The White House’s lead regulatory office is staying focused on the Biden administration’s rulemaking agenda in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Chevron decision, while also highlighting how agencies have reduced complicated paperwork and other barriers to accessing government programs.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) released its 2024 “burden reduction” report earlier this month. It highlights dozens of initiatives from federal agencies to streamline public programs and reduce paperwork burdens.

The report’s release comes shortly after the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling overturned the “Chevron” deference that gave agencies more latitude in crafting regulations. The high court’s decision on Chevron and two other cases could redefine the extent to which agencies can interpret laws passed by Congress.

OIRA, meanwhile, serves as the focal point of executive branch rulemaking. Sitting within the Office of Management and Budget, OIRA maintains the semiannual regulatory agenda. It also reviews drafts of proposed and final regulations before agencies can implement them.

“We’re laser focused on making sure that we have the strongest rules possible to move forward with the administration’s priorities,” OIRA Associate Administrator Sam Berger said an interview late last week. “That they are fully grounded in law, existing authority, and that they also are designed to be as effective and efficient as possible. And so from that standpoint, we’re going to keep doing our work.”

Former agency and legal experts say agencies could soon see an uptick in legal challenges in a post-Chevron world. GOP lawmakers are also exploring ways to challenge the administrative state.

“To the extent that there are legal requirements that change, we obviously take that into account,” Berger said. “But what we need to be doing is making sure that we have the strongest regulations, that we’re doing the most that we can to be helping the American people, helping the economy continue to grow up, helping to keep people safe, helping keep our air water clean. And that’s where our focus is on. And that’s what we’re going to keep doing.”

Cutting the ‘time tax’

OIRA’s 2024 burden reduction report highlights 49 initiatives across 18 agencies aimed at reducing what it calls the “time tax” on the public. OIRA says those burdens include “needlessly complicated forms, requests for redundant detailed information, or confusing application processes.”

The report details, for instance, how the Department of Health and Human Services collaborated with the U.S. Digital Service and state agencies to streamline renewals for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

It also points to how the IRS recently redesigned and simplified 31 taxpayer forms ahead of the 2024 filing season. By next year, the IRS plans to have redesigned 200 forms representing 90% of notices sent to taxpayers.

Berger said OIRA uses its responsibilities under the Paperwork Reduction Act to make sure government form is “as minimally burdensome as possible.” And the office can further engage with agencies on their programs through the rulemaking process.

“Sometimes there might be changes that could significantly reduce administrative burden while still accomplishing the goal of agencies,” Berger said.

OIRA is also pushing agencies to better engage the people who need to fill out forms or go through agency-mandated processes to access a program or service.

“Engaging with people, engaging with stakeholders, the folks that are on the ground using it,” Berger said. “The information about where these pain points are lies with them. And ultimately, what you need to understand is, when folks are going through your program, what are the issues that they encountered? What are things that maybe you didn’t expect? What are things that seems simple or clear to you, as you wrote it, that aren’t to them?”

‘Demystifying’ OIRA

OIRA’s report highlights the importance of agencies partnering with states that administer many public programs. Similarly, OIRA is also prioritizing efforts to align eligibility criteria across multiple programs. The report highlights as an example the Social Security Administration’s efforts to simplify its reporting requirements for supplemental security income recipients.

“From the state standpoint, if they’re administering a whole set of programs that they view as hitting the same target population, but it’s four different [federal] agencies that they’re dealing with, they have to get four different agencies in the room,” Berger said.

He highlighted his office’s “convening power” in bringing different federal and state agencies together, in addition to ORIA’s ability to review the “nitty gritty” details of proposed rules.

Meanwhile, Berger said leaders also want to “demystify” OIRA, known as a wonky, cloistered office where major agency initiatives are put to the test through the rulemaking process. He said OIRA recently held training sessions on its regulatory review process. It plans to hold another set of sessions on how to provide effective public comments.

“We really want to make sure that folks have a better understanding of what OIRA is, and what it is that we do,” Berger said. “And how they can get involved in every stage of the regulatory process, including with OIRA, but perhaps even more importantly, early engagement with agencies when they’re making critical decisions on priorities around how they’re going to shape the regulations.

The post Post-Chevron, White House’s OIRA ‘laser focused’ on strong rulemaking first appeared on Federal News Network.

Cheatle was berated for hours by Republicans and Democrats, repeatedly angering lawmakers by evading questions about the investigation during the first hearing over the July 13 assassination attempt. Cheatle called the attempt on Trump’s life the Secret Service’s “most significant operational failure” in decades, and vowed to “move heaven and earth” to get to the bottom of what went wrong and make sure there’s no repeat of it.

“The Secret Service’s solemn mission is to protect our nation’s leaders. On July 13th, we failed,” she told lawmakers on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.

Cheatle acknowledged that the Secret Service was told about a suspicious person two to five times before the shooting at the Butler, Pennsylvania, rally. She also revealed that the roof from which Thomas Matthew Crooks opened fire had been identified as a potential vulnerability days before the rally. Cheatle said she apologized to Trump in a phone call after the assassination attempt.

Yet Cheatle remained defiant that she was the “right person” to lead the Secret Service, even as she said she takes full responsibility the security lapses. When Republican Rep. Nancy Mace suggested Cheatle begin drafting her resignation letter from the hearing room, Cheatle responded, “No, thank you.”

In a rare moment of unity for the often divided committee, the Republican chairman, Rep. James Comer, and its top Democrat, Rep. Jamie Raskin, issued a letter calling on Cheatle to step down.

The White House didn’t immediately comment on whether President Joe Biden still has confidence in Cheatle after her testimony.

Democrats and Republicans were united in their exasperation as Cheatle said she didn’t know or couldn’t answer numerous questions more than a week after the shooting that left one spectator dead. At one point, Mace used profanity as she accused Cheatle of lying and dodging questions, prompting calls for lawmakers to show “decorum.”

Lawmakers pressed Cheatle on how the gunman could get so close to the Republican presidential nominee when he was supposed to be carefully guarded, and why Trump was allowed to take the stage after local law enforcement had identified Crooks as suspicious.

“It has been 10 days since an assassination attempt on a former president of the United States. Regardless of party, there need to be answers,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York.

Cheatle acknowledged that Crooks had been seen by local law enforcement before the shooting with a rangefinder, a small device resembling binoculars that hunters use to measure distance from a target. She said the Secret Service would never have taken Trump onto the stage if it had known there was an “actual threat.” Local law enforcement took a photo of Crooks and shared it after seeing him acting suspiciously, but he wasn’t deemed to be a “threat” until seconds before he opened fire, she said.

“An individual with a backpack is not a threat,” Cheatle said. “An individual with a rangefinder is not a threat.”

Cheatle said local enforcement officers were inside the building from which Crooks fired. But when asked why there were no agents on the roof or if the Secret Service used drones to monitor the area, Cheatle said she is still waiting for the investigation to play out, prompting groans and outbursts from members on the committee.

“Director Cheatle, because Donald Trump is alive, and thank God he is, you look incompetent,” said Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio. “If he were killed, you would look culpable.”

Rep. Ro Khanna, one of the Democrats who joined the calls for Cheatle to resign, noted that the Secret Service director who presided over the agency when there was an attempted assassination of former Republican President Ronald Reagan later stepped down.

“The one thing we have to have in this country are agencies that transcend politics and have the confidence of independents, Democrats, Republicans, progressives and conservatives,” Khanna said, adding that the Secret Service was no longer one of those agencies.

Trump was wounded in the ear, a former Pennsylvania fire chief was killed and two other attendees were injured when Crooks opened fire with an AR-style rifle shortly after Trump began speaking.

Cheatle said the agency hopes to have its internal investigation completed in 60 days. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has separately appointed a bipartisan, independent panel to review the assassination attempt, while the department’s inspector general has opened three investigations.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan delegation of about a dozen members of the House Committee on Homeland Security toured the shooting site Monday. The lawmakers said they were the first group outside law enforcement to climb onto the roof where the shooter positioned himself.

Authorities have been hunting for clues into what motivated Crooks but have not found any ideological bent that could help explain his actions. Investigators who searched his phone found photos of Trump, Biden and other senior government officials and found that he had looked up the dates for the Democratic National Conventional as well as Trump’s appearances. He also searched for information about major depressive order.

The attack on Trump was the most serious attempt to assassinate a president or presidential candidate since Reagan was shot in 1981. It was the latest in a series of security lapses by the agency that has drawn investigations and public scrutiny over the years.

Cheatle took over two years ago as head of the Secret Service’s 7,800 special agents, uniformed officers and other staffers whose main purpose is protecting presidents, vice presidents, their families, former presidents and others. In announcing her appointment, Biden said Cheatle had served on his vice presidential detail and called her a “distinguished law enforcement professional with exceptional leadership skills” who had his “complete trust.”

Cheatle took the reins from James M. Murray as multiple congressional committees and an internal watchdog investigated missing text messages from when Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The Secret Service says they were purged during a technology transition.

___

Lauer reported from Philadelphia. Associated Press reporters Michael Kunzelman and Zeke Miller in Washington contributed.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Secret Service at https://apnews.com/hub/us-secret-service.

The post Secret Service director, grilled by lawmakers on the Trump assassination attempt, says ‘we failed’ first appeared on Federal News Network.

This isn’t the first time the federal government has focused its attention on this ongoing challenge.

Following the cyberattack on the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, the federal government has renewed its focus on ensuring the security of the water and wastewater (WWS) sector of the country’s critical infrastructure, and recently issued a warning to water system operators regarding an uptick in attacks against those systems by pro-Russia hacktivists. The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency released new guidance on the actions that WWS entities should take to improve the resilience of their networks to cyberattacks as well as an incident response guide for the sector. Further proving the government’s renewed focus, in February 2024, the White House also issued an executive order to bolster the maritime sector further and upgrade security requirements for the nation’s ports.

Recent studies show that the vulnerabilities that permitted the Aliquippa attack are far from unique. In fact, Censys identified vulnerable and exposed Unitronics programmable logic controllers (the type of devices targeted in the Aliquippa attack) associated with water, wastewater and energy systems in the U.S. and found a total of 149 internet-exposed devices and services.

Unfortunately, there is a plethora of these vulnerable systems nationally, with the entire infrastructure lacking security controls. More often than not, the operators of these systems are focused on operational technology (OT) and lack the necessary cybersecurity skills to address the challenges that today’s bad actors present. Although the federal government offers limited oversight and grants to help, water authority organizations reside in municipal governments where funding for cybersecurity resources can be a major issue.

CISA’s recent guidance presents a significant step in the right direction, with common-sense recommendations that can help water authorities protect themselves. And while many of the recommendations might sound relatively simple, they address extremely complex problems that will be difficult to surmount.

For example, take the first recommendation in the CISA guidance: Reduce exposure to the public-facing internet.

CISA rightfully notes that the controllers and remote terminal units deployed in waterworks make easy targets when connected to the internet. It may sound like an easy fix to remove such devices from internet access, but the vulnerability may be due to compromised external systems that are connected to the water authority. For example, these systems may be associated with water towers or even gas stations and car washes that interact with the water authority via the internet. Consequently, all these connections must be managed and monitored – an extremely complex and arduous task.

Adding to the difficulty of this endeavor, municipal water authorities often lack the resources and staff to enact the recommendations in the EPA’s alert. Many are underfunded and have not traditionally prioritized cybersecurity as a critical aspect of their mission.

Consequently, we need a “whole of government” approach in which a federal agency like CISA can play an essential role. CISA and the Environmental Protection Agency – the agency designated by the White House to ensure that the water sector is prepared for any hazard, including cyber risks – are well positioned to lead a systematic process to support critical infrastructure organizations and operators that don’t have the funding, technical skill sets or acumen and guide them down the path as a partner to help solve these problems. Such an approach should begin with a few basic steps on the part of the federal government and water authorities:

• Conduct an internal asset inventory. CISA and EPA can help leaders at municipal water authorities determine what systems, devices and data exist in their environment, both internally and externally. However, this should extend beyond a simple inventory. It must also include an understanding of the criticality of each of those systems relative to the organization’s ability to achieve its mission. The EPA’s Water Sector Cybersecurity Technical Assistance Provider Program trains state and regional water sector technical assistance providers who can assist with this assessment. The EPA also offers a Cybersecurity Incident Action Checklist specifically geared to helping water utilities prepare for, respond to and recover from cyberattacks.
• Identify and monitor assets external to the organization’s domains. This includes looking at supply chains to understand potential vulnerabilities related to business partners, a step almost as important as understanding the inventory of the organization’s own assets. Most organizations have a good understanding of their internal assets but often don’t have a good handle on risks associated with external assets that the organization reacts with – which is how adversaries usually get into the environment. An unclear understanding of those external assets – especially internet-connected IT and OT systems – makes it extremely easy for the bad guys.
• Continue to provide funding and grants to municipalities working to address critical infrastructure security issues. Congress and DHS should continue to provide funding that will help these organizations train their IT and OT workforce in cybersecurity, hire people with the skill sets they need and generally help these organizations to modernize their infrastructure. This funding should be contingent on supporting policies that will help facilitate training, modernization and closing the pay and skills gaps within municipalities that are specific to the water and wastewater issue.

On the other side of the equation, water systems operators should not hesitate to request help. CISA and EPA offer assistance to organizations upon request, so operators should take the initiative to proactively contact the EPA or their organization’s regional cybersecurity advisor at CISA.

There have been recent signs of progress. Reps. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) and John Duarte (R-Calif.) are promoting a bill to create a government office to develop cybersecurity rules for water systems, with the EPA acting as an enforcer, as they already are the sector risk management agency. Also, EPA and White House officials in March asked a group of governors to develop plans for dealing with major cybersecurity risks facing their state’s water and wastewater systems, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal.

Finally, we need to view addressing this issue as a marathon, not a sprint, to beat the hackers. Our adversaries are continuously looking to poke holes in our defense, and it is mandatory that we do the same in order to keep them out – now and in the future. We must not lose sight of the stakes involved; our country’s national security may depend on it.

Todd Helfrich is the vice president of federal for Censys.

The post How federal funding, guidance can protect the water supply first appeared on Federal News Network.

It’s been a major policy initiative of the Biden administration to get more Americans and agencies utilizing electric vehicles. Well, how about the agency that probably has the largest number of vehicles in its garage? The Postal Service is in the process of electrifying its fleet. To do that though, there needs to be the infrastructure to support them once they do get out there. To get an update on where things currently stand, Federal News Network Executive producer Eric White spoke to Amanda Stafford, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for the USPS’ IG office, on the Federal Drive with Tom Temin.  

Interview Transcript: 

Eric White  Absolutely. So, let’s just start with the goals here that USPS set for itself. What is it exactly trying to do? I imagine electrifying the whole fleet would be ideal, but that’s going to be a huge undertaking. What’s the timeline that they gave you?

Amanda Stafford  Well, as part of the delivering for America 10-year plan, the Postal Service plans to transform and modernize their network to improve sustainability, with a goal of not only driving revenue growth, but also reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 40%. In some key areas by 2030. So, a part of achieving this goal includes replacing a large portion of its delivery fleet of approximately 225,000 vehicles with the purchase and deployment of over 66,000 electric ones. And this Fleet Modernization plan, bases investment is approaching 9.6 billion. So, I think their goal is go through 2030. But they’re trying to move things along quickly.

Eric White  All right. And so that’s a pretty massive undertaking, what is required as part of the infrastructure needed to support electric vehicles, you got to have places to charge them and got to make sure that have the proper repair units in place to actually maintain the fleet. What has the Postal Service been able to accomplish so far?

Amanda Stafford  Well, in terms of achievement, some of our previous work has noted the successes they’ve had related to the acquisition of charging station infrastructure. We also had a report related to the vehicle maintenance facilities and their preparedness for this effort. Our most recent engagement highlighted that the Postal Service expects to complete the charging station related to construction and deployment at 130 sites by the end of 2024. But as of March 26, the Postal Service confirmed that completed six sites. And by mid-June that just passed, construction was underway at 50 locations, A-2 had also related construction schedule. So, they’re moving things along kind of first, all those planning processes doing the acquisition, and then to your point, kind of making sure they have that charging station infrastructure in place. So that’s all that’s needed prior to rolling out those vehicles.

Eric White  As with any major government project, there’s going to be speed bumps along the way pun intended, what sort of delays and challenges has the agency withstood to try and get this thing off the ground?

Amanda Stafford  Well, we acknowledge that the Postal Service’s electrification efforts are unprecedented their progress is truly significant. We did find that the first 29 sites that were slated for deployment of the charging station equipment were delayed by an average of 219 days compared to its original schedule. So, it’s a huge undertaking, but they’ve had, as you said, a few bumps in the road to get started.

Eric White  And what were the reasons behind those delays? Was it just a personnel issue or were costs problems coming into play because this is probably a lot of moving parts, including a lot of moving dollars.

Amanda Stafford  Right. And the charging station construction delays, the Postal Service noted several challenges such as weather site specific conditions like sinkholes, utility specific regulations, and coordination. And while we recognize that a lot of those conditions truly were outside of its control, we found that the Postal Service did not establish realistic completion dates that should have factored in many of these foreseeable issues while planning schedule. So, for example, the construction in the Terre Haute SMDC, which is one of the facilities it’s located in Indiana, was originally supposed to be completed on December 28. Well construction was delayed due to foreseeable weather conditions, that area has predicted temperatures of 28 degrees or lower by the end of October, which makes construction difficult and paving the parking lots where the charging stations are basically impossible. So really in addition, the Postal Service did not really follow schedule management best practices entirely. They really to establish an informed baseline that reflected these conditions and constraints. And really, their schedule was driven by you know, an extremely aggressive business objectives. And then lastly, they didn’t use an overarching project management system that tracked real time updates and the cause of delays. They acknowledged though, that they need to replace that you know, spreadsheet that they were using in the process of not only acquiring but deploying a project management system.

Eric White  We’re speaking with Amanda Stafford, she’s Deputy Assistant Inspector General with the US Postal Service IG o Office. And so, what can be done to help them better prepare and execute these vehicle deployment plans, I know you laid out some of the problems that they had as far as planning goes. But you know, when they do incur these delays, what can be done to help speed things up a little bit.

Amanda Stafford  To set up the vehicle deployment plans for success, it really is essential to get all that related charging infrastructure in place. So, we had a few recommendations coming out of that specific audit, one to really support the Postal Service preparedness, we recommend that they use best practices to inform a baseline schedule for the future sites. So yes, we’re learning as we go. But as we go forward, can we take those best practices forward. Two, replace their spreadsheet with a project management system, which has dynamic updates and centralizes, all that information and as analytics, and as I mentioned, they’re in the process of addressing that already. And then lastly, to adopt these best practices, we recommended that the Postal Service could explore obtaining outside consultative support, that money could be well spent and fake to help them quickly. Evaluate lessons learned and, and pivot. So as early delays could really jeopardize the ability to use the vehicles which you know, and really achieve these aggressive, aggressive business objectives. So that was our last recommendation in that space.

Eric White  Yeah, and I guess the one ray of hope here, I mean, it’s not too dreary. But a hopeful observation would be that these are all very fixable problems. I mean, we’ve interviewed you all before. And there have been, you know, insurmountable issues of, you know, like you said, cost overruns, and things like that. But it seems as if it’s just more organization is needed.

Amanda Stafford  Yeah, I don’t think these are insurmountable. Just as you said, the Postal Service is resilient. And I think they can pivot, you know, they were very open and receptive to our recommendations and discussion. And they, you know, during the course of the audit, recognize that they had opportunity. So, I agree with you, I think that this is, it’s a bump in the road, and the deployment is ongoing. And so now they can, they’re in the place to quickly pivot.

Eric White  And the Postal Service also has a sort of different approach to this with these incentive programs to actually get this thing moving. How effective has that been? And are people actually utilizing it?  Great question. So, for the utility incentive program participation, and in our audit, we identified 13 programs that were currently available, and seven programs that have since expired, and these programs can really allow the Postal Service to save money along the way by partnering with different entities. So, we found that they could potentially have achieved cost savings, around 8 million approximately, for the first 29 sites. Management have previously done some analysis and reviews around the incentive space, but at the time, has decided not to pursue the incentive programs, but rather focus on the implementation of the certain delivery centers. So really, the network modernization to prepare to drive revenue strategies, which is obviously a huge facet of their 10-year plan. You know, we cited some opportunities, I think the Postal Service is going to revisit this space. And I think, you know, we do see that there could be a chance to drive cost savings, which is always an important thing to do. And especially important for the Postal Service itself. Do you foresee that they are happy with this structure that they have set up and are actually seeing positive results from it, they just need a little bit better job executing it would be the way to simple way of simplifying it.

Amanda Stafford  I would say that the Postal Service at this juncture and you know, that during the beginning of the audit, and through the course, did not was playing not to pursue this Avenue at that time. There are limitations, which we cited in our report that, you know, there could be required to subcontractors by the program owner, there could be easements and other terms and conditions. But we really asserted that, you know, the continued evaluation could bear fruit, as the postal service may be able to negotiate eligibility terms with program administrators and take advantage of these opportunities. For example, the Postal Service Management say they were not eligible to participate in some of the programs, one that comes to mind, we directly communicated with that representative from the program. And they said, well, actually federal fleet such as the Postal Service, are eligible to register and participate. So, I think it requires a lot of digging additional work. So, we had some recommendations in that space that that they’re pursuing and looking at now based on what we’ve described. So, I think that this could be a facet of their plan, but they’re also balancing that with the need to go very quickly. And there are other priorities related to the 10-year plan. So, we understand kind of the balance that they’re trying to continue to have.

The post The road to electrifying America’s personal vehicles starts with the USPS EV fleet first appeared on Federal News Network.

ADA requirements and in-office work

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, including mental health conditions. Keith Sonderling, commissioner at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, told me about the importance of understanding these legal protections.

“Employers must engage in an interactive process with employees who request accommodations for mental health conditions,” said Sonderling. “If an employee is diagnosed with a mental health issue, the employer is obligated to consider accommodations, which could include remote work.”

During the pandemic, many government employees experienced the benefits of working from home, including increased productivity and better work-life balance. As Sonderling points out, there is no inherent legal right to remote work. However, the EEOC has issued recent guidance about how the right to work remotely becomes protected under the ADA when it is a reasonable accommodation for a disability.

Brandalyn Bickner, spokesperson for the EEOC, underscored in the fall of 2023 that under the ADA, the mandate for “reasonable accommodation” encompasses “modifying workplace policies.” This could entail employers waiving certain eligibility criteria or adjusting telework programs to facilitate remote work for employees with disabilities.

And the EEOC is showing its teeth. In a landmark legal settlement, ISS Facility Services, Inc. agreed to a $47,500 payment to resolve an EEOC complaint alleging ADA violations. The case centered on the company’s refusal to permit a disabled employee to continue part-time remote work. In another example, the EEOC filed a complaint against a Georgia company for terminating a marketing manager who had sought to work remotely three days a week to manage her anxiety.

Awareness of ADA can shift RTO dynamics dramatically

Despite the clear legal framework, few government employees are aware of their rights under the ADA. This lack of awareness means that many may not realize they can request remote work as an accommodation for mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression or PTSD. If more employees were informed, the current RTO dynamics could shift dramatically.

To successfully claim a WFH accommodation, government employees need a formal diagnosis from a licensed mental health professional. This diagnosis must indicate that remote work is necessary for managing their condition.

“The ADA protects employees with mental health conditions, but it requires a legitimate diagnosis and a documented need for the accommodation,” Sonderling said.

Once an employee provides documentation, employers must engage in an interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation, which might include full or part-time remote work.

Sonderling emphasized the importance of training for managers and HR professionals to handle these requests properly.

“It’s crucial for employers to understand that they can’t dismiss mental health accommodation requests out of hand,” he said. “Failure to engage in the interactive process can lead to significant legal repercussions.”

The implications of widespread awareness about these rights are significant. If government employees begin to leverage mental health claims to secure remote work, it could lead to a substantial increase in accommodation requests. This scenario poses a challenge for government agencies who may need to adjust their RTO policies and processes.

For example, imagine a government agency where employees have been working remotely since 2020. If several employees request remote work accommodations for mental health reasons, the agency must assess each request individually. This could create disparities and tensions among employees, particularly if some are granted remote work while others are not.

“The ADA requires individualized assessments, and what works for one employee might not work for another,” Sonderling said. “Employers need to navigate these requests carefully to avoid discrimination and ensure compliance with the law.”

For agencies, the key to managing this complex issue lies in a balanced approach. While in-person collaboration offers undeniable benefits, such as enhanced communication and team cohesion, accommodating employees’ mental health needs is key to avoiding legal liability.

Agencies should develop clear, consistent policies for handling accommodation requests. This includes providing training for managers to recognize legitimate mental health issues and understand the legal requirements. Additionally, agencies can explore creative solutions to balance remote work with in-office expectations. This might include hybrid work schedules, flexible hours or designated quiet spaces in the office for employees with anxiety.

As the workplace continues to evolve, the interplay between mental health accommodations and remote work will remain a critical issue. Agencies have a legal obligation to inform their staff of their rights under the ADA, and agencies must be prepared to accommodate legitimate mental health needs while maintaining operational efficiency.

For leaders, the challenge is to create an inclusive work environment that supports mental health without sacrificing the benefits of in-person collaboration. By navigating this complex landscape thoughtfully and legally, agencies can foster a workplace that respects employees’ mental health needs and drives business success.

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky is the CEO of the future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and author of the best-seller called Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.

The post If they only knew: How ADA awareness can block RTO for government staff first appeared on Federal News Network.

If the U.S. military winds up in a war that does damage to its equipment, in many cases, the repairs would have to be done stateside. Not only would that require long round trips, but many of the shipyards and depots that would be tasked with that work are overtaxed even in peacetime. That’s one reason DoD wants to move more of its maintenance operations overseas as part of what officials are calling the Regional Sustainment Framework.

It’s still very early days for the RSF, first published in May, and Defense officials have not yet estimated the full costs of what they say will be a “paradigm shift” in the way the military handles overseas logistics. But the key, according to Christopher Lowman, the assistant secretary of Defense for sustainment, is that the U.S. won’t do it alone.

Rather, he said, DoD wants to build an international maintenance “ecosystem” made up of trusted allies and U.S. and foreign vendors.

“This is just another mechanism for us to satisfy demand driven by normal use and wear and tear on the equipment, or, as we scale from competition through crisis and conflict, where we have battle damaged equipment,” he told reporters this week. “The intent here is to create those maintenance, repair, and overhaul capabilities and utilize them in competition, so that they’re also available to us to repair battle damaged equipment in conflict.”

Pilots to begin this year in Pacific

Although DoD has published very few details so far on how the new framework will operate, a provision in this year’s defense authorization bill will let the department get started with some initial experimentation. That law ordered the department to test and demonstrate “product support” capabilities in contested logistics environments, partnering with one or several other of the so-called “five eye” countries: Canada, the U.K, Australia and New Zealand.

Lowman said the initial work will start this year in Indo-Pacific Command, with follow-on experiments planned in Europe next year.

“INDOPACOM is the priority theater where our pacing threat resides, but it’s also the greatest contested logistics challenge, because of the long over-ocean lines of communication. So it really provides the most rationale to get sustainment capability into the theater in a distributed fashion and to regenerate readiness,” he said. “And there are capabilities that are emerging in [U.S. European Command] because of support to Ukraine and the amount of Western produced material that’s flowing in … We’re letting the combatant commander in EUCOM, the service component commanders and the NATO partnership shape those regional capabilities, their focus and their investment.”

Sustainment options for commanders

Conducting maintenance at forward locations certainly isn’t an entirely new idea. For example, the Navy has historically done scheduled maintenance on its overseas stationed ships in Japan, Spain and Bahrain. But a recent Government Accountability Office study found that out of 71 ships scheduled for those overseas maintenance periods, 50 took longer than planned.

However, Lowman said the idea behind RSF is to have many more options for commanders, including ones from allied nations.

“In the past, sustainment has historically been viewed as a national responsibility. National governments would sustain our forces in whatever theater we were operating in. This is really a recognition that sustainment can be performed through a coalition and a network of regional providers,” he said. “Each of those regional allies has industrial capability, maintenance, repair and overhaul capability, and a desire to support the work. This capitalizes on those capabilities in theater so that we’re not building U.S.-owned and operated capabilities — we’re taking advantage of what exists, making the appropriate changes to accommodate specific U.S. needs, and then utilizing that through a joint venture arrangement.”

One complication the department might face as it tries to change its maintenance paradigm is a longstanding federal law called the 50/50 rule. That provision requires each military service to conduct half of their depot-level maintenance at U.S. government-owned facilities, generally staffed by government employees – the so-called “organic industrial base.” Defense officials say they’ll have to keep close tabs on their maintenance workload distribution to make sure they continue to comply with that rule even as more work moves overseas.

A role for advanced manufacturing

And doing more work overseas is one thing. Getting spare parts to those new maintenance locations is another – especially in situations where they’re needed on very short notice.

So in parallel, Lowman said the department has efforts underway to make parts when and where they’re needed through advanced manufacturing techniques.

“It’s really an effort to take advantage of existing commercial technology, whether that’s additive manufacturing or subtractive manufacturing,” he said. “We’ve been after this, in coordination with the military services, for the last three years. But in [the Office of the Secretary of Defense], our intent is to enable the use of advanced manufacturing capability so that we don’t have to transport parts from the continental United States into the theater to repair equipment. What we’re doing is enabling that digital framework and network in order to transmit intellectual property to the point of manufacture, secure that intellectual property at the point of manufacture, and finally to ensure that the parts produced meet our standards so that they’re safe and suitable to operate.”

The post In ‘paradigm shift,’ DoD looks to move more equipment maintenance overseas first appeared on Federal News Network.

Paula Schneider, president & CEO of Susan G. Komen joins Aileen Black on Leaders and Legends to talk about leadership and leading an amazing cause.

Schneider is responsible for day-to-day operations, strategic direction, and is accountable for the world’s largest breast cancer organization. She has led Susan G Komen to be one of the highest regarded charities. According to Charity Navigator, Susan G Komen’s score is 95%, earning it a Four-Star rating.

More than 80 cents of every dollar spent by Susan G. Komen has gone directly towards research, community-based health programs, education and advocacy programs to support its mission of saving lives and ending breast cancer.

The post A conversation with Susan G. Komen CEO Paula Schneider first appeared on Federal News Network.

In a 6-3 ruling last month in the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court eliminated Chevron deference — a legal precedent since 1984 that required judges to defer to an agency’s interpretation of relevant laws when its regulations are challenged in court.

Legal experts are still puzzling out what will change for regulatory agencies following the court’s decision.  But Republican lawmakers aren’t wasting any time planning out subsequent steps to roll back the administrative state.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) is leading colleagues in letters to 101 agencies that have published more than 50 rules since 2000. The lawmakers are “demanding answers on how current regulatory processes will be handled following the Loper Bright decision.”

Republican senators are also backing the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, a House-passed bill that would codify an end to Chevron deference.

The senators have also launched a working group meant to explore other ways to challenge the administrative state.

Schmitt said these efforts are meant to “retake legislative authority away from administrative agencies and place it back where it belongs: the Article I branch.”

Meanwhile, the top Republicans on two House committees are looking for agency regulations that might be challenged following the court’s ruling.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-Mo.) joined House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) in asking the Environmental Protection Agency, and the departments of Transportation and Homeland Security about regulations or regulatory decisions made under the Biden administration.

The chairmen say some of these agency rules are based on interpretations of the law that could be challenged following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“The Biden Administration has promulgated far more major rules, imposing far more costs and paperwork burdens, than either of its recent predecessor administrations,” Comer and Graves wrote.

Despite lawmakers’ renewed interest in the topic, policy experts and former lawmakers say Congress currently lacks the necessary bandwidth to take back some of the regulatory authority they ceded to the executive branch over the years.

Former Sen. Toomey (R-Pa.) said lawmakers, following the Supreme Court’s ruling, may renew efforts to pass the REINS Act.

The bill, which passed the House in May 2023, would require Congress to vote on major agency regulations before they go into effect.

“At a minimum, you ought to have this rulemaking require the affirmative action of Congress. And then the American people can hold Congress accountable if it doesn’t like the rule. It can take that out on its member of Congress, as well it should. But what do you do when the EPA overreaches the Clean Water Act, or when the SEC decides it’s going to prevent a whole new technology like blockchain from even being able to take hold. And the list goes on and on,” Toomey said Tuesday.

Toomey, speaking at a “Life After Chevron” event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, said some agencies — including the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Securities and Exchange Commission — are taking on regulatory and enforcement activities that stray from what they’re authorized to do under the law.

“We have agencies whose leaders have decided they’ve got an agenda that they’re pursuing. They’re not there to impartially implement the laws that pertain to their jurisdiction. Rather, they’re there to implement a particular agenda. They hire very capable, very creative attorneys to go out and justify somehow what it is that they want to do,” Toomey said. “They discover some power that no one previously had discovered in authorizing legislation, and they say, ‘There you go, that’s what authorizes me.’”

But beyond reintroducing the legislation in the next session of Congress, following this year’s elections, Toomey said Congress likely doesn’t have the capacity to take on a greater role in the rulemaking process.

“Congress has other bigger problems,” he said. “I wouldn’t expect a big change in behavior in Congress. I don’t think the agencies will start to change their behavior. I think they’ll be a little less ambitious in this regard.”

AEI Senior Fellow Philip Wallach said lawmakers went on a “letter-writing blitz” following the Supreme Court ruling, with the goal of challenging agency regulations.

“Basically, the approach is to send out a letter and say, ‘Hey, now that Chevron is gone, you’d better go back and look at what you did and fix it, because we know that you were getting away with murder before, and now you’ve got to go back and clean up your act.’ Well, the spirit of that is wrong,” Wallach said.

“The thing we need most is for Congress to realize that it’s on them to shoulder their constitutional prerogatives,” he added. “There’s such a tendency for legislators, when they want something done, to write a letter to the executive branch and say, ‘I’m a congressman, listen to me. Do this with your executive branch authority. And even this, where we say you’ve been abusing your executive branch authority, the reaction is, ‘You go fix it, executive branch.’ Congress has to take it upon itself to fix it. You can’t just say, ‘Well I think you’re using the Clean Air Act wrong, let me shake my fist some more about it. Well, go ahead and rewrite the act, and be more specific about what you wanted.”

AEI Senior Fellow Kevin Kosar said the REINS Act could give lawmakers a greater say in the federal rulemaking process.

“It’s a way to force legislators out of this unhealthy dynamic,” Kosar said. “What they frequently do is they let the executive branch make policy decisions and then, if they like them, they cheer. If they don’t like them, they hoot at them until you get somebody new in the White House who decides to switch regulations on certain topics like immigration, for example. And again, there’s cheers from some, hoots from others. Inevitably, there’s a court case. That’s what happens when legislative power seeps away from the legislative branch. You seldom get a healthy resolution of a tough issue.”

However, Kosar said the REINS Act also creates the possibility that lawmakers don’t put pending rules to a vote — stalling them from going into effect.

“If they don’t put it on the calendar, does nothing happen? I think the answer is, yeah, nothing happens. So where does that leave the agency? Well, it’s in a weird limbo, where presumably, it’s going to go back and create a new regulation, which could be substantially similar. Or they could try to break it up into pieces and therefore get it under the limit and work it through,” he said.

Wallach and Kosar co-wrote a 2016 article proposing the creation of a Congressional Regulation Office, which would give the legislative branch the capacity to analyze agency rulemaking the same way the Congressional Budget Office reviews the federal government’s finances.

Absent that kind of legislative branch agency, however, Kosar said Congress doesn’t have the time to analyze the thousands of rules agencies propose every year.

“Regulation is a very tough thing, and if Congress is going to move it into its workflow, well guess what? Congress’ workflow right now is already kind of spilling over,” Kosar said. “If you’re going to lean in on regulation, you’re going to need help, because you can’t just pick this up and spitball it. It takes a lot of education, thinking, and expertise — and there’s just not enough of it on Capitol Hill. And as any congressional staffer will tell you, they don’t need anything more added to their work plate — they are plenty busy.”

Wallach added that the Supreme Court’s ruling — and the chief justice’s opinion — make it clear that agencies’ subject-matter expertise still matters when it comes to agency rulemaking.

“Expertise is not one thing. Agencies do have subject-matter domain expertise. The EPA has tons of experts on toxicity and all other sorts of aspects of environmental and health sciences. Agencies also have policy expertise and practical administrative expertise. But when you’re considering ambiguous statutes, you also need to think about legal expertise,” he said.

Roberts, in the court’s majority opinion, wrote that by overruling Chevron’s deference, “the Court does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework.”

Rachel Augustine Potter, an associate professor of politics at the University of Virginia, said the court’s Chevron ruling and the Trump administration’s promise to bring back Schedule F — making it easier to fire federal employees in policymaking positions — indicates a multi-pronged attack on agency expertise.

However, she doubts Congress is willing to devote more time and resources to play a more active role in agency rulemaking.

“There’s not a lot of confidence that Congress is going to take up the mantle on legislative capacity front and take up the project of more detailed statues. Instead, what we heard about is about different bills that have been introduced that would constrain agency authority,” Potter said.

Potter said agencies might decide to staff up on lawyers, and that policymaking federal employees might leave their agencies.

“We might also see more exits from agencies, as career civil servants look at this landscape and say, ‘Wow I thought I was coming into this institution, which for a long time has looked a certain way and might be really different going forward. My expertise … might not be the same as what I thought it was when I took this job.’ There’s a lot of different implications, and I think we’re going to spend the next couple of months and years figuring out what agencies actually do.”

The post GOP lawmakers see post-Chevron opportunity to ‘retake’ power from regulatory agencies. Experts doubt it’ll work first appeared on Federal News Network.

Predictable calls have emerged for Cheatle to resign. The true course of action isn’t so obvious, though. I mean “true” in the sense of manifest or straight. She took ultimate responsibility in a TV interview, but then the Secret Service sort of bumbled the PR by seeming to blame the local police on hand at the Trump rally. After this came a string of revelations about how the shooter was in plain sight, was found to have a rangefinder, generally aroused suspicion, and yet somehow to hide himself until too late.

If Cheatle should step down — and she probably will have to — I’d say her departure would come under the “that’s the way it is” category. It won’t come because she’s a terrible person or acted nefariously. She didn’t personally commit the planning and protective lapses, so far as we know. Nor was she caught stealing or harassing employees or such. By all accounts I’ve read, Cheatle is an earnest law enforcement person with long personal experience in presidential protection.

The Secret Service itself has had issues. The object of more or less continual critique, it ranks 413 out of 459 component agencies in the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government for 2023. It’s experienced its share of scandals over the years, but not since Cheatle returned as director. The agency has many functions, but its most visible — official protection — is also the most difficult and carries the highest stakes.

This situation is more like a Navy ship commander who runs aground while under the guidance of a harbor pilot. Grounding a warship often, but not axiomatically, means the skipper takes the fall. Officers know and accept that when they move up to O-5 grade.

I checked in with retired Navy Captain Bill Toti, who built a successful post-naval career as a consultant and author. He told me, in a ship accident “the default is that the CO will be sacked.” He added that the Navy conducts investigations to see if a chart was wrong, whether the crew took prudent precautions, or whether something made the situation beyond control.

“Normally these extenuating circumstances don’t exist,” Toti wrote in an email exchange, ” and it’s quickly determined to be crew error. In those cases, the CO will always be relieved for cause, because it was his/her responsibility to ensure the crew [is] properly trained and procedures properly followed.”

That’s the case here with the Secret Service. Only this case amounts to more than the equivalent of running aground. A grazing of Trump and the murder of a bystander equate to a near shipwreck. The incident evokes unpleasant national memories.

Yet we’ve seen, in the corporate world no less than in the federal, instances wherein terrible mistakes did not result in ouster or resignation of a top official. Boeing CEO David Calhoun came in after the previous CEO because of two crashes with many deaths. Then came the door that fell off a jet liner full of passengers. Calhoun didn’t personally leave the bolts off that plane, and company seems to face a new challenge weekly. Calhoun said months ago he’ll retire at the end of the year. At the FDIC, chairman Martin Gruenberg, overseeing a toxic work environment, said he’d leave, but only after the Senate confirms a successor. In other words, sometime after the next president is inaugurated.

I recall, it must be 40 years ago, a reporter at the Washington Post had to return a Pulitzer Prize because, if turned out, she’d fabricated the winning story. Her resume, it came out later, was mostly lies, too. The reporter resigned, but none of the editors who ignored obvious signs, resigned or were fired.

Mistakes large and small occur in every organization because we humans are frail and imperfect. Therefore, magnitude and criticality of a failure also figure into whether the boss stays or leaves. For the Secret Service, failing to prevent a sniper, plainly visible in daylight, from getting a few rounds off and actually striking a high level protectee, well that’s nearly as bad as it can get. Now the Secret Service and the politicians have to decide whether Director Cheatle is part of the solution, or not.

My earliest memory fragment is New Year’s Eve 1960. The earliest event for which I have detailed memory took place November 22nd, 1963. As a third grader, I first heard the news on the walkway leading from Churchill Elementary School in Churchill Borough, Pennsylvania. But it’s a memory of witnessed emotion and low-resolution black-and-white. To this day, the only visual documentation of the President Kennedy assassination is the short piece of 8mm film taken by the late Abraham Zapruder (whose life is another story). Both the Kodachrome film and the Bell & Howell camera ended up stored at the National Archives and Records Administration.

The JFK assassination caused a revolution at the Secret Service, which at the time was behind the times. The attempt at former President Trump’s life looks more like a lack of adherence to known best practices and a breakdown in communications, and less like some emergent, heretofore unknown phenomenon.

Nearly Useless Factoid

By Michele Sandiford

The Secret Service employs approximately 3,200 special agents, 1,300 Uniformed Division officers, and more than 2,000 other technical, professional and administrative support personnel.

Source: The Secret Service

The post Secret Service Director Cheatle likely can’t hang on first appeared on Federal News Network.

And even before the first hearing Republican calls for Director Kimberly Cheatle to resign intensified Wednesday with top Republican leaders from both the House and the Senate saying she should step down. The director has said she has no intention of resigning.

Rep. James Comer said initially that the Secret Service committed to her attendance but that Homeland Security officials appeared to intervene and there has been no “meaningful updates or information” shared with the committee.

Comer said the “lack of transparency and failure to cooperate” with the committee called into question Cheatle’s ability to lead the Secret Service and necessitated the subpoena.

Cheatle has said the agency understands the importance of a review ordered by Democratic President Joe Biden and would fully participate in it as well as with congressional committees looking into the shooting.

In response to the subpoena and an earlier letter from Comer, Zephranie Buetow, an assistant secretary at Homeland Security, said that while the department was “disappointed that the Committee rushed to issue a subpoena,” Cheatle welcomes the chance to testify. The official said that given Cheatle’s focus on securing the ongoing Republican National Convention, the department would appreciate if she could appear on July 25 or July 26, or the following week, instead of Monday.

The Oversight panel rejected that request for a change of date and committee spokesperson Jessica Collins said, “Director Cheatle has agreed to comply with Chairman Comer’s subpoena and the hearing will take place as scheduled.”

“Americans demand and deserve answers from the director about the attempted assassination of President Trump and the Secret Service’s egregious failures,” Collins said.

The subpoena was just one of a series of developments that occurred Wednesday in the wake of the Saturday assassination attempt.

The fact that a shooter was able to get so close to the former president while he’s supposed to be closely guarded has raised questions about what security plans the agency tasked with taking a bullet for its protectees put in place and who is ultimately responsible for allowing the 20-year-old gunman to climb a roof where he had a clear line of sight to a former president.

House Speaker Mike Johnson announced he would be setting up a task force to investigate security failures that occurred during the assassination attempt. He also said he would be calling on Cheatle to resign from her post as director of the Secret Service, saying on Fox News Channel without elaborating, “I think she’s shown what her priorities are.”

He said the task force would be made up of Republicans and Democrats and its formation would speed up the investigative process.

“We must have accountability for this. It was inexcusable,” Johnson said. “Obviously, there were security lapses. You don’t have to be a special ops expert to understand that. And we’re going to get down to the bottom of it quickly.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, added his name to the list of lawmakers calling for Cheatle to step down. He said on the social media platform X that the near assassination was a “grave attack on American democracy.”

“The nation deserves answers and accountability,” McConnell tweeted. New leadership at the Secret Service would be an important step in that direction.”

The House Homeland Security Committee also invited several state and local law enforcement officials from Pennsylvania to testify at a hearing in the coming days with Rep. Mark Green, the committee’s chairman, saying their accounts of events were critical to the investigation.

A key issue in the unfolding aftermath of the shooting is how security responsibilities were divided between Secret Service and local law enforcement at the rally and what breakdowns occurred that eventually allowed the gunman onto the roof.

Cheatle said during an interview Monday with ABC News that the shooting should never have happened, but also said she has no plans to resign.

When asked who bears the most responsibility for the shooting happening, she said: “What I would say is the Secret Service is responsible for the protection of the former president.”

“The buck stops with me. I am the director of the Secret Service,” she said.

Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, on Wednesday said: “Director Kimberly Cheatle is proud to work alongside the dedicated men and women of the U.S. Secret Service and has no intention to resign.”

So far, she has the support of the administration.

“I have 100% confidence in the director of the United States Secret Service. I have 100% confidence in the United States Secret Service,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said Monday.

But in addition to the Congressional inquiries, Cheatle and the Secret Service are also facing an inquiry by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general.

In a brief notice posted to the inspector general’s website Tuesday, the agency said the objective of the probe is to “Evaluate the United States Secret Service’s (Secret Service) process for securing former President Trump’s July 13, 2024 campaign event.”

The agency also said Wednesday it is launching a review of the agency’s Counter Sniper Team’s “preparedness and operations.”

“Our objective is to determine the extent to which the Secret Service Counter Sniper Team is prepared for, and responds to, threats at events attended by designated protectees,” the inspector general’s office said.

Biden on Sunday said he was ordering an independent review of the security at the rally. No one has yet been named to lead that inquiry.

Since the shooting, Cheatle and the Security Service have come under intense scrutiny over how a gunman could get in position to fire at a former president.

The shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was able to get within 135 meters (157 yards) of the stage where the Republican former president was speaking when he opened fire. That’s despite a threat on Trump’s life from Iran leading to additional security for the former president in the days before the Saturday rally.

A bloodied Trump was quickly escorted off the stage by Secret Service agents, and agency snipers killed the shooter. Trump said the upper part of his right ear was pierced in the shooting. One rallygoer was killed, and two others critically wounded.

Cheatle said her agency was working to understand how Saturday’s shooting happened and to make sure something like it never does again.

Cheatle and FBI Director Christopher Wray participated in a telephone briefing Wednesday afternoon with senators. Republicans came away critical.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., tweeted on X that it was a “100% cover-your-ass briefing.” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., called for administration officials to hold a daily press conference to share updates with the public, and Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said “they are so disjointed that they don’t have their own facts together yet.”

The Secret Service has roughly 7,800 staff members and is responsible for protecting presidents, vice presidents, their families, former presidents, their spouses and their minor children under the age of 16 and a few other high-level Cabinet officials such as the Homeland Security secretary.

___

AP writer Stephen Groves contributed to this report.

The post House Oversight panel subpoenas Secret Service director to testify on Trump assassination attempt first appeared on Federal News Network.

DoD’s recent 90-day review of the NBIS system has led to a new 18-month roadmap for the software development project. But Milancy Harris, acting under secretary of defense for intelligence and security, said her office and the under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment are engaged in a “month-long” process of re-baselining the project.

“We’re looking to make sure that we can use what has been built,” Harris said during a July 10 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing. “We are exploring exactly what needs to happen going forward to ensure we meet the full level of capability that is expected from this system. At this time, we are in the process of refining exactly our understanding of that timeline.”

Harris said the new documentation will include an independent cost estimate.

During the hearing, Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) called the NBIS delays a “disaster.” The next-generation background investigation system still potentially faces years of development, even though it was originally planned to be delivered in 2019.

“If we don’t get NBIS right, the whole security clearance reform process crumbles,” Warner said.

NBIS is a lynchpin in the White House-led “Trusted Workforce 2.0” personnel vetting reform initiative. The goal of the overarching initiative is to overhaul and modernize the federal government’s vetting process, including by bringing most agencies under one background investigation system.

But the Government Accountability Office in recent years has reported on significant challenges with NBIS, including funding shortfalls due to shifting priorities at DCSA, as well as an unreliable schedule and cost estimate.

Background investigation system requirements

During last week’s Senate hearing, lawmakers and witnesses also focused on challenges with how the NBIS program office managed requirements for the background investigation system.

“The requirements were outlined in Trusted Workforce 2.0,” Harris said. “I think what we had was a breakdown in how those requirements were being managed into technical requirements for the development and how we were taking account of the delays in that process. And that is something that we are seeking to remedy immediately with more proactive oversight.”

The Pentagon has recently elevated the acquisition decision authority for NBIS from the DCSA director to the under secretary for acquisition and sustainment, while the program sponsor is now the under secretary for intelligence and security.

Meanwhile, new DCSA Director David Cattler has said getting NBIS back on track is one of his top priorities. DCSA also manages about 95% of the federal government’s background investigation cases.

During the Senate hearing, Cattler acknowledged that while the original NBIS requirements were achievable, DCSA did not have a “firm understanding of the complexity, of the technical features, nor how exactly to approach those and accomplish them.”

“We’ve brought in some new people,” Cattler said. “We know where our gaps are in the skill sets that we need to hire on the government side, we’re working with the contractor as well on actions need to be taken there. And we’re also evaluating the requirements baseline.”

The post Troubled background investigation system still under review at Pentagon first appeared on Federal News Network.

House VA Committee Chairman Mike Bost (R-Ill.) says chief financial officers from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) told the committee Monday that they face a $2.88 billion shortfall for the rest of this fiscal year, and a nearly $12 billion shortfall for fiscal 2025.

The VA gets funding for its mandatory health and benefits programs a year before the current fiscal year to avoid any disruption from a government shutdown.

The CFOs, Bost added, attributed the funding discrepancy to increased hiring and pharmaceutical costs.

In a letter to VA Secretary Denis McDonough, Bost said the $15 billion funding gap is the VA’s largest budget shortfall, “and a repudiation of the FY 2025 budget request that the Biden-Harris administration presented just four months ago.”

“Not only have your chief financial officers thrown out the dollar amounts requested for many key accounts, they have abandoned many of the estimates and projections that underpinned their budget. This is not just fiscal mismanagement; it is strategic whiplash,” he wrote.

VA Press Secretary Terrence Hayes confirmed the department’s projected budget deficits in a statement to reporters Thursday morning.

“VA is working closely with Congress and the Office of Management and Budget to resolve these potential shortfalls in a way that prevents any adverse impacts on veterans — and allows us to continue to deliver care and benefits to veterans at record rates,” Hayes said.

The VA, he added, is delivering record levels of health care and benefits to veterans under the 2022 PACT Act, which expanded veterans’ eligibility for VA health care and benefits if they were exposed to toxic substances during their military service.

Since President Joe Biden signed the PACT Act, more than 710,000 veterans have enrolled in VA health care, a more than 34% increase compared to the same period before the legislation.

VBA also expects to break new records this year for the volume of disability benefits claims it’ll pay out to veterans.

“These important results for veterans and survivors exceeded initial expectations,” Hayes said.

The VA, in its FY 2025 budget request, planned to reduce its workforce headcount by 10,000 employees — with most of those jobs coming from VHA.

However, Bost said VHA is now looking at a staffing increase of 22,000 full-time employees over the same period. About 17,000 employees, he added, have already been hired, and VHA is looking to hire another 5,000 employees.

“Hiring quality health care workers is difficult enough without a constantly moving target,” he wrote.

VHA hired more than 61,000 employees last year — its fastest rate of growth in 15 years. The agency grew its total workforce by more than 7% and now has more than 400,000 employees for the first time in its history.

In addition, efforts to boost retention also led to a 20% decrease in turnover between 2022 and 2023.

McDonough told reporters in February that VHA is managing its workforce with a “tighter fiscal picture,” but added that the department is taking a more targeted approach to hiring, after the agency exceeded its hiring targets last year.

“Where we’re not hiring, it’s not because we haven’t been able to hire. It’s because we don’t have a need. Why would we not have a need? Because we just had a great year of hiring,” McDonough said Feb. 26 at a monthly press conference at VA headquarters.

VHA, in some cases, has rescinded tentative and final job offers it made to prospective hires. But the agency ordered a “strategic pause” on rescinding job offers in January, and later issued a memo directing VA health care facilities to only rescind job offers “as an action of last resort.”

VA officials have repeatedly stated the department isn’t under a hiring freeze. However, a lengthy hiring process — even by the federal government’s standards — is frustrating job applicants, especially those who have accepted tentative job offers, but have yet to receive a final job offer.

Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal told VHA employees, in a Feb. 5 email obtained by Federal News Network, that following last year’s record hiring, “we have the nationwide staffing level we need to accomplish this important mission — and we have the funding we need to care for veterans through 2024 and into 2025.”

“As responsible stewards of these funds, we must make thoughtful decisions about resource use at every level of the enterprise,” Elnahal wrote. “This means that we will not be hiring at the same rate we did last year but let me be clear: there is no hiring freeze, we will continue to hire in key areas, and we will do everything in our power to continue supporting our current workforce.”

Bost is asking McDonough if the VA is seeing “significant, unexpected changes in demand for in-house care” since Elnahal’s email to employees. If the agency isn’t seeing a sudden change in demand, he’s asking the department to explain the need for increased staffing.

“Given Under Secretary for Health Elnahal’s announced policy of nationwide hiring restrictions and managing by attrition, I think veterans and employees deserve a much better explanation of where these 22,304 FTE are being hired,” Bost wrote.

Bost said the VA has repeatedly shifted regular expenses out of its base budget and into the Toxic Exposures Fund, which was created under the PACT Act.

“VA’s budget has become increasingly complicated and reliant on gimmicks, apparently to compensate for the expiration of one-time, pandemic-related supplemental funding,” Bost wrote. “This has created a situation where one bad estimate or unanticipated event can create a shortfall in multiple accounts.”

The VA, for example, is seeing an increase in community care costs for veterans to receive health care outside the VA medical system.  But Bost said the department isn’t covering those increased costs in its base budget — “seemingly straining, if not breaking, the limits of what the Toxic Exposures Fund can pay for.”

Bost said VA’s compensation and pension costs are running below its budget projects, so far this fiscal year. But VBA typically sees those costs surge at the end of the fiscal year — especially with an increase in claims submitted under the PACT Act.

VBA processed 1.98 million disability benefits claims and issued $163 billion in total benefits in FY 2023. Under Secretary for Benefits Joshua Jacobs recently told reporters that VBA is on pace to process 30% more claims in fiscal 2024 compared to last year.

The agency, so far this year, has awarded $112 billion to veterans and their survivors in compensation and benefits. VBA also recently granted its millionth benefits claim under the PACT Act.

VA told the committee it anticipates a more than $3.8 billion increase in pharmaceutical and prosthetics spending across FY 2024 and 2025.

Bost said VHA’s chief financial officer also suggested that the Change Healthcare ransomware attack may be to blame for some of VA’s budget shortfalls. The ransomware affected many public and private health care systems across the country.

The VA is shifting $700 million in medical collections from this fiscal year to FY 2025 because of the ransomware attack.

The post VA warns of historic $15B budget shortfall. House committee says more hiring ‘above all’ is driving up costs first appeared on Federal News Network.

In a recent interview with an executive of the industry group, the Professional Services Council, I discussed the State Department’s plan to establish three federally-funded research and development centers, FFRDCs. Industry was puzzled by this move because of the nature of State Department’s requirement, facilitate public private collaboration for numerous activities related to diplomacy and modernization. Joining the Federal Drive with Tom Temin with the State Department’s view, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Senior Procurement Executive, Michael Derrios.

Interview transcript: 

Tom Temin  Mr. Derrios, good to have you in studio.

Michael Derrios  Hi, Tom, thanks for having me.

Tom Temin  Let’s begin at the beginning. FFRDCs, you have a RFQ out now for three of them. Tell us the purpose here.

Michael Derrios  Sure. And actually, I’ll clarify, it’s actually not an RFQ, we’re not quite there to that part of the process. So, this is the federal register process where we have a 90-day clock. We’re taking in public comments during the period. And then at the end of that process, we’ll be putting out an RFP. I want to stress that point because I think that that’s probably something that industry and trade associations should think about. So, what you see right now in those very broad-scoped buckets, if you will, in that notice, is really just again, broad language that describes what the centers would would do in an R&D environment for the mission set. The specific requirements are going to be contained in that RFP at the end of the public comment period.

Tom Temin  But at first glance, you think of FFRDCs for scientific-related agencies, looking for partners, typically non-profits, the miters, and so forth of the world to do research in scientific technical areas. State Department is loosey-goosey, diplomacy in getting along with people, advising military. So, give us the vision here.

Michael Derrios  I’m so glad that you actually mentioned that, Tom. I think that a lot of people don’t actually know about the the real robustness of the mission set. When you when you think about R&D, and what, well, actually, you know what, let me start here. We use FFRDCs today. This is not a new thing for us. We’re already leveraging FFRDCs through other agencies, so, Treasury, DHS, etc. What’s new for us is wanting to sponsor agreements with FFRDCs for the first time directly. So, the usage of FFRDCs is definitely not new for the department. And that’s because we absolutely have requirements that fit that space. If you think about diplomatic security, or INL, International Narcotics and Law Enforcement. We also have a bureau focused on paramilitary affairs. We actually have an office of science and technology. So, you know, the mission set is actually much broader than I think a lot of people realize. A lot of folks kind of associate the bigger bureaus like Consular Affairs, which would also have, I think, some requirements that would fit in this space, or Diplomatic Security, formerly known as IRM. There are a variety of areas across the mission set that I think would would benefit from direct usage of FFRDCs. And just to kind of peel back the layer of the onion a little bit more, we’re trying to solve for three problems. Essentially, it’s scope, it’s ceiling, and it’s expedited access. When we leverage FFRDCs through other agencies, we have to use the interagency process for that. So, there’s a lot of documentation that goes into that.

Tom Temin  A lot of bureaucracy.

Michael Derrios  Absolutely, absolutely. Oftentimes, we are challenged with trying to fit our scope into the nature of their vehicles, make sure that it’s a clean fit. In some cases, that could mean that we are cutting our requirements to try to fit into their box, if you will. And then the other piece of it is ceiling. Rightfully so, any agency is going to scrutinize the ceiling on their vehicle, because the dollar. They want to make sure that they can support their internal customer base and you know, and others if they do support other agencies, but they’re going to protect the scope and the ceiling mostly on their vehicles, very tightly, as they should. We have seen where we’ve been kicked off of vehicles because of ceiling issues, right? And then you’ve touched on it, the bureaucracy. So, getting access, just getting on the vehicle can sometimes be a very elongated process. You’re talking about interagency documents that have to be signed on both sides. Again, there’s that negotiation about the scope and the ceiling. And sometimes it could be months before we’re actually able to tap into one of the vehicles. So, by issuing direct sponsoring agreements, we’re trying to solve for those three issues. And most importantly, I would say, structure agreements with FFRDCs that are very unique and tailored to what we need.

Tom Temin  We’re speaking with Michael Derrios. He’s deputy assistant secretary of state for acquisition and the senior procurement executive. And, for the FFRDC types of requirements that could be filled that way, where do your demand signals come from? Is it from those areas you mentioned, diplomatic security, paramilitary office?

Michael Derrios  Yeah, great question. Frankly, I think a variety of the bureaus in the department would be users. I’ve been contacted twice in the last month from offices that are asking, hey, Mike, is ready to go yet? We’re actually nowhere near being ready to go yet. That’s an indication of how much interest there is. And we obviously did the, we looked at how much usage we have today. Through the interagency process, we’ve done some pulsing. So, we know that there’s definitely a demand signal. I think there’s a variety of organizations that could use it. So, the benefit of an FFRDC arrangement is that it gives us the ability to enter into a kind of trusted relationship with a nonprofit organization. And the FAR actually encourages us to have a long term relationship. And also, it’s the ability to share information and data that we can’t always share with for-profit companies for a variety of reasons.

Tom Temin  Because that was one of my questions. Are some of these things, could they ordinarily be done by some of the big, broad based contractors, the Lighthouses or the SAICs of the world?

Michael Derrios  Sure, yeah. So, we’re going to be governing the process very tightly. We’re going to establish an apparatus to make sure that as requirements come in, we’re vetting those and that we know that they’re a good fit, number one, for R&D work. And, then, the customer, you know, is actually wanting to use the right center within the construct. And, then, three, is this a fit for industry? There’s actually two key words, when you look at FAR part 35 and the policy that describes FFRDCs. Actually, two key words. It talks about, you know, whether or not industry can as effectively do the work. I think those two words actually offer us a lot of broad latitude to make that determination. I’m not a requirements owner, but I’m going to illustrate, you know, potential requirements for you right to try to explain that. So, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possible for diplomatic security to come to us and say, hey, we’re interested in R&Ding some security solutions, right? And maybe we would want to feed in FFRDC threat information that we couldn’t necessarily share with a for-profit company, right? To help us develop and prototype something unique for diplomatic security. You can say the same thing for potentially cyber missions across the department. Variety of different organizations, kind of, you know, collectively own that. Intel and INR, you know, intelligence. There could be a need.

Tom Temin  Yeah, I was wondering about the paramilitary, thinking about something that’s kind of been wiped off of the front pages, so to speak. And that’s what’s going on in Haiti. Unfortunately, the nation has focused on the President’s mental acuity or whatever that might be, instead of issues like Haiti, which I think is still festering.

Michael Derrios  Yes. And we’re actually, the State Department is very actively involved in the situation with Haiti. Can’t speak on the broader issue you raised, but definitely, whether it’s studies—

Tom Temin  It’s just dealing with that weird situation where you write government that has a rival that’s as powerful as the government, in this kind of distributed paramilitary situation.

Michael Derrios  Right, and the ability to possibly tap into an FFRDC that could offer some very technical knowledge and help us study a problem set and potentially propose alternative approaches to addressing something, right? And that’s the kind of work that we’re talking about. So the need is absolutely there. I would say to trade associations, and in our industry partners, bear with us. Take a look at the RFP when it comes out, and offer a little bit of trust. We are going to put a very tight governance process on this. And if something is a much better fit for industry, we’re going to go in that direction.

Tom Temin  Sure. And how do you budget for this? Because in some sense, an FFRDC functions in almost like an IDIQ mode. And so you have to know what your ceiling is, what state department’s ceiling will be, without knowing how much once it’s established, people could come running and saying, hey, we need this and that done.

Michael Derrios  Now, that’s a fantastic point. So my policy shop is actually doing all of the outreach today to build a statement of objectives. And then we’re pulsing the department to figure out what we think those requirements might look like over a five-year period. And the way that FFRDCs work is we’re required to actually examine the usage after a five-year period and determine whether or not it makes sense to continue on with that relationship. But yeah, we’re definitely wanting to pulse right now to figure out what the ceiling should be set at for these vehicles, because, you’re right, they are IDIQs. It’s not a matter of, you know, forward funding anything. We’re going to fund at the task order level as requirements come in. But we definitely are trying to do that pulsing across the department today to figure out what the demand signal will be in terms of potential dollars.

Tom Temin  All right, so, any other great procurement initiatives we should know about from state?

Michael Derrios  I would say, you know, we are actually trying to get OTA authority as well, which I think you’re aware of.

Tom Temin  Other transaction authority, uninitiated listening.

Michael Derrios  Yeah. And the main thing there is to really to try to attract non-traditional companies to the mission set. We know that there are a variety of companies out there, especially small startups that offer some tremendous capability that just don’t always want to deal with the bureaucracy of a federal contract in its typical form. So, if we had the ability to tap into those companies, that would greatly expand our industrial base. So, we’re working on that as well.

Tom Temin  All right, we’ll have to have you back when some of these things start to take concrete form.

Michael Derrios  Happy to do it.

Tom Temin  All right. Michael Barrios is deputy assistant secretary of state for acquisition and the senior procurement executive. Thanks so much for joining us.

Michael Derrios  Thank you.

Tom Temin  We’ll post this interview along with a link to more information at federalnewsnetwork.com/federaldrive. Subscribe to the Federal Drive wherever you get your podcasts.

The post Why the State Department wants to set up federally-funded research and development centers first appeared on Federal News Network.

Despite being designated as critical infrastructure, many of the nation’s public water and wastewater facilities are considered antiquated and outdated due to resource constraints, even as they adopt digital infrastructure like sensors and network-connected systems. This gap leaves systems vulnerable to attacks, with inadequate incident response coordination and information sharing increasing the risks. 

To bolster cybersecurity, agencies and critical infrastructure organizations must prioritize adopting a comprehensive approach to modernization and protection. This includes implementing zero trust measures to mitigate risks, enhancing incident response processes to improve resilience and recovery capabilities, and sharing resources efficiently. As you’ll see, implementing zero trust does not have to be difficult.  

Laying the security groundwork 

Like other critical infrastructure sectors, the water sector relies heavily on operational technology (OT) systems and is often integrated with Internet of Things (IoT) systems. Many of these OT systems are legacy technologies that are not up to current cybersecurity standards, making this IoT/OT landscape incredibly ripe for “cyber-physical” incidents.  

In fact, escalating threats to critical infrastructure, including the targeting and compromising of OT systems and industrial control systems (ICS) in the water sector, have resulted in the federal government  sounding the alarm over malicious cyber actors who now pose physical threats against “insecure and misconfigured OT environments.”   

Securing OT/IoT systems is paramount, and zero trust frameworks offer a layered defense strategy. This approach ensures the security of critical systems while enabling efficient data exchange with internet-connected IT systems. Enhanced visibility and traffic monitoring further safeguard against potential threats, including command-and-control attacks.  

Enter zero trust 

Adopting zero trust architectures is a crucial step in hardening remote access to ICS devices that rely on a mix of IT and OT assets. In the absence of zero trust, systems can become key attack vectors and another entry point for malicious actors. 

Zero trust operates under the principle of “never trust, always verify,” and is inherently designed to reduce a network’s attack surface, prevent lateral movement of threats, and lower the risk of a data breach. A zero trust security model leverages least-privileged access controls, granular micro-segmentation, and multifactor authentication (MFA) to provide continuous verification of identities and devices, regardless of location, type or network connection. 

By implementing a zero trust approach, critical infrastructure operators and agencies will have more effective OT security, with adaptive, context-based application access that doesn’t depend on network access and users only having access to the applications and systems necessary for their job.  

Crucially, the correct zero trust solution must not require refactoring applications or OT controllers that cannot be modified. A good litmus test for zero trust is one in which the solution can use the network but does not depend on it for security. 

Finding the right tools 

Concurrently, critical infrastructure organizations and agencies must enhance their incident response capabilities. Resources like CISA’s Cyber Incident Response Guide for the Water and Wastewater Sector provide a framework for effective incident management, covering preparation, detection, containment, eradication, recovery and post-incident activities. Standardized tools and collaboration platforms facilitate information sharing and coordination among utilities and supporting organizations. 

Collaboration at all levels, including federal, state and local, and between critical infrastructure operators, government and industry is crucial for maximizing resources and enhancing cybersecurity across these vital sectors. By pooling resources and expertise, technology and cyber leaders can make meaningful strides in safeguarding information and OT systems in water and wastewater facilities. 

Taking a sector-wide approach 

By embracing modern cybersecurity solutions and leveraging available resources, the water and wastewater sector can lead by example in public sector cybersecurity, ensuring the resilience and security of critical infrastructure essential for safeguarding our communities and nation.  

Federal agencies must also serve as role models for secure and resilient systems by securing outdated technology while simultaneously modernizing security processes and supporting critical infrastructure operators with their digital modernization efforts. Again, securing outdated technology requires using zero trust solutions that do not force refactoring of applications or controllers nor depending on the network to provide that security. Otherwise, critical infrastructure sectors will remain easy targets, and the prospect of devastating disruptions to essential services will grow. 

Adopting zero trust is a journey. While OT presents challenges to implementing zero trust and modern security, federal leadership in support of greater collaboration, standardization and accountability is an effective way to secure critical infrastructure sectors from malicious threat actors. 

Hansang Bae is public sector chief technology officer at Zscaler. 

The post Safeguarding critical infrastructure: Addressing threats to the water sector first appeared on Federal News Network.

Lot of firsts occurred during the pandemic. Among them: the first time the Federal Emergency Management Agency used its Disaster Relief Fund to respond to a nationwide public health emergency. FEMA used the funds to cover the costs of vaccinations and testing sites, among other things. Government Accountability Office has found FEMA may have underestimated just how much would be required. For more, Federal News Network’s Eric White spoke to the GAO’s director of homeland security and justice issues, Chris Currie.

Interview transcript: 

Chris Currie  The COVID-19 pandemic, surprising in a number of ways. I think most people are surprised to even know that FEMA was involved in the response because they think of hurricanes and natural disasters, but FEMA has a large fund of money that’s very flexible to use in the case of emergencies. And, so, it was definitely tapped into in the COVID-19 pandemic. So, one of the things that the appropriations committees wanted us to look at is just seeing how large the costs were getting out of the pandemic for FEMA. They wanted us to look at the effect on the disaster relief fund long term, and also just how good of a job FEMA was doing in anticipating some of these costs. And, as you set up, they they blew well past their initial estimates. Initial estimates right out of the bat, which understandably, were, you know, there wasn’t as much information, were around 20 billion, and FEMA now estimates it’s going to spend about $171 billion by the end of fiscal year 2026.

Eric White  It was just crazy time for all of us. Was that lack of knowledge just due to the fact that nothing had ever happened like this before, A, and, B, FEMA had never had to deal with anything like this before.

Chris Currie  It is true. I mean, it’s impossible to see the future and no one had a crystal ball in 2020 to see how big of a problem this is going to be and how much it was going to cost. But I think that there were a number of places, as the pandemic wore on, where estimates probably could have been a little bit more realistic and accurate. FEMA sort of re-baselined their estimates at different stages, and at each point, they underestimated what it was going to cost. For example, in 2021, the President authorized basically FEMA to cover 100% of costs. Usually, with its programs, they cover 75%, the state or the local governments covered 25%. It went to 100%. So, at that point, I think it was reasonable to expect that states were going to start sending in a lot more projects and requests just given that we’re going to be 100% federally funded. And so all along, they just continue to underestimate the cost.

Eric White  Yeah, is this sort of thing a, you know, it’s never used this for a public health emergency, but has it used the DRF funds for other matter or other disasters where certain things were required, you know, such as, you know, personal protective gear and things of that nature, or, you know, even just setting up sites? You know, it’s all very similar to what FEMA does for other disasters, right?

Chris Currie  You’re right, you make a good point, because a lot of what FEMA was doing is providing equipment, and logistical capability to get equipment to different places, and to get things where they needed to be, which is what FEMA does in a disaster. So, while the pandemic, the scale of it was unprecedented, you know, 59 individual disaster declarations, the operation was not unforeseen or unprecedented. And this is a really important point we were trying to get across to FEMA and they didn’t really agree with us on, but, you know, their response to our findings and our recommendation was that they don’t expect to have to respond to a pandemic like this again, and they don’t expect to be asked to do something like this again, which, that could be true. None of us know. But what the point we were making is there are a number of different scenarios, whether it’s a cyber attack, whether it’s a wide scale, multi-state disaster, whether it’s multiple concurrent disasters in different states across the whole country. There’s a number of scenarios where they are going to have to manage a huge response and recovery operation that potentially is going to be very, very difficult to estimate. So, that’s the reason we actually recommended that they do a better job of trying to develop these estimates, rather than just trying to forget the pandemic and move on with business as usual.

Eric White  We’re speaking with Chris Currie. He is the director of homeland security and justice issues with the Government Accountability Office. Yes, so what’s at stake here of not getting those estimates right? Where does the DRF currently stand, because FEMA is still obligated to spend some, mostly, unfortunately, funeral funds towards this disaster declaration? You know, what is going to happen if these estimates aren’t as accurate as they could be?

Chris Currie  It’s a big problem. Right now, today, FEMA estimates there’s going to be a $6 billion shortfall in the disaster relief fund by the end of September. And, remember, that is also with almost a $35 billion appropriation earlier this year for this fiscal year 24 appropriations bill. So, the DRF was replenished and that quickly it’s back going to be in the red, and they’re likely to get another annual appropriation, which will help a little bit, but what the COVID-19 pandemic has done to FEMA is it’s essentially put it in a position where it’s going to be behind all the time with the DRF. And, of course, it’s going to need supplemental appropriations from here on out. Now, that’s just with what we know today. I mean, just, if we have another 2017, for example, where we have three huge concurrent disasters and wildfires, that’s only going to exacerbate the problem and going to require that much more in supplemental appropriations. Also, remember, this fund is used for recovery projects for disaster, it’s going back 20 years. Hurricane Katrina is still an open disaster. There’s still obligating dollars for infrastructure projects. So, if there’s no money in disaster relief funding, those past recoveries are sort of paused. That’s what FEMA did last year. And they do that so they can respond to things happening immediately, but it’s not sustainable for the long term.

Eric White  Yeah, long term, I mean, is there maybe an over reliance on the fact that they’re always going to get that supplemental funding because there is nothing more direct of government services to citizens than disaster response? So, it is always something that gets front and center as soon as something happens. Do you sense there’s there may be an over reliance on that factor, rather than planning for long term when it comes to disaster relief spending?

Chris Currie  Well, there absolutely, there is a reliance on supplemental spending. Congress caps the amount FEMA can get in the regular annual appropriation for the DRF. And, so, what that basically says is that if anything large happens in the country that year, you’re gonna need a supplemental. And, so, most of FEMA’s funding over the last 20 years has been in supplemental appropriations. It’s a massive amount. I mean, if you look back to 2017, they spent over $250 billion on disasters, which is just a huge amount. That’s, you know, six times DHS’s annual budget. So, what COVID did was it just it made this problem worse. And, so, it used to be where maybe they’d get behind toward the end of the fiscal year, and it would get replenished. Now, it seems like they’re behind multiple points of time in the fiscal year, which, you know, think about it. This requires Congress several times a year to try to add funding or attach funding to different bills, which requires those to get passed. And, that’s, you know, that can be difficult sometimes.

Eric White  So as you mentioned, nobody can tell the future. What can be done to actually get some long term planning in some fiscal solvency for the DRF?

Chris Currie  We just like to see more realistic estimates at different stages early on in the disaster, and a different way of doing this. And, so, in month one after disaster, it’s really difficult. All right, I mean, if you have a huge hurricane, maybe you don’t know if it’s going to cost you $10 billion, if it’s going to cost you $50 billion yet, but in month six, it the picture is starting to develop, you know what projects are going to, you know, come into play, you know how long it’s going to take. We want to see more accurate estimation quickly and that way Congress and the appropriations committees can then forecast out what they’re likely going to need to appropriate in the future.

Tom Temin  Chris Currie, director for homeland security and justice issues at the Government Accountability Office, speaking with Federal News Network’s Eric White. Find this interview along with a link to the report at federalnewsnetwork.com/federaldrive.

The post FEMA is still on the hook for several pandemic-related expenses first appeared on Federal News Network.