly touched on the
organizational overlay, I think going effectively horizontal
across multiple vertical works. Have you been able to--you
know, that is a good org chart in construct, but have been able
to liaise with other organizations? You talked about emulating
DARPA. But have you reached out to get sort of lessons learned
either from DARPA or, you know, Rapid Capability Office within
the Air Force to figure out from a contracting, disbursing
money, to setting requirements early, and getting, you know,
effectively the sell-off of whatever your desired project is
delivered on time, to wash in, you know, the best practices and
techniques for what you are trying to accomplish?
If you can, kind of just walk us through how you envision
this new directorate to, beyond just the organizational
construct to actually engage with the other verticals within
your organization?
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative Garcia, for the
question. So you are absolutely correct about the fact that we
need to be nimble. We need to be able to translate things very
rapidly for which we need the ability to find constructs and
processes that enable us to do that. So you pointed out DARPA.
I talked to DARPA leadership and have been engaging with DARPA
to understand the best practices in DARPA.
Likewise, with the Air Force, we have a sustained
partnership with the Air Force. We signed an MOU with the Air
Force. We do a number of projects with them, so we are going to
be working with the Air Force. Energy. Last week I had the
privilege of talking to Secretary Granholm. I sent a note to
her saying that I would very much welcome the opportunity of
talking to her. I sent a similar invitation to the Secretary of
Commerce. I believe that these partnerships and understanding
of how things work in Commerce, how things work in Energy, how
things work in NASA, how things work in DOE, and how things
work, you know, in other agencies, DARPA and DoD and Air Force,
is exceedingly important.
So as we are thinking about the horizontals, we don't want
to recreate something. We want to learn, but adapt, because it
is not just taking that and putting it here, but what does it
make to contextualize it to what NSF is trying to achieve here?
At the same time, we are also working with communities,
specifically industry. In the cohort season right now, what I
do is, I have many listening sessions with industry partners in
the Bay area, for example. I have had many listening
conversations with industry leaders. So I swing my chair from
here to there. I go from the Bay area to Maine and down to
Louisiana, talking to people and asking them, what if NSF did
have the industry partnerships at the higher level of intensity
and higher speed of translation to learn from industry what
those choke points are, and we will come back and be partners?
What are the choke points, because we want to make sure as we
are constructing this horizontal and leveraging the verticals
and energizing the verticals that we are ensuring that this
agency has to be nimble to realize in its fullest form. And so
I can assure you that is how we are moving forward with this.
Mr. Garcia. Great. I love the concept. I think, you know,
if done correctly, the $10.2 billion can behave like $20
billion. I have a mantra that, you know, speed is life,
especially in the STEM world and Moore's Law, you know, that
you just described. We have got to accelerate these timelines.
But the figure you have in your material you provided, I
think it is called Figure 11 which shows our investments
relative to other Nations, specifically China in absolute
dollars, the last data point on this chart is from 2017, and we
only had about a $50 billion delta between us and China. As you
suggested in your opening comments, their rate over rate change
is more significant than ours. And I think the reality is if we
were to snap the line today and look at the data, they probably
are already spending more than we are in absolute terms. They
are bringing to bear an entire Nation to their agenda at the
expense of their people.
So I applaud you for standing up this new directorate and
looking forward to seeing how this new directorate can actually
provide velocity and be a force multiplier to your budgets
which maybe should be higher, but we can't afford it to be
higher, so we need it to be more efficient. So thank you for
your testimony today, Doctor.
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Representative Garcia. Thank
you for all your support.
Mr. Cartwright. Thanks, Mike.
And now for our final questioner, Dr. Panchanathan,
Representative Charlie Crist.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. And,
Director, thank you again for your being with us so long.
In November, the Institute of International Education
released its fall 2020 international student enrollment
snapshot, which surveyed over 700 colleges and universities.
And according to this survey, the total number of international
students enrolled at United States' colleges and universities
fell by 16 percent in the fall of 2020 with a 43 percent drop
in new student enrollments.
Regardless of the reasons for the decline, can you discuss
the value of international students to the U.S. research
enterprise?
Mr. Panchanathan. So I can discuss the value by show and
tell. I am standing in front of you. A global talent that is
very, very grateful. I am--indeed, I cannot express my
gratitude, you know, better than, you know--I don't have words
to express this. I am so grateful in every part of my body. My
sense of gratitude, you know, it exudes, okay.
I came to do this job at NSF because of the gratitude that
I have for this amazing Nation that gave me amazing
opportunities, and this fabric of meritocracy that permeates
everything that we do in this great Nation. I am so grateful. I
hope I have said it enough. And so I can tell you that----
Mr. Crist. I feel it. I am grateful too. If I may.
Mr. Panchanathan. Yes.
Mr. Crist. My grandfather emigrated from Greece, my
grandmother emigrated from Lebanon, and they are on my father's
side. And on my mother's side, it was Britain, Switzerland, and
Ireland, and, so, I am enormously grateful as well to America,
as are you. And I have a dear friend in Florida----
Mr. Panchanathan. And that is what makes us a great Nation.
That is what makes us this great Nation that we are.
Mr. Crist. Yes, sir.
Mr. Panchanathan. And, therefore, to answer your question,
Representative, we should be welcoming global talent like there
is no tomorrow. Let me be very clear about this. I have said
this in many, many ways. I said that access and inclusivity are
exceedingly important for our Nation at this very important
time. We need to find talent across the socioeconomic,
demographic, and the geographical diversity of the Nation. We
need domestic talent unleashed at full force and full scale.
For far too long, for far too long, global talent has been
substituted to domestic talent. That is not an acceptable
future for our Nation. What we need is global talent additive,
augmented to domestic talent that both domestic talent and
global talent should be unleashed to its full force and full
scale. Because when you are competing against countries, when
you talk about China, it is 1.2 billion people in China. But we
are a nimble Nation, an entrepreneurial Nation, an innovative
nation. Therefore, we need the talent on both fronts to compete
and be ahead of nations like China.
So, we need domestic talent unleashed at full force, full
scale, global talent welcomed at full force, full scale. A
combination of that will place us in the vanguard of prosperity
and global competitiveness, and we will be far ahead. We will
win this race always if we have the mind set of inclusion of
talent because the talent will express itself because this
fabric of democracy, this fabric of meritocracy will no doubt
ensure that there will be hundreds of thousands of people, or
millions of people like you and me which make this country and
make this Nation great into the future.
Mr. Crist. I couldn't agree with you more. We are the
melting pot of the world, and my Florida is the melting pot of
the Nation. We are pretty diverse.
Mr. Chairman, I am done, and thank you so much for setting
up this hearing. And, Director, thank you for being with us
today. It has been an honor to be with you.
Mr. Panchanathan. It was mine, too.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Congressman Crist. I
congratulate you on bringing Dr. Panchanathan----
Mr. Panchanathan. You are muted, Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. I congratulate you, Charlie, on bringing
Dr. Panchanathan out of his shell to express his patriotism,
and you as well.
And, Dr. Panchanathan, you have only been at NSF for a
short time, however it is pretty clear that you have hit the
ground running. I thank you for appearing here today. You have
been an impressive witness. You fielded our questions, but you
are not done yet because we may be sending you more questions
via email. In fact, I am sure we will be. So we will be
grateful to you for continuing to field those questions as part
of this hearing.
And I am going to bring this hearing to a formal close. Let
me see here. Again, for the members, House rules require me to
remind you that we have set up an email address to which
members can send anything they wish to submit in writing, and
we have secured the commitment from Dr. Panchanathan to answer
those questions. The email address has previously been provided
to all of you and your staff.
At this point, the hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 15, 2021.
INCREASING RISKS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND NOAA'S ROLE IN PROVIDING CLIMATE
SERVICES
WITNESS
NICOLE LEBOEUF, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
STEPHEN VOLZ, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NOAA's NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
SATELLITE DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICES, PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATION AND
PREDICTION
Mr. Cartwright. Let us gavel in and begin.
As this hearing is fully virtual, we have to address a few
housekeeping matters. For today's meeting, the chair, or staff
designated by the chair, may mute participants' microphones
when they are not under recognition for the purposes of
eliminating stray background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and un-muting
themselves. If I notice that you have not un-muted yourself, I
may ask you if you would like staff to un-mute you. If you
indicate approval by nodding, staff will go ahead and un-mute
your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock on
your screen. Everybody try to stay in grid mode so that you can
see that screen, that clock, it will show how much time is
remaining. At the 1-minute remaining mark, the clock will turn
to yellow. At 30-seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel
to remind members that their time is almost expired. When your
time is expired, the clock will turn red and I will begin to
recognize the next member in line.
In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the
chair and ranking member, and then members present at the time
the hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of
seniority, and, finally, members not present at the time the
hearing is called to order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups,
and that email address has been provided in advance to your
staff.
The subcommittee shall come to order and good morning.
Today, for the first in this 117th Congress, this
subcommittee welcomes representatives from the Department of
Commerce in this case from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, commonly known as NOAA.
With us today are Steve Volz and Nicole LeBoeuf. Dr. Volz
is an Assistant Administrator for NOAA who oversees the
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service.
He is also performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction.
I am told that that was a very long-winded way of saying
that you are NOAA's satellite guy, Dr. Volz. Thank you for
being here.
And Nicole LeBoeuf, who currently serves as Acting
Assistant Administrator for NOAA overseeing the National Ocean
Service. And welcome to you, Ms. LeBoeuf.
It is increasingly clear that the issue of climate change
is no longer one we can talk about in reference to something
our children, our grandchildren, and their children will have
to address; it is here now and it is happening to us.
We are witnessing these impacts, ranging from the
horrifying wildfires out West to the tornadoes and severe
storms in the Midwest, increasingly in the South; to the
hurricanes in the Southeast and on the Gulf Coast. We are
seeing more frequent flooding throughout the country, including
in my Northeastern Pennsylvania district.
This past year, the United States saw a record 22 distinct
severe weather events that cost over $1,000,000,000 each in
damages, beating the previous high levels by six events. The
ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic have lost over 11
trillion tons of ice in just the last 25 years. Global sea
levels has risen about 8 inches in the last century, and that
rate is accelerating every year. And the five warmest years on
record are the last 5 years that we have all lived.
My district in Northeastern Pennsylvania is no stranger to
the struggle against climate change. After Tropical Storm Agnes
devastated the Wyoming Valley in 1972, the city of Wilkes-Barre
added to their levees that now reach 44 feet high, but the
Susquehanna River nearly topped them, setting a record and
reaching nearly 43 feet in 2011 as a result of Tropical Storm
Lee. That was an extremely close call for the City of Wilkes-
Barre and very well may have cost residents thousands of
dollars apiece in additional flood insurance as the definition
of the 100-year event changes along with the climate changes.
We need to be doing more to address the increasing risk
that our communities are facing all over this country. These
data and stories all paint a bleak picture of the outlook we
face as we look to adapt our society to our new climate
reality.
As we sit here today, Congress is looking to make
investments in infrastructure and to do that in an intelligent
way. Infrastructure planning decisions, especially at the local
level, increasingly rely on high-quality, credible climate
information, and that is where NOAA comes in. I am looking
forward to exploring how our climate system is changing, the
threats that we face, and how you deliver this critical climate
information to decision makers at all levels of government, as
well as private businesses and for individual citizens.
The Federal Government has to have the tools and resources
it needs to further our understanding of the changing climate
and to inform the American people about the corresponding
risks, so that we can prepare and respond accordingly. It is my
intention as chairman that the CJS subcommittee will help lead
the way in this effort.
Dr. Volz and Ms. LeBoeuf, it is a privilege to have you
join us for this important discussion and to learn from your
expertise on this subject, but before we begin I would like to
recognize my friend Mr. Aderholt, the ranking member, at this
time for any opening remarks he wish to make.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be
with everyone again today. And thank you for yielding.
I appreciate you holding the hearing that we are having
today and I want to join you in welcoming our two distinguished
executives at NOAA, Ms. Nicole LeBoeuf, who is the Acting
Administrator for NOAA, and also for the National Ocean
Services; and Dr. Stephen Volz, who is Assistant Administrator
for the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information
Service, as you refer to him as the satellite guy. So welcome
to both of you for being with us today.
As career officials, your presence today is a very helpful
reminder that it is possible to set aside politics of climate
change and focus on the questions of how to best help our
constituents make informed decisions for themselves, for their
families, and also for their livelihoods.
From low Earth orbit to the lowest trenches of the sea,
there is perhaps no other federal agency more directly involved
than NOAA in letting people know what nature is up to. So thank
you again for taking time to be here.
Congress has debated climate policy literally for decades,
and it will probably continue to do so for decades to come. And
parts of that debate will continue to include well-meaning
questions meant to ensure that we are doing everything we can
to better understand the global climate system around us and
improve our ability to predict it.
While some of us debate, others that are in the financial,
transportation, insurance, energy, construction, and other
industry sectors are already incorporating climate risk in
their business models based in part on the information that
NOAA and others provide to them. So, in that sense, it is only
prudent that Congress conduct oversight of the quality and
efficiency of NOAA's climate services, of which there are many.
How these various services all fit together and are
coordinated is a question that has been on our minds for some
time, and I hope that we can discuss this between us today.
NOAA's Southern Regional Climate Service Program says on
its website that the Southern United States is one of the most
climate-sensitive areas of the Nation. Extreme weather events,
significant droughts, and rising sea levels are but a few
examples of the challenges that communities are responding to
across the region. It is hard to dispute that when you are
seeking shelter from deadly tornadoes and baseball-size hail
that we were in our State of Alabama just in the last few
weeks. And I recognize that NOAA is working hard to improve not
only its ability to predict such extreme weather events, but
also the way it informs the public through a variety of
important platforms and programs like VORTEX Southeast. And I
am grateful for all the great people at NOAA who are dedicating
themselves to this work.
But climate services, as we know, go beyond weather
observation and forecasting, and I am looking forward to
actually learning a lot more about these other services and how
that I can help my constituents, as I know my colleagues want
to help their constituents back home, and I believe we can and
should get our constituents the best information possible to
mitigate climate risk while we pursue realistic and innovative
solutions to climate change that protect the interest of the
American people, our communities, and our country's economic
well being.
Again, thanks, Mr. Chairman, for hosting today this event,
hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our guests today,
and thank you for yielding.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
At this time, Dr. Volz, you are recognized for your opening
remarks. Try to keep them to 5 minutes, and remember your full
written statement will be entered in the record.
Dr. Volz. So, thank you, sir, and good morning. Thank you,
Chairman Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and members of
the subcommittee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify today regarding NOAA's climate and environmental
services, and for focusing on the critical subject of climate
change.
I am honored to be here as NOAA's Acting Assistant
Secretary for Commerce for Environmental Observation and
Prediction, the satellite guy as well. My colleague Nicole
LeBoeuf and I represent over 12,000 NOAA civil servants and
many thousands more in the cooperative institutes, and in our
national and international partners.
The dynamic Earth's system is changing in unprecedented
ways; the changes are continuous and pervasive, and they are
accelerating. Wherever we look, we see the indications of
change. Through our measurements of atmospheric composition and
temperature, global sea levels and polar ice cover, and we see
the impact of these changes on humans and on their livelihoods.
We are observing significant stress in the coral reefs around
the world caused by warming waters and more severe storms, and
we measure enhanced carbon dioxide levels at the top of Mauna
Loa volcano in Hawaii and in the world ocean. We are seeing the
impact of power systems of extreme cold in Texas and Alabama
just recently, and extreme heat in Alaska that is forcing once-
abundant fish stocks to migrate outside our national waters.
The fourth national climate assessment projects that
extreme weather and climate events are going to worsen in
intensity, duration, and frequency over the coming decades.
NOAA is the Nation's climate service. Observing the world
with satellites, hurricane hunter aircraft, coastal and deep
ocean vessels, weather stations, and ocean buoys, we collect
the data that demonstrates the climate is changing at an
accelerated rate.
NOAA shares with our other federal agencies our mission of
science, Earth observation, and research, but we are unique in
two key aspects. First and foremost, NOAA is a service agency.
It is our mission and our mandate to deliver operational
climate information to partners and to communities. But
understand climate science and change is critical, but it is
not enough. NOAA connects climate science to the community.
Second, NOAA is the Federal Government's only ocean-focused
agency and the only agency in the world with a whole Earth
observation's responsibility and capability. We observe the
environment from the bottom of the ocean to the surface of the
Sun, and we make climate and environmental information
accessible to communities. NOAA is the essential partner in
this global endeavor.
As the world's climate is changing rapidly, our
understanding of the environment must keep pace. Our mission of
science, service, and stewardship is more urgent than ever.
From farms to fisheries, to the floor of the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange and other markets, NOAA's sciences and services enable
the safe and profitable stream of American commerce.
NOAA's extreme weather forecasts and warnings reach people
via cell phones, radio and network broadcasts, and local
emergency alert systems. Local and national policymakers depend
on our environmental and climate data archives to inform
decisions great and small. Where does the flood plain start?
Does our local town have enough road salt for the winter? How
should I update my county's building codes in the face of
expected environmental conditions over the next 30 years? NOAA
can help answer these questions.
Some of the expected changes, for example, more powerful
hurricanes, drive improvement of our long-term weather research
and applications. Heavier rain events have contributed to
increased river flooding in communities like Scranton,
Pennsylvania, and Gadsden, Alabama. Other events stand out as
significant departures of historical norms, such as the
intensity and frequency of wildfires and drought.
The increased heat in the atmosphere and in particular in
the ocean, driven by global warning, is changing the dynamics
of our weather and environmental systems. New observations,
research, and modeling of the interconnected Earth system are
needed to understand the changing world and to provide the
information services our Nation requires.
To meet this challenge, NOAA must provide a deeper and more
comprehensive understanding of our complex Earth environment.
This requires a robust, state-of-the-art global observing
system and expanded research of the ocean, land, atmosphere,
and the Sun to monitor and model the physical, chemical, and
biological features of our world.
For example, we know the ocean is a major driver in
regional climate variability. NOAA's ocean observing system
must rise to the challenge of providing that information.
I have worked for 35 years at NOAA, NASA, and in industry,
and working with observation and informational systems at all
scales, and I see before us what I see as the ultimate systems
challenge: to understand and observe a world in which we and
every other organism can live well. We must prepare not just
for today's needs, but for the environment that we know is
coming. This will be a world with more storms, more floods and
wildfires, and economic and ecosystem disruptions.
I know that NOAA, working with our partners at NASA, the
USGS, and the global Earth-observing community, can meet this
challenge. With the commitment from our community, with
direction and investment from our stakeholders, NOAA stands
ready to help communities understand and prepare for the
changes that we are already seeing and those that are still to
come. Our country can adapt and even thrive by anticipating and
living in greater balance within these new environmental
patterns.
Thank you and I turn now to my colleague, Nicole LeBoeuf,
for her statement--or back to you, Chairman Cartwright.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Dr. Volz.
And at this time, Ms. LeBoeuf, you are recognized for 5
minutes of remarks.
Ms. LeBoeuf. Chairman Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity
to testify today. I am Nicole LeBoeuf, Acting NOAA Assistant
Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Storm Management.
My statement will outline how NOAA transforms climate data into
climate services, and how the need for our work is changing
along with our planet.
For over 50 years, NOAA has been trusted to help
communities prepare for and respond to weather and climate-
related events. NOAA is here to make good on that trust. NOAA
provides the American people with accurate forecasts and
predictions, and we are uniquely qualified to prepare our
Nation for a changing world because, like with weather
forecasts, we turn climate science into services to save lives,
protect property, and to reduce our risks for the future. And
with a mission to serve all Americans, I am here to say in
admittedly unscientific terms that it is go time.
Americans are already feeling the impacts of climate
change. The United States has experienced $1.7 trillion worth
of damage from weather and climate disasters since 1980, and
the rate at which these events is happening is accelerating.
Fortunately, NOAA offers climate services for everyday
Americans in the heartland and inner harbors affecting our
daily lives and major economic investments across sectors. Our
drought services support farmers and ranchers in the West and
on the Great Plains, and are increasingly tested as weather and
climate patterns shift.
With a warming ocean rapidly intensifying hurricanes make
NOAA's work to improve hurricane forecasts more important than
ever. Our rivers are experiencing record floods, making
seasonal flood predictions via NOAA's national water model a
top priority. Mapping urban heat islands with city officials in
places like Detroit and Baltimore help communities plan and
protect those most vulnerable among us. And with 40 percent of
Americans living in coastal counties, millions of lives are
already disrupted by what some call nuisance flooding. It is
more than a nuisance if you can't get to a hospital or if you
are a local official investing limited dollars in
infrastructure improvements.
I have met with the Mayor of Charleston, Lieutenant
Governor of Louisiana, Army Corps Colonels in Florida, and port
authorities all along our coasts. They are already seeing the
impacts of changing weather and climate patterns on their
operations and on their communities. They are elevating
roadways and securing utilities, and they are calling on NOAA
for our expert help. We are answering the call, but there is
more that we could be doing.
I grew up along the Texas Gulf Coast. Houses that were two
or three blocks from the beach when I was a kid are now at the
water's edge without protection from the next storm. My family
has got insurance, but not everybody does. This is just one of
the challenges faced by the poor, often people of color, and
rural communities most vulnerable to wildfires, freezing
temperatures, and floods.
NOAA helps under-served communities through technical
assistance, extension services, and on-the-ground partnerships
like habitat-restoration projects, which provide jobs for young
adults, including veterans. We have long-standing partnerships
with first responders, the agricultural sector, flood plain
managers, and tribal nations, and we are forging new ones with
real estate, finance, and health professionals, to name a few.
From around the world, other countries and global leaders
in the shipping and reinsurance industries are reaching out for
NOAA's climate advice because they know that NOAA's reputation
for delivering accurate and reliable information is well
earned.
And NOAA works closely with other federal agencies like the
Department of Defense. Because of a partner with NOAA and
others, DOD now requires its coastal installations worldwide to
consider the impacts of sea level rise on military readiness,
including at our Nation's largest naval station in Norfolk,
Virginia. I have walked the base at Norfolk with DOD engineers
and facility specialists. When the base floods, and it does, it
is getting harder for military personnel to get to their posts.
America trusts NOAA and the demand for our climate services
is growing rapidly. In fact, Americans are asking for more of
services we have only begun to scale up, such as fire weather
predictions, projections of climate impacts on fisheries, and
harmful algal bloom forecasts.
Local officials, industries, and communities must decide
how and when to ready themselves for climate change based upon
their region's vulnerability and their own tolerance for risk.
NOAA's authoritative climate tools and services must underpin
their decisions, meaning that NOAA must also be ready if our
Nation is to be resilient to climate change.
Honorable members of the subcommittee, I have worked for
NOAA for most of my adult life. We have an unparalleled
opportunity to not only take care of our own, but to
demonstrate American leadership in adapting to climate change.
NOAA has the expertise, the mission, and a deeply committed
workforce eager to do even more of what NOAA does so well:
safeguard the American people when and where they need us the
most. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to further
focus our efforts.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for that opening statement, Ms.
LeBoeuf, and for our witnesses.
We now begin the question period. Each member will ask you
5 minutes of questions at a time and I begin myself, I
recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
You know, right now we are talking about aggressive,
ambitious infrastructure building, infrastructure bills. And as
we consider the Administration's infrastructure plan, I want to
say NOAA has a critical government-wide role to play in this.
We are looking at investing in roads and bridges, and water
systems and sewer systems, and other pieces of hard
infrastructure that are intended to last, you know, 30 to 50
years, and sometimes longer. We need to ensure these projects
are built in such a way as to account for changing future
conditions.
As I understand it, of any agency NOAA has the best
understanding of what kind of environmental conditions these
investments will be exposed to over that kind of extended
period of time. Am I correct in that?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, sir, you are.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, so the envisioned plan will contain a
whole lot of bridges and sewers and levees that will each
individually need an assessment of their future risk profiles.
What is your capacity, if you have it, to provide that kind of
detailed analysis and support services?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, sir, for that question.
We do have some capacity, but the demand for that expertise
is growing rapidly and we are, at this point, unable to keep up
with that demand.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay, so that follows the next question.
What are states and local governments doing now if you cannot
provide support to all of them?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Yeah, thank you for that question.
So state and local municipalities in many cases are being
served well by NOAA. We have so many partnerships and really
boots on the ground to help them interpret NOAA data, and to
supply their own communities with the kind of information that
they need and that they are asking for.
Where we can't provide that, either the type of climate
information or the granularity is just not available to NOAA at
this time, those local townships and communities are actually
beginning to pay for that information from private companies,
and that is precious dollars that they should, quite frankly,
be saving to spend on the infrastructure projects that they are
going to need.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. So they go to the private sector--and
I certainly have no problems or concerns with the private
sector filling in the gaps that the Federal Government can't
close, but I do worry about the quality, in addition to the
price, I worry about the quality of the information in this
case. Is there any way to control the quality of privately-
obtained climate data, and what can we learn from the National
Weather Service and their interactions with the Weather Channel
and Accuweather, and things like that?
Dr. Volz. Well, that is a great question and we deal with
this on a regular basis, sir.
Controlling the quality, we have--from the examples you
provided, Accuweather, the Weather Channel, we have developed
over many years a working relationship with the weather
enterprise, as we call it, where we share the space that we
work in, but NOAA is known to be the one that provides the
baseline data that are so essential. We provide standards and
clarity of what is good data and how do you validate data. So,
when working with the private sector, we envision the same
evolution will take place. But right now we cannot control what
a private sector data-collector might be if they work on their
own, but we encourage through the avenues that Nicole
mentioned, the communities work with us through our regional
connections to find the right sources of data and to work with
us, or to identify with us the way to get the correct data.
I expect over time our standards and ability to provide
those standards will increase the quality of data overall,
including the privately-provided data.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. Now, if a governmental agency, some
local government entity does not want to rely on the private
sector for climate information, what other options for engaging
with NOAA? Is there some minimum level of climate services that
NOAA needs to develop for communities that cannot afford
consultants with fancy proprietary models of their own?
Dr. Volz. Yes, there are a certain level of global or
country-wide environmental data that we provide. And, as
mentioned, we have a number of regional constructs which allow
the communities to reach out to NOAA, to work with NOAA,
whether it is through our regional climate centers, which
provide operational streams of data spread around the country,
and through our research and--our RISAs, which are an
organization that provides an interactive engagement with
different communities around the country about questions they
have and what sources--what services we can provide and what we
can't.
But, as Nicole mentioned, we are under-resourced to answer
all the questions that we see coming, but we have avenues for
first contact to reach out to us around the Nation.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Well, Dr. Volz and Ms. LeBoeuf,
we are the subcommittee that make the first decision on what
kind of resources NOAA is going to get. Ideally, how would
additional resources be used to expand climate observations and
services in all-of-government approach to the climate crisis.
Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, thank you for that question.
So NOAA is an ideal bridge between the other federal
agencies. So, in saying that, what I mean is that there are
science-based agencies like NSF and DOE and others, and there
are service-based agencies, HUD and FEMA and Defense, for
example; NOAA has both a science and a service mission. And so
along that continuum NOAA needs investments from observations
and basic research, to forecasts and modeling--which is unique
to NOAA, the forecasting and predicting--all the way to getting
more boots on the ground and our ability to have more
partnerships with communities, so that we can do more listening
and get them the services that they need.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Well, I have gone over my time,
and I would like to yield now and recognize our ranking member,
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, let me address this question to both of you, either
one of you. The testimony mentions that NOAA's role in
providing the National Climate Assessment as a climate service
and, as we read the four key messages coming out of the chapter
on the Southeast, it paints a pretty bleak picture. For
example, one message says, by the end of the century, over one
half billion labor hours could be lost from extreme heat-
related impacts.
I am wondering if you would help us understand some of the
assumptions and the uncertainty with those predictions.
For instance, what does the report assume about new
technologies that may be available in 50 to a hundred years
that we really can't imagine right now?
Dr. Volz. So thank you, sir, for the question.
The report as you referred to, the National Climate
Assessment, uses the projection of current conditions and
expected and sort of well-predicted future environmental
factors, not just space-land environment, but humans as well, I
mean our built structure, our built infrastructure. I do not
believe that it can anticipate dramatic changes in technology
which could dramatically change the way that we would react to
a particular heat event, for example.
However, the forward-looking report does say that these are
what--without further mitigations or adaptations that we make,
these would be some of the impacts. And what we focus on is how
do we address and understand those potential impacts or
mitigations that we can identify for the communities to prepare
for a worsening or warmer environment that they have to deal
with.
Mr. Aderholt. What are some of the things built in these
predictions that you are least certain about, and do you think
there is room for improvement on how well uncertainty is
communicated to the public?
Dr. Volz. So the forecast projections from the National
Climate Assessment are certainly, they are our projections of
future environment. I will say that our past history of
performance of these models in anticipating the future have
been accurate.
Thirty years ago when we made these assessments of what the
climate would look like, using NOAA's climate model and others
as well, has been largely played out in what we see today.
Where there are variations, it is on variations in the CO2
emissions that may have occurred during an economic downturn or
something like that.
So we are very confident in the broad scale of projections
from the Climate Assessment. What we need, what we think is
still needed is additional research and observations to fine
tune those to be more tailored not just on a global scale, but
to a regional and local scale, and that is where the additional
observations, research, and interaction can lead us to give
more detailed recommendations on adaptations and mitigations to
reduce the impact and potentially the severity of the climate
change.
Mr. Aderholt. How are people using the National Climate
Assessment to make decisions and would you have any concerns
that people might be misinterpreting the information that they
are receiving?
Dr. Volz. I can't speak, sir, to how all people are using
the National Climate Assessment. It is a very comprehensive
document with many different recommendations.
I can speak to how NOAA and our partners are using it as an
accurate and a detailed projection of the world--the changes in
the environment that we anticipate based on the best science
and the best observations. Our job as an agency, a service
agency is to help people interpret the information that we
provide either through our own services or through the NCA, so
that they can make the best judgments, and that is where those
boots on the ground, that interaction on a local and regional
scale really allows the big, 700-page NCA document to be
interpreted in the community in a language of the people where
they can apply it.
So that is really the intermediary job that Nicole
mentioned earlier that NOAA can play very well because we not
only have the research science, but we also have the expertise
in a local and regional scale that can interpret that for
application and use.
Mr. Aderholt. Where can our subcommittee be most helpful
with NOAA's budget in order to try to minimize uncertainties in
future National Climate Assessments?
Dr. Volz. I think the most direct way is to recognize that
it is a whole environmental approach, it is observations and
information and dissemination. And you will hear from our
statements and from the conversation today how we have needs--
we have capacity to grow and improve our services in all of
those range.
So I think it would be not just assuming that climate is
one thing, it is just put money on climate, but it is
observations, it is information, it is dissemination, and it is
service provision, and that is where you need to make sure you
look at the whole value chain so that you can provide the best
use and the best value to the individual communities.
Mr. Aderholt. Ms. LeBoeuf, do you want to add anything?
Ms. LeBoeuf. No, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Aderholt. All right, I see my time is up. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
At this time, the chair recognizes Representative Grace
Meng of New York for 5 minutes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Apologies for having my
camera off. My connection is weak. And thank you to Assistant
Secretary Volz and Assistant Administrator LeBoeuf for being
here today and for your work.
My first question is about Regional Integrated Sciences and
Assessments, who for more than 20 years have provided
communities with world-class scientific talent to devise local
solutions to combat extreme weather events.
As you know, from wildfires in the West to hurricanes in
the South, to extreme heat in New York City, our Nation
confronts various weather-related challenges. In fact, NOAA
reported that the U.S. had a record-breaking 22 separate severe
weather events that cost over $1,000,000,000 each in 2020.
Taken together, they caused $95,000,000,000 in damage and 262
fatalities. Unfortunately, the RISA network does not cover the
entire U.S., meaning communities affected by severe weather-
related storms lack the tools and resources to plan
accordingly.
Last year's House report included a provision that directs
NOAA to expand geographic coverage of this program with a long-
term goal of providing comprehensive decision support services
and tools to local decision-makers in all states and
territories. Can you tell us how you plan to comply with this
language?
Dr. Volz. Thank you, ma'am, for the question.
So the RISA is, as you described, an excellent avenue, a
mechanism for NOAA's expertise to be communicated to local and
regional users, and it is under-utilized--it is not under-
utilized, it is under-resourced, and can be expanded to provide
a much better service. It is an essential key first contact, if
you will, between the potential applications of our
environmental data to the communities that need those.
So we expect and as we have been identifying in our
addressing the climate challenge has been identified by the
Administration to propose and to present expansions of that
RISA capacity to cover the U.S. more efficiently and
effectively. But it is a big ask and there is a lot of
information and a lot of requirements or requests for our
services across the country.
And, Nicole, would you like to add to that?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Steve. Just very briefly.
I think the RISAs provide an excellent example of how NOAA
has been in the climate services for a long time. The RISAs
have been around about 40 years. They are just one of our real
boots on the ground with universities and communities where we
do a lot of listening to find out what people need in terms of
climate services.
So I am very happy to speak more with you about the RISAs.
Thank you.
Ms. Meng. Thank you so much. One more question.
When it comes to making hard decisions about
infrastructure, low-income communities and communities of color
often get the short end of the stick. More than other
communities, they will need help from NOAA in accessing climate
services. What are NOAA's plans on issues of environmental
justice as outlined in President Biden's Executive Order 13990
to recognize this disproportionate threat of climate change to
some of these communities?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Congresswoman. And I am privileged
to be the Department of Commerce's representative to the White
House's newly established Environmental Justice Interagency
Committee, so I am very much invested in this work.
NOAA is invested across the board in protecting all lives
and all property. And I will just give you an example of how
NOAA can serve between the data collection and the services to
communities.
So, for example, we announced an expansion of our Heat
Islands Mapping Tool this week, where cities around the country
that have hard-paved structures and lots of buildings, we are
finding through our data the ability to actually identify
locations where the heat index is five to ten degrees higher.
This is really important for folks with respiratory ailments
like asthma and our elderly populations in urban communities,
and we are working with cities to help them identify these
areas, so that they can make decisions about how to protect
those under-served populations.
That is just one example, but NOAA is quite invested in
providing our services to all Americans.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Palazzo, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Volz
and Ms. LeBoeuf, thank you for being here today.
NOAA is a global leader in climate research, observing all
the world's oceans and major seas. I am proud to represent the
Mississippi Gulf Coast, which is home to NOAA's National Data
Buoy Center.
For my colleagues that don't know, the center records
crucial ocean data and from hurricane alerts to safeguarding
our wildlife. Southern Mississippi knows the value of accurate
and timely climate research.
So could you speak to the important contributions that the
National Data Buoy Center makes to NOAA's climate research?
Dr. Volz. Yeah, thank you, sir. And as well as the National
Data Buoy Center, Stennis is also the location of one of the
National Centers for Environmental Information, which is a part
of our information services.
So the buoy system and the Buoy Center, those are essential
ocean observation components. The United States NOAA provides
more than 50 percent of the global ocean-observing buoy systems
around the world which provide that critical three-dimensional
look of what is happening in the oceans. We can observe the
oceans from space or from airplanes from the surface of it, but
it is those buoys that provide that in-place measurements of
salinity, temperature, and other chemical and biological
factors that are so essential to our understanding of the
oceans as a system.
So the Buoy Center is a critical part of our global
observing system.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you for your response.
Last year, I was proud to speak on the House floor in
support of Senate Bill 2981, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Commission Officer Corps Amendments
Act of 2020, and that President Trump signed the bill into law,
allowing for NOAA Corps to expand and enhance the uniformed
service.
In what capacity does the NOAA Corps aid in your efforts
related to climate research and data gathering?
Dr. Volz. I will take that one. And, again, thank you for
the question and for the endorsement of the act which allowed
us to expand the NOAA Corps.
The NOAA Corps, one of the uniformed services of the United
States, is really a critical element of that. Because we do
observe from the bottom of the ocean to the surface of the sun,
a big part of that is the oceans overall, and NOAA Corps and
the ships that we provide, the fleet that we have, provide a
critical service in many aspects of the NOAA mission.
I mentioned already the NOAA observations from the buoys,
often our NOAA ships are the ones who are servicing those, but
also it is the field campaigns that the NOAA Corps provides in
calibration of measurements from space, in situ measurements
working to support fishery services, and global observations as
they work around the country, around the world. They also
provide the bathymetric measurements that we need for
understanding the 3D structure on the coast and on the bottom
of the ocean, which are critical elements of our ocean services
and our port management and maintenance as well.
So the Corps are our key to--a key element of our global
system. And the recent fleet recapitalization that started a
few years ago is moving us to refresh and revitalize the NOAA
fleet, another key element that makes that so we have that
sustained resource for the coming decades.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. Thank you, sir.
Members of the NOAA Corps are the ones who operate the nine
aircrafts and 15 vessels in NOAA's growing fleet. During our
hurricane, they deployed on missions into the storm and,
immediately after hurricanes, they deployed to assess damage
and map out debris in channels to open our ports back up. All
these activities are essential to my district and other
members' districts around the Nation, especially last year
where the end of the hurricane season saw numerous back-to-back
hurricanes in the Gulf, impacting our maritime economy, our
ecosystems, people, and property.
What work is NOAA undertaken to better predict hurricanes?
And also is NOAA partnering with research universities on this?
Dr. Volz. Yes. On the second question, yes, we are
partnering. On the first part of the question, what work are we
doing, you identified, sir, the importance of our airplanes,
our aircraft to fly into to diagnose hurricanes as they are
happening. That is both an immediate aspect because it helps us
determine the intensity of a storm for that day and that event,
but it also has a long-term research aspect because combining
those in-place measurements from the planes with satellite data
at the same time allow us to interpret more efficiently and
effectively the entire system of a hurricane.
So the research that goes on--and we have had a long
history of many years at our National Hurricane Center working
with academia as well in the global work environment to
understand better not just the landfall, which we have
predicted very well of hurricanes, but the intensification and
the variations of hurricanes.
And one thing we have noted with climate change is that the
rapid intensification of hurricanes, as we saw in the last year
in particular, is a feature that is changing the
characteristics of hurricanes. And that is an important piece
of what we need to understand to know how quickly it can go
from a Cat 1 to a Cat 5, our historical models are not
sufficient and that is where the additional research,
additional airplane flights and satellite observations, and the
research with them is essential.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you for your responses.
My time is expired. I will yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
At this time, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Crist, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crist. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
to our witnesses for being here today to discuss a topic that
is critically important to my home state of Florida.
As I am sure you are aware, Tampa Bay recently suffered an
environmental disaster when a leak was discovered in a holding
pond of an abandoned phosphate plant known as Piney Point. That
leak prompted evacuations of the surrounding area over concerns
the entire holding pond could breach and flood the area with
nearly 500 million gallons of toxic waste water. Thankfully,
the worst-case scenario appears to have been averted.
Unfortunately, in the process of preventing a full breach,
the State of Florida discharged over 200 million gallons of
toxic wastewater into Tampa Bay, raising concerns for health
and environmental impacts.
I am particularly worried about a potential outbreak of
harmful algal blooms and asked NOAA in a letter last week to
step up monitoring in the area. Can you provide me with an
update on what monitoring efforts the agency is undertaking, as
well as discuss any other work NOAA is doing in relation to
Piney Point?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, Congressman Crist, for not only
your interest in Piney Point, but for your letter of concern.
We very much appreciate that.
So, yes, we were aware of the Piney Point situation and
began posting imagery of harmful algal bloom in that proximity
and been providing regular updates on that.
I understand that the State of Florida may be closing that
facility, but that is not the end of harmful algal blooms, as
you know, across the State of Florida, from Indian River
Lagoon, where they just keep kind of coming, and to the Tampa
Bay area.
NOAA provides a range of operational harmful algal bloom
forecasts around the country. It is still a service that we are
learning how to deliver. It is kind of like weather forecasting
with creatures. So it requires a lot of understanding of our
ecology, as well as NOAA's observational capabilities in terms
of currents and temperature, and how long heat is held in the
water and that kind of thing.
So in Pinellas County, for example, we have a near real-
time forecast, we work with local officials there so that they
know when to open and close beaches; we work with tribal
nations in the Northwest on harmful algal blooms that can
affect their shellfish harvests; in the Great Lakes where it
affects drinking water, it is also very important.
This is an area of growth I see for NOAA and an area where
we would need increased investment to more robustly
operationalize around the country.
Mr. Crist. Great. Well, thank you.
Do you think the incident at Piney Point could make the
upcoming red tide season worse?
Ms. LeBoeuf. We are always concerned when excess nutrients
go in the water where our trust species are. I won't speculate
on the Piney Point contribution to this year's harmful algal
bloom events because there are many other factors.
Harmful algal blooms are events that are difficult to
directly tie to climate change, but what we do know is many of
the conditions that are good for harmful algal blooms are
increasing as a result of climate change such as longer
durations of warm water, et cetera.
So there are a lot of dynamics that go along and we will be
watching very closely.
Mr. Crist. Thank you. And I am very grateful for and
appreciative of NOAA's red tide forecasts, as well as the
expansion of red tide respiratory forecasts, which was
developed and tested in my home of Pinellas County.
Looking ahead to the warmer months and keeping Piney Point
in mind, is NOAA well positioned to continue issuing these
forecasts as the water warms and the threat of red tide
increases?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, sir, we are and we plan to continue to do
that, and outreach to the state.
Mr. Crist. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Crist.
At this time, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I want to thank Dr. Volz and Ms. LeBoeuf for
appearing.
Dr. Volz, you are performing the duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Observation and Prediction, so I am
going to direct these questions to you.
The Biden administration requested a $6.9 billion budget
from NOAA, it is an increase of $1.4 billion over fiscal year
2021 levels. So it is a 25-percent increase, approximately. So
to dig in a little bit on past performance, I am looking at a
report from the Department of Commerce's OIG site dated June
2nd, 2020, titled, ``The Department needs to improve oversight
practices to close out contract files by complying with federal
regulations and department requirements.''
As you know, the Commerce Department spends approximately
$3,000,000,000 annually on contracts to procure goods and
services, many of those are directed to NOAA. And once
performance under those contracts have concluded, agencies are
required to complete a series of steps to close out the
contracts. It is an important administrative procedures, and
involves verifying that goods and services paid for by the
taxpayers were provided as intended, validating final costs and
payments, and freeing excess funds for possible use elsewhere.
What they found--this is a year ago--in NOAA, contracts
were not closed within required time frames. One contract in
particular took 13 years to close. And that was because they
didn't have the data necessary; once they did get the data, it
was closed in 60 days. Contract files lacked evidence that key
contract closeout steps were completed, resulting in
approximately $288,000,000 that could not be verified. That is
not all at NOAA, that is in three different Commerce agencies,
but NOAA contract files were not always properly retained.
And they took a review of a sampling of 33 NOAA contracts.
The results were that, of those 33, 17 had missing
documentation of contract physical completion, 19 had
inadequate or missing invoices, and one had incorrect or
missing contract completion statements.
There were some recommendations made. I could go into the
problems more, but what I will say that the recommendations, I
just want to confirm that these are being done, and you can
come in afterward with data to show me that these are being
done. Commerce recommended that NOAA; one, publish a list of
all expired contracts orderly for closeout review and action,
and monitor closeout compliance with regulations through its
biannual acquisition management reviews; work toward reducing
its current backlog; issue additional guidance and training. In
fact, there is a promise from NOAA to create contract closeout
training slides, distribute them, and verify that its
contracting staff completes this training.
And so I just want to make sure, can you tell me with
certainty that those have occurred a year later after this
report and how things are going with this record that is
somewhat disconcerting given the request by the Administration
for a 25 percent increase in your budget?
Dr. Volz. Thank you, sir. And it is a fair question.
We treat the management and expenditure of government funds
very seriously within NOAA. And I can't speak specifically to
those steps that you mentioned in that report, but I will get
back to you right away on that.
I will say from NESDIS perspective, I know most of those
dollars--we are the largest organization within NOAA with
contracts, satellites are big and expensive, and we definitely
treat the contract actions very seriously.
And I will note that in the last 5 years--when I came to
NOAA in 2014, our two major programs were on the GAO's hit list
for the high-risk programs in government and both of which have
come off that in 2017 and 2018 because of the progress we made
and the improvements we made. And last year, in fact, we gave
back $735,000,000 against the expected cost on our polar
satellite program because of improvements in, and in program
management and execution.
So we definitely treat seriously the issues, the execution
of the funds, and I will be happy to get back to you with those
questions of those specific ones. Those are reasonable requests
that were made and we work with the OAG all the time. And I
will get back to you on that, sir.
Mr. Cline. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
At this point, the chair recognizes the gentleman from
Hawaii, Mr. Case, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and aloha to your
witnesses.
Thank you so much, first of all, for the continued
partnership of NOAA with Hawaii and the Pacific across a broad
range of activities, from the NOAA research vessels to world-
class oceanographic research throughout the Pacific, to the
Coastal Zone Management Program, Sea Grant, Coastal Resilience,
Pacific Risk Management 'Ohana, PRMI--or PRiMO, I guess it is,
Atmospheric Baseline Observatories. There is a very active
scope of activities in Hawaii and throughout the Pacific, and I
want to be able to continue to help NOAA and work with NOAA on
all of those activities.
I just want to focus on a couple of different areas. First
of all, thank you very much for your testimony that recognized
the importance of the Atmospheric Baseline Observatories, Mauna
Loa being one of the most critical in the entire world from the
perspective of climate change. And speaking to the issue that
was raised by the ranking member of the accuracy of climate
change assessments over time, we rely on our Atmospheric
Baseline Observatories for the basic scientific data on a
longitudinal basis. And so those are critical.
And we did in fact add to the capital improvement side of
the observatories throughout our country in the last fiscal
year 2021 budget, but my understanding is that there is still a
capital shortfall backed up, a backlog of improvements that are
needed at somewhere in the range of $10,000,000, which, you
know, when you take a look at--$10,000,000 is a lot of money,
but when you take a look at everything that rides on the
accuracy of the information over time, the cost benefit is
just--there is no comparison.
And so I am asking directly whether the budget does
anticipate an acceleration of capital improvement catch-up on
our Atmospheric Baseline Observatories, or whether you think
that we should in this committee consider doing it ourselves if
you are not doing it already in the President's budget?
Dr. Volz. Well, thank you, sir, for the question. And, as
the satellite guy, I fully agree with you that the value of the
ground system, the ground measurements and observations, those
baseline measurements are absolutely essential. A picture from
space means nothing if it is not anchored in real world, in the
actual data from those ground systems, including the Mauna Loa
Observatory and many others.
So one of the things we looked at as we looked at how to
address the climate challenge presented by the Administration
is how the whole system of observations are--what the health
and reliability are of all of those and where they need to be
made more robust to provide that continuing long-term data
system that is essential for climate research.
So I am confident--I am speaking now not as the NESDIS
head, the satellite guy, but as the Acting Assistant Secretary
for all observation and prediction--that all of those
components, including the in situ measurements that you
mentioned, those buoys that were discussed earlier, and the
satellites are brought to the same, to the right level of
readiness, so that they are able to provide those data and
services.
So I am confident we will be addressing some of the
questions related to the reliability of our ground systems,
yes.
Mr. Case. So I appreciate that, and I appreciate the
general support. Specifically, do you know whether the
President's budget includes or factored an increase in the
paying down the backlog of capital improvements in those ground
observatories.
Mr. Volz. I can't speak to the specific in the fiscal year
2022 budget, which will be in the specific fiscal year 2022
request. But I will repeat what I said is that we have
prioritized the critical measurements, including some of those
that you identified as essential for us to meet our climate
change challenge. So I am confident that we will be meeting the
need based on the request that we will be submitted to the
Congress in the near term.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. LeBoeuf, can you speak to the NOAA marine sanctuaries?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Case. Okay. In the fiscal year 2021 appropriations
bill, Congress instructed NOAA to report back on
Papahanaumokuakea's conversion to a sanctuary. Can you tell me
where the status of that review and report is?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes. Thank you for that question. We are
working on implementing that language by conducting internal
reviews about how we might conduct additional public
engagement. For one, as you know, the designation of a monument
is fundamentally different from that of a sanctuary, because
with a sanctuary we have extensive public engagement processes.
And so we are looking over those processes now to see where we
might be able to get public input throughout.
We are also looking at Papahanaumokuakea relative to the
National Marine Sanctuary Act, and how we look at resource
management and conservation. So it is underway. I would be
happy to provide a more detailed update for you if you would
like that after the hearing. But we are looking forward to
getting further along in that. Thank you for asking.
Mr. Case. I would very much appreciate that. And
congratulations on your pronunciation by the way.
Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, sir.
Mr. Case. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. He never congratulates me on my
pronunciations of Hawaiian names, just so you--so it is a high
honor you just got, Ms. LeBoeuf. The chair recognizes for 5
minutes the gentleman from California, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses. Very intriguing. The engineer in me wants to go look
at all the data and have the discussions on the predictive
analysis, and how do we sort of minimize the divergence on the
paths forward, and solutions, in the out years especially.
I am from California, a region that is very susceptible to
wildfires. Not just our state, but our region, seems to have
gotten progressively worse. I am not sure it is all attributed
to climate change, as much as it is to other policy decisions
and lack of investments in other areas as well. It is probably
all aggravating each other.
In researching and doing some background on this particular
committee hearing, I learned that a 2,000 pound pine tree
actually retains roughly 20 million BTUs, which is actually
about one and a half million BTUs more than 2,000 pounds of
coal. And so these fuel sources are everywhere. Obviously in
our state and our region in the west.
What is the total contribution to CO2 emissions from
wildfires, whether manmade or natural wildfires? Do we have any
data on that?
Dr. Volz. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. We do,
but I don't have it on the tip of my tongue. So that is a good
question to ask.
Mr. Garcia. I think that is an interesting--I have got to
imagine it is a pretty significant contribution given the size
of some of these fires and duration.
Dr. Volz. It is a contribution. The significance would be
something I can get back to you and say. I would say, though,
that we do see that if you look at the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere occurs over time, we have severe and not severe
wildfire seasons, and they are very hard to pick out on that
global picture. So in terms of the global contribution to over
400 parts per million in CO2, it is probably not as--it is not
as significant as the other factors we see from our carbon
environment basically.
Mr. Garcia. Okay.
Dr. Volz. But I can get back to you with the specific
details.
Mr. Garcia. I would love to see that, if we can, and
specifically how it affects our part, both in the problem side
and the solution side.
As far as helping us mitigate and fight the fires, I know
your assets and some of your predictive modeling. And I have
supported the artificial intelligence elements that have been
going into helping model the firefighting, as well as other
things that you use AI for. But in your estimation, what do you
think is one of the more effective ways to mitigate, sort of
break down or minimize the total potential energy right now in
the fire triangle when it comes to especially these wildfire
problems that we are facing?
Dr. Volz. So the----
Mr. Garcia. At least going back to the environment, I
should say, right. That is kind of where I am heading.
Dr. Volz. There are many factors which go into a wildfire
event, not just the fact that a fire has started, but what is
the precondition of the environment? Are the trees dry? Has
there been a long term drought? Was there recent rainfall or
not?
So one of the things that we do at NOAA very well is look
at a fire is not an event, it is an occasion that takes many--
it is years in the making and months in the follow-up. So we
monitor the health of the environment and the ecosystem to get
an idea of the--and our fire forecast warning to actually take
into account the sensitivity or the vulnerability of an area to
increased fire danger.
So to mitigate it, there is little we can do on a global
scale, but identifying the precursor conditions and how a
wildfire progresses once it has occurred is an area of active
research that NOAA is a participant in working with USGS, the
Forest Service, and other actors to understand the dynamics of
a fire event, as I said, which takes place over days and weeks,
and the recovery from it afterwards. So it is not just the
fire, but it is the floods and--it is the landslide sensitivity
post-fire event that we, with our water monitoring itself,
allow for that whole of environment view on how to deal with
it, how to prepare for it, and how to mitigate the impact once
it occurs.
Mr. Garcia. Got you. And given that the overall
contribution of the, we will look at the data obviously, but
given that the overall contribution to the CO2 emissions from
wildfires is relatively low, I will say relatively, just based
on what you said earlier, is there value to having things like
prescribed burns in optimal conditions that we can control to
help with the forest management, to help get rid of the dead
tress, the dead shrubs, and lead turn it before the conditions
actually become less favorable in the peak of the fire season?
Dr. Volz. I have a personal opinion on that, but not a
professional one. It is not an area that I have studied, and I
know there are a lot of pros and cons in those prescribed
burns, and they have been done in the past, and not done in
other areas. So I really can't--I am not qualified, sir,
unfortunately to give you a professional judgment on that.
Sorry.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. I think that is important, I think
especially as we do the predictive modeling and the weather
around it, to be able to have the assets to figure out when the
optimal conditions are to do that. That is a viable solution
that our firefighters. Thank you, Dr. Volz. And I am out of
time, but I would like that data that you have if you have
characterized the contribution that CO2 emissions from
wildfires. I would love to see that. Thank you.
Dr. Volz. Will do, sir. And I would say that the prescribed
burns are one factor of wildfire planning, mitigation,
etcetera, which are part of our study activities, working with
our partners in other agencies. So it is a piece of the puzzle
that we need to help resolve.
Mr. Garcia. Excellent. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia for that important
line of questioning, and let's keep talking about that.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Trone, is recognized for 5
minutes. You are on mute, Mr. Trone.
Mr. Trone. There we go. Okay. You released me. Thank you. I
appreciate it.
It has been brought to my attention that the NOAA office in
Gaithersburg, Maryland, which is in my district, is going to be
closed, and they are moving the personnel to the Silver Spring
office. Not too far away. And the question is really about for
these federal workers post-pandemic, what is your plan as far
as remote working? What will be the new operating model at
NOAA? Have you got any guidance from the GSA or the
administration about how we are going to work in this new
environment? That is what our team members are asking.
Ms. LeBoeuf. Congressman Trone, thank you for your
question. Yes, the pandemic has taught us a lot about remote
work, telework, all versions of doing things differently. We
are still at NOAA developing plans for maximum flexibility for
employees when we do--when we are able to safely come back to
the office. Those plans are still undergoing a lot of
discussion and review, and of course as you said, we will be
bearing in mind input from GSA and the Department of Commerce
and others.
I don't have a clear answer for you there. I think
throughout our conversations we do want to continue to maximize
flexibility, because we just don't have a good sense of how
every single individual has been impacted, and will continue to
be impacted by the pandemic.
So stay tuned for more. I would be happy to follow up with
you when we do have our plans more laid down.
Mr. Trone. That would be great. Shoot us the plan once you
have got it brought to fruition.
Next quick question. Chesapeake Bay, crucial to Maryland's
economy, culture, what fiscal year 2022 resources do you need
to do your part in protecting the health of the Bay?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes, thank you, sir. I actually have crabcakes
in my fridge right now. So the Chesapeake Bay is very important
to programs across NOAA, and the health of the Bay, of course,
is something we are very in tune with. Projects that we have
supported in the past include the retrieval of derelict fishing
gear, crab pots in particular. It is not just the fishery, but
other animals there and the environment. We work on restoration
projects in Chesapeake Bay, as well as working with the state
and local officials on how to better assess those fisheries and
make sure they stay sustainable.
All of those would be good fodder for investment in fiscal
year 2022 and beyond. We always want to do more for the
Chesapeake Bay. And so as our plans seal up on that, and as the
budget gets more finalized, we would be happy to work with you
on complimenting what we have in store.
Mr. Trone. Okay. Let's keep in touch, and we are happy to
support you there. It is crucial to Maryland.
Last question, the National Mesonet Program has been a key
public/private partnership. The cost to effectively leverage
all the commercial weather data, which then helps improve the
Nation's ability to look at severe weather forecasting, long
range modeling. Resources again. What does NOAA need in fiscal
year 2022 to make sure this program continues, because it is
definitely very important in a public/private nature?
Dr. Volz. Thank you, sir. Yes. The Mesonet program is
another one of those critical ground systems, ground
observation systems which are part of the puzzle of how we
observe the overall environment. And it is a critical part of
the National Weather Service input for their operational needs,
and is a great example of public/private partnership, as you
observed, and how it can--how we are bringing all assets to the
table to understand and address our climate challenges.
So in our fiscal year 2022 budget, it will be identified,
and you will see details on that, and I do see it as, and
expect to be, a sustained portion, long term of our plans for
integrating public and private data. Just one example. We do
that in other places, both in the oceans and even in space, as
we are looking to make best use of potential private assets,
commercial assets to integrate them into our observing system.
We have to do that carefully to make sure the data are
integrated properly and they are--as the question earlier about
the quality of private data, but we make sure that any services
that are provided by NOAA validate all of the data that go into
it so that it can be trusted as the NOAA product, and not
something that has mixed value. So we work very carefully with
the private sector in making sure their data are accurate and
reliable.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, both. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone. At this point, we are
going to start a second round of questioning. As I look at you
on my screen, Dr. Volz and Ms. LeBoeuf, you are both holding up
pretty well under the withering fire of this subcommittee, so
we are going to subject you to another round of it.
I also want to encourage you, you have said a little bit
along this line before, but I want to encourage the both of
you, if there is more information you want to provide us as it
occurs to you after you leave this hearing, time does not end
at the end of this hearing, and please avail yourselves of our
offices, and let us know of further information that you think
would be helpful in more fully answering some of these
questions. Will you do that?
Dr. Volz. Happy to do that, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Good. Now, I was talking before
about the need for climate services, particularly by governors,
and mayors, and municipalities. They are the ones on the ground
making these hard decisions about infrastructure investments.
And as I said in my opening statement, in Wilkes-Barre,
Pennsylvania, in my district, they had to decide just how high
to build the levees to protect the citizens of Wilkes-Barre
against the raging waters of the Susquehanna River, the
sometimes raising waters.
They thought they got it right, but they didn't have the
information when they built it back then to plan for the
future. We cannot keep letting this happen, because it is an
expensive mistake. Each extra foot, of course, when you are
building a levee reduces risk, but also increases construction
costs immeasurably. Having support from NOAA and your world
class science that can certify how much risk each extra foot
would alleviate, I would imagine that would certainly allow
mayors across the country to make more informed decisions while
better educating the public as well.
Now, as you probably know, I have a bill called the Built
to Last Act, which directs NOAA to establish forward looking
climate data to support standard setting organizations, local
governments, and private citizens so they can all make smart
and informed decisions, like the one in Wilkes-Barre.
So here is the question, are you concerned that a lack of
clear, authoritative climate data, and forward-looking
information about climate risks leaves the door open for
Americans to make uninformed, regrettable decisions really,
which could expose them to unnecessary risk and cost? And what
role can NOAA plan in ensuring that entities such as standard
setting organizations have the forward-looking climate data
that they need to create the building standards that we can all
rely on?
Dr. Volz. So the short answer is yes, we are concerned.
Making decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate data can be
worse than making no decision. And we are very focused on
making sure that providing, as we said before, that our data
sets, our data and information are well validated and
calibrated, but we are somewhat underresourced in that. And
answering the questions of every individual community is
something that we are ready to scale up to do, but we don't
have the charter for all of those service deliveries, or the
resources to make it happen at the level that is really needed.
We do work with partners, but we need still to enhance our
ability to do that more efficiently and effectively.
Mr. Cartwright. And I want you not to be bashful. Contact
us. Contact my office. And let us know exactly what resources
you need to pull off that mission. I think it is vital. And I
think that it is money that will save--it will be well spent.
It will be money that saves much more money down the road so
that we don't make dumb construction decisions in our
infrastructure building. And I want to give you a chance to
weight in, too, Ms. LeBoeuf, on that.
Dr. Volz. Go ahead, Nicole, please.
Ms. LeBoeuf. Yeah. Thank you, Chairman Cartwright. And
thank you for your leadership on the Built to Last Act, and for
acknowledging NOAA's important role to provide that forward
looking information. Thank you also for the language in our
appropriations bill of similar ilk.
This is the ideal role that NOAA should be playing. For the
first time in human history, we should be planning our
construction for changing conditions and not static conditions.
And so there is no better agency than NOAA to provide the
predictive capability so that others can do the building
standards, and others can provide more direction on, say,
regulations and how we build, and where we build.
But as my colleague, Dr. Volz, said, if NOAA is not the one
providing that data, the confusion and the uncertainty,
particularly when it comes to the folks on the ground is just
going to increase. So I really look forward to working with you
on that bill, and any follow-up in that regard, because that is
a very, very important role for NOAA to play.
Mr. Cartwright. And Dr. Volz, I cut you off. What were you
going to say?
Dr. Volz. No. I actually almost cut off Nicole, and I
didn't want to do that. I was going to say that one of the
examples of increased performance is how often we update our
standards. You probably have seen we are going to be releasing
the new norms, normals for temperature and environment, which
we do every 10 years over a 30 year period. So we have the new
norms coming out in the next month for the 1990 to 2020 period,
which defines some of those standards. But that is just on the
global and large scale. There are dozens of smaller scales,
like what is the river norms for your region in Wilkes-Barre?
And what are the coastal norms around the country? And those
take effort and time, and they are--those are places where
certainly defining a standard set of refresh of critical
environmental parameters are the essential building blocks for
communities to build better as they plan for their
infrastructure development.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you for that. In my role as
chairman, I certainly will continue to push you to provide
climate services and forward-looking climate data so the Nation
can plan its infrastructure and other initiatives. Well, my
time has expired. I would like to recognize the ranking member,
Mr. Aderholt, for five minutes.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As was mentioned in
the testimony, the National Water Center at the campus of the
University of Alabama is very essential to development of the
national water model, which is being used in part for flood
mapping and inland areas, and has been expanded to coastal
areas. What is the status of the new hydrologic cooperative
institute with the understanding the fiscal year 2021 included
$1 million to create this institute with an emphasis on
hydrology? So could you give us a little bit of a status of the
new institute, and where do you plan to invest these funds?
Dr. Volz. Thank you, sir, for the--go ahead. Nicole,
please, you go first.
Ms. LeBoeuf. Yeah, just very quickly. Thank you for
requesting that we pursue that cooperative institute. The
National Ocean Service, Weather Service, and the Office of
Atmospheric Research are working closely together to ensure
that the funds and the resources are available to begin that
work, including providing resources to high performance
computing, which is absolutely essential to the success of that
and other predictive modeling capabilities.
That is just the tactical update, and we are working very
hard to get that stood up, and really welcome the opportunity
to provide you with more updates as that goes forward.
Mr. Aderholt. And what about investing the money, the
funds?
Ms. LeBoeuf. The establishment of the cooperative
institute, and again in the sharing of high performance
computing capability will be some of the first priorities for
those funds. We do have a weakness along the coast. Some people
call it the white space when it comes to hydrological modeling.
And so this is an area of priority for us, and we really
appreciate having the opportunity to get some of that stuff
going.
Mr. Aderholt. Given the water/energy/climate nexus, how do
you see the new cooperative institute supporting NOAA's efforts
on the climate?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Climate and weather are largely different in
time scales and in time frames. And so these flooding events
that we are trying to better understand when the fresh water
and the salt water come together are a part of our climate
modeling and services. So it doesn't always have to have the
word climate in the name to be part of our climate services,
and we consider the national water model core to those efforts.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you. The National Weather Service
has had several issues over the last few months in
disseminating key weather data, forecasts, advisories, and
warnings to local weather offices, partner agencies, and to the
public that are critical for protecting life and property. What
is NOAA's plan to ensure that the central processing and
dissemination functions are appropriately resources to provide
a resilient IT and communications architecture that provides a
reliable delivery of products and services?
Dr. Volz. Thank you, sir, for the question. And yes, we
have had some issues with--some challenges over the last couple
of months, but we recognize within the weather service and
within NOAA the very critical nature of--and uninterrupted
delivery with the 99.99 percent on base, ready for delivery on
a regular basis.
We are focusing efforts now on improving the reliability of
the IDS, the IDP, the information dissemination activities
within the National Weather Service. And we expect that will
show up, as well as a continued reinvestment to secure the
reliability of that service in the coming years. So we are
focusing on it and you should see that as an indication of
priority in all of our communications coming forward, including
the budget.
Mr. Aderholt. And as I mentioned in my opening comments,
and your testimony illustrates the array of climate services
that NOAA provides is rather vast, and I am wondering about how
they all fit together so that they are coordinating instead of
overlapping. And so the public knows where they can turn.
Years ago, there was a push for a national climate service,
and that was presumably to try to address some of these same
concerns. Does NOAA have some of the same concerns that I
mentioned? And if so, could they be addressed through a
national climate service?
Dr. Volz. I will start with the answer, and I know Nicole
will want to weigh in as well. So turning climate science into
services is really what NOAA does. It is--what NOAA has done
when we created it in 1970 is an ocean and atmosphere,
recognizing the coupling of the system. And now that climate
science. Then we just called it coupled systems. But it is key
to us, and a key part--we are the only agency in the federal
government with the word prediction in its mission statement.
So we recognize that climate prediction and climate services
are part of not just the past history, but preparing
communities and the Nation for what is coming, with some
accuracy and precision on those predictions of the upcoming
conditions.
So at the NOAA level, it is part of every line office and
every organization to have a piece of that puzzle. But you
identified a key part, which is how are we coordinating and
avoiding overlap. And we have numerous examples of where when
the different lines of NOAA, the line offices as we call them,
work together, I will just give one or two examples.
For example, on digital elevation mapping, which is done by
satellites and ships for the bathymetry and airplanes for
lidars, those data come from NOAA and NCIS, NCEI, which is part
of NESDIS, but are used by OAR and by the ocean service for
their use of that for service delivery in doing coastal zone
mapping and the like, and floods, and ports.
When we talk about the National Information Drought
Service, NIDS, is again observations that are shared then with
National Weather Service and with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the USGS for the implementation of that.
So we have many examples of where the observations, the
integration, and then the dissemination are shared by different
parts of NOAA, with our national, federal, and other partners
to make that happen. Now, the boots on the ground that my
colleague mentioned are where we have the first touch with most
of the communities. And I will ask Nicole to follow up on how
we address the potential overlap in the regions. Nicole?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes. Thank you, Steve. Congressman Aderholt,
so as our understanding of the interconnectedness of the earth
and the ocean to our environmental, someone said earlier, what
the earth is doing, as that has improved over time, NOAA has
also become more integrated. More of the work we do now is
organized across NOAA, whether it is fire weather or detection
of coral bleaching, understanding climate impacts on fisheries.
Those require a whole of NOAA approach.
There are some things we still do. Where just one part of
us works on something, but more than ever we are integrated and
we have, from the top down, leadership that keeps an eye on
that, and sets the strategic direction for that integration.
From the bottom up, staff are finding new connections all the
time. I think that is just a natural evolution. We do need to
continue to make sure we don't duplicate.
One of the challenges that we are highly distributed. Those
boots on the ground are all over our country, providing
services through the food chain from federal, all the way down
to local communities. And so it is a constant and regular
effort to make sure we are doing the things as efficient and as
cost effective as possible. But we are more integrated than we
have ever been, and I really appreciate your question.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I see my time is up. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Palazzo, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mississippi's coasts
are impacted by numerous coastal hazards, including hurricanes
and other major coastal storms, storm surge, inundation
flooding, and subsidence in erosion, coupled with sea-level
rise. Mississippi also has valuable coastal infrastructure, as
most coastal areas across the Nation. How do coastal zone
management grants assist states and their local coastal
communities to address these coastal hazards, and to protect
important coastal infrastructure?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you, sir, for your question. As you
know, the coasts are experiencing climate impacts more acutely
and more rapidly than anywhere else. And this is where we have
such strong drivers of our economy and our way of life
throughout the United States.
Coastal zone experts in NOAA provide a wide range of
services to state coastal zone managers, as well as elected
officials and others. Just an example, we provide a suite of
trainings in risk management and risk communication, and trade
offs, so that folks can talk to the people in their communities
about these things, and have informed conversations.
We providing for sighting for industry, advice, and tools
so that people can look at--on the internet, they can look at
where the risk for sea level rise is, and where the
socioeconomic contributors to those local areas are so they
can, again, think about those trade offs. Those are just a
couple of examples.
We do place based science, and educational engagement with
communities. But you are absolutely right. The coasts are
experiencing kind of everything right now. So a lot of our
focus is increasing there.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. LeBoeuf. Could you also explain
how investments in the digital coast programs will help states
and coastal communities across the country with addressing
coastal climate impacts? And also, does the digital coast
program engage with coastal management stakeholders to identify
the tools and resources needed on the ground to address coastal
resilience?
Ms. LeBoeuf. Yes. So thank you. The digital coast is
somewhat unique in that it is based upon a partnership of eight
organizations outside the federal government that are end
users, and represent end users of that data. So we listen to
them and say what is happening on the ground? How are the leads
changing? What kind of tools should we be providing to the
public and to associations, and again elected officials?
And so the digital coast partnership informs that. We
regularly go through review of the visualization tools to make
sure they are what folks need. Again, there is kind of
something for everybody there. They are tailored to a variety
of needs, whether you are looking at a sea level rise, or
extreme conditions and extreme hazards, coastal zone concerns
about vulnerable communities getting left behind and being less
resilient than others. And we really appreciate being able to
flex our wings with the digital coast. Now that we have the
Digital Coast Act, we are looking forward to doing even more
with that partnership and those tools.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Ms. LeBoeuf. And I appreciate
both of you all being here to testify in front of our
committee. And with that, I will yield back to the chairman the
balance of my time. Thank you all. Have a great day.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo. And Mr. Cline, you
are recognized for another 5 minutes of questions. Maybe we
don't have Mr. Cline.
All right. We are going to move on. Mr. Garcia, you are
recognized for another 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. There
was a statement at the beginning of this hearing that intrigued
me, and then a few data points, and some assertions made
throughout this that I just wanted to ask about.
Early on, there was a comment that the five warmest years
are the five last years. Can you talk about the resources that
go into those types of assertions, and then how do we measure--
what do we as a nation, or what do our partners around the
globe actually measure when determining what average
temperatures are in a given year? And then are there nuances to
those measurements relative to the technology that we have
today that may not even have existed 5, or 10, or certainly 50
years ago?
I am not questioning it. What I am wondering is from a
scientific perspective, how are we validating the data sets
that we have, and how do we collect the data that goes into
that validation process, if that makes sense?
Dr. Volz. That does make sense, sir, and it is a great
question. And it is a fair question. Because to do--to say the
earth is warmer is something that you have to be very accurate
and very careful about how you make that assessment. And that
is where NOAA really shines, in its long term track records.
And we have environmental data records, some going back
hundreds of years. So how do you determine that the earth
average is warming when Alaska may be ten degrees warmer, and
it may have been colder in Florida in a given year?
So there is a complex process, but I will describe it in
some detail is that we use measurements, global measurements.
It is not just bringing all of the data together and doing a
temperature average. We look at the regional variation, and
look at geographically distributed. So what is the average
temperature of Anchorage look like relative to Anchorage, not
to other places, and how has that piece changed?
And they do that grid mapping of the temperature
measurements around the planet and look at those particular
localities against historical averages within that locality.
And even in the oceans, we have--where we have the similar
distribution of observations. Those buoys we mentioned, which
are essential pieces of that, ship transits, where you have the
maritime traffic. We use commercial partnerships where we rely
on ships to take temperature samplings for us as part of that,
for the ocean measurements.
Satellites are a big boom, because they can actually
measure the whole earth, but they need to be anchored on in
situ measurements, on mountains and in valleys around the
world. We rely on all of our partners. We have an international
network of partner observations, especially for those land
based measurements around the globe.
We bring those together, and we constantly revisit the
temperature offsets or biases that maybe in individual
measurements. We had an issue ten years ago where the ship
measurements of the sea surface temperature indicated
potentially a change in trends. And we had to go back and look
at specifically how the measurements were made.
Historically, you would drop a bucket into the water, pick
up the bucket, and measure the temperature of the bucket. That
is what we did for hundreds of years. Now we have different
ways of doing that. How do you mesh that old bucket measurement
with a thermometer dropped in the ocean. That is an example
where we had to do that validation.
So we do that around the world with every data type to see
if we have continuity of information, even as the measurement
types change over time. And we do that in a public way. We
share the methodology. We share the algorithms that are used.
And they are rigorously assessed and addressed, and validated
by the public and by the community of scientists who are
observing and analyzing the data on a regular basis.
They are called climate data records, which are a key part
of what NOAA provides through our centers for environmental
information. And they are available, accessible on the web for
the world to use and to access, and to critique on a regular
basis. And we welcome that.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. That is very interesting. Thank you for
that background. When we say we have got data for hundreds of
years, I am just intrigued on how we are continuing to mature
this whole process. And hopefully it is narrowing down sort of
the circular error probability, or margin of error for future
predictions and our reactions to them.
So I will go look at that data. That is all I had. I yield
back. And I just really thank you both for your testimony today
and expertise. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. And I congratulate
our entire panel on both sides of the aisle for a lot of very
sensible and probing questions. And I thank our witnesses, Dr.
Volz and Ms. LeBoeuf, for fulsome, comprehensive answers that,
again, I invite them to supplement when and if they think
necessary. So thank you all for a pretty good hearing this
morning, and this hearing is hereby adjourned.
Dr. Volz. Thank you, sir. And thank you, panel, for
inviting us.
Ms. LeBoeuf. Thank you so much.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 21, 2021.
OVERSIGHT OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION'S ROLE IN PANDEMIC
RESPONSE
WITNESS
DENNIS ALVORD, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Let us gavel in and begin.
As this hearing is fully virtual, we have to address a few
housekeeping matters.
For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition, for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members are responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. If I notice that you have not unmuted
yourself, I may ask you if you would like the staff to unmute
you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute
your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that their time has almost expired.
When your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will
begin to recognize the next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the
chair and ranking member; then, members present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of
seniority; and then, finally, members not present at the time
the hearing is called to order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
The subcommittee shall come to order.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on the
Economic Development Administration's, or EDA's, role in the
response to the pandemic. With us today, we have the acting
head of EDA, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Economic Development, Mr. Dennis Alvord.
Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Alvord.
And as the only Federal agency dedicated exclusively to
economic development, EDA has a critical role in responding to
the economic crisis that has been brought on by this COVID-19
pandemic. In 2020, GDP fell by 3.5 percent nationwide and 4.4
percent in my home Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
And while we are already seeing the signs of a strong
recovery, this pandemic has clearly demonstrated the inequity
in our economic system. The unemployment rate for those with a
college degree is only 3.7 percent, whereas it is 8.2 percent
for those without a high school diploma.
The overall unemployment number is back down to 6.0
percent, which does not sound so terrible, except when you note
that nearly 4.7 million Americans have taken themselves out of
the workforce since last year.
In so many ways, it is not just these immediate impacts of
the pandemic that I am concerned about. If anything, the virus
has merely highlighted just how increasingly unfair our system
had become prior to the last year. Our economy is evolving
rapidly, and when that means new smartphones and Netflix, it is
great, but I worry about what it means for everyday Americans.
I think about towns like Carbondale in my district in
Pennsylvania. During the boom of the anthracite coal industry,
Carbondale had been a company town that had boomed right along
with it. But when the coal industry packed up and walked away
from the city of Carbondale, they left an environmentally
scarred landscape and an economy that has never come close to
recovering.
If a fire started in town, entire blocks would burn down
for lack of capacity to respond. The housing the coal and rail
companies had built for their workers were not built to last
and needed serious investments and upgrades almost immediately.
And more than that, underground mine fires burned in multiple
locations throughout the city. Those fires have smoldered even
into the 21st century, with the Bureau of Abandoned Mines
putting two more out within the past 5 years.
The road back for the city of Carbondale has been a long,
difficult, tedious, and uphill battle with fits and starts of
success as local leaders have struggled to revitalize the core
business district and build permanent assets to shore up the
community and the local economy as well.
So, when I think about what EDA can do for people, I think
about Carbondale and the struggle that they have endured and
what it still needs. And I worry about all these other
communities that are also struggling, whether it is due to the
pandemic or other changing economic circumstances in their
towns often completely beyond their control.
We can do more to make sure that communities all across
America not only recover from the pandemic but have real
economic vitality. It is a smart investment in our people and
our country that you know will pay huge dividends over time. I
was proud to help write the American Rescue Plan Act that
provided an additional $3 billion for EDA to help communities
respond to the economic fallout of the pandemic.
I am excited to hear from our witness today about our
progress in overcoming the immediate hardships brought on by
COVID and also about how we are investing in long-term
strategies to support good jobs for all Americans.
Mr. Alvord, given your background and expertise, it is a
privilege to have you with us here today to have this important
discussion.
But before we begin, I would like to recognize our ranking
member, Mr. Aderholt, at this time for his opening remarks.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be
with you this morning and good to have our guest today.
Mr. Alvord, thank you for being with us to share your
insight on economic development and that's role in the pandemic
response.
I am pleased to be here virtually with everyone today as we
look at oversight for EDA's role in the Federal Government's
response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In recent years, this agency has played an increasingly
large role in the Federal response to disasters and economic
distress. And in the span of just over 1 year, Congress has
tasked it with administering an extraordinary amount of Federal
dollars, a total of $4.5 billion of the Federal Government's
response to the coronavirus pandemic, to be exact.
Our Nation's small businesses and manufacturers are the
engines that drive the American economy, and ensuring they have
the resources to succeed as we continue to navigate this
pandemic is vital.
President Trump made restoring economic prosperity across
the United States a top priority, and, prior to this pandemic,
we saw manufacturing jobs return and employment increase to
levels that we had not seen in this country in many years.
That is why I am pleased to see that almost immediately
upon enactment of the CARES Act last year the Commerce
Department began working diligently to help our Nation's
economy rebound from the impacts of COVID-19. Numerous
investments have helped small businesses across the country and
in my State of Alabama gain access to necessary capital to
sustain them during this pandemic and, in turn, create a
stronger and more resilient State economy for our future.
And I think it is appropriate to credit the former
administration and the staff of the Economic Development
Administration, who truly rose to the occasion, for working so
diligently to ensure that the CARES Act was and that it
continues to be allocated to the communities that are in most
need.
These efforts did not go unappreciated in Washington
either. The Commerce Department's Office of Inspector General
credited the EDA with being proactive in its implementation of
the CARES Act and leveraging technology as well as hiring
flexibility to mitigate the challenges of administering such a
large, time-sensitive effort during the very pandemic it was to
counter. EDA even exceeded its own obligation milestones in the
course of awarding its funding.
Back home, our constituents are rightly concerned about the
future of our communities and the effect that this pandemic is
having on the workforce. Today, we can try to find answers to
some of their remaining questions and hear about how the
Commerce Department intends to distribute the funds that it
received during the relief package. It remains critical that
EDA administer this funding in a manner that reduces risk of
waste, fraud, abuse, and, of course, mismanagement.
I also want to discuss the importance of broadband
technology for economic development and hear about what more
EDA can do to help expand broadband connectivity. Regrettably,
this pandemic has fully exposed the adverse consequences of a
lack of connectivity, particularly for our schoolchildren and
people who could benefit from telehealth at a time when our
healthcare facilities are so very much strained.
We are counting on the EDA to use these resources to help
our communities rebound from this pandemic and emerge even
stronger. Mr. Alvord, I am looking forward to hearing about
these resources and how they will be leveraged to expand
broadband and infrastructure, spur increases in much-needed
manufacturing as well.
Again, we thank you for being here today, for appearing
before this subcommittee, and we look forward to hearing from
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
And, Mr. Alvord, you are recognized at this time for your
opening remarks, which we would ask you to keep to 5 minutes,
and remember that your entire opening statement will be
submitted for the record.
You are recognized, Mr. Alvord.
Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Chairman Cartwright, Ranking Member
Aderholt, and members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to
appear before you today to testify on behalf of the Department
of Commerce's Economic Development Administration.
EDA welcomes this hearing as an opportunity to discuss our
role in COVID-19 recovery efforts through EDA's implementation
of the CARES Act. EDA's efforts provide relief to and promote
long-term recovery efforts in communities hard hit by the
pandemic.
Over the last 4 years, EDA's agency budget authority has
grown substantially. In 2018 and 2019, through two disaster
supplementals, EDA's budget authority grew to $901.5 million
and $904 million respectively. In 2020, Congress provided the
agency a historic influx of $1.5 billion under the CARES Act.
Less than 1 year later, EDA has received an additional $3
billion in funding under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
With each supplemental, EDA is further entrusted to take on
a greater and more prominent role in supporting communities
recovering from the sudden economic disruption and dislocation.
EDA investments generate or retain jobs, attract new
industry and private-sector investment, encourage business
expansion, and serve as a backstop to sudden and severe
economic dislocations to local economies. We are aware of our
important role in ensuring the funds are invested in an
equitable, fair, and impactful manner and that we are reaching
the communities most in need of our assistance.
Because of the unusual and compelling urgency of the
economic dislocations caused by the coronavirus pandemic, EDA
determined that the public interest would be best served by
using a portion of its supplemental CARES Act funding to
expeditiously make awards to existing high-performing EDA grant
recipients with unique capacities to respond rapidly to the
situation. EDA made awards to its network of economic
development districts, university centers, and Tribal planning
organizations.
The awards fund the cost of economic recovery coordination
and technical assistance activities to support recovery from
the pandemic within the geographic areas served by these
organizations. These investments also helped develop a pipeline
of infrastructure and workforce projects that EDA funded using
the remaining CARES Act funds and will use to source projects
for the upcoming American Rescue Plan Act competitions.
In light of the immediate capital needs of small businesses
unable to secure traditional financing, EDA also expeditiously
infused additional capital into its Revolving Loan Fund Program
using CARES Act funds.
After meeting immediate needs, EDA funded a diverse range
of economic recovery implementation projects using its flexible
Economic Adjustment Assistance Program. EDA also launched the
new Scaling Pandemic Resilience Through Innovation and
Technology Challenge. The SPRINT Challenge is a $29 million
national competition under which EDA sought projects that will
enable organizations across the country to address the
economic, health, and safety risks caused by the coronavirus
pandemic through entrepreneurship and innovation.
Our CARES Act investments are supporting a variety of
critical economic development strategies that are helping
communities to recover and set a course for future prosperity.
And, today, I am pleased to note that EDA has awarded more than
$1 billion in CARES Act grants and met this significant
milestone in less than 1 year from the enactment of the CARES
Act.
EDA's work continues, and, as of April 16, 2021, EDA has
obligated $1.098 billion of the $1.5 billion in supplemental
CARES Act funding through 1,020 awards to communities across
the country.
I am proud of the fortitude shown by our grantee partners
in responding to this crisis, and I am inspired by the
dedication EDA's incredible staff has shown in meeting the
challenge of quickly and responsibly awarding this important
funding.
The American Rescue Plan provides additional relief to
address the continued impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the
economy. The act allocates supplemental funding of $3 billion
to EDA to assist communities nationwide in advancing their
coronavirus recovery and resiliency strategies.
Though EDA is still finalizing its implementation plan for
this funding, the execution will focus on bringing back the
American workforce in industries that have been hardest hit,
such as travel and tourism and manufacturing; capitalizing on
American ingenuity to build regions of the future by focusing
on innovation-led economic development; and pursuing a
comprehensive approach to advancing equity by focusing on
populations and underserved communities that have been denied a
full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic
prosperity. EDA looks forward to further briefing the
subcommittee as its implementation plans solidify.
Chairman Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address
EDA's efforts to assist communities in responding to the
economic injury caused by the coronavirus pandemic. I am proud
of the agency's critical role in supporting communities
recovering from the economic devastation brought by the
pandemic, and I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Mr. Alvord. As I said in
my opening statement, I certainly support EDA and its mission.
And I appreciate you mentioning EDA's work with the
Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance in your testimony. I hope
today we can investigate how we can build on that work and
expand efforts in areas like my district.
First, I think I will start with a question that will help
set the stage for this hearing. Can you please just tell us
briefly what are the types of projects that you have been able
to fund with the CARES Act funds? And do you expect the
American Rescue Plan Act to be the same? Are there any easy
characterizations of the projects? And do you know a rough
breakdown of how the money was spent by category of project?
Mr. Alvord. Yes, Congressman. Thank you for the question.
EDA was able to fund a diverse range of different types of
projects using the CARES Act funding, using our flexible
Economic Adjustment Assistance Program.
Much of our early work, as I mentioned, focused on grants
to our existing network of high-performing economic development
partners. So those included grants for strategies and technical
assistance to help areas and regions to develop recovery
strategies and coordinate assistance to aid and recovery. They
included grants to our Tribal planning grantees to help those
organizations engage in similar activities.
We harnessed our University Center Program to leverage
their inherent expertise in helping to assist communities and
regions and provide technical assistance to businesses and
entrepreneurs within their regions. And we supplemented very
heavily our network of Revolving Loan Fund providers to address
very directly, you know, the capital access needs.
In addition to that, we developed, I think, a robust
pipeline of projects, you know, implementation-style projects,
to support strategies--marketing, recovery strategies--also, a
wide range of different types of infrastructure investment
projects to help regions to recover and bounce back.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you for that.
With the American Rescue Plan, it is my hope that, rather
than focusing on regional economic planning, you will actually
be doing more implementation work. Is that your expectation for
the American Rescue Plan?
Mr. Alvord. Yes, Chairman, it is.
We were very deliberate in our approach to the CARES Act,
you know, kind of, understanding where communities were at the
onset and wanting to use our initial grants to build capacity,
to support long-term planning and strategies for recovery, with
the expectation that, those strategies and the recovery
coordinators that we put in place could assist with the
competitive awards through the CARES Act but also any
additional supplemental funding that EDA might receive, as well
as our core economic development assistance programming.
I feel like we have done a very good job in establishing
that capacity and that we will put a lot of additional emphasis
on implementation.
That said, there are still some areas that I think, may
benefit from some additional planning, strategy, and capacity-
building, and we stand ready to support those needs as well.
Mr. Cartwright. And how will the breakdown of categories of
projects funded through the CARES Act change with funds from
the American Rescue Plan?
Mr. Alvord. Well, as I mentioned, we did leverage very
heavily our existing network of economic development partners
in implementing the CARES Act. And I think, based on what we
have learned as a result of that investment, we intend to
design strategies that will be very impactful in helping
communities to both bounce back quickly from the economic
impacts from the pandemic--so more in the way of specific
implementation strategies--and position those communities for
long-term economic growth and success.
So we will likely take a more targeted approach under the
American Rescue Plan in trying to reach underserved areas and
trying to focus on, particular areas of emphasis such as
industry, sectors that have been disproportionately impacted by
the pandemic, like travel and tourism, manufacturing, and
others. And hopefully that will enable us to really build upon
the foundations that we laid with the CARES Act funding.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay.
Last question: How much of CARES Act funding went to new
eligible organizations and first-time recipients versus current
and past recipients?
And my hope is that, as you expand into more implementation
work rather than planning work, you will look to find more new
partners.
Mr. Alvord. Yes. I can say that, of the CARES Act awards
that we made, approximately a little more than $800 million, or
53 percent or so, of the competitive funding that we had
available for awards after taking funding out to support
salaries and expenses, administrative costs and operations, as
well as the Inspector General oversight of the program, went to
existing grantee organizations. So about 53 percent.
And the balance of those funds went to other competitive
implementation awards. We do expect that a vast majority of the
American Rescue Plan funding will be going into implementation
activities.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you, Mr. Alvord.
My time has expired, and I recognize our ranking member,
Mr. Aderholt, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Aderholt. [Inaudible.]
Mr. Cartwright. You are on mute, Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. How is that? Can you hear me now?
Mr. Cartwright. Good. Yeah.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
In my opening statement, I mentioned broadband, but I want
to focus on it a little bit more. You know, of course,
unfortunately, the lack of sufficient broadband in rural
communities was an issue well before COVID-19 came into play.
And, as I, again, referred to in my opening statement, the
COVID-19 pandemic really fully exposed the adverse consequences
for a lack of broadband access, especially in rural America.
Can you, Mr. Alvord, discuss how EDA's funding Congress
provided in the CARES Act has been used to assist in the
development of broadband infrastructure? You know, I know this
is a deep subject, but from a 30,000-foot level, could you talk
about that just a little bit?
Mr. Alvord. Absolutely. And thank you, Ranking Member, for
the question.
I think there are three primary ways that EDA has been
assisting with broadband development under the CARES Act. I
mentioned that we had provided assistance to our multicounty
economic development districts to engage in economic recovery
planning activities. And, certainly, planning for broadband
needs would be an eligible activity under the scope of work for
those grant awards. And I think many of our economic
development districts took advantage of that opportunity to do
just that.
And we are certainly very cognizant that the pandemic
really did shine a spotlight on the needs for enhanced
broadband connectivity really both in rural and underserved
urban areas as well.
Second, we provided some strategic grants to communities to
allow them to undertake technical and market feasibility
studies so that they could determine what the best broadband
solutions were for their region and their communities.
And, finally, we funded infrastructure to actually bring
broadband to unserved areas, in some cases, as well.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
Of course, we recognize the role that EDA plays in saving
jobs and, of course, opening new opportunities for economic
growth and helping spur creation of jobs in rural communities.
One example that I can point to is, back in 2018, one of my
community colleges that is located within my district, Wallace
State Community College, located in Hanceville, Alabama, was
awarded $2 million to help build a new welding training center
and business incubator.
Investments like these, such as at Wallace State, not only
benefit our local community and regional development but also
serve the national interest, such as driving long-term economic
growth.
My question: To what extent has the pandemic impacted the
amount of local and private investment that EDA has been able
to leverage, and what are some ways that EDA has worked to
address this particular issue?
Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Ranking Member, for the question.
The types of investments that you highlight, I think, in
terms of workforce development projects and business incubation
projects, are really critically important building blocks to
success. And those are some of the types of grant investments
we hope to make under the American Rescue Plan as well and have
made under the CARES Act.
So we have definitely seen cases under our CARES Act grant-
making where communities are having a more challenging time
coming up with local matching funds to support EDA investments.
And we have tried to be accommodating, given the flexibilities
that Congress granted us under the act to provide up to 100
percent grant rates. We do that based on the individual
circumstances of each grantee and whether or not they have the
ability to make a contribution or not, or if they may have
exhausted, effectively, their taxing and borrowing authority
due to the impacts of the pandemic.
In terms of target investment, we are still continuing to
look for opportunities to leverage additional private
investment as part of our grant-making, because we find that
that produces much more impactful results and is really
critical to the success of our investments. And, fortunately,
we have been successful, and continuing to do so, through our
CARES Act grant-making.
Mr. Aderholt. All right. Thank you.
I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
At this time, the chair recognizes Ms. Meng from New York
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Acting Assistant Secretary Alvord, for
joining us today. We owe you a debt of gratitude for the
concurrent duties that you are performing, especially during
COVID.
I wanted to ask about the EDA's approach to economic injury
in light of COVID. Historically, EDA funds have favored rural
areas typically by a ratio of two-to-three for rural areas
versus one-to-three for urban areas. I don't think anyone
questioned this model before the pandemic.
However, during the quarantine, which exposed the soft
underbelly of major urban centers' reliance on tourism, for
example. From restaurants to theaters to sporting events, no
one was left unscathed. My district in Queens, New York,
suffered near-total economic collapse last spring as everyone
went into lockdown mode. Many businesses experienced
unprecedented decline in business, and many are still
recovering.
So I wanted to ask, from your perspective, is EDA's current
model sufficient to help urban areas revitalize? Does Congress
need to reassess it in light of the pandemic's effect on urban
areas?
Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the kind words,
and thank you for the question.
I think one of the strengths of EDA's program is its
inherent flexibility and our ability to be agile and respond to
different types of changing economic distress.
And we have unquestionably seen the phenomena that you
mentioned, where high-population centers have been really
disproportionately, in some cases, impacted by the health and
economic impacts of the pandemic. And we do have flexibility
under our program to address those areas. We are able to look
at different sizes of geography when we are making grant
awards.
So we are cognizant of the fact that even in places of
relative affluence there are, many times, pockets of poverty or
economic distress that need to be addressed. And I believe that
we do have adequate flexibility under our authorization to make
grant awards in those cases and address those pockets.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
Last year's spending bill included language requiring EDA
to direct 10 percent of its funds towards helping persistent-
poverty counties, specifically in rural areas.
The accompanying report also included concern that high-
poverty urban areas were often overlooked because their needs
were overshadowed by affluent neighbors. For example, while New
York City is affluent, there are pockets across our five
counties that make up the city as a whole that have high-
poverty conditions, including parts of my district in Queens.
And I was wondering if and how EDA is evaluating
applications from high-poverty urban areas to ensure their
applications receive additional priority?
Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
And, yes, we are very cognizant of that phenomena. In fact,
I have spoken with representatives of our Philadelphia regional
office, which services New York, and they have, you know,
informed me that, actually, some of the most economically
distressed areas in the State are in, you know, the sub-units
in New York City and surrounding environments.
And so they are very aware of this as part of their
consideration of grant proposals and investments that come in,
and, you know, they are able to evaluate those proposals on a
competitive basis using the criteria that we have, you know,
established under our notices of funding opportunity.
Ms. Meng. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ms. Meng.
Mr. Palazzo, looks like you have your game face on. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alvord, thank you for being here today. First and
foremost, I want to thank your agency for their work.
The global pandemic has caused losses due to health but
also due to suffering economies. From global to local,
businesses large and small were struggling to stay afloat and
adapt to new laws, restrictions, and modes of business.
Likewise to some of my colleagues' districts, the
Mississippi Gulf Coast relies heavily on tourism to bolster the
local and State economy. The EDA's most recent award to the
Mississippi Gulf Coast Regional Convention and Visitors Bureau
in Biloxi, Mississippi, to develop and implement a tourism
recovery marketing campaign in response to the COVID-created
economic downturn will be a great help to spreading the word of
what the Gulf Coast has to offer.
From our beautiful white beaches, a brand-new, world-class
aquarium, the best seafood in the world, to activities like
fishing and gambling, you can find something for everyone on
the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
So this all leads me to the following. Between the CARES
bill and the administration's American Rescue Plan, there was
some misunderstanding amongst members regarding the
distribution of funds. While I agree with the distribution
process, can you please explain why your agency distributes
funds based on a level of economic distress versus per capita?
Mr. Alvord. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
And I do anticipate that, given the set-aside funding that was
provided as part of the $3 billion under the American Rescue
Plan, EDA will be doing even more work in the travel and
tourism sector under the American Rescue Plan.
In terms of the distribution or allocation that we use for
EDA funding, typically we look at a variety of different
factors, and we make those determinations on a case-by-case
bass. So, for example, we have an allocation that we use for
EDA's regular economic development assistance programs. When we
receive supplemental funding for natural disasters, we might,
develop a different allocation that addresses the exigencies of
that particular disaster or economic situation.
And that was similarly true for the CARES Act, where, we
looked at a variety of different factors that were indicative
of the distress under the CARES Act and we developed an
allocation specific to that. And that included factors
including population and different economic distress criteria.
Core to our authorizing statute is our desire to address
economic distress.
Mr. Palazzo. Okay. I thank you for that response.
You know, between the CARES Act as well as the American
Rescue Plan, billions of Federal dollars have been allocated to
your agency and other agencies. With a surge in funds comes a
surge in responsibility for government entities, many of whom
did not have this level of responsibility beforehand.
The EDA's budget has risen from $267 million in 2017 to $3
billion in 2021. So, along with increased COVID-19 funds,
various pandemic relief efforts such as the SBA's Paycheck
Protection Program have increasingly become a target for fraud.
Are the EDA's Revolving Loan Fund loans targets of fraud like
those that we saw with the PPP program?
Mr. Alvord. Thank you again, Congressman, for the question.
I think we are always cognizant and aware of the potential
for there to be waste, fraud, and abuse. And we have tried to
take a very proactive approach, in working with the Congress's
Office of Inspector General, in guarding against that.
And, in fact, one of the very first things that we did upon
receiving the CARES Act funding was to engage in a dialogue
with the IG. And we had their teams come in and conduct
sensitivity training, for all EDA staff so that they could be
better aware and hope to spot waste, fraud, and abuse and guard
against that.
That said, any time there is a lot of funding available,
there are people looking to take advantage of that, and so we
have to be continually watchful and mindful about the potential
for that.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. Thank you, Mr. Alvord.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
And, Congressman Ben Cline, you are recognized for 5
minutes of questions.
[No response.]
Mr. Cartwright. In the absence of Representative Cline, we
will bounce over to Representative Garcia, who is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Assistant Secretary Alvord, for your time
and the information.
My question is around defense contractors, folks who are
providing critical assets to national security programs around
the country. And we have a large footprint in our district, in
California's 25th District, which is northern L.A. County.
These defense contractors were afforded certain accommodations
and were able to continue to work in certain States under the
auspices of being essential businesses. Some struggled from
State to State, depending on the definition of essential
business.
But can you tell me, kind of from an EDA perspective, what
can be done to help some of these critical national defense
component manufacturers throughout this last year but also
moving forward, now that supply chains have been disrupted,
natural resources have been disrupted? A lot of these products
rely on raw earth materials that are now not necessarily
guaranteed to show up on time or on cost.
We have had a struggle with local government, county
entities, for instance, giving access to the vaccines for these
companies like some of the military would also be. Their
military counterparts on the same facility were getting the
vaccines while the civilian private companies were not. And
they were sort of hand-in-glove partners on multiple programs,
and it slowed down our national defense programs in that
regard.
Can you speak to that in terms of what the EDA can do to
help us not only help improve the current situation but, I
think, heal and recover from opportunity lost over the last
year?
Mr. Alvord. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.
I think this is an area that we are acutely aware of.
Unquestionably, among the most impacted industry sectors during
the pandemic has been manufacturing and its supply chain. And
that has, perhaps, brought one of the most consequential
impacts to our long-term economic recovery.
So, in designing both our implementation of the CARES Act
and, certainly, as we move forward with the design for the
implementation of the American Rescue Plan, we intend to put
significant focus on this area.
I think there are a variety of tools that EDA can bring to
the table, both in terms of developing plans and strategies
specifically for the economic recovery and growth of various
industry sectors, but then, also, looking creatively at various
industry clusters around the country that have the potential to
support expansion and growth and development and how we can
seed those clusters with additional funding and help them to
accelerate and grow more rapidly and in a manner that is more
inclusive of populations that have been adversely impacted by
the pandemic.
So it would be our hope that through some combination of
strategy assistance and then implementation grants that we can
support the rebound of those clusters.
One other important area that was mentioned earlier is
that, many times, these industries are highly reliant on having
a trained and skilled workforce. So it would be our hope that
we would be able to support training activities that align very
specifically with those industry needs so that they are able to
get the workforce that they need to bounce back more quickly.
Mr. Garcia. [Inaudible.]
Mr. Alvord. I think you are on mute.
Mr. Garcia. Oh, my apologies. Thank you, Mr. Alvord, for
that.
I have less than a minute here, so I will yield back and
save my follow-on questions for the next round, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. The member yields back.
And this takes us to our next round of questions. And I
will start that off.
Mr. Alvord, I was happy to see the President's skinny
budget included a 150-percent increase in the Assistance to
Coal Communities Program that I helped to get started. You can
expect me to continue to hold your feet to the fire on this
program to be sure that historical coal communities, like mine,
are not ignored. And it is not just my area; it is the
Appalachians that go from northeastern Pennsylvania all the way
down into eastern Kentucky and further.
Question is: Is the Assistance to Coal Communities Program
able to meet national demand for funding? How is that assessed?
Several years into the program, has demand subsided?
Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Chairman.
Yes, the Assistance to Coal Communities Program has been a
critically important tool in helping us to support communities
that have been reliant on the production of coal or power
generation related to coal across the entire country but
specifically and acutely so, as you mentioned, across the
Appalachian region.
And, I will say that we have continued to see robust demand
for those program resources despite budget increases year over
year to the program. And while I don't know the exact numbers,
I can certainly say anecdotally that we have continued to be
oversubscribed in demand for the program.
Mr. Cartwright. Has that surprised you?
Mr. Alvord. It has not. Because of the nature of these
economic adjustment transitions quite often, what we will see
is that they will come in waves, where we may see first an
idling of some mining capacity and then, several months or even
a year or so later, a subsequent idling in power production
capacity. And so, in both cases, we would want to come back
around and assist with the economic adjustment in those areas.
And, likewise, the impacts have moved geographically over
time as well. What was at first very acutely focused in the
eastern United States has also shifted and also had impacts in
the West as well.
Mr. Cartwright. All right.
The Coal Communities Program provides economic
diversification funding for energy in industry-impacted
communities, of course. And so the question is: To what extent
can similar programs be developed to support communities
dependent on other fossil-fuel-based energy industries, such as
oil and natural gas, that could face similar challenges as coal
in the future as we transition toward renewable energy overall?
How could they be developed?
Mr. Alvord. Yes. Well, I think we have a really valuable
tool, which is the EDA Economic Adjustment Assistance Program.
And, in fact, the Assistance to Coal Communities is a
subcategory of Economic Adjustment Assistance. And it packages
together a very flexible set of tools--the ability to do
strategy and technical assistance, capitalize revolving loan
funds, as well as infrastructure improvements--to help areas
that have been impacted by some event that has undermined the
nature of their economy.
So, really, we have learned some valuable lessons as a
result of our work assisting coal communities with this
economic transition that could certainly be applied to other
industry sectors as well.
And, in fact, EDA has begun a stream of work in helping
communities that have nuclear power facilities that have come
to the end of their useful life and helping those communities
to undertake some type of economic adjustment and economic
diversification opportunities.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, of course, it is not just the
communities that only recently have been impacted by the
decline in coal industry that need support. We talked about the
city of Carbondale before, but the city of Scranton also dug
coal for a century and helped power the country through the
Industrial Revolution, and they have now had decades of
disinvestment, economic dislocation, not to mention the
tangible environmental impacts of poisonous water leaching from
the abandoned mines into our creeks and rivers.
So I would like to talk about how these funds are being
targeted. How are you helping communities that have a long
history of coal and are still reeling from the impacts of
industry, like communities in my district in northeastern
Pennsylvania?
Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Chairman.
You know, I come from one of those communities, so I am
particularly cognizant and empathetic to those struggles. And I
think these are really vexing and challenging problems, but,
again, EDA has a very flexible set of economic development
assistance tools.
And we often think about these in two different categories.
So there are events that undermine the base of an economy, and
we see those as, like, sudden and severe economic dislocations.
And we quite often respond to those through our Economic
Adjustment Assistance Programs. And then there are communities,
such as those that you are describing, that have suffered under
the weight of long-term economic deterioration. Maybe they were
once thriving and then an event undermined their economy and
they never bounced back. Or, in some cases, we still have
communities in this country that have really never had a strong
economic foundation for growth and prosperity.
And so, through our core Economic Development Assistance
Program, we are really looking to assist those communities over
the long term. So we use programs like our Partnership Planning
Program to build capacity for recovery. We use our Local
Technical Assistance Program to develop feasibility studies and
strategic opportunities to redevelop brownfield sites to put
idle land back into productive use through new economic
development endeavors. And we use our Public Works Program to
bring infrastructure and core capacity to those areas where it
is missing.
So I do think that we have the tools to do that, and we
will be able to really build upon those foundations with the
additional resources that have been provided under the American
Rescue Plan.
Mr. Cartwright. Good to hear, Mr. Alvord. Thank you for
those answers.
I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, for
another 5 minutes.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let me go ahead and
yield to Mr. Cline. I think he is back on now. So I will go
ahead and yield my time at this point to Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member Aderholt.
I appreciate the witness for being here. And I was pulled
away. We were having a meeting, Zoom meeting, with staff with
the Restaurant Association, talking about the inability of
restaurants to find labor in this challenging environment and
the need to really work to encourage work.
And so I hope--I don't really have a question there. I just
hope that, Mr. Alvord, as you implement these plans, you keep
in mind that employers across the country are having challenges
finding workers.
And I guess I could loop that into a question. I noted in
your testimony that you mentioned that you were expanding the
loan program, the Revolving Loan Fund, using CARES Act funds.
Can you tell me how much you put into there from the CARES Act?
And do you plan to duplicate that through this second bill that
was enacted here recently?
Mr. Alvord. Yes, we did--thank you, Congressman, for the
question--we did significantly increase the capital that was
available through EDA's network of Revolving Loan Fund
providers under the CARES Act. And, in fact, we supplemented
that network to the tune of about $600 million, really in
recognition of, you know, the dearth of available capital to
support businesses during this really, really trying time.
And we have been very successful in putting that funding to
immediate use and helping businesses with loans for working
capital when necessary, or many businesses have taken advantage
of the, sometimes, pause in activity to kind of re-envision
their business models and look for expansion opportunities that
will allow them to bounce back quickly when the customers start
returning. So we are doing a lot of lending through that
assistance.
And I am also acutely aware of the point that you made
about businesses and the need to be able to attract workforce
that meets their needs. And we have been supporting a wide
range of different types of workforce development investments
under our CARES Act implementation and certainly anticipate
doing more of that work under the American Rescue Plan. That is
something we have heard a lot from industry about.
Mr. Cline. And I appreciate that.
You know, capital needs of small businesses, that is part
of it. And I am just thinking of these restaurants I was just
talking to who don't have as much--well, they are having to
shut off their online orders, they are having to close early,
they are having to--I mean, it is not necessarily a solution
that you all are going to be able to provide. But I appreciate
you trying to increase that loan fund. It will help free up
capital, that otherwise would have had to go to capital needs,
to reallocate for competing for this limited supply of workers.
One of the problems that we have is that Governors around
the country are not opening up fast enough. And with changing
environments, increased vaccination rates, we have, again,
government at the State and local level responding late to the
realities on the ground. And so, in Virginia, we have a
Governor that was last in the country for testing, last in the
country for vaccination rates, and now is putting his--
unfortunately, limiting our economic recovery through his
inability to find solutions.
Let's go to--I do want to mention that you all did provide
funding for central Virginia, Central Shenandoah Planning
District Commission. And I want to find out how that has been
allocated. And what are you doing to follow the money to make
sure that it is being spent appropriately?
Mr. Alvord. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
Yes, as memory serves, that was one of the supplemental
awards that we made to our network of economic development
districts to support economic recovery planning and
coordination of various different types of economic recovery
implementation.
So we made those awards on a 2-year basis, recognizing that
the economic impacts of the pandemic were likely going to be
with us for some time. And, we continue to provide traditional
oversight of those EDA grant investments, with the expectation
that those will be resulting in recovery strategies that are
very specific to the geography that is served by those entities
and that they will hopefully be coming forward with additional
grant proposals either for EDA or perhaps for other Federal
partners that may be able to meet their economic development
needs.
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
Thank you for yielding your time, Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Cartwright. David Trone of Maryland, you are recognized
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Am I coming through?
Mr. Cartwright. You are.
Mr. Trone. Great. Thank you today for this critical
hearing.
EDA is a critical lifeline for many of my constituents in
my district, a very rural district. We have seen a steady loss
of financial institutions across America, which creates serious
challenges for small business in these communities to get
traditional financing. COVID has only made it worse. And your
RLF Program was a tremendous economic lifeline for many small
businesses in our districts.
We had a western Maryland vending business. The pandemic
took its toll. The owner decided to retire. But your loans
allowed one of the employees to purchase the business, and they
are now flourishing. The Corner Tavern and Cafe in Cumberland
closed last March. Again, with an EDA CARES loan, they were
able to expand their dining options--walk-in, takeout--and they
are up and running again. So a few examples of the importance
of your resources.
For those that question robust EDA funding, can you share
again a little bit more about how EDA helps the economy
flourish in these economically distressed areas?
Mr. Alvord. Yes. Thank you, Representative Trone.
And I really appreciate hearing those success stories. And,
in fact, I am aware of successes like that that have occurred
as a result of our lending through the Revolving Loan Fund
Program across the entire country. And it is really heartening
to hear that that has had the intended impact. And, in fact,
you know, recognizing the dearth of available capital is
exactly why EDA chose to invest very heavily in that area at
the onset of the pandemic.
So, I mean, that is one of our core tools to helping
economically distressed areas to rebound and bounce back
quickly. Two of the other tools that we commonly use are grants
for strategic planning and technical assistance to help areas
that have had one of these undermining events to re-envision
how they can most expeditiously recover and sometimes re-
envision a new future that may involve diversification into new
areas of economic development endeavors; and then a wide range
of different types of infrastructure investments that can
support growth and development.
And we look for those infrastructure investments to be
leveraged through local matching share, as well as to leverage
additional private investment that can really be very
transformative and impactful in helping economically distressed
areas to recover.
Mr. Trone. All right. I appreciate that.
As I mentioned, the declining number of financial
institutions, but the rural communities have, you know, many
other barriers. It is just so much harder for them to attract
private-sector investments. So how does EDA plan to leverage
Federal resources to increase these private-sector investments,
particularly rural?
Mr. Alvord. Yes. That is unquestionably a challenge, where
there may be lack of access to capital through traditional
lenders or there may be other challenges to encouraging and
bringing private-sector investment to a rural or underserved
community.
And, I mean, this is really one of the strengths of the
EDA's programming, in that, by making strategic, enabling
investments, we can sometimes be the first dollars in and send
a signal to the marketplace that there is a leading indicator
that would attract additional private capital dollars and
investment.
We also play a very important role in increasing the
capacity of these rural areas and actually enabling them to
take advantage of the economic assets that they have at their
disposal.
For example, many rural communities may have community
colleges or other assets that can be leveraged as workforce
development engines for industry that may be willing to
relocate into an area. Or they may be at a strategic
intersection of different types of infrastructure, such as
highways or rail lines, et cetera.
They can build upon those economic assets to grow and
expand their economy. And EDA can support them through
additional supplemental infrastructure investments to expand
those comparative advantages.
Mr. Trone. I yield back.
And keep helping us on the broadband. That is really key in
rural. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
Mr. Palazzo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don't have
any more questions for Mr. Alvord. I appreciate him coming on.
But I would like to just, you know, build on some of the
comments from my colleagues. And I want to join with
Congressman Cline. Look, this extension of supplemental
unemployment is devastating restaurants and small businesses in
my district. You know, right when we think we are coming out of
it--I mean, there are ``hiring'' signs on almost every
business.
And, you know, just think of the money we could be saving
if we weren't paying people to stay at home, but to get off
their butts and get out of their house and go to work. Because
it feels like sometimes the Federal Government's cure to a
problem is more dangerous than the disease to begin with. And
so we have to get back to work. We have to get our economy
going again.
I mean, I know we are--you see it trending up, but then you
see an administration doing everything he possibly can to tear
down the economy just because Trump had his name on it or his
fingerprints.
Increasing the corporate rates; we are going to see a push
for overregulation; a push by Big Labor--all three of these
were the three-legged stool that drove American companies and
American jobs overseas. And it shouldn't be whether you are a
Republican or a Democrat to see that, when we started peeling
back the regulations and we lowered the corporate tax rate, got
competitive for the first time in decades, and we weren't
kowtowing to the union bosses, we had a record economy, record
unemployment, record minority participation in the job market,
and job creation, all this.
And, you know, I don't care what administration. It is just
like, when you see something that works and something that is
making America competitive and getting Americans to work and
your retirement accounts are flush with cash, don't mess with
it. Don't mess with it.
That is all I had to say. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
opportunity to filibuster, even though we are not in the
Senate. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for your opinions, Mr. Palazzo.
And, on that score, about Democrats and Republicans, Mr.
Alvord, the American Rescue Plan puts $3 billion into EDA. And,
as Ms. Meng mentioned, pretty much two-thirds of EDA money goes
into rural areas, which are mostly represented by Republicans
and who unanimously voted against the American Rescue Plan.
My question for you is: Is the administration planning on
penalizing any of these Republican districts into which the EDA
money is going to go from the American Rescue Plan?
Mr. Alvord. No, Mr. Chairman, it certainly is not. And, you
know, EDA investment criteria, as I mentioned earlier, focus
very much on economic distress and looking at the types of
grant investments that are going to be most impactful in
helping to grow and expand the regional economy and the
national economy.
Mr. Cartwright. Very good.
And I am going to end my filibuster and turn it over to Mr.
Garcia for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And just for clarification, I know I voted against the last
package, the $1.9 trillion. I like things like the $3 billion
that goes to EDA. I even supported the $2,000 stimulus checks
to individuals and the PPP refilling for small businesses. But
I still can't figure out where the other pile of $1.5 trillion
is going.
So I appreciate that you are not punishing those districts
that are trying to be fiscally responsible while still
navigating a post-pandemic world.
And when we talk about the pre-pandemic world, literally,
we had jobs looking for people in many industries. And one of
those industries, we touched on it earlier, the aerospace and
defense industry, had a lack of engineering talent. We were
seeing a rising tide of investments in our military, which was
much needed after the Budget Control Act and sequestration. We
were seeing a modernization effort of our military. And this
helped large, prime companies like the Lockheeds and the
Boeings of the world, but it trickled down into the mom-and-pop
shops that were making bit-and-piece components for these
larger programs. But we were having a problem, in many cases,
of getting contracts on contract because we didn't have the
staffing needs and the headcount needed to do it correctly.
I would submit that, you know, we will get through this
pandemic, we will get things back on line. We need to continue
to invest in our infrastructure, our transportation programs,
our military programs. But what I think when things get back to
normal and steady state as much as they can is we are going to
realize, again, that we have a talent shortage.
And I know that you were funded, I believe, $2 million to
do an apprenticeship pilot program. Can you talk about, first
of all, how is the implementation of that $2 million? That
seems like an anemic amount of money, so you probably wouldn't
be able to do too much with it. But were there lessons learned,
or is there something that you can scale up to from that to
help us with this, sort of, talent and apprenticeship training
gap that we have now, relative to some of our competitive
nations?
Mr. Alvord. Yes, Congressman. Thank you so much for that
question.
It is actually a program that we are quite excited about.
It is the STEM Apprenticeship Program. It was authorized under
section 28 of the Stevenson-Wydler Act, or America COMPETES
Act. And that program has been on the books for quite some
time, but it has never been appropriated. And so, last year,
for the first time, we did receive a first-ever appropriation
of $2 million.
We ran a national competition for that program, which is a
little different than the way EDA administers the majority of
our grant programs. But we did very much view this as an
opportunity to learn some lessons, to your point, about what
would some of the most effective techniques be in workforce
development?
So, just a few months ago, we were able to make the first
round of awards. We had seven awardees. It is a very diverse
and eclectic range of different types of organizations that
received awards. Everything from an Alaskan Native village to a
small, rural community college and an urban training provider
have received assistance under this program.
So we are very much looking forward, as they move into the
implementation phases, to learning some lessons through the
implementation of that program that we can apply to our other
work.
EDA has traditionally invested in a wide variety of
different types of workforce development projects, including
infrastructure investments for brick and mortar for skilled
training facilities. Oftentimes we have funded things like wet/
dry lab development for training purposes or, in some cases,
specialized training equipment.
But I think this new STEM Apprenticeship Program will give
us some valuable lessons in terms of the development of the
programs, the program design, as well as the curriculum that
may be most successful, particularly in supporting industry
needs.
I mean, we know just anecdotally that some of the most
successful workforce investments are those that align very
closely with what industry needs, where they have jobs, as you
mentioned in your case, in the defense industry.
Mr. Garcia. Yeah. Okay. Great.
So I think the ask is to make sure that you are
communicating and clearly highlighting to us where that line
item and the funding for that line item exists to make sure
that we are scaling it up. And, you know, the apprenticeship
and the vocational training outside of even 4-year universities
and at the local community college levels, I think there are a
lot of us interested in how do we expand that.
So thank you, Mr. Alvord.
I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
And we are going to conclude this hearing, but, before we
do, I want to give Mr. Aderholt, our ranking member, a chance
to exercise his second-round 5 minutes of questions if he
chooses.
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a
couple more questions I did want to refer to.
Mr. Alvord, in your testimony, you know, the EDA had made
about 1,000 awards to communities across the country. Of all
the EDA applications that were submitted for the CARES Act,
what did you see was the most frequently requested project type
or purpose?
Mr. Alvord. Thank you, Ranking Member, for the question.
I think we saw a very, very diverse range of applications
come in. And you probably won't be surprised to hear that the
nature of those applications kind of trended with the changing
dynamics of the pandemic.
You know, early on, there were a high volume of requests
for things like planning, recovery assistance, and, as I
mentioned before, a preponderance of requests for access to
capital, supplemental grants through our Revolving Loan Fund
network.
But as the impacts of the pandemic became clearer and
affected different areas, we certainly saw upticks as various
industry sectors were impacted--so things like the travel and
tourism sector or the manufacturing sector and its subsequent
supply chain. We would see, then, subsequent waves of
investments that were very targeted at those different industry
sectors.
And we have tried to be agile and adaptable in meeting the
needs of those communities as they have changed over the course
of the year of the pandemic.
Mr. Aderholt. And what were the total number of
applications that you received under the CARES Act funding? Can
you tell us that number?
Mr. Alvord. Yes. I believe I can. Let's see.
To date--and, of course, you know, we are still accepting
applications and we are still making grant awards. But, to
date, we have received 2,392 applications, and, as of the 16th
of this month, we have awarded 1,020 of those applications.
Mr. Aderholt. And what percentage received 100 percent
funding?
Mr. Alvord. Actually, I don't know off the top of my head
what percentage received 100 percent. We did have the
discretion under the act to go up to 100 percent, and I would
say that, given the levels of economic distress, we probably
funded a greater number at 100 percent than would traditionally
be the case. But that is certainly something I can take back
and get for you.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thanks.
And occasionally we hear questions about how EDA makes
decisions to award grants and what criteria is considered by
the agency. For most Federal grant programs across other
Federal agencies, a scoring criteria is published. Can you talk
about why EDA does not publish a scoring criteria, in
particular?
Mr. Alvord. Yes. So we--well, this varies a little bit from
program to program and notice of funding opportunity to notice
of funding opportunity. But for our core economic development
programs, the primary reason is that it is challenging to take
a one-size-fits-all approach to the diverse range of different
types of economic development investments that EDA is
supporting.
So we do establish, through our notices of funding
opportunity, the criteria that we will be looking at when we
make investments. And we do publish investment priorities to
incentivize and guide specific types of investment activities.
What we have found over time, that we can be most
successful and that our communities can be most successful when
we can take a flexible approach so that we are not comparing
apples to oranges to trains to rail spurs to industrial parks
to strategy grants. Because of this really eclectic range, it
is hard to come up with a criteria that is one-size-fits-all.
Now, sometimes, when we have more homogenous programs, we
are able to do more of that, kind of, precise criterion. But we
have found that, overall, the flexibility serves our grantees
the best.
Mr. Aderholt. And then, quickly, in administering the CARES
Act funding, EDA used an automatic, noncompetitive process to
provide funding to economic development districts in good
standing, which allowed these districts to quickly ramp up
their capacity, able to hire extra staff to serve as disaster
relief coordinators, and quickly and efficiently inject needed
relief into their community.
Will EDA use the same effective and efficient process to
administer the American Rescue Plan Act as well?
Mr. Alvord. Well, so we are still in the process of
developing our program and implementation plan for the American
Rescue Plan.
I do think that a greater share of the overall assistance
is likely to be provided on a competitive basis across
different competitions under the American Rescue Plan. However,
there will likely be some instances when we might avail
ourselves of the opportunity to expeditiously provide some
assistance, to get it out and get it working within targeted
populations right away.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
All right. I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
And thank you to members of the subcommittee for an
interesting and sometimes animated discussion.
And thank you, especially, to Mr. Alvord for your
responsive and well-informed answers to our questions.
With that, this hearing is hereby adjourned.
Mr. Alvord. Thank you.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg46187_chrg-117hhrg46187.htm
- Size
- 501,267 bytes
- SHA-256
- 9e9802adfeb4c2d70ab1c565de71902a9f139beb208b8dc9049e1a99250bc60a
- Original
- No public link identified.