[Senate Hearing 108-772]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-772
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4754/S. 2809
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE,
AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2005, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Commerce
Department of Justice
Department of State
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-134 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Scott Gudes
Katherine Hennessey
Dennis Balkham
Jill Shapiro Long
Shannon O'Keefe
Jessica Roberts
Lila Helms (Minority)
Kate Eltrich (Minority)
Chad Schulken (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 2, 2004
Page
Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary.................. 1
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation........... 53
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Department of State: Office of the Secretary..................... 119
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 167
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Hollings, Inouye, Leahy,
and Kohl.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD L. EVANS, SECRETARY
OPENING REMARKS
Senator Gregg. We will begin the hearing of the Commerce,
Justice and State Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.
We are honored today to have with us the Secretary of Commerce,
Secretary Don Evans. I don't have an opening statement. Do you
have an opening statement?
Senator Hollings. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. We will proceed right to Secretary Evans.
Make whatever statement you wish, Mr. Secretary, and we will
proceed to questions.
Senator Leahy. Are there going to be no statements?
Senator Gregg. I would rather get to the testimony, if you
don't mind.
Senator Leahy. I appreciate that. I would ask consent to
put a statement in the record and I will use some of it in my
questions.
Senator Gregg. Absolutely. We will have plenty of time for
questions and you can work it in there.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Mr. Secretary, we thank you for coming to testify before this
subcommittee today. It is good to see you again. You have an especially
difficult job at the moment, and none of us envy you for it.
Whether they have lost their jobs, or worry about losing their
jobs, or feel frozen in place, so many American workers and their
families have been hurting for the last three years, and they are still
hurting in what has been called this ``jobless recovery.'' Job cuts
have disrupted millions of households, and the effects have rippled
through our entire economy.
We have lost nearly three million manufacturing jobs in the past
three years, and the economic outlook is less than encouraging. In
fact, more than 2,400 employers reported laying off 50 or more workers
in January, the third highest number of so-called mass layoffs since
the government began tracking them a decade ago. Overall, the number of
manufacturing jobs in the United States is now at its lowest level
since 1950.
At the same time our manufacturing numbers are tumbling, our trade
deficit is spiraling. The Department recently announced that the U.S.
trade deficit reached a record $489 billion in 2003. While the trade
report shows strong domestic consumption, it also highlights serious
problems with our economy's productivity--particularly our lack of
employment growth.
Back in September, the Commerce Department announced a broad
proposal to help the nation's ailing manufacturers. Among other
elements of that plan, the department proposed creating a new assistant
secretary of commerce for manufacturing, forming an unfair-trade-
practices team to track and confront unfair foreign competition, and
supporting the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program.
I join many manufacturing and trade experts in being puzzled by
that announcement. The Commerce Department already has hundreds of
employees tasked with tracking unfair labor practices. And it seems
that the creation of a new assistant secretary for manufacturing really
may just be boiling down to changing the name and expanding the reach
of the existing assistant secretary for trade development. On top of
that, no one has yet been named to fill this new position.
And then there's the matter of the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program, which offers technical assistance to manufacturing
firms to improve their performance in production techniques, marketing
and exports. It does not help the Administration's credibility to cite
the value of this program and to pledge resources for it, but then to
repeatedly fail to actually support the MEP program--both in the
President's budget requests and in the White House's final negotiations
on this year's appropriations bill.
You have repeatedly asked that MEP receive around $13 million each
year, but Congress has deemed it important enough to provide more than
$106 million. It is disingenuous now for the Administration to say you
support the MEP program by requesting a mere $39 million this year. And
while I appreciate your announcement that MEP would be eligible to
compete for up to $45.4 million in fiscal year 2005 economic adjustment
assistance, this effort will not provide the funds our MEP centers need
to continue operations and services to small manufacturers, especially
after July 1, when the majority of centers face contract renewal under
the drastically reduced fiscal year 2004 funding.
I am also concerned about a plan to identify federal rules that
they believe impede competitiveness in the domestic manufacturing
sector. Given the Administration's record to date, it is no wonder that
so many workers are concerned that this is just another Administration
attempt to roll back health and safety standards that are designed to
keep American workers safe. Many see this as a backhanded and backdoor
attack on hardworking, dedicated workers. And I see their point.
The Administration's lack of follow-through and attention to the
hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs amounts to what could charitably be
called a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. And after so much of
this, the Administration's credibility becomes a real problem and a
real issue with the Congress and with the American people.
Mr. Secretary, that brings us to the Trifecta of controversial
sections of President Bush's recently released annual ``Economic Report
of the President.''
First, it suggested that the movement of U.S. jobs overseas--
commonly referred to as offshoring--is beneficial to consumers. The
President asserts that American customers will benefits from lower
costs of the products and services they buy because of cheaper labor
costs overseas. And the President's top economist said that the
migration of service jobs overseas ``is just a new way of doing
international trade.''
That comment was tossed off with a flippancy that seems to take no
account of the real pain American families are suffering as more and
more companies close their U.S. facilities and send their work
overseas, throwing hardworking Americans onto the unemployment lines.
Second, the Report predicts that non-farm payroll employment will
average 132.7 million in 2004, reflecting a 2.6 million increase in
jobs over its estimated average of 130.1 million in 2003. A joint
analysis released by the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities shows that to achieve the 2004 estimate,
an average of 460,000 jobs a month would need to be created from
February through December of 2004. In other words, about five million
jobs will need to be created between now and the end of the year to hit
that projection.
Finally, and perhaps most unbelievably, the Report questions
whether fast-food restaurants should continue to be counted as part of
the service sector or should be reclassified as manufacturers.
Specifically, the report asks: ``When a fast-food restaurant sells a
hamburger, for example, is it providing a `service' or is it combining
inputs to `manufacture' a product?''
Two decades ago, another administration wanted to start calling
ketchup a vegetable for the purposes of the school lunch program.
Redefining ketchup as a vegetable did nothing for the nutrition of our
kids, and redefining every Taco Bell as a manufacturing factory would
do nothing for American workers and real American manufacturers. If
that is this Administration's idea of thinking outside the bun, then
this Administration has a lot more thinking to do.
Mr. Secretary, for the past three years we have heard many
predictions and forecasts from the Administration that have not been
anywhere close to reality. We were told that the President's tax cuts
would stimulate the economy--and instead the economy has weakened and
tax receipts are at some of their lowest levels ever. We were told that
there would be 3.4 million more jobs in 2003 than there were in 2000--
and instead the economy ended up losing 1.7 million jobs over that
period. We were told that budget surpluses would continue on for as far
as the eye could see--and instead we have gone from a record $239
billion surplus under President Clinton to a record $521 billion
deficit under President Bush, and if the President's budget were
actually enacted, it's those deficits that would proliferate as far as
the eye can see. And we were told that the Iraq mission would be swift
and easy--and instead it has dragged on with no end in sight and with
costs that are so astronomical that the President did not even dare put
the numbers in his budget.
These are difficult times for American manufacturers and American
workers, and the job of answering to them for this Administration's
policies is a tough one. I hope you take a serious look at the
questions we pose because there are millions of American workers out
there counting on you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask consent that my full
statement and written questions be submitted for the record.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief
opening statement and I will ask for my written remarks to be
submitted for the record please, sir.
Senator Gregg. Absolutely.
Secretary Evans. Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, members of
the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to
testify in support of the President's budget request for the
Department of Commerce for fiscal year 2005.
Before I do that, let me just take a moment to thank
Senator Hollings, who is retiring, for his service to this
country for many, many years, in this body since 1966. I
can't----
Senator Hollings. I want you to retire with me.
Secretary Evans. I have another plan.
And that just goes to show you that we don't agree on
absolutely everything, but we agree on a lot and one thing we
absolutely agree on is your love for America----
Senator Hollings. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Evans [continuing]. And your service to America,
your integrity that you served this body with for so many
years, and I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you on
behalf of all Americans.
I want to say thank you to your wife, as well, because as
somebody that has just been in public service in Washington for
3 years, it is very clear to me that it is not just a sacrifice
of those serving here. It is a sacrifice for the entire family,
and for Peatsy and your entire family, I thank you.
Senator Hollings. That is mighty generous. Thank you, sir.
Secretary Evans. Yes, you bet. We appreciate and have
benefitted from Senator Hollings' focus on so many areas of the
Commerce Department. You know, a lot of people said he put the
``O'' in NOAA, which is absolutely the truth.
The central mission of the Department of Commerce is to
promote American jobs and values by creating the conditions for
long-term economic growth. To fulfill this essential charge, we
are requesting a budget of $5.8 billion. This budget reflects
the President's commitment to advancing our Nation's economic
and homeland security.
To help American industry and workers meet unprecedented
global challenges, we are reorganizing the International Trade
Administration. I want to thank Chairman Gregg and members of
this committee for their assistance in moving this process
forward. We are creating a new Manufacturing and Services
Office, to be headed by an assistant secretary. This official
will be charged with ensuring that these critical sectors get a
full hearing when policies are formulated. We are establishing
an Office of Investigations and Compliance to monitor
enforcement of trade agreements, and we are also creating an
Unfair Trade Practices Task Force.
For the Census Bureau, we are requesting an increase of
$217 million to reengineer the decennial census and improve
other data collection.
For the Bureau of Economic Analysis, we are requesting an
increase of $15 million for the improvements of GDP data and
other economic indicators.
The NIST budget includes $31 million to equip and operate a
new advanced measurement laboratory and $25 million for
continued renovation of the NIST laboratories in Boulder,
Colorado.
At this time, we are requesting level funding for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership. To leverage current
funding and help small manufacturing firms, we are directing
EDA to focus economic adjustment grants on areas experiencing
job losses in the manufacturing sector. MEP centers serving
these communities can compete for these grants. In the next
fiscal year, MEP centers will be eligible to compete for up to
$45.4 million of the EDA grants. We are also looking at
establishing partnerships with other Federal programs and
agencies to maintain and strengthen this national manufacturing
network.
In fiscal year 2005, the administration proposes giving the
Patent and Trademark Office full access to its fees. An
increase of over $310 million will allow the hiring of
additional examiners and faster processing of applications.
Our NOAA budget includes an increase of $56 million for
next-generation weather satellites, $34 million to complete the
third fisheries vessel, and $24 million to better assess
climate change.
Also included in this budget is funding to enhance the
safety of Department personnel and visitors. Mr. Chairman, new
challenges to our Nation's security necessitate new responses.
We have had to make some difficult choices. This includes
discontinuing funding for the Advanced Technology Program, the
Technology Opportunity Program, and for the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program. I am sure that there are
members of this committee and other Members of Congress who
would like to make other funding decisions. Please know that I
respect those views and I look forward to working with all of
you through the budget process.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of this
committee for your continued support of Commerce programs and
initiatives. I welcome your comments and will be pleased to
answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald L. Evans
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to present the
Department of Commerce's fiscal year 2005 budget request. In the fiscal
year 2005 President's Budget, the Department of Commerce request of
$5.8 billion reflects its continuing commitment to creating conditions
for economic growth and opportunity by strengthening American
manufacturing and, promoting innovation, entrepreneurship,
competitiveness, and stewardship. America's manufactures provide our
nation and our people good jobs, a better quality of life and
inventions that have established our national identity. To that end,
the Department has partnered with U.S. businesses to maintain a
prosperous, productive America. We have a record of innovation in
manufacturing, transportation, communications, and measurement that has
helped sustain U.S. leadership of the international marketplace.
Consistent with the President's Management Agenda, for fiscal year
2005, the Department presents a performance integrated budget based
upon the Department's Strategic Plan. The plans goals fully reflect the
Department's mission and vision and its commitment to promoting
``American Jobs and American Values.''
Goal 1: Provide the information and tools to maximize U.S.
competitiveness and enable economic growth for American
industries, workers and consumers
Economic growth is a central theme for the fiscal year 2005
President's Budget and to the missions of the Department of Commerce's
bureaus. To enhance the competitiveness of U.S. businesses in the
global economy, the President's 2005 Budget focuses the International
Trade Administration (ITA) on promoting U.S. exports, fighting unfair
foreign trade barriers, and negotiating and implementing multilateral
and bilateral trade agreements. ITA has created a new unit called
Manufacturing and Services, focusing on the domestic and international
aspects of U.S. industrial competitiveness; working with U.S. industry
to evaluate the needs of American manufacturers; assessing the economic
impact of new and existing government rules and regulations on U.S.
manufacturers; and representing and advocating for the interests of the
U.S. manufacturing and services sectors.
For fiscal year 2005, ITA has three new initiatives. ITA requests
an increase of $4.5 million for the Administration's Capital Security
Cost Sharing Program (CSCSP) to cover the State Department's capital
security costs associated with building new embassy compounds. CSCSP is
scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2005 and continue through fiscal year
2018 and all agencies represented in embassies will be charged on a
worldwide per capita basis. ITA requests an increase of $0.5 million
for the Activity-Based Cost Accounting and Management System to allow
for more precise management and planning of resources as well as a
better understanding of ITA's performance and commitment to priority
activities. ITA has begun implementing this system with existing
resources and requires these funds to complete the project. ITA also
requests an increase of $0.2 million for the Free Trade Agreement
Secretariats to enable ITA to meet a requirement under the Singapore
and Chile Free Trade Agreements.
The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) will continue to
focus on accelerating the competitiveness and growth of minority-owned
businesses by closing the gap in economic opportunities and capital
access. The President's 2005 Budget requests an increase of $3 million
for MBDA to conduct an annual survey of minority owned business
enterprises (SMOBE). The SMOBE will provide more timely, frequent and
comprehensive statistical data about the minority business universe
than the current 5-year SMOBE. The President's 2005 Budget also
requests an increase of $2.1 million for the Business Development
Centers and Minority Business Opportunity Committees programs to
improve opportunities for minority businesses in areas with the highest
minority business density. Finally, the President's 2005 Budget
requests an increase of $0.5 million for MBDA to establish trade
activities in response to the President's and the Secretary of
Commerce's initiative on trade promotion for U.S. minority businesses
with Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. This activity will increase
the access of minority business enterprises to global markets.
The President's 2005 Budget request for Economic Development
Administration (EDA) will help accelerate the Nation's economic growth
by promoting a favorable business environment to attract private
capital investments and higher-skill, higher-wage jobs. The President's
2005 Budget requests an increase of $5 million for EDA to assist areas
that demonstrate a high level of economic distress from long-term
economic deterioration or that are suffering from sudden and severe
dislocation to their economies.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) seeks to strengthen the
understanding of the United States economy and its competitive
position. BEA accomplishes this task by providing accurate economic
accounts data in a timely and cost-effective manner, and by supplying
the Nation's key economic statistics, including Gross Domestic Product
(GDP). The President's 2005 Budget requests an increase of $15 million
for BEA over fiscal year 2004 for two initiatives. The first initiative
will continue to generate more timely economic data, meet U.S.
international obligations in complying with international standards for
reporting statistics, and acquire real-time data to improve the quality
of BEA measures. The second initiative will produce up-to-date annual
estimates on business investment spending and employment and
compensation data by industry.
The President's 2005 Budget requests an increase for the Bureau of
the Census of $217 million over fiscal year 2004. These additional
funds will be used in the Bureau's multi-year effort to reengineer the
Decennial Census by implementing the American Community Survey,
modernizing its geographic database information, and developing plans
for the Decennial Census in 2010 using only a short form. Census also
plans initiatives to improve the quality and timeliness of trade
statistics, to improve the measurement of services by expanding the
number of industries covered, to develop a stronger presence in
electronic government services by allowing businesses to file survey
information electronically, and to strengthen its measurement of
migration within the United States.
As part of our ongoing efforts to improve the review and
enforcement of export license conditions, the President's 2005 Budget
is requesting funding for the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) to
develop a comprehensive export license condition, compliance and
enforcement program. This program will enhance the enforcement of
license conditions by working with exporters to ensure that they have
in place appropriate export management systems and devoting dedicated
resources to detect and prosecute violations of license conditions. The
President's 2005 Budget is also requesting funding for BIS to establish
an Office of Technology Evaluation that will enable the Department to
implement and maintain a more effective system of dual-use export
controls that better protects U.S. national and economic security. The
new Office's duties will include identifying new technologies for
potential inclusion on the Commerce Control List and the comprehensive
review of items already on the list to ensure that items are
appropriately controlled for the protection of U.S. national security.
Goal 2: Foster science and technological leadership by protecting
intellectual property, enhancing technical standards, and
advancing measurement science
Important priorities for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) in fiscal year 2005 are to upgrade facilities and
laboratories, to protect critical research data from degradation, and
to maintain employee safety and security. The President's 2005 Budget
provides increased funding to NIST laboratories for continuing
construction projects and high priority research areas. The request
includes $31 million to equip and operate the Advanced Measurement
Laboratory and $25 million for continued renovations of NIST's Boulder,
Colorado facilities. Consistent with the Administration's continuing
emphasis on shifting resources to reflect changing needs, the fiscal
year 2005 budget proposes to terminate the Advanced Technology Program
and to commit stable funding for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership.
The President's 2005 Budget request for the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO) will support the third year of the PTO strategic
plan to keep pace with workload growth and to enhance the quality of
products and services. In fiscal year 2005, the Administration proposes
giving PTO full access to its fees. An increase of $310.9 million will
allow the PTO to improve processing capacity by hiring additional
patent examiners, deliver an operational electronic patent application
processing system, continue moving to an electronic trademark
operation, expand quality reviews to all stages of patent and trademark
examination, and cover the full accrual of retirement costs for its
employees.
The President's 2005 Budget increase request of $7.1 million for
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
will provide the resources necessary to improve dramatically the
overall capabilities of NTIA to research, manage and represent
internationally the government's and industry's spectrum usage. These
funds will increase the efficiency of radio spectrum usage through a
paperless system, explore alternative incentive systems, meet
increasing demand for Federal wireless systems; improve our Nation's
preparation for and representation of U.S. interests at International
spectrum usage conferences; and upgrade NTIA's lab facilities used to
support this important work. The fiscal year 2005 Budget continues the
proposal to terminate the Public Telecommunications Facilities,
Planning and Construction and Technology Opportunity Program grants.
Goal 3: Observe, protect and manage the earth's resources to promote
environmental stewardship
This budget supports the core activities of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including fisheries and ocean
programs, climate research activities, and weather forecasting
capabilities, as well as the satellite infrastructure necessary to
support these functions. In addition, the request continues to focus on
maintenance and safety issues associated with NOAA facilities, vessels,
and aircraft.
The 2005 Budget makes investments in critical fisheries and ocean
programs. The Department continues to work to improve the management
and economic sustainability of the Nation's marine fisheries with a
continued focus on fisheries science and stock assessments. To this
end, the Budget invests $34 million to complete NOAA's third fisheries
survey vessel. This vessel will meet international standards for
research surveys and will substantially improve the quality of NOAA
fisheries research. Additional investments are requested this year to
maintain safe and efficient maritime commerce through enhanced
electronic navigational charts and improved collection of data on
coastal water levels.
This budget continues the Administration's focus on climate
research and devotes $23.7 million of new funding to expand climate
observing capabilities. This funding will allow NOAA to help fill
critical knowledge gaps identified in the recently released Climate
Change Science Program Strategic Plan, including research on aerosols,
oceans and the natural carbon cycle. NOAA's funding is one component of
a government-wide initiative which will provide $103 million over two
years to accelerate climate observations. The Administration will
continue to work with the international community to develop a
comprehensive, global earth observation system.
Continuing to seek improvements in weather forecasting, the
Administration requests funding to expand air quality forecasts
nationwide. This program will help mitigate the estimated 40,000 deaths
and $147 billion spent treating air pollution-related illnesses by
providing advance warning of poor air quality. Also included are
investments in improved long-range weather forecasting, as well as
continued improvement of NOAA's NEXRAD radar system, replacement of the
communications gateway through which all weather-related data flows to
local weather forecasters, and modernization of the cooperative
observer network.
To support NOAA's weather and climate programs, the Administration
requests an additional $56 million for the continued development of
next-generation geosynchronous and polar-orbiting satellite programs.
To support current and future satellite operations, the Administration
requests funds to occupy and operate NOAA's new satellite operations
facility. This budget also includes investments to maintain and repair
current NOAA facilities, for operations and maintenance of the OSCAR
DYSON, NOAA's first new fisheries research vessel, and for the
HI'IALAKAI, a vessel acquired from the Coast Guard for research in the
Hawaiian Islands.
Management Integration Goal: Achieve organizational and management
excellence
The Administration places a high priority on the protection of our
employees and guests. The Herbert C. Hoover Building (HCHB) is in close
proximity to multiple high-profile locations in downtown Washington
D.C., but lacks adequate protection against an explosive blast in the
vicinity. This request proposes a blast mitigation project for the
facility. The upgrades will reduce the degree of injury due to glass
fragments and, in the event of a chemical/biological/radiological
attack, will significantly reduce the air infiltration of toxic
substances. This will provide the employees with precious minutes to
escape the building or to enable them to ``shelter-in-place,'' if
required. The funding request for the Security Management Application
will provide for the development and integration of a new corporate
management application system to enhance the Department's personnel
security management capabilities.
The Department is also requesting an increase in resources for the
Inspector General's Office of Investigation to provide adequate
coverage for all Commerce activities. This increase will allow the
Office to strategically deploy its investigative resources, thereby
enhancing its ability to detect and prevent fraud. The projected $11
billion cost for the 2010 Census necessitates the OIG to increase its
level of oversight to improve planning and lower risks, particularly in
the areas of statistics and systems evaluations.
The Department of Commerce has a rich history, and after traveling
the country meeting with both the Commerce employees and the customers
we serve I am confident it will have a rich future. I look forward to
working with the committee to ensure that together we are providing the
best services possible.
Senator Gregg. Again, we thank you for taking time to come.
It was very nice of you to acknowledge Senator Hollings' great
service to this country, which we have done on a number of
occasions in this committee. It is totally appropriate,
especially relative to the Commerce Department, where he has
played an extraordinary role. What is it, 33 years?
Senator Hollings. I've been on the subcommittee since 1971
Senator Gregg. And chairman or ranking member of this
subcommittee, I think, for 27 years or something like that.
Senator Hollings. Yes, sir.
NOAA'S N-PRIME SATELLITE
Senator Gregg. Nothing has happened at the Commerce
Department that Senator Hollings hasn't been involved in. One
of the things that he can take a lot of credit for and which we
think is appropriate is a strong NOAA program. We congratulate
the Department for its efforts in this area but we are
concerned about the funding levels in a number of accounts
there. Overall, this committee is totally committed to the NOAA
efforts and we will have some issues with our House members on
that, but we enjoy that little tussle every year and we usually
do pretty well in it.
I did have a question about the satellite program. I
understand one of the critical satellites was dropped on the
floor.
What is the status of that? Is it the N Prime?
Secretary Evans. Yes, N Prime, that is correct.
Senator Gregg. And who is liable for what appears to have
been some negligence possibly?
Secretary Evans. Mr. Chairman, we don't have that complete
report yet. We are in the process of working with Lockheed
Martin, and NASA and NOAA are working together to look very
carefully at the issues of cause and liability as well as what
it is going to take to make sure we have the service needed to
deliver the weather forecasts to this country in the out-years.
We are close, they tell me, to having a final report that
we will deliver to Congress, but we are not there yet.
Senator Gregg. If we conclude that the cause was outside of
NOAA and NASA but it was the responsibility of a private
contractor, that the damage occurred as a result of their
potential negligence, and I don't know whether it was
negligence or not----
Secretary Evans. Right.
Senator Gregg [continuing]. But potential negligence. When
you drop a satellite on the floor, it does seem to lead to that
concern. Are we going to pursue legal remedies to get recovery
of, what is it, about $400 million?
Secretary Evans. I am certain that we will, Mr. Chairman. I
am absolutely certain that we will. We have our lawyers looking
at this very carefully and that is our conclusion. I am sure we
will be pursuing the total recovery of the loss as well as, at
the same time, we need to make sure we are putting a plan
together to cover the gap that this might be creating as it
relates to satellite coverage during the period that N Prime
was scheduled to be launched.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION REORGANIZATION
Senator Gregg. You spent a lot of time on ITA's
reorganization. Could you tell us the status of that and how it
is going?
Secretary Evans. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is going well, and
we have spent a lot of time on it. I appreciate the support of
this committee. We have been very focused on the manufacturing
sector of this economy, spent 1\1/2\ years on travel around
America, across America, talking to manufacturers all across
America, listening to their concerns, their challenges,
something I know a fair amount about since I spent 30 years of
my life in the manufacturing sector of this economy. So I am
very familiar with many of the challenges that they deal with
on a day-to-day basis.
DOC MANUFACTURING REPORT
We have made significant progress. We presented to the
country a manufacturing report in January. It laid out over 50
recommendations that we feel will help create an environment
for our manufacturers to continue to succeed in the global
economy. That is the goal. We need to continue to improve the
conditions so it is easier for American manufacturers to
succeed in this ever-changing economy.
One of the central pieces of it is to establish a new
Office of Manufacturing Services that will have an assistant
secretary that is a Senate-confirmed position, of course. We
hope to have a name up to the Senate within the next few weeks.
We certainly have a candidate that we are very focused on.
But we are not resting there. I mean, it is time to move on
with the many recommendations that are a part of this report.
One of the areas where we are going to spend a lot of energy, a
lot of resources, and a lot of focus, is in the area of
enforcement, not only when it comes to enforcing other trade
agreements around the world, but just focusing on making sure
that the countries are focused on enforcing their own laws. We
are doing that through market access and compliance. We have
beefed up the resources there.
We beefed up the resources in the Import Administration
within the International Trade Administration. We have done
that. We have established what we call an Unfair Trade
Practices Task Force. This is a task force that will be focused
on being a proactive task force. In fact, part of their
responsibility will be monitoring 30 products that are coming
in from China, just monitoring those products and making sure
they are in compliance with our trade laws.
So I would say we have made great progress. You don't put a
report out that is not the end, that is the start. That is the
beginning. I have traveled across America, continue to do that,
letting all manufacturers know that they have one place they
can go to express their concerns. They can provide their
challenges. So we look forward to working with the
manufacturing sector of our economy. We will continue to do so.
I think one last thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is, as I
say, there are 50 recommendations, over 50, so there are lots
of recommendations, but I will be responsible for a working
group, an interagency working group, where we will bring all of
the agencies together to stay focused on the manufacturing
sector. This will ensure that we have ongoing communications
across agencies and across departments, because, obviously,
many of the agencies and departments within the administration
have responsibilities that relate to creating an environment
for manufacturers to succeed.
And so we are going to make sure that there is very active
communication among the agencies as well as setting up a
President's Manufacturing Council, Advisory Council, which will
be individuals from the private sector, small, medium, and
large manufacturers will have a seat at the table so that we
can hear their views and hear their concerns as we continue to
consider policy in this administration in this town.
So we are making good progress. Thank you again for your
support, but we have a lot more work to do. We know that.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Hollings?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICES
Senator Hollings. I thank the distinguished Secretary and
our chairman for their kind comments. It has been a privilege
to work with both of you.
With respect to manufacturing, when is this office of the
manufacturing services, the gentleman or lady to be appointed?
It was announced months ago.
Secretary Evans. It was. It was, Senator, but this is a
Senate-confirmed position and we really didn't have the
authority to move forward on it until you passed the 2004
budget. The authorization is within that budget. The budget
passed. We have been moving aggressively. We have an individual
that we have selected. Now we are just going through the
process and I believe that we will have that name to the Senate
within the next couple of weeks.
But in the meantime, Grant Aldonas, who is the Under
Secretary of International Trade, it is his responsibility to
make sure we are moving forward on these recommendations that
are within the report within the Import Administration. We are
moving forward with monitoring products coming in from China
with the Market Access and Compliance Office. We are moving
forward on putting a task force together to make sure that
other countries are enforcing their laws.
So we are not slowing down. We are not waiting for the
confirmation of one individual. We have a report that has over
50 recommendations in it and I expect our Department to
deliver.
AMERICAN JOBS
Senator Hollings. Do you think the Department should be
leading efforts to export jobs, for the elimination of American
jobs specifically, for sending jobs to, let us say, China?
Secretary Evans. I think we ought to lead for creating jobs
in America. I want everybody----
Senator Hollings. You and I agree on that, and that is why
I was wondering about reading articles on Under Secretary
Juster or Juster--how do you pronounce that?
Secretary Evans. Juster.
Senator Hollings. Juster. He has these innovation forums at
the Ronald Reagan Building and last year with the United
States-India Business Council and otherwise coming right on
down all year long to December. I refer specifically to an
article in the New York Times, December 10, and let me read
just a couple of lines.
``After the opening speeches, the 50 or so American
executives gathered at the Hotel Pennsylvania in Manhattan were
invited to divide up. Those interested in investing in China,
putting an operation there and hiring Chinese workers were to
go across the hall to the Penntop North Conference Room. Those
who wanted help in exporting to China were to stay seated in
Penntop South. Half or more went across the hall.''
It was stated that across the hall, most of the speakers
were Chinese promoting what Shen Liguo, Vice Governor of
Heilongjiang Province in Northeastern China, described as,
quote, ``Northeast China's beautiful prospects.'' Quote, ``We
are going to absorb a lot of foreign investment to bring about
development in this area.'' A big blue banner over the thing
says, ``Go global.'' The Commerce Department was described by
the Chinese as a sponsor and its representative, Mr. Spencer
Ross, acted as moderator.
Now, there you go. You folks are working to get rid of the
jobs and we here in the Congress are doing our best to hold on
to the jobs. What is your comment about this?
Secretary Evans. Sure, Senator. I think, in fact, I know
and I am very clear, that it is the responsibility of the
Commercial Service, the Export Assistance Centers that we have
across America, and the Foreign Commercial Service Offices that
we have around the world to promote the export of American-made
goods and products and services and that is----
Senator Hollings. I agree with you on that. That is on
exports of goods. But how about exports of jobs? You just said
we are trying to maintain jobs and create them in the United
States.
Secretary Evans. Right. I want everybody to hire American
workers. I want foreign companies to hire American workers. I
want small, medium, and large companies to hire American
workers. I want to continue to create an environment in America
where everybody wants to hire our workers and buy our products
and----
Senator Hollings. The Under Secretary Juster and Spencer
Ross and all, are they carrying out the policy of the
Department of Commerce?
Secretary Evans. Yes, sir, indeed, I believe that they are.
They are continuing----
Senator Hollings. Well, the policy is, then, to export the
jobs, because I am just reading here where that is what they
are doing.
Secretary Evans. Well, I would take issue with the article,
Senator. I would say that we were there promoting the export of
our goods and our products and our services. If there are
people that want to export equipment to China from the United
States, we want to be supportive of that. We have to be there
to explain to them how it is that you go through customs and
the procedures necessary to export equipment and goods and
services around the world.
Senator Hollings. Well, the Commerce Department often
sends, and I am quoting, its representatives to events like
this one at the Hotel Pennsylvania last month, but it dulls
their pro-export message by delivering it at conferences
dominated by the Chinese delegations urging American companies
to invest in China, not export.
Secretary Evans. Well, if they----
Senator Hollings. You have been in the business 30 years.
If you went to an oil conference to try and export your oil and
all of a sudden foreign delegations were taking over the
majority of the activities and the speakers and everything
else, we are going to import the oil and put you out of
business down in Texas, after 30 years' experience, you would
do something about it, wouldn't you?
Secretary Evans. Well, I would be there encouraging them to
buy a Caterpillar engine and take it with them to drill the
well. I would be there encouraging them to purchase equipment
from the United States to use wherever they might be going. And
so we are there in the capacity of American capital, and
American capital does invest in other parts of the world. As we
continue to work with the world, I want to encourage these
American companies to take American equipment with them when
they go, and that means more jobs here in America.
Senator Hollings. Mr. Secretary, just one other question
and I will yield because I have got other questions relative
to----
Senator Gregg. We can go around again. No, go ahead for
your second question.
MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP
Senator Hollings. It is the National Institute of Standards
and Technology. We reduced this some $177 million.
Specifically, we just practically eliminate the Advanced
Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Program. You just close out the MEP with only a recommended
appropriation of $39.1 million. Just year before last, we had
it up to $107 million. The Advanced Technology Program, there
is no question that we have had 200 new technologies
commercialized as three-quarters of the ATP programs are
awarded to small businesses, and I could go down the success
story because it has won the Council on Competitiveness Award.
It was really fashioned with caveats by myself, but Senator
Danforth wanted to make sure it wasn't a pork program and just
giving out awards. So the application has to be vetted by the
National Academy of Engineering. After it is found to be a
unique kind of technology, then you have to bring 50 percent of
the financing and then on a competitive basis over at the
Department itself stand in line for that particular award.
I have been on the Appropriations Subcommittee here for
quite a while and we never have given out any pork projects. I
don't have--if I have one in South Carolina, I don't know about
it, but I do know about its success because the Council on
Competitiveness and Young from Hewlett Packard and all have
come and attested.
But now you just red-line it and we are talking about
getting jobs and helping manufacturing and we are going to
appoint an Office of Manufacturing Services, and yet we are
eliminating the services.
Secretary Evans. Well, Mr. Chairman, Senator, I would say
to you that these are programs that have delivered an important
service through the years. I would also say to you that we are
at war and there are very tough choices that have to be made
and priorities that have to be set. I would say to you that
these have been two good programs that have been of good
service, but given the current environment of making tough
choices in the middle of a war, they are just not two that made
the list for us.
Senator Hollings. You believe both should be eliminated?
Secretary Evans. No, I didn't say that, because----
Senator Hollings. But you are eliminating them. Are you
supporting the budget or not?
Secretary Evans. No. What we are supporting is to fund MEP
at the same level that it was funded in the current budget. We
are supporting funding MEP in the year 2005 at the same $39.2
million that is in the 2004 budget.
And also, Mr. Chairman, what I would say to you is we are
looking for ways, as I mentioned earlier, to work across
administration lines to make sure that all of the resources
that are available to manufacturing are being delivered or they
are aware of them. We will spend in the 2005 budget about $132
billion on research and development. We said that one of the
areas that have additional funding possibly available to MEP
programs is in the Economic Development Administration. There
are some $45 million there that Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Centers can compete for with others that might be
competing for the same funds in an area of our country that is
distressed because it has been hit hard by the downturn of
manufacturing in that particular community.
Senator Hollings. Since you mentioned it, the $45 million
of the EDA, $40 of that $45 million has already been committed
and now EDA is distressed. You have got high unemployment and
everything else like that. Over here, there is a highly
technological program in the development of manufacturing and
what you have done, having them compete for the same monies, it
is like tying two cats by the tails and throwing them over the
clothesline and saying, claw each other and see who can get the
money, but that is about the way we are on that. Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Senator Stevens? Traditionally, we recognize
the chairman of the full committee whenever he arrives, and it
was my error not to recognize you earlier. I should have
recognized you before I recognized myself if I want to keep my
job.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, they do this all the time.
It is all right.
I am happy to be here with you, Mr. Secretary. I have got
just three questions I would like to ask. I would like to just
submit some technical ones to you, if I may.
Secretary Evans. Sure.
Senator Stevens. The first is personal. Are you going to
come up and go fishing with me this year?
Secretary Evans. You are trying to get me on the record,
aren't you?
I sure hope to.
ASSISTANCE TO ALASKA FISHERMEN
Senator Stevens. In 2002, we put some amendments on the
Trade Promotion Act that would assist the Alaska salmon
fishermen who had been really harmed by the importation of farm
salmon, particularly from Chile. It provided that for 5 years,
there would be a $15 million item to assist these people to
transition to other forms of employment, to develop other
economic opportunities in their areas.
So far, there has only been a portion of the first $15
million made available. Could you comment on that or tell me
you will look into it and see what is happening? It should have
been $15 million a year, and there are some growing
opportunities now in tourism in particular and in small
business development along the coastline that they might be
able to move into if they had the kind of assistance that EDA
could provide through that $15 million.
Secretary Evans. Yes, I know how important those areas are.
We are supporting those areas, Mr. Chairman, and we obviously
will continue to support them. I am familiar with the $15
million commitment. I know that it is not all in there yet. I
will tell you that I will look into it further to see what it
is we can do to make sure that we fund that at that level.
Senator Stevens. I hope you will, because with half the
coastline of the United States, some of those villages and
communities are located literally hundreds of miles from other
communities. But we have found now with the advent of
telecommunications and with the Internet capability, they can
start businesses like answering the telephones for some motel
chain. You would be surprised what is there if they have the
funding to transition into sort of modern global commerce. So I
think that $15 million is well spent if we can find some way to
put the money up. I would hope you would help us find it.
CRAB RATIONALIZATION PROGRAM
Second, I met with the Administrator of NOAA concerning the
crab rationalization plan recently. I think Bill Hogarth is
doing a marvelous job for you. This is a program that was
enacted this year and we are trying to make certain that the
regulations and actions that are necessary to implement this
crab program are in effect by the crab fishery, which will take
place in early 2005. This is a crab fishery that has had the
highest death rate of any industrial activity in the country
for a period of years.
We have enacted a program which will take the race for that
crab out of the system and allocate firm amounts of crab to a
boat owner so he or she may harvest the crab when the weather
is good. But if the regulations aren't in effect come January,
they will be back racing for the crab again and lose more
boats. We lost one this January, a very sad loss.
I would hope that you would help us find a way to implement
this by the end of this year. Are you familiar with the
program, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Evans. I am, Senator. I am very familiar with it.
I know Bill Hogarth, as you said, is very focused on the issue.
He is working with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
to implement the regulations. I haven't had anybody tell me
that we won't be able to be in full compliance of our charge of
having those regulations in place by the end of the year, so we
are hopeful that we are able to accomplish that.
OCEANS POLICY COMMISSION
Senator Stevens. Thank you. Last, Senator Hollings and I
have been involved with carrying out the policies of the
Stratton Commission that was a commission from the 1960s,
really. We have now a new Oceans Policy Commission expected to
release its report either this month or no later than next
month. I wonder, are you keeping pace with them? Will you be
able to appear before us and give us some recommendations based
on that report for possible action this year?
Secretary Evans. I sure would be delighted to do that,
Senator, if I am invited up to do that. We have been working
very close with Admiral Watkins and Robert Ballard and others
on the Commission. It is my understanding that the draft of the
report will be out within the next few weeks and then there
will be a chance for individuals to comment, give information
back to the committee.
I would say to you our best guess is we probably will have
a completed report by mid-summer, and so I am looking forward
to the report and I salute you and Senator Hollings both for
really being instrumental in providing the framework for this
Commission. I think it is going to be a very valuable resource
for us to review and understand what there is to explore in the
oceans. But I am hopeful that we will have this report
presented to Congress, to the President, in its final form, by
mid-summer.
Senator Stevens. My good friend from South Carolina is
going to pursue other activities after this year, and since we
have been partners in this for so long, I would hope we would
have a chance to review it here in this committee and to make
some recommendations to Congress to implement that report while
he is still here.
The Stratton Commission has been, as I said, our guiding
light, but we are going to have a new series of recommendations
that I think should be implemented as rapidly as possible and I
am hopeful this committee, Mr. Chairman, will see fit to have a
hearing as soon as we can after that final report is presented
to us by you and the President.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, my friend. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. We will certainly do exactly that. It is a
very important issue.
Senator Leahy?
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PATRIOTISM
Mr. Secretary, when you began your remarks here this
morning, you commended Senator Hollings' patriotism, and I
think every one of us would agree with that. We should also
commend yours. I know in your case coming into Government also
involved your personal friendship with the President. It is not
an easy task. Whether we agree or disagree with policies you
might carry out, I don't think there is anybody, Republican or
Democrat, who disagrees with your own sense of patriotism and
your own commitment to this country.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much.
U.S. ECONOMY
Senator Leahy. What I worry about, we have families that
are hurting. They see a jobless recovery, 3 million
manufacturing jobs lost in the past 3 years. Our manufacturing
jobs in the United States are now at the lowest level since
1950 and I am worried about that, whether it is in my State or
yours or any other State. This is such a major part of the
economic engine of this country and probably one of the reasons
why our trade deficit is so high. Our trade deficit was almost
half-a-trillion dollars in 2003, $489 billion to be exact.
These things bother me.
I look at the Commerce Department's proposal to help the
Nation's ailing manufacturers, the proposal of a new Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing, as we have talked
about, supporting the MEP program that you and Senator Hollings
just talked about. I am not sure how a new assistant secretary
does anything. You already have hundreds of people doing this
at Commerce, and they are supposed to be doing that job to
begin with.
Senator Hollings said on MEP, which I think is a very, very
good program, it has gotten strong bipartisan support. The
President's budget doesn't really match the rhetoric. The
reality doesn't match the rhetoric. The money is not in there.
I was here with the final negotiations on the appropriations
bill, where the rubber really reaches the road, and the White
House was not pushing for the extra money on MEP. We are not
going to have the money for our centers to continue operations
and service our small manufacturers. And those small
manufacturers are in every one of our States. So that is a
bother.
PRESIDENT'S ECONOMIC REPORT
I look at sort of the trifecta of sections in the recently
released Economic Report of the President. First, it suggests
that the movement of U.S. jobs overseas, commonly referred to
as offshoring, is beneficial to consumers. The President's top
economist said this migration is just ``a new way of doing
international trade.'' Well, that is kind of a flippant way for
somebody to speak who has a job.
If you know you have 2 months left on your job because you
have to train somebody to do the same work in India or
Indonesia, you don't think this is a great, new way of doing
jobs. If you worked hard going through school, you have learned
the trade and suddenly it is leaving. The administration's
rhetoric is not going to do very much if you want to send your
kids to school.
The report also predicts that non-farm payroll employment
will average 132.7 million workers in 2004. That would be a 2.6
million increase in jobs over the estimate in 2003. But then
you have an analysis from the Economic Policy Institute and the
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that says that you
would have to create something like 460,000 jobs a month to do
this. You would have to have 5 million jobs between now and the
end of the year added.
That is not going to happen unless you do the other thing
in the report, and that is the question they raised, whether
fast food restaurants should continue to be counted as part of
the service sector or part of the manufacturing sector. They
say specifically, ``When a fast food restaurant sells a
hamburger, for example, is it providing a service or is it
combining inputs to manufacture a product?''
I remember about 20 years ago, and Senator Hollings, you
were here, and Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye were too, I
had taken a bunch of reports back to Vermont with me to read
them over the weekend at my farmhouse. I also serve on the
Agriculture Committee. And I am reading something in there and
I remember calling one of the lawyers on the committee. I said,
``Am I reading this right?'' They hadn't seen it. They read it
and they called me back and said, you are absolutely right. The
administration is reclassifying catsup as a vegetable. I do
have a 5-year-old grandson who probably believes it is. He
loves it.
I mean, the only way you are going to get some of these
jobs, as I see it, is to do the catsup as a vegetable thing, to
say if you work at Taco Bell, you really have a manufacturing
job.
These are just some thoughts of mine. I have a number of
questions I will submit for the record.
Mr. Secretary, I see good news and bad news in my own State
as some areas were able to get jobs, but I just see so many
manufacturing jobs fleeing. I see it in South Carolina, in
Alaska, and in Hawaii, Wisconsin and everywhere else. I don't
think just reclassifying some of these things is going to do
it, just my thought.
FOCUS ON CREATING JOBS
Secretary Evans. Senator, thank you for those comments and
observations. Let me just begin by saying I think at the very
center of America, the very center of the American experience
is a job, because that is where people go to get a paycheck to
put a roof over their family's head, to feed their children, to
educate their children, to provide health care for their
children.
I spent 30 years of my life in the private sector doing
everything I could to create jobs. I measured the success of
our company by are we creating jobs in our community? The most
painful thing, the most painful thing I have ever done in my
life is tell somebody they didn't have a job, which I did. The
best thing, the most enjoyable thing I ever did in my life was
telling somebody they had a job.
So I agree with you, when you put your focus on jobs and
how important it is to create the environment for creating more
jobs in America, because there is nothing more painful than
somebody not having work to be able to provide for their
families. That is where a lot of our focus should be, is on
those individuals that are in transition from one job to
another.
And in the economy that we are going into as we move into
the 21st century, as we work more closely in the world in a
growing global economy, it is going to be an ever-changing
economy. We are going to be creating new industries in this
country, as we have been for years. We are going to be creating
new jobs in this country, as we have been for years. But we are
also going to be losing them along the way, as we have been for
years.
As we move into the 21st century, we are going to see this
rapidly-changing economy. Individuals that enter it today,
instead of just having maybe four or five different jobs in
their lifetime, they may have four or five different careers
and----
Senator Leahy. But Mr. Secretary, what are the kind of jobs
we are going to create? I mean, I look at MEP, which is
something that helps so many of our small businesses create
jobs around this country. But that is being cut. I mean, where
are these jobs going to be? We told kids over the past few
years to get your math skills, get your work skills and all
because we are going into this service area of computers and so
on and that is the place to go. They did it, and now they are
training people to do their jobs in Asia or in India.
I understand some things change, but what are we doing? We
have got a half-a-trillion dollar trade deficit. Doesn't this
ring alarm bells that we are not creating jobs, we are just
importing everything?
Secretary Evans. Well, Senator, first of all, where are the
jobs going to be created? As you mentioned, manufacturing jobs
have been declining in this country and in this world for the
last 40 years because of the higher productivity in the
manufacturing sector of the global economy.
Today only 11 percent of the jobs in this country are
manufacturing-specific jobs. So almost 90 percent of the jobs
in America today, where people are going to get a paycheck, to
feed their children, to put a roof over their family's head,
are jobs that are outside of the manufacturing sector of our
economy, and we are going to continue to create new industries
and new jobs.
I have traveled all across America the last couple of
years. I was in Portland, Oregon last week at Portland
Community College, and I heard story after story after story of
individuals that were there in their 30's or 35 and changing,
moving from one career to another, learning new skills, having
the task to meet the ever-growing demand of jobs in America.
So it is education and job training. We have 1,100
community colleges across the country, 11 million people in
those community colleges developing these new skills and new
talents that will meet the demands in these ever-new industries
that we are creating in this country every year. It has been
going on for years.
In specific areas, you are obviously going to see a lot in
the biotechnology area, in the whole technology area, in health
care and services. You are going to see tremendous growth there
in the years ahead.
And so this is an economy that since its beginning has
always shown a remarkable ability to create new industries and
new jobs. You go back to 1900. About 70 percent of the jobs
were in the agriculture community. Now, 2 percent. So it is
just the economy, because it is so dynamic and because we allow
the free markets to work----
TRADE DEFICIT
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, if I might, Mr. Secretary, and
my time is up, I know, but half-a-trillion dollars in 1 year in
trade deficit, we are still not doing something right.
Secretary Evans. Well----
Senator Leahy. My time is up. You may want to respond to
that for the record.
Secretary Evans. I will just respond real quick. I think it
is the others in the world who are not doing something right in
that their economies are not growing as they should be. And as
we travel the world, we tell other countries, you need to
implement the kind of policies, economic policies, fiscal
policies, monetary policies, regulatory policies that provide
the environment for growth in your own countries and so you can
create more jobs and that will benefit American workers and
American businesses. We need more global economic growth. We
can't be the only engine of growth in the world.
Senator Gregg. Senator Kohl?
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Secretary Evans.
MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP
I know the purpose of these hearings is to bring
information to the table and hopefully to educate from one side
to the other, from you to us and from us to you so that good
things can happen. They are, as you know and I am sure you
agree, not intended for just one side or the other to mouth
previously held positions and both sides leave having learned
nothing. That is the purpose of our hearings. We listen to each
other and we hopefully learn and grow.
It is in connection with that that I would like to come
back at least once, perhaps finally at this hearing, to the MEP
program. As you know, the MEP program is Manufacturing
Extension Partnerships, a program which helps small and medium-
size manufacturing firms around the country to streamline their
operations, shorten production time, lower costs to enable them
to better compete here and around the world, and as a result,
increase their employment.
And, as you know, and I don't say this in any way less than
complimentary fashion, in your best judgment, that program
deserves to be cut. It is not fully funded. It is fully funded
as of last year, but it is not fully funded as to where it was
2 and 3 and 4 years ago. So to say it is fully funded is not
accurate. It is a program which your Department has made a
decision deserves to be cut.
To say that it can compete for other funds elsewhere is to
rather obfuscate the fact that it is a program which does not
deserve, in your Department's judgment, does not deserve to be
funded at its level of 2 years ago and 3 years ago and 4 years
ago. It deserves to be cut by almost two-thirds, and then go
out and compete for funds and probably not be very successful
because the competition is really, really tough among many,
many different well-qualified operations to compete for a
limited amount of funding, and they are not going to get fully
funded relative to where they were 2 and 3 and 4 years ago.
But it really is a good program, Secretary Evans. You know,
during this last break, I visited at least two programs around
Wisconsin, MEP programs, and heard from many, many others, and
I visited one program with James Haney, who is the President of
the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce Organization. It is
Wisconsin's preeminent organization of its kind. They have
4,300 members representing business around the State. It is
really a good organization. It politically happens to be an
organization which is totally supportive of Republicans in
terms of political, but they are really not that. They try and
be and they are an effective bipartisan organization.
So I visited the Bernston International Company in Madison,
Wisconsin, the manufacturing operation with him, and he wrote
back to me. He said, ``Senator Kohl, it was a pleasure to tour
Bernston International with you last week in Madison. This
company is just one example of many MEP successes that I have
personally witnessed in Wisconsin. I completely agree with you
that MEP is one of the best Government investments around and
it should be fully supported at the State and at the Federal
level.''
He goes on to conclude that, ``We need to prioritize our
economic development initiatives and judiciously place taxpayer
dollars in those investments that provide the best return for
our State and our country and there are many programs that
should not make this cut. However, MEP is one Government
investment that ranks at the top when evaluated against
criteria of national need, effectiveness, and results. We
should not shortchange or undercut this excellent program.''
``I understand the Senate Commerce, Justice, and State
Appropriations Subcommittee will be reviewing the manufacturing
support program this week. Please urge the Secretary to do what
he can to restore MEP funding at the level of $106 million,''
where it was. This is from a longtime, experienced, highly
respected businessman in Wisconsin.
Tell us why you have concluded that MEP does not deserve to
be funded at its previous level. Thirty-nine-point-six million
dollars, which is its new level of funding, for a national
program in terms of Federal support is virtually an
evisceration. This is not for one State, this is for all 50
States, $39.6 million. It is not hard to imagine that this is a
small, small level of support.
Our opinion is it is for a really good program and there
are thousands of businesses around the country that would
attest to it. So one last time, explain to us why does this
program deserve to be significantly minimized in terms of its
direct Federal support?
BUDGET CHOICES
Secretary Evans. Senator, again, it is about tough choices.
I agree with you in that it has served many small and medium
manufacturers well over its period of existence. It will
continue to serve many small and medium-size manufacturers well
at a reduced level.
I would say to you that while we have made the decision,
the tough decision of saying we need to, because of the tough
times that we are in and the priorities that must be set within
our own Department, we are doing all we can to make sure that
if there are other funding sources available to Manufacturing
Extension Partnership Centers, we want to make sure they are
conscious of those opportunities.
I would just go back to my other remark, that we are
spending about $132 billion on research and development. We are
spending $20 billion on economic development. Within these two
large pools of money, maybe there are opportunities for
Manufacturing Extension Partnerships to compete. We have
identified some already that I have referred to. We are talking
to the Department of Defense. We are encouraged by some of the
discussions that are going on there because of their interest
in making sure that small manufacturers are participating in
their programs. We don't have anything definitive yet. We are
just talking to them.
We are doing the same thing with Homeland Security.
Homeland Security has about, as I understand it, $800 million
for research and development kinds of programs. Maybe there is
opportunity there, so we are talking to them.
We are trying to look across Government to see where there
may be additional funding that these centers can compete for. I
know the challenges these manufacturers face because I was in
that business. I know that industry. I know the kind of
challenges they deal with every day.
So again, I continue to acknowledge that I think the
program has functioned well, but it is time for tough choices
and this is one of those very difficult choices that we made
and acknowledge that doesn't mean we are all going to agree
with our two choices. I respect, obviously, your view on it,
but we felt like this was one of those tough choices where we
were going to--and saying fully funded, I would agree, it is
what I meant to imply was funding in 2005 at the same level
that Congress approved for 2004, which is, and I acknowledge,
below the funding of previous years.
SUPPORT FOR MEP
Senator Kohl. All right. One of the companies I visited was
the Risota Tool Company of Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, and we
toured the company, talked to the owners of the company and
people who work there. MEP had been in and they had done a lot
of scheduling and efficiency improvements and profit
improvements in the company. Those people who worked there were
totally complimentary, totally supportive of what MEP had done
and they felt that MEP had contributed significantly to the
company's ability to continue to exist, employ, and compete.
There are dozens and dozens of companies around Wisconsin that
will attest to the same thing and I am certain that this is
true around the country.
Now, as I said at the outset, we all hope that these
hearings serve to educate one another or else they have no
purpose, and so I am finally suggesting to you that you take
one last look. It is policy we are talking about, that is the
most important thing, but it is also political. Everything we
do here has a political aspect to it. Although not the most
important, it is part of what we do here in Washington.
I can assure you that in my State, and this goes back to
when you were in the State several months ago touring the
State, you visited Harley-Davidson, you remember that----
Secretary Evans. You bet.
Senator Kohl. I saw it on C-SPAN. And, of course, people at
Harley-Davidson, many of them were very concerned and upset
about their jobs. One individual stood up at that meeting that
you had with the workers there and asked about MEP. I don't
know why or whether they did it out of their own knowledge or
someone prompted them, I don't know, but talked about MEP and
how important MEP was. James Haney, who is the President of
Wisconsin Manufacturers, talks about MEP.
It would be very, very well received in Wisconsin, which is
an important State in November, but it has nothing to do with
policy--I mean with politics. Policy is the most important
thing we do. I recognize that and I am sure you do, too. People
in Wisconsin are really concerned about the loss of
manufacturing jobs and are looking for every shred of help they
can get at the Federal level to assure them that we are doing
everything in their power to help them maintain jobs at the
manufacturing level in Wisconsin and MEP is a recognized and
accepted part of that effort in our State.
So I am asking you as well as Chairman Gregg, as we go
through and figure out our funding levels for this year, and,
of course, Senator Hollings, who I know is supportive of MEP,
that we give it another look to see whether or not there is
something in the interest of our country that we can do with a
program which is small in terms of its funding, but very
important in terms of what it does accomplish in many States
throughout our great country.
And with that, I am finished.
Secretary Evans. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Your counsel is taken very seriously,
Senator, and we will certainly be addressing it. The opinion
has been expressed, obviously, by the committee. But as the
Secretary said, he had to set priorities in his budget. We will
maybe adjust and tweak those priorities a bit and send him back
a budget he will be very comfortable with but will certainly
address some of the concerns of the committee.
Senator Inouye?
CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH INITIATIVE
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to discuss two matters with you, Mr.
Secretary. In 2001, the President of the United States launched
the U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative and that was hailed
by the people in the Pacific for obvious reasons. Climate is
part of our way of life. More than ever, it is pleasant and
beautiful, but there are times when it can be devastating.
So the matter of climate change is very essential to our
way of life, and I note that in this budget the President has
suggested $24.7 million. But in analyzing this, we somehow feel
that to make this up, there were cuts of $11 million from the
same program. I would like to submit a few questions with that
in mind, sir.
TOURISM INDUSTRY
The other question I have, sir, is the tourism industry.
Today, I think it employs about 1 million. It brings in about
$83 billion. It has been declining, and especially since 9/11
it has gone further down. But the World Trade and Tourism
Council just predicted that 2004 may be the year for tourism to
start going up, provided Government took the initiative to be
proactive and put out a hand to bring them in.
My questions would be, what is Government doing, or what
can Government do, or what can we do to increase this industry,
because it is a good, clean, potentially productive industry.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Gregg. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Inouye. May I submit the questions?
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Secretary Evans. I would like to respond. First of all, let
me just touch on global climate change real quick, if you don't
mind. When I arrived here a little over 3 years ago, that was
an issue that the President was very focused on, as was our
Department, and we started to try and understand the scope of
the global climate change commitment from Government, which is
significant.
First, I was told that on global climate change we spend
about $800 million a year. And then we found some other money
that really is focused on global climate change and it took us
up to about $1.6 billion a year. And then as you looked around
some more, you found some others that would, you know. The end
of the story is that we commit about $4.5 billion a year to
global climate change in this country, more than everybody else
combined, global climate change science and research and
technology.
We put together an organizational structure to oversee that
$4.5 billion. Within the Department of Commerce is the
responsibility of the oversight of the science portion of
global climate change, which is about $1.8 billion across the
Government. We have put out a report for the science community
to review and consider. We did that last year a couple of
times. We just recently put out a final report that focuses on
the science side, the science research side of global climate
change, which got some favorable comments, from the National
Research Council.
In June in Japan, we are going to bring together the global
community. This will be for the third time, but it continues to
expand. We will have the global community there to sign an
accord, a framework that focuses on a global monitoring system,
a global observation system for the climate so that we can
develop the kind of data, kind of information we need in this
world to understand the world, this Mother Earth that we all
live on, but also make sure globally we are collecting the data
to make good policy decisions.
So just know that we are very focused on that very
important issue, not only for the good people of the islands of
Hawaii, but the entire world, and I feel the world coming
together to say, you know what? That is a good idea. We ought
to have a global observation and monitoring system. The reason
we know so much about El Nino and La Nina is because we happen
to have an observation system out there so we measure out
there. So why don't we measure the world and understand what is
going on in the world. So that is my basic thoughts on global
climate change.
Your second question was on----
Senator Inouye. Tourism.
TOURISM
Secretary Evans. Tourism. We had hoped that we were going
to receive $50 million in the budget to promote tourism in
America. We have put together a Tourism Council that is focused
on promoting America around the world. As it turned out in the
2004 budget, there was only $6 million allocated for that
account, for that program, and so what we have made the
determination that we will do, working with the Tourism
Council, is to focus a pilot program on Great Britain and
commit those $6 million to Great Britain and look at the
results of that program, and based on the results of that
program, we will make a determination as to what to ask for in
subsequent budgets.
But you are right. It is a vital part of our economy.
Eighteen million people, when you count the entire travel and
tourism industry, have a job there, and so it is a critical
part of our economy and we will continue to do all we can to
promote it. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
PTO INCREASE
Senator Gregg. Mr. Secretary, there is a 25 percent
increase here for the Patent and Trademark Office, which is
basically taking all the patent fees and putting them into the
Patent and Trademark Office, which is a legitimate
philosophical position. In light of the Patent and Trademark
Office's track record, which is to say at the least spotty, do
you think they can absorb that type of an increase?
Secretary Evans. Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope they can
because I think it is critical to manufacturing in this
country. What we certainly are learning in this ever-changing
economy that we are moving into is that the manufacturing
sector is growing or becoming less mechanical and more driven
by biotechnology and electrical kinds of issues. It is much
more complicated. It is much more complex. Patents just simply
take longer, take more resources, take more hours, take more
time to review and then make a judgment on.
It is our determination, as we look at this important area
that if we don't hire additional examiners--in fact, in our
plan right now, we talk about hiring an additional 900
examiners. That is on top of about 3,600 examiners. But if we
don't hire at that kind of level, which I agree, a 25 percent
increase is a significant increase, but we see the prospects of
the pendency continuing to climb. It was a little over 20 weeks
in 2003. We estimate in 2004 it is going to be 21 weeks. We see
it continuing to climb but for a plan that will indeed give us
the examiners, and the training of the examiners that are
needed in this ever-changing economy.
So we believe we can absorb them. I have asked that same
question. I realize that is a big management challenge, but I
also understand how critical the Patent and Trademark Office is
to this economy. As rapidly as it is changing and as it
continues to move in highly technical areas and highly
complicated areas that require examiners with skills in
electronics and biotechnology and all the rest. It is a
challenge, but it is an area we focused on very hard.
Senator Gregg. Well, I think it is a challenge. It has been
this committee's experience that when we have put a lot of
money into a Department to hire a large amount of expert staff,
for example, we did it with the SEC, we did it with the FBI, we
did it with the State Department, we have found that it has
created real problems. We have ended up with some breakdowns in
the hiring practices. We have ended up either not hiring up as
quickly as we wanted or hiring up with real problems, like the
Border Patrol.
I have serious reservations about putting this much money,
this quickly, into the Patent and Trademark Office. I readily
acknowledge your premise, which is that there is a serious
problem there, that we are not getting the patents approved
fast enough. I think the problem is expertise and management,
systems management. We would be interested in further
information on how you really do plan to find 900 new people
who have the expertise to do this job in one year's cycle. I
think it is----
Secretary Evans. A good question.
[The information follows:]
PTO's Hiring Plan for 900 New Staff
On a percentage basis, the USPTO has increased its staff by
even more in the recent past. Hiring 900 examiners in fiscal
year 2005 represents an increase of about 25 percent over end
of fiscal year 2004 staff levels. In prior years, the Office
has successfully hired similar numbers: In 1998, they hired 728
examiners, an increase of about 34 percent over the previous
end-of-year staff; in 1999, they hired 799 examiners, an
increase of about 31 percent over the previous end-of-year
staff; and in 2002, they hired 769 examiners, an increase of 25
percent over the previous end-of-year staff.
The USPTO maintains an automated job application database
to facilitate the hiring of patent examiners. The database
currently contains about 3,700 applications. We have a
strategic recruitment plan in place to build awareness of
examiner job opportunities through a variety of print media
that target high-demand technologies, and planned participation
in about 60 recruiting events this fiscal year that are
dedicated to engineering and science disciplines.
The agency has had a special hiring unit in place for
several years that is dedicated exclusively to bringing in
patent examiners. In years when the agency had high-volume
hiring, the unit has brought on board an average of 37
examiners per bi-week (962 per year), with the ability to
process and train up to 60 examiners per bi-week (1,500 per
year).
MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings?
Senator Hollings. On that particular point, that dovetails
with the observation of the distinguished Secretary relative to
Senator Kohl's concern about the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership. Specifically, the Secretary says there are hard
choices. Respectfully, I think it is a very easy choice, not a
hard choice at all. You want jobs, I want jobs, we all want
jobs, and that Patent Office, $310 million, let us just say
$210 million, give the $100 million to MEP and we would be back
up to snuff with the Manufacturers Extension Partnership small
business services.
Senator Gregg. You only need $67 million.
Senator Hollings. Don't start cutting me. Wait until we get
to conference.
BUDGET CHOICES
The Office of Manufacturing and Services, heck, we are
going to get us a big super-duper secretary of services and we
cut down the services, and when we get to a real service, as
pointed out and emphasized by Senator Kohl, you say hard
choice. That is not a hard choice, that is an easy choice. Give
the money where it is producing jobs.
Now, I don't accuse you, Mr. Secretary, but I have been
through a dozen Secretaries. Now, Census is a honey pot that
doesn't need as much funding as you propose because you are
ramping up 7 to 6 years ahead of time the 2010 census. So we
can take $100 million of that and restore MEP, an easy choice.
I could go through this budget and really get the things.
I really am disturbed, and you mentioned technology. The
Advanced Technology Program, that is one where all that high
tech is really there and vetted by the National Academy of
Engineering, and decisions are made on a competitive basis and
they have to bring 50 percent of the money.
Let me get to the point given our limited time here,
because we are going to have a rollcall, you and I both agree
that our job is to create, not to export jobs. Export products,
but create jobs. Would you object to a provision under this
particular appropriation that no monies be expended to
encourage or expedite the export of jobs? You wouldn't object
to that provision in the budget?
EXPORTING OF JOBS
Secretary Evans. I am not for the exporting of jobs----
Senator Hollings. That is what I mean. So you are not doing
it, so it wouldn't have any effect, then.
Secretary Evans. Right.
Senator Hollings. And that would include the pay of these
staff cheerleaders that go to these Chinese conferences. We
don't want to pay those fellows, Ross and all the rest, the
assistant secretaries who run around to these Chinese
conferences in New York and elsewhere promoting the export of
jobs. I am sure you and I agree on that.
Secretary Evans. Well, they are promoting the export of
goods and services from America and equipment.
Senator Hollings. Good, and you and I agree on that. They
ought to do that, but not the export of jobs.
Secretary Evans. No. It would be exporting the goods and
services from America.
Senator Hollings. That is right, and so we don't want to
pay them to export jobs.
Secretary Evans. Just the export of goods and services and
products from America.
Senator Hollings. And we don't want to pay them to export
jobs.
Secretary Evans. We want to pay them to export Caterpillar
engines and John Deere tractors and----
Senator Hollings. A 30-year outstanding business success
and you keep saying export goods and services, which we all
agree on. I am questioning on whether or not we can agree on
the export of jobs.
Secretary Evans. No. We should not. We are not supporting
the export of jobs.
OCEAN PROGRAMS
Senator Hollings. Now, with respect to the oceans program
that Senator Stevens, our distinguished chairman, emphasizes we
are going to have to get into those issues because we have an
outstanding commission appointed by President Bush and they are
reporting henceforth here, like you say, around mid-summer.
Secretary, under the leadership of Chairman Gregg, we have
been developing, and it has been a struggle in this
Appropriations Subcommittee, in that we put in, generally
speaking, about $15 million for seven-tenths of the Earth's
surface, namely the oceans, and $15 billion for Mars and moons.
We know way more about the surface of the Moon than we know
about the surface of the Earth.
And yet the Ocean Exploration Initiative, the Ocean Health
Initiative, the Coastal Estuarine Land Acquisition Program, the
Coastal Observation Initiative, NOAA's infrastructure for the
multiple lawsuits and all, you terminate or cut the funding.
You cut NOAA as we are going into a wonderful venture and
really find out, like you say, about the weather and the
climate all the way around the world.
I have been down to McMurdo Station in the South Pole. That
is where the beginning of the hole in the ozone layer is. You
can look up and see it. All of these initiatives are through
NOAA, but their budget is being cut $308 million just as we are
going to hear from the Watkins Commission. Please comment on
that.
Secretary Evans. Senator, what I would say to you is I
think we all share the same view that we are looking forward to
the report that comes from the commission. I think it will
provide a very important and valuable framework for us in
determining what the priorities should be and what the funding
level should be. I think these are some of the finest
scientists and leaders we have in our country that are focused
on this invaluable resource of the Earth and it will give us
good guidance and some important guidelines as to what
priorities should be and what funding levels should be in NOAA
or as it relates to the oceans.
You mentioned this is not a large sum of money, but when we
showed up here 3 years ago, there was, I understand, zero
dollars for ocean exploration. This last year, there was $25
million that included a one-time center in the Smithsonian. But
now this year in our budget, I think there is $11.7 million for
ocean exploration.
I realize, I take your point, this is a small amount of
money, but what I would say to you, when we showed up, it was
zero and now it is $12 million. But I think it is a wise thing
to wait for the Ocean Commission report and look at that and
see what kind of priorities this country should place on
funding levels for NOAA.
Senator Hollings. We want to work together to be able to
implement that commission's recommendations next year. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Senator Kohl, do you have anything further?
Senator Kohl. No.
Senator Gregg. Senator Inouye?
Senator Inouye. No, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Gregg. Mr. Secretary, we certainly thank you for
your time. You have been very generous with it this morning.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg
NOAA SPACE INITIATIVES
Question. Mr. Secretary, since our hearing, you've had a chance to
review the N Prime situation in further detail. First, could you
explain/document how the N Prime satellite was damaged and the impact
on NOAA's satellite program? Second, would you provide an update on
what the Department is doing to recover losses and get the program back
on schedule.
Answer. The NOAA-N Prime spacecraft fell from a turnover cart on
September 6, 2003 at the Lockheed Martin Sunnyvale, California plant as
technicians rotated the satellite from vertical to horizontal to
perform an alignment operation on one of the instruments onboard. The
root cause of the accident was that the satellite was not properly
secured to the turnover cart. The accident caused significant damage to
the satellite structure and varying degrees of damage to the
instruments, including three provided by International partners.
Fortunately, many flight components were not on the satellite at the
time of the accident. Spares are available for most of the spacecraft
components and three of the five U.S. instruments. Two instruments will
need to be repaired.
The impact to NOAA's Polar-orbiting satellite program is currently
under review. NOAA has formed an interagency team with its partners at
NASA and the Department of Defense to develop and recommend recovery
options that will ensure NOAA's responsibility to provide continuous
global environmental measurements given the NOAA-N Prime accident. The
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere will make a final
recommendation to me regarding the way forward from the NOAA-N Prime
accident. I will render a final decision in the Spring 2004. The
Department of Commerce and NOAA will brief Congress at that time.
The Department of Commerce, NOAA and NASA legal staff are
investigating the government's options for recovering losses from
Lockheed Martin.
Question. Mr. Secretary, the President's budget calls for major new
space initiative to return to the moon and explore Mars. But, it is
NOAA in your Department, not NASA, that is responsible for exploration
here at home. Yet, the Budget proposes to cut or terminate ocean
research, ocean exploration, undersea research and such programs here
on our planet. Why such uneven treatment, Mr. Secretary? Why do NOAA's
oceanic and ecosystem programs fare so badly in this budget?
Answer. The Administration recognizes the importance of both space
and ocean exploration. Given the tight fiscal environment, the
Administration is required to develop priorities and make difficult
choices. The fiscal year 2005 President's budget reflects these
priorities. The Administration does place value in exploring the oceans
and is continuing support for the ocean exploration program at a level
of $11.2 million. We will continue to work hard to ensure the success
of the ocean exploration program, and we thank the Congress for its
continued interest in this area.
Question. Mr. Secretary, as I look at your budget, it appears that
the Commerce Department decided to cut NOAA and use the savings--over
$300 million--to fund other bureaus like the Census Bureau, ESA and
International Trade Administration. Many have argued that as a natural
resource and science agency NOAA will never flourish inside the
Commerce Department. Doesn't your 2005 budget support their arguments?
Answer. The $300 million net reduction to NOAA's request reflects
the elimination of one-time projects and programs added by Congress to
the fiscal year 2004 request. The fiscal year 2005 budget request is
supportive of NOAA's mission. The budget maintains current services and
provides over $146.9 million in new program increases.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES
Question. Mr. Secretary, the fiscal year 2004 Conferees agreed that
a focused competition on homeland security technologies should be held
out of ATP's funding provided for new awards. Will the Department of
Commerce support ATP's involvement in this type of R&D? Can you provide
detail for the Committee on the design and implementation of this
competition?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 solicitation process for ATP
applications is currently being undertaken. It is expected that a
significant number of the enabling technologies ATP will fund this year
will have homeland security applications. In the recent seven-city ATP
``Proposers Conferences'' that are designed to attract potential
applicants, the Director of the Program conveyed Congressional interest
in funding homeland security technologies.
After the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Bill became law
on January 23, 2004, the 2004 competition was initiated on February 11,
2004, with a Federal Register announcement stating the availability of
funds in the amount of $60.7 million for new ATP awards.
Given the compressed fiscal year 2004 budget calendar, ATP was
unable to run an entirely separate competition that focused solely on
homeland security technologies in addition to its general solicitation.
Notwithstanding, ATP takes its obligation to follow the intent of
Congress seriously, especially with regard to homeland security. ATP
expects to receive a number of applications and fund a number of new
awards for homeland security technologies. NIST has also offered to
provide assistance and expertise to the Department of Homeland Security
in conducting their own competitions that fund homeland security
research.
NIST/MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP
Question. Mr. Secretary, in the Administration's manufacturing
report there is a recommendation to ``support a newly coordinated
manufacturing extension partnership.'' What is meant by ``newly
coordinated''? Your budget doesn't support this, does it?
Answer. One of the recommendations in the DOC Manufacturing Report
is to ``Support a Newly Coordinated MEP and Create a National Network
of Centers of Manufacturing Excellence'' by: coordinating MEP fully
with other Commerce Department programs that are helping manufacturers
to be more competitive and expand markets; focusing all MEP centers on
effectiveness and cost efficiency; exploring the concept of receiving
funding from private sector entities; encouraging applicants to
identify areas of sector-specific expertise that could qualify them as
a ``center of excellence''; and encouraging co-location with
universities, community colleges, and ITA assistance centers to foster
cooperation, knowledge transfer, greater efficiency, and manufacturing
exports.
All of these efforts comprise the ``newly coordinated'' MEP. The
fiscal year 2005 budget request supports this effort.
Question. Mr. Secretary, there has been some discussion that MEP
might be reduced to the network of regional centers. Are you aware that
this past January another State decided that the New Hampshire MEP
would close down due to lack of funding? Who made the decision? Can you
inform the Committee what the process is for closing centers?
Answer. Three years ago, the New Hampshire (NH) Center was
experiencing management problems so the NH Board removed the director,
reconstituted the board, and brought in the Maine-based MEP Management
Services Incorporated (MSI) as managing agent.
Since NH received about $420,000 in Federal cost share annually and
only received about $150,000 from the state three years ago, the excess
Maine cost share was used to cover the NH center.
The Maine MSI's excellent management team was able to bring the NH
performance up and NH is now the highest performing MSI center.
However, the NH center had approximately $300,000 in debt which the
Maine MSI assumed as managing agent. The Maine MSI managed to reduce
this debt down to $180,000. But as fiduciary agents, the Maine MSI and
the NH board are responsible for the remaining debt. In light of the
reductions to MEP funding in the fiscal year 2004 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, the Maine MSI decided that, even in a best case
scenario, they would not have enough cash flow to manage the NH debt.
The Maine MSI will still provide a minimal level of service by
keeping one NH staffer and assigning other staff from Massachusetts and
Maine to serve NH companies.
INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Question. Mr. Secretary, you have the sole responsibility to issue
Federal Information Processing Standards which are standards developed
by NIST and used by federal agencies and the commercial sector to
protect their computer systems. As the Nation's infrastructure is
increasingly linked by the internet, its vulnerabilities are being
subjected to daily attacks. Given this fact, is the Nation, and in
particular the Department of Commerce, investing enough resources to
protect our computer systems and networks? Does this portfolio of
investment contain enough forward looking R&D to allow us to be
proactive and not reactive to these threats?
Answer. Information security is one of the most critical issues
facing industry and government. The Department of Commerce and
especially NIST, takes very seriously our responsibilities to
strengthen information security in the Federal government and the
Nation as legislatively mandated in the Federal Information Security
Management Act (FISMA) of 2002 and other legislation.
As a Nation, we have made progress in securing our legacy systems,
but ``bad guys'' continue to find new ways around or through our
defenses. While we focus on current implementations, new technology
developments in IT systems and in other disciplines that increasingly
rely on IT systems are coming on-line at an accelerating pace. Thus, in
cyber security, we continue to be challenged.
That is why the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request
includes a proposed increase of $6 million for NIST to address key
National needs in cyber security. With this proposed increase to NIST's
base funding of approximately $10.9 million, NIST will be able to more
effectively work with industry and government agencies to accelerate
solutions to critical cyber security issues, including the development
of security and critical infrastructure application protocols;
expanding the NIST Cryptographic Toolkit to include developing
technologies, such as limited power, small-sized computing
environments, fixing insecure wireless security standards; and
producing metrics to build secure networks and systems from
individually understood components.
PTFP GRANTS
Question. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us why the PTFP Construction
account and the Information Infrastructure Grants are no longer needed
and why the funding request is shifted to the Public Broadcasting
budget? Since CPB funds cannot be used for repairs, where will rural
stations turn for assistance?
Answer. The Information Infrastructure Grant program was created as
an awareness program to promote the widespread use and availability of
telecommunications and information technology in the non-profit and
public sector. The Department believes that this mission has been
fulfilled and recommends redirecting the funds to new priorities.
With the assistance of Federal funds appropriated to PTFP, the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), and the Rural Utilities
Service (RUS), 90 percent of the Nation's public television stations
will be broadcasting in digital by the end of the year. As we near the
end of the digital transition, the Administration proposes to continue
funding the digital conversion of public television during fiscal year
2005 through funds already appropriated to CPB.
PTFP also does not pay for equipment repairs or other operating
costs. PTFP, however, does pay for the replacement and installation of
replacement equipment in circumstances of urgent need. We understand
that these expenses could be supported through the equipment programs
now in place at CPB and RUS.
LONG-TERM PLAN FOR SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT
Question. Can you tell us what your overall long-term game plan is
for spectrum management and how you will work with the FCC in this
endeavor? What are your priorities and what are the most significant
impacts on the commercial industry?
Answer. On May 29, 2003, the President established the ``Spectrum
Policy Initiative'' to develop and implement a U.S. spectrum policy for
the 21st century. The Secretary of Commerce was directed to chair the
initiative. The initiative involves an interagency task force to
develop recommendations for improving spectrum management policies and
procedures for the Federal Government, as well as an examination of
ways to improve spectrum management for state, local, and private
sector spectrum use. A report containing recommendations will be
provided to the President in early summer.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) within the Department of Commerce is the President's principal
advisor on telecommunications and carries out the function of providing
spectrum to the Federal agencies. NTIA works directly with the FCC
regarding spectrum allocation and spectrum policy development and
implementation. In addition, the NTIA and FCC have agreed via a
memorandum of understanding to meet twice a year at the Chairman and
Assistant Secretary level and monthly at the Bureau level to discuss
plans and spectrum management issues.
Our major priorities include: (a) foster economic growth; (b)
ensure our National and homeland security; (c) maintain U.S. global
leadership in communications technology development and services; and
(d) satisfy other vital U.S. needs in areas such as public safety,
scientific research, Federal transportation infrastructure, and law
enforcement.
In the fiscal year 2005 budget, the President requested funding for
NTIA for the development of incentives to increase efficient use of
spectrum; the continuance of a prior year initiative to make the
spectrum management process more efficient and effective through the
application of information technology; the expansion of our
International radio-communication outreach program; and development of
the necessary analytical engineering tools and methods that will
improve spectrum efficiency.
The Administration has strongly supported the creation of a
``spectrum relocation fund,'' which would have a significant impact on
the commercial industry by substantially speeding the opening of
spectrum to commercial use. Passage by the House of H.R. 1320, the
Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, without amendment, would
significantly improve spectrum management for both Government spectrum
users and for commercial wireless users. The relocation fund
legislation strikes a proper balance in three key policy objectives.
First, the Bill fully funds Government spectrum relocation, providing
certainty essential to Federal users including the Department of
Defense. Second, the legislation will result in timelines that are
workable for Government incumbents and commercial wireless users.
Third, the legislation provides certainty and accountability in
developing and adhering to relocation cost estimates and relocation
timetables.
Failure to enact this legislation this year could have an adverse
impact on the timing of the Third Generation (3G) wireless auction and
the deployment of new 3G wireless services. Industry and the Government
are in strong agreement that the reimbursement fund mechanism would
streamline the relocation of Government agencies. The President's
budget for fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005 contained a legislative
proposal to create a spectrum relocation fund for Federal agencies
required to relocate their communications systems to allow the spectrum
to be auctioned by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for
private sector uses. H.R. 1320 passed the House 408-10 on June 11,
2003. At the time, the Administration issued a Statement of
Administration Position strongly supporting the bill as passed by the
House.
ITA REORGANIZATION AND COLLABORATION WITH USTR
Question. Mr. Secretary, at the hearing you gave us an overview of
how the ITA reorganization is progressing. Will you now provide a more
comprehensive status of this complex reorganization? Also, can you
offer some insight on how the Commerce Department will leverage this
new office in cooperation with the United States Trade Representative
to protect U.S. interest?
Answer. The Reprogramming was sent to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on May 7th. In addition, the Department
Organization Orders necessary to formally make the changes need to be
signed by the Secretary. Once the orders are signed, the staff will be
formally moved and the management processes (accounting, personnel and
other logistics) will be completed.
Our reorganization will provide increased attention to the
problems, both domestic and international, facing the manufacturing
sector through the creation of an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing
and Services. We will consolidate and strengthen our export promotion
functions under the Assistant Secretary for Trade Promotion (and
Director General of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service) and
improve the operations of our Import Administration.
The Department of Commerce will continue to work closely with the
U.S. Trade Representative in fulfilling the requirements of U.S. law,
assisting exporters in overcoming foreign trade barriers and ensuring
foreign countries comply with their commitments to the United States.
IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION
Question. Mr. Secretary, I would like to commend the dedication of
the Senior Commercial Officers around the world. They are doing an
outstanding job. With reference to the emerging need and increased
workload in the Middle East, specifically related to Iraq
reconstruction, can you tell us where Iraq is within the priorities of
the Foreign Commercial Service? What is FCS's basis for the resource
allocation for the various locations around the world? Do you have a
plan to increase the FCS presence in the areas serving as gateways into
Iraq? When the government is turned over to the Iraqi provisional
government on July 1, what is the plan for the FCS presence?
Answer. ITA has conceived and developed several initiatives to
facilitate and assist U.S. business interest in Iraq.
Our Middle East-based Iraq Reconstruction Regional Initiative is a
joint effort by Commercial Services posts in Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UAE to assist interested U.S. companies by
highlighting and supporting a series of specific events and activities
such as conferences, seminars and training programs, webcasts, virtual
(video) trade missions and videoconferences.
As part of this initiative, we have undertaken an extensive series
of activities, a schedule of which is attached. As a further complement
to these activities, we plan to open a Middle East Business Information
Center, which will showcase private sector development and serve as a
one-stop shop for U.S. companies seeking opportunities in the region.
Similarly, the Central and Eastern Europe Regional Initiative seeks
to provide our Central and Eastern European Coalition allies with the
necessary information required for their companies to compete for Iraq
Reconstruction contracts on a level playing field. This initiative is a
one time commitment to provide a delegation of experts to disseminate
information and answer questions from the local business communities in
Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Slovakia
and Ukraine.
Commerce is also gearing up with a U.S.-based Iraq Reconstruction
Project Team. This initiative builds on our successful ``sector team''
approach to assemble a small, highly focused group of sector
specialists from around the country, each focused on a specific
priority development sector in Iraq. Each sector specialist will be
responsible for developing contacts with Iraq experts, handling
questions from interested companies, and disseminating information on
their particular sector.
Since the end of official hostilities, we have had commercial
service officers in Iraq assisting the Coalition Provisional Authority
with private sector development and Iraq reconstruction efforts. We now
are in the process of establishing a Commercial Service (CS) operation
in Baghdad in the new Embassy scheduled to open by July 1, 2004. CS
Baghdad will be staffed by 2 commercial officers and 8 Foreign Service
nationals. CS has begun hiring staff for the new Baghdad operation and
has assigned a seasoned officer to arrive in Baghdad in advance of the
July 1 opening.
The CS overseas resource allocation model takes into consideration
Administration priorities, as well as market potential and cost/benefit
analysis. Historically, the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service has
responded to national crisis with all available resources. We are using
existing resources for this effort.
IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION REGIONAL INITIATIVE (IRRI) LIST OF TRADE PROMOTION
EVENTS (BY DATE)
January 2004
January 13-15--Iraqi Ministry of Trade training by the Government
of Jordan on the Company Registration System. COMPLETED.
January 5--Live Web Broadcast through the World Trade Center (WTC)
in Ankara, Turkey. COMPLETED.
January 6-8--Iraq Reconstruction Seminars in Ankara (Jan. 6), Izmir
(Jan. 7) and Istanbul (Jan. 8). COMPLETED.
January 11-13--``Outreach 2004 Exhibition'', Amman, Jordan on Iraq
Reconstruction. Recruit an Iraqi delegation to attend the event. FCS
Turkey to send Turkish delegation. COMPLETED.
January 19-23--``Rebuild Iraq'', Exhibition in Kuwait City. Bring
Iraqi delegation. CS Kuwait to host Iraqi Reconstruction Council
Meeting. COMPLETED.
January 18-22--``Arab Health Exhibition'', Dubai, U.A.E. Joint
United States/United Kingdom initiative to bring an Iraqi delegation.
CS Baghdad staff to provide CPA/CS Baghdad briefing. COMPLETED.
January--Proposed Ar'ar Border opening press event in Saudi Arabia.
U.S. Embassy Saudi Arabia to highlight beneficial aspects of the
opening for future Saudi-Iraqi business relations. POSTPONED UNTIL CPA/
GC HAND-OVER OF SOVEREIGNTY 6/30/2004.
February 2004
February--Preparation of Arabic language quick reference sheet on
``Doing Business in Iraq''. COMPLETED.
February 17--CS Kuwait and CS Riyadh supported and accompanied
delegation from the American Business Council of Kuwait to Basra and Um
Qasr for business meetings and briefings by the Basra Chamber of
Commerce and CPA South. COMPLETED.
February 17-20--Assistant Secretary Lash visits Baghdad to meet CPA
officials, U.S. and Iraqi companies to discuss reconstruction and
investment. COMPLETED.
March 2004
March--Iraq Central Organizations for Standards and Quality Control
(COSQC) delegation to Saudi Arabia for training in establishing
industry standards, organized by NIST. POSTPONED DUE TO NIST FUNDING
ISSUE.
March 20--A/S Lash meets Iraqi and U.S. business groups in Abu
Dhabi and Dubai regarding Iraqi Reconstruction and Investment.
COMPLETED.
March 21-22--``Iraq-Arab Alliance Conference for Reconstruction,
Trade and Investment in Iraq'' to be held in Bahrain. Conference and
exhibition focused on Iraq Reconstruction opportunities with
participation from throughout the Gulf region. COMPLETED.
April 2004
April 5-8--Conference and exhibition organized by Iraqi American
Chamber of Commerce and Industry entitled ``DBX: Destination Baghdad
Expo'' at Baghdad International Fairgrounds. POSTPONED.
April 10--Iraq Conference by the Council of Saudi Chambers of
Commerce & Industry in Riyadh. FCS to present business opportunities
through Saudi-U.S. business relationships. USAID/CPA contractor and USG
officials to participate as speakers.
April 4--Iraq Reconstruction seminar at the American Turkish
Council's Annual Conference, Washington, D.C. COMPLETED.
April 18-19--Oil and Gas Conference in Basra actively supported by
CS Kuwait. POSTPONED.
April 20--Dubai--Conference on Subcontracting Opportunities in Iraq
with high level DOC and PMO participation. COMPLETED.
April 25--Amman--Conference on Subcontracting Opportunities in Iraq
with high level DOC and PMO participation. COMPLETED.
April 29--Istanbul--Conference on Subcontracting Opportunities in
Iraq with high level DOC and PMO participation. COMPLETED.
June 2004
June 2-3--International Investment Conference in Basra, actively
supported by CS Kuwait. POSTPONED.
June 6-7--Conference on Iraq's Oil and Gas Industry in Abu Dhabi.
``Doing Business in Iraq'' Outreach Seminars
Assistant Secretary Lash--February 24, Cleveland, OH; February 25,
Kansas City, MO; March 23, Detroit, MI; March 24, Minneapolis, MN;
March 25, New Orleans, LA; and May 6, Houston, TX.
Senior Advisor on Iraq, Sue Hamrock--March 9, Los Angeles, CA;
March 10, San Diego, CA; March 18, Boston, MA; March 19, New York, NY;
April 13, Chicago, IL; and April 14, San Francisco, CA.
2010 decennial census and american community survey
Question. Mr. Secretary, this is an extraordinary request for funds
with six years to go until the census. Could you give us a status
overview of the preparation for the 2010 census and how the requested
funds will be used?
Answer. Things are going very well, thanks to the support of the
Administration and Congress in these efforts. With these early
investments in the 2010 census, we are well on our way to achieving our
goals to improve the relevance and timeliness of census long-form-type
data, reducing operational risk, improving the accuracy of census
coverage, and containing costs over the 2010 decennial cycle.
In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004, the American Community
Survey (ACS) will expand to a sample of 250,000 addresses each month
spread across every county in the United States and Puerto Rico. Fiscal
year 2005 will be the first full year of data collection at this sample
size. The successful implementation of the ACS serves as the
replacement of the long-form component of the decennial census,
providing the United States not only more timely data, but also the
added efficiencies of administering a short-form only decennial census.
The MAF (Master Address File)/TIGER (geographic reference file)
Enhancements Project is on schedule to be completed for all counties in
the United States, Puerto Rico, and island areas by fiscal year 2008.
Key mailout, field, and special purpose studies have been completed
in developing a short-form census for 2010. Additional tests and
development efforts are on track for conducting a dress rehearsal
census in fiscal year 2008.
Specifically:
American Community Survey
Ongoing support for the ACS will allow the Census Bureau to publish
detailed social and economic data every year for all places with a
population of 65,000 or more beginning in fiscal year 2006.
The increased budget is for the annualization of the program that
will have begun in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004. The largest
cost drivers are questionnaire mailing and collection, following up on
nonresponses, information technology and data processing/dissemination
activities.
After three years of data collection and every year thereafter,
accumulated data can be used to make such annual estimates for all
places of size 20,000 or more.
After five years of data collection and every year thereafter,
accumulated data can be used to make annual estimates for all places
and tracts comparable in content and reliability to decennial long-form
data.
MAF/TIGER Enhancements Project (MTEP)
By the end of fiscal year 2004, approximately 26 percent of the
counties in the Master Address File (MAF) and geographic database
(TIGER) will be brought into alignment with global positioning system
(GPS) coordinates.
In fiscal year 2005, improvements will be completed for an
additional 700 counties. By the end of fiscal year 2005, this work will
have been completed for nearly half of all counties in the United
States, Puerto Rico, and the island areas.
The MAF/TIGER enhancements project is on schedule to be completed
for all counties in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the island
areas by the end of fiscal year 2008.
Work will continue on converting our MAF/TIGER processing
environment to one based on commercial, off-the-shelf software. This
effort began in fiscal year 2003 and is planned to be completed in
fiscal year 2006.
Short-Form Only 2010 Census
The development and testing of a dramatically revised process for
conducting the short form Census is key to the strategy for cost
containment for the 2010 census. We will complete 2004 Census Test
evaluations by the third quarter of fiscal year 2005 and use the
results to inform/revise planning, testing, and development for the
rest of the decade.
We will begin conducting the National Content Survey and the 2005
National Census Test in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005 and
complete evaluations in the third quarter of fiscal year 2006.
We will begin preparations, and conduct early operations, for the
2006 Census Test in fiscal year 2005.
We will begin planning for the 2006 Overseas Test in fiscal year
2004 and prepare for the test during fiscal year 2005.
We will continue other long-term planning, testing, and development
for the 2008 Dress Rehearsal and 2010 Census.
Question. Mr. Secretary, in addition, as this is the first time you
are implementing the American Community Survey, can you tell us how you
expect the implementation to go?
Answer. After almost a decade of research and testing, the American
Community Survey (ACS) will begin Nationwide data collection in the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004, at a sample size of 3 million
addresses per year. We feel confident this program will be successful
given the experience of the staff overseeing the project in
headquarters, the processing center, the three telephone centers, and
the 12 regional offices. The testing on the ACS from 1996 to the
present supports our confidence. The ACS has exceeded our quality goals
each year. We anticipate continuing this success into full
implementation.
There are three major challenges we anticipate and are monitoring
closely:
--Full implementation of the ACS requires a significant increase in
sample size (from 800,000 to 3 million annually) and requires a
significant increase in the overall ACS staff. The one-time
classroom training and on the job observation will fully tax
the regional office staff working on the ACS program during
October through December. However, the experience of the
regional office staff will ensure that the staff is well
trained and ready to conduct the ACS successfully.
--The American Community Survey is expanding into Puerto Rico as part
of full implementation. We have limited experience in
collecting survey data in Puerto Rico. Our Boston Regional
Office will manage the personal visit data collection in Puerto
Rico. We are working together to hire and train an adequate
staff in October 2004 to ensure the data collection is a
success.
--Lastly, although the American Community Survey tested data
collection of persons living in group quarters (prisons,
college dormitories, nursing homes, etc.) in 1999 and 2001, the
National level implementation of group quarters data collection
is a major challenge. This operation will require separate
training for the regional office field staff and close
monitoring to ensure the quality of the data meet the ACS
standards.
While the start-up challenges are significant, the U.S. Census
Bureau places high priority on the American Community Survey and we are
confident the program will continue to be successful.
FUNDING FOR CENSUS PROGRAMS
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned about budget reductions in
the areas of Economic Census, Census of Governments and the Intercensal
Demographic Estimates. Can you explain how you plan to provide the same
level of service the government has come to count on?
Answer. The fiscal year 2005 Congressional request for the
Intercensal Demographic Estimates is an increase of $1.2 million to
improve the measurement of migration across U.S. borders. It is
imperative to accurately assess the size, characteristics, and impact
of International migration, as it is a critical factor in our
population growth.
Reduced funding levels for other programs reflect the cyclical
nature of these programs. For example, 2005 is the final year of the
2002 Economic Census Cycle and the first year of the 2007 Economic
Census. If fully funded, the Census Bureau will carry out all
activities scheduled for fiscal year 2005 as originally planned. As the
census programs transition from one phase of the cycle to another,
activities in fiscal year 2005 are different in nature from fiscal year
2004. Given the differences in the nature and scope of the planned
activities for fiscal year 2005, the Census Bureau can, at the
requested funding level, continue to provide the high level of service
our customers and stakeholders have come to expect.
PTO FUNDING AND REDUCED PENDANCY
Question. Mr. Secretary, during the hearing we discussed the
significant increases for PTO in your budget submission. In past years,
the correlation between funding increases on the one hand and reduced
patent pendancy and higher patent quality on the other has not been
demonstrated. Will you provide a more detailed explanation on how such
a large budget increase in fiscal year 2005 will help achieve these
goals? Can the PTO actually execute such a large increase in one year?
Answer. Although the USPTO has received significant budget
increases, over the past 10 years patent applications filed, patent
examiners and enacted budget--in constant dollars--have increased at
about the same rate (applications at 81 percent and budget and patent
examiners at about 90 percent). The primary reason for pendency
increases over this period is that the Office has been confronted by an
overwhelming shift in technology from the traditional chemical and
mechanical applications to the significantly more complex applications
in the computer, biotechnology and telecommunications areas. Ten to 15
years ago only 11-12 percent of the USPTO's work was in the complex
technologies; today almost 35 percent is. On the average, examiners
have 18 hours to handle an application in the traditional chemical and
mechanical areas as opposed to 31 hours in the high tech/emerging
areas. This shift in technology and the corresponding increase in time
needed translates to a need of over 600 examiners, before even
addressing the high annual growth rates in applications received. A
number of policy changes and International obligations have also
shifted significant amounts of work to areas that do not reduce
pendency. For example, from 1993 to 2003 filings pursuant to the Patent
Cooperation Treaty increased by over 300 percent, from 13,310 to
44,282. Examiners must be given production credit for resolving these
cases even though they grant no property rights. Since passage of the
American Inventors Protection Act in 2000, examiners have been assigned
classification duties related to pre-grant publication, a task that
absorbed 36 examiner-FTEs in fiscal year 2003 but did not contribute to
pendency reduction.
In the recent past, many have urged the USPTO to stop trying to
``hire its way out of this problem.'' While the agency continues to
work on ways to improve efficiency, there is simply no substitution for
the human mind for making determinations of patentability. As a result,
the Strategic Plan anticipates continued examiner hiring as a critical
element of achieving targeted pendency improvements. It also proposes a
number of efficiency gains, including taking advantage of searches of
identical or similar applications submitted to other competent patent
offices and introducing market competition for some of the tasks facing
the Office. The Strategic Plan initiatives to use non-examiner
resources to perform search and classification functions will enable
the agency to focus more examiner attention on making patentability
decisions and will contribute to pendency improvements.
The USPTO's fiscal year 2005 budget request includes an increase of
$311 million over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. Of this $311
million, $38 million is for adjustments to base (pay raises and other
inflationary costs), and another $38 million would be transferred to
the Office of Personnel Management for post-retirement benefits of
USPTO employees. The remaining $233 million increase would be dedicated
to implementing Strategic Plan by fully funding delayed initiatives,
and continuing to fund those that were implemented at a reduced level,
as follows:
--$19 million would enable the USPTO to continue its high priority
focus on quality initiatives and fully fund training to address
the new electronic workplace. With primarily base resources,
the USPTO has made positive progress in implementing key
programs to improve quality, such as certification of patent
examiners before promotion to grade 13, continuing legal
education for all patent professionals, and an expanded, in-
depth review of the work product of one-third of all senior
patent professionals.
--$39 million would be used to continue e-Government initiatives,
including availability of automated systems and recovery in the
event of catastrophic disaster. This funding is critical
because IT has brought to the examiner's fingertips
capabilities not realized 15 years ago, such as:
--Increased reliance on non-patent literature for prior art
searches: Automation funding has provided access for
examiners to the hundreds of non-patent literature
databases that are needed to perform a quality search.
--Internet searching: In some technologies, Internet searching is a
mandatory primary search requirement.
--Complexity of applications: Patent applications now include
subject matter that requires IT solutions simply to examine
them; for example, the newer technologies such as
biotechnology applications with complex sequences, and
proteins claimed by three dimensional spatial coordinates.
Some applications come in on CDs with the equivalent of
millions of pages of data.
--Also included in this amount, and consistent with the fee bill
passed by the House, are funds to test the concept of
competitive sourcing for prior-art searches by conducting a
limited scope proof of concept during fiscal year 2005. The
USPTO is analyzing the amendments in the fee bill to
determine their implication on operations.
--$61 million would address, among other things, patent application
inventories and workload by hiring 900 new patent examiners.
This represents 650 new positions, compared to new positions of
67 in fiscal year 2003 and a planned zero increase in fiscal
year 2004. Funds also would be allocated to new Trademark
examining attorney hires and changes needed to implement the
Strategic Plan initiatives of multi-track and accelerated
examination, and post-grant review in patents.
--$106 million would be used to address workload increases by
aligning funding needed for activities impacted by the growing
examination workloads and the volume of application and search
data. Included in this amount is $65 million for patent
workload increases in initial examination review, pre-grant
publication, patent publication, commercial data bases and
examiner search support, and information technology support
throughout examination; $35 million for IT upgrades, staff for
responding to an increased number of customer assistance and
issue resolution incidents, increase and enhancement of mass
storage and infrastructure platforms; and $6 million for
administrative support, such as mail center and warehousing,
and related workload and human resources processing costs
TAKING PTO OFF BUDGET
Question. Mr. Secretary, there is currently legislation moving
through the House that would take PTO ``off budget''. Can you tell me
what your position is on this legislation? Can you tell me some reasons
why this might or might not be good for PTO?
Answer. The fee revisions and related provisions included in the
USPTO fee bill (H.R. 1561) were originally introduced at the request of
the Administration and did not include a proposal to take the USPTO
off-budget. When the off-budget language was added by amendment in
subcommittee markup, the Administration indicated in a letter signed by
Theodore W. Kassinger, General Counsel, on June 12, 2003, to the full
Judiciary Committee that it could not support the bill as amended
because, in part, it would have removed the USPTO from the
appropriations process. The Administration has not yet developed a
formal position on H.R. 1561, the ``United States Patent and Trademark
Fee Modernization Act of 2004,'' as passed by the House (on a 379-28
vote on March 3, 2004) and reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary
Committee on April 29, 2004.
BIS MISSION AND ACTIVITIES
Question. Mr. Secretary, it seems BIS has an expansive mission for
a small agency. Can you explain how BIS plans to prioritize it many
missions and how you plan to apply these few resources to accomplish
that goal? Also, can you share with us how BIS works with other
agencies outside of Commerce and any jurisdictional issues that affect
your operations?
Answer. The mission of the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is
to advance U.S. National security, foreign policy, and economic
interests. BIS's activities include regulating the export of sensitive
goods and technologies in an effective and efficient manner; enforcing
export control, antiboycott, and public safety laws; cooperating with
and assisting other countries on export control and strategic trade
issues; assisting U.S. industry to comply with International arms
control agreements; and monitoring the viability of the U.S. defense
industrial base.
To assist the Bureau in fulfilling these critical missions, BIS
published its Guiding Principles in October 2002. These Principles
represent the philosophy of BIS in approaching its activities and
fulfilling its responsibilities. A copy of these Principles is
attached.
BIS focuses its activities and resources on eight key areas:
--Export control policy and regulation.--BIS ensures that controls on
exports and reexports of U.S.-origin items meet U.S. National
security objectives without unnecessarily burdening U.S.
industry.
--Export licensing.--BIS is continually streamlining and updating its
processes to increase capacity and better serve exporters.
--Enforcement.--BIS vigorously enforces U.S. export control,
antiboycott, and public safety laws, while working to improve
exporter and end-user compliance with export license
conditions.
--Multilateral regimes.--BIS plays a major role in the development,
interpretation, and refining of control lists and operational
guidelines for the four major nonproliferation regimes--the
Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group, the Missile
Technology Control Regime, and the Wassenaar Arrangement.
--International Cooperation.--In coordination with other federal
agencies, BIS participates in a number of International
cooperation and enforcement programs to enhance compliance with
and enforcement of U.S. export controls worldwide. BIS also
assists in the development of effective indigenous
infrastructures for export controls in other countries.
--Treaty Compliance.--BIS assists U.S. industry in compliance with
the Chemical Weapons Convention and will assist industry in
compliance with the Additional Protocol to the United States-
IAEA nuclear safeguards agreement.
--U.S. defense industrial base.--BIS monitors and supports the U.S.
defense industrial and technological base through advocacy for
U.S. firms competing for foreign defense contracts. BIS also
exercises its authority under the Defense Priorities and
Allocations System to require preferential acceptance and
performance of certain contracts supporting the U.S. military.
--Outreach.--BIS keeps United States and foreign firms informed of
U.S. export control regulations through an aggressive program
of seminars, meetings, and other outreach activities.
To accomplish its mission, BIS works cooperatively with other parts
of the U.S. Government including the National Security Council, the
Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of
Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Intelligence
Community. In many cases, BIS circulates license applications to other
agencies for review prior to a decision. In addition, BIS manages an
extensive license application escalation process that enables senior
U.S. Government officials to consider particularly sensitive
applications before a final decision is made.
Most items on the Commerce Control List (CCL) are derived from the
control lists of the multilateral regimes. BIS works closely with other
U.S. Government agencies to strengthen these regimes and improve treaty
compliance. BIS also works with the Departments of State, Defense, and
other agencies to ensure that the CCL adequately captures all dual-use
items that potentially could be used to harm the National security of
the United States, and to clarify the allocation of commodity
jurisdiction between the Department of Commerce and the Department of
State, which has responsibility for licensing defense articles.
In addition, BIS participates in a number of International
cooperation and enforcement programs in coordination with other federal
agencies. BIS leverages its capabilities by forming strong working
relationships with other law enforcement agencies, including the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the military law enforcement groups. BIS
also has productive and cooperative relationships with the Central
Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency.
These cooperative efforts with U.S. industry and other agencies in
the U.S. Government have enabled BIS to achieve significant success in
accomplishing our important mission. Our efforts are guided by the
principle that protecting security and promoting trade are mutually
reinforcing objectives. Indeed, legitimate trade is based on the
foundation of sound security. We look forward to building on this
success as we address new challenges in the years ahead.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
ASSISTANCE TO ALASKA FISHERMEN
Question. Does the department intend to provide full funding of the
$15 million in economic development assistance each of the five years
to these fishermen?
Answer. The Department of Commerce is very concerned about Alaska's
fishing-dependent communities and is committed to ensuring that these
communities are economically prosperous and remain viable communities
with a strong economy.
CRAB RATIONALIZATION PROGRAM AND OCEAN POLICY
Question. Do you perceive any problems with meeting the
implementation date of January 1, 2005 for Bering Sea crab
rationalization?
Answer. Congressional language in the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus Act
(Public Law 108-199) requires Secretary of Commerce approval of a crab
rationalization program by January 1, 2005. NOAA is committed to
meeting this deadline, and it is one of NOAA's top priorities. NOAA
Fisheries is working with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council,
the State of Alaska, and interested constituency groups to design an
expedited process that would lead to Secretarial approval by the
prescribed date.
Question. Is the Department of Commerce prepared to receive and
consider the findings of the Commission on Ocean Policy?
Answer. The Administration is prepared to receive the report and
looks forward to considering the Commission's findings. The report of
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) certainly has significant
ramifications for the Department of Commerce, especially for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Commission
released its draft report on April 20, 2004. Following a 44-day public
and gubernatorial review, the Commission will amend the draft report as
necessary and release its final report, probably sometime in the early-
to-mid summer. The President then has 90 days to review the report and
provide a report to Congress. The interagency effort being led by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Executive Office of the
President is now reviewing the draft report and developing timely and
appropriate responses to the recommendations. The Department will
consider the findings of the Commission as part of the interagency
effort being led by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the
Executive Office of the President. This interagency approach will
ensure an integrated response consistent with the Oceans Act of 2000,
which requires the President to provide a unified response to Congress.
NOAA has been assisting CEQ in preparing for this review.
NOAA FUNDING
Question. Mr. Secretary, do you believe the significant reductions
in NOAA's budget and specifically in fisheries and ocean research will
allow for the necessary management of our Nation's marine resources?
Answer. The NOAA budget requests a total of $3,380.8 million in
discretionary budget authority, a net decrease of $309.5 million, or
8.4 percent below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. While this is a
reduction from the fiscal year 2004 enacted level, the fiscal year 2005
NOAA budget ensures that we continue to sustain healthy marine
habitats, ocean research, robust ecosystems, and coastal environments,
and address safety and environmental compliance issues impacting NOAA.
The reductions requested within the fiscal year 2005 budget request
are included in order to support high priority increases for the NOAA
Fisheries Program within a constrained budget environment. For example,
the fiscal year 2005 budget request includes an increase of $6.0
million for a total of $20.9 million for fisheries stock assessments
and surveys, $1.0 million for protected resources stock assessments, an
increase of $1.2 million for a total of $5.2 million for socio-economic
data collection and analysis, an increase of $0.5 million for a total
of $2.0 million for research to understand and predict the effects of
climate change on major marine and coastal ecosystems in the Bering Sea
and Gulf of Alaska, $1.0 million to scientifically determine the
population status of humpback and bowhead whales, and $1.0 million for
fisheries oceanography which will analyze data to determine basin-wide
changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation and their effect on
marine populations.
The NOAA budget request provides funds to enhance our scientific
understanding of the oceans and atmosphere. NOAA conducts research and
gathers data about the global oceans, atmosphere, space and solar
activities, and applies this knowledge to science and services.
Specifically, the National Ocean Service (NOS) fiscal year 2005 budget
request will promote a wide range of research activities to create the
strong science foundation required to sustain use of our coastal
systems. Overall, the fiscal year 2005 request for NOS is $394.3
million. Specifically, the NOS fiscal year 2005 budget requests an
increase of $6.5 million (above the current program level) for a total
of $47.9 million to continue conducting Harmful Algal Bloom and
Pfiesteria research as mandated by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act (HABHRCA). In addition, the fiscal year 2005
NOS budget includes increases for navigation services, White Water to
Blue Water.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
ITA REORGANIZATION
Question. Mr. Secretary, Congress approved the restructuring of the
International Trade Administration (ITA) as part of the fiscal year
2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act. I understand that this
reorganization is now underway and that the Department will establish
an Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services. I am pleased
that the Department of Commerce is renewing its focus on domestic
manufacturing. An essential part of manufacturing is our ability to
produce and obtain basic raw materials, such as refined metals, and
semi-fabricated raw materials, such as copper and steel mill products
and castings, at reasonable prices and in adequate quantities. I am
concerned that under the reorganization the Metals Division is being
eliminated. How does the Department plan to cover this important
industrial sector?
Answer. We fully recognize the importance of the metal sector to
our manufacturing base. While we are planning to streamline management
layers, we plan to provide full coverage of the metals sector as we
have prior to the reorganization.
Question. How does the Department plan to address the raw material
sector issues?
Answer. We will address these important issues as they arise and in
the same manner as we have done in the past. Since the reorganization
provides us a mandate to address many domestic issues of importance to
manufacturing, we believe our support of the raw materials sector will
be enhanced.
Question. Will adequate staff and funding be allocated to this
activity?
Answer. We believe that we will be able to cover this sector on a
basis comparable to our current level of support.
PARTICIPATION IN COMMODITY PRICES
Question. Mr. Secretary, most raw materials are priced on
International commodity exchanges and all are subject to International
supply and demand factors. Our domestic metal industry is global in the
classic sense. Organizations such as the International Copper Study
Group have made significant progress in improving market transparency
and statistics. A stated objective of the reorganization is to focus on
domestic competitive issues. Will the Department of Commerce continue
to participate in International commodity or raw material
organizations?
Answer. Yes. We intend to continue our active participation in the
International Copper Study Group, as well as the UNCTAD negotiations on
commodities, APEC Nonferrous Dialogue, OECD Steel Committee and other
forums as appropriate.
Question. Will the Department continue to address International
issues directly affecting the materials industry?
Answer. Yes. We will continue to cover these issues as in the past.
Question. Under the ITA reorganization, what unit will cover these
issues?
Answer. The reorganization will not change unit responsibilities.
ITA's Import Administration will continue to cover dumping and
countervailing duty issues, our Market Access and Compliance Unit will
cover trade negotiations and our new Manufacturing and Services Unit
will cover various International and domestic trade and competitive
issues.
Question. Is this unit adequately funded and staffed? What would
those staffing and funding levels be for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal
year 2005?
Answer. We are currently in the process of allocating resources.
Staffing and funding levels will not be reduced as a result of the
reorganization.
Question. Finally, Mr. Secretary, the raw material industry must
address sustainable development and environmental issues on a domestic
and International scale in order to be competitive in world markets.
The Department of Commerce has hosted conferences to assist industry in
meeting these challenges. Would the Department continue such efforts
after the reorganization?
Answer. The Department of Commerce will remain actively involved in
sustainable development and environmental issues, domestically as well
as internationally. These issues are relevant to the competitiveness of
practically all sectors in the U.S. industry.
Question. What unit within the Department would be involved in
these activities?
Answer. The Department's activities in these area will involve the
resources of several offices in the International Trade
Administration's (ITA) manufacturing and services units. These would
include, for example, ITA's offices dealing with energy, chemicals,
metals and materials, and environmental technologies industries. In
addition, the Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) will continue its active involvement in
environmental issues and work closely with ITA.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
NOAA/NIST BOULDER CAMPUS
Question. I understand that NOAA has proposed to construct a fence
around the NOAA/NIST facilities on South Broadway in Boulder. I have
heard from a number of residents in Boulder that are opposed to the
fence because it would (a) be an eyesore; (b) bicycle and foot traffic
which currently crosses the campus would be restricted; and (c) the
area surrounding the facilities is home to a wide variety of wildlife.
The impacts of a fence on the wildlife habitat has not been addressed.
What exactly is the nature of the security risk at this campus,
what security measures are currently in place, and what additional
security gain can be achieved with this fence given the assessed
threats? Has DOC thoroughly examined other security measures short of a
fence? Has DOC consulted with the City of Boulder and local law
enforcement authorities on other alternatives?
Is the entire site considered a high level security risk (Level 4)
requiring all buildings and facilities to be enclosed by a fence? If
not, why is the fence being proposed around buildings and facilities
that do not possess this level of risk?
Has DOC already decided that this fence is necessary? If so, who
made this decision and what was the process by which it was made? Was a
cost-benefit analysis conducted? How much will the fence cost, what
funds are identified to pay for it, and what is the construction/
installation timeline?
Are other federal facilities across the country required to install
fences? If not, why not? What is DOC's legal position regarding the
City of Boulder's easement across the site? Can this easement be
superceded by the fence? How will the fence provide the security
envisioned if the City of Boulder refuses to allow the fence on its
easement?
Answer. A task team, headed by the Department of Commerce's Office
of Security, met in August 2003 to assess the security risk at the
Boulder Labs facility. That task team concluded that:
--The security risk will be mitigated with effective perimeter
security.
--The most effective and cost-efficient perimeter security
countermeasure based on industry averages is the installation
of a fence around the main facilities.
--A Boulder site task force should lead the design and coordination
of the perimeter security solution.
A Boulder site task force was established under the leadership of
the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) Boulder Lab
Director, Zelda Bailey. That task force continues to develop possible
designs and options for the perimeter security solution. No final
decision regarding the design of the perimeter security solution has
been made. A creative design should effectively address the elements of
the security risk--criticality, vulnerability and threat--while also
preserving valuable attributes such as easements, protected areas, bike
paths and open areas. The final design will likely combine several
security options to provide a measured response to the security risk.
In a meeting on February 26, 2004, between officials of the City of
Boulder and the Department of Commerce, it was agreed that a
representative from the City would be added to the task force, to
ensure that local interests are considered. We are confident that we
will be able to develop a final solution that will address the
interests of both the City of Boulder and the Department of Commerce in
providing a safe and secure working environment for our employees.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES PROGRAM
Question. Secretary Evans, the Public Telecommunications Facilities
Program, which is a longstanding part of the public television funding
picture, plays a critical role in public television's federally
mandated digital conversion. PTFP is a relatively small investment that
is paying tremendous dividends by unleashing millions of dollars in new
services and products. Despite this, the President's fiscal year 2005
budget proposal terminates this critical program. What was the
Department's request to OMB with regard to this program?
Answer. The Department's request to OMB eliminated funding for PTFP
and proposed to continue funding of the digital conversion of public
television through funding already available from the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting.
Question. Secretary Evans, there is no doubt that we are in fiscal
crisis at the moment--we face a deficit and we are at war. However, a
strong Nation depends on strong infrastructure. PTFP is critical to the
well being of our public broadcasting infrastructure--the only
broadcast medium that reaches virtually every household in the United
States.
We discussed at length during the hearing the loss of jobs and the
exporting of critical manufacturing jobs in particular to other
Nations. You stated that those workers can be trained in new areas and
for new industries. One proven entity in the area of education,
including adult education, is public television.
Why is the Administration cutting a program like PTFP that is so
vital to the daily work of public television, especially at a time when
public television's role in adult education and workforce skills has
never been more vital?
Answer. The Administration appreciates public television's
contribution to education, especially adult education. The
Administration believes, however, that during this period of steady
economic growth, public broadcasting's equipment needs can be met more
efficiently through the funding already available through the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS
Question. The President launched his U.S. Climate Change Research
Initiative in June of 2001 to improve the integration of science with
policy and management decisions. The President's budget claims that
$23.7 million in new funds will be devoted to climate research in order
to expand climate observing capabilities. However, the budget also
calls for more than $11 million in cuts to the existing climate and
global change programs that currently provide these very climate
observing capabilities.
I would appreciate receiving a breakdown of the reductions and
increases of all climate specific programs within the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Does the budget request actually
call for $23.7 million in new funding, or will this ``increased
funding'' come at the expense of programs?
Answer. The $23.7 million increase for climate research relative to
the fiscal year 2005 base funding in the Climate Change Research
Initiative activities has been reallocated from lower priority
activities. It is being partially offset by reductions that were taken
from to Climate and Global Change, NOAA's National Environmental, Data,
and Information Service (NESDIS) Environmental Data Systems
Modernization program, and other internal programs, which includes $1
million from the baseline observatories as well as reductions from the
weather-climate connection.
Funding has been directed towards activities that will contribute
to reducing scientific uncertainty in three key areas identified in the
Climate Change Science Strategic Plan: (1) aerosols-climate
interaction; (2) ocean climate observations; and (3) carbon sources and
sinks.
OAR CLIMATE PROGRAM BUDGET SUMMARY
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Summary Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratories & Joint Institutes......................... +623
Climate & Global Change................................. -9,152
Climate Obs. & Services:
Other Programs...................................... -1,870
CCRI................................................ +23,735
NESDIS-EDSM............................................. -2,191
---------------
Total............................................. 11,145
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. I would also appreciate receiving a geographically
specific breakdown of the research and observation projects in the
President's fiscal year 2005 climate budget for the Pacific Ocean.
Answer. Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) array: $2.6 million funded
through NOAA Research. The array provides real-time data from moored
ocean buoys for improved detection, understanding and prediction of El
Nino and La Nina. The Japan Marine Science and Technology Center, in
Yolsutia, Japan, operates the western TRITON portion of the array. NOAA
Research's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle operates
the eastern TAO portion of the array.
Pacific Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment (RISA) Program:
about $0.15 million funded through the NOAA Research Climate & Global
Change and Climate Observations & Services budget lines. The program
assists fisheries, agriculture, and tourism in enhancing resilience in
the face of climate-related extreme events, such as droughts, floods,
and hurricanes. The Pacific RISA is operated out of the East-West
Center in Honolulu, HI.
Mauna Loa and Samoa Baseline Observatories: $2.0 million funded
through the NOAA Research Climate Observations & Services budget line.
The baseline observatories provide valuable time series data on various
atmospheric and solar radiation measurements that are critical to
NOAA's monitoring of climate. The observatories, though located in the
South Pacific, are operated by NOAA Research's Climate Monitoring and
Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder.
North Pacific Climate Regimes and Ecosystem Productivity: $2.0
million funded through the National Marine Fisheries Service. A growing
component of NOAA's climate program, this Climate and Ecosystems
project seeks to link NOAA climate information with NOAA models,
observations and new ecosystem indicators, resulting in better resource
management by NOAA. These efforts will include projections of the
status of living marine resources under future climate scenarios. This
project is operated out of the NOAA/NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science
Center in Seattle.
University of Hawaii Sea Level Center (UHSLC): about $0.5 million
funded through the NOAA Research Climate Observations & Services budget
line. The Center is operated out of the University of Hawaii/NOAA Joint
Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR) within the School
of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST). The UHSLC operates
37 tide gauge stations in the global sea level network and collaborates
with host countries in the operation of 7 more stations. The
measurements are used for the evaluation of numerical models (e.g.,
those in operation at the National Centers for Environmental Prediction
(NCEP), joint analyses with satellite altimeter datasets, the
calibration of altimeter data, the production of oceanographic products
through the World Meteorological Organization Sea Level Program in the
Pacific (SLP-Pac) program, and research on inter-annual to decadal
climate fluctuations.
Question. Is the Commerce Department researching the economic
impacts of climate change on Pacific island and Pacific Rim Nations? Do
you believe that the research effort commensurate with the economic
stakes of climate change in the Pacific region?
Answer. The Department of Commerce is working to better understand
the economic impacts of climate change and helping to manage climate
risks for the Pacific Islands. The following are some examples of the
Department's efforts. In a recent press release, VADM Conrad C.
Lautenbacher, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA
Administrator recognized the dependence of Pacific island economies on
accurate climate information. He stated that, ``Understanding and
effectively responding to changes in climate are critical elements of
planning and economic development in Hawaii and other Pacific Islands.
Their economies are dependent on climate-sensitive sectors like
agriculture, tourism and fisheries, and the region is home to some of
the world's most valuable marine resources such as coral reefs.''
The press release highlights a new program that begins development
of climate services for the Pacific Islands. NOAA's Office of Global
Programs recently awarded a three-year grant of $535,487 to the East-
West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, an educational and research
organization, for a project entitled ``Managing Climate Risks in the
Pacific: A Pacific Islands Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment
(Pacific RISA) Program.''
The Pacific RISA program assists key economic sectors (e.g.
fisheries, agriculture, and tourism) in enhancing their resilience in
the face of climate-related extreme events such as droughts, floods,
and hurricanes. The project represents a significant step towards the
creation of a new program of climate information services designed to
meet the needs of decision makers and policy officials in the American
Flag Pacific Islands (Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands) and the United States-Affiliated Pacific
Islands of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the
Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau.
NOAA's Coastal Services Center is complementing the work of the
Pacific RISA with a climate assessment outreach and education program.
NOAA has also supported studies of the socio-economic impacts of El
Nino events in the Pacific through the work of the Pacific ENSO
Applications Center and related socio-economic research funded through
NOAA's Office of Global Programs.
Through these types of research efforts, NOAA's expansion and
development of climate services in the Pacific Islands is working to
address the rising economic stakes of climate change in the Pacific
region.
INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES
Question. International travel to the United States is a vital
component of our Nation's economy. International visitors account for
one million jobs and $83 billion in spending annually. Visitation
levels have declined by some twenty percent during the past two years.
U.S. market share of global travel had already been declining since
1998 and was only exacerbated by the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks. Since September 11, many necessary changes have been made to
make U.S. ports of entry safe and secure, but little or no measures
have been taken to reach out to legitimate International travelers.
Although the World Travel and Tourism Council recently predicted
that tourism to the United States will rise in 2004, the Council warned
that relying on excellent products and service alone will not be
sufficient to guarantee the future growth of tourism to the United
States. To remain competitive, the Council recommended that we be
proactive and work with government authorities to ensure that our
tourism industry is protected and nurtured.
What steps are being taken by your department to reach out to
International travelers and work with government authorities to
encourage travel to the United States? What do you believe the federal
role should be in promoting travel to the United States?
Answer. The Department is launching a $6 million promotional
campaign in the United Kingdom, our largest overseas market to increase
market share. We are working with the Department of Homeland Security
and the Department of State to encourage the development of visa
policies and travel security systems that facilitate travel while
providing for the safety of the traveler and security for our Nation. I
believe that the role of the federal government is three fold: (1) to
assist in ensuring competitiveness in this sector; (2) to measure the
industry through collection and dissemination of statistical data on
the volume, flow and characteristics of travelers, through assessments
on the economic benefits and impact of travel and tourism industries on
the U.S. economy, and through production of the balance of trade in
travel and tourism; and (3) to advocate for the United States' tourism
interests in International service sector trade agreements and
represent the U.S. tourism policy positions in International tourism
development and intergovernmental fora.
Question. The Visa Waiver Program allows International travelers to
visit the United States for up to 90 days without going through the
time consuming and often costly process of obtaining a nonimmigrant
visitor visa. There are currently 27 countries in the program. Current
rules require that by October, 2004, International visitors entering
the United States on the Visa Waiver Program possess a machine-readable
passport. In addition, all Visa Waiver countries must certify that the
new passports they are issuing contain biometric identifiers, to help
ensure that the person seeking entry into the United States is the same
person documented in the passport.
There is great concern in the visitor industry that only a few of
the 27 Visa Waiver countries will be able to meet the October, 2004,
deadline, and that this will result in major disruptions in inbound
travel to the United States from key markets in Europe and Asia.
Do you have any suggestions on how we can encourage foreign
countries to expend the resources necessary to produce passports in
compliance with U.S. requirements for the Visa Waiver Program?
Answer. The issue, I believe, is not a lack of willingness by Visa
Waiver Program countries to comply by the October, 2004 deadline, but
their ability to do so. Legislated requirements specify that the
biometric passport identifiers must meet International Civil Aviation
Association standards. These standards were not established until May
of 2003. Therefore, technologies are not yet fully developed. The
United States will also not issue passports that meet these standards
by the current deadline.
Sixty-five percent of our overseas visitors come from Visa Waiver
Program (VWP) countries. All but two VWP countries have indicated to
the Department of State that they will not be able to meet the
deadline. If nothing is done to alter the situation, the Department of
State estimates that there will be approximately five million
additional visa applicants, of which they have the capacity to process
only six percent, which may create substantial disruptions in travel to
the United States. Economic losses across sectors could be substantial,
and our relationships with our allies could be damaged.
A legislative remedy is the only option to postpone this deadline.
Should a legislative postponement be approved, the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of State could provide for safety
and security in keeping with the intent of the legislation through
existing biometric systems to ensure that travel documents and visitors
match. During this period, the United States could work with other
Nations to establish agreement on interoperable systems to produce and
read passports with biometric identifiers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP
Question. With last week's announcement that MEP will be eligible
to apply for EDA funds, I am greatly concerned that we are nearly half
way through the fiscal year and it is still unclear how the program
will be funded and re-competed. Will there be funds set aside for MEP
Centers to compete for? Will each MEP Center be responsible for
applying for these funds? How will this help ``leverage'' the limited
funds available to MEP in fiscal year 2004?
Answer. EDA is ready, willing and able to assist eligible MEP
Centers with resources as NIST develops its plans for the MEP going
forward. Secretary Evans has directed EDA to focus its remaining fiscal
year 2004 Economic Adjustment program funds on manufacturing-related
communities and initiatives. EDA will welcome MEP Centers to apply for
EDA funds. These EDA funds will augment funds provided to the MEP from
NIST and will be focused on highest performing Centers. These funds
will be administered in accordance with EDA's competitive grant program
guidelines. In addition, EDA staff is prepared to work with MEPs in
developing EDA applications in order to make the process as streamlined
as possible.
Question. Given the immediate need for MEP services, what other
mechanisms would the Administration consider to increase MEP funding in
fiscal year 2004 and 2005, so small manufacturers can continue to
receive the assistance they so desperately need?
Answer. We are doing all we can to make sure that the MEP centers
are fully aware of any funding opportunities that may exist across the
Federal government. We have identified some possible sources already
and are in discussions with others to determine if there are additional
opportunities for MEP centers to compete for available funding from
other Federal programs that support U.S. manufacturing. Also, MEP has
considered foundation-type funding which is typically raised as
principal to be kept intact, while the earnings from the principal are
used to capitalize activities. For MEP to develop a steady stream of
funding of any significance to substitute for some of the Federal
funding, the foundation would need to be capitalized at $400 to $500
million. Otherwise, the capital would be rapidly depleted and the
foundation would need to be in a continuous fundraising mode. However,
the actual level of funding that could be generated would depend in
large part on the support of Administration officials, Congress, and
industry leaders. This is particularly true given these tight economic
times during which it will be even more difficult to garner significant
contributions.
Question. Why ``improve'' MEP and cut its budget when we clearly
see its effectiveness in building stronger companies that retain high-
skill, high-pay American workers and repay our relatively small federal
investment with a healthier tax base?
Answer. Budget constraints have forced the Administration to make
some tough budget decisions this year. The fiscal year 2005 budget
request reflects the Administration's policy and funding priorities to
address the Nation's most pressing needs. Support for MEP is maintained
at the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.
Question. The manufacturing strategy, budget documents, and
comments by Commerce officials suggest ITA and other federal agencies
can take over functions of MEP. Do you really think that Trade experts
can discuss, sell, and deliver the technical engineering services that
MEP provides to manufacturers?
Answer. It makes sense for all bureaus in the Department engaged in
improving our Nation's manufacturing to work together. The MEP and ITA
programs are complementary, and MEP and ITA staff are working together
to increase coordination. This coordination will link the technical and
business staff employed by the MEP centers located around the country
with ITA trade promotion specialists who are working with ITA on behalf
of the future Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services.
ITA has experts with in-depth knowledge of and connections with
various sectors of industry including the automotive, textiles and
apparel, energy, aerospace, machinery, metals, and microelectronics,
industries.
The direct teaming of MEP field agents with the ITA sector experts
will make the program a more effective National resource to help small
manufacturers compete and succeed in the global marketplace.
MEP and EDA are also exploring mutual opportunities to coordinate
their support of small manufacturers through the local economic
development infrastructure.
Question. In the manufacturing strategy, you suggest that savings
can be found by enhanced partnering. Yet OMB's PART analysis gives MEP
high marks for collaboration. Tell me how you plan to get significant
savings from synergies they have already accomplished.
Answer. The principal purpose of effective partnering is to better
serve America's manufacturers and provide them with the wide range of
assistance that the Federal government can provide through its many
assistance and support activities. Although the MEP is performing well
it still had room for improvements. Efforts are being made to expand on
existing partnerships and enhance the benefit to MEP participants.
Question. How will you ensure that small manufacturers will
continue to receive the services they need when your ``improvements''
will actually cut the availability of MEP services?
Answer. The MEP program will continue to serve as many
manufacturers as possible and will continue to explore every avenue
possible to find new and innovative ways to maximize whatever level of
Federal investment is made in this program. Improving the effectiveness
and efficiency of the MEP National manufacturing network is the primary
goal. In addition to the MEP program, NIST laboratories also support
manufacturers both large and small by providing the measurements and
standards needed to improve quality, productivity, and reduce
manufacturing costs. The NIST Advanced Technology Program (ATP) has
provided cost-sharing support of improved manufacturing in many U.S.
industries. NIST laboratories provide calibration standards that ensure
quality of manufactured products and improve efficiencies. The NIST
fiscal year 2005 budget proposal includes a request for budget
increases to support advances in manufacturing. The work proposed in
the fiscal year 2005 budget initiative will help overcome technical
barriers facing U.S. industry that will enable it to thrive in nano-
manufacturing, particularly in the key areas of electronics and
semiconductor manufacturing, and advanced medical technologies. It will
also promote access to global markets by ensuring that the measurements
and standards that U.S. manufacturers rely upon are internationally
accepted.
Question. Has the Department of Commerce done any studies to
determine what impact re-competing the entire MEP network would have on
its ability to serve small manufacturers?
Answer. The series of manufacturing round tables conducted over the
past year, while not specifically focusing on the MEP, gave the
Administration a real sense of what manufacturers want and need. There
has not been a formal study of the possible impact of a re-competition,
but such a competition is expected to result in excellent service to
small manufacturers in the region served by the selected centers.
Question. One of the strengths of MEP is its partnership with state
governments and local service providers. Have the state agencies and
other partners been informed of your re-competition plans and will they
continue to provide roughly a third of the funding support to the MEP
system?
Answer. Additionally, the MEP Director has had preliminary
discussions with the Centers about the impacts of the funding level.
Those Centers with agreements that are expiring have been informed that
their renewals will be on a month-to-month basis. Until the individual
Centers give us specific information, it is hard to determine which
states will continue to provide a third of the funding support to the
MEP system.
Question. Do you really want to hamstring this program by pushing
each and every Center to spend its time developing a proposal during a
time of urgent need for this type of hands-on assistance for our small
manufacturers?
Answer. For fiscal year 2004, MEP is exploring the options for
providing some funding to all Centers in the network through the end of
the fiscal year.
Question. Many groups, such as Harvard's Kennedy School, the
National Academy of Public Administration, NAM and National business
publications commend the program for its effectiveness and efficiency.
Doesn't it make better sense to re-compete only those Centers that do
not meet minimum performance standards? Why should we consider re-
competition for a system that is not broken?
Answer. The vast majority of MEP centers perform admirably, so only
isolating those few relatively poorer performers recognizes no
significant cost savings. Each of those few, poorer performers have
been addressing their weaknesses.
NATIONAL SEA GRANT PROGRAM
Question. In the President's request for the National Sea Grant
Program, how much of the funding would be allocated to new programs? If
we set a goal of bringing all the programs up to $1.2 million in base
funding a year in $250,000 increments over the next several fiscal
years, how much additional funding would be needed in fiscal year 2005
and which Sea Grant programs would receive funds to increase their base
level?
Answer. The fiscal year 2005 President's Budget request includes
$57.5 million for Sea Grant, this amount does not include any funding
for new programs. The National Sea Grant program currently funds 30
established college and institutional programs and 4 developing
institutional programs. Of these 34 programs, 19 currently have a base
funding level of less than $1,200,000. The Sea Grant Program
authorization requires that amounts appropriated over the fiscal year
2003 level be allocated by merit and competition. To bring these 19
programs up to $1.2 million in base funding in $250,000 increments over
the next five years would cost a total of $7,723,000 and would require
additional funding in the amount of $3,759,000 in fiscal year 2005, the
first year:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Year................................................ $3,759,000
2nd Year................................................ 2,041,000
3rd Year................................................ 1,000,000
4th Year................................................ 723,000
5th Year................................................ 200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 19 Sea Grant colleges, institutions, and developing
institutions that currently have a base funding level of less than
$1,200,000 would receive the additional funds. These programs are:
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois/Indiana, Maine, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi/Alabama, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, California (University of S. California),
Massachusetts (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution), Vermont,
Pennsylvania, Guam, and Western Pacific.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
MEP FUNDING AND RECOMPETITION
Question. Mr. Secretary, in addition to the drastic cuts to the MEP
program, it appears only $29.6 million or 75 percent of the funding is
going directly to grants to help small and medium sized manufacturers.
The remaining $10 million is going to administration. When the MEP
centers were funded at $106.5 million, $90 million or 85 percent of the
funding was directed to MEP programs.
It appears that there is a loss of efficiency coinciding with cuts:
When the program was funded at $106.5 million, administrative costs
were $16.5 million, as opposed to $10 million in administrative costs
for a $39.6 million program. Can you provide me a breakdown on where
the requested funding will be directed?
Answer. By the end of fiscal year 2004, MEP staff will be reduced
by 24 positions, from 51 to 27 while maintaining its function of
overseeing the National manufacturing network. In addition, NIST
institutional support activities previously supported by MEP will also
be reduced, including an institutional support staff reduction of an
additional 24 positions by the end of fiscal year 2004 (from 38 to 14).
These staff reductions are expected to be accomplished through a
combination of resignations, Voluntary Early Retirement Authority
(VERA), buyouts, and Reduction-In Force (RIF). Remaining MEP staff will
focus on center operations and center support. Center operations will
focus on stewardship issues, such as panel and annual reviews, cost
share approvals, and other compliance-related issues. This unit will
also conduct a more limited level of program data collection and
program evaluation. Staff conducting center support will focus on
essential system-level functions, National accounts, partnership
development, and a minimal manufacturing research component. All
product development, marketing support, and most IT support will be
discontinued. Manufacturing research, center and client impact
evaluation, corporate university training of the system, and National
sales are all being significantly scaled back.
Question. In my state of Wisconsin, we lost 13,000 manufacturing
jobs last year and, just last week, two more Milwaukee companies
announced plans to send jobs overseas. We must fund initiatives that
yield tangible results now, programs that help small- and medium-sized
manufacturing firms, boosting productivity and increasing
competitiveness as these firms face increasing pressure from global
markets. We need to fund programs like MEP. Through MEP efforts, more
than 35,000 manufacturing jobs were created or retained during the last
fiscal year. MEP was recently selected by Harvard's Institute of
Government Innovation as one of the Nation's ``most creative, forward
thinking, results-driven government program.'' MEP has also just been
named one of the 100 best resources for small businesses under the
category of Operations by the BIZBEST 100 publication.
MEP has worked, and worked well due to its decentralized but well
coordinated networks. Offices are conveniently located such that
business owners can take advantage of services without drastically
increasing precious time away from their business. The local nature of
the offices allows for flexibility and an ability to respond quickly to
changing needs in different communities.
I understand the Commerce Department is about to launch a major
recompetition of the entire MEP program at a time when this program is
sorely needed. I am concerned that a national recompete could bring
serious harm to this critical program. In the interest of saving time,
energy, and scarce resources, is it necessary that the recompete occur
across all 400 MEP offices? Why not just focus on those centers that
have not lived up to expectations? Should a nationwide recompete go
forward, is it expected that MEP will continue to have a physical
presence in all 50 states?
Answer. Maintaining the National manufacturing network is a
priority. Just as the 21st Century manufacturing needs are continuing
to evolve, a recompetition of the network will allow MEP to effectively
meet those new challenges with whatever funding levels Congress
provides. Understanding the possible effect of a recompetition upon the
Centers, for fiscal year 2004, MEP is exploring options for providing
funding to all Centers in the network through the end of the fiscal
year.
JOB LOSSES IN WISCONSIN
Question. Most of the job losses in my state have been experienced
in small- and medium-sized enterprises. Nationally, small- and medium-
sized manufacturers account for 68 percent of all manufacturing jobs.
These firms are the best source for manufacturing job creation--and
these are good jobs--and these firms are far less likely to outsource
jobs. I have heard from many constituents who are concerned that the
Administration is focusing its efforts on large firms, leaving small-
and medium-sized firms behind.
There is a tension here between small and medium-sized
manufacturers and large manufacturers. For example, there are well-
respected critics of the ``Manufacturing in America'' report who say
that this plan does not substantially make a difference for small and
medium-sized firms. Do you agree that you have had to balance the
interests of these two groups as you pursue initiatives to respond to
the crisis facing our manufacturing sector?
Answer. From the very beginning of the Manufacturing Initiative
through today, the Department of Commerce has kept the interests of
small- and medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs) foremost in developing
policy recommendations for the challenges confronting U.S.
manufacturing.
As you may be aware, as an initial step, we organized roundtable
outreach meetings to hear directly from U.S. manufacturers and
manufacturing workers. The manufacturers attending these open meetings
represented a broad mix of small- and medium-sized manufacturers, as
well as minority-owned and women-owned enterprises. During these two-
hour meetings, we had in-depth conversations with many such
manufacturers and workers about their particular challenges and issues
as distinct from larger manufacturers. In addition, as we developed the
list of panelists for these roundtables, we took great care to balance
the panel members by size of companies and manufacturing sectors. A
majority of the panels were formed by SMMs.
The views of SMMs are strongly represented in the ``Manufacturing
in America'' report we developed. Chapter Two of this report is
representative of the detailed input we received from SMMs as well as
larger companies. The discussion of issues is representative of the
diversity in sectors, size of companies and regions.
The recommendations that we put forward in Chapter Three of our
report continue this commitment. For example, we are creating an
advocate for U.S. manufacturers in the Department of Commerce who can
ensure that the voices of SMMs are reflected in USG policy-making.
Moreover, we created a Manufacturing Council on April 4, 2004, which
will be representative of small-, medium- and large-manufacturers. The
Chairman and Vice Chairman have been selected, appointed, and
announced. We anticipate completing selection and appointment of the
members the week of May 24, 2004, or shortly thereafter. We expect to
hold the inaugural meeting of the Council by the end of June. We hope
this important body representing the interests of manufacturers
institutionally in U.S. policy-making will enjoy longevity and maintain
an established voice particularly for SMMs. Many other recommendations
in the report are also of particular benefit to SMMs. For example, tax
relief will be particularly helpful for our SMMs that operate as S-
corporations and partnerships. Also, the establishment of Association
Health Plans will afford small manufacturers greater leverage in
negotiating the cost of health insurance with providers.
Two programs of particular benefit to SMMs are the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer
(SBTT). We call attention to these programs and recommend that SBIR and
SBTT place a higher priority on manufacturing R&D topics that would
greatly leverage innovation in SMMs. We also focus on the MEP program
and recommend ways in which that program can deliver greater benefits
to SMMs by strengthening partnerships with other government programs.
An owner of a small manufacturing company told us at our Milwaukee,
Wisconsin roundtable that he, like other SMMs, does not have the
resources to hire the lawyers to bring forward a dumping/countervailing
duty case. Pursuant to the manufacturing initiative, we have created at
the Department of Commerce an Unfair Trade Practices Task Force within
the Import Administration. This team will take on the burden of
proactively seeking out and addressing unfair trade practices. To help
SMMs identify potential customers, we are also developing a Global
Supply Chain Initiative. Through this initiative, we will help SMMs
expand their reach and identify new customers they may not otherwise be
aware of.
As you can see, we focused significantly on the needs of small- and
medium-sized manufacturers and will continue to bring resources to bear
on their needs and challenges. I look forward to continuing this
dialogue with you on such an important matter.
NEW ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF MANUFACTURING
Question. While I have praised the Administration's efforts to
organize a President's Manufacturing Council and appoint a new
Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing, I am concerned that is taking so
long to get these efforts off the ground. These initiatives were
announced last September and I understand your staff has said not to
expect anything before June--at the earliest. My constituents are
understandably skeptical.
Given the problems already facing the new Assistant Secretary of
Manufacturing and the expected lag time, are there plans to place MEP
under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing?
Answer. There are synergies between ITA and MEP that we should use
to provide better support to MEP's private sector clients. MEP and ITA
staff are already working together to increase coordination. For
example, our sectoral experts in the new Manufacturing and Services
unit will benefit from enhanced coordination with NIST's technical
experts. Similarly, our Commercial Service staff across the United
States can help in marketing MEP's programs to the business community,
particularly small and medium-sized business.
PATENT AND TRADE COMPLAINTS AND BACKLOG
Question. I have had complaints from constituents about the backlog
of manufacturers' complaints in both the Patent Office and the
International Trade Administration concerning both patents and trade
violations. We have heard stories from constituents regarding American
manufactured products that have been copied, sometimes down to a
stamped company emblem, and then produced overseas, undercutting the
price of the original American producer. What is the Department doing
to respond to these complaints? How soon can we expect reductions in
the current backlog?
Answer. The USPTO supports ITA in providing expert advice on trade
dispute matters. Trade disputes are principally handled within ITA
itself. The USPTO also responds proactively to trade issues through
support of bilateral efforts undertaken by ITA, USTR, Customs, USDOJ,
State and other agencies involved in IPR matters. We also provide
support to training programs, which are intended to support foreign
government's efforts to achieve WTO compliance. Through our
participation in the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement
Coordination Council, we provide guidance on law enforcement matters
involving intellectual property issues, including encouraging enhanced
criminal enforcement. In certain instances, piracy and counterfeiting
issues are attributable in part to delays and procedures by foreign
patent and trademark offices themselves. Through office-to-office
discussions as well as meetings in multilateral fora, such as the World
Intellectual Property Organization, APEC/Intellectual Property Experts
Group, and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the USPTO
encourages additional compliance with International standards.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
EMERGENCY STEEL GUARANTEE LOAN PROGRAM
Question. President Bush's fiscal year 2005 budget proposes to
rescind $35 million from the Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program.
This rescission will effectively kill the program, despite the fact
that Congress has extended the program for two more years, through
December 31, 2005. In recent testimony before the Senate Budget
Committee, OMB Director Bolten stated that the Department of Commerce
was ``not planning to pursue rescissions from the steel loan guarantee
fund.'' How does the Department reconcile this statement with the
proposed rescission contained in the President's fiscal year 2005
budget? How does the President reconcile this statement with its
numerous prior pledges to support the U.S. steel industry?
Answer. The Administration has supported a number of initiatives
that have strengthened the steel industry, and will continue to do so.
The statement of Director Bolten, to which you refer was made with
regard to a rescission contained in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus
appropriations bill. For fiscal year 2005, the Administration has
proposed to fund the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program (ESLGP) at
a level of $17 million. Enactment of the Administration's proposal
would provide sufficient money in the ESLGP's account to accommodate
current and anticipated demand while also permitting funds to be
utilized for other priorities. Nevertheless, we remain concerned
regarding the effectiveness of the ESLGP. There has been a very low
level of utilization of the program; during its existence, only three
loans have closed with the benefit of a guarantee, and one of those has
defaulted.
WTO RULING ON CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT
Question. Congress included language in the fiscal year 2004
omnibus appropriations bill, which directs the Administration to
negotiate a solution to the World Trade Organization's (WTO) ruling
against the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. When will the
United States present its negotiating position on this matter to the
WTO? In report language accompanying the fiscal year 2004 omnibus
appropriations bill, Congress directed the Administration to report to
the Senate Appropriations Committee every 60 days on the progress of
these negotiations. Given the Congressional directive to negotiate a
solution to this matter, what is the Administration doing to initiate
these negotiations? Can you confirm that the first update will be
provided to the Appropriations Committee 60 days from enactment of the
omnibus appropriations bill, which would be on or about March 23, 2004?
Answer. The Administration has defended the Continued Dumping and
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA) throughout a long WTO dispute
settlement process. The Administration has raised this issue in the
context of the WTO's ongoing Doha Round of multilateral trade
negotiations. Within WTO Rules Negotiations Group, we have raised the
issue of WTO member's authority to distribute Anti-Dumping and
Countervailing Duties. Consultations with the Congress on these and
other trade negotiations are led by the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative and are ongoing.
As required in Senate Report language, the Department of Commerce
and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative are consulting for the
purpose of ensuring proper implementation of the requirements of U.S.
law regarding negotiations over the distribution of antidumping and
countervailing duties. The Administration intends to comply with all
such requirements, including reporting requirements. The Administration
will complete these consultations as soon as possible and will continue
to work to advance Congressional objectives in the Doha Round
negotiations.
SECTION 201 DUTIES AND STEEL IMPORTS
Question. It is my understanding that the U.S. Commerce Department
is considering whether to adopt a policy that would deduct import
duties imposed under Section 201-203 of the Trade Act of 1974
(``Section 201 duties'') from the U.S. price that is calculated in
determining the margin of dumping in U.S. antidumping cases.
This is an important issue that is critical to the future of many
U.S. companies and workers who rely on the effective enforcement of the
U.S. trade laws. Several of my constituents and other interested
parties submitted comments to the U.S. Commerce Department in support
of this deduction of 201 duties last year. I understand that Commerce
currently has a large number of administrative reviews pending in which
this issue has been raised.
Is there any additional information that would assist the
Department in deciding to endorse this policy of deducting 201 duties
in antidumping duty cases? What will be the first case in which the
Department will deduct 201 duties when calculating an antidumping duty
margin?
Answer. On April 6, Import Administration announced its decision
not to treat safeguard tariffs (201 duties) as a cost in the dumping
margin calculations.
The issue was raised in several cases, including the ongoing
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel
wire rod from South Korea. In this case, the U.S. importer, whose price
to an unaffiliated U.S. buyer was used to calculate export price, was
required to pay 201 duties. The petitioner argued that these tariffs
constituted a cost that should be deducted from the U.S. price.
In September 2003, the Department published a Federal Register
notice requesting public comment on the treatment of 201 duties (and
the related issue of whether to deduct countervailing duties) in the
antidumping duty calculations. The Department received extensive
comments from a variety of parties, including domestic producers, U.S.
importers, U.S. consumers, and foreign producers.
After fully and carefully reviewing the legal and policy questions
involved in this issue, the Department concluded that the U.S.
antidumping law does not intend for the deduction of safeguard tariffs
from U.S. prices in calculating dumping margins.
Although the law clearly requires the deduction of normal import
duties for dumping calculations, the Department believes that safeguard
tariffs cannot be considered import duties. These tariffs are imposed
only under special circumstances for the express purpose of providing
relief from serious injury due to increased imports. Deducting
safeguard tariffs from the export price in calculating dumping margins
would effectively increase the safeguard remedy; in some cases
providing a double remedy. Further, it would create a situation where
fairly traded imports could become liable for antidumping duties simply
due to the imposition of safeguard tariffs.
The Department's decision on this issue is articulated in our
Notice of Final Results of Administrative Review/Decision Memorandum,
which may be found on Import Administration's website:
www.ia.ita.doc.gov.
Question. On December 4, 2003, the White House Office of
Communications issued ``The President's Determination on Steel,'' which
stated that President Bush ``is committed to America's steel workers
and to the health of our steel industry.'' It also stated that,
``[s]teel import licensing, established when the safeguard measures
were imposed, will continue to provide WTO-consistent data collection
and monitoring of steel imports. This will enable the Administration to
quickly respond to future import surges that could unfairly damage the
industry.''
The President's Proclamation of the same date similarly stated that
``the licensing and monitoring of imports of certain steel products
remains in effect and shall not terminate until the earlier of March
21, 2005, or such time as the Secretary of Commerce establishes a
replacement program.''
Secretary Evans, you made several comments to the media on December
4, 2003, regarding your commitment to the U.S. steel import monitoring
and licensing system and indicated that it would be expanded to include
steel products that were not subject to 201 tariffs and quotas. I want
to be certain that you remain fully committed to this effort. Could you
please advise me as to whether the Commerce Department has a plan to
expedite the adoption of these expanded regulations? Could you also
please advise me as to when the Commerce Department intends to request
public comment with respect to its new import monitoring and licensing
system? When would you estimate that it will be up and running? What
assurances can you provide that the system will be operational by that
date?
Answer. The Commerce Department is continuing to monitor closely
the imports of those steel products for which the President implemented
import relief pursuant to Section 201, as well as general market
conditions. As a result, accurate information regarding such imports is
being made available to the public on an expedited basis. We have been
meeting with representatives of the steel industry and other
stakeholders to get their input on improvements to the current system.
The Administration is continuing to evaluate possible modifications to
the current system and will ensure that it remains an effective
monitoring tool.
Question. The U.S. Commerce Department currently does not pursue
trade remedies under our countervailing duty law against non-market
economies like China even though: (1) the U.S. negotiated subsidy
disciplines with China as part of its accession to the WTO; (2) the
United States has worked to see that China participates in the ongoing
OECD steel subsidy negotiations; and (3) USTR reports various
agricultural industries are experiencing ongoing export subsidies by
China. Can you tell me whether the Commerce Department is reexamining
this issue? If not, why not?
Answer. Commerce does not currently apply the CVD law to non-market
economies, and this practice has been upheld in the courts in
Georgetown Steel Corp. v. United States. In that case, the court
affirmed Commerce's view of NME's as devoid of the kinds of market
benchmarks necessary to identify a subsidy. Congress enacted
substantial amendments to the CVD law in 1988 and 1994 without
disturbing Commerce's practice in this area.
The Department recognizes that the reasoning underlying the
Georgetown decision may not apply to China today to the extent that it
did 20 years ago. However, applying the CVD law to non-market economies
would raise complex issues of policy and methodology that the
Department has not fully considered, including implications for
antidumping policy and practice. Any such shift away from 20 years of
trade practice should therefore only be implemented after careful
consideration and review.
U.S. DUMPING LAWS
Question. Concerns exist about the adequacy of existing practices
in administering the U.S. antidumping duty law against imports from
NMEs, but particularly China. With the extraordinary trade deficit that
the United States is running with China, can you provide details of
what changes in the administration of the U.S. dumping law are being
considered for NME cases and when the agency will be implementing such
changes?
Answer. The Department will be giving priority attention to issues
related to trade with China, which has been the object of a significant
number of trade complaints. In fact, during the last three years, we
have initiated more antidumping investigations and issued more
antidumping duty orders against products from China than any other
country, more than twice as many as the next leading country. In 2003,
more than 50 percent of all new antidumping orders put in place were
against China (8 of 15 total orders).
The Department will soon establish an office that will focus on
cases involving Chinese imports, further cultivating the expertise
necessary to address the unique problems encountered in that market.
We have developed practices that allow us to more rigorously
examine requests for new shipper reviews before initiation, and to
continue to scrutinize eligibility for the reviews after initiation. As
a result of these practices, in 2003, we declined to initiate
approximately one-third of all new shipper requests, and we rescinded
the initiation of several new shipper reviews. We have also increased
our scrutiny of fraud and circumvention issues in the context of new
shipper reviews. In addition, we are working closely with U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to ensure that adequate financial security is
provided in connection with merchandise imported during new shipper
reviews and that--if our initiation of a new shipper review is
ultimately rescinded--we will be able to require in appropriate cases
that interest be assessed on merchandise imported during the review.
Single DAS for AD/CVD Operations: By placing all antidumping and
countervailing duty case work under a single Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Operations, we will facilitate case specialization.
Unfair Trade Practices Team: A new Unfair Trade Practices team will
report to the DAS for Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Policy &
Negotiations. This new unit will strengthen the Department's ability to
advance U.S. trade policies and negotiations and address the root
causes of unfair trade.
Efforts to Address Possible Fraudulent Activity: We have been
developing more expertise within the Department on how to uncover
potentially fraudulent activities, and through the Bilateral Task Force
with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, we are developing new procedures
for sharing information that will help us identify problems earlier and
deal with them more effectively. For example, we now regularly request
samples of actual entry documentation from Customs to compare with the
documentation submitted by the foreign respondent or obtained at
verification to ensure that the same documentation is provided to both
agencies. We also conduct independent research into the foreign
respondent's ownership, as well as the U.S. importer's ownership, to
determine whether the information about affiliations is accurately
reported in the questionnaire responses.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Gregg. This subcommittee will convene next Tuesday,
to hear from the Attorney General. We are recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., Tuesday, March 2, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:28 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg and Kohl.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR
OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR JUDD GREGG
Senator Gregg. We will begin the hearing. It is my
understanding that, unfortunately, Senator Hollings had a close
friend pass away and so he is not going to be able to be in
attendance today. No other members are planning to be here.
This hearing will have two panels. The first will involve
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director and the
second will include the Inspector General of the Department of
Justice and also two members of the GAO who have spent a
considerable amount of time working on issues that are related
to national security and counterterrorism and the Bureau
specifically.
We very much appreciate your coming here today, Director,
and we congratulate you for the effort you have made and the
successes you have had. America has not been attacked since 9/
11, almost 2 years, and that is an impressive record. In part,
a lot of it is due to the efforts of the FBI's counterterrorism
capabilities and your focus on this issue. Having arrived a
week before 9/11, you had a lot on your plate very quickly and
you have certainly tried to address it in a very aggressive
way.
The FBI has always been a law enforcement agency, a
reaction agency by definition, one which sees a crime and then
solves it. Yet, the role of the FBI has changed fundamentally.
Instead of being a reactionary agency, it is now a preemptive
agency which has to anticipate an event, find out when the
event and who the perpetrators of the event might be, and stop
the event before it occurs, which is extremely difficult. It
involves counterterrorism and counterintelligence at a level
that has never been exercised before domestically, maybe during
World War II, but certainly not at this level.
So there has been a huge adjustment for the FBI and we all
recognize that. This committee has tried to be of assistance as
the FBI has gone through the adjustment in changing the
culture, changing the structure, changing the technology, and
we want to continue to be of assistance.
But we do have concerns, which I know you are familiar
with, and today's hearing is going to address the areas where
those concerns take priority. The first is the issue of the FBI
adjusting from being a police agency, a reactive agency, to
being a proactive intelligence agency and the change of the
culture, whether or not the manpower adjustments have
resulted--have accomplished what you thought. It is a concern
of this committee that there are still too many people who are
only temporarily assigned to counterterrorism who come out of
different divisions of the FBI and the numbers that you hope to
meet haven't yet been fulfilled in the area of getting the
Counterterrorism Division up and running.
The second area is the issue of technology, very serious
issues which we recognize with the operational aspects,
especially bringing online Trilogy. It is $200 million over
budget right now. Unfortunately, the hardware and the software
do not appear to have been made operable. We are also concerned
about the delay, whether there is a plan for the future and
enterprise architecture that works, and also, obviously, the
cost.
Trilogy is one area. Another area is the IAFIS
interrelationship with the IDENT program at the Department of
Homeland Security and the question of how people coming into
the country are identified and whether the database that we
paid for can be adequately used by people coming into the
country.
And the third major area is this issue of communications
between different agencies which have responsibility for
counterterrorism, the relationship with Homeland Security, the
relationship with CIA, the relationship with the Defense
Department. The setting up of these various cross-agency
initiatives and how they are working and where they can be
improved is a major concern and has been for many years, long
before 9/11, ironically, of this committee.
I would, just for the sake of refreshing people's
recollection, and I am sorry Senator Hollings isn't here
because he has been on this committee now for over 30 years and
he has overseen this agency, the Bureau, for over 30 years and
played a major role in trying to get the issue of how we
address the Justice Department question of terrorism and
fighting terrorism up and coming long before 9/11. This
committee was the initial energizer for trying to get an
orchestrated approach toward fighting terrorism in the Justice
Department. We were resisted, regrettably, by the prior
administration in that effort when we tried to set up the
National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO) and a number of
other initiatives.
But the bottom line which we always were stressing was lack
of communication between various agencies and the inability of
people who have concerns, the first responders, to get the
information they need quickly. We continue to be concerned
about that.
With that as a background, Director, your statement will be
made part of the record. I would be happy to get your input and
then we can go on to questions.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you asked for
it and you will get a brief statement. I do want to start
before giving my opening remarks, I do want to thank you for
your leadership in this committee, for the leadership of
Senator Hollings and for the strong support that you have
accorded the FBI, certainly during my tenure and even before
that time.
I will tell you that the funding that you have committed to
the Bureau has been critical to our mission and to our efforts
to transform the FBI in the wake of September 11. As you have
indicated, our mission has changed dramatically since September
11 and our budget figures reflect this change.
As you, I believe, have requested, I am going to focus on
three areas in my short remarks. I want to talk for a moment
about training, second, about management, and third, about
information technology.
TRAINING
Turning first to the training, for us to go through a
period of transformation such as we have and to continue to go
through that transformation, we need relevant and timely and
effective training. Since the terrorist attacks of September
11, the new agents' curriculum has been completely revised.
Counterterrorism and counterintelligence training is now woven
into every facet of our new agents' training. Indeed, an
additional week of training has been added in order to
accommodate the expanded curriculum.
Our counterterrorism modules now include financial
investigative techniques, source development strategies,
terrorist groups and domestic terrorism. We have also developed
a number of practical problems that have greatly enhanced our
counterterrorism training. For example, we have developed a
white collar practical set of problems focusing on terrorist
fundraising. This enables new agent trainees to experience one
of the areas, means, and techniques of identifying and
dismantling terrorist networks before they can strike.
Of course, we also include practical problems where the
trainees must respond to terrorist events, such as an anthrax
attack or an attack involving a substance such as cyanide. In
the past, our practical exercises have focused primarily on
criminal applications, such as bank robberies and kidnappings,
and while these remain an important part of our program, we
have refocused our training efforts to address our number one
priority of protecting the United States against a terrorist
attack.
We also have expanded our legal instruction to include
application of the PATRIOT Act, the Attorney General
guidelines, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act law, as
well as the impact of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments,
particularly in the context of overseas investigations.
As well, we now provide cultural diversity training,
including a block of instruction on Middle Eastern culture and
values to our new agents.
Working with our partners in the intelligence community, we
have developed a curriculum to provide relevant training for
our analysts. In fiscal year 2003, the FBI's new College of
Analytical Studies provided training to 880 analysts during 89
analytical training sessions, a substantial increase from the
193 analysts and 10 courses provided in fiscal year 2002.
And last, in the past year, working with the Kellogg School
of Management at Northwestern University, we educated our
executive staff on the FBI's intelligence mission, and to date,
approximately 250 FBI executives and senior managers have
received management training at the Kellogg School.
MANAGEMENT
Let me turn to the second piece, and that is the questions
and concerns you have about the ability of the FBI to adapt to
change. The FBI has always risen to the challenge and adjusted
to meet the intelligence and law enforcement needs of the
American people. From organized crime to civil rights, from the
savings and loan crisis to espionage, from the war on drugs to
the war on terror, the men and women of the FBI have
demonstrated the strength, demonstrated the flexibility, and
demonstrated the enthusiasm to get the job done.
The September 11 terrorist attacks further defined the need
for the FBI to remain flexible, agile, and mobile in the face
of the threats to the homeland. As a result, we refocused our
mission and shifted priorities. We realigned our workforce to
address our new priorities. We restructured management
responsibilities at headquarters. And we developed projects to
re-engineer our internal business practices and processes.
Mr. Chairman, the FBI's commitment to hard work, integrity,
and dedication to protecting the United States is precisely the
attribute a workforce needs to embrace and implement the
transformation demanded of it. This is especially true in
today's FBI, where crimes as diverse as terrorism, corporate
fraud, identity theft, human trafficking, trafficking in
illegal weapons, and money laundering reach across global
boundaries.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Last, let me return for a moment to the challenge of
information technology. As this subcommittee is well aware,
providing appropriate training and workforce flexibility is
only part of the solution. Today, more than ever, the FBI's
successes rely upon having integrated information technology
systems. This past year, we improved our data warehousing
technology to dramatically reduce stovepiping and cut down on
man-hours that used to be devoted to manual searches.
As an example, during the Super Bowl earlier this year,
data warehousing tools were used to conduct over 65,000 queries
in 3 days. In the past, an analyst would have worked 3 months
to accomplish this task. We have made strides in information
technology, but as I am sure we will discuss, we have a ways to
go.
We have not been able to fully implement all aspects of
Trilogy because of delays with the Government contractor
regarding the deployment of Full Site Network Capability. This,
in turn, has delayed our ability to deploy the Virtual Case
File. And no one is more disappointed about this than I am.
However, we are working closely with the contractor to ensure
that we have the network Full Site Capability by this summer
and the program is ongoing now and it is promising, but I know
the subcommittee has questions regarding the Trilogy program.
In the interest of time, I will conclude at this point and
be happy to respond to any questions that you may have, Mr.
Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Gregg. Thank you. Thank you for being concise and
giving us a chance to ask you some questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert S. Mueller, III
INTRODUCTION
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, and members of the
Subcommittee. Before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank you for
your leadership and strong support of the FBI. The funding you have
provided has been critical to our mission and our efforts to transform
the FBI. Over the past two and a half years, we have moved from an
organization that was primarily focused on traditional criminal
investigations to one that is actively investigating and disrupting
terrorist operations. I welcome the opportunity to come before you
today to discuss this transformation and specifically address three
areas that have been key to it--information technology, management, and
training.
TRAINING
Training is essential for the FBI to achieve its strategic goals.
It is the basis for the success of each individual employee, from
Special Agents to analysts, and for the FBI as a whole. As threats
based on terrorism and technology increase, the FBI must prepare its
employees to meet these threats by providing high-quality training. The
cornerstone of this training is the FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia.
As you know, new agents complete a 17-week training program at the FBI
Academy. All analysts receive training at the College of Analytical
Studies, also located at Quantico. In addition, the FBI provides
training to state, local, and international law enforcement officials
at the National Academy and hosts numerous training conferences.
Over the past few years, the FBI has made significant progress in
improving the training we provide to agents, support personnel, and our
law enforcement partners.
To prepare Special Agents to meet our highest priority--terrorism
prevention--our Counterterrorism modules now include financial
investigative techniques, source development strategies, terrorist
groups, and domestic terrorism. We have also developed a number of
practical problems that have greatly enhanced our counterintelligence
and counterterrorism training. For example, we have developed white-
collar practical problems focusing on terrorist fundraising that
enables New Agent trainees to experience one of the means of
identifying and dismantling terrorist networks before they strike. Of
course, we also include practical problems where the trainees must
respond to a terrorist event such as the release of cyanide or anthrax.
In the past, our practical exercises focused exclusively on criminal
applications, such as bank robberies and kidnappings. While these
remain an important part of our program, we have refocused our training
efforts to address our number one priority of protecting the United
States against terrorist attack.
We established the College of Analytical Studies (CAS) in October
2001 to provide analysts with a formal training program in support of
our counterterrorism mission. The CAS includes a basic course of six
weeks for FBI analysts, as well as Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)
analysts, who may be Department of Justice (DOJ) employees, state and
local law enforcement officials, or analysts from other federal
agencies. The CAS trained 880 students in fiscal year 2003--a four-fold
increase over the 193 students in fiscal year 2002.
The FBI also provides training to its state, local, and
international partners through the National Academy, the National
Executive Institute, and the Law Enforcement Executive Development
Seminar. In addition, we have partnered with the Department of Justice
to provide a comprehensive ``Train the Trainer'' program, at the FBI
Academy, to teams of agents from each FBI field office. After
completing their training, these teams will train state and local
police officers in their territory on pre-incident awareness,
preparation, and prevention in the areas of antiterrorism and extremist
criminal activity. The goal is for each FBI field office to train 120
police officers per quarter, resulting in the annual training of at
least 26,800 first responders in basic CT. As of March 9, 2004, one
``Train the Trainer'' course had been taught, and a second was offered
last week, resulting in certification of approximately 55 trainers.
Through the University Education Program (UEP), we are providing
funding for employees to pursue advanced degrees in critical skills
areas as identified by the FBI's list of priorities. This will allow
FBI employees to readily adapt to changes in mission and keep pace with
rapid advances in technology. In fiscal year 2004, 147 employees were
approved to work toward their degrees. Eighty-four are pursuing master
degrees or Ph.D.'s. We have also invested in executive management and
leadership training, developed by the Kellogg School of Management in
Chicago. Approximately 250 Senior Executive Service (SES) managers have
already received training at the Kellogg School.
Although the FBI Academy at Quantico supports a tremendous amount
of the training the FBI provides, it is over 30 years old and not in a
condition conducive to 21st century training. It has become clear that
a substantial investment is needed in our infrastructure now in order
to prevent further deterioration. The fiscal year 2005 President's
budget request includes $21.3 million in nonpersonnel funding in order
to renovate the FBI Academy and provide for operations and maintenance
of the facility, so we can ensure the future of law enforcement has the
best possible training environment.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
We have made substantial progress in the information technology
(IT) area since I arrived at the FBI in September 2001, eight days
before the terrorist attacks of September 11th. At that time, the FBI's
technology systems were several generations behind industry standards,
existing legacy systems were approaching 30 years old. IT equipment was
inadequate. For example, our personnel were working on hand-me down
computers from other federal agencies. We had little to no Internet
connections in our field offices, and our networks could not do
something as simple as transmit a digital photo.
Much of the progress the FBI has made on the investigative front
rests upon a strong foundation of information technology. Nearly 500
counterterrorism and counterintelligence FBI Headquarters employees
have been provided with access to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented
Information (TS/SCI) at their desks. We implemented the Wide Area
Network on schedule in March 2003. We improved data warehousing
technology to dramatically reduce stove piping and cut down on man-
hours that used to be devoted to manual searches. We have deployed
nearly 30,000 new computers for FBI Headquarters and field offices.
Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, we were required to
make an in-depth assessment of our information technology systems. This
assessment determined that we needed to address some key areas
including the lack of databases that contained current information,
limited analytical tools, continual dependency on Automated Case
Support (ACS), and outdated equipment.
I have taken specific steps to address our deficiencies in
information technology. I made it a top priority that we establish
required databases and develop analytical tools. In a post-Robert
Hanssen environment, it was critical that we implement new security
protocols. I also completely replaced the management team responsible
for Trilogy. I brought onboard a new Chief Information Officer (CIO),
as well as a project manager from the IT community to monitor the
progress of the project.
As you know, during the past year we encountered some setbacks
regarding the deployment of Full Site Capability (FSC) and the Virtual
Case File, and we are moving quickly to address them. We are working to
resolve each issue, and will continue deployment throughout the
country.
I believe that we are now on the right track, and we are closing in
on the goal of completion. We are being diligent in our efforts to
complete this project within the resources available, and I am
committed to ensuring the successful completion of this project.
For fiscal year 2005, the FBI requests increases of $20 million in
technology investments to continue moving forward. A portion of these
resources will allow the FBI to install the TS/SCI Operational Network
in up to 10 field offices and add users to the Headquarters TS/SCI
Local Area Network (LAN). Expanding the TS/SCI network will provide
every agent and analyst with classified e-mail and message delivery, as
well as an electronically searchable archive on their desktop. I will
continue to seek your help and support as the FBI moves forward into an
increasingly high-tech future.
FBI CULTURE
The culture of the FBI is now--and always has been--a culture of
hard work, integrity, and dedication to protecting the United States,
no matter what challenges we face. The FBI was created 96 years ago to
fight the spread of traditional crime across county and state lines.
Today's FBI faces a world in which crimes as diverse as terrorism,
corporate fraud, identity theft, human trafficking, illegal weapons
trade, and money laundering traverse easily back and forth across
international boundaries. Today, we are dealing with organized crime
groups that launder money for drug groups, which sell weapons to
terrorists, who commit white-collar crime to fund their operations. In
the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks, it became clear that the
FBI must be more flexible, agile, and mobile in the face of these new
threats. As a result, the FBI has: refocused its mission and revised
its priorities; realigned its workforce to address these priorities;
shifted its management and operational environment to strengthen
flexibility, agility, and accountability; restructured FBI
Headquarters; and undertaken dozens of projects aimed at reengineering
our internal business practices and processes.
We are building a workforce for the future by: expanding the FBI's
applicant base for critical skills and diversity; updating new agent
training to reflect our revised priorities; establishing new career
tracks for counterterrorism, counterintelligence, cyber, security, and
for analysts; and improving management and leadership development.
We are modernizing FBI technology by implementing Trilogy and
developing cutting-edge technology. We have opened and strengthened
lines of communication between the FBI and our partners in the federal,
state, local, and international law enforcement and intelligence
communities. We amended our original core values to accountability for
our actions and leadership through example--both at work and in our
communities.
In short, we have overhauled the FBI, transforming it into a
stronger, more flexible, more proactive, and more modern organization,
better equipped to confront the myriad of threats we face in a post-
September 11th world. We will continue to evolve and make comprehensive
changes in the overall structure, organization, and business practices
of the FBI to ensure that we remain the very best law enforcement and
intelligence agency in the world.
CONCLUSION
We have made great progress, but our work is not yet finished. The
FBI has a duty to protect the United States, secure freedom, and
preserve justice for all Americans. The FBI has always answered--and
will always answer--this call with fidelity, bravery, and integrity.
The men and women of the FBI work tirelessly each and every day to
fulfill the FBI's mandate to protect the United States. With the
support of this Subcommittee, we can give the men and women of the FBI
the resources they need to carry out their mission.
Thank you.
TRILOGY PROGRAM
Senator Gregg. Let us start where you ended, which is a
tangible item. Some of the other issues of culture and
interchange between various agencies of information are less
tangible, but let us begin with the Trilogy program and the
problem.
This committee has dedicated a massive amount of dollars
and a huge amount of time to trying to assist the Bureau in
getting this right, and yet it continues to not work. It is
$200 million over budget, months, literally years, really, out
of sync on its timetable. The problem, as you mentioned, is
that the onsite capability hardware didn't work, and hasn't
been brought online on time and the software, Virtual Case
File, first round, I guess, was declared to be ineffective.
Now we have got a new time line and a new date to have the
onsite capability up and running. Virtual Case File appears to
be still very much a question. And there doesn't appear to be
an enterprise architecture plan, something that looks into the
future and says, this is where we are going with all this
technology.
I guess the first question is, give us specifics as to when
you expect this to work. Second, I understand that one of our
problems is that we basically have had contracts which haven't
put penalties in place and now there is some penalty language.
Tell us what the penalty language is and how it is going to
create an enforcement of both the Virtual Case File and the
onsite capability language and what the game plan is for an
enterprise architecture plan.
Mr. Mueller. If I could, Mr. Chairman, reflect a bit on the
history of the program, and I understand this committee's
concern. But by way of history, the----
Senator Gregg. I think we should start by making it clear
to those who may be listening that the purpose here was to give
the agent, all agents, the ability to have access to the
database in real time that would be extremely usable and user
friendly and would be almost an off-the-shelf capability to
allow them to have a computer at their desk where they could
communicate with each other and we wouldn't have things happen
like happened prior to 9/11.
Mr. Mueller. Absolutely. And if I can, let me just start
with a history. Then I will focus on the specific questions you
asked, not the least of which, what is the bottom line? When do
you expect this to go online?
But going back a little bit of the history. As, Mr.
Chairman, you pointed out, contracts were entered into early on
speedily without the language that perhaps we would have liked
in retrospect and there were two contracts. One was for
basically the hardware side of the house and the other was for
the software side of it. These were let in the year 2001, prior
to September 11.
After September 11--and the contracts proposed a certain
revamping of the archaic, and I have to say archaic,
information technology infrastructure of the FBI. But what was
proposed in the contracts prior to September 11 was not what
the Bureau needed in the wake of September 11.
And when we did a review in the wake of September 11 as to
what we would get as a Bureau from these two contracts, we
realized they were lacking in a number of ways, the principal
area of which was a tremendous concern to me was that given
what Trilogy proposed, we were to retain exactly the same
database structure that we had had before but put a graphical
user interface or a web-based interface on it, and retaining
that database would preclude us from doing exactly what you
have intimated, having a database that would be accessible to
all and upon which would sit the search tools that would help
not just our analysts, but all our agents and support staff.
So we made changes to Trilogy in the wake of September 11.
I think you are aware of those changes. They cost substantial
additional sums of money, but they are, I believe, well spent.
Over a period of time, you could look at Trilogy and the
four areas of upgrade. The first is the hardware deployment.
Before September 11, the computers that were on the desks of
many agents were, 486s, rejects from the Department of Defense.
Part of the contract was to replace all of these computers. In
the last 2 years, we have replaced anywhere from 28,000 to
30,000 computers for all of our agents and our support staff.
So the first part was the hardware, replacing the computers,
the printers, scanners, and the like.
The second part was the Local Area Networks and Wide Area
Networks. We have 622 sites around the United States,
everything from a one- or two-person resident agency to the New
York Field Office. Part of the program was to replace the Local
Area Networks and the Wide Area Networks. The same contractor
that had the responsibility for the upgrades, which I will talk
about in a moment, had the responsibility for completing, or
not completing, that on schedule and that was completed on
schedule March 28, in fact, a couple days before schedule, last
year. That is the backbone, the Local Area Networks and the
Wide Area Networks.
The third piece was the upgrade of those computer operating
systems, what we call a full site capability, which was to be
completed in October of last year. We came to find out that the
contractor could not do it. We are in the process of doing it
now. My expectation is that that will be done by May of this
year. We have migrated over 25,000 users from the old operating
system to the newer operating system on which you can place the
Virtual Case File.
And last, Virtual Case File. We are now negotiating with
the contractor who has the responsibility for Virtual Case File
on the date of completion of that and changes that we had
wanted to improve its capability. My expectation is that
sometime, and I can't get a firm date, after we finish with the
full site upgrade at the end of April, beginning of May of this
year, it will take another 2 months probably to go and get
Virtual Case File on board.
Let me, if I could, just make another point about where we
will be when we do get Virtual Case File. I had a very real
concern when I looked at where the Bureau was going in the wake
of September 11 as to what would be the appropriate mechanism
for the Bureau to upgrade its capabilities, its investigative
capabilities for all agents, and there basically were two
options. One is, take something off the shelf and modify it.
Another one is to develop our own set of procedures or our own
software using contractors and the like, but adopt and build a
software capability that would be usable, user friendly, and
transform the Bureau.
I have had a number of persons outside the Bureau look at
the decision to develop our own, persons, I call them the gray
beards, who are from a number of private concerns who would
look at the choice we have made and the product we have come up
with. I think the reviews are very good for the product we have
come up with.
The last point I would make, Mr. Chairman, is that in
transforming the upgrade to Virtual Case File, while it
absolutely has its risks, as we complete this process, we will
upgrade not only the computers, and our investigative
capability, but also will change the way we have done business
for 95 years of our existence, going from a paper-driven
organization to a digital organization.
It has cost money. There have been delays. There have been
mistakes that I have made. There have been areas where I could
have moved faster and there are areas where I urged people to
move faster that have rebounded and tended to produce a delay
as opposed to the speed that I had requested. But I do believe
we are on track. I do believe that we will have a state-of-the-
art system when we are through.
Senator Gregg. What penalties do you have in place to
enforce the April 30 deadline on Full Site Capability?
Mr. Mueller. If either the costs or the schedule are
missed, there will be no award fee, which is in the sum of $5
million, and the FBI and the contractor will pay 50 percent
each of any cost overruns past that date.
Senator Gregg. And how about with the Virtual Case File, if
it doesn't work? The first Virtual Case File just didn't work.
Mr. Mueller. Well, there were glitches in it. I wouldn't go
so far as to say it didn't work.
Senator Gregg. Well, the GAO said it. The Inspector General
said it didn't.
Mr. Mueller. Yes. We are negotiating with the contractor
right now. We are in the course of negotiations with the
contractor on the date and the cost.
Senator Gregg. I hope there will be some sort of an
enforcement mechanism in that contract, too, because I think
one of the things we have learned is that without penalties and
without enforcement mechanisms, we just end up with the
taxpayers paying huge cost overruns here.
Mr. Mueller. I am in hearty agreement.
Senator Gregg. The enterprise architecture concept of a
plan for the future, you didn't address that. That was part of
my question.
Mr. Mueller. Yes, and I apologize for not having embraced
that in my remarks. As I believe you are aware, I had my Chief
Information Officer (CIO), a very experienced individual, from
July 2002 through May 2003. Quite obviously, one of the
challenges for him was the enterprise architecture. I
understand the necessity for it, the need for it. He left in
May 2003. I hired Zalmai Al Azmi, who is here today in November
2003, after an extensive search. One of the first things on his
plate was the architecture. We have just in the last few days
entered into a contract to have the architecture developed and
we expect that by the end of the year, the first phase of that
will be done.
In the meantime, I have given Zalmai Al Azmi the
responsibility for approving any IT project as well as the
funding for any IT project. As anybody who has reviewed the FBI
has known, we have been stovepiped over the many years. We have
had any number of IT projects grow up to meet a particular need
and there has not been an overarching architecture. By placing
the responsibility for both the funding as well as the
development of projects in his shop, as well as developing or
contracting to have the architecture developed on a very short
timeframe, I think we are moving to address that.
Senator Gregg. I have a number of other questions, but I
want to yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Gregg.
Director Mueller----
Mr. Mueller. Senator.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
Senator Kohl [continuing]. In lieu of the recent terrorist
attacks at four train stations in Madrid, the security of our
own mass transportation system has been called into question.
Yesterday, Secretary Ridge announced a new plan to secure our
rail system. This effort would include rapid deployment teams,
which could be deployed to vulnerable rail systems and stations
with bomb sniffing dogs. In addition, the Department of
Homeland Security will accelerate a pilot program to test
equipment for screening passengers and luggage for explosives.
How much confidence do you have in the effectiveness of
this proposal to protect against terrorist attacks? How long do
you believe it will take to get this program up and running?
And what role will the FBI be playing to help protect the
transportation infrastructure, Director Mueller?
Mr. Mueller. The plan proposed by the Department of
Homeland Security will go some ways in hardening our
transportation, the rail transportation. I will tell you that
in the past, even prior to the announcement of the new
initiative yesterday from the Department of Homeland Security,
the Department of Homeland Security, ourselves, and others have
worked closely with both the railroads, but most particularly
with the subway systems, particularly New York, Washington, DC,
Boston, Los Angeles, and Chicago, to assure heightened
protection of those particular targets.
So as to the first part of the question, yes, the new
initiative yesterday will go some ways again to deterring
terrorists from attacking the rail systems because of the
heightened security. We have learned, both from our experience
from gathering information from around the world and more
particularly from our discussions with detainees who are
familiar with al Qaeda's thinking that enhanced deterrence
deters terrorist attacks and they look for the softer targets,
so yes. Yesterday is yet another step in protecting the rail
systems as well as the subways, but the fact of the matter is,
while it goes some substantial ways, one cannot have a failsafe
system, as we saw in Madrid 2 weeks ago.
So yes, we are protecting the subways in the various cities
I mentioned in conjunction with the transit authorities and the
local police, but it is not a failsafe system. As we develop
these proposals, we work with the Department of Homeland
Security to assure that we have the integrated response to
assure that whatever threat information we have is immediately
passed on to not only the Department of Homeland Security, but
to the transit authorities or the police departments in the
cities that may be threatened.
If there is a more general threat, that also is basically
provided through two means of communication. The one means is
through the Department of Homeland Security advisors throughout
the United States and in each of our major cities, and the
second is through the FBI and law enforcement to each of our
joint terrorism task forces, of which there are 84 around the
country.
EXPLOSIVES
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Director Mueller, current law
requires all domestic manufacturers of explosives to mark their
products with identifying information. This allows
investigators to determine the origin of the explosives and
aids them in tracking down criminals. Imported explosives,
however, do not have to carry such markings.
In 2002, the United States imported 14,900 metric tons of
prepared explosives. Without markings, law enforcement has a
distinct disadvantage in investigating crimes involving
foreign-made explosives. The Justice Department has been
working on regulations that would require importers to mark
explosives when they enter the country, but these regulations
have not been finalized.
What effect does this loophole have on our ability to
effectively investigate crimes involving explosives, and would
you support legislation that would require appropriate markings
to be placed on all imported explosives?
Mr. Mueller. Well, I do believe markings assist
investigators in solving the crime, so to speak, and
determining the sourcing of the components to any explosive
device will assist you in determining who was responsible for
any act using such a device. And so, yes, I think markings are
helpful.
I will tell you that in many cases, overseas and actually
domestically, our laboratory can identify a sourcing of a
particular explosive just because of the vast knowledge that
they have gained over a number of years as to the manufacturers
of various components and their identifying data. But that is
not the same as the markings we have domestically.
With regard to the support of that, again, that would be an
administration position and I would have to defer to the
Department as to exactly what position they are taking on a
specific piece of legislation.
Senator Kohl. Would you like to see personally all imported
explosives to be marked?
Mr. Mueller. I think markings are helpful to the
investigator and the laboratory technician who is trying to
identify the sourcing of that explosive.
TERRORIST SCREENING CENTER
Senator Kohl. All right. Director Mueller, the media has
reported that biological threats may have played a role in the
cancellation of numerous commercial flights in December and
January. When asked at a hearing last month, Secretary Ridge
admitted that our airline security procedures cannot currently
protect against these types of biological threats. Secretary
Ridge suggested that the best way to prevent such attacks is to
concentrate on going after the people who may launch such an
attack.
A terrorist watch list is vital to our national security.
The FBI, through the creation of the Terrorist Screening
Center, known as TSC, is partially responsible for creating a
single integrated terrorist watch list. In a recent interview,
you said that this integrated list would be completed by March.
Is this list fully operational today with a completely
integrated watch list, and if it is not, when can we expect
such a list to be fully integrated and operational?
Mr. Mueller. The Terrorist Screening Center was first
established on December 1, 2003, and what it brought together
was individuals' access to the databases of all of the watch
lists, and there are approximately 12, in a variety of agencies
in the Government. What it brought together at that time was
the ability, when there was a hit on the watch list, to
thereafter determine whether it was valid and then to follow up
with action through the joint terrorism task forces or through
the border agencies.
In the meantime, since December 1, 2003, the Terrorist
Screening Center has been working with each of the agencies
that had a relevant watch list to import its data in a way that
assures that the name of the person is a valid name, that there
is identifying information that supports it, and there is a
basis for having the person on a Terrorist Watch List.
I can tell you that the State Department has a list of
easily over 100,000, not just terrorists, but others whom they
want to bar from the country. So extracting those names is a
substantial process, and assuring that there is a basis for
that name going into the watch list is also a very extensive
process.
We are about halfway through that process at this point. We
have a consolidated watch list, but we do not have all of the
watch list names in it because we are going through that
screening process. I expect it to be finished by this summer.
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator.
DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS/TERRORIST EXPLOSIVE DEVICE ANALYTICAL CENTER
Following up on Senator Kohl's point on the Terrorist
Screening Center, we have been setting up these new initiatives
that I presume are trying to get away from stovepipes and
cross-fertilize the different agencies involved, such as the
Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force and the Terrorist
Screening Center and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center
and the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC)
and the Joint Intelligence Coordination Council.
I guess my question is, are we spinning here? Are we
duplicating? Are some of these groups ending up being redundant
and not adding value but actually just shifting deck chairs
around? I would take, for example, the Terrorist Explosive
Device Analytical Center, which as I understand it is
essentially taking over the role, or attempting to take over
the role, or attempting to duplicate the role that already
exists at ATF, where they have two databases on explosive
devices and where they have had the role of overseeing
explosive devices for quite a while.
Mr. Mueller. Let me start with TEDAC, which the ATF quite
obviously participates in. It was an idea that came from the
Saudi Arabia bombings of May 12, 2003, and our participation in
helping the Saudis on that case, and most recently what we have
come to find in Iraq.
There was not a worldwide effort to in develop a database
in one place with an expertise associated with it to identify
explosive devices from around the world used by various
terrorist groups. So the idea came out of our work in Iraq,
where we along with the Department of Defense (DOD), the
British, and a number of others, are developing the database
related to the various incidents occurring in Iraq.
We have expanded that under the auspices of the FBI
laboratory to include devices from around the world. Now, the
first step was to get our own house in order to make certain
that we are working together with DOD, the CIA, with ATF, and
NSA to cooperatively develop this database.
And so it was an idea borne out of our experiences in Iraq
and elsewhere----
Senator Gregg. Let me get specific, Director. ATF has
something called the X-Base, I believe it is called, and then
they have something called the Bomb and Arson Tracking System.
You are saying that TEDAC is not going to be duplicative of
those but will have more of an international flavor than those
have?
Mr. Mueller. I believe it will, but I would have to get
back to you on how they can or should be integrated.
[The information follows:]
Possible Integration of X-Base Into TEDAC
The mission of the TEDAC is to forensically and technically
analyze terrorist explosive devices used against U.S. interests
anywhere in the world and to develop actionable intelligence.
As such, the TEDAC will require a very robust database with
state of the art link analysis software that will enable
computers to compare Improvised Explosive Device (IED)
components sent in from a variety of sources. This
functionality will allow the TEDAC to rapidly recognize
otherwise non-observable connections between IEDs that exist
with a tremendous volume of detailed technical and forensic
information and intelligence. The ultimate goal will be to
identify those individuals associated with the IED and the
unique signature used to manufacture the bomb. All intelligence
gathered from the forensic and technical analyses of IEDs will
be disseminated among the military and law enforcement
explosives community for technical and tactical purposes.
Currently, the Department of Justice is conducting a review
of all explosives-related databases. The Department will, upon
completion of the review, advise the relevant committees of the
Department's final conclusions.
Senator Gregg. And the other question that goes into that
issue is that I understand the FBI is considering taking over
all of the explosive activity that was traditionally with ATF.
Is that true?
Mr. Mueller. That is not true.
Senator Gregg. The investigative activity in the area of
explosives?
Mr. Mueller. That is not true.
Senator Gregg. Well, then maybe I am misinformed. It is my
understanding that in this budget, we have a shift of that
responsibility from ATF over to FBI.
Mr. Mueller. There is a differentiation of responsibilities
between the FBI and ATF. We do have the responsibility for
addressing terrorist, or possible terrorist incidents within
the United States, and generally, the ATF has a responsibility
for most other explosive incidents that you have within the
United States.
In terms of training, our training focuses on render safe,
that is, how persons render safe the explosive device prior to
there being an explosion and the ATF has the expertise in
training what you do and how you investigate explosive devices
that have gone off.
I can tell you that there is a division of responsibility.
There are occasionally tensions, both in the field and here,
now that ATF is within the Department of Justice, the
Department of Justice has a task force that is looking at that
allocation of responsibility.
Senator Gregg. That must be what I was informed of, and I
guess I was misinformed, because our impression was that they
had gone much further than just looking at it, that there had
been sort of a preliminary move to have ATF move explosive
activity over to FBI. I am glad to hear that is not the case,
because I understand only about 1 percent of the explosions
that occur are terrorist related.
Mr. Mueller. There is no move for us to take over ATF's
responsibility when it comes to investigating incidents
involving explosions----
Senator Gregg. That are not terrorist.
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Beyond the terrorism field.
Senator Gregg. We have had this Madrid incident----
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
Senator Gregg [continuing]. And my question to you is,
Europe is now starting to expedite its efforts in the area of
counterterrorism and the European Union is talking about
setting up a Europe-wide database that is counterterrorism
oriented. I guess they had one, but they are talking about
significantly improving it and increasing it.
To what extent have you had discussions post-Madrid as to
the role of ourselves and the FBI specifically in this new
effort by the Europeans to become more sensitive to and more
knowledgeable about the threat?
Mr. Mueller. Since the Madrid explosions I have not had
much opportunity to talk to counterparts overseas other than my
counterpart in the Spanish National Police, and the discussion
there was not addressed to what Europe could do as a whole
itself to integrate terrorism information, and then a subpart
of that, involvement of the United States.
For the most part, our relationships with our European
counterparts are very good on a bilateral basis and we share a
great deal of information, depending on the country, with our
counterparts overseas. The European Union has what is called
Europol, which is an entity established by the European Union
to address law enforcement, terrorism issues and it, I would
say, is in its opening stages.
I have had discussions within the FBI, some outside, with
regard to a proposal suggested by Congressman Wolf about our
participating in an international terrorism information
exchange and we are exploring the possibility of doing that
under the auspices of NATO. One of the problems you have in
terms of exchanging information is having everyone on the same
security level so that one is given access to meaningful
information. And one of the problems that one has where you
have a group of countries working together, you wonder what the
security level may be. Who gets the information? One has to
work through that. Our thought is that NATO may give us the
vehicle to do that because there are security levels, and
persons seconded to NATO with the appropriate security
clearances. This is a vehicle that we are currently exploring.
Senator Gregg. So right now, there is no formal structure
or communication process other than personal relationships
between the Director of the CIA and yourself that causes
information to move back and forth efficiently?
Mr. Mueller. No, I would say there is a lot more, a great
deal more than that. Ourselves and the agency, we have legal
attache offices in most European capitals, not every one of
them, and it is that legal attache office that meets daily with
our counterparts, whether it be in France or the United Kingdom
or Spain. So there is an exchange of information between our
legal attaches overseas and our counterparts overseas on a
daily basis.
We also have the foreign Embassies in Washington, DC. You
also have Scotland Yard, MI-5, MI-6, and others who will have
persons here who have exchanges with our people daily. And so
there is a network of exchange of information that is ongoing
that people don't often hear much about but has been
tremendously effective since September 11.
What you do not have is Europol, which has been established
by the European Union. While we have persons that have spent
time at Europol, it is just getting established and whether it
will be an effective information exchange for the European
Union is still to be seen. In the meantime, we are going to
explore this other option of exchanging with a number of
countries information relating to terrorism under the umbrella
of NATO.
Senator Gregg. Is there compatible Terrorist Screening
Center in Europe yet?
Mr. Mueller. No, there is not at this point.
Senator Gregg. Would you presume that if there were, that
we would integrate with it?
Mr. Mueller. Yes. I think we would exchange lists, yes.
Senator Gregg. Should we help them get that going? It seems
to me that a lot of our threat is going to be based there, and
granted, you have got your Legats all over the place who I am
sure are developing names, but that is a pretty ad hoc
approach.
Mr. Mueller. I met with a representative of Europol maybe 2
to 3 weeks ago in terms of what they have established in terms
of capability and it is relatively small at this juncture.
TOPOFF
Senator Gregg. What did you learn from the TOPOFF events
that you could impart to us that we need to do in order to
improve communication between the various parties who
participated? I mean, the purpose of TOPOFF was to simulate an
event and see where the weaknesses are. What was the FBI's
weakness and what should we do to address it?
Mr. Mueller. It has been some time since I have looked at
TOPOFF. I think one of the basic lessons we learned out of it
was the Seattle aspect of it, that is, the necessity of
identifying the relative chain of command and the authorities
beforehand. Since that time, I know the Department of Homeland
Security has identified individuals in most cities, I believe,
who would be the representative of the Department of Homeland
Security on scene and is training those individuals. I think
that was a weakness that I saw.
There were certain weaknesses that we saw out of the TOPOFF
exercise in Chicago, which was a chem-bio attack, and I would
have to go back and refresh my memory on what those weaknesses
were in terms of responding to that attack.
Senator Gregg. Is there a formal structure for responding
to the weaknesses that were identified?
Mr. Mueller. Yes. I know there is an after-action report
and that the various items on that after-action report were
identified and are being addressed by Homeland Security.
Senator Gregg. Maybe you could give us a summary of what is
being addressed for the record.
Mr. Mueller. I will be happy to do that.
[The information follows:]
Summary of TOPOFF 2 After-Action Report
Since the publication of the ``TOPOFF 2 After-Action Summary
Report,'' the Department of Homeland Security (OHS) has used the
conclusions from this analytical document to lead the federal
government's national effort to revamp, centralize, and unify a range
of pre-existing federal and other incident response contingency plans.
Among the actions undertaken by the DHS in response to TOPOFF 2 arc:
--Enhanced interagency coordination for incident management.--At the
time of TOPOFF 2, DHS had instituted a Crisis Action Team (CAT)
to address incident management requirements. TOPOFF 2 After-
Action comments suggested that the DHS develop more formal
standard operating procedures with incident-specific
interagency staffing requirements. These suggestions led to the
transformation of the CAT into the Interagency Incident
Management Group (IIMG), which was formed to address decision
and coordination processes in elevated threat environments
through bringing together federal, state, local, and private
sector agencies as one functional entity to address specific
contingencies, threats, or events.
--Enhanced Principal Federal Official (PFO) capabilities.--The PFO
concept, which was first tested in TOPOFF 2, has been enhanced
through the establishment of training courses with curriculum
that clarifies the mission, roles, and functions of these
senior DHS officials in response operations.
--Improved emergency public information coordination.--The DHS has
led an intensive interagency effort that has resulted in the
creation of an interagency incident communications strategy,
emergency communications protocols, and vastly improved
federal, state, and local coordination.
Senator Gregg. Where do you see the status of training
first responders relative to the FBI role, to the extent there
is any in that?
Mr. Mueller. Well----
Senator Gregg. And how do you see our first responder
capability these days?
Mr. Mueller. We do a tremendous amount of training in
evidence recovery throughout the country, throughout the world
now in crime scene exploration. That is not what traditionally
is called first responder, but it is our niche that we will
continue to address.
We have a render safe capability that we have continued to
grow over the years and we will continue to grow that
capability.
In terms of the response from the fire or the ambulances
and that form of first responder, as with the TOPOFF exercises,
there have been other exercises. Every one of our special
agents in charge in each of our cities is integrated now, both
through our joint terrorism task forces, but also through
various exercises in various cities with those first responders
so the communication, the ability to stand up quickly and
respond to a devastating attack, is much enhanced since
September 11.
Senator Gregg. So you think we are making progress on
training first responders?
Mr. Mueller. Yes.
Senator Gregg. Do you think it should be threat based,
where we choose to put the money for this?
Mr. Mueller. I am going to have to leave that to others.
That is a little bit out of my bailiwick. I think that is more
in Tom Ridge's. I am not that familiar with the financing----
Senator Gregg. Okay. I will----
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Structure, I will just put it
that way, of allocating the funds.
Senator Gregg [continuing]. Okay, onto other topics, then.
Three, just quickly. Do you believe al Qaeda was responsible
for the Madrid attack?
Mr. Mueller. From what we have seen to date, I believe so.
Now, when you say al Qaeda, let me just qualify that to a
certain extent. There may well have been a group of individuals
who have adopted and believe in Bin Laden's philosophy,
theology, who are responsible for this, but may not have had,
either sought or had the approval of those remaining leaders of
al Qaeda. But I think it is fair to say that the evidence tends
to point to individuals who were supportive of the radical
fundamentalism and would be supporters of al Qaeda's mission.
COUNTERTERRORISM AGENTS
Senator Gregg. In changing the culture of the FBI, how many
agents are you planning to put into the Counterterrorism
Division?
Mr. Mueller. Well, we had----
Senator Gregg. Approximately?
Mr. Mueller. I moved 518 in fiscal year 2002. I would
expect that at the end of 2004, we are authorized 2,418 agents.
That is up from 1,351 agents in fiscal year 2001. With the
additional increases sought in the 2005 budget, we will be up
to 2,592 agents.
Senator Gregg. As I understand it, there are still about
380 agents who are assigned to the Criminal Division that are
being used in counterterrorism, is that correct?
Mr. Mueller. I believe it is about 380 at the end of this
year, yes. We are actually overburdening some more than that at
this point. But with the 2004 budget increases, I believe we
will be 389, is what we anticipate at the end of this year.
Senator Gregg. I guess the obvious question is, and I am
sure you have a strong answer to it, but the obvious question
is, if counterterrorism is your number one responsibility now
and if you have got 12,000 agents overall, approximately,
first, why are we only dedicating 2,500 to the effort?
And number two, why haven't we been able to move the full
complement into this arena, and is that a reflection of the
fact that there is still some significant--resistance is the
wrong term, but some significant desire or feeling amongst the
line agents that they want to do things other than
counterterrorism, that they were trained, they were brought up
for 20 years, 30 years, 15 years in white collar crime and
chasing the mafia and finding out who robbed the bank and they
like that?
Mr. Mueller. It is not a reflection--of what a particular
agent or group of agents want to do. I have sought, as we have
discussed before, to request additional resources in
counterterrorism, to move additional resources when I thought
it was necessary. I moved in excess of 500 agents in fiscal
year 2002 and I have sought additional enhancements so that if
we get the 2005 budget, that 389 figure should be down above,
just a little above 230.
I am also considering making a move of additional agents to
counterterrorism. You will see that in the budget, we are
looking at--in the budget submission, we are looking at a
number of agents who in the past have been working on
Government fraud cases where I believe the Inspector Generals
can take up some of those cases. And I am looking for other
ways to transfer agents to counterterrorism.
I have looked to see what our continuous level of
assignment of agents to counterterrorism would be absent the
peaks. We have, as we have discussed before, we have had two
peaks in the past, certainly with regard to--in the wake of 9/
11 and then in anticipation of the hostilities in Iraq. I do
believe that one of the benefits from having a number who are
still being reassigned from criminal in some offices reflects
the desire to have flexibility in the system.
In the savings and loan crisis, when we were given
additional resources, whether it be prosecutors or agents, we
identified where the problem was and the agents were put in the
particular city and they are there to this date. What we found
in terrorism is that terrorism cells can arise anyplace in the
United States, and when they arise, we have to do a combination
of pushing resources to those particular offices as well as
taking persons from those offices who are addressing another
priority. Part of the reason that you have the statistics you
have as to the overburn is attributable to that desire to be
flexible.
The bottom line is I am continuously looking at it. I will
look at the end of this year, or as we go through this year, at
the feasibility of reassigning agents from other programs to
counterterrorism.
Senator Gregg. I noticed you dropped a couple of
activities. There were two specific areas that you decided----
Mr. Mueller. The first one was fraud on the Government. The
other one was assistance of EPA.
Senator Gregg. We put a lot of things on the FBI's table
over the years before 9/11. There is probably a list that is
longer than that that you could drop, isn't there?
Mr. Mueller. There are areas that I have looked at. I mean,
there are some areas that are relatively insignificant that
don't make a big cut. The one area where I have reassigned the
most agents was from the drug program and we have continued to
underburn in the drug program as a result of those agents being
reassigned to do counterterrorism.
One of the things, and it may be--I don't think it is that
different than what happened in the past, but each of the
special agents in charge are directed to expend the resources
to do the job in counterterrorism, even if it cuts into other
programs. So if you have a terrorism lead that has gone
unaddressed and agents assigned to counterterrorism are busy
with terrorism matters, then you have to take them from
someplace else. That is the type of flexibility that we have
not necessarily used in the past that I think is important to
use in the future where we have terrorism not limited to one
city or two cities, but it can pop up anyplace around the
country. And I say not just international terrorism, but
domestic terrorism.
LANGUAGE TRANSLATION
Senator Gregg. I understand that. I noticed that you have
something like 65 people who are now trained in language who
are fluent in Arabic languages, is that right?
Mr. Mueller. We have 24 Arabic speakers in the agent
population. Now, we have dramatically increased our linguists
and our translators in the Bureau, as I think you are aware.
Senator Gregg. That is maybe where the 65 came from. That
seems like an awfully small number.
Mr. Mueller. We are pushing training. We are recruiting as
hard as we can for those who speak Arabic. We have had some
success, but not as much success as I would like. We are
enhancing the language training for our agents and those who
receive the training will now be in a position where they can
use that training, which has not always been the case.
Senator Gregg. How can we help you get more people on
board? Do you need a pay differential?
Mr. Mueller. We have gotten in our request last year in the
2004 budget as well as in the 2005 budget. You have increased
our budget to assist in sending agents as well as analysts and
others for language training, not only in Arabic but Mandarin
Chinese and other languages that we need to have an agent cadre
fluent in.
Senator Gregg. I would hope if there is something further
we could do, we would like to do it.
IDENT SYSTEM
In talking with Director Hutchinson at Homeland Security
about the new IDENT system, US VISIT, where they are
fingerprinting people coming into the United States, he advises
us that they are using a flat screen, two index fingers,
printing system for the sake of speed, basically was what it
came down to, because using all five fingers or a roll system
just took too long.
We now built IAFIS, which cost us a huge amount of money,
before you arrived. We had the same problems with that that we
have had with Trilogy, except I think it even cost more in
overruns.
Mr. Mueller. But it is also, if I can interject, it has
been tremendously successful.
Senator Gregg. Well, it took a long time to get there,
believe me. It has been successful, and that is my point. It
has been successful. It has got 44 million fingerprints on
file, and yet it is not compatible with IDENT. This seems to be
one of those things which is very hard to explain to a
taxpayer, that we are putting in place a system at the State
Department and Homeland Security to identify people coming into
the country. We have 44 million fingerprints over here. Sure,
most of them may be domestic, but there are certainly a lot
that aren't and the two systems can't talk to each other. The
next terrorist event, we may find out a fellow got through the
IDENT system but his fingerprints were over at IAFIS.
Mr. Mueller. Well, this has been a matter of much
discussion, not just recently, but over the last year. Quite
obviously, the 10-print roll prints is the gold standard. I
know that the Department of Homeland Security was faced with
the necessity of establishing very quickly a biometric system
that was affordable and could be put up quickly and opted for
the two-print system in the meantime. There are discussions
about how that can be expanded to a 10-print flat as opposed to
a 10-print rolled, which would take a long time for everybody
and I don't think we would want at our borders with the fact
that 1 million persons go in or out of the country every day.
So it is a combination of, on the one hand, you have the
gold standard. On the other hand, you have the practicality of
identifying persons coming in swiftly in such a way that you
can identify terrorists. The way we do it now is we have a file
that we provide to the Department of Homeland Security that
includes all the fingerprints and they strip off the two index
fingerprints and utilize that to identify persons who may be
terrorists, on the wanted list, coming through the country, or
coming through the border. We are working with State and the
Department of Homeland Security to improve that system.
Senator Gregg. I appreciate that but what are we actually
doing?
Mr. Mueller. We are meeting to decide what the standard
will be down the road, taking into account that the 10-rolled
print is the gold standard which everybody would like and
looking at the practicality both of the software, the hardware
and what it would mean to allowing persons through our borders
of having a system that is more substantial than the two-
fingerprint system that we currently have at the borders.
Senator Gregg. Is it doable to integrate the two systems?
Mr. Mueller. I think it is. I do believe so. Just in the
two-print system, I do think it is doable down the road. We are
exploring----
Senator Gregg. What do you need to do to do it?
Mr. Mueller. Developing the technology, and I am not
intimately familiar with the technology that is being used
currently, the two in the VISIT system at the borders, but
developing the technology and the communications capability so
that given just the two-print system, there can be a timely
search against the FBI database by a communications carrier.
Senator Gregg. Maybe you could have somebody in your group
meet with Mr. Hutchinson and----
Mr. Mueller. We are.
Senator Gregg. Well, I know you are, daily, I am sure, and
with State and get back to this committee with a proposal as to
how you plan to do this and a timeframe.
Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir.
Senator Gregg. It just seems to us, to me, anyway, that we
are wasting our resources. We have put a lot of money into it
and we should be trying to figure out a way to get the two to
talk to each other. It may not be doable if you have got a
condition that you are going to have to get people through the
checkpoint in 13 seconds or whatever the condition is, but it
would seem to me that if there is a way to do it and we need
money to do it from a technology standpoint, we could find the
money, because we would hate to see that database just sit
there and not be accessed.
I appreciate it. You have been very courteous with your
time today. Is there anything further you wish to add?
Mr. Mueller. The only item I didn't address is the concern
that you raised, and that is about the adaptability of the
Bureau to the new mission. You read these books about taking a
corporation or an agency or a large organization through a
transformation. The books will tell you that there are 30
percent that welcome the transformation and see the future,
there are 30 percent that have to be persuaded, and there are
30 percent that like the old ways.
There are agents in the FBI, without a question of a doubt,
who enjoyed what they were doing before, perhaps enjoyed doing
it more than some of the things they are called upon to do at
this point, and there will be for a number of years. But I do
believe that just about every FBI agent understands the
responsibility that the Bureau has, along with other agencies,
to prevent another terrorist attack, they understand that
responsibility, the necessity of transforming the organization,
the new mission, and are pursuing that new mission as we have
missions in the past.
It was something new for us to develop a game plan to
address La Cosa Nostra or the Mob, to change from doing bank
robberies and bank embezzlements to an extended multi-year
integrated multi-agency plan to address a threat against the
United States and we adapted then. I do believe we are
adapting, and will continue to adapt with this new challenge
thanks to the dedication and loyalty of FBI agents and analysts
and support staff to the Bureau, the Government, the American
people, and their understanding the importance of our role in
protecting the national security of the United States.
With that, thank you, sir.
Senator Gregg. We thank you for your service and thank your
agents for their service and the people who work at the FBI and
do an extraordinary job. It is very much appreciated. To the
extent we criticize you, we hope it is taken as constructive.
That is our goal. Thank you.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF GLENN A. FINE, INSPECTOR GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Senator Gregg. Our next panel will include members of the
Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General.
We have with us Glenn Fine, who is the Inspector General
for the Department of Justice; Dr, Randolph Hite and Dr. Laurie
Ekstrand, who both work for the Government Accountability
Office. All of them specialize, obviously, in making sure that
various agencies function efficiently and effectively and focus
especially on the issue of the FBI and other agencies
responsible for counterterrorism.
We appreciate you taking the time to come and testify. You
all were here to hear, I believe, Director Mueller's thoughts
and what we would like to do is get your thoughts on the
specific issues of technology and how it is being put in place
at the FBI and what we can do to make sure we don't have these
continued cost overruns, and more importantly, what we can do
to make sure the technology works the way it is supposed to
work.
We will start with Mr. Fine, anything you wish to say, or
if you want to submit a statement, that is fine, too.
Mr. Fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting
me to testify about the FBI's efforts to modernize its
information technology systems. Within the past 2 years, the
Office of the Inspector General has issued several reports that
examined IT issues in the FBI, including a review of the FBI's
management of its IT investments as well as the implementation
of the FBI's most important IT project, Trilogy.
My written statement provides a detailed description of the
history of delays and cost overruns in Trilogy. My statement
also describes other reviews that the OIG recently has
completed or has ongoing in the FBI, including a report
describing the delays in integrating IDENT, the Department of
Homeland Security's automated fingerprint identification
database, with IAFIS, the FBI's fingerprint database; a review
of the FBI's use of investigative resources before and after
the September 11 attacks; a report examining the FBI's failure
to detect the espionage of Robert Hanssen for more than 20
years; and ongoing reviews of other important FBI programs,
such as the FBI laboratory's DNA unit, the FBI's Language
Translation Services Program, and the FBI's Foreign Legats,
among others.
You have asked me in my oral remarks this morning to
briefly focus on the OIG's assessment of the Trilogy project.
Trilogy is essential to modernizing the FBI's archaic and
inadequate computer systems. The FBI's current systems do not
permit FBI employees to readily access and share information
throughout the FBI. Without this capability, the FBI cannot
efficiently investigate criminal cases, effectively analyze
intelligence information, and bring together all the
investigative information in the FBI's possession to solve
crimes and help prevent future terrorist attacks.
The Trilogy project, as you know, has three main
components: One, the upgrade of the FBI's hardware and
software; two, the upgrade of the FBI's communications network;
and three, the upgrade and consolidation of the FBI's five most
important investigative applications.
Our reviews have found that Trilogy has grown from what in
the year 2000 was estimated to be a 3-year, $379 million
project to what is now a $581 million project that may not even
be fully completed before the end of this calendar year. Senior
FBI IT managers recently told OIG auditors that the
infrastructure components, the first two components of Trilogy,
should be completed by April 30. However, there is still a
significant risk of missing even the latest deadline.
The third component of Trilogy, upgrading and consolidating
the investigative applications, is still ongoing. The most
important part of this component is the Virtual Case File,
which will replace the FBI's inadequate Automated Case Support
System.
In our view, the reasons for the repeated delays and the
increased costs in the Trilogy project include poorly defined
requirements as Trilogy was developed, the lack of firm
milestones and penalties to the contractors for missing
deadlines, the FBI's weak IT investment management structure
and processes, the lack of a qualified project integrator to
manage the two main Trilogy contractors and take responsibility
for the overall integrity of the final product, and the lack of
FBI management continuity and oversight, due in part to the
frequent turnover of senior FBI IT managers.
These problems with Trilogy were consistent with the OIG's
repeated warnings about the FBI's IT systems and its management
processes in general. A variety of OIG reports have identified
significant deficiencies in the FBI's IT program, including
fragmented management, inadequate training, and a failure to
adequately respond to recommendations regarding IT
improvements.
Although the FBI has had a difficult time developing and
deploying Trilogy, at this juncture the completion of at least
the initial phase of Trilogy is in site. Director Mueller has
made Trilogy a priority and has focused personal attention on
this project, to his credit. In addition, the FBI recently
appears to have focused its attention on addressing many of the
weaknesses we have described. Both the FBI and the Department
of Justice now have Chief Information Officers who appear
committed to a no-nonsense approach to managing the Trilogy
project.
Once completed, Trilogy will significantly enhance the
FBI's ability to manage its cases and share information. But
more progress is still needed on Trilogy's user applications,
particularly the Virtual Case File, and completion of Trilogy
will not signal the end of the FBI's IT modernization effort.
Trilogy will only lay the foundation for future IT
advancements.
The FBI must focus sustained attention on ensuring that it
has state-of-the-art information technology systems to permit
FBI employees to effectively process and share information. As
the FBI looks to the future to meet the continuing threat of
terrorism and the increased sophistication of domestic and
international crime, it must give its employees the IT tools
they need to perform their mission effectively and efficiently.
Given the importance of this issue, the OIG will continue to
review and report on the FBI's progress or lack of progress in
this critical area.
That concludes my prepared statement and I would be happy
to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Gregg. I have got a lot of questions, but I want to
hear from the whole panel first.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Glenn A. Fine
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, and Members of the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary:
INTRODUCTION
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee as
it examines the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) fiscal year
2005 budget request. I have been asked to speak about the FBI's
progress in modernizing its information technology (IT) systems,
specifically its agency-wide IT modernization project known as Trilogy.
Within the past two years, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
has issued several reports that examined IT-related issues at the FBI,
including the FBI's responsiveness to previous OIG recommendations
dealing with IT issues and a review of the FBI's IT Investment
Management process. As part of the latter review, issued in December
2002, we examined the FBI's implementation of Trilogy. In addition,
last month we opened a new audit that is currently examining the
overall management of the Trilogy project and the extent to which
Trilogy will meet the FBI's current and longer-term IT requirements.
Our overall assessment is that the FBI has had a difficult time
trying to modernize its information technology systems, and has
experienced a series of delays, missed deadlines, and cost increases.
However, at this juncture, the completion of Trilogy is in sight.
Director Mueller has made Trilogy a priority and has focused personal
attention on this project, to his credit. Although more progress is
needed on Trilogy's user applications, particularly the Virtual Case
File, once completed Trilogy will significantly enhance the FBI's
ability to manage its cases and share information.
Trilogy and the first version of the Virtual Case File system are
just the start of the FBI's information technology modernization
effort. In the years ahead, the FBI will need to focus even greater
attention to ensure that it implements state-of-the-art information
technology to allow its employees to effectively perform their critical
mission.
In the first section of my statement, I will provide a brief
overview of the Trilogy project, describe the history of the FBI's
progress in developing Trilogy, and summarize the OIG's preliminary
assessment of the reasons for the delays in its implementation. In the
next section, I will discuss the results of other, recent OIG reviews
of the FBI's IT management process. I will conclude the statement by
providing a brief overview of recently completed and ongoing OIG
reviews that examine other important FBI issues that may be useful to
this Committee.
THE TRILOGY PROJECT
Overview
Trilogy is the largest of the FBI's IT projects and has been
recognized by the FBI and Congress as essential to modernizing the
FBI's archaic and inadequate computer systems. One component of
Trilogy, the Virtual Case File, will replace one of the FBI's
inadequate database systems, the Automated Case Support (ACS) system,
which is used as a case tracking system. Among its many shortcomings,
ACS does not permit FBI agents, analysts, and managers to readily
access and share case-related information throughout the FBI. Without
this capability, the FBI cannot efficiently investigate criminal cases,
analyze intelligence information, and bring together all of the
investigative information in the FBI's possession to help prevent
future terrorist attacks.
The Trilogy project has three main components:
--Information Presentation Component (IPC)--intended to upgrade the
FBI's hardware and software;
--Transportation Network Component (TNC)--intended to upgrade the
FBI's communication networks; and
--User Applications Component (UAC)--intended to upgrade and
consolidate the FBI's five most important investigative
applications.
The first two components of Trilogy provide the infrastructure
needed to run the FBI's various user applications. The User Application
component of Trilogy will upgrade and consolidate the FBI's
investigative applications, beginning with the five most critical.
However, it is important to note that Trilogy will not replace the 37
other less-critical investigative applications or the FBI's
approximately 160 other non-investigative applications. Rather, Trilogy
is intended to lay the foundation so that future enhancements will
allow the FBI to achieve a state-of-the-art IT system that integrates
all of the agency's investigative and non-investigative applications.
Project Schedule and Costs
In the last several years, the FBI's Trilogy project has suffered a
continuing series of missed completion estimates and associated cost
growth. In November 2000, Congress appropriated $100.7 million for the
initial year of what was estimated to be a 3-year, $379.8 million
project. The FBI hired DynCorp in May 2001 (in March 2003, DynCorp was
merged into Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC)) as the contractor for
the IPC/TNC infrastructure components of Trilogy. At that time, the
scheduled completion date for the Trilogy infrastructure was May 2004.
In June 2001, the FBI hired Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC) to complete the user applications component of
Trilogy--including the Virtual Case File--with a scheduled completion
date of June 2004.
Infrastructure Components
A stable schedule for Trilogy was never firmly established for much
of the project's history. Beginning in 2002, the FBI's estimated dates
for completing the Trilogy project components began to swing back and
forth and were revised repeatedly. The FBI moved up the completion date
for deploying the Trilogy infrastructure to June 2003 from the original
date of May 2004 because the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had
increased the urgency of completing Trilogy. Later, the FBI said the
infrastructure would be completed by December 31, 2002. In February
2002, the FBI informed Congress that with an additional $70 million,
the FBI could accelerate the deployment of Trilogy. According to the
FBI, this acceleration would include completion of the two
infrastructure components by July 2002 and rapid deployment of the most
critical analytical tools in the user applications component. Congress
therefore supplemented the FBI's fiscal year 2002 Trilogy budget by $78
million, for a total of $458 million, to accelerate the completion of
all three components.
The promised milestone for completing the infrastructure components
slipped from July 2002 to October 2002 and then to March 2003. On March
28, 2003, CSC completed the Wide Area Network for Trilogy. In April
2003, Director Mueller reported to Congress that more than 21,000 new
desktop computers and nearly 5,000 printers and scanners had been
deployed. He also reported that the Trilogy Wide Area Network--with
increased bandwidth and three layers of security--had been deployed to
622 sites. While this deployment improved the hardware available to FBI
staff, it provided no new software capability.
In April 2003, the FBI and CSC agreed to a statement of work for
the remaining infrastructure components of Trilogy, including servers,
upgraded software, e-mail capability, and other computer hardware, with
final engineering change proposals and a completion date of October 31,
2003. In August 2003, CSC informed the FBI that the October 2003
completion date would slip another two months to December 2003. In
October 2003, CSC and the FBI agreed that the December 2003 date again
would slip.
The General Services Administration's Federal Systems Integration
and Management Center, known as FEDSIM, competes, awards, and manages
contracts for its federal agency clients. FEDSIM had used its Millennia
contracting vehicle to award contracts for Trilogy on behalf of the
FBI. In November 2003, the General Services Administration formally
announced that CSC failed to meet the deadline for completing work on
the infrastructure portions of Trilogy that are required to support the
user applications, including the Virtual Case File.
On December 4, 2003, CSC signed a commitment letter agreeing to
complete its infrastructure portions of the Trilogy project by April
30, 2004, for an additional $22.9 million, including an award fee of
over $4 million. An award fee is used when the government wants to
motivate a contractor with financial incentives. The FBI covered these
additional costs by reprogramming funds from other FBI appropriations.
In January 2004, the FBI converted the agreement with CSC to a revised
statement of work providing for loss of the award fee if the April 30,
2004, deadline is not met. In addition, the revised statement of work
provides for cost sharing at a rate of 50 percent for any work
remaining after the April 30 deadline.
As of early March 2004, CSC was in the process of installing in the
FBI's field offices the remaining computer hardware infrastructure
needed to use the previously deployed Wide Area Network. If completed
by April 30, 2004, the original target set in 2001 for the
infrastructure components of Trilogy will be met, but the accelerated
schedule funded by Congress will be missed by some 22 months.
Senior FBI IT managers recently told OIG auditors that the
infrastructure components appear to be on target for meeting the latest
milestone of April 30, 2004, although they cautioned that there is a
risk of missing this latest deadline because the schedule is ambitious
and there is no slack time. However, other FBI officials involved in
the project believed that CSC's ability to complete the remaining
engineering work by April 30, 2004, is an open question. A contractor
recently hired by the FBI's Chief Information Officer to facilitate
solutions with the two Trilogy contractors described the April 30
deadline as ``a real management challenge.''
User Applications
With respect to development of the Virtual Case File, the first of
three system deliveries for the Virtual Case File occurred in December
2003. However, it was not functional and therefore was not accepted by
the FBI. FBI officials told our auditors that, as of January 2004, 17
issues of concern pertaining to the functionality and basic design
requirements of the Virtual Case File needed to be resolved before the
Virtual Case File could be deployed. According to FBI personnel working
on the resolution of these problems, the 17 issues were corrected as of
March 7, 2004. However, significant work still remains on addressing
security aspects and records management issues in the Virtual Case
File.
The FBI is now requiring the contractor, SAIC, to provide a new,
realistic completion date and cost estimate for delivery of a usable
Virtual Case File. Based on this information, expected within the next
week or two, the FBI intends to renegotiate the contract for the user
applications component to include firm, verifiable milestones and
penalties for missing the milestones.
The remaining work required to actually deploy a usable and
functional initial version of the Virtual Case File appears
significant. The Virtual Case File will be installed in stages, with
the first stage including the migration of the ACS database. However,
our conversations with FBI IT managers suggest uncertainty about the
completion dates for each stage. As noted above, the timetable is
currently being negotiated with SAIC.
No one interviewed by our auditors in the FBI, the Department, or
the General Services Administration thought the Virtual Case File would
be ready when the supporting infrastructure for the system is scheduled
to be in place as of April 30, 2004. They said that to speed the
delivery of at least a basic functional Virtual Case File system, it is
possible that some features initially intended as part of the first
delivery of the system will have to be deferred until later. Many FBI
managers told us that they are uncertain whether a functional, complete
version of the VCF will be deployed before the end of calendar year
2004.
Trilogy Cost
In addition to frequent schedule slippages, Trilogy costs have
grown considerably. To accelerate the project, the original estimated
project cost of $380 million increased by $78 million to $458 million.
Through reprogramming and other funding in fiscal year 2003, the
currently authorized total funding level is $581 million. According to
an FBI report, as of January 2004 the remaining available funds were
about $12 million. As of March 19, 2004, the FBI's Chief Information
Officer believed that current funding appears to be adequate to
complete Trilogy. However, in our view, until the user applications
contractor provides an updated cost estimate, it will be difficult to
gauge the approximate total cost of the Trilogy project, particularly
since enhanced versions are planned sometime after the initial
deployment.
Further, the FBI's ability to track Trilogy costs adequately was
questioned by a March 3, 2004, FBI inspection report. The report
recognized internal control weaknesses and said that Trilogy-related
financial records are fragmented and decentralized with no single point
of accountability. Because the FBI's Financial Management System does
not capture detailed Trilogy-related expenditures, FBI auditors could
not ascertain a ``global financial profile'' of Trilogy.
Problems in Trilogy's Development
Based on the OIG's previous audit work that examined the FBI's IT
management process, together with the preliminary results of our
ongoing audit of Trilogy, we believe the reasons for the delays and
associated increased costs in the Trilogy project include: lack of firm
milestones and penalties for missing milestones; lack of a qualified
project integrator who would manage the interfaces between the two
contractors and would have responsibility for the overall integrity of
the final product; weak IT investment management structure and
processes; until recently, lack of management continuity and oversight
due, in part, to the frequent turnover of FBI IT managers and the FBI's
focus on its other important law enforcement challenges; poorly-defined
requirements that evolved as the project developed; and unrealistic
scheduling of tasks by the contractors.
Contract Weaknesses
The FBI's current and former Acting Chief Information Officers told
us that the primary reason for the schedule and cost problems
associated with the infrastructure components of Trilogy is a weak
statement of work in the contract with CSC. In addition, despite the
use of two contractors to provide three major project components, until
recently the FBI did not hire a project integrator to manage contractor
interfaces and take responsibility for the overall integrity of the
final product. According to FBI IT managers, FBI officials acted as the
project integrator even though they had no experience to perform such a
role.
According to FBI IT and contract managers, the ``cost plus'' award
fee type of contracts used for Trilogy did not require specific
completion milestones, did not include critical decision review points,
and did not provide for penalties if the milestones were not met. Under
cost plus award fee contracts, the contractors are only required to
make their best effort to complete the project. Furthermore, if the FBI
does not provide reimbursement for the contractors' costs, under these
agreements the contractors can cease work. Consequently, in the view of
the FBI managers with whom we spoke, the FBI was largely at the mercy
of the contractors.
FEDSIM representatives explained that a cost-plus contract is used
for large projects where the requirements and the costs are not defined
sufficiently to allow for a firm fixed-price contract. The FEDSIM's
Millennia contracting vehicle currently has nine ``industry partners''
who are eligible to bid on federal projects. Under Millennia, contracts
can be awarded relatively quickly because of the limited number of
potential bidders. Because the FBI wanted a quick contract and did not
have highly defined requirements, it used the cost plus award fee
contract vehicle.
In our ongoing audit of Trilogy, we plan to evaluate the effect of
the contractual terms on the schedule, cost, and performance of the
project.
IT Investment Management Weaknesses
In addition to the lack of controls built into the statements of
work for Trilogy, the FBI's investment management process was not well
developed. Had the FBI developed a mature IT investment management
process, the Trilogy project likely could have been completed more
efficiently and timely. The investment management process at the FBI is
still in the early stages of development. Absent a mature IT investment
process, FBI IT investment efforts are at risk for significant
developmental problems.
Management Continuity and Oversight
Part of the problem acknowledged by the FBI for not acting timely
on IT recommendations from the OIG over the years has been the turnover
of key FBI managers. Similarly, we believe that turnover in key
positions affected the FBI's ability to manage and oversee the Trilogy
project.
Since November 2001, 14 different key IT managers have been
involved with the Trilogy project, including 5 Chief Information
Officers or Acting Chief Information Officers and 9 individuals serving
as project managers for various aspects of Trilogy. This lack of
continuity among IT managers contributed to the problems of ensuring
the effective and timely implementation of the Trilogy project.
According to contractor personnel who are advising the FBI on Trilogy,
the FBI also suffered from a lack of engineering expertise, process
weaknesses, and decision-making by committees instead of knowledgeable
individuals. In the contractors' opinion, weak government contract
management has created more of the problem with Trilogy than the terms
of the contracts.
We have spoken to many officials in the FBI, the Department of
Justice, and FEDSIM who believe that the FBI has recently improved its
management and oversight of Trilogy and of information technology in
general. The FBI appears to have hired from other federal agencies and
from private industry capable individuals, including the current Acting
Chief Information Officer and several key project management personnel.
Officials within both the Department of Justice and the FBI now are
optimistic that the FBI's current information technology management
team has the talent to solve the FBI's problems in this area. We also
have been impressed with the quality of the FBI's current managers of
Trilogy, including the Acting Chief Information Officer. However, we
believe it essential for the FBI to maintain continuity in the
management of Trilogy.
Lack of Defined Design Requirements
One of the most significant problems with managing the schedule and
costs of the Trilogy project was the lack of a firm understanding of
the design requirements by both the FBI and the contractor. Not only
were Trilogy's requirements ill defined and evolving as the project
progressed, but certain events triggered the need to change initial
design concepts. For example, after September 11, 2001, Director
Mueller recognized that the initial concept of simply modifying the old
Automated Case Support system would not serve the FBI well over the
long run, and the FBI created the plans for the Virtual Case File.
Other changes to the design occurred because of the experiences and
lessons learned from the response to the September 11 terrorist
attacks, the Hanssen espionage case, and the belated production of
documents to defense attorneys in the Oklahoma City bombing case.
However, during the initial years of the project, the FBI had no
firm design baseline or roadmap for Trilogy. The FBI also may have
overly relied on contractor expertise to help define the requirements,
while the contractor may have overly relied on the FBI to provide
direction for the Trilogy design.
Unrealistic Scheduling of Tasks
According to an FBI official monitoring development of the Trilogy
infrastructure, CSC has had problems producing an appropriate resource-
driven work schedule. Furthermore, SAIC is using a scheduling tool for
development of the user applications component with which the FBI is
unfamiliar. In our view, unrealistic scheduling of project tasks has
led to a series of raised expectations, followed by frustration when
the completion estimates were missed. We intend to examine the
schedules more closely in our ongoing audit of the Trilogy project.
Prior OIG Audits on FBI IT Investment Management Practices and FBI's
Implementation of IT Recommendations
The problems demonstrated by the Trilogy project were consistent
with our concerns about the FBI's IT systems and management process in
general. Since 1990, various OIG reports have identified significant
deficiencies with the FBI's IT program, including outdated
infrastructures, fragmented management, ineffective systems, and
inadequate training. Within the past 18 months, the OIG completed two
reviews that looked at these and other aspects of the FBI's efforts to
modernize its IT systems, one issued in December 2002 and the other
issued in September 2003.
The first audit, issued in December 2002, examined the FBI's IT
investment management practices. The OIG found that, in the past, the
FBI had not effectively managed its IT investments because it failed
to: (1) effectively track and oversee the costs and schedules of IT
projects; (2) properly establish and effectively use IT investment
boards to review projects; (3) inventory the existing IT systems and
projects; (4) identify the business needs for each IT project; and (5)
use defined processes to select new IT projects. We concluded that
despite efforts to improve its IT management, the FBI had not fully
implemented the above five critical processes associated with effective
IT investment management. Consequently, the FBI continued to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars on IT projects without adequate
assurance that the projects would meet their intended goals.
Our audit made eight recommendations with respect to Trilogy,
including urging the FBI to establish cost, schedule, technical, and
performance baselines and track significant deviations from these
baselines, and taking corrective action as necessary. The FBI agreed
with all eight of the Trilogy-related recommendations, with one minor
exception, and to date has taken corrective action on three.
In a September 2003 audit, the OIG comprehensively examined the
FBI's implementation of the OIG's prior IT-related recommendations.
While the FBI had made substantial progress on many of the
recommendations, implementing 93 of 148 total recommendations, we
concluded that full implementation of the remaining recommendations was
needed to ensure that the FBI's IT program effectively supported the
FBI's mission.
OIG Conclusions on Trilogy
In sum, we found various reasons for Trilogy's delays and problems.
Initially, the FBI did not have a clear vision of what the FBI's
Trilogy modernization project should achieve, let alone specific design
requirements, and the contractors were not held to a firm series of
achievable milestones. The FBI's investment management process also
left it ill equipped to ensure that all three components of Trilogy
were developed in an integrated fashion. Moreover, at the outset, the
FBI and others did not provide consistent or effective management of
Trilogy, leading to technical and scheduling problems.
The FBI recently appears to have focused attention on addressing
much of these weaknesses. Our preliminary assessment is that both the
FBI and the Department of Justice now have Chief Information Officers
who are committed to a successful implementation of Trilogy, with a no-
nonsense approach to managing the Trilogy contracts and a commitment to
closely monitor its progress. The FBI also appears to be attempting to
ensure that Trilogy is completed as soon as possible, and the General
Services Administration also is participating fully in this oversight
role. In addition, the Department of Justice Chief Information Officer
meets regularly with FBI and GSA staff to oversee progress on Trilogy.
However, significant work remains, particularly on the Virtual Case
File, which may not be fully implemented by the end of this year.
Because of the importance of the Trilogy project, the OIG will continue
to monitor the FBI's implementation of Trilogy.
ADDITIONAL OIG REVIEWS IN THE FBI
In addition to these IT reviews, the OIG continues to conduct wide-
ranging reviews of other priority issues in the FBI. The following are
a few examples of recently completed reviews in the FBI, as well as
ongoing OIG reviews, that may be of interest to the Committee.
Recently Completed OIG Reviews
IDENT/IAFIS: The Batres Case and the Status of the Integration
Project.--In early March 2004, the OIG issued a special report that
examined the status of efforts to integrate IDENT, the Department of
Homeland (DHS) Security's automated fingerprint identification
database, with IAFIS, the FBI's automated fingerprint identification
database. The OIG review described the tragic consequences that can
result because these immigration and criminal fingerprint
identification systems are not integrated. Victor Manual Batres, an
alien who had an extensive criminal history, was caught two times by
the Border Patrol attempting to enter the United States illegally. Both
times the Border Patrol voluntarily returned him to Mexico without
checking his criminal record. He came back into the United States,
where he raped and murdered a nun. During this period, the Border
Patrol never learned of his extensive criminal history, which should
have subjected him to detention and prosecution, partly because IDENT
and IAFIS are not linked.
The OIG has reported extensively on the slow pace of the
integration of IDENT and IAFIS in several reports over the past few
years. In the Batres report, we noted that according to the Department
and DHS timetable provided to us by integration project managers, full
integration of the two systems was not scheduled to be completed for
many years. Since issuance of our Batres report several weeks ago, DHS
leaders have publicly stated that the integration process will be
expedited, and that hardware to allow Border Patrol agents to check
detained aliens in both IDENT and IAFIS will be provided to Border
Patrol stations on an expedited timetable. However, additional issues
remain to be resolved, such as access to DHS's immigration databases by
the FBI and state and local officials and questions about what
fingerprint information will be made available to immigration
inspectors at ports of entry.
The FBI's Efforts to Improve the Sharing of Intelligence and Other
Information.--A December 2003 OIG audit examined the FBI's efforts to
enhance its sharing of intelligence and law enforcement information
with federal, state, and local officials. The audit noted that
fundamental reform with regard to sharing this information is under way
at the FBI. The audit also found that the FBI has taken a series of
actions to improve its ability to communicate information within the
FBI, analyze intelligence, and disseminate information outside the FBI.
However, the OIG audit described continued obstacles to the FBI's
reform efforts and cited the need for: (1) improving information
technology; (2) improving the FBI's ability to analyze intelligence;
(3) overcoming security clearance and other security issues concerning
the sharing of information with state and local law enforcement
agencies; and (4) establishing policies and procedures for managing the
flow of information.
FBI Casework and Human Resource Allocation.--A September 2003 OIG
audit examined the FBI's use of resources in its investigative programs
over a 7-year period--6 years prior to September 11, 2001, and 9 months
after that date. The audit provided detailed statistics on the FBI's
allocation of resources to its ten program areas during this period. It
also examined the FBI's planned allocation of resources during this
same period compared to the actual allocation of resources. In
addition, the OIG audit detailed the types and numbers of cases the FBI
investigated in these program areas. Using data from the FBI's systems,
the OIG found that although the FBI had identified combating terrorism
as its top priority in 1998, until the September 11 attacks it devoted
significantly more of its agent resources to traditional law
enforcement activities, such as white-collar crime, organized crime,
drug, and violent crime investigations, than to its counterterrorism
programs.
In a current follow-up review examining the FBI's use of resources,
the OIG is examining in greater detail the operational changes in the
FBI resulting from this ongoing reprioritization effort, including the
types of offenses that the FBI is no longer investigating at pre-
September 11 levels and the changes in the types of cases worked at
individual field offices. After completing this follow-up review, the
OIG plans to open an additional audit to obtain feedback from federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies regarding the impact of the
FBI's reprioritization on their operations.
Review of the FBI's Performance in Deterring, Detecting, and
Investigating the Espionage Activities of Robert Philip Hanssen.--In a
comprehensive special report released in August 2003, the OIG examined
the FBI's efforts to detect, deter, and investigate the espionage of
Robert Hanssen, the most damaging spy in FBI history. The OIG review
concluded that Hanssen escaped detection not because he was
extraordinarily clever and crafty in his espionage, but because of
long-standing systemic problems in the FBI's counterintelligence
program and a deeply flawed FBI internal security program. The review
also found that the FBI has taken important steps to improve its
internal security program since Hanssen's arrest, including the
implementation of a counterintelligence-focused polygraph examination
program, development of a financial disclosure program, and creation of
a Security Division. However, the OIG review concluded that some of the
most serious weaknesses still had not been remedied fully. The OIG is
continuing to monitor the FBI's response to the recommendations in this
report.
Ongoing Reviews
In addition to these recently issued reports, the OIG has
additional reviews under way that are examining other critical issues
in the FBI. Examples of these ongoing reviews include the following.
Terrorist Screening Center.--On September 16, 2003, the President
established the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) to consolidate
terrorist watch lists and provide 24/7 operational support for
thousands of federal officers who need access to such watch lists. The
FBI was assigned responsibility to administer the TSC and is working
with the DHS, the Department of State, the Central Intelligence Agency,
and other agencies to make the TSC operational. Last week, the OIG
initiated an audit to examine whether the TSC: (1) has implemented a
viable strategy for accomplishing its mission; (2) is effectively
coordinating with participating agencies; and (3) is appropriately
managing the terrorist-related information to ensure that a complete,
accurate, and current watch list is developed and maintained.
Attorney General Guidelines.--In May 2002, the Attorney General
issued revised guidelines that govern general crimes and criminal
intelligence investigations. The OIG review is examining the FBI's
implementation of the four sets of guidelines: Attorney General's
Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants; Attorney
General's Guidelines on FBI Undercover Operations; Attorney General's
Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and Terrorism
Enterprise Investigations; and Revised Department of Justice Procedures
for Lawful, Warrantless Monitoring of Verbal Communications. The OIG
review seeks to determine what steps the FBI has taken to implement the
Guidelines, examine how effective those steps have been, and assess the
FBI's compliance with key provisions of the Guidelines.
Terrorism Task Forces.--The OIG is examining how the law
enforcement and intelligence functions of the Department's Terrorism
Task Forces support their efforts to detect, deter, and disrupt
terrorism. The review is specifically evaluating the purpose,
priorities, membership, functions, lines of authority, and
accomplishments for the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces, National
Joint Terrorism Task Force, Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, the
United States Attorneys' Offices' Anti-Terrorism Advisory Councils, and
the Deputy Attorney General's National Security Coordination Council.
DNA Laboratory.--The OIG is completing a review that examines the
failure of a former technician in the FBI Laboratory DNA Analysis Unit
to complete steps designed to detect contamination in the analysis
process. In addition, with the assistance of nationally known DNA
scientists, the OIG is completing a broader assessment of the DNA
Analysis Unit to determine if vulnerabilities exist in its DNA
protocols and procedures.
Language Translation Services.--The OIG is reviewing the FBI's
language translation services program in light of the FBI's efforts
after the September 11 terrorist attacks to hire linguists and to use
technology to handle the increasing backlog of counterterrorism and
foreign counterintelligence translation work. The OIG review will
examine the extent and causes of any FBI translation backlog; assess
the FBI's efforts to hire additional translators; and evaluate whether
FBI procedures ensure appropriate prioritization of work, accurate and
timely translations of pertinent information, and proper security of
sensitive information.
Intelligence Analysts.--One of the FBI's primary initiatives after
the September 11 terrorist attacks was to enhance the FBI's analytical
ability and intelligence capabilities. An OIG audit is examining how
the FBI hires, trains, and staffs the various categories of FBI
intelligence analysts. The OIG is reviewing the FBI's progress toward
meeting hiring, retention, and training goals as well as how analysts
are used to support the FBI's counterterrorism mission.
Legal Attache Program.--The FBI's overseas operations have expanded
significantly in the last decade. The FBI operates offices known as
Legal Attache or Legats in 46 locations around the world. The primary
mission of Legats is to support FBI investigative interests by
establishing liaison with foreign law enforcement agencies. Through
interviews and visits to several Legats, an OIG review is examining the
type of activities performed by Legats, the effectiveness of Legats in
establishing liaison with foreign law enforcement agencies and
coordinating activities with other law enforcement and intelligence
agencies overseas, the criteria used by the FBI to determine the
placement of Legat offices, and the process used for selecting and
training FBI personnel for Legat positions.
Smith/Leung Case.--At the request of FBI Director Mueller, the OIG
is conducting a review of the FBI's performance in connection with
former FBI Supervisory Special Agent James J. Smith, who recently was
charged with gross negligence in his handling of national defense
information. The OIG's review will examine Smith's career at the FBI
and his relationship with Katrina Leung, an asset in the FBI's Chinese
counterintelligence program with whom Smith allegedly had a long-term
intimate relationship. The OIG also will examine a variety of
performance and management issues related to the Smith/Leung case.
CONCLUSION
The FBI is making significant strides in reevaluating and
reengineering many of its historic processes and procedures. Central to
this transformation is the FBI's critical need to modernize its archaic
IT systems. Development and deployment of the Trilogy system--the
centerpiece of the agency's IT modernization project--has until
recently been frustratingly delayed and costly. The delays have left
FBI managers, agents, analysts, and other employees without the modern
tools they need. Considering the antiquated information technology
environment in which they have had to operate for many years, FBI
employees deserve much credit for what they have been able to
accomplish.
Trilogy, when it is finally implemented, will greatly enhance the
FBI's information technology capabilities. Much of the Trilogy upgrade
is nearing completion, although the Virtual Case File still needs
significant effort. However, implementation of Trilogy will not signal
the end of the FBI's information technology modernization effort. The
project will lay the foundation for future information technology
advancements, but constant effort will be needed to ensure that the FBI
implements and maintains cutting edge technology that permits its
employees to effectively process and share information. This must
remain a critical priority for the FBI. The FBI needs to provide
sustained and careful management of the continuing upgrades to ensure
that FBI employees have the tools they need to perform their mission.
The FBI's ability to perform its functions effectively, including
counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal law enforcement,
depends to a large degree on the success of the FBI's information
technology projects. Given the importance of this issue, the OIG will
continue to review and monitor the FBI's progress in these efforts.
STATEMENT OF LAURIE E. EKSTRAND, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND
SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
ACCOMPANIED BY RANDOLPH HITE, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ARCHITECTURE AND SYSTEMS ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
Senator Gregg. Dr. Ekstrand?
Ms. Ekstrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement,
a brief oral statement for both Mr. Hite and myself, and this
statement covers overall progress in transformation,
specifically in the areas of strategic planning and human
capital planning, information technology management, and the
realignment of staff resources to priority areas.
Let me start with transformation. Overall, we are
encouraged by the progress that the FBI has made in several
areas, and of particular note, we want to focus on the
completion of a new strategic plan and of a human capital plan.
While for both of these plans we can cite areas where they
could be improved, on the whole, we believe they contain a
number of elements of best practice.
Among the positive elements of the strategic plan include a
comprehensive mission statement, results-oriented long-term
goals and objectives, and it delineates priorities. But it
could be improved by discussions of several additional topics,
including how success in achieving goals is going to be
measured. We understand that the FBI is going to augment their
plan and include some of the information that we are
recommending and we certainly commend that effort.
In terms of strategic human capital planning, this also
includes a number of the principles of sound human capital
planning. Our main concerns in this area are that, first, the
FBI has not hired a human capital officer as yet, and second,
the performance management system for non-SES staff is not
adequately linked to performance.
Now let me turn your attention to the FBI's effort to
leverage the vast potential of information technology, IT, to
assist the Bureau in transforming how it operates. While the
FBI has long recognized the potential, as evidenced by sizeable
sums of money that it has invested in IT projects, not the
least of which is Trilogy, what it has not recognized, as well,
as is this: How well the Bureau manages IT will ultimately
determine how well the Bureau leverages IT as a transformation
tool.
Our research has shown that organizations that successfully
exploit IT as a change agent employ similar approaches in
managing, including adopting a corporate or agency-wide
approach to managing IT, having an enterprise architecture, and
having portfolio-based investment management processes.
Unfortunately, the FBI has yet to manage its IT efforts in
this way. As we have previously reported, the absence of such
an approach to IT management results in IT investments that are
duplicative, not interoperable, do not support mission goals
and objectives, and cost more and take longer to implement than
they should. In the case of the FBI, such cost, schedule, and
performance problems can be seen in Trilogy.
Now, to the FBI's credit, its strategic plan and its recent
proposals and actions recognize longstanding IT management
shortcomings. That is the good news. The bad news is that until
these recent steps become institutionalized, the prognosis for
the FBI's ability to effectively use IT to transform itself is
uncertain, at best.
Now, just briefly, let me turn to the staffing of priority
areas, that is, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and
cyber, and the effects on more traditional crime areas,
specifically drugs, white collar crime, and violent crime.
The FBI's three top priority areas now deploy about 36
percent of field agent positions, and this is the largest
single category of agents. But despite the growth in agents in
the area, agents from traditional crimes are still needed to
work all leads, and this is fairly substantial, as Director
Mueller indicated.
Now, as would be suspected, the number of counterterrorism
matters have increased substantially since 9/11. Conversely,
the number of open matters in drugs, violent crime, and white
collar crime has diminished. We have ongoing work to develop
further information concerning potential effects of these
shifts, particularly in the drug area, and we expect to report
our findings later this year.
This concludes our oral statement. Mr. Hite and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Senator Gregg. Did you want to add anything, Mr. Hite?
Mr. Hite. No, sir. We are fully integrated and
interoperable up here.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Gregg. That is a first. We appreciate that.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laurie E. Ekstrand
FBI TRANSFORMATION
FBI CONTINUES TO MAKE PROGRESS IN ITS EFFORTS TO TRANSFORM AND ADDRESS
PRIORITIES
What GAO Found
We commend the FBI for its progress in some areas of its
transformation efforts since we last testified on this subject in June
2003. We believe that commitment from the top, a dedicated
implementation team, involvement of employees in the process, and the
achievement of key milestones are encouraging signs of progress.
However, we continue to encourage the development of a comprehensive
transformation plan that would consolidate the crosswalks between the
various aspects of transformation. This could help management oversee
all aspects of the transformation.
The FBI's strategic plan has been completed. Overall we found the
plan has important strengths as well as some areas in which
improvements could be made. For example, the plan includes key elements
of successful strategic plans (i.e. a comprehensive mission statement
and results-oriented, long-term goals and objectives). However, the
plan is missing some elements that could have made it more informative.
Officials advised us that some of these elements are available
elsewhere (i.e. lists of stakeholders and performance measures). The
absence of these elements makes the plan less comprehensive and useful.
The FBI has also developed a strategic human capital plan that
contains many of the principles that we have laid out for an effective
human capital system (i.e. the need to fill identified skill gaps by
using personnel flexibilities). However, the FBI has yet to hire a
human capital officer to manage the implementation of this process and
the performance management system for the bulk of FBI personnel remains
inadequate to discern meaningful distinctions in performance.
The FBI recognizes the importance of information technology (IT) as
a transformation enabler, making it an explicit priority in its
strategic plan and investing hundreds of millions of dollars in
initiatives to expand its systems environment and thereby improve its
information analysis and sharing. However, FBI's longstanding approach
to managing IT is not fully consistent with the structures and
practices of leading organizations. A prime example of the consequences
of not employing these structures and practices is the cost and
schedule shortfalls being experienced on Trilogy, the centerpiece
project to modernize infrastructure and case management applications.
Recent FBI proposals, plans, and initiatives indicate that it
understands its management challenges and is focused on addressing
them.
Another key element of the FBI's transformation is the realignment
of resources to better focus on the highest priorities--
counterterrorism, counterintelligence and cyber investigations. The FBI
resources allocated to priority areas continue to increase and now
represent its single largest concentration of field agent resources--36
percent of its fiscal year 2004 field agent positions.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be
here today to address this committee regarding GAO's work assessing the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) transformation efforts. As you
are well aware, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were the most
destructive and costly terrorist events that this country has ever
experienced. The event precipitated a shift in how the FBI uses its
investigative resources to prevent future terrorist incidents and
ultimately led to FBI's commitment to reorganize and transform itself.
Today's testimony follows up on our June 2003 testimony before the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the
Judiciary and Related Agencies on the FBI's transformation efforts.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See U.S. General Accounting Office, FBI Reorganization:
Progress Made in Efforts, but Major Challenges Continue, GAO-03-759T
(Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also draws on continuing work for the same subcommittee, the
House Select Committee on Intelligence and several individual
requestors.
We will discuss the FBI's: overall progress in transformation,
efforts to update its strategic plan, development of a strategic human
capital plan, information technology management capabilities, and
realignment of staff resources to priority areas and the impact of the
realignments on the FBI's drug and other criminal investigation
programs.
In brief, we commend the FBI for its progress in its transformation
efforts. We believe that commitment from the top, a dedicated
implementation team, involvement of employees, and the development of
strategic and human capital plans are encouraging signs of FBI's
reorganization progress. However, we want to note some activities that
may enhance the value of future planning efforts, reiterate the
importance of developing and tracking measures of progress toward
achieving goals, discuss the history and future of IT efforts, and the
shift in resources from the traditional crime areas to the new priority
areas.
Our testimony today is based on interviews with management and
program officials at FBI headquarters during the last 2 years. We also
interviewed management personnel in FBI field offices; \2\ and obtained
input from special agents and analysts in FBI field offices last
spring.\3\ Additionally, to assess the progress that the FBI has made
in its transformation efforts, we reviewed information from an October
2003 and March 2004 briefing that the FBI provided to GAO on its
transformation efforts and FBI's recent strategic plan and strategic
human capital plan. We compared these documents against GAO's leading
practices in the areas of organizational mergers and transformations,
strategic planning, and strategic human capital management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We judgmentally selected field offices with the largest number
of special agent positions to be reallocated either away from drug
enforcement or to the counterterrorism program areas based on the FBI's
May 2002 reallocation plans. As a result, we visited the FBI's Atlanta,
Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New York
City, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Antonio, San Francisco, and Washington
field offices in 2003 and the Dallas, Miami, and Washington field
offices in 2004.
\3\ We obtained input from 176 special agents and 34 analysts.
These FBI investigative resources were not randomly selected from all
agents and analysts in the 14 offices we visited. In addition, we did
not specifically choose the agents who completed our questionnaire. FBI
field office managers selected agents and analysts to participate in
our inquiry. Consequently, we consider the questionnaire and interview
results to be indicators of the FBI's transformation efforts but they
cannot be generalized to all agents and analysts in these offices or to
the FBI nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We focused on assessing the FBI's strategic plan for key elements
required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA).\4\ GPRA provides a set of practices for developing a useful and
informative strategic plan that can be applied to any level of the
federal government to improve the quality and informative value of
strategic plans to Congress, other key stakeholders, and the staff
charged with achieving the agency's strategic goals. To make this
assessment we used criteria we developed for assessing agency strategic
plans under GPRA.\5\ Our assessment is based on a review of the FBI's
strategic plan with limited information about the process the FBI
undertook to develop the plan. We acknowledge that the FBI may be
addressing these elements in other ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).
\5\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Agencies' Strategic Plans Under
GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16
(Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1997). U.S. General Accounting Office,
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance
and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We reviewed FBI's strategic plan to see how it addressed six key
elements: mission statement, long-term goals and objectives,
relationship between the long-term goals and annual performance goals,
approaches or strategies to achieve the goals and objectives, key
external factors that could affect achievement of goals, and use of
program evaluation to establish or revise strategic goals.
Our analysis of the FBI's information technology (IT) management
capabilities is based on our prior work on the FBI's enterprise
architecture efforts and follow-up work to determine recent progress,
information from the Justice Inspector General's work on evaluating the
FBI's IT investment management process, and recent work on the
organizational placement and authority of the FBI's Chief Information
Officer (CIO). We also used our prior research of CIO management
practices of successful organizations and our evaluations of large IT
modernization efforts similar to the Trilogy program. Further, we
conducted follow up work with the FBI's program management office to
determine the cost and schedule overruns for Trilogy.
To address the effect of the FBI's resource realignments on drug
and other traditional law enforcement efforts, we analyzed FBI
budgetary, staffing, and caseload data and interviewed selected FBI,
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and local law enforcement
officials.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ We interviewed officials from the National Sheriffs'
Association, National Association of Chiefs of Police, International
Association of Chiefs of Police, and local police agencies located in
most of the cities in which we made FBI field office visits in 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We performed our audit work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
FBI Continues to Make Progress in its Transformation Efforts but Needs
a Comprehensive Transformation Plan to Guide Its Efforts
In our June 2003 testimony on the FBI's reorganization before the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the
Judiciary and Related Agencies, we reported that the FBI had made
progress in its efforts to transform the agency, but that some major
challenges continued \7\. We also noted that any changes in the FBI
must be part of, and consistent with, broader, government-wide
transformation efforts that are taking place, especially those
resulting from the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security
and in connection with the intelligence community. We also noted that
to effectively meet the challenges of the post-September 11,
environment, the FBI needed to consider employing key practices that
have consistently been found at the center of successful transformation
efforts.\8\ These key practices are to ensure that top leadership
drives the transformation; establish a coherent mission and integrated
strategic goals to guide the transformation; focus on a key set of
principles and priorities at the outset of the transformation, set
implementation goals and a time line to build momentum and show
progress from day one; dedicate an implementation team to manage the
transformation process; use the performance management system to define
responsibility and ensure accountability for change; establish a
communication strategy to create shared expectations and report related
progress; involve employees to obtain their ideas and gain their
ownership for the transformation; and build a world-class organization
that continuously seeks to implement best practices in processes and
systems in areas such as information technology, financial management,
acquisition management, and human capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. General Accounting Office, FBI Reorganization: Progress
Made in Efforts to Transform, but Major Challenges Continue GAO-03-759T
(Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003).
\8\ For more information, see U.S. General Accounting Office,
Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and
Organizational Transformation GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, we continue to be encouraged by the progress that the FBI
has made in some areas as it continues its transformation efforts.
Specifically worthy of recognition are the commitment of Director
Mueller and senior-level leadership to the FBI's reorganization; the
FBI's communication of priorities; the implementation of core
reengineering processes to improve business practices and assist in the
bureau's transformation efforts \9\; the dedication of an
implementation team to manage the reengineering efforts; the
development of a strategic plan and a human capital plan; the efforts
to involve employees in the strategic planning and reengineering
processes; and the FBI's efforts to realign its activities, processes,
and resources to focus on a key set of principles and priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The FBI has core-reengineering processes under way in the
following areas: (1) strategic planning and execution, (2) capital
(human and equipment), (3) information management, (4) investigative
programs, (5) intelligence, and (6) security management. There are
about 40 business process-reengineering initiatives under these six
core areas. Appendix I outlines the various initiatives under each core
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the FBI has embedded crosswalks and timelines in their
various transformation plans that relate one plan to another, we still
encourage the development of an overall transformation plan that will
pull all of the pieces together in one document. This document can be
both a management tool to guide all of the efforts, as well as a
communication vehicle for staff to see and understand the goals of the
FBI. It is important to establish and track intermediate and long-term
transformation goals and establish a timeline to pinpoint performance
shortfalls and gaps and suggest midcourse corrections. By demonstrating
progress towards these goals, the organization builds momentum and
demonstrates that real progress is being made. We will continue to
review this issue.
FBI Has Developed a Strategic Plan with a Mission, Strategic Goals, and
Approaches That Reflect Its New Priorities
When we last testified in June 2003, the FBI was in the process of
compiling the building blocks of a strategic plan. At that time it was
anticipated that the plan would be completed by the start of fiscal
year 2004. Although delayed by about 5 months, the FBI has since
completed its strategic plan.\10\ FBI officials indicated that the
implementation of two staff reprogrammings and delays in the
appropriation of its fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 budget, as
well as initiatives undertaken to protect the homeland during the war
in Iraq, delayed the completion of the strategic plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Strategic planning is one of about 40 ongoing reengineering
projects the FBI has undertaken to address issues related to its
transformation efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall we found the plan has some important strengths as well as
some areas in which improvements could be made. The strategic plan
includes key elements of successful strategic plans, including a
comprehensive mission statement; results-oriented, long-term goals and
objectives; and approaches to achieve the goals and objectives. The FBI
plan presents 10 strategic goals that appear to cover the FBI's major
functions and operations, are related to the mission, and generally
articulate the results in terms of outcomes the FBI seeks to achieve.
For example, one of the plan's strategic goals is ``protect the United
States from terrorist attack;'' another goal is ``reduce the level of
significant violent crime.'' The plan also lists strategic objectives
and performance goals for each long-term strategic goal. However, the
performance goals do not appear to be outcomes against which the FBI
will measure progress; rather they appear to describe approaches or be
key efforts that FBI will undertake to achieve its long-term strategic
goals and objectives.
Importantly, the plan acknowledges that the FBI faces competing
priorities and clearly articulates its top 10 priorities, in order of
priority. The strategic plan also frequently discusses the role
partnerships with other law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland
security agencies will play in achieving the plan's goals. The plan
discusses the FBI's approach to building on its internal capacity to
accomplish its mission-critical goals by improving management of human
capital, information technology, and other investigative tools. The
plan also discusses the external factors, such as global and domestic
demographic changes and the communications revolution, which have
driven the development of its strategic goals.
Strategic Plan Could Be Improved by Discussing Other Key
Elements
Although the FBI has addressed several key elements in its
strategic plan, the plan needs more information on other elements of
strategic planning that we have identified as significant to successful
achievement of an organization's mission and goals. FBI officials
indicated that some of these elements are available in other documents
and were not included in the plan for specific reasons. As the FBI
moves forward with its new strategic planning and execution process, it
should consider addressing in its strategic plan the following key
elements:
Involving Key Stakeholders.--As we have previously testified, any
changes at the FBI must be part of, and consistent with, broader
governmentwide transformation efforts that are taking place, especially
those resulting from the establishment of the Department of Homeland
Security and in connection with changes in the intelligence community.
Successful organizations we studied based their strategic planning, to
a large extent, on the interests and expectations of their
stakeholders. Federal agency stakeholders include Congress and the
administration, other federal agencies, state and local governments,
third-party service providers, interest groups, agency employees, and,
of course, the American public. Involving customers served by the
organization--such as the users of the FBI's intelligence--is important
as well. The FBI strategic plan does not describe which stakeholders or
customers, were involved or consulted during the plan's development or
the nature of their involvement. Such information would be useful to
understanding the quality of the planning process FBI has undertaken
and the extent to which it reflect the views of key stakeholders and
customers. Consultation provides an important check for an organization
that they are working toward the right goals and using reasonable
approaches to achieve them.
Relationship between Strategic and Annual Goals.--Under GPRA,
agencies' long-term strategic goals are to be linked to their annual
performance plans and the day-to-day activities of their managers and
staff. OMB guidance states that a strategic plan should briefly outline
(1) the type, nature, and scope of the performance goals being included
in annual performance plans and (2) how these annual performance goals
relate to the long-term, general goals and their use in helping
determine the achievement of the general goals. Without this linkage,
it may not be possible to determine whether an agency has a clear sense
of how it will assess the progress made toward achieving its intended
results.
It is not clear from the plan how the FBI intends to measure its
progress in achieving the long-term strategic goals and objectives
because the plan's strategic objectives and performance goals are not
phrased as performance measures and the plan does not describe or make
reference to another document that contains annual performance
measures. The plan also lacks a discussion of the systems FBI will have
in place to produce reliable performance and cost data needed to set
goals, evaluate results, and improve performance. According to an FBI
official and documents the FBI provided, the FBI has developed
``performance metrics'' for each of its strategic goals.
External and Internal Factors that Could Affect Goal Achievement.--
While the plan clearly communicates how its forecast of external
drivers helped to shape the FBI's strategy, the plan does not discuss
the external and internal factors that might interfere with its ability
to accomplish its goals. External factors could include economic,
demographic, social, technological, or environmental factors. Internal
factors could include the culture of the agency, its management
practices, and its business processes. The identification of such
factors would allow FBI to communicate actions it has planned that
could reduce or ameliorate the potential impact of the external
factors. Furthermore, the plan could also include a discussion of the
FBI's plans to address internal factors within its control that could
affect achievement of strategic goals. The approach the FBI plans to
take to track its success in achieving change within the agency should
be an integral part of FBI's strategy. A clear and well-supported
discussion of the external and internal factors that could affect
performance could provide a basis for proposing legislative or
budgetary changes that the FBI may need to accomplish the FBI's goals.
Role of Program Evaluation in Assessing Achievement of Goals and
Effectiveness of Strategies.--Program evaluations can be a potentially
critical source of information for Congress and others in ensuring the
validity and reasonableness of goals and strategies, as well as for
identifying factors likely to affect performance. Program evaluations
typically assess the results, impact, or effects of a program or
policy, but can also assess the implementation and results of programs,
operating policies, and practices. The FBI's strategic plan does not
explicitly discuss the role evaluation played in the development of its
strategic plan or its plans for future evaluations (including scope,
key issues, and time frame), as intended by GPRA. The FBI has
redesigned its program evaluation process and updated the performance
metric for each program. This information could have been, but was not
included in the strategic plan. As discussed elsewhere in this
testimony, the FBI has a series of reengineering efforts under way that
relate to six core processes they are seeking to transform. A
discussion of how these reengineering efforts relate to and support the
achievement of the FBI's strategic goals would be a useful addition to
the FBI's strategic plan.
We believe that an organization's strategic plan is a critical
communication tool and the credibility of the plan can be enhanced by
discussing, even at a summary level, the approach the organization took
in addressing these elements.
FBI Has Involved Employees in the Strategic Planning
Process and Communicated its Priorities
As noted earlier, employee involvement in strategic planning, and
transformation in general, is a key practice of a successful agency as
it transforms. FBI executive management seems to have recognized this.
Field office managers and field staff we spoke with last year generally
reported being afforded the opportunity to provide input. For example,
field management in the 14 field offices we visited in 2003 reported
that they had been afforded opportunities to provide input into the
FBI's strategic planning process. In addition, 68 percent of the
special agents and 24 of the 34 analysts who completed our
questionnaire in 2003 reported that they had been afforded the
opportunity to provide input to FBI management regarding FBI
strategies, goals, and priorities by, among others, participating in
focus groups or meetings and assisting in the development of the field
offices' annual reports. FBI managers in the field offices we visited
and 87 percent of the special agents and 31 of the 34 analysts who
completed our questionnaire indicated that FBI management had kept them
informed of the FBI's progress in revising its strategic plan to
reflect changed priorities.
FBI management also seems to have been effective in communicating
the agency's top three priorities (i.e., counterterrorism,
counterintelligence, and cyber crime investigations) to the staff. In
addition to the awareness of management staff in FBI headquarters and
field offices, nearly all of the special agents and all of the analysts
who answered our questionnaire indicated that FBI executive management
(i.e., Director Mueller and Deputy Director Gebhardt) had communicated
the FBI's priorities to their field offices. Management and most of the
agents we interviewed in the field were aware of the FBI's top three
priorities.\11\ Further, over 90 percent of special agents and 28 of
the 34 analysts who completed our questionnaire generally or strongly
agreed that their field office had made progress in realigning its
goals to be consistent with the FBI's transformation efforts and new
priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Over 80 percent of the special agents and 24 of the 34
analysts who completed our questionnaire in 2003 ranked
counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber crime investigations
as the FBI's first, second, and third priorities, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI Has Developed a Strategic Human Capital Plan
In prior testimony, we highlighted the importance of the
development of a strategic human capital plan to the FBI's
transformation efforts, noting that strategic human capital management
is the centerpiece of any management initiative, including any agency
transformation effort. We noted that a strategic human capital plan
should flow from the strategic plan and guide an agency to align its
workforce needs, goals, and objectives with its mission-critical
functions. We also noted that human capital planning should include
both integrating human capital approaches in the development of the
organizational plans and aligning the human capital programs with the
program goals. In a September 2003 letter to the FBI director, we
specifically recommended that the FBI: (1) hire a human capital officer
to guide the development of a strategic human capital plan and the
implementation of long-term strategic human capital initiatives and (2)
replace its current pass/fail performance management system with one
that makes meaningful distinctions in employee performance.
Although the FBI has not yet hired a human capital officer, it has
developed a strategic human capital plan. This plan contains many of
the principles that we have laid out for an effective human capital
system.\12\ For example, it highlights the need for the FBI to fill
identified skill gaps, in such areas as language specialists and
intelligence analysts, by using various personnel flexibilities
including recruiting and retention bonuses.\13\ Concerning the hiring
of a human capital officer, the FBI has efforts under way to recruit
and hire a qualified candidate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. General Accounting Office A Model of Strategic Human
Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP, Washington, D.C.: (March 2002).
\13\ U.S. General Accounting Office Human Capital: Effective Use of
Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in Managing Their Workforces, GAO-03-
2, Washington, D.C.: (Dec. 6, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FBI said that it recognizes the need to review and revise its
performance management system to be in line with its strategic plan,
including desired outcomes, core values, critical individual
competencies, and agency transformation objectives. It also recognizes
that it needs to ensure that unit and individual performance are linked
to organizational goals. A key initiative that has been undertaken by
the FBI in this regard is the planning of a system for the Senior
Executive Service that is based on, and distinguishes, performance. We
have not reviewed the Senior Executive performance management system,
but it should include expectations to lead and facilitate change and to
collaborate both within and across organizational boundaries are
critical elements as agencies transform themselves.\14\ As yet, the
performance management system for the bulk of FBI personnel remains
inadequate to identify meaningful distinctions in performance. The
FBI's human capital plan indicates that the FBI is moving in the
direction of addressing this need, and we are encouraged by this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures:
Using Balanced Expectations to Manage Senior Executive Performance,
GAO-02-966 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the development of a strategic human capital plan is a
positive step in this direction. However, the FBI, like other
organizations, will face challenges as it implements its human capital
plan. As we have noted before, when implementing new human capital
authorities, how it is done, when it is done, and the basis on which it
is done can make all the difference in whether such efforts are
successful.
Effective Information Technology Management Is Critical to the FBI's
Ability to Successfully Transform
Information technology can be a valuable tool in helping
organizations transform and better achieve mission goals and
objectives. Our research of leading private and public sector
organizations, as well as our past work at federal departments and
agencies, shows that successful organizations' executives have embraced
the central role of IT as an enabler for enterprise-wide
transformation.\15\ As such they adopt a corporate, or agencywide,
approach to managing IT under the leadership and control of a senior
executive--commonly called a chief information officer (CIO)--who
operates as a full partner with the organizational leadership team in
charting the strategic direction and making informed IT investment
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Maximizing the Success of
Chief Information Officers: Learning from Leading Organizations, GAO-
01-376G (Washington, D.C.: February 2001) and U.S. General Accounting
Office, Architect of the Capitol: Management and Accountability
Framework Needed for Organizational Transformation, GAO-03-231
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to adopting centralized leadership, these leading
organizations also develop and implement institutional or agencywide IT
management controls aimed at leveraging the vast potential of
technology in achieving mission outcomes. These include using a systems
modernization blueprint, commonly referred to as an enterprise
architecture,\16\ to guide and constrain system investments and using a
portfolio-based approach to IT investment decision making. We have also
observed that without these controls, organizations increase the risk
that system modernization projects (1) will experience cost, schedule,
and performance shortfalls; (2) will not reduce system redundancy and
overlap; and (3) will not increase interoperability and effective
information sharing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ An architecture is a set of descriptive models (e.g., diagrams
and tables) that define, in business terms and in technology terms, how
an organization operates today, how it intends to operate in the
future, and how it intends to invest in technology to transition from
today's operational environment to tomorrow's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI currently relies extensively on the use of IT to execute its
mission responsibilities, and this reliance is expected to grow. For
example, it develops and maintains computerized systems, such as the
Combined DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) Index System to support forensic
examinations, the Digital Collection System to electronically collect
information on known and suspected terrorists and criminals, and the
National Crime Information Center and the Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System to identify criminals. It is also in
the midst of a number of initiatives aimed at (1) extending data
storage and retrieval systems to improve information sharing across
organizational components and (2) expanding its IT infrastructure to
support new software applications. According to FBI estimates, the
bureau manages hundreds of systems and associated networks and
databases at an average annual cost of about $800 million. In addition,
the bureau plans to invest about $255 million and $286 million in
fiscal years 2004 and 2005, respectively, in IT services and systems,
such as the Trilogy project. Trilogy is the bureau's centerpiece
project to (1) replace its system infrastructure (e.g., wide area
network) and (2) consolidate and modernize key investigative case
management applications. The goals of Trilogy include speeding the
transmission of data, linking multiple databases for quick searching,
and improving operational efficiency by replacing paper with electronic
files.
The FBI Director recognizes the importance of IT to transformation,
and as such has made it one of the bureau's top 10 priorities.\17\
Consistent with this, the FBI's strategic plan contains explicit IT-
related strategic goals, objectives, and initiatives (near-term and
long-term) to support the collection, analysis, processing, and
dissemination of information. Further, the FBI's newly appointed CIO
understands the bureau's longstanding IT management challenges and is
in the process of defining plans and proposals to effectively execute
the FBI's strategic IT initiatives. Nevertheless, the bureau's
longstanding approach to managing IT is not fully consistent with
leading practices, as has been previously reported by us and others.
The effect of this, for example, can be seen in the cost and schedule
shortfalls being experienced on Trilogy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For example, see Federal Bureau of Investigation, Statement of
Robert S. Mueller, III, Federal Bureau of Investigation before the
Subcommittee for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, (Washington, D.C.: June 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI Has Not Had Sustained IT Management Leadership with
Bureauwide Authority
Our research of private and public sector organizations that
effectively manage IT shows that they have adopted an agencywide
approach to managing IT under the sustained leadership of a CIO or
comparable senior executive who has the responsibility and the
authority for managing IT across the agency.\18\ According to the
research, these executives function as members of the leadership team
and are instrumental in developing a shared vision for the role of IT
in achieving major improvements in business processes and operations to
effectively optimize mission performance. In this capacity, leading
organizations also provide these individuals with the authority they
need to carry out their diverse responsibilities by providing budget
management control and oversight of IT programs and initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For example, see GAO-03-231 and GAO-01-376G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last several years, the FBI has not sustained IT
management leadership. Specifically, the bureau's key leadership and
management positions, including the CIO, have experienced frequent
turnover. For instance, the CIO has changed five times in the past 24
months. The current CIO, who is also the CIO at the Department of
Justice's Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), is
temporarily detailed to the FBI for 6 months and is serving in an
acting capacity while also retaining selected duties at EOUSA. In
addition, the IT official responsible for developing the bureau's
enterprise architecture, the chief architect, has changed five times in
the past 16 months. As a result, development and implementation of key
management controls, such as enterprise architecture, have not
benefited from sustained management attention and leadership and thus
have lagged, as described in sections below.
In addition, the FBI has not provided its CIO with bureauwide IT
management authority and responsibility. Rather, the authority and
responsibility for managing IT is diffused across and vested in the
bureau's divisions. As our research and work at other agencies has
shown, managing IT in this manner results in disparate, stove-piped
environments that are unnecessarily expensive to operate and maintain.
In the FBI's case, it resulted, as reported by Justice's Inspector
General in December 2002,\19\ in 234 nonintegrated applications,
residing on 187 different servers, each of which had its own unique
databases, unable to share information with other applications or with
other government agencies. According to the acting CIO, the FBI is
considering merging bureauwide authority and responsibility for IT in
the CIO's office with the goal of having this in place in time to
formulate the bureau's fiscal year 2006 budget request. In our view,
this proposal, if properly defined and implemented, is a good step
toward implementing the practices of leading organizations. However,
until it is implemented, we remain concerned that the bureau will not
be positioned to effectively leverage IT as an bureauwide resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General,
Federal Bureau of Investigation's Management of Information Technology
Investments, Report 03-09 (Washington, D.C.: December 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI Does Not Have an Enterprise Architecture but Is Taking
Steps to Develop One
As discussed in our framework for assessing and improving
enterprise architecture management,\20\ an architecture is an essential
tool for effectively and efficiently engineering business operations
(e.g., processes, work locations, and information needs and flows) and
defining, implementing, and evolving IT systems in a way that best
supports these operations. It provides systematically derived and
captured structural descriptions--in useful models, diagrams, tables,
and narrative--of how a given entity operates today and how it plans to
operate in the future, and it includes a road map for transitioning
from today to tomorrow. Managed properly, an enterprise architecture
can clarify and help optimize the interdependencies and
interrelationships among a given entity's business operations and the
underlying systems and technical infrastructure that support these
operations; it can also help share information among units within an
organization and between the organization and external partners. Our
experience with federal agencies has shown that attempting to modernize
systems without having an enterprise architecture often results in
systems that are duplicative, not well integrated, unnecessarily costly
to maintain, and limited in terms of optimizing mission
performance.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: A
Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture
Management (Version 1.1), GAO-03-584G (Washington, DC: April 2003).
\21\ See for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, DOD Business
Systems Modernization: Improvements to Enterprise Architecture
Development and Implementation Efforts Needed, GAO-03-458, (Washington,
D.C.: February 2003); Information Technology: DLA Should Strengthen
Business Systems Modernization Architecture and Investment Activities,
GAO-01-631 (Washington, D.C.: June 2001); and Information Technology:
INS Needs to Better Manage the Development of Its Enterprise
Architecture, GAO/AIMD-00-212 (Washington, D.C.: August 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We reported in September 2003, that the FBI did not have an
enterprise architecture to guide and constrain its ongoing and planned
IT investments.\22\ We also reported that the necessary management
structures and processes--the management foundation, if you will--to
develop, maintain, or implement an architecture were not in place. At
the time, the bureau was beginning to build this foundation. For
instance, the bureau had designated a chief architect, established an
architecture governance board as its steering committee, and chosen a
framework to guide its architecture development. However, it had yet to
complete critical activities such as ensuring that business partners
are represented on the architecture governance board, establishing a
formal program office, adopting an architecture development
methodology, and defining plans for developing its architecture.
Further, it had not addressed other important activities, including
developing written and approved architecture policy and integrating
architectural alignment, into its IT investment management process. FBI
officials told us then that the architecture was not a top priority and
it had not received adequate resources and management attention.
Consequently, we recommended, among other things, that the FBI director
immediately designate development, maintenance, and implementation of
an enterprise architecture as a bureau priority and manage it as such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: FBI
Needs an Enterprise Architecture to Guide Its Modernization Activities,
GAO-03-959 (Washington, D.C.: September 2003) and U.S. General
Accounting Office, Federal Bureau of Investigation's Comments on Recent
GAO Report on its Enterprise Architecture Efforts, GAO-04-190R
(Washington, D.C.: November 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since our report, the FBI has made architecture development an
explicit imperative in its strategic plan, and it has made progress
toward establishing an effective architecture program. For instance,
the FBI director issued a requirement that all divisions identify a
point of contact that can authoritatively represent their division in
the development of the architecture. In addition, a project management
plan has been drafted that identifies roles and responsibilities and
delineates plans and a set of actions to develop the architecture. The
FBI is also in the process of hiring a contractor to help develop the
architecture. Current plans call for an initial version of the
architecture in June 2004. However, until the enterprise architecture
is developed, the FBI will continue to manage IT without a bureauwide,
authoritative frame of reference to guide and constrain its continuing
and substantial IT investments, putting at risk its ability to
implement modernized systems in a way that minimizes overlap and
duplication and maximizes integration and mission support.
FBI Is Working to Establish Control over IT Resources and
Investments
Federal IT management law provides an important framework for
effective investment management. It requires federal agencies to focus
more on the results they have achieved through IT investments, while
concurrently improving their acquisition processes. It also introduces
more rigor and structure into how agencies are to select and manage IT
projects. In May 2000, GAO issued \23\ a framework that encompasses IT
investment management best practices based on our research at
successful private and public sector organizations. This framework
identifies processes that are critical for successful IT investment,
such as tracking IT assets, identifying business needs for projects,
selecting among competing project proposals using explicit investment
criteria, and overseeing projects to ensure that commitments are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology
Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Process
Maturity, Exposure Draft, GAO/AIMD-10.1.23 (Washington, D.C.: May
2000). In March 2004, GAO updated this version: U.S. General Accounting
Office, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for
Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, Version 1.1, GAO-04-394G
(Washington, D.C.: March 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using GAO's framework, the Inspector General evaluated the FBI's IT
investment management process in 2002, including a case study of
Trilogy, and concluded that the process at that time was immature and
had hindered the bureau's ability to effectively manage IT.\24\
Specifically, the Inspector General reported that the bureau lacked a
basic investment management foundation. For instance, the bureau did
not have fully functioning investment boards that were engaged in all
phases of investment management. In addition, the bureau had not yet
developed an IT asset inventory, the first step in tracking and
controlling investments and assets. In a January 2004 follow-on
report,\25\ the Inspector General credited the bureau with developing a
plan to implement the recommendations and assigning responsibility to
the Project Management Office to execute it, but noted that the office
had not been granted authority to carry out this task. Project
Management Office officials stated that as of February 24, 2004, they
had not yet been provided such authority. According to the acting CIO,
the FBI is currently in the process of hiring a contractor to assist
with implementing all IT investment management processes bureauwide,
including addressing remaining Inspector General recommendations. Until
these steps are completed and mature investment processes are in place,
the FBI will remain challenged in its ability to effectively minimize
risks and maximize the returns of investments, including ensuring
projects do not experience cost, schedule, and performance shortfalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Department of the Justice, Office of the Inspector General
Report 03-09.
\25\ U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General,
Action Required on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Management of
Information Technology Investments, Audit Report Number 03-09,
(Washington, D.C.: January 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until Effective IT Leadership and Management Controls are
Implemented, Projects Remain at Risk
As discussed in the previous sections, the FBI has efforts
proposed, planned and under way that, once implemented, are intended to
establish an IT leadership and management controls framework that is
consistent with those used by leading organizations. Until this is
accomplished, however, the bureau will largely be relying on the same
management structures and practices that it used in the past and that
produced its current IT environment and associated challenges. As
previously stated, these practices increase the risk that system
modernization projects will not deliver promised capabilities on time
and within budget. A prime example is Trilogy, the FBI's ongoing effort
to, among other things, modernize its systems infrastructure and
investigate case management applications. It consists of three
components:
--Transportation Network Component, which is communications network
infrastructure (e.g., local area networks and wide area
networks, authorization security, and encryption of data
transmissions and storage),
--Information Presentation Component, which is primarily desktop
hardware and software (e.g., scanners, printers, electronic
mail, web browser), and
--User Applications Component, which includes the investigative case
management applications \26\) that are being consolidated and
modernized. This component is commonly referred to as the
Virtual Case File, which when completed, is to allow agents to
have multimedia capability that will enable them to among other
things scan documents and photos into electronic case files and
share the files with other agents electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ According to the FBI, the existing applications are Integrated
Intelligence Information Application (a database of over 20 million
records supporting collection, analysis and dissemination of
intelligence for national security and counterterrorism
investigations); Criminal Law Enforcement Application (a repository for
storing, searching, and linking investigative data about people,
organizations, locations, vehicles, and communications); Telephone
Application (FBI's central repository supporting collection, analysis,
correlation and processing of telephone records for investigations);
and Automated Case Support (a suite of integrated applications for
managing, storing and searching information and documents for FBI
investigations and administrative cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, the FBI's management of Trilogy has resulted in multiple
cost overruns and schedule delays. The table below details the cost and
schedule shortfalls for each of the three components that comprise
Trilogy. In summary, the FBI established its original project
commitments in November 2000 but revised them in January 2002 after
receiving additional funding ($78 million) to accelerate the project's
completion. About this time, the FBI also revised the Trilogy design to
introduce more functionality and capability than original planned.
Based on the January 2002 commitments, the first two components of
Trilogy were to be completed in July 2002, and the third was to be
completed in December 2003. However, the project's components have
collectively experienced cost overruns and schedule delays totaling
about $120 million and at least 21 months, respectively.
TABLE 1.--TRILOGY COST AND SCHEDULE SHORTFALLS BY COMPONENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variance between Variance between
November 2000 January 2002 and
November 2000 January 2002 and January 2002 March 2004 March 2004
Trilogy Component commitments commitments commitments commitments commitments
(date/funding in (date/funding in (schedule in (date/funding in (schedule in
millions) millions) months/funding millions) months/funding
in millions) in millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Network Component.............................. \1\ 5/04 \1\ 7/02 \2\ (22 months) Completed 3/03 8 months
\1\ $238.6 \1\ $288.1 $49.5 $0.0 ................
Information Presentation Component............................ \1\ 5/04 \1\ 7/02 \2\ (22 months) 4/04 21 months
\1\ $238.6 \1\ $288.1 $49.5 $339.8 $51.7
User Applications Component.................................. 6/04 12/03 \2\ (6 months) \3\ 6/04 6 months
$119.2 $139.7 $20.5 \3\ $170.0 $30.3
Project management and other funding.......................... $22.0 $30.0 $8.0 $71.3 $41.3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total funding........................................... $379.8 $457.8 $78.0 $581.1 $123.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Commitment date and funding amount is for both Transportation Network Component and Information Presentation Component.
\2\ Months the schedule commitment was accelerated.
\3\ According to a key Trilogy project official, new schedule and cost commitments are being developed for the User Applications Component.
Source: GAO based on FBI data.
These Trilogy shortfalls in meeting cost and schedule commitments
can be in part attributed to the absence of the kind of IT management
controls discussed earlier. Specifically, in its study of the FBI's
investment management processes which included a case study of Trilogy,
the Inspector General cited the lack of an enterprise architecture and
mature IT investment management processes as the cause for missed
Trilogy milestones and uncertainties associated with the remaining
portions of the project. In our view, a major challenge for FBI going
forward will be to effectively manage the risks associated with
developing and acquiring Trilogy and other system modernization
priorities discussed in its strategic plan, while the bureau is
completing and implementing its enterprise architecture and other IT-
related controls and is adopting a more centralized approach to IT
management leadership.
FBI Continues to Realign Staff Resources to Address Counterterrorism
Related Priorities
As we pointed out in our June 2003 testimony and our follow-up
letter to the FBI in September 2003, a key element of the FBI's
reorganization and successful transformation is the realignment of
resources to better ensure focus on the highest priorities. Since
September 11, the FBI has permanently realigned a substantial number of
its field agents from traditional criminal investigative programs to
work on counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations.
Additionally, the bureau has had a continuing need to temporarily
redirect special agent and staff resources from other criminal
investigative programs to address higher-priority needs. Thus, staff
continue to be redirected from other programs such as drug, white
collar, and violent crime to address the counterterrorism-related
workload demands. The result of this redirection is fewer
investigations in these traditional crime areas.
We want to make clear that we in no way intend to fault the FBI for
the reassignment of agents from drug enforcement, violent crime, and
white collar crime to higher-priority areas. Indeed, these moves are
directly in line with the agency's priorities and in keeping with the
paramount need to prevent terrorism.\27\ In 2002, the FBI Director
announced that in keeping with its new priorities, the agency would
move over 500 field agent positions from its drug, violent crime, and
white collar crime programs to counterterrorism. The FBI has
transferred even more agent positions than it originally announced and
has augmented those agents with short-term reassignment of additional
field agents from drug and other law enforcement areas to work on
counterterrorism.\28\ As figure 1 shows, about 25 percent of the FBI's
field agent positions were allocated to counterterrorism,
counterintelligence, and cyber crime programs in prior to the FBI's
change in priorities. Since that time, as a result of the staff
reprogrammings \29\ and funding for additional special agent positions
received through various appropriations, the FBI staffing levels
allocated to the counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber
program areas have increased to about 36 percent and now represent the
single largest concentration of FBI resources and the biggest decrease
is in organized crime and drugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ We currently have work under way for the House Appropriations
Subcommittee to assess the impact of the FBI's realignment of resources
away from drug and other traditional criminal programs, including an
assessment of changes in price, purity, and use of illegal drugs. We
expect to report out on this effort later in the year.
\28\ The FBI later in fiscal year 2003 initiated another
reprogramming to permanently reallocate about an additional 160 agent
positions from its drug program to one of the priority areas.
\29\ The FBI has the authority to reprogram funds (i.e., move funds
between activities within a given account) without notifying the
relevant Appropriations Committees unless a specific purpose is
prohibited or the amount of the reprogramming exceeds a dollar
threshold ($500,000 or a 10-percent change in funding level, whichever
is less). Any other reprogramming action requires notification of the
relevant Appropriations Committee 15 days in advance of the
reprogramming.
\30\ These percentages differ from those reported in our June 18,
2003 testimony (GAO-03759T), which were limited to direct funded field
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
agent positions.
The FBI's staff reprogramming plans, carried out since September
11, have now permanently shifted 674 field agent positions \31\ from
the drug, white collar crime, and violent crime program areas to
counterterrorism and counterintelligence. In addition, the FBI
established the Cyber program, which consolidated existing cyber
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The figure of 674 positions excludes 11 supervisory positions
that were returned to the drug program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the reprogramming of agent positions in fiscal year 2003
and the additional agent positions received through various
supplemental appropriations since September 11, agents from other
program areas continue to be temporarily redirected to work on leads in
the priority areas, including counterterrorism-related leads.\32\ This
demonstrates a commitment on the part of the FBI to staff priority
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The FBI has certain managerial flexibilities to temporarily
redirect staff resources to address critical needs and threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As figure 2 shows, the average number of field agent workyears
charged to investigating counterterrorism-related matters has
continually outpaced the number of agent positions allocated to field
offices for counterterrorism since September 11.\33\ The FBI's current
policy is that no counterterrorism leads will go unaddressed even if
addressing them requires a diversion of resources from other criminal
investigative programs such as the drug, violent, and white collar
crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ A workyear represents the full-time employment of one worker
for 1 year. For this statement, a matter is an allegation that is being
or has been investigated by the FBI.
As we previously reported, as the FBI gains more experience and
continues assessing risk in a post-September 11 environment, it should
gain more expertise in deciding which matters warrant additional
investigation or investment of investigative resources. However, until
the FBI develops a mechanism to systematically analyze the nature of
leads and their output, the FBI will have to continue its substantial
investment of resources on counterterrorism-related matters to err on
the side of safety. We are not intending to imply that, even with more
information from past experience, that all leads should not be
investigated, but more analytical information about leads could help
prioritize them.
Neither the FBI nor we were in a position to determine the right
amount of staff resources needed to address the priority areas.
However, the body of information that might help to make these
determinations is growing. Since the September 11 attacks, the FBI has
updated its counterterrorism threat assessment and has gained
additional experience in staffing priority work. This development,
along with an analysis of the nature of all leads (those that turn out
to be significant and those that do not) and the output from them,
could put the bureau in a better position to assess the actual levels
of staff resources that the agency needs in counterterrorism,
counterintelligence, and cyber programs. Of course, any new terrorist
incidents would again, upset the balance and require additional staff
in the priority areas.
An FBI counterterrorism manager we spoke with during a recent field
office visit said that to develop a system to determine which terrorist
leads to pursue and which ones to not pursue would be a complex task.
He noted that in the past there would have been some citizen contacts
that the FBI may not have generally pursued, but said that now any
lead, regardless of its nature, is followed up. He observed that
following up on some of these leads have resulted in the arrests and
convictions of terrorists. For example, the FBI manager recounted a
telephone lead from a tour boat operator who reported concerns about a
passenger who was taking photographs of bridges and asking unusual
questions about infrastructure. That lead started an investigation that
led to the arrest of, and criminal charges against, the suspect, who
was alleged to be plotting a terrorist attack.
According to FBI officials, information from leads is collected in
a database that can be searched in a number of ways to help in
investigations. To the extent that more systematic and sophisticated
analysis routines can be developed and applied to these data (or any
expansions of this data set) the FBI may be able to develop richer
information about the relative risk of leads. This information could
help prioritize work and manage scarce resources. While we agree with
the FBI counterterrorism manager we cited above who labeled this a
complex task, the potential value of the output, given that resources
are always limited, seems worth the investment.
Counterterrorism Matters Have Continued to Increase
The level of effort in counterterrorism is further reflected in the
number of counterterrorism matters that have been opened following
September 11. As figure 3 shows, the number of newly opened
counterterrorism matters has remained significantly above the pre-
September 11 levels, peaking in the second quarter of fiscal year 2003
and dropping somewhat in the most recent quarters.
Reallocation of FBI Resources Has Affected the FBI's Drug
Enforcement and Other Traditional Law Enforcement
Efforts
Use of field agent staff resources in other traditional criminal
investigative programs (such as drug enforcement, violent crime, and
white collar crime) has continuously dropped below allocated levels as
agents from these programs have been temporarily reassigned to work on
counterterrorism-related matters. As would be expected, the number of
newly opened drug, violent crime, and white collar crime cases has
fallen in relation to the decline in the number of field agent
positions allocated or assigned to work on these programs.
The change in priorities and the accompanying shift in
investigative resources have affected the FBI's drug program the most.
Nearly half of the FBI field agent drug positions have been permanently
reallocated to priority program areas. Since September 11, about 40
percent of the positions allocated to FBI field offices' drug program
have been reallocated to counterterrorism and counterintelligence
priority areas. As figure 4 shows, just prior to September 11, about
two-thirds (or 890) of the 1,378 special agent positions allocated to
FBI field offices for drug program matters were direct-funded.\34\ The
remaining one-third (or 488) of the special agent positions was funded
by the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force program
(OCDETF). As of the first quarter of fiscal year 2004, the number of
direct-funded positions allocated to FBI field offices for the drug
program had decreased over 60 percent, going from 890 to 337. OCDETF-
funded agent positions, which have remained constant, now account for
about 60 percent of the FBI field offices' drug program staff
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ FBI's drug program workforce is composed of field agent
positions funded through direct FBI appropriations and those supported
with OCDETF funds. The OCDETF Program was established in 1982 to focus
federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts against organized
crime drug-trafficking organizations that pose the most serious threat
to our national interests.
While this reduction represents a substantial decline in the number
of field agent positions allocated to drug work, in fact, the reduction
in drug enforcement workyears was actually larger than these figures
reflect. Specifically, as needs arose for additional agents to work
counterterrorism leads, field agents assigned to drug program squads
were temporarily reassigned to the priority work. As figure 5 shows, at
the extreme, during the first quarter of fiscal year 2002 (just after
the events of September 11), while 1,378 special agent positions were
allocated to drug work, only about half of these staff resources worked
in the FBI drug program. In mid-fiscal year 2003, the allocated number
of drug agent positions and the average number of field agent workyears
charged to drug matters started to converge toward the new targeted
levels. Since that time, however, the FBI has had to redirect
additional field agents allocated to its drug program to
counterterrorism and other priority areas. As of the second quarter of
fiscal year 2004, about a quarter (225 of 825) of the agents assigned
to the FBI's drug program were actually working in higher-priority
areas. The reduction in drug enforcement resources has reduced both the
number of drug squads in FBI field offices as well as the number of FBI
agents supporting the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)
program initiatives, according to FBI officials.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The HIDTA program began in 1990 to provide federal assistance
to help coordinate and enhance federal, state, and local drug
enforcement efforts in areas of major illegal drug production,
manufacturing, distribution, transportation, and use.
The significant reduction in agent strength in the drug enforcement
area is likely to be an important factor in the smaller number of FBI
drug matters opened in fiscal year 2003 and the first quarter of fiscal
year 2004. As figure 6 shows, the number of newly opened drug matters
went from 2,420 in fiscal year 1998 to 950 in fiscal year 2002 and to
587 in fiscal year 2003.
The openings for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 indicate a
rate for the entire year at about fiscal year 2003 levels.
Similarly, as figures 7 and 8 show, the average number of field
agent workyears charged to violent crime and white collar crime matters
also declined below the number of allocated agent workyears as these
agents too have been temporarily redirected to counterterrorism-related
matters.
As figures 9 and 10 show, the number of newly opened violent crime
and white collar crime matters has declined since September 11.
CONCLUSIONS
The FBI's transformation effort is driven in part by challenges
facing the federal government as a whole to modernize business
processes, information technology, and human capital management. It is
also driven by the need to make organizational changes to meet changes
in its priorities in the post-September 11 environment. This effort
will require a structure for guiding and continuously evaluating
incremental progress of the FBI's transformation. It must also be
carried out as part of, and consistent with, broader government-wide
transformation efforts that are taking place, especially those
resulting from the establishment of DHS and in connection with the
intelligence community. The FBI has made substantial progress, as
evidenced by the development of both a new strategic plan and a
strategic human capital plan, as well as its realignment of staff to
better address the new priorities. Although the new strategic plan and
strategic human capital plans include cross walks to each other, we
still believe that an overall transformation plan is more valuable in
managing the transformation process. The FBI is also making progress in
strengthening its management of IT, including establishing
institutional IT management controls and considering changes to the
scope of CIO's authority over IT spending.
Impacts of the FBI shift in field agent resources on crime programs
including the FBI's drug, white collar, and violent crime programs
should be monitored. Our ongoing work, which we expect to complete
later this year, will provide information on whether other federal and
state resources are replacing lost FBI resources in the traditional
crime areas and on whether reductions in FBI drug program field agents
have had an impact on the price, purity, availability, and use of
illegal drugs.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you and
the Subcommittee members may have.
Appendix 1.--FBI Reengineering Projects Completed and Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core processes Reengineering projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic planning and execution (6)...... HQ organizational structure
Strategic planning process
Communication strategy
Executive secretariat
Project management
Inspection process
Capital (human and equipment) (17)........ Career development/
succession planning
Executive development and
selection program (EDSP)
File/clerical support
Office of Professional
Responsibility
Training
Hiring and recruiting
Fitness test/height-weight
standards
Preparation for legal
attache assignment
Administrative officer
position upgrade
Analyst professionalism
Culture/values
Time utilization record
keeping system (TURK)
Asset Management
Financial audit streamlining
Management of supplies
purchase and distribution
Field office reorganization
Resident agency
consolidation
Information management (4)................ Trilogy
Top secret/sensitive
compartment information (TS/
SCI) local area network
Records management division
reorganization
Rapid start/ICON
Investigative programs (6)................ Counterterrorism strategy
Counterintelligence strategy
Cyber strategy
Criminal investigation
division strategy
Manual of Investigative
Operations and Guidelines
(MIOG)/Manual of
Administrative Operations
and Procedures (MAOP)
Project
Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act
Intelligence (2).......................... Review criminal informant
program (CIP) and asset
program issues
Analytical tools for
intelligence analysts
Security Management (5)................... Continuity of operations
planning (COOP)
FBI headquarters space
strategy
Vital records
Security manual pilot
project
Repository for Office of
Professional Review (OPR)
appeals/security violations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FBI.
ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE
Senator Gregg. Dr. Ekstrand, what should the enterprise
architecture plan be?
Ms. Ekstrand. I defer to my counterpart.
Mr. Hite. An enterprise architecture is not a one-size-
fits-all proposition. It is a function of what the organization
is about, its complexity, its size, its mission, and it is also
a function of what it is intended to be used for.
So in the case of FBI, you have a very large organization,
huge in scope, important mission, and the intended purpose
ultimately is to drive IT modernization and these are very
demanding goals. So, therefore, it would argue to have a very
well-defined, robust enterprise architecture.
So having said that, what it would be is a set of
interrelated models, diagrams, tables and narrative that define
what the FBI does, where it does it, how it does it, when it
does it, who does it, defines all these things both in business
terms, in mission or logical terms, and also in terms of the
technology that is going to be employed in order to exercise
those kinds of operations. So it would include the standards
and the protocols and the rules that are going to govern the
types of technology that are going to be employed, both from an
application standpoint and from a supporting infrastructure
standpoint. It is like the mother of all system change tools.
Senator Gregg. How should it be developed? Should it be
developed by outside consultants or should it be developed
internally, and how do you perceive that the FBI intends to
develop it?
Mr. Hite. It could be developed either way. We recently did
a survey of the state of enterprise architecture across the
Government and looked to see how agencies were doing this. The
vast preponderance hire a contractor to assist them in doing
this and they work with the contractor. There are very few who
actually contract out the entire operation to a contractor, and
there are a few that do it in-house.
My understanding of how the FBI is going to proceed is to--
and they have, I believe as of yesterday, awarded a contract
for development of its enterprise architecture. It has a draft
plan to set up an organization to lead this effort and to
manage the contractor. So it will be done largely by a
contractor under the FBI's direction and guidance. The FBI
will, in essence, be acquiring its enterprise architecture
product from a contractor.
Senator Gregg. Have you looked at the contract that they
have developed and signed and do you think that this is a game
plan that makes sense? Have they outlined a game plan that
makes sense?
Mr. Hite. No, sir, I have not. I have not seen that. That
is a fair question to ask.
Senator Gregg. Since you have been actively involved in
this, wouldn't it have been logical that they would have come
to you and said, does this make sense, before they signed the
contract?
Mr. Hite. That is certainly a service that we would be
willing to work with them on. We----
Senator Gregg. Did they do that?
Mr. Hite. We have had FBI-initiated dialogue by the acting
CIO for him to share with us what his plans and proposals are
going forward and it allowed us to provide feedback. We have
not spoken specifically about the contractual terms for this
enterprise architecture development area.
Senator Gregg. Well, I would like to ask you if you could
take a look at what they have proposed as to how they are going
to develop this enterprise zone conceptually and then in the
specifics of the contract and get back with this committee with
your assessment of whether it is an approach that is going to
work.
Mr. Hite. Yes, sir.
Senator Gregg. I don't want to do another thing where we--I
mean, we have got a track record here of approaches that don't
work.
Mr. Hite. Understood.
Senator Gregg. Although I have to admit, this Director has
really tried to address the issue aggressively.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION/DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
RELATIONSHIP
You mentioned that you have been looking at the effect that
the reallocation of FBI people has had on drug enforcement
efforts. Have you looked at the relationship between DEA and
FBI and whether we should have DEA even take a--obviously, it
is their name, it is what they should be doing. Why is the FBI
in drug enforcement at all? Where are we going here? Have you
done a study of that at all?
Ms. Ekstrand. We haven't done a study of that, but when we
testified last June before House Appropriations, we had had a
substantial amount of interaction with DEA in terms of how they
perceived their role changing with the withdrawal, to some
extent, of FBI presence in the area. We are planning to do some
additional work in that area and report out this summer for
House Appropriations.
Senator Gregg. I would be very interested in an assessment
of, as FBI migrates over to counterterrorism and has to give up
some of its portfolio, the Director was quite up front. He said
most of the portfolio they are giving up is in drug
interdiction. What is DEA's role in picking that up? Can it do
more? In other words, could DEA step in and do more of what the
FBI has been doing in this arena so the FBI could actually free
up more agents? Are you looking at that?
Ms. Ekstrand. We are looking at some of that. We do know
that as of last June, there had been a number of new positions
authorized at DEA and that even more were requested for the
following year. So we do know that DEA's resources, number in
terms of agents, has been growing. But we haven't had the
opportunity as yet to get into this in detail.
Senator Gregg. To the extent you could, that would be
useful to us because this committee has the unique position of
being able to move resources and we don't mind doing that if it
is constructive, but we would like to have some substance upon
which to make those decisions. But it seems logical to me that
DEA's role has got to significantly increase and you have got
to give them more resources and we have got to then expect the
FBI to move resources out of drug enforcement and into
counterterrorism as a result of freeing those up.
Mr. Fine, there are so many areas I would like to talk to
you about, but I will focus on this IT issue. I thought it was
good that everybody said the FBI appears to be getting on the
right track here and things are moving well. How do we sustain
that as we move forward and especially with the Virtual Case
File issue? We have got all this hardware and we have got the
communications capability, but if you don't have anything to
put on the hardware or the communications capability that
works, what good is it?
Mr. Fine. I do think the FBI is making progress in
improving things, but it does need to do more. It has to ensure
that they have definitive milestones that the contractors have
to meet. They have to hold them accountable for those
milestones. They have to keep sustained attention on this. They
have to define their requirements right up front so that the
contractor knows what it has to deliver and be held accountable
if it doesn't deliver that.
I think there has also been, unfortunately, a fair amount
of turnover and not necessarily stability in the senior FBI IT
management structure, so that people are moving on and not
having responsibility, sustained responsibility, to assure a
project through to completion. I do think they have a new
acting CEO that is technically astute and seems committed to
this. But there has to be that constant attention on that, as
well.
So I think there has to be a hard-nosed approach to this
that perhaps in the past the FBI has not fully implemented.
VIRTUAL CASE FILE CONTRACT
Senator Gregg. Have you looked at what they are doing now
in the Virtual Case File contract that they are negotiating
right now? Have you been involved in that process to put in
place that type of a discipline?
Mr. Fine. Yes. We have an audit opened. We recently opened
it. We have done it in the past and recently opened a new audit
on Trilogy, on all the aspects of Trilogy. So our auditors are
talking to the FBI IT managers every day and trying to find out
where they are going, how they are doing it, and ensuring that
there is this aggressive approach to ensuring that it comes in
without excessive cost overruns or delays.
Senator Gregg. If I understood the Director correctly, and
maybe I didn't hear him correctly, but my impression was that
he said, with regard to the Virtual Case File, that they were
in the process of developing a new contract, essentially, to
get the program into the next phase and that it had not been
agreed to and that he agreed that disciplines should be put
into it. He didn't necessarily say they were going to be put
into it. And I would be interested in getting your current
assessment, not now, but as this moves forward as to how
effectively that is being done.
Mr. Fine. We would be happy to do that. Our understanding
is that there was a contract, but they are negotiating and
renegotiating the requirements of it and when to do it, and
they are in the process of defining that now. And we will be
involved with monitoring and overseeing it because of the
importance of this issue.
IDENT/IAFIS INTEGRATION
Senator Gregg. You mentioned IAFIS and you have done an
IDENT/IAFIS paper.
Mr. Fine. Report, yes.
Senator Gregg. Report.
Mr. Fine. We have done a number of studies on that, but
most recently, a report on the Batres case and the status of
the IDENT/IAFIS integration.
Senator Gregg. Is this possible? I mean, the Director
seemed to think it was possible to integrate these two. But,
the IDENT people want to have a very short timeframe to get the
person through and IAFIS is built on the concept of what he
refers to as the gold standard, which takes 20 minutes probably
to take fingerprints under that scenario. Is there some
capacity to resolve this?
Mr. Fine. I think there is and I think it is
technologically possible. I think there are three main issues
with the IDENT/IAFIS integration. One, along the border, having
the Border Patrol ensure that it checks detained aliens against
IAFIS. And they are getting the machines out there but they
don't have the machines out there, the 10-print machines that
would connect IAFIS at all the border stations. As a result, or
after our report, the Department of Homeland Security said it
would expedite a process of getting----
Senator Gregg. Is that an issue of money or just an issue
of the machines not being available or bureaucracy----
Mr. Fine. I think it is an issue of money, to some extent,
but also attention and urgency to the process. I think there is
an urgency now, and there needs to be that urgency. That is the
first issue.
The second issue is ensuring that the FBI and State and
local law enforcement has access to IDENT and access to the
information in IDENT, and going that way, as opposed to simply
having the immigration authorities have access to the FBI
system.
And the third issue is the issue that you raised, at ports
of entry, US VISIT, and what information is going to be taken
from people who are coming to enter the country and what it is
going to be bounced off against. I don't believe they have
determined what they intend to do and how they intend to do it.
And part of the issue is getting the parties together and
determining what they can do and what they should do. Prior to
this, I don't think there has been that focus on that issue.
Senator Gregg. How do we get that focus? I have raised it
now at two different hearings and I have gotten very nice
responses, but is there actually something happening?
Mr. Fine. I think there is something happening. I have
spoken to Director Mueller. I speak with him regularly and he
has indicated that they are talking with the Department of
Homeland Security, with the State Department, and even, my
understanding, the National Security Council is also involved
in the process. It is a cross-agency issue, but there needs to
be that focus on it and a decision made on a government-wide
basis how they are going to do it.
It was hard enough when the INS was in the Department of
Justice, getting them on the same page with the FBI. It is even
harder now that they are in separate agencies, but that is what
needs to happen. There needs to be clear terms. There needs to
be memoranda of understanding, and they need to decide how they
are going to go forward with this.
Mr. Hite. Mr. Chairman----
Senator Gregg. Yes?
Mr. Hite [continuing]. If I could just add a couple of
comments on that, I testified last week on US VISIT and we have
issued a number of reports on it. We actually have one coming
out for the Appropriations Committee next month, which is an
update on the status of US VISIT, and the way US VISIT is being
developed and deployed. It is going to be in increments and
some of these near-term increments are designed to meet
legislative requirements for deployment of a capability to
certain ports of entry by a certain time.
The initial deployment that has occurred at airports and
seaports does provide for a biweekly download of certain files
from IAFIS to the IDENT component of US VISIT. It is not a
real-time download of information, but it is every 2 weeks.
That is all part of an interim solution approach to US VISIT
that is needed in order to meet these very aggressive
milestones.
They are also in the process of bringing on an integration
contractor and one of the responsibilities of that integration
contractor will be to develop the long-term solution for US
VISIT, which will get into some of these other issues about how
many fingerprints are necessary, and I know they are working
with NIST and the other agencies on that. There was talk about
whether eight fingerprints would be a sufficient standard, and
I think there has been talk that maybe dropping back to two
prints for the intended purpose of US VISIT will be enough. But
there is this dialogue. There are memorandums of understanding
and working groups among all these agencies involved in US
VISIT.
Senator Gregg. Well, I hope you are right. I have the
feeling this is deja vu all over. This committee has been down
this road before 9/11, when we tried to get these various
agencies to talk to each other. As Mr. Fine points out, we
couldn't even get Border Patrol and FBI to talk to each other
when we had them both under our jurisdiction.
There is a real frustration in seeing 44 million
fingerprints sitting over here and setting up a system which is
supposed to fingerprint people coming into the country and
knowing that the ones you are doing as you fingerprint people
coming into the country does not have the capability of
accessing that database. I hope that there is some greater
being up there that is straightening this out, but I don't
really sense it. I haven't seen any reaction that gives me that
impression.
Mr. Hite. We did, in our issued report 6 months ago, we
made a recommendation about having a government-wide governing
structure for US VISIT because it is a government-wide program,
and based on the steps that have been taken in the last 6
months, we have closed out that recommendations as having been
satisfied. They have a three-tiered approach to establishing
this government-wide governance structure.
Senator Gregg. That is good news. I hope it translates into
results. It is always nice to hear that there is movement.
LEGAT PROGRAM
You also, Mr. Fine, have a report coming out, I think, on
the Legat program. I would be interested in just your reaction
to it. It has expanded dramatically with this committee's very
strong support, although sometimes occasional words of caution
from our most senior member, Senator Hollings. But it has been
expanded. It was a priority of the prior Director and has been
proven to be, I think, an invaluable resource in light of what
our present threat is and the changed personality of the FBI
and the international role it has.
But I would be interested in where you see the weaknesses
are and where are the strengths, or aren't you going to be able
to tell us yet?
Mr. Fine. Well, we haven't issued the report, so I don't
want to get into all of it, but I do agree with you that it has
been an important component of the FBI's efforts. With the
globalization of crime, with the increase of international
terrorism, it had to do this and I think it deserves credit for
moving forward in that regard.
I think it is working generally well. I do think there are
some issues, particularly with training of the people who are
going abroad, with language training, with training of them to
pursue their roles in foreign countries immediately. So I think
that is an important issue. But beyond that, I think we should
wait for the report. But I think it is a critical issue that
the FBI has taken on and that we need to follow up on.
Senator Gregg. What about the language issue? The Director
said they have 24 agents who speak Arabic. I think there are 65
who are in the backup who aren't agents who speak Arabic. There
are 250 or something like that as I recall that speak Mandarin.
Not a lot of people. There is a lot of information floating
around for that few people to be on top of.
Mr. Fine. I think that is absolutely right. We do have an
ongoing review of that issue. We have a review of the FBI's
efforts to hire and train linguists, for example, to ensure
that they are able to translate all the information they have.
There are backlogs. There are backlogs of translations. And
when that happens and they have information in the FBI in their
files, in their transcripts that they can't translate, it
undermines their mission. So I think it is a critical issue
that the FBI has to focus on.
I know that the Director is focused on that. It is not
easy. But we are going to review how they can improve their
efforts to be able to translate all that they have and to
expand the pool of agents who have foreign language
capabilities.
LINGUISTS
Senator Gregg. Has GAO looked at this issue of an
overriding centralized translation center capability?
Ms. Ekstrand. We have not. We had reported last June in
terms of the number of linguists hired and they are
substantially the same numbers that Director Mueller just gave.
But we have not had a renewed opportunity to look at that----
Senator Gregg. So you haven't discussed whether we should
have basically a translation capability that is independent of
the Bureau?
Ms. Ekstrand. No, sir, we have not looked at that.
Senator Gregg. Have you looked at that?
Mr. Fine. I think we are sort of involved in the issue, but
I don't think that is the focus of our review, how government-
wide to address this issue.
Senator Gregg. Is there something else this committee
should know about specifically the technology area or the
personnel allocations that would help us as we try to make sure
we have a more effective and aggressive Bureau?
Mr. Fine. I think the committee's efforts in this regard
are very important. It is important to monitor and ensure that
the FBI does upgrade its technology. I think that the FBI
recognizes this. But it is important to point out that even
when Trilogy is online, and it is not clear when it will be
online, I am not completely optimistic that it will happen, the
first two components at the end of April and then a Virtual
Case File, as the Director said, 2 months later.
To have a real operating system that works, that the agents
know about and are trained on and accept is, in my view, going
to take longer than that. But I do think it is important to
focus attention on the fact that Trilogy itself is not the end
of the road. It is only a portion. It is only the foundation.
As one, I think, FBI manager has said, it gets the FBI out of
the ditch and gets them on the road, but it doesn't get them on
the highway. And the FBI needs to sustain its attention on
these efforts because without it, FBI employees can't do the
job that they are assigned to do. It is actually a credit to
them that they have done well with the archaic systems they
have. But we need to give them better systems.
Senator Gregg. Isn't that what the enterprise architecture
should do, give them the road map to getting on the highway?
Mr. Hite. That will be part of the--one variable in the
equation, to that end. I would echo what Mr. Fine said and use
a different metaphor, that Trilogy is the beginning of a long
marathon of systems modernization. It is not a sprint. And in
order to finish a marathon, you have got to be trained and
equipped to finish it. You have got to be ready to finish it.
And being ready means you have the tools at your disposal
to effectively execute a modernization. Enterprise architecture
is one of those tools. Mature investment processes are another.
There is a whole host of things that need to be in place, and
unfortunately, the FBI historically has not been a favorable
poster child for good IT management. Now you have got some
people in place----
Senator Gregg. It has been behind.
Mr. Hite [continuing]. I believe who understand that and
are trying to change that. But changing that is not going to be
an overnight endeavor, so there is going to be hundreds of
millions of dollars to modernize systems. There is going to be
hundreds of millions of dollars going into operating and
maintaining existing systems, and it is not going to change
overnight.
Senator Gregg. Should we have a more disciplined approach
from the appropriations side in funding IT at the FBI so there
is not a peak and a valley approach, or are we approaching it
appropriately as appropriators?
Mr. Fine. It is hard to answer that question, but I do
believe and appreciate the fact that the committee is asking
these questions, is keeping the pressure on the FBI. In my
understanding, it is regularly asking for updates from the FBI
and I think that is important rather than to appropriate the
money and wait to see what happens. So I think the committee's
efforts are instrumental in this regard.
Mr. Hite. There are mechanisms that other subcommittees use
with regard to IT modernization programs like US VISIT. The
CBP's, Custom and Border Protection's, Automated Commercial
Environment, which is an import-export processing system, for
the IRS, what has the Tax Systems Modernization, now the
Business Systems Modernization, where the Appropriations
Committees ask, or actually direct in their appropriation
language that the agency develop each year a plan of
expenditure, how they plan to invest the money, which gets into
what they are going to spend it on, when, and how are they
going to ensure that the money is spent wisely and there is
adequate control surrounding the use of that money.
They require that the expenditure plan be approved by the
head of the Department for that agency, to be approved by OMB,
and to be reviewed by GAO, and then we support the committee in
reviewing it and giving them information to make decisions
about their oversight of the use of that money. I am not
advertising----
Senator Gregg. Is the FBI at the level where it can do
that? I mean, right now, we are just trying to get it up and
running.
Mr. Hite. And so that would be the focus of any plan for
how they are going to invest the funds, to deal with how they
are going to get it up and running, the near-term priorities as
well as setting the groundwork for the long-term disciplined
approach to wholesale systems modernization.
Senator Gregg. I don't think the FBI is the only
organization that needs to be disciplined and systematized. I
think we do, too, as appropriators. So I would be interested in
getting that information. Maybe you could sit down with our
staff and review how that is done in other committees. I am
sure they are probably familiar with it. I think we should have
a systematized approach, also.
I thank you very much. This hearing has been very
informative. I appreciate the work you folks do in keeping
these various agencies on track. It is very constructive and
very much appreciated.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
The next hearing is scheduled for this Thursday. It will be
with the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, at the office in the
Capitol Building at 10 o'clock. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., Tuesday, March 23, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
March 25.]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room S-146, the
Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg, Stevens, Domenici, Hollings, Kohl,
and Byrd.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE
Senator Gregg. First off, we want to thank the Secretary
for coming before the subcommittee today. He certainly had a
hectic schedule, just back from Spain and we very much
appreciate your time, Mr. Secretary, in light of all the
responsibilities you have and especially in light of your
extraordinary travel schedule. You have got to be a little
tired and we appreciate that, but we do thank you for taking
time to come in.
This subcommittee has a lot of involvement obviously in the
State Department. We have tried and we are going to continue to
try to be supportive of the State Department. There are a lot
of issues I know we want to get to so I am going to reserve an
opening statement so we can get your statement and then move to
questions. But I will obviously yield to Senator Hollings for
any statement he wishes to make.
Senator Hollings. I think that is the best approach and I
yield also.
Senator Gregg. Then we will start right out unless, Senator
Byrd, did you want to say anything?
Senator Byrd. I will follow the same standard here.
Secretary Powell. I am almost reluctant to say anything
after that.
Senator Gregg. We came to hear you.
Secretary Powell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Senator
Hollings, and Senator Byrd. I am just back from Madrid. I flew
overnight the night before last, attended a very moving
memorial service for the Spaniards who were killed in the
terrible tragedy of
3/11, had meetings with outgoing Prime Minister Aznar and with
the new incoming Prime Minister, Mr. Zapatero. Although we have
some disagreements with Mr. Zapatero on Iraq and we will work
through that, one thing there is no disagreement on is that the
United States and Spain will be united in this fight against
terrorism. Spain has been fighting terrorism long before 3/11
or 9/11. They have had to face the ETA terrorists, so I am
confident that we will find ways to cooperate in this battle
against terrorism.
It is always a pleasure to appear before this subcommittee.
This is not like the old army story like we are always glad to
see the inspector general. But in this case really it is true
because, Mr. Chairman, you and the members of the committee
have been supportive of what we have been trying to do in the
Department for the last 3 years. I remember during my
transition pre-confirmation period when we talked about some of
the problems that you saw in the Department with respect to
management, with respect to construction of our Embassies and
things of that nature. I have tried in the 3 years I have been
Secretary to be responsive to your concerns.
Before I go further, let me take this opportunity to
especially acknowledge Senator Hollings, since this may well be
the last chance we will have to see each other in this
particular capacity, to thank you for your support, your
prodding, and your friendship for so many years, Dr. Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Thank you. He and I got honorary degrees
at Tuskegee together. That is Dr. Powell.
Senator Gregg. Very appropriate.
Senator Hollings. We had Cappy James and the Air Force down
there. The Tuskegee flyers trained in South Carolina.
Secretary Powell. Tuskegee Airmen.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you
for the opportunity to testify on the State Department's
portion of the President's budget request for fiscal year 2005.
I have a longer statement I would submit for the record, Mr.
Chairman, with your permission.
Senator Gregg. Absolutely.
Secretary Powell. While I know that this subcommittee's
specific oversight deals with that part of the request that
involves State Department operations, I want to give you as
well an overview of what those operations will support in the
way of foreign policy. So let me give you the overall budget
picture first and then touch on foreign operations. Finally I
will deal with the top priorities of our specific funding
request before you.
The 2005 international affairs budget for the Department of
State, USAID, and other foreign affairs agencies totals $31.5
billion broken down as follows, foreign operations $21.3
billion, State operations of principal interest to this
subcommittee, $8.4 billion, Public Law 480, food aid, $1.2
billion, international broadcasting $569 million and the
Institute of Peace $22 million.
President Bush's top foreign policy priority reflected in
this budget is winning the war on terrorism. Winning on the
battlefield with our superb military forces is just one step in
this effort. To eradicate terrorism altogether, the United
States must help create stable governments and nations that
once supported terrorism like Iraq and Afghanistan. I visited
both of those places last week and I hope in the course of our
questioning I can say a word about what I saw.
We must go after terrorist support mechanisms as well as
the terrorists themselves, and we must help alleviate
conditions in the world that enable terrorists to bring in new
recruits. To these ends, the 2005 budget will support our
foreign affairs agencies as they focus on the reconstruction of
Iraq and Afghanistan. We will continue to support our coalition
partners to further our counterterrorism, law enforcement and
intelligence cooperation, and we will continue to expand
democracy and help generate prosperity, especially in the
Middle East.
Forty-eight percent of the President's foreign affairs
budget supports the war on terrorism. For example, $1.2 billion
supports Afghanistan reconstruction, security and democracy
building in 2005. More than $5.7 billion provides assistance to
countries around the world that have joined us in the war on
terrorism. And $3.5 billion indirectly supports our war on
terrorism by strengthening our ability to respond to emergency
and conflict situations. And finally, $190 million is aimed at
expanding democracy in the greater Middle East; crucial if we
are to attack successfully the motivation to terrorism.
Two of the greatest challenges facing us today are the
reconstruction of Iraq and the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
With respect to Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority and
the Iraqi Governing Council, in my judgment have made great
strides in the areas of security, economic stability and
growth, and democratization. Iraqi security forces are now in
the forefront of our security efforts, and you can see that
they are taking casualties as they go about securing their
country for their people.
In addition, the CPA has established a new Iraqi army,
issued a new currency, and refurbished schools, hospitals, the
sanitary infrastructure, working on the oil infrastructure. So
much good work is going on with respect to reconstruction that
it is unfortunate that the continuing security situation we
face tends to drown out or put a black cloud over the good work
that is being done.
But much work remains to be done. Working with our
coalition partners we will continue to train Iraqi police,
border guards, the civil defense corps and the army in order to
ensure the country's security. At the same time, as I noted, we
are going to work on these critical infrastructure needs.
But there is progress taking place. The definitive example
of that progress, on March 8 the Iraqi Governing Council
adopted a transitional administrative law, which is essentially
an interim constitution for Iraq. This was a remarkable
milestone. You will recall that Friday when we thought it was
going to be signed and suddenly there was a signing table, 25
pens and nobody showed up because there was a problem over it.
And over the weekend that problem was solved, through argument,
through debate, through democratic process; something that they
had never had experience with before. But it happened.
This administrative law recognizes freedom of religion and
puts the judiciary on an independent track. It puts the
military firmly under civilian control. It gives women the
access to civil society and the political life of the country.
It is a huge step for the Iraqi people and we should not sell
short what an accomplishment this is.
The U.N. Secretary General's special advisor Mr. Brahimi,
Ambassador Brahimi, has been invited back to Iraq by the
Governing Council in order to work with the Council and the CPA
to put in place a revised interim government that will take
sovereignty from the CPA on the first of July. In my visit with
Ambassador Bremer last week we talked about the transition from
the CPA to a very large State Department chief of mission
operation, a very large Embassy. Already I have four
Ambassadors over there working with Ambassador Bremer and
trying to make this transition as smooth as possible.
Mr. Chairman, Afghanistan is another high priority and I
was there last week. We are committed to helping build a stable
and democratic Afghanistan. They had a very fine constitutional
process at the end of last year where they adopted a
constitution for this country that just a few years ago was a
basket case, a despotic basket case. Now it has a constitution,
and as you saw in press reporting this morning, President
Karzai has scheduled elections for early September for both a
new president as well as for a legislature.
Still there are problems along the Afghan-Pakistan border,
still problems out in Herat but as I drove through Kabul last
week you could see buildings going up, you could see women who
felt secure enough in their life now to remove the burkha;
about 50 percent covered and 50 percent not covered. I visited
a registration place in a school where women were registering
to vote, filling out the forms, stepping forward, getting their
registration card and proudly showing it to me that they are
now part of the life of the new Afghanistan. So we have
accomplished a lot in Afghanistan, but here too there is much
more work to do.
I was watching some footage yesterday that we are going to
use at the Donors' Conference next week that shows some of our
reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, and one shot on this
video is of the new blacktop road, complete with markers that
goes from Kabul to Kandahar. We will continue that road around
to Herat, in working with our Saudi partners, our Japanese
partners, and provide a beltway for this country. But it is
more than just a beltway. It is a road that will link the
country together, give the central government the ability to
control the regions a little more effectively. It will
contribute to the economic life of the country. But more
importantly, it will also link Afghanistan with the other
nations of central Asia.
Pakistan is looking at this and is starting to readjust its
infrastructure, its port activities, to take into account that
there will be peace in this part of the world as we go into the
years ahead. The old silk route of 2,000 years ago is going to
be recreated, except this time it will be with hard roads and
ports, with an information infrastructure, and hope eventually
with pipelines that criss-cross this area and move oil and
natural gas from central Asia to the east and not just to the
west.
So the opportunities here are enormous. We have to deal
with security. We have got to get rid of those remaining
Taliban and al Qaeda elements. But we should not sell short not
only our accomplishments of the last couple of years, but the
potential that lies ahead for a region, the Caucuses, central
Asia, south Asia all being linked in a new hub of
transportation and trade as long as we can keep the peace and
security, and that is what we are committed to.
The 2005 budget, as I said, includes $1.2 billion in
assistance for Afghanistan, which is on top of the $2.2 billion
in 2004; $1.2 billion already out there and I will make a
public announcement of the other $1 billion at the Afghan
Donors' Conference in Berlin next week.
As important as waging the war on terrorism is to America,
we have other priorities in our foreign affairs budget; HIV/
AIDS, 8,000 people a day are dying of this terrible disease. It
is extremely difficult to make economic improvements in a
country if you are not working on these kinds of problems, and
the President is with his HIV/AIDS program. Over the past year
we have worked with Congress to pass legislation laying the
groundwork for this fight.
In marking our progress, earlier this month, Ambassador
Tobias who heads the program for us, Secretary Thompson,
Administrator Natsios of AID, and I rolled out the strategy for
the HIV/AIDS plan and announced the first dispensation of
dollars for these programs; $350 million in contracts will roll
out to some of the NGOs and PDOs. As a crucial next step, the
2005 budget request expands on the President's plan with $2.8
billion to combat AIDS in the most affected countries in Africa
and the Caribbean. Together, the Department of State, USAID,
and the Department of Health and Human Services, will use the
significantly increased resources quickly and effectively to
achieve the President's ambitious goals in the fight against
global AIDS.
Just as a digression, we are also seeing polio back in
certain parts of Africa, and this has to be part of our health
efforts as well, coming out of the Department of State and
coming out of USAID.
Of course, there are other dimensions of economic success
in Africa, and the program that we are pushing forward and you
know a great deal about, the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
The corporation has now been formed. I am the chairman of the
board. We have sent a nominee to the Senate to be the CEO of
this board, Mr. Paul Applegarth. The Millennium Challenge
Corporation will fund infrastructure and other similar
proposals to those countries that are committed to democracy,
the free enterprise system, individual rights of men and women,
the rule of law, and the end of corruption. We have other
foreign assistance accounts, but the millennium challenge
account will invest in those countries that are moving in the
right direction.
Let me turn now, gentlemen, to the part of the budget
request that is of particular interest to you, State
operations. As you recall, we created the diplomatic readiness
initiative in 2002 to address staffing and training gaps that
had become very averse to the conduct of America's diplomacy.
The goal of the diplomatic readiness initiative was to hire
1,158 new foreign and civil service employees over a 3-year
period. These new hires, the first over-attrition hires in
years, would allow us to provide training opportunities for our
people and greatly improve the Department's ability to respond
to crises, to ramp up when we needed to, such as we have had to
do in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I cannot say strong enough what a dynamic impact this
program has had on the Department. The Department sees that its
leadership, but more importantly its leadership in Congress
cares about the Department. Your are willing to invest in the
readiness of our people, bring in new people. I got a report
from the Under Secretary for Management yesterday that close to
30,000 people have already signed up for the next giving of the
foreign service exam. We have been averaging 50,000 people a
year for the last 2 years wanting to become part of this new
team, which I think has been energized by the support we have
been receiving from the Congress and for that I am very
appreciative.
We also created new mandatory leadership and management
training. It is great for our people to learn how to speak
different languages and learn all about foreign policy and to
be experts and write papers. But they also have to be able to
lead and manage people in these very, very complicated missions
that we have around the world. So beginning from the first day
that you come into the foreign service and go to the junior
officers' course, the entry level course, you will receive
leadership and management training and will continue throughout
your whole career. If this bears a marked similarity to the way
they do it in the military, it is not coincidental or
accidental. We are essentially adopting what I learned in the
military and bringing it over to the foreign service and to the
civil service. We are giving leadership training to our senior
civil service employees as well.
The other thing I am very proud of, of course, is the
information technology investment that we have made with your
support. It has paid off. Every desk in the State Department,
everywhere in the State Department now has an Internet capable
computer sitting there. We did it in-house for the most part.
Senator Gregg. And it worked.
Secretary Powell. It works.
Senator Gregg. Not like some of our other agencies.
Secretary Powell. Frankly, we looked outside and then we
decided, we can do this ourselves. You may recall, gentlemen,
that you had a real problem with the way we were running our
Diplomatic Telecommunications Service for years, and Mr. Tenet
and I sat down and said, let us figure out who can deliver the
capacity best, and we solved that. Mr. Tenet provides the
capacity, and the person working for Mr. Tenet to do that also
works for me. So we have a good deal and it is working. Our
capacity has increased, the cost has gone down considerably,
and everybody is happy. Therefore, I can put broadband
capability in every mission around the world.
Just a little war story on how this works, as you know,
part of our effort to reach out to the Congress was to create a
State Department office up here to respond to Members of
Congress. I was able to get an office in the House. I do not
want to point any fingers but I have not yet been able to get a
room on the Senate side. Be that as it may, 30 percent of the
work of my House office comes from the Senate side. I was in
there the other day waiting for a hearing to begin and just
talking to my folks who work there. There are three people in
there. I said, what kind of requests are you getting?
Constituent requests, visa problems, all this, hundreds and
hundreds--the volume is going up 300 percent in the last year.
I said, give me an example of how you solve a problem that
a Member of Congress brings to you. They said visa problems are
common ones. Somebody will come in and say, why didn't a friend
of mine get a visa when they applied in New Delhi or Mumbai or
somewhere like that? I said, how do you handle that? Do you go
to the Department and ask Consular Affairs? They said, no, we
go right to the Embassy. How do you go right to the Embassy?
Information technology. I said, show me. Sandra Shipshock, the
officer who was working in the office, went to her computer and
in 10 seconds she had not only gotten to the Embassy, she got
into the Embassy's consular section data base. And in less than
20 seconds she had pulled up the specific visa application with
a picture of the individual who had applied for the visa and
why the visa was denied.
This data base is all secure. We have firewalls. Not
anybody can just go in like you are going to Google. But the
fact of the matter is that the kind of information technology
system we have put in place allows us to provide that kind of
service, not only to Members of Congress but to the public.
In that same vein, now that we have this information
technology system coming along, we have to change the way we do
business. We cannot just be an information system without a
change in the process and the thinking of the Department. That
is what our SMART Project is all about that we are asking for
your support. We want to get rid of cables. Get rid of the way
we used to do it in World War II. My staff gave me a chart the
other day and it was recognizing that the last Wang computer
left the Department 3 months ago. I am pleased to hear that. It
should have left 10 years ago. But we are now in the
information age and I ask for your support for our SMART
program so that we can change the thinking in the Department as
well as just put new computers and software into place.
Mr. Chairman, the Department has the responsibility to
protect more than 60,000 Government employees who work in
Embassies and consulates abroad. I know how interested you have
been in this program over the years. You know that we have
reorganized our efforts. We reorganized the Office of Overseas
Building Operations to manage the effort with speed, efficiency
and effectiveness under the leadership of General Chuck
Williams. At the beginning of this administration we were
building one new secure Embassy a year. Today we are building
10 new secure Embassy compounds a year. Many of these compounds
also have separate facilities for USAID. They are also
deserving of protection.
Moreover, we have reduced the Embassy's program cost by 20
percent using modern management techniques, using common
components among our Embassy projects. Within the budget we are
watching a plan to replace the remaining 150 Embassies and
consulates that do not meet current security standards over the
next 14 years for a total cost of $17 billion.
To fund construction of these compounds we will begin the
capital security cost-sharing program in 2005. Not everybody is
crazy with this cost-sharing program, but it has to be done and
I am working with my Cabinet colleagues on it. Each agency with
staff overseas will contribute annually toward construction of
new facilities based on the number of positions that that
Department or agency wants in the type of space that we are
preparing for them. We arrived at the cost shares in the 2005
President's budget request in consultation with each agency and
Department.
Along with securing our facilities we have focused on
assuring that overseas staffing is deployed where they are
mostly needed to serve U.S. interest. As agencies assess the
real cost of maintaining staff overseas I hope they will adjust
their overseas staffing levels to the minimum absolutely
necessary since they will now have to contribute to the cost of
maintaining them overseas.
Our budget request also, I might say, touches on physical
security improvements to those soft targets in our missions,
schools, recreational facilities. You know that we have an
extensive plan to go after the soft targeting possibility,
providing physical security improvements to overseas schools
attended by dependents of Government employees and other
citizens. Our 2005 request includes $27 million for this
effort, including $10 million for the schools, $5 million to
improve security at employee association facilities, and $12
million for residential security upgrades. Protection of
Americans living and working overseas is one of our highest
priorities.
We also appreciate the ongoing support from this committee
for our peacekeeping budget. U.N. peacekeeping operations in
troubled and fragile regions have been and remain critical to
ensuring that such places are given stability and the time they
need to work on long-term solutions to their underlying
conflicts and problems. UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone and UNMISET in
East Timor have been effective in helping new governments to
establish themselves. We are also supporting peacekeeping
missions in Liberia and Ivory Coast, and I would just ask for
your continued support.
I am going to have difficulty meeting all of the
peacekeeping financial responsibilities that I expect to arise
over the next year, but the 2005 submission is certainly a good
start on meeting those responsibilities. We will just have to
see how the cost flows out in the course of the fiscal year.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, Senator Byrd, thank you for
this opportunity to present our case. I thank you for your past
support and I will thank you in advance for your future
support.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colin L. Powell
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the State Department's portion of the
President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2005. While I know that your
specific oversight is of the State Department operations portion of
that budget request, I want to give you as well an overview of what
those operations will support in the way of foreign policy. So let me
give you the overall budget picture first and, then, touch on foreign
operations. Finally, I will deal with highlights of our funding request
for State Department operations.
The President's fiscal year 2005 International Affairs Budget for
the Department of State, USAID, and other foreign affairs agencies
totals $31.5 billion, broken down as follows: Foreign Operations--$21.3
billion; State Operations--$8.4 billion; Public Law 480 Food Aid--$1.2
billion; International Broadcasting--$569 million; and U.S. Institute
of Peace--$22 million.
Mr. Chairman, the President's top foreign policy priority is
winning the war on terrorism. Forty-eight percent of the President's
budget for foreign affairs directly supports that priority by assisting
our allies and strengthening the United States' diplomatic posture. For
example: $1.2 billion supports Afghanistan reconstruction, security and
democracy building, and more than $5.7 billion is provided for
assistance to countries around the world that have joined us in the war
on terrorism, and $3.5 billion indirectly supports the war on terrorism
by strengthening our ability to respond to emergencies and conflict
situations. Moreover, $190 million is aimed at expanding democracy in
the Greater Middle East, in part to help alleviate the conditions that
spawn terrorists.
In addition, $5.3 billion is targeted for the President's bold
initiatives to fight HIV/AIDS and create the Millennium Challenge
Corporation, both of which will support stability and improve the
quality of life for the world's poor--and, again, help to relieve
conditions that cause resentment and despair.
Mr. Chairman, let me elaborate a bit on how some of these dollars
will be spent.
WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM
Winning on the battlefield with our superb military forces is just
one step in defeating terrorism. To eradicate terrorism, the United
States must help create stable governments in nations that once
supported terrorism, go after terrorist support mechanisms as well as
the terrorists themselves, and help alleviate conditions in the world
that enable terrorists to bring in new recruits. To this end, in fiscal
year 2005 the State Department and USAID will continue to focus on the
reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, support our coalition partners
to further our counterterrorism, law enforcement and intelligence
cooperation, and expand democracy and help generate prosperity,
especially in the Middle East.
Building a Free and Prosperous Iraq
The United States faces one of its greatest challenges in
developing a secure, free and prosperous Iraq. The USG is contributing
almost $21 billion in reconstruction funds and humanitarian assistance
to this effort. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are
expected to provide another $4 to 8 billion in loans and grants over
the next three years. These resources, coupled with the growing
assistance of international donors, will ease the transition from
dictatorship to democracy and lay the foundation for a market economy
and a political system that respects human rights and represents the
voices of all Iraqis.
The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the Iraqi Governing
Council (IGC) have made great strides in the areas of security,
economic stability and growth, and democratization. Iraqi security
forces now comprise more than half of the total security forces in the
country. In addition, the CPA has established a New Iraqi Army, issued
a new currency and refurbished and equipped schools and hospitals. And,
as you know, the CPA is taking steps to help the Iraqis form a fully
sovereign government this summer.
Much work remains to be done. Working with our coalition partners,
we will continue to train Iraqi police, border guards, the Civil
Defense Corps and the Army in order to ensure the country's security as
we effect a timely transition to democratic self-governance and a
stable future.
At the same time, we are helping provide critical infrastructure,
including clean water, electricity and reliable telecommunications
systems which are essential for meeting basic human needs as well as
for economic and democratic development. Thousands of brave Americans,
in uniform and in mufti, are in Iraq now working tirelessly to help
Iraqis succeed in this historic effort. Alongside their military
colleagues, USAID, State Department and the Departments of the Treasury
and Commerce are working to implement infrastructure, democracy
building, education, health and economic development programs. These
efforts are producing real progress in Iraq.
As a definitive example of this progress, on March 8, the IGC
formally signed the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL)--essentially
an interim constitution for Iraq. This was a remarkable milestone. The
TAL recognizes freedom of religion and expression, the right to
assemble and to organize political parties, and other fundamentally
democratic principles, as well as prohibiting discrimination based on
gender, nationality or religion. This is a huge step for the people of
Iraq and for the region--a step toward constitutional democracy. It is
a step that just a year ago, Iraqis would not have imagined possible.
The U.N. Secretary General's Special Advisor, Lakhdar Brahimi, was
invited back to Iraq by the IGC last week. He will help the Iraqis to
determine what sort of transitional Iraqi government will be developed
and to prepare for elections at the end of this year or early in the
next. Creating a democratic government in Iraq will be an enormous
challenge. But Ambassador Bremer, working with the Iraq Governing
Council and with the United Nations and our coalition partners, is
committed to success. And when the CPA, funded and directed by the
Department of Defense, goes out of business on June 30 and the State
Department assumes the lead role in representing and managing U.S.
interests in Iraq, we will carry on that commitment. We are already
thoroughly involved. I was just in Baghdad last week meeting with
Ambassador Bremer, members of the IGC, and talking to some of our
troops. I know how thoroughly involved we are. And we will all succeed.
Winning the Peace in Afghanistan
Mr. Chairman, Afghanistan is another high priority for this
Administration. The United States is committed to helping build a
stable and democratic Afghanistan that is free from terror and no
longer harbors threats to our security. After we and our coalition
partners defeated the Taliban government, we faced the daunting task of
helping the Afghan people rebuild their country. We have demonstrated
our commitment to this effort by providing over $3.7 billion in
economic and security assistance to Afghanistan since 2001.
Through our assistance and the assistance of the international
community, the government of Afghanistan is successfully navigating the
transition that began in October 2001. Afghanistan adopted a
constitution earlier this year and is preparing for democratic national
elections this summer. With technical assistance from the United
States, Afghanistan successfully introduced a new stable currency in
October 2002 and is working to improve revenue collection in the
provinces. The lives of women and girls are improving as women pursue
economic and political opportunities and girls return to school. Since
2001, the United States has rehabilitated 205 schools and 140 health
clinics and trained fifteen battalions of the Afghan National Army
(ANA). Also, President Bush's commitment to de-mine and repave the
entire stretch of the Kabul-Kandahar highway was fulfilled. The road
had not been functional for over 20 years. What was once a 30-hour
journey can now be accomplished in 5 or 6 hours.
While the Afghanistan of today is very different from the
Afghanistan of September 2001, there is still much left to accomplish.
In the near-term, the United States will assist the government of
Afghanistan in its preparations for elections this summer to ensure
that they are free and fair. To demonstrate tangible benefits to the
Afghan people, we will continue to implement assistance on an
accelerated basis. The fiscal year 2005 Budget contains $1.2 billion in
assistance for Afghanistan that will be focused on education, health,
infrastructure, and assistance to the ANA, including drawdown authority
and Department of Defense ``train and equip''. For example, U.S.
assistance efforts will concentrate on rehabilitation and construction
of an additional 275 schools and 150 health clinics by June 2004, and
complete equipping of the fifteen army battalions. The United States
will also extend the Kabul-Kandahar road to Herat so that people and
commerce will be linked East and West across Afghanistan with a ground
transportation link between three of the largest cities.
Last week, when I was in Kabul to meet with President Karzai and
his team, I had the chance to visit a voter registration site. I saw
how far Afghanistan has progressed, in only two years, along the path
to constitutional democracy. I saw also clear evidence of the Afghan
people's commitment to continue on that path despite the many
challenges ahead. I met 9 or 10 women at the site and they knew what
was at stake in their country. They were eager for the free and fair
elections called for in the Bonn Agreement and I assured them that
America was solidly behind them. I told them that as long as they are
committed to building a new, democratic Afghanistan, we will stand
shoulder to shoulder with them.
Support for Our Coalition Partners
As part of the war on terrorism, President Bush established a clear
policy to work with other nations to meet the challenges of defeating
terror networks with global reach. This commitment extends to the
front-line states that have joined us in the war on terrorism and to
those nations that are key to successful transitions to democracy in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our assistance enables countries cooperating closely with the
United States to prevent future attacks, improve counter-terrorism
capabilities and tighten border controls. As I indicated earlier, the
fiscal year 2005 Budget for International Affairs provides more than
$5.7 billion for assistance to countries around the world that have
joined us in the war on terrorism, including Turkey, Jordan,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and the Philippines.
U.S. assistance has also resulted in unparalleled law enforcement
and intelligence cooperation that has destroyed terrorist cells,
disrupted terrorist operations and prevented attacks. There are many
counterterrorism successes in cooperating countries and international
organizations. For example:
--Pakistan has apprehended more than 500 al Qaeda terrorists and
members of the Taliban through the leadership of President
Musharraf, stronger border security measures and law
enforcement cooperation throughout the country. I talked with
President Musharraf when I was in Islamabad last week. As you
know, his military forces were over the weekend hotly engaged
with Taliban and al Qaida fighters in the border areas. More of
the terrorists were being killed or captured. Fighting will
likely continue.
--Jordan continues its strong counterterrorism efforts, including
arresting two individuals with links to al Qaeda who admitted
responsibility for the October 2002 murder of USAID Foreign
Service officer Lawrence Foley in Amman.
--The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has endorsed an ambitious
transformation agenda designed to enhance its capabilities by
increasing deployment speed and agility to address new threats
of terrorism.
--Colombia has developed a democratic security strategy as a
blueprint for waging a unified, aggressive counterterror-
counternarcotics campaign against designated foreign terrorist
organizations and other illegal, armed groups.
The United States and its Southeast Asian allies and friends have
made significant advances against the regional terrorist organization
Jemaah Islamiyah which was responsible for the Bali attack in 2002 that
killed more than 200 people. In early August 2003, an Indonesian court
convicted and sentenced to death a key figure in that bombing.
Since September 11, 2001, 173 countries have issued orders to
freeze the assets of terrorists. As a result, terror networks have lost
access to nearly $200 million in more than 1,400 terrorist-related
accounts around the world. The World Bank, International Monetary Fund
and other multilateral development banks have also played an important
role in this fight by strengthening international defenses against
terrorist finance.
While progress has been made attacking terrorist organizations both
globally and regionally, much work remains to be done. The fiscal year
2005 President's Budget strengthens our financial commitment to our
coalition partners to wage the global war on terror. Highlights of the
President's request include $700 million for Pakistan to help advance
security and economic opportunity for Pakistan's citizens, including a
multi-year educational support program; $461 million for Jordan to
increase economic opportunities for Jordanian communities and
strengthen Jordan's ability to secure its borders; and $577 million for
Colombia to support President Uribe's unified campaign against drugs
and terrorism.
In September 2003, at the United Nations, President Bush said:
``All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against
civilization. No government should ignore the threat of terror, because
to look the other way gives terrorists the chance to regroup and
recruit and prepare. And all nations that fight terror, as if the lives
of their own people depend on it, will earn the favorable judgment of
history.'' We are helping countries to that judgment.
Mr. Chairman, one of the aspects of the War on Terrorism that gives
us a particular sense of urgency is proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. These terrible weapons are becoming easier to acquire,
build, hide, and transport.
On February 11, President Bush spoke at the National Defense
University (NDU) and outlined the Administration's approach to this
growing danger. The President described how we have worked for years to
uncover one particular nefarious network--that of A.Q. Khan.
Men and women of our own and other intelligence services have done
superb and often very dangerous work to disclose these operations to
the light of day. Now, we and our friends and allies are working around
the clock to get all the details of this network and to shut it down,
permanently.
We know that this network fed nuclear technology to Libya, Iran,
and North Korea.
At NDU, President Bush proposed seven measures to strengthen the
world's efforts to prevent the spread of WMD:
--Expand the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to address more
than shipments and transfers; even to take direct action
against proliferation networks.
--Call on all nations to strengthen the laws and international
controls that govern proliferation, including passing the UNSCR
requiring all states to criminalize proliferation, enact strict
export controls, and secure sensitive materials.
--Expand our efforts to keep Cold War weapons and other dangerous
materials out of the hands of terrorists--efforts such as those
accomplished under Nunn-Lugar.
--Close the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that
allows states such as Iran to produce nuclear material that can
be used to build bombs under the cover of civilian nuclear
programs.
--Univeralize the IAEA Additional Protocol.
--Create a special committee on the IAEA Board of Governors to focus
on safeguards and verification.
--And, finally, disallow countries under investigation for violating
nuclear nonproliferation treaties from serving on the IAEA
Board of Governors.
As the President said at NDU, the nexus of terrorists and WMD is a
new and unique threat. It comes not with ships and fighters and tanks
and divisions, but clandestinely, in the dark of the night. But the
consequences are devastating. No President can afford to ignore such a
threat. And President Bush will not ignore it.
Expansion of Democracy in the Middle East
We believe that expanding democracy in the Middle East is critical
to eradicating international terrorism. But in many nations of the
Middle East, democracy is at best an unwelcome guest and at worst a
total stranger. The United States continues to increase its diplomatic
and assistance activities in the Middle East to promote democratic
voices--focusing particularly on women--in the political process,
support increased accountability in government, assist local efforts to
strengthen respect for the rule of law, assist independent media, and
invest in the next generation of leaders.
As the President emphasized in his speech last November at the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), reform in the Middle East is of
vital importance to the future of peace and stability in that region as
well as to the national security of the United States. As long as
freedom and democracy do not flourish in the Middle East, resentment
and despair will continue to grow--and the region will serve as an
exporter of violence and terror to free nations. For the United States,
promoting democracy and freedom in the Middle East is a difficult, yet
essential calling.
There are promising developments upon which to build. The
government of Jordan, for example, is committed to accelerating reform.
Results include free and fair elections, three women holding Cabinet
Minister positions for the first time in Jordan's history, and major
investments in education. Positive developments also can be found in
Morocco, which held parliamentary elections last year that were
acclaimed as free, fair and transparent.
In April 2003, the Administration launched the Middle East
Partnership Initiative (MEPI), an intensive inter-agency effort to
support political and education reform and economic development in the
region. The President continues his commitment by providing $150
million in fiscal year 2005 for these efforts.
To enhance this USG effort with a key NGO, the President has
doubled the NED budget to $80 million specifically to create a Greater
Middle East Leadership and Democracy Initiative. NED is a leader in
efforts to strengthen democracy and tolerance around the world through
its work with civil society. We want that work to flourish.
As President Bush said in his November speech at NED: ``The United
States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the
Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and
idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As
in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of
freedom leads to peace.''
Public Diplomacy in the Middle East
And the advance of freedom is aided decisively by the words of
freedom.
Democracy flourishes with freedom of information and exposure to
diverse ideas. The President's fiscal year 2005 Budget promotes
expansion of democracy in the Middle East by providing public access to
information through exchange programs and the Middle East Television
Network.
New public diplomacy efforts including the Partnerships for
Learning (P4L) and Youth Exchange and Study (YES) initiatives have been
created to reach a younger and more diverse audience through academic
and professional exchange programs. In fiscal year 2005, the P4L and
the YES programs, funded at $61 million, will focus more on youth of
the Muslim world, specifically targeting non-traditional, non-elite,
often female and non-English speaking youth.
U.S. broadcasting initiatives in the Middle East encourage the
development of a free press in the American tradition and provide
Middle Eastern viewers and listeners access to a variety of ideas. The
United States revamped its Arabic radio broadcasts in 2002 with the
introduction of Radio Sawa, which broadcasts to the region twenty-four
hours a day. As a result, audience size for our Arabic broadcasting
increased from under 2 percent in 2001 to over 30 percent in 2003.
Based on this successful model, the United States introduced Radio
Farda to broadcast to Iran around the clock. Building on this success,
the fiscal year 2005 President's Budget Request provides over $70
million for Arabic and Persian radio and television broadcasts to the
Middle East. Last month, the United States launched the Middle East
Television Network, an Arabic language satellite network that will have
the capability of reaching millions of viewers and will provide a means
for Middle Easterners to better understand democracy and free market
policies, as well as the United States and its people. This network
kicked off on February 14 with nine hours per day of broadcasting.
Today, the broadcasting is 24/7. The network--Al-Hurra, or ``the Free
One''--reaches 22 countries, including Iraq. President Bush has already
appeared on the network and I did an interview several weeks ago.
OUR NEW APPROACH TO GLOBAL PROSPERITY
President Bush's approach to global economic growth emphasizes
proven American values: governing justly, investing in people, and
encouraging economic freedom. President Bush has pledged to increase
economic engagement with and support for countries that commit to these
goals through an ambitious trade agenda and new approaches to
development assistance focusing on country performance and measurable
results.
The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA)
In February of 2003, we sent the Congress a budget request for the
MCA and legislation to authorize the creation of the Millennium
Challenge Corporation (MCC), the agency designed to support innovative
development strategies and to ensure accountability for results.
The MCC will fund only proposals for grants that have clear,
measurable objectives, a sound financial plan and indicators for
assessing progress.
The Congress appropriated $1 billion for MCA for fiscal year 2004.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request of $2.5 billion makes a significant
second year increase to the MCA and paves the way to reaching the
President's commitment of $5 billion in fiscal year 2006.
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)
President Bush recognizes that the fastest, surest way to move from
poverty to prosperity is through expanded and freer trade. America and
the world benefit from free trade. For this reason, one of his first
actions upon taking office in 2001 was to seek TPA, allowing him to
negotiate market-opening agreements with other countries. The President
aims to continue vigorously to pursue his free trade agenda in order to
lift developing countries out of poverty, while creating high-paying
job opportunities for America's workers, businesses, farmers and
ranchers and benefiting all Americans through lower prices and wider
choices. As the President said in April, 2001 at the Organization of
American States: ``Open trade fuels the engines of economic growth that
creates new jobs and new income. It applies the power of markets to the
needs of the poor. It spurs the process of economic and legal reform.
It helps dismantle protectionist bureaucracies that stifle incentive
and invite corruption. And open trade reinforces the habits of liberty
that sustain democracy over the long term.''
Since receiving TPA in 2002, the President has made good on his
promise, completing free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore,
which were quickly approved by Congress and went into effect on January
1. We have recently completed negotiations with five Central American
countries on the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and our
work to bring the Dominican Republic (DR) into that agreement concluded
successfully on March 14 with the signing of an FTA with that country.
Now, the DR can join CAFTA. In February, we announced the conclusion of
an agreement with Australia. More recently, negotiations have been
completed with Morocco and an agreement announced, and negotiations are
ongoing with the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), Bahrain, and on
the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). We are concluding
comprehensive agreements that include market access for goods and
services, strong intellectual property and investment provisions, and
include commitments for strong environmental and labor protections by
our partners. These arrangements benefit Americans and our trading
partners.
Building on this significant progress, the President intends to
launch free trade negotiations with Thailand, Panama, and the Andean
countries of Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru. The President has
also stated his vision for a Middle East Free Trade Area by 2013, to
ignite economic growth and expand opportunity in this critical region.
Finally, the President is committed to wrapping up successfully the
World Trade Organization's Doha agenda. The United States has taken the
lead in re-energizing these negotiations following the Cancun
Ministerial.
CARING FOR THE WORLD'S MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
When President Bush took office in January 2001, the HIV/AIDS
pandemic was at an all time high, with the estimated number of adults
and children living with HIV/AIDS globally at 37 million, with 68
percent of those individuals living in sub-Saharan Africa. From fiscal
years 1993 to 2001 the total U.S. Government global AIDS budget was
about $1.9 billion. As part of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the
President proposed $2 billion in fiscal year 2004 as the first
installment of a five-year, $15 billion initiative, surpassing nine
years of funding in a single year. The President's Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief represents the single largest international public health
initiative ever attempted to defeat a disease. The President's Plan
targets an unprecedented level of assistance to the 14 most afflicted
countries in Africa and the Caribbean to wage and win the war against
HIV/AIDS. In addition, programs will continue in 75 other countries.
By 2008, we believe the President's Plan will prevent seven million
new infections, treat two million HIV-infected people, and care for 10
million HIV-infected individuals and those orphaned by AIDS in
Botswana, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique,
Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.
Announced during President Bush's State of the Union address on
January 28, 2003, the Emergency Plan provides $15 billion over five
years for those countries hardest hit by the pandemic, including $1
billion for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
The fiscal year 2005 Budget provides $2.8 billion from State, USAID,
and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to combat global
AIDS, more than tripling funding for international HIV/AIDS since the
President took office.
Over the past year, we have worked with the Congress to pass
legislation laying the groundwork for this effort and to appoint a
senior official at the State Department to coordinate all U.S.
Government international HIV/AIDS activities. Ambassador Randall Tobias
has been confirmed by Congress and has now taken steps to assure
immediate relief to the selected countries.
Earlier this month, Ambassador Tobias, Secretary Thompson, USAID
Administrator Andrew Natsios, and I rolled out the strategy for this
plan and announced the first dispensation of dollars--$350 million in
contracts to some of the NGOs and PVOs who will be carrying out the
fight at the grass-roots level. It was a thrilling moment, I can assure
you.
As a crucial next step, the fiscal year 2005 Budget Request expands
on the Emergency Plan. By working together as a highly collaborative
team, and placing primary ownership of these efforts in the hands of
the countries that we are helping--just as you will recall the Marshall
Plan did so successfully in post-WWII Europe--the Department of State,
USAID and HHS can use significantly increased resources quickly and
effectively to achieve the President's ambitious goals in the fight
against global AIDS.
Mr. Chairman, President Bush summed it up this way in April of last
year, ``There are only two possible responses to suffering on this
scale. We can turn our eyes away in resignation and despair, or we can
take decisive, historic action to turn the tide against this disease
and give the hope of life to millions who need our help now. The United
States of America chooses the path of action and the path of hope.''
These dollars put us squarely on that path.
Emergency Humanitarian Assistance--Helping Others in Need
The President's Budget Request reflects a continued commitment to
humanitarian assistance. The request maintains U.S. leadership in
providing food and non-food assistance to refugees, internally
displaced persons, and other vulnerable people in all corners of the
world. In addition, the budget reflects the findings of the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) evaluations completed for the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and for USAID's Public Law 480
Title II international food assistance, which confirmed a clear purpose
for these programs.
In 2003, the Administration provided funding to several
international and non-governmental organizations to assist nearly
200,000 Angolan refugees and internally displaced persons return home
after decades of civil war.
In an Ethiopia enveloped by drought, the Administration led
international efforts to prevent widespread famine among 13 million
vulnerable people, providing over one million metric tons of emergency
food aid (valued at nearly half a billion dollars) to the World Food
Program and NGOs, funding immunizations for weakened children, and
supplying emergency seeds to farmers.
In Sudan, the Administration worked with the United Nations and the
Government of Sudan so that vital assistance could be delivered to the
Sudanese people. This year the United States will provide about $210
million in vital assistance to the people in the south, including
approximately 125,000 metric tons (valued at nearly $115 million) in
food aid, as well as non-food assistance, such as sanitation and water.
We anticipate that a comprehensive peace agreement in Sudan will allow
us to expand significantly our development assistance to help the
Sudanese people in effecting a long-awaited recovery following decades
of civil war. The fiscal year 2005 Budget includes $436 million in
humanitarian and development, economic, and security assistance
funding, much of which will be contingent upon a peace settlement
between the government and the south.
The fiscal year 2005 Budget ensures that the Administration can
continue to respond quickly and appropriately to victims of conflict
and natural disasters and to help those in greatest need of food,
shelter, health care and other essential assistance, including those in
areas starting to recover from conflict and war, such as Liberia. In
particular, the budget requests funding for a flexible account to give
the President the ability to respond to unforeseen emergency needs, the
Emergency Fund for Complex Foreign Crises, funded at $100 million.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me turn to the State Department operations
portion of the President's Budget Request which, as you will recall,
totals $8.4 billion.
KEEPING AMERICANS SAFE AT HOME AND ABROAD
The State Department has the responsibility to protect more than
60,000 U.S. Government employees who work in embassies and consulates
abroad. Since the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa,
the State Department has improved physical security overseas; however,
as many of you are well aware, many posts are still not secure enough
to withstand terrorist attacks and other dangers. To correct this
problem, in 1999, the State Department launched a security upgrade and
construction program to begin to address requirements in our more than
260 embassies and consulates.
Capital Security Cost Sharing Program
Working with the Congress, President Bush has accelerated the pace
of improving and building new secure facilities. Moreover, we have
reorganized the Overseas Buildings Office to manage the effort with
speed, efficiency, and effectiveness. Within the budget, we are
launching a plan to replace the remaining 150 embassies and consulates
that do not meet current security standards over the next 14 years, for
a total cost of $17.5 billion. To fund construction of these new
embassy compounds, we will begin the Capital Security Cost Sharing
(CSCS) Program in fiscal year 2005. We will implement this program in
phases over the next five years.
Each agency with staff overseas will contribute annually towards
construction of the new facilities based on the number of positions and
the type of space they occupy. We arrived at the cost shares in the
fiscal year 2005 President's Budget Request in consultations with each
agency and the State Department's Overseas Buildings Office.
CSCS is also a major component of the President's Management Agenda
Initiative on Rightsizing. Along with securing facilities, we have
focused on assuring that overseas staffing is deployed where they are
most needed to serve U.S. interests. As agencies assess the real cost
of maintaining staff overseas, they will adjust their overseas staffing
levels. In this way, new embassies will be built to suit appropriate
staffing levels. The program is already producing rightsizing results.
Agencies are taking steps to eliminate unfilled positions from their
books to reduce any unnecessary CSCS charges, which in turn is leading
to smaller embassy construction requirements.
Border Security
Prior to September 11, 2001, the State Department's consular
officers focused primarily on screening applicants based on whether
they intended to work or reside legally in the United States. In
deciding who should receive a visa, consular officers relied on State
Department information systems as the primary basis for identifying
potential terrorists. The State Department gave overseas consular
officers the discretion to determine the level of scrutiny that should
be applied to visa applications and encouraged the streamlining of
procedures.
Today, Consular Affairs at the State Department, working with both
Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services at the Department of Homeland Security, are
cooperating to achieve our goals more effectively by sharing
information and integrating information systems.
The Department of State has invested substantial time, money, and
effort in revamping its visa and passport process as well as its
provision of American Citizen Services. The Department has more than
doubled its database holdings on individuals who should not be issued
visas, increased training for all consular officers, established
special programs to vet applications more comprehensively, increased
the number of skilled, American staff working in consular sections
overseas, and improved data-sharing among agencies. The State
Department, along with the Department of Homeland Security, is
currently developing biometrics, such as fingerprints, digital
photographs or iris scans, for both visas and passports in order to
fulfill requirements of the Patriot and Border Security Acts and the
International Civil Aviation Organization.
As a part of the State Department's efforts to screen visa
applicants more effectively, and in particular to ensure that a
suspected terrorist does not receive a visa to enter the United States,
we will be an active partner in the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).
The TSC, established in December 2003, will maintain a single,
consolidated watchlist of terrorist suspects to be shared with Federal,
state, local and private entities in accordance with applicable law.
The Department of State will also participate in the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center (TTIC), a joint-effort aimed at reducing the
potential of intelligence gaps domestically and abroad.
To achieve our goal of secure borders and open doors, in fiscal
year 2005 the State Department plans to expand the use of biometrics to
improve security in the visa and passport processes; more effectively
fill gaps worldwide by hiring people with specific skills including
language expertise; improve and maintain all consular systems; and more
broadly expand data sharing with all agencies with border control or
immigration related responsibilities. The budget in fiscal year 2005
includes $175 million for biometric projects including photographs and
fingerprints to comply with Border Security and Patriot Acts.
The Border Security program underwent a PART analysis in the
development of the fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 budgets and
this budget request reflects the results of those analyses. The
Department is moving ahead on program management improvements that
clearly link to the Department of Homeland Security goals related to
visa policy.
The Critical Importance of Diplomatic Readiness
You will recall, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, that we
created the Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) in 2002 to address
staffing and training gaps that had become very adverse to the conduct
of America's diplomacy. The goal of DRI was to hire 1,158 new foreign
and civil service employees over a three-year period. These new hires,
the first over-attrition hires in years, would allow us to provide
training opportunities for our people and greatly improve the
Department's ability to respond to crises and emerging priorities
overseas and at critical domestic locations. To bring these new people
on board--and to select the best men and women possible--we
significantly improved Department hiring processes, to include
recruiting personnel from more diverse experience and cultural
backgrounds and people who could fill critical skill gaps. In the
process, we broke records in recruiting and thus had the best and the
brightest from which to select. The Department of State will be reaping
the benefits from this process for many years to come. We also created
new mandatory leadership and management training, enhanced public
diplomacy and consular training, and made significant increases in the
amount of language training available for new Foreign Service Officers.
DRI hiring has supported the Department's efforts in responding to
crises since September 11th and provided the additional resources
necessary to staff overseas locations that truly represent the front
line in the war on terrorism.
Some of these positions, however, are being diverted to support new
requirements not envisioned by DRI, such as permanently staffing new
embassies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and possibly in Tripoli. Because
of this, the fiscal year 2005 Budget Request provides additional
resources to continue our DRI commitment.
DRI has allowed the Department to focus on recruiting, training and
retaining a high quality work force, sized to requirements that can
respond more flexibly to the dynamic and demanding world in which we
live. We need to continue it.
USAID has begun a similar effort to address gaps in staffing in
technical skills, calling it the Development Readiness Initiative.
USAID plans to hire approximately 40 Foreign Service Officers in fiscal
year 2004 under this initiative. This Budget Request includes authority
for USAID to hire up to 50 additional Foreign Service Officers in
fiscal year 2005, in order to fill critical skill gaps identified
through a comprehensive workforce analysis.
Information Technology
Mr. Chairman, with your help and support, last year was a watershed
year for the Department of State in the field of Information
Technology. Shortly after assuming my position, I identified
Information Technology as one of my highest priorities. Our objective
was faster, smarter, simpler, and more effective diplomacy at every
level. Three years later, we now have worldwide Internet access on
desktops, as well as classified communications at every appropriate
post. This has changed the way the State Department does business and
could not have been accomplished without your support and that of the
other members of the subcommittee, as well as the full Appropriations
Committee. As we move forward with our efforts to replace our decades
old cable system with the SMART program, the Committee's continued
support of our IT modernization efforts will be as important as ever.
Soft Target Protection
Mr. Chairman, I also want to tell you that your subcommittee's
leadership in ensuring the protection of so-called ``overseas soft
targets'' including overseas American schools is greatly appreciated.
The Department has established a three-phased, multi-year program to
provide physical security improvements to overseas schools attended by
the dependents of U.S. government employees and other U.S. citizens.
Our fiscal year 2005 request includes $27 million for this effort
including $10 million for the schools, $5 million to improve security
at employee association facilities, and $12 million for residential
security upgrades. The protection of Americans living and working
overseas is our highest priority.
Peacekeeping Operations
We also appreciate the ongoing support from this Committee for our
peacekeeping budget. U.N. Peacekeeping Operations in troubled and
fragile regions has been and remains critical to ensuring that such
places are given the stability and time they need to work on long-term
solutions to their underlying conflicts. UNAMSIL in Sierra Leone, and
UNMISET in East Timor have been effective in helping the new
governments to establish themselves. We also supported peacekeeping
missions in Liberia and Ivory Coast to assist their fragile
transitional governments to implement peace agreements in those war-
torn states. Your support in meeting these important needs has been
indispensable. We look forward to working with you on helping us meet
additional peacekeeping obligations as they emerge.
CONCLUSION AND QUESTIONS
Mr. Chairman, I have focussed your attention for long enough. There
is more in the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2005; but
what I have outlined above represents the top priorities for the State
Department. I will be pleased to answer any questions you have about
these priorities or about any other portion of the budget request in
which you are interested. If I cannot answer the question myself, I
have a Department full of great people who can; and I will get you an
answer for the record.
Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We will try to be
helpful. There are so many issues that we would like to take
up, and I know each of us has a series of areas. Let me just do
a couple and then turn it over to Senator Hollings and Senator
Byrd and then we will go around again.
FAILURE OF CLINTON ADMINISTRATION WITH TERRORISM
The first one is, I think you ought to be given the
opportunity to respond to what Mr. Clarke said yesterday,
although you were in Madrid. This committee dealt a great deal
with the prior administration on the way it ramped up for
terrorism and therefore with Mr. Clarke directly and
indirectly, and we had some issues which are fairly well
documented, with the failure of the prior administration to
really get its act together and get coordinated.
One of the big problems we had was the terrible stovepipe
approach in the other administration. We tried to set up
something called the National Domestic Preparedness Office
(NDPO), and we tried to set up a number of major initiatives, a
Deputy Attorney General to focus activity on terrorism, and
quite honestly we ran into a lot of resistance and most of it
came out of Mr. Clarke's shop, because I think he had much more
of a centralized rather than cross-fertilization approach. So,
I personally have reservations about his own track record in
this area, but his criticism is there and he is a professional
in this area.
However you came into the office of Secretary of State and
he has stated essentially that this administration did not put
a high priority on terrorism. It focused primarily on China and
Russia and the relationship on the Korean peninsula. Of course,
the attack on the American observer ship, was the first major
foreign crisis of this administration, and that terrorism was a
backburner issue, to paraphrase from his viewpoint, once this
administration came into office. I think you are probably the
fairest broker around here, to be very honest. I think the
American public views you as a straight shooter who has seen it
all, both as, obviously, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and as Secretary of State, and Chairman of Joint Chiefs
under both Republican and Democratic Presidents.
TERRORISM--HIGH PRIORITY
So I would be honest in your assessment as a fair broker as
to what level of interest you folks put into terrorism, what
the priority was when you took office as Secretary of State,
and do you agree with Mr. Clarke's characterizations?
Secretary Powell. No, I do not. Terrorism was an important
issue for President Bush and for all of us coming in. We were
not unmindful of the fact that the Cole had just been attacked.
We were not unmindful of the fact that our Embassies had been
blown up, and terrorism was a danger. As I testified before the
commission the other day, the very first briefing I received
during my transition period, some 4 days after President Bush
announced me, was from Mr. Clarke. The other colleagues that he
had and that were becoming my colleagues, and the outgoing
administration were involved in intelligence and terrorism.
This is not the sign of somebody who did not have an interest
in terrorism. It was also something the President made clear we
had to be interested in.
But you cannot ignore when a China problem comes along or a
Russia problem. All of these are important issues, and
terrorism was an important issue.
I did not have adequate opportunity in my presentation the
other day to describe all of the things that the State
Department was doing in the name of the President throughout
the spring and summer of 2001 to warn and alert American
citizens around the world, to warn and alert our Embassies, all
the things that Mr. Rumsfeld was doing to make sure that our
military forces were secure, sending fleets to sea, taking our
ships and our other military forces out of areas of
vulnerability. The CIA was hard at work. We saw the threat. We
did not ignore the threat. We responded to the threat.
The suggestion, however, that there was one magic moment or
one magic bullet or one moment in time when you could connect
two dots and say, we know that these individuals are in our
country and we know that they are planning to fly planes into
the World Trade Center is not right. We never connected the
dots like that, and I am not sure that except in hindsight
could one have seen that the dots might have been connected in
that way. So I think all of us were working hard.
The question about, you did not have enough meetings, I had
all kinds of meetings in the Department. But the whole thing
did not rest on all the principals getting together every day
to talk to one another or to stare at one another. You do that
when something is unfolding in a crisis atmosphere, as Mr.
Clarke makes reference to, just before the millennium Y2K
period. That is different. That is when you were in a real-time
mode and you were expecting something to happen over New Year's
Eve Y2K.
But I can tell you that the President was interested in
this. He gave instructions to the chiefs of mission. The
President sends a letter to every Ambassador who is taking over
as a chief of mission, and one of the elements in that letter
was, you are responsible for the security of your Embassy. I
was charged by the President to work with those Ambassadors.
We did not see, to the best of my knowledge and you have
heard from Mr. Tenet, and the FBI will be presenting before the
commission next week, we did not see enough information to say
that we knew that there was a threat already inside the
country, nor did I see in my first several months until 9/11
came along, those first 7 months--the previous administration
had 7, 8 years. But in our first 7 months I never saw a case
come together that was of sufficient power of persuasion that
you could say, we know enough about al Qaeda and we know enough
about the Taliban that we could simply on our own, without
getting Pakistan on our side, to go and invade Afghanistan and
look for Osama bin Laden. It would not have been possible
without the support and cooperation of the countries in the
region, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and not just say what we had to
work out with the Russians and others in the region.
So I have thought about this. I have listened to the
testimony. Mr. Clarke says that he tried to get access to
various people in the administration. Dr. Rice has responded to
this. She was available to him. He worked directly for her.
There has been a discussion of memos sent, memos not sent, e-
mails sent, e-mails not sent. I hope all of this will be
balanced by the commission as they complete their work. I will
wait for the commission's final report as opposed to daily
comments that come from members of the commission in the press.
UPDATE ON IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
Senator Gregg. Thank you for that evaluation. You mentioned
that you have been to Afghanistan and Iraq, and of course, that
is the future of how we fight terrorism. You said you wanted to
give us an update on what is going on there. Tell us what your
thoughts are.
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir. Afghanistan, it has been 2
years since I was there. I was there shortly after the Taliban
was booted out, when there was only one telephone available for
the whole government and money was being moved around by the
half-ton in order to pay for something. I went back this time
and we have a functioning government. We have a government that
is slowly extending its reach out to the provinces. It is still
difficult but it is slowly moving in that direction. We have a
government that now rests on a solid constitution, and we
should be proud of our effort in making that happen.
We have buildings going up all over. The Pakistanis were
noting to me that 95 percent of the capacity of their cement
industry has been reached because of construction that is
taking place next door in Afghanistan. They are very delighted
with that, of course. We have a road that has been rebuilt. We
have restored hope to a people, and we have got to stay the
course. We have got to stay the course with our NATO allies,
who are now taking an active role under the leadership of NATO
for security in Kabul and for putting it place more provincial
reconstruction teams. I think it is up to 12 now.
So Afghanistan has shown a lot of progress over the last 2
years. Even though there are problems that remain, we should
not sell ourselves short on what we have been able to
accomplish. This is a country that 3 years ago had every woman
walking around covered, that had nothing but the most despotic
regime imaginable on the face of the Earth. That was the home
office for al Qaeda and the home office for international
terrorism. Now it has a government resting on a constitution,
rights for the people, people are registering to vote. If there
are remaining al Qaeda elements in the country or along the
border with Pakistan, they are running and hiding. The remnants
of the Taliban are causing trouble but they are also running
and hiding.
We have gotten Pakistan to completely reverse its strategy
from being a supporter of the Taliban to being an enemy of the
Taliban; losing men in the fight along the border now to go
after these remnants. So we have got to stay the course, and
because we have created a better life for the Afghan people, we
have got to finish the job.
With respect to Iraq, Ambassador Bremer and I spent a long
time going over the progress that has been made. I see in the
future an interim government coming in place, a full
constitution being written. I see a new national assembly
coming into being, a new national government coming into being.
I see the United Nations getting involved. The major problem is
security. Remnants of the old regime, terrorists and criminals
who are operating inside of Iraq, and it is a problem for us, a
serious problem. We have got to get on top of it.
But we cannot say that just because we are having this
security problem that this therefore makes this a mission that
should not have been undertaken. It was the right mission to be
undertaken. We have freed 25 million people. We have given them
the beginning of a democratic system, and what we have to do
now is not shrink back from the fight that is ahead of us but
to fight this fight, fight it well with our friends and allies,
and work with the Iraqi people who by any poll that anyone has
taken, wants us to be involved. Wants us to leave, of course,
but wants us to help them get the kind of country and the kind
of system we are talking about, and then leave. And create a
place, a country that we will not be arguing about with respect
to weapons of mass destruction, who will be living in peace
with its neighbors. This is a sound objective for us to pursue
and we should pursue it.
STATE BUDGET IN IRAQ
Senator Gregg. One more question and then I will turn to
Senator Hollings. On that point, the Coalition Provisional
Authority is using approximately $1 billion this year,
projected to basically try to reconstruct Iraq. This gets
handed off from the DOD to you on July 1, as you mentioned. Yet
as we look at the budget that was sent up, there does not
appear to be any funding to support the State Department on
this. The question is obvious.
Secretary Powell. Yes, there is not a specific line item in
2005. We believe that, and Ambassador Bremer and I had very
candid talks about this because, you are quite right, it
becomes the responsibility of the State Department on the first
of July. But right now we believe that there will be sufficient
funds available to the Department on the first of July that
will carry us through the end of the year.
FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Senator Gregg. Will they be coming from DOD?
Secretary Powell. Yes, the funds that are available to the
CPA do not suddenly disappear on the first of July. A lot of
the things that are being done now for the CPA will continue be
done for the State Department. Just a brief example. The
Program Management Office that the Department of the Army runs
now, that is getting policy direction from the CPA as well as
from the Department of Defense, that the same Program
Management Office will continue to provide that contracting,
administrative fund flow service, but now it will be getting
its policy direction and its supervision from the chief of
mission.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SHARING WITH STATE
Senator Gregg. Have you ever found the DOD to be very
generous about sharing funds with the State Department?
Secretary Powell. No, nor has the State Department been
very generous about sharing funds with DOD. But when both
Departments know what they have to do and the President wants
done, I have found that both Departments over time will what
the President wants. In this case, the funds that are going to
be used are funds that are for this purpose.
WHO PAYS THE COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY
Senator Gregg. Will the CPA employees become State
employees? Will you be paying them directly or will their
payment continue to flow through DOD?
Secretary Powell. It will be a combination. Some of them
are State employees now working within the CPA, and of course,
they remain on my rolls when we change over to the chief of
mission. But a lot of people who are there we hope will
continue to do their work on non-reimbursable details from
their Department. I am not going to pay the Army Program
Management Office.
Senator Gregg. Can we get a projection as to how this is
going to be handled?
Secretary Powell. Yes.
[The information follows:]
Secretary Powell asked me to respond to your question at his March
25, 2004, hearing about how the State Department plans to fund
personnel costs as operations transition from the Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA) to U.S. Embassy Baghdad.
We are currently working with our colleagues in the Department of
Defense (DOD), the CPA, and many other U.S. Government agencies to
address this question.
We plan to establish, by July 1, 2004, a U.S. Ambassador and U.S.
Embassy staff and U.S. Mission facilities that will house the USG
agencies in Iraq serving under Chief of Mission authority. The State
Department has announced positions for 142 American employees. On
average, the cost to establish a new State Department position overseas
is about $350,000. Of course, in Iraq, a number of additional cost
factors are thrown into the mix that are not considered within this
average.
We do not yet have refined cost estimates for how much the U.S.
Mission will cost the State Department in fiscal year 2004. Estimates
of personnel costs must include not only base salaries, but also
certain additive costs for being posted in Iraq (e.g., allowances and
differentials), locally engaged staff costs, travel, and rough order of
magnitude logistics/life support costs for the currently planned State
Department staffing. Estimates must also include certain staffing
assumptions for provincial teams.
However, as you are aware, the big ticket costs for our Iraq
presence will be incurred to provide security, facilities, logistics/
life support, and information technology/communications for the U.S.
Mission complex. The cost of these requirements in fiscal year 2004
will depend on the total size of the U.S. Mission, including USG
agencies other than State, and the support arrangements now being
discussed with CPA, DOD, and other agencies.
As of April 15, ten other agencies have requested a presence in
Embassy Baghdad, for a total of 254 American positions. In the long
term, we estimate a total of 350-400 permanently assigned Americans
from some 12-15 other agencies will serve under the Chief of Mission in
Iraq.
Together with other agencies, we continue to refine plans and
budget estimates for our operations in Baghdad after June 30. We should
soon have more accurate estimates to share with you.
Senator Gregg. Because it does seem to us that you are
going to end up getting the ball handed to you but it will not
have any air in it.
Secretary Powell. We will have air in it, sir. I have
Ambassador Ricciardone, our Ambassador from Manila has been
working this for me. He stayed on in Baghdad after I left last
week with retired General Mick Kicklighter, representing
Secretary Rumsfeld, so that we can have a smooth baton pass.
TRANSFER
Senator Gregg. Maybe your staff could brief our staff on
how the baton pass is coming along.
Secretary Powell. Yes, it is coming along.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.
ARMED SERVICES WILL NOT GIVE MONEY
Senator Hollings. The Armed Services Committee has already
provided in law that DOD shall not pay you. Did you know that?
Secretary Powell. They shall not----
Senator Hollings. The Armed Services authorization bill,
the defense authorization bill, there is a proviso in there
that they shall not pay you.
Secretary Powell. Shall not pay me?
Senator Hollings. Any money into the cost sharing program.
Secretary Powell. Cost sharing. I thought we were still on
Iraq.
Senator Hollings. That is what I am talking about too. So
you better get it straightened out. I think we are getting a
policy where all departments are going to take care of cost
sharing and I am worried about State Department ending up
holding the bag for all of these departments. Even though the
President, the White House has set out that policy and it is
understood, we are signing legislation into law that says, none
of these monies can be used for cost sharing.
Secretary Powell. But I do not think that relates directly
to Iraq. That relates to our worldwide effort to get cost
sharing in our facilities.
Senator Hollings. That is right.
Secretary Powell. We will push back on that provision of
law, and maybe some people who are not willing to participate
in cost sharing will not find that we provide facilities for
them.
CLARKE AND STATE CONNECTION
Senator Hollings. I think you are the gentleman to push
back on it. Now I was not even going to get into Clarke, but
how many times did he meet with you? Was he in your loop at the
Department of State?
Secretary Powell. I saw Mr. Clarke at various meetings that
were held, interagency fora, whenever the subject of terrorism
was being discussed or counterterrorism, and we were in the
White House meetings and Mr. Clarke was there. I know Mr.
Clarke very well. I have known him for many years. The day he
briefed me he came over to the Department on the 20th of
December with his colleagues at my invitation.
CLARKE LACKING
Senator Hollings. And he did brief you on counterterrorism.
Did you find him wanting in his task as a terrorism czar as
they call him?
Secretary Powell. Wanting in his task?
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Secretary Powell. He knew the subject well. He had been
working on the subject for many years. He was engaged in it and
he was pushing it. But I have no reason to believe that he was
not able to press his case to his immediate supervisors in the
White House.
Senator Hollings. But you could not know.
Secretary Powell. I cannot tell you what he did day to day
in the White House.
Senator Hollings. You cannot tell me what went on with him
and Condoleezza Rice and the National Security--you are over at
the Department of State.
Secretary Powell. Yes.
SECRETARY WITNESS CLARKE
Senator Hollings. I love the effort here, because you do
have the credibility. I agree with the distinguished chairman
that you have got credibility with us all. It is nice to try to
superimpose your understanding and everything else about this
situation with the Clarke matter, but in truth you are not a
witness about all of that, are you?
Secretary Powell. I am a witness to the extent that I
participated in discussions on terrorism and counterterrorism
matters, and my Department and people working for me
participated in this on a very, very regular basis, and
interacted on a regular basis with Mr. Clarke. It is not just
principals meetings that were being held, but counterterrorism
security group meetings were held on a regular basis. My
intelligence officials, I have my own intelligence bureau, I
have my own counterterrorism coordinator in the Department, and
they all worked on a regular basis with Mr. Clarke and with the
CIA and with the FBI. That is why whenever the threat level was
modified, it went up or went down, it was a matter of immediate
interest to us. We put out warnings and advisories. We
sometimes told Embassies to close down for a couple days. We
responded on a constant, continuous basis to the threat
information that we had.
Senator Hollings. I am totally familiar with your
intelligence operation because some people have questioned it.
But I investigated it in 1954 when it was run by Scott MacLeod
and Park Armstrong. They were the individuals in the Department
of State.
Be that as it may, I want to commend you--we were together
Friday night in Islamabad and you really did the country credit
in your little presentation at that dinner. We were very proud
of you, and later on on CNN going into it that night.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hollings. With relation, and that is why I am
asking on Afghanistan. You take Iraq and you take Afghanistan,
Afghanistan has got 4 million more people than Iraq. And
different than Iraq, we have got the people with us. They are
solid with us in Afghanistan. You got the Taliban there, but
the people are with us. We have got a history of having helped
defeat the Soviets and so they are glad to have us.
Specifically when they tell us about weapons and cache of
weapons and any kind of munitions and everything else, we go
there and find it. In Iraq, we have got 11,000 leads and come
up dry on 11,000 leads with nothing.
MONEY TO AFGHANISTAN
We have got NATO there in Afghanistan and we do not have
NATO or really an alliance in Iraq. I cannot, for the life of
me watching and listening and working with both of them, here
we have got over $100 billion, they say $125 billion on Iraq. I
know they requested only $1.2 billion for Afghanistan and we
got it up to $2 billion. And that was the big meeting that we
had with your folks, with the Ambassador and all of his folks,
even with Karzai and everyone else. They just needed more help.
The opportunities were galore. The AID fellow was slipping me
one card with $600 million and all. It just seemed to me that
we were not following through.
Specifically, I want you to comment on it and see if you
cannot help it. Let us get right to helicopters. And I will
name the gentleman, General Stone. General Stone, he came on
board last June and they had no attack operations whatsoever.
It took him until about September and October to train them,
and the first one they pulled off was in the end of November,
December. Now as you and I both know, they are doing darn good
up there on the border. They are putting their lives on the
line and everything else like that.
We were told with respect to helicopters they had yet to
arrive. He says, you know my word is my success out here. If I
cannot give my word and follow through with it, he says, I am
nothing. I told him back in September, and in fact the
contractor has already been manufacturing the helicopters and
everything else of that kind, but the State Department has not
authorized the Defense Department or the Defense Department--I
never could get it exactly straight, but there is some snarl in
the bureaucracy. When you and I were there they did not have
any, and the next say, on Saturday they brought over a couple
of them from Nepal so they could make some raids.
So here, 2\1/2\ years later we have yet to equip them with
night goggles. They said they were on the way. But I am 2\1/2\
years behind looking for Osama and I am finally getting some
operations, and I still do not have the helicopters, and you
can help us there.
And as you indicate with that election coming off, we ought
to be putting way more in the National Endowment for Democracy.
We got it up to $30 billion and then we added another $60
billion and everything else, but relatively nothing in
Afghanistan.
I learned with the foreign minister in Tunis, because we
took that in World War II, and I was amazed coming out of
Morocco where they had 65 percent illiteracy, they had 65
percent literacy in Tunis, 80 percent homeownership and
everything else of that kind. The foreign minister said, the
secret, Senator, is let the women vote. In Muslim countries,
you let the women vote, they want good schools, they want good
homes. Karzai is doing just as you have attested, getting the
women to participate in that September election. But he does
not have the money to follow through and everything else of
that kind.
We are pennypinching. We are just throwing, like you say,
the largest State Department facility in history, almost $900
billion to go into Baghdad where the jury is out. I am not as
sanguine as you are. I am worried about it.
PUTTING MORE AID IN AFGHANISTAN
But we know, and you and I both agree on Afghanistan, but
let us put the money to it. Karzai needs about $5 billion to
really follow through. General Jones, as you know, the
commander of NATO says, one, two, three, he will have three
areas secured by September and the fourth area where the
Taliban is, there are about 1,300 there and he can get rid of
those by the end of the year. So we are on course. I am very
hopeful about Afghanistan. Like I saw, the jury is out on the
other. That is one of the main things. I have got two or three
other questions, but if you would like to comment----
Secretary Powell. Let me just touch on a few, if I may,
Senator. With respect to Pakistan, we are working the
helicopter issue. They need more helicopter capacity in that
part of the tribal areas. On night vision goggles, when we were
there last week they had not----
Senator Hollings. They had not arrived.
Secretary Powell. They had not signed the letter of
agreement (LOA). They are working on it.
Senator Hollings. Whatever the snarl is, good God, you and
I are trying to get Osama for 2\1/2\ years and we just had not
signed the papers to get----
Secretary Powell. No, they had not signed the LOA.
Senator Hollings. They had not signed or whatever it is.
Secretary Powell. It is being worked now.
One other indicator of how things are going in Afghanistan,
and we should not dismiss the fact that this is an example of
what we can do if we stick with it, and it is an example that
might apply to Iraq, 3 million refugees have come home from the
largest refugee population in the world. Three million people
who are being accommodated, slowly but surely, but they will be
accommodated.
With respect to NATO in Afghanistan, I think ultimately
there will be a NATO role in Iraq as well as an alliance. But
most of the nations of NATO are already involved in Iraq as
part of our coalition efforts. We should not dismiss that. So
they have expressed their support for what we are trying to do.
There is a difference in the funding that has been made
available to Afghanistan and the funding that is made available
to Iraq, but I think we have determined that our needs in Iraq
are far greater than the needs in Afghanistan, even if we had
double or triple the amount available.
AFGHANISTAN OVER IRAQ
Senator Hollings. The opportunity is greater in
Afghanistan. The needs are greater in Iraq. You and I agree.
But let us take the opportunity that is there where you put
just--the President has asked for $1.2 billion, for God's sake,
and hundreds of millions over there for the needs in Iraq. But
here are the opportunities. You could take $20 million and put
in what we call a VOIP, a voice over Internet provider, and we
could get the Internet going and communications going and we
could have that by the end of the year if you got a good
contractor in there, and then we would have communications in a
friendly country where they like us, they support us, they
support NATO and everything else, and they are working with us
to try to get rid of the Taliban. That is an opportunity.
Secretary Powell. The only other thing I would mention is,
as you know, we have asked for doubling of the NED funds this
year.
Senator Hollings. In Iraq.
Secretary Powell. No, overall. The overall account, we have
asked for a doubling of the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED).
And I congratulate the Tunisians for what they have done
with respect to literacy. That is what we would like to see in
all these other places as well.
Senator Hollings. Let me yield.
Senator Gregg. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I am an ex-officio member of this committee.
I take this opportunity to thank the chairman and the ranking
member of this subcommittee. They are very learned and
experienced, dedicated members of the Appropriations Committee.
I also want to thank you for your long service to your country.
I have observed your service from my vantage point of several
positions going back over a number of years, and I share the
encomiums that have been expressed already by the chairman and
the ranking member.
There has been some discussion here about foreign aid and
the Pentagon. Press reports indicate that the Pentagon will
continue to handle foreign aid in Iraq even after a new U.S.
Embassy is established on July 1, 2004. I never understood why
the CPA should be under the control of the Defense Department
in the first place. DOD is responsible for fighting wars and
protecting national security. Getting the Pentagon into the
foreign aid business is a mistake, and I have been fighting
that, and I have been fairly effective as the ranking member
and as the chairman from time to time of the Appropriations
Committee of the Senate, but not in the case of Iraq. I have
been opposed to shifting monies over to the Defense Department,
money for foreign aid. It distracts the Department from its
core mission. I am talking about the Defense Department now.
Moreover, in every major postwar situation during the last
50 years, the State Department and USAID have been in charge of
reconstruction efforts. Even in the case of Vietnam where the
war was still being fought, the State Department and USAID were
primarily in charge of economic and development assistance
efforts. After June 30, the case for the State Department to
manage the aid will be even more compelling. There will be an
Iraqi government, there will be a U.S. mission in Iraq. I
cannot understand why the Defense Department will still be in
the business of managing foreign aid.
WHY DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUND THE COALITION PROVISIONAL
AUTHORITY
You are a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Should we not be getting the Defense Department out of the
foreign aid business and letting the State Department do the
job that it is supposed to do?
Secretary Powell. Mr. Chairman, a couple of observations.
The Defense Department is superb at fighting wars, but they
also have a record of dealing with the situation that one finds
in a country in the immediate aftermath of a conflict. We all
can remember very well General MacArthur in Japan after World
War II and military officers in Germany after World War II
until such time as we were able to transition over to other
agencies of government.
In the case of Iraq, it was logical and made sense that the
Defense Department should be prepared for the immediate
aftermath of the war and to be responsible for the country as
it is being stabilized and as the reconstruction effort got
underway. But it was always anticipated that once a point had
been reached when we are ready to return sovereignty and we
were ready to continue with the reconstruction effort, it would
all transfer over to the chief of mission, the Ambassador and
the State Department. That is on track.
Even so, during this period where Defense has had the
direct responsibility for CPA, USAID has been intimately
involved. We have a very large USAID mission there, contracting
for and undertaking reconstruction efforts. In fact they have
been the bulk of the reconstruction efforts.
On the first of July when this transfers over, if we are
able to keep that schedule, and I hope and think we will be
able to keep that schedule, everything comes under the chief of
mission. So you might still, after that point, have an Army
Program Management Office for the simple reason that the State
Department is not equipped to program manage the sums of money
that are going to be available from the supplemental. So I want
that Army Program Management Office to contribute to provide
contracting support, all the other things required to handle
that sum of money.
What will change is that they will get all policy direction
and all instructions will come from the chief of mission, the
Ambassador, who will work for me in the name of the President.
He ultimately works for the President.
When I talk to Secretary Rumsfeld and Mr. Bremer about
this, they all understand this. As I said to Secretary Rumsfeld
in a conversation we had last week to make sure there is no
confusion, there is not any confusion between us, on first of
July, anybody who is doing things that belong to the Pentagon
now becomes a supporting organization to the chief of mission
and to the State Department. There are some things that they do
very, very well and it would be not wise of the State
Department to say, we do not want you to do this anymore
because you belong to the Pentagon. We want you to continue to
do it, but you will be doing it under the authority of the
chief of mission, and when you need policy guidance as to
whether a dollar should go here or go there, or whether this
project is approved or that project is approved, that decision
will come from the chief of mission reporting to the State
Department. And the State Department back in Washington will,
of course, discuss this on an interagency basis with all
relevant agencies in the Government and we will get our overall
direction from the President.
Senator Byrd. Here, Mr. Secretary, in my hands I hold two
different declassified versions of the national intelligence
estimate on Iraq. Now I read from a version that was released
in July 2003 after the war. This passage is part of the
dissenting view of the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence and Research. Here is what it says.
``The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and
Research believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons
and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing
at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear
weapons related capability. The activities we have detected do
not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is
currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated
and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may
be doing so, but INR considers the available evidence
inadequate to support such a judgment.
``Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a
coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program,
INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon
after the departure of U.N. inspectors or to project a timeline
for the completion of activities it does not now see happening.
As a result, INR is unable to predict when Iraq could acquire a
nuclear device or weapon.''
Secretary Powell. Sir, what was the date you said that was,
July?
Senator Byrd. This is the declassified version of the
national intelligence estimate on Iraq. This version was
released in July 2003 after the war. It is the declassified
version.
Also, here is the declassified version of the national
intelligence estimate on Iraq that was released in October
2002. That was when the Senate of the United States did the
most shameful thing that it has done. It washed its hands of
its responsibility to declare war, and it shifted that
constitutional power to the President of the United States, to
one man, to declare war, to decide when to declare war, and how
and when to use the military.
This is the declassified version of the national
intelligence estimate on Iraq that was released in October
2002. That was when our Senators were misled into casting a
vote to declare war, to shift that power to one man to declare
war. This version was released in October 2002, before the war.
I looked through every page of this version, and the State
Department's dissenting views from which I just read have been
omitted from this version. In other words, the intelligence
views that did not agree, the intelligence views from your
Department, Mr. Secretary, that did not agree with the White
House's political agenda were cut out in the version released
before the war. They were cut out.
Let me read just one sentence in the State Department's
alternative views of Iraq's nuclear weapons. One sentence.
``The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a
compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would
consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to
acquire nuclear weapons.'' That language was left out at the
time when it should have been left in for the American people
and all to see.
I know that you have confidence in the Department's
intelligence bureau. You just stated it today. You just made
reference to the intelligence bureau. You expressed confidence
in your own intelligence bureau. And I have confidence in it.
Yet, it was left out of this document about Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program.
So can you explain why the State Department's views were
not included in this document right here, that were so
important to the President's case to go to war in Iraq? Did it
concern you that the State Department's views were left out in
the document that was released publicly before the war?
Secretary Powell. Senator, I do not have the benefit of
having read or studied those two documents recently. Are you
saying these are declassified versions of the same document
separated in time?
Senator Byrd. Yes.
Secretary Powell. I would have to read what the overall NIE
said. I know that the presentation I made on the fifth of
February tried to carefully balance and put forward to the
international community what we believed about at the time.
Senator Byrd. There it is.
Secretary Powell. I cannot respond to this, Senator,
because I am not the author of either document, and I do not
have an opportunity to read what the basic document says, not
just the footnote. The fact is that, as the INR footnote says
and I am sure the basic document says, there was never any
doubt that he wanted to have nuclear weapons. As I testified
before the world on the fifth of February, he was keeping in
place the knowledge infrastructure, he was keeping in place the
capacity to have such weapons, or plans to have such weapons,
and that there was some indication that he was undertaking
procurement activities. There was a difference of opinion with
respect to some of the procurement activities concerning
centrifuges, and I made that point when I made my presentation.
So I think it was clear this is something he wanted to
have, but there were legitimate differences of opinion as to
how far he was on the road to having such a capability. One
thing that I have never doubted is that if he had been released
from the pressure of the international community or if he had
been released from the sanctions policy that was in effect, all
of which he was trying to do, there is no doubt in my mind that
he would have gotten right back on track with the intellectual
infrastructure and with the money available to him and with the
plans that he had.
Senator Gregg. Senator, if you have completed that line of
questions, could we go on and get to other Senators and then
come back for another round?
Senator Byrd. I had not completed it. I will try to be
brief.
Based on the declassified national intelligence estimate,
the State Department's assessments on Iraq appear to be more
accurate than the assessments of other agencies. But these
conclusions regarding Iraq's nuclear weapons program were all
but ignored by senior administration officials. Vice President
Cheney said virtually the opposite on national television when
he stated, ``we know [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely
devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons and we believe he
has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Mr. Secretary, the
world heard from the National Security Advisor who warned of
nuclear weapons and mushroom clouds. These statements were
absolute and unequivocal, but there is no mention whatsoever
that the nuclear issue was hotly debated within the
intelligence community. There is no mention of the questions
raised by the State Department's intelligence service. Those
concerns did not match the administration's case for war, so
those concerns were brushed aside, brushed over, and brushed
away.
In your view, Mr. Secretary, why were the State
Department's conclusions, which ended up being the most
accurate of all, ignored by other senior officials in the
administration, especially the Vice President?
Secretary Powell. Sir, I cannot track each statement. All I
can say is that the position put forward by me and with Mr.
Tenet behind me, having approved every word of my presentation
of the fifth of December, reflected the best judgment of the
intelligence community. Now where there are differences of
opinion and nuance, you have to make a judgment as to what the
preponderance of evidence supports, and Mr. Tenet is the one
who makes that judgment. I think he put a balanced judgment
into the overall NIE that was available to the Congress, that
was available to me as I prepared my presentation and which
reflected the best judgment of the community when I made my
presentation. And I had qualifiers in my presentation to
suggest that there were differences of opinion.
Senator Byrd. I thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. It is the tradition of this subcommittee at
least to recognize the chairman of the full committee whenever
he arrives.
Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. I would take just a few minutes, if I may.
There are five hearings this morning. I have tried to visit
each one of them, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, my first report to you is that my Flat
Stanley got home all right.
Secretary Powell. I am pleased to hear that.
Senator Stevens. We met the Secretary in Jordan and he was
kind enough to----
Secretary Powell. We are still looking for the digital
pictures so we can put it up in the State Department.
Senator Stevens. I have got one. I hope you know what a
Flat Stanley is. If you do not have a grandchild----
Secretary Powell. You do not know what a Flat Stanley is?
FUNDING FOR THE COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY POST-JULY
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, first, I come primarily
because I am worried about the funding for the CPA in the
transition after July 1. I do hope that we can get your
guidance on what will take place there. As I understand it, it
is fairly certain that the current funding of CPA will run out,
and I do not know whether we are going to get to the 2005 bill
in time to start October 1. There may be a gap there. Are you
prepared to deal with that?
Secretary Powell. We believe and we are still grinding down
on this, Senator, in conversations with Ambassador Bremer and
Secretary Rumsfeld and our two staffs working with each other,
we will not walk in on the first of July and find no money
there. There will be sufficient funds that should be able to
carry the new operations under the chief of mission through
certainly the end of the year and the end of 2005. But we
really need to drill down on those numbers to make sure we have
got it right.
Senator Stevens. I hope we can visit later on in the year
here about that funding, because very clearly----
Secretary Powell. We have got to make sure we have got it
right.
Senator Stevens. Senator Hollings and I have met with
members of the provisional council that did urge that we go
forward and did urge that they want that authority at the end
of June, so I think we ought to be sure that the funding is
there until we do get the 2005 bill approved.
Having said that, I know of no one I admire more than the
two gentlemen on my right here, Senator Byrd and Senator
Hollings. We disagreed of the vote on the war resolution, and I
still maintain that based upon the briefings that I had as
chairman of the Defense Subcommittee and as President pro tem I
had reached the same conclusions that you announced, and I
still believe that there are weapons of mass destruction. We
found their airplanes that they were not supposed to have after
the first gulf war buried in the sand. It took us more than 1
year to find them, and we only found them by virtue of an
informant that told us where they were. Now if they can bury
airplanes, they can bury weapons of mass destruction.
READINESS OF IRAQI SELF-DEFENSE FORCES
But in any event, the problem now is winning the peace. I
have one other question to ask you about the status of the
training of their self-defense force. I hope that we will call
it a self-defense force rather than an army because I do not
believe they should have an army yet.
But in any event, the self-defense force and the police
that will take over the major responsibility will be in Baghdad
immediately. Do you have information on the status of that?
Will they be ready and are they trained sufficiently to
maintain that security to allow us to pull our forces out of
Baghdad and have them--and the perimeter outside of Baghdad?
Secretary Powell. I would like to provide a more fulsome
answer from Ambassador Bremer and the Pentagon, but based on
what I heard last week the training that the State Department
is responsible for with respect to police is going well. We are
producing in two places trained policemen coming through with 8
weeks of solid training. We have got to make sure they are
getting equipped with cars, with uniforms, with weapons, with
the forensic infrastructure that a police department needs. The
military is now also training police. So I think the volume of
trained police will increase very significantly in the months
ahead. Getting them fully equipped is the challenge.
With respect to the army, there is an army that is being
trained now, and battalions are starting to come out of that
flow, and I think General Abazaid is anxious to speed that up.
There is a huge amount of effort going into training of the
civil defense units as they are called, but not civil defense
in the old context that we remember, Senator Stevens, but
militia--not even militia. A national guard is the closest
parallel I think that would be located in the different regions
to provide security.
Mr. Rumsfeld says that up to 200,000 Iraqi personnel are
now in uniform helping us with security and putting themselves
at risk. Eleven of them were killed the other day. So it is not
as if they are not wanting to go out there and fight for their
country and protect their country. But we still have challenges
ahead to fully equip and train this force in a competent way.
[The information follows:]
Public security and law enforcement are critical priorities in Iraq
and key to the new Iraqi government's ability to establish the
institutions necessary to effectively govern after June 30th. The
Department of State has been providing extensive support to the
Coalition Provisional Authority since May of 2003 to achieve these
goals. These efforts will continue beyond the transition, and will
enable the Iraqis to ultimately assume full responsibility for security
and public safety. As more and more Iraqi police are trained and can
take up regular duties, coalition forces will be able to reduce their
efforts in this area. Due to the neglect and abuses of the past 35
years, the security forces must be rebuilt, and it will take time
before they reach full operational capacity and can operate
independently.
It is encouraging to note that there are nearly 200,000 Iraqis
working with coalition military forces and providing security for their
country, serving as part of institutions such as the New Iraqi Army,
Iraq Police Service, Border and Customs, and the Iraq Civil Defense
Corp (ICDC).
The Iraqi Civil Defense Corps--which is similar to an internal
self-defense force--is supporting Coalition operations throughout Iraq.
Approximately 35,000 troops in 36 ICDC battalions are trained,
deployed, and operating side-by-side with Coalition companies and
battalions. CJTF-7 plans to stand up 9 more battalions by June,
bringing the total number of ICDC to about 41,000 personnel either on
duty or in training. ICDC training should be completed by August. In
the Baghdad area, there are currently 6,300 trained and equipped ICDC
troops. They are fully integrated into the operations of 1 Armored
Division, which is assigned to the Baghdad area of responsibility.
Four battalions of the Iraqi Armed Forces have completed recruit
training. The fifth battalion will enter training in mid-May, and by
October we expect to have 27 battalions of IAF trained and equipped.
Their mission will be defense against external threats.
With respect to the police, the CPA has determined that an Iraq
Police Service (IPS) of approximately 75,000 personnel will be needed,
and in order to reach this number, over 35,000 new recruits must be
selected and trained. The Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs (INL) is funding necessary construction and
renovations at a site offered in Jordan for the training, which began
in November 2003. The training program consists of 8 weeks of intensive
basic policing skills training that stresses modern, democratically
based policing methods under the instruction of up to 400 United States
and other international police instructors trained to deliver the
course.
With INL funding, the curriculum for this training was developed by
the Department of Justice International Criminal Investigative Training
Assistance Program (ICITAP), and is based largely on the successful
model used in Kosovo and other post-conflict areas. In a few months,
the Jordan site will be at full capacity, and will be able to support
up to 3,000 recruits and 1,000 instructors and staff at any given time.
As follow-on to the basic training, recruits will then complete a
structured field-training program over a twenty-four week period
administered by International Police Advisors who will focus on the
practical application of the course work and will further develop their
skills in core policing areas. So far, nearly 1,500 Iraqi police
recruits have graduated from basic skills training and are deployed
back at home. In addition, there are approximately 2,300 recruits in
training in Jordan and Iraq.
ICITAP has also developed a three week Transition and Integration
Program (TIP) for delivery to the approximately 46,000 existing IPS
personnel. The program focuses on international standards of human
rights, modern police patrol procedures, the applicable Iraqi criminal
laws and firearms proficiency. This course is designed to facilitate a
change in outlook, behavior, action and activities of all Iraqi police
regardless of assignment or rank.
This course is being conducted country wide and has been
prioritized to be delivered to those officers who will function as
field training officers to the new recruits who will soon be graduating
from basic training. The delivery of this course will continue until
all existing IPS officers have successfully completed this training. So
far, over 10,000 Iraqi police have received this training.
The CPA training plan also calls for further development of three
police academies in Iraq--in Baghdad, Arbil and Basra, to also deliver
the 8-week basic course. These three facilities, when fully renovated,
will, together be able to train approximately 2,000 students at any one
time. One hundred Iraqi police trainers have already been given a
``train-the-trainer'' course at the Jordan facility and have returned
to Iraq. In addition, 230 U.S. military police trainers have been given
the ``train-the-trainer'' course and will work with the Iraqi trainers
in the three Iraq academies.
Our efforts are directed at enabling the Iraqi police to achieve
the capacity to provide public security and law enforcement, and
thereby allowing coalition forces to withdraw as soon as practical and
safe.
Senator Stevens. One last question Mr. Chairman. When we
look at the plans now for the period past June 30, it is my
understanding that the largest Embassy we have will be the
Embassy that is in Baghdad.
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. Are we going to appoint an Ambassador
there?
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. I am hard-pressed to understand why it is
going to be that large. Could you just describe the need for
that big an Embassy and its staff?
Secretary Powell. A lot of things have to be done in Iraq.
First and foremost, we have to make sure that we have the
people in place to manage a very large sum of money made
available by the Congress through the supplemental.
Second, we have got to help the Iraqis develop a
sophisticated government with ministries that are answerable to
political authorities, and that is going to take some effort.
We will have a very large USAID presence in the country. We
will have representatives of the chief of mission in different
parts of the country to represent our interests. There will be
a very large security component, because we expect that it will
still be not a safe environment.
So when you add all of these things up, we think it will
take a fairly large mission staff to do all these things. There
will be an Office of Security and Cooperation, and we continue
to work to improve the capabilities of Iraqi police and
military personnel and the civil defense units that I spoke of.
And there will be a lot of contracting people who may work for
other departments but will be answerable to the chief of
mission, and therefore become part of the overall mission size.
Senator Stevens. Will any of the funding for that come from
the supplemental or what's available to the new government?
Secretary Powell. Yes, there are opportunities to tap into
the funding stream of the supplement to support this overhead
for managing of the supplemental money.
Senator Stevens. Last item, my friend. Any bricks and
mortar involved in that? Are we going to build a new building?
Secretary Powell. We are looking now--yes, we are examining
sites now for a new Embassy facility, and there is wedge money
in the program now to begin that work.
Senator Stevens. That is to permanently house that many
people or will it come down?
Secretary Powell. I certainly hope it will come down over
time, but in the first year or two there is a massive amount of
work that has to be done. The Embassy is not being scaled for
that large a presence over time. It will take some years to
build the Embassy and we are still figuring out what to scale
it for. But it will be a major facility.
Senator Stevens. Will the provisional authority be there at
the same time in that building?
Secretary Powell. The provisional authority will go away.
Senator Stevens. Is the new government going to be in the
green zone?
Secretary Powell. I assume initially it will be, but I do
not know the answer to that question. I will get it for the
record.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate your courtesy.
Gentlemen, appreciate your courtesy.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
HMONG REFUGEES IN LAOS
Senator Kohl, I appreciate your patience.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Gregg. I would like to
change briefly to another area of the world which my staff has
told you I was going to inquire about and that is Laos. Mr.
Secretary, I am deeply concerned about reports coming from Laos
on the status of the Hmong. My State of Wisconsin is the home
to 33,000 former Hmong refugees, many of whom are concerned
about the status of their family and friends in Laos who have
been living in the jungle since the end of the Vietnam War.
Estimates are that there are as many as 17,000 still in the
jungles.
As you know, Mr. Secretary, the United States is indebted
to these former Hmong insurgents who fought valiantly with us
during the Vietnam war. In recent weeks there have been reports
that hundreds of Hmong have been emerging from the jungle to
take advantage of an unofficial Lao government amnesty program.
The Lao government denies that there is such a program. We have
been receiving reports that many of these Hmong have not
surrendered willingly, but they have been captured and are
being severely mistreated.
Last week Senator Feingold and myself, along with other
Senators, sent a letter to Ambassador Negroponte asking for his
assistance in urging the United Nations to send a high level
U.N. representative or a fact-finding mission to Laos to
monitor the treatment of the Hmong. To ensure the safety of
this Hmong population we need to do all we can to shed light on
the situation there. Unfortunately, as you know, there is
virtually no international access to the areas where the Hmong
live. So can I ask for your support in this request for a high
level U.N. representative or fact-finding mission to Laos?
Secretary Powell. Sir, we will be answering your letter in
the next day or so, but we believe the United Nations can play
an important role. There are U.N. agencies working in the area
now. I really do need to talk to Kofi Annan as to whether he
wants to designate another new special representative for this,
but we will consider this request.
Our initial look into the issues raised in your letter
suggest that they are coming out, but we have not yet got any
evidence to suggest they are being abused in the way that some
people have said they are being abused. I do not say it has not
happened or is not happening, but we still have to do more work
to establish the facts. We are trying to get greater access to
them, and we are in touch with the Lao government about the
need for greater access, and we are about pushing the United
Nations to achieve greater access.
As a separate matter, as you know, there is a Hmong
population that is in Thailand and we are working hard to see
if we can settle them as refugees as part of our refugee
resettlement program here in the United States.
[The information follows:]
I would like to respond on behalf of the Secretary regarding the
Department's position on normal trade relations (NTR) for Laos which
you raised during the March 25 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations
hearing.
The Administration supports granting NTR status for Laos and
bringing into force the bilateral trade agreement negotiated in 1997
and signed in 2003. Laos is one of only three countries worldwide (the
other two being Cuba and North Korea), and the only lesser-developed
country, subject to tariff rates generally far higher than those
available under NTR. Extending NTR to Laos could help open Laos to the
outside world, which could in turn lead to more internal openness and
transparency. Progress toward a more open and democratic society will
help us achieve our foreign policy objectives across the board. While
some opponents of NTR argue that it should be used as a reward for a
completed democratic reform process, we believe that granting NTR to
Laos will benefit the Lao people, and will create a more cooperative
environment in which the United States can effectively pursue key human
rights and democratization objectives.
The United States Government remains deeply concerned about human
rights in Laos, including treatment of the Hmong minority. We have
repeatedly made clear to the Lao government the strong concern of the
American people and government about the poor human rights situation
and will continue to do so. In regard to recent reports of Hmong living
in remote areas seeking to resettle in Laos, reports so far indicate
that the Lao Government has treated those seeking resettlement
humanely. We have offered assistance for this population, but the Lao
Government has not responded. Also, Secretary Powell has written to the
Lao Foreign Minister supporting Ambassador Hartwick's urging that the
Lao Government allow our Embassy or international organizations access
to these people so that we can assess their conditions first hand. We
do have reports that fighting continues between some Hmong groups and
the Lao Government, and we have urged that the Lao take a humanitarian
approach.
I hope this answers your questions. Please feel free to contact me
if we may be of further assistance.
United States Senate,
Washington, DC, March 15, 2004.
Ambassador John D. Negroponte,
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, United States Mission to the
United Nations, 799 UN Plaza, New York, NY.
Dear Ambassador Negroponte: We are writing to ask for your
assistance in urging the United Nations to send a U.N. representative
or fact-finding mission to Laos to monitor the treatment of hundreds of
Hmong-Lao, many of whom are former insurgents and their families, who
have recently emerged from the jungles of Laos. A high-level U.N.
presence is essential in securing the safety of these individuals, as
well as in providing greater transparency regarding Lao governmental
actions to the international community.
Over the past several weeks, hundreds of Hmong-Lao and their
families have left the jungles of Laos. Many of these former insurgents
fought with the Central Intelligence Agency during the Vietnam War to
rescue downed American pilots, to thwart supply lines along the Ho Chi
Minh trail and to hold off North Vietnamese troops. When the Vietnam
War ended and the communist Pathet Lao took over the government,
thousands of Hmong were killed and sent to reeducation camps. Most
Hmong fled Laos or hid in the jungles of Laos, fearing for their lives.
Some estimate that as many as 17,000 Hmong have been living in the
jungles since 1975. The United States remains indebted to these
courageous individuals and their families.
The U.S. government claims that these individuals have surrendered
to the Lao government and are participating in an unofficial and
``unstated'' amnesty program organized by the government of Laos. Yet,
our offices have heard contradictory information. Reports indicate that
the Laotian government denies the existence of any amnesty program for
these individuals. In addition, many of our constituents claim that
these former insurgents have been captured by the Lao military and did
not surrender. Our constituents fear that these people are in serious
danger and allege that many have already been killed, including women
and children. Amnesty International in a report on March 4, 2004
states, ``Amnesty International has received conflicting reports as to
their [the Hmong's] reception and treatment by Lao authorities.''
The restrictions imposed by the Lao government on international
access have prevented policymakers, journalists and humanitarian groups
from knowing the reality on the ground and understanding the needs. The
United Nations can play a crucial role in shedding light on the
situation. We ask you, therefore, to urge the United Nations to send a
U.N. representative or fact-finding mission to ensure that these former
insurgents are treated humanely and that the Lao government respects
its obligations under international law.
We thank you for your consideration.
Senator Russ Feingold,
Senator Herb Kohl,
Senator Barbara Boxer,
Senator Mark Dayton,
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Representative Ron Kind,
Representative Mark Green,
Representative Devin Nunes,
Representative George Radanovich,
Representative Dana Rohrabacher,
Members of Congress.
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, an AP story earlier
this week based on information from the Hmong leader in the
jungle reported that 6,000 Laotian troops using machine guns,
grenades, mortars, and helicopter gunships had launched a new
attack against a group of 2,000 Hmong insurgents and their
families. At least seven women and children were killed.
Amnesty International reported in October that the Lao
government has used starvation as a weapon of war against
thousands of Hmong in the jungle. We have seen reports, such as
photos in a Time Asia piece last summer that Hmong in the
jungle are living in deplorable conditions.
What can we do to press the Laotians on the human rights
situation? Senator Feingold and myself contacted the Lao
government about the Amnesty report. They have denied the
report. Our ambassador industry has been pressing for normal
trade relations with Laos, and that bill was recently
introduced in the Finance Committee.
My question is, is this the time for us to be rewarding
that government with normal trade relations when we are
supposedly, and I believe should be, so concerned about their
human rights treatment?
Secretary Powell. We are concerned about the human rights
treatment. We have received reports of this military operation
and we are trying to confirm or get a denial of it; to find out
what the fact are. The Embassy is working hard to establish the
facts. While I have seen the same reports that you have, I just
do not know the real facts yet.
The Lao government does have an amnesty policy with respect
to the trade relief legislation. Let me take another look at it
because I really am not familiar with it.
Senator Kohl. I would appreciate that very much.
Secretary Powell. I would be delighted, Senator.
Senator Kohl. Finally, you refer to the Buddhist temple in
Thailand and resettlement efforts. I would like to know what
the State Department plans are to ensure the humane treatment
of those Hmong Lao who do not qualify for resettlement in the
United States. In the interest of time I will submit the
question and I look forward to some response from you.
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kohl. I thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Kohl. I know the
Secretary has to leave but there are number of issues we would
still like to take up with you, and maybe we could all take
maybe 5 minutes, 10 minutes at the most to go over those.
CHARLES TAYLOR BEFORE TRIBUNAL
There are a series of issues that deal with peacekeeping
and activities in Africa. One of my concerns, as you know, is
how we get Charles Taylor over to be tried before the tribunal,
so I would ask you a series of questions. One is, do you expect
the UNMIL process to be successful if Charles Taylor is not
tried? If your answer is no, then how do we get him tried?
Number two, it appears that there is going to be an
expanded peacekeeping effort throughout Africa, especially in
Sudan eventually, what are you projecting that we are going to
have to come up with for peacekeeping in Africa?
Secretary Powell. The best I can do with respect to
projections is what we have now in the 2005 budget, but I want
to put down a cautionary word that we do have these other
demands coming along. I hope they are coming along. I hope we
will be able to work on peacekeeping forces for the Sudan. As
you know, we are in a very intense, delicate period of
negotiations with the Sudanese and the SPLN to try to get a
comprehensive peace agreement. So we may well have to come back
to the Congress at some point in the future during 2005 for
additional support for peacekeeping efforts.
With respect to Mr. Taylor, he is still subject to the
court. I believe he should come before that court. As you know,
he is in Nigeria and the circumstances of him being moved to
Nigeria was that the Nigerian government would not come under
pressure in this immediate period to turn him over to the
court. The Nigerian government has said, however, that when
Liberia has a functioning government that is recognized and
makes a request for Mr. Taylor, then it can be looked at at
that time.
This was not a perfect solution, but last year when we were
facing this problem we needed to get the violence ended, and we
needed to get some control of this country and over the
population. We needed to get Charles Taylor out. We found a way
to do that and it required us to make a compromise with respect
to letting him remain in Nigeria without the Nigerians being
under pressure to turn him over right now, or else we would not
have been able to----
Senator Gregg. But the understanding was that he would not
stay in Nigeria----
Secretary Powell. He is.
Senator Gregg [continuing]. And not be a force.
Secretary Powell. He is not much of a force.
Senator Gregg. He is. He is agitating. There are reports
that he has got an army up and running in the Ivory Coast.
Secretary Powell. He does not have an army up and running.
He is an annoyance. I have followed this very carefully because
the last thing I wanted to see was to have Charles Taylor
trying to create armies or stop what we are trying to do in
Liberia. I have seen the reports about creating an army but I
have never been able to verify that one exists.
Senator Gregg. How can we justify this tribunal if the
first person they indicted will not be brought before them? We
brought Milosevic in. Why should we not bring in Taylor?
Secretary Powell. We will. It took a long while to get
Milosevic in, and we finally had to apply different kinds of
pressure and wait for a different set of circumstances in
Belgrade before we could get Milosevic in. We still believe
Charles Taylor belongs before this tribunal and we hope that
that is where he will end up.
But last year the challenge we were facing was to get food
into the people of Liberia who were starving and to get the
killing ended. And we succeeded. We succeeded by getting
Charles Taylor out, and the way we got Charles Taylor out was
to send him to Nigeria with an understanding with the Nigerians
that they would not be pressured. The Nigerians know that
ultimately Charles Taylor has to be dealt with, and they have
set out the circumstances under which he could be dealt with.
That is when there is a functioning government in Liberia and a
request for his return. I think eventually he will stand before
the bench of justice.
Senator Gregg. Before I turn it over to Senator Hollings I
do what to thank your Department. You are doing a lot of things
right. You are doing the IT right, and I think General Williams
has done an excellent job of getting Embassy construction under
control. I hope he is going to take a serious look at the new
U.N. building on the security side. This is a big dollar item
and I think his expertise and his shop's expertise in that
would be very important on the security side.
Senator Hollings.
MIDEAST-WEST DIALOGUE
Senator Hollings. Mr. Secretary, we can use your help on
that International Center for Mideast-West Dialogue. I had the
pleasure of talking with the president of Austria some 7, 8
years ago and he allowed how we ought to have better relations
between the Christian and the Muslim world, or the Western and
the Mideast world, and that he talked to the Ayatollah Khomeini
by phone every week, and other leaders there. At that
particular time we were looking there at the facility--I am
rushing along because I do not want to use your time--at
Istanbul that was given to us by the former Ambassador and
everything else in a card game, and he lost a bet. He bought it
and gave us a magnificent facility, presently on loan to the
British.
I said, wait a minute now, we have gone along and we have
got a wonderful consulate there, really a well-appointed
facility, but why not start an East-West Center where you have
got a secular state, Turkey, and everything else of that kind.
We put in $7 million, Senator Byrd, in the bill and everything
else, and we are ongoing. Now all of a sudden, Assistant
Secretary Frank Taylor in your Department says it is not safe.
This is not an Inman facility; we do care whether it is safe
obviously. But we would not be loaning it to the Brits if we
were not sure of its safety, you know what I mean? If you get
those entire in there, and this particular facility, they want
to move it into the United Nations, move it into New York, we
would have questions about some of the people in the dialogue
even getting visas to come into New York under the present
circumstance and turmoil and what have you.
Now you can get right in behind us and help us. We will put
some more money and we will get it going. I think it is the
Council for American Overseas Research Center, and they are a
private group that is an NGO that takes and gets all these
things working together and what have you. They have got
credibility, and they will all join in. I have seen the success
of the North-South Center, the East-West Center. We have got to
get something going in the Mideast. Looking at the morning
headlines, we are getting worse and worse.
Otherwise, I have got to comment on Iraq, because I am
worried about you and that big facility that you have taken.
After all, the largest facility we have ever built for the
Department of State, and you have got General Williams and he
is tip-top and we have worked closely together--$450 million
here. We have got $900-some million set aside and you say they
have not--the State Department says we expect to have 1,000
American personnel in there and 2,000 Iraqis working. So they
are going to have 3,000 in the thing, and here we do not have
security.
My friend Senator Stevens said we differ voting for the
resolution. Let me level, because I did with my own people back
home and the press and everything else like that, I knew what
it was doing when I voted for that authority for the President
to go into Iraq. He had stated amongst all the build-up on
October 7 in Cincinnati, facing present danger of evil, we
cannot wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud. When
your Commander-in-Chief says that, and you know he has got
availability with the Mossad. We all yap about the
intelligence. We act like we are the only ones--whether it was
good or bad, and distorted, twisted, blah, blah, blah. Israel
depends on knowing what is going on in downtown Baghdad. Their
survival depends on it. They have got the best of intelligence.
So when the Commander-in-Chief said that, I voted for the
resolution. I was misled, and we all were misled and we can see
it in the morning news. Now we have got to do the best we can
in there.
What happens is that we still do not have enough troops. It
was the same thing--I thought I was back in Saigon with
Westmoreland talking to General Abazaid. He in the one breath
said to me we needed 90 more days to train the police. We do
not have the police trained sufficiently for June 30. We have
not secured the borders. We have got green troops in the
turmoil of trying to not have enough troops, bringing in Guard
and Reserve with the greens, so a fellow lights a hibachi in
the backyard and that there gives us a radar, a heat signal and
we shoot and kill the family and the kids. We see another
photographer and he aims a camera and we think it is a rocket
and we kill the Reuters newsman.
I had a good friend that has been in Baghdad for years off
and on and he said, I shopped in downtown Baghdad in September.
I went back in November and it was taking my life in my hands.
So that train--we are doing the work for the Iraqis, and we
have got the constitution. You feel good about it, but they
say, wait a minute, that is an open-ended document. It subject
to amendment. It gives the Kurds autonomy so the rest of them
want autonomy. And Ambassador Bremer says we are not going to
have an Islamic democracy, yet you have got a majority vote,
and the majority vote is going to vote an Islamic democracy.
With all of that, Bremer is gone come June 30. Abazaid is
gone. They are all leaving, and they are leaving it for you.
And you are building up a temple even bigger than Saddam ever
built, $1 billion, $900 some million for 3,000 personnel, and
then you say that the AID people are going to--they are. They
are going to have to go up with their security. They are
insecure all over the place. And it is going to be open sesame
come June 30, and we ought to know at this committee level,
ought not to be planning a $900 million facility. Maybe $90
million, or take over one of the--they have got them all over
the place, all those palaces and everything, and we are in
them, in many of them.
We can take where they have got--and that is off the beaten
track and a good facility, and move that crowd that is in
there, all computerized, looking for WMD. Just move them out
and move you in, and we have got a facility and everything else
and we will see how things go. That is a secure place and
everything else of that kind.
But I find the Defense Department--look, I asked about all
those troops everywhere. I got to General McKernan and I said,
General, I know you and you know me, you need some more troops.
I said, I could have used more troops in June last year. I
said, what for? He said, I could have gotten better security in
the Sunni Triangle. I said, why not more troops now to get the
Sunni Triangle, get the borders and everything else secure and
what have you? The de-Baathification under Chalabi--and he will
need the Secret Service by this time next year--Chalabi in
charge of that has knocked off the leadership of the army, he
has knocked off the leadership of the Sunnis and made some of
them hostile and joined with Saddam loyalists, and they have
joined with a lot of the insurgency coming in and terrorists
and what have you, and the movement is--there is a definite
movement going against us there, and you are going to end up
holding the bag. That is what I am worried about.
Senator Gregg. Senator, we are going to run out of time
here with the Secretary.
Senator Hollings. That is all right. He can comment or not.
Senator Gregg. You can comment on that, then we will go to
Senator Domenici, then to Senator Byrd.
Senator Hollings. Help us on that Mideast-West Center.
Secretary Powell. You are right, security is a problem
there. Remember, the British just had a horrible situation with
one of their consulates being blown up. I think we have to be
careful about using that facility.
Senator Hollings. That is right, we are in trouble.
Senator Gregg. Senator Domenici, and then we will go to
Senator Byrd.
IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION, COST OF
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Secretary, fellow members on the subcommittee, first I
apologize for being late, particularly to you, Mr. Chairman. I
had three committee hearings at the same time.
I want to talk just for a minute about Iraq reconstruction
and then I want to change the subject to non-proliferation. It
still remains an issue. First on reconstruction, I hope that
the experts that are going to use the $18 billion for
reconstruction in Iraq will consider the fact that this
reconstruction money ought to go as far as it can. By that I
mean if there is any way that you can use it for guarantees and
the like, so that less dollars get more accomplished, I think
that would be a very good way to handle it.
Now I am not familiar with how you plan to reconstruct
Iraq, and how you plan to bring this economy into being, but I
would suggest that you have some finance experts advising the
Department on how to stretch the $18.5 billion. We know here
that when we do guarantees, their cost on our budget is
tremendously less than the amount of the loans. I leave that
with you, and I hope that you will take every opportunity. If
the $18.5 billion does not permit that and you see some places
where more is needed, I would hope you would ask us.
MOX PROGRAM; STATUS OF LIABILITY WITH RUSSIA
I want to change the subject. It seems almost trivial with
what we are doing, but I think non-proliferation of nuclear,
and chemical, and biological weapons remains a terrific problem
for the world. I want to ask you again about the MOX program.
You know what that is. That is the program with the Russians
that caused America to change its policy and start building a
plant for MOX, which is a new way to convert some of the
radioactive consequences of nuclear build-up.
I am very concerned about the Russian-United States program
that will remove 34 million tons of plutonium from the
respective stockpiles. As you know, I have been involved with
this effort beginning way back when we put it into effect.
Frankly, I do not blame you, but I am very disappointed that
the negotiations regarding this issue of liability has not yet
been resolved. I tell you, Mr. Secretary, that it is a matter
that deserves your attention. The Russians have negotiated a
deal like this with another group, the G-8 partners and they
have done it at a level of protection that is different from
what we are talking about in this United States. I do not think
we ought to let them get away with treating us differently.
In other words, they are making the liability question
harder for our country than they did for the G-8. I would hope
that again, Mr. Secretary, that you would find the very, very
best people and get on with this. We must not lose the momentum
of this huge deal that we made at the same time we got that
highly enriched uranium. I think you are aware of that. They
made a deal. We got enough highly enriched uranium that we
bought that could make thousands of bombs, and it was bought
and it is here in America. It is being fixed up to where it can
be used in nuclear powerplants.
But the MOX program deals with a more dangerous compound.
It deals with what nuclear weapons are made of. Or put it this
way, you cannot make them without this. For the Russians to
give us under an agreement 34 million tons--I believe that my
staff is wrong. I think it is 34 tons.
Secretary Powell. It is a lot.
Senator Domenici. It is a lot and it could make a lot of
bombs, and they will not be able to be made. Could I have your
comments on this?
Secretary Powell. I am familiar with the program and I am
familiar with the liability issue. Our responsibility in this
is outside of Russia, so I have got to take the question back
to other colleagues in the administration and get back to you
on it, and talk to my friends at DOE and my own staff to see
what we can do about the liability problem.
Senator Domenici. It would be done if you solve that
problem. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
On March 25 at the hearing on CJS appropriations, you and Secretary
Powell discussed the status of the liability issues with Russia and how
it affects progress in United States and other G-8 partners'
participation in Russia's plutonium disposition program. The Secretary
promised to follow-up with you on this matter. This is an interim
reply.
State and other interested agencies remain engaged at senior levels
on the issues you raised. We will provide a substantive response as
soon as those deliberations are completed. We appreciate your strong
interest in this issue and this critical initiative.
Senator Gregg. Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Let me thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and
Senator Hollings for your patience, and for your many
courtesies to me. I am not a member of the subcommittee.
Let me thank you again, Mr. Secretary, for the good work
you do. When I came to Congress, we had Secretary Dulles as our
Secretary of State. My first trip out of this country was a
trip around the world. I remember that in high school I was
assigned a book to read, Jules Verne's ``Around the World in
Eighty Days.'' We went around the world in 68 days, I believe
it was, in an old Constellation. Of course, that would have
been called a junket in these days.
We visited Afghanistan, where they went into the town
square there, the men wore leggings and looked as though they
wore secondhand clothing. The time of day was announced in the
town square. There was no warm water in the hotel where we
stayed. Mrs.--I am trying to remember the name of the lady from
Illinois who was a member of the delegation. There were seven
on the delegation, among whom was a member from Minnesota, a
former missionary to China. We visited Afghanistan. We also
visited Iraq and visited the king of Iraq, as it was at that
time. I sometimes think that I would like to go back to
Afghanistan and see what changes have been made.
ISRAEL FENCE STATUS AND COST AND ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
While I was in Iraq, I decided to go down to Babylon, the
old Biblical city of Babylon, sitting on the banks of the
Euphrates River, and my memory carried me back to that chapter
in the Bible where Daniel was called in before the king to
interpret the handwriting on the wall, mini, mini, tiki,
euphrasi. The meaning as Daniel interpreted it, God hath
numbered thy Kingdom and finished it. Thou art weighed in the
balance and art found wanting. Thy kingdom is divided and given
to the Meads and Persians. That night the king was killed, and
his dominions were indeed given to the Meads and the Persians.
I marvel at the prophesies that we have heard and read from
the Bible, and have seen them come true, and are seeing them
come true.
I agree with Richard Clarke's statement, and I paraphrase
it, in that the war in Iraq has distracted us from the war
against those who attacked us on 9/11 and the war in
Afghanistan. I believe that, and believed it before he stated
it. I am against that war in Iraq, I was against it, am against
it, and will continue to be against it. I made no bones about
that. I think that it has been a terrible distraction from our
homeland security, our own security of this country. I think
that we are lacking, and I think that something terrible will
happen again in this country. I think that it is only a matter
of time. I believe that these people are patient and that they
will come back. I do not think that this country is being made
more secure by our being in Iraq. I do not fall for that
baloney. I was sold lots of that in my time, having been an old
meat cutter, bologna.
I think that the war in Iraq has also been a great
distraction from the handling of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. I think that is where the basic problems have arisen.
There has been a lot written in the press about the wall that
the Israeli government is building inside the 1967 boundaries.
Every country has that right of self-defense. I do not question
that right. I am sure that you do not agree with those who
criticize the administration for abandoning the Middle East
peace process, but for all practical purposes, the Bush road
map, which was never really anything more than words on paper,
is dead.
The fact is that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have any
reason to believe that this administration is going to expend
any political capital to move the process forward anytime soon.
Real progress was being made before this administration took
office, but since that day, the situation has slid steadily
backwards and bloodshed has spun out of control. Hundreds, if
not thousands, of deaths could have been avoided. This
administration's disengagement from the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is a major impediment to what we are trying to do to
promote democracy and combat terrorism in the Middle East.
The issue with respect to the wall is where this wall is
located. It has already cut off hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians from their land, from their neighbors, and even
from their family members. Does not this action violate the
policy that the location of boundaries should be decided
through negotiation, not by unilateral action by the parties?
My question would be, what is the administration's position on
this? What are we going to do about it?
Secretary Powell. We have problems with the wall and we
have expressed those problems to the Israelis. They are free to
protect themselves against the kind of terrorist activities
that have so frustrated our peace efforts and frustrated the
peace efforts of the previous administration. We have expressed
our concern where the wall moves away from what could be seen
as something that is clearly Israeli into Palestinian
territory, taking into the wall large numbers of Palestinians
on their land. There have been adjustments made to the fence,
or the wall, as you prefer to call it. We just call it a fence.
Adjustments have been made to the fence that take this into
account, and we are continuing to work with the Israelis on
this matter.
But it is mostly a fence and not a wall, and for that
reason the Israelis do not believe, and they think this with
good merit, that it is not necessarily a defining feature that
cannot be changed in the future as a result of negotiations
between the two sides. A fence can be put up. A fence can be
taken down. We have seen that over the past few months where
some parts of the fence have already been taken down.
The road map is not dead, and the President did invest
considerable political capital in it. He went to Sharmel Sheikh
and he went to Akuba last year. That was an investment of his
personal prestige, and political energy of this administration.
President Clinton invested enormous political capital, only to
see it all come crashing down in the last week of his
administration because of the intransigence of Yasser Arafat,
and the same problem we have faced with Yasser Arafat and his
unwillingness to do what should be done, what we believe can be
done to bring terror under control.
For this reason, the President put forward of the two
states living side by side in peace. He made it clear; called
one of them Palestine and the other one Israel and worked
toward that end. We tried to get new people into positions of
authority in the Palestinian Authority. Prime Minister Abumaz
in the last year, we invested in him. We put political capital
on him. But he was frustrated by Mr. Arafat's unwillingness to
yield any authority over security forces. He stepped down, and
now Prime Minister Karai, we are ready to help him. We are
working with the Egyptians, we are working with our British
colleagues, we are working with the Israelis.
The President said yesterday we were prepared to send
another team over. We have had teams going back and forth
trying to get some traction, trying to see if we can use the
Israelis' recent idea for moving out of Gaza as a way to get
this thing going forward, depending on what the Israelis are
also planning at the same time with respect to the West Bank at
the route of the fence.
So we are not disengaged, Senator Byrd. But perhaps the
most difficult portfolio that we have to manage begins and ends
with terror. As long as terror continues, as long as the
Palestinian leaders and the Palestinian people do not crack
down on terror then we are going to continue to have problems
getting this peace process moving forward. Israel has a right
of self-defense. Israel cannot participate with a partner that
has really no leader to that partnership.
Senator Hollings. Would you yield just one second? The MLR,
you and I understand that, the main line of resistance to
terrorism is Palestine-Israel. General Musharraf just said,
look, if you folks can go and settle that, terrorism the world
around will disappear. What you need--if I were king for a day,
is I would reconstitute you as the general in charge of an
international peacekeeping force and move right in between the
two.
When you have got Sharon, the Bull Connor of Israel--if you
look on page 152 of the Seven Day War and then Prime Minister
Levi Eschov turned to Major Ari Sharon when Sharon said, we are
going to eliminate Egypt, just like he is trying to eliminate
Palestine. He says, Ari, victory in war settles nothing. The
Arabs will still be there. You have got a hardhead. He cannot
learn, and we cannot just put our future in his hands. We have
got to move in with some kind of international peacekeeping
force and get something going. Not maps and talking and every
other darn thing. We know what is necessary, separate the two
of them. The only object to that is the United States and
Israel. The free world is for that. I will bet you on it.
Thank you.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, may I just close with this
thought, with this question? The United States provided $480
million to Israel in this current fiscal year. How much is
Israel spending to build this wall? Since money is fungible and
our aid goes to Israel in the form of a big check, can it be
said that America is paying for this wall?
Secretary Powell. Money is fungible, but I cannot give you
an answer off the top of my head as to what the wall
expenditures are. As you know with respect to loan guarantees,
we do dock those loan guarantees in response to Israeli
activities with response to settlement activities.
[The information follows:]
This is in response to your March 25 inquiry of Secretary Powell
regarding Israeli expenditures on the seam-line fence, and whether U.S.
assistance to Israel is being used in that effort.
U.S. assistance to Israel serves multiple purposes--relieving the
impact of economic burdens Israel has incurred due to its regional
isolation; maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge; preventing
regional conflict; and building the confidence necessary for Israel to
take calculated risks for peace.
Economic Support Funds (ESF)--$477 million in fiscal year 2004,
with $360 million requested for fiscal year 2005--may only be used for
balance-of-payments support. At the discretion of the Israeli
Government, ESF can be used to (a) purchase goods and services from the
United States; (b) service debt owed to, or guaranteed by, the U.S.
Government; (c) pay to the U.S. Government any subsidies or other costs
associated with loans guaranteed by the USG; (d) service Foreign
Military Sales debt, both current and refinanced; and (e) finance other
uses as agreed upon by both sides. Use of ESF money for military
purposes--including the procurement of commodities or services for
military purposes--is explicitly ruled out.
Foreign Military Financing (FMF)--$2.15 billion in fiscal year
2004, with $2.22 billion requested for fiscal year 2005--represents
about 25 percent of the Israeli defense budget and is crucial to
Israel's multi-year defense modernization plan. 26.3 percent of this
FMF (approximately $580 million in fiscal year 2004) may be used for
Off-Shore Procurement. Most of this amount is spent in Israel, which
supports their maintenance of a strong domestic defense industry.
In addition to ESF and FMF, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2003, authorized $9 billion in loan guarantees for
Israel, to be made available in fiscal years 2003-2005. The Act states
that the loan guarantees may be issued only to support activities in
the geographic areas that were subject to the administration of the
Government of Israel before June 5, 1967. The Act further states that
the guarantees shall be reduced by an amount equal to Israeli
expenditures (between March 1, 2003, and the date of issue of the
guarantee) for activities which the President determines are
inconsistent with the objectives and understandings reached between the
United States and the Government of Israel regarding the implementation
of the loan guarantee program.
Thus, on November 25th, the United States Government announced a
deduction of $289.5 million from the total of $3 billion in loan
guarantees available to Israel in fiscal year 2003. This deduction
reflects issues of concern to the United States, including settlement
activities and the route of the security fence. As the President has
stated clearly and consistently, ``Israel should freeze settlement
construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily
humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice final
negotiations with the placements of walls and fences.''
As for costs incurred by the GOI in construction of the separation
barrier, publicly available estimates are on the order of $2 million
per kilometer. With the Government of Israel having built nearly 200
kilometers of fence so far, total costs are approximately $400 million.
The planned route of the fence calls for another 400 kilometers to be
built, bringing the total, on completion, to approximately $1.2
billion. These, of course, are only estimates.
I hope that this addresses your concerns. If we can be of
assistance in the future on this or any other matter, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Senator Hollings. We need Secretary Powell to go there and
say, Mr. Sharon, pull down this wall, just like Reagan. Go
ahead and do it. We can stop some terrorism. Iraq has no
terrorism. We started it there. We know where the terrorism is
and we know the MLR, you and me. You can do it. Thank you.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Do you want to respond?
Secretary Powell. Terrorism will emanate from those places,
even with an international force there, until such time as the
Palestinian leaders decide that it is not serving their
interest any more and they stop it.
Senator Hollings. But you do not have any leaders. They are
a basket case after 35 years of occupation. Anybody with get up
and go has got up and gone.
Secretary Powell. There are people who claim they are
leaders, and there are people who are invested with leadership
by the people themselves. They are the ones that are not
acting.
Senator Hollings. But if you want a democracy in the
Mideast you would have gone to Syria where Lebanon is a sort of
50-50 democracy, get the Syrian army out of Lebanon and then
you would solve the Hezbollah and Hamas problem. Not Iraq.
Senator Gregg. I wish we could solve the Israeli-
Palestinian issue at this conference table this morning.
Senator Hollings. I think you can. We have got the man to
do it.
Senator Gregg. I suspect that even with our unique talents
it may be beyond our capacity.
Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your generous commitment of
time, especially after all your flying the past few days.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Gregg. If there is nothing further, the
subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Thursday, March 25, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[The following testimonies were received by the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies for inclusion in the record. The submitted
materials relate to the fiscal year 2005 budget request for
programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History
ABOUT THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
The American Museum of Natural History [AMNH] is one of the
nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and public
education. Since its founding in 1869, the Museum has pursued its
mission to ``discover, interpret, and disseminate--through scientific
research and education--knowledge about human cultures, the natural
world, and the universe.'' It is renowned for its exhibitions and
collections of more than 32 million natural specimens and cultural
artifacts. With nearly four million annual visitors, its audience is
one of the largest, fastest growing, and most diverse of any museum in
the country. Museum scientists conduct groundbreaking research in
fields ranging from zoology, comparative genomics, and informatics to
earth, space, and environmental sciences and biodiversity conservation.
Their work forms the basis for all the Museum's activities that seek to
explain complex issues and help people to understand the events and
processes that created and continue to shape the Earth, life and
civilization on this planet, and the universe beyond.
More than 200 Museum scientists, led by 46 curators, conduct
laboratory and collections-based research programs as well as fieldwork
and training. The Museum's research programs are organized under five
divisions (Anthropology; Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences;
Invertebrate Zoology; Paleontology; and Vertebrate Zoology), along with
the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation (CBC). The Museum also
conducts graduate training programs, supports doctoral and postdoctoral
scientists with research fellowships, and offers talented
undergraduates an opportunity to work with Museum scientists.
The Museum's Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, founded in
1993, is dedicated to enhancing the use of scientific data to mitigate
threats to global biodiversity, and integrating this information into
the conservation process and to disseminate it widely. It conducts
conservation-related field projects around the world, trains
scientists, organizes scientific symposia, presents public programs,
and produces publications geared toward scientists, policy makers, and
the lay public. Each spring, the CBC hosts symposia that focus on
conservation issues. In 2002, the symposium, ``Sustaining Seascapes:
the Science and Policy of Marine Resource Management,'' was co-
sponsored by NOAA's Marine Protected Areas Center, along with other
federal and private organizations, and examined the large-scale
conservation of marine ecosystems, giving special consideration to
novel approaches to the sustainable management of biodiversity and
fisheries. The focus of 2003's symposium was on conservation issues
related to increased ecotourism in Southeast Asia, and 2004's symposium
examines the role of invertebrates in environmental systems.
The Museum's vast collections provide the foundation for the
Museum's interrelated research, education, and exhibition missions.
They often include endangered and extinct species as well as many of
the only known ``type specimens''--examples of species by which all
other finds are compared. Collections such as these are historical
libraries of species and artifacts, providing an irreplaceable record
of life on earth. They provide vital data for Museum scientists as well
for more than 250 national and international visiting scientists each
year.
The Museum's renovated Hall of Ocean Life, reopened in Spring 2003,
is a major focal point for public education on marine science issues.
Drawing on the Museum's world-renowned expertise in Ichthyology as well
as other areas of vertebrate as well as invertebrate zoology, the Hall
is pivotal in educating visitors about the oceans' key role in
sustaining life on our planet. The renovated Hall of Ocean Life,
together with the new Halls of Biodiversity, Planet Earth, and the
Universe and the rebuilt Hayden Planetarium (part of the new Rose
Center for Earth and Space) provide visitors a seamless educational
journey from the universe's beginnings to the formation and processes
of Earth to the extraordinary diversity of life on our planet.
In its Halls of Biodiversity, Planet Earth, and the Universe, the
Museum presents current science news through Science Bulletins--
multimedia productions that bring the latest science news and
discoveries to the public using high-definition video documentaries,
kiosks, and the web. The Bulletins present features on such issues as
marine biodiversity, ocean life discoveries, and more. In addition, the
Museum's comprehensive education programs attract more than 400,000
students and teachers and more than 5,000 teachers for professional
development opportunities. The Museum also takes its resources beyond
its walls with Moveable Museums, an after-school program, online
resources, and through the National Center for Science Literacy,
Education, and Technology, launched in 1997 in partnership with NASA.
COMMON GOALS OF NOAA AND THE AMERICAN MUSEUM
Today, as throughout its history, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] is committed to managing and
conserving the nation's living marine resources and their environments,
forecasting environmental changes, providing decision makers with
reliable scientific information, and fostering global environmental
stewardship, especially of coastal and marine resources. The American
Museum shares NOAA's commitment to these environmental goals and to the
scientific research, technologies, and public education that support
them. Indeed, informed environmental stewardship and preservation of
our planet's biodiversity and resources--in marine, coastal, and other
natural environments and habitats--are integral to the Museum's most
fundamental purposes.
The Museum has also long been at the forefront of developing new
research tools--including molecular technologies, new collection types,
innovations in computation, and GIS and remote sensing--that are
revolutionizing the way research can be conducted and data analyzed, as
well as the way museum collections can be used. The Museum has
significant resources in these areas, which it would bring to bear in
continued partnership with NOAA. These include:
Remote Sensing and Geographical Information Systems Technologies.--
The CBC launched the Remote Sensing/Geographical Information Systems
(RS/GIS) lab in the fall of 1998. Wise conservation policy requires
effective knowledge of the distribution of species and ecological
communities at local, regional, and global scales. Without this
information, it is difficult to decide where to allocate scarce
conservation resources. Remote sensing technologies can provide
essential data on such things as land-cover and land-use, as well as
sea surface temperatures and chlorophyll content. GIS makes it possible
for scientists to compare and visualize the relationships among
satellite and legacy data, raw standardized samples, and data obtained
through ground truthing. Because it provides the database backbone than
can connect field work to analysis, GIS is becoming an indispensable
component in environmental data analysis and is thus revolutionizing
work in conservation.
The CBC uses its RS/GIS technologies in biodiversity and marine
reserve research in various ways--for example, to identify sites
suitable for biological inventory; to provide supplementary
quantitative and qualitative data in and around study sites; and to
develop visual depictions and digital presentations for reports,
publications, and meetings. RS/GIS is also key for predictive modeling,
which when coupled with groundtruthing significantly enhances
understanding of aquatic habitats.
Molecular Research Program.--The Museum is also home to a
distinguished molecular systematics program that is at the leading edge
of comparative genomics and the analysis of DNA sequences for
biological research. In its laboratories, more than 40 researchers in
molecular systematics, conservation genetics, and developmental biology
conduct their research on a variety of terrestrial and aquatic study
organisms. Their work is supported by the Museum's new frozen tissue
collection of biological tissues and isolated DNA stored in a super-
cold storage facility, which preserves genetic material and gene
products from rare and endangered organisms that may become extinct
before science fully exploits their potential. These researchers also
have onsite access to a 700-processor supercomputing cluster--the
fastest parallel computing cluster in an evolutionary biology
laboratory and one of the fastest installed in a non-defense
environment.
MARINE ENVIRONMENTS INITIATIVE
The explosion of research technologies has created an opportunity
for the Museum to integrate these state-of-the-art analytical tools
into its biological and environmental research, as well as to present
results to the public in its exhibition halls, websites, and
educational programs. This intersection of research capability and
technological opportunity underlies the Museum's marine environments
initiative. The Museum proposes to continue, in partnership with NOAA,
this basic and applied research initiative in areas of shared concern,
such as the following:
Biodiversity and Conservation Research.--AMNH investigators are
exploring applications of GIS and remote sensing technologies to
advance research pertinent to conservation and protecting threatened
species and habitats. For example, Museum vertebrate and invertebrate
zoologists carry out ambitious field work and collection expansion
programs throughout the tropical freshwaters of the globe, conduct
biotic surveys, and explore marine ecosystems. In addition to the
discovery and classification of many still unknown species, Museum work
concerns the protection and conservation of many species whose habitats
and survival are at risk. These researchers rely on the capacities of
GIS/RS to develop finer, tighter, more precise datasets. Also, GIS
analysis enables researchers to ask more sophisticated and flexible
questions, and to discover patterns, series, and gradations. Projects
include the following:
--Marine reserve networks.--Analyzing the physical, biological, and
cultural processes affecting coral reef systems in the Bahamas.
GIS allows the researchers to integrate maps with sets of
biophysical and socioeconomic data and to create dynamic models
for testing hypotheses about marine reserve networks in a
spatially realistic framework.
--Humpback whales in Madagascar.--Researchers from the American
Museum and the Wildlife Conservation Society are using GIS to
track the migrations of humpback whales in the western Indian
Ocean region and create a database that contains identification
photos, biopsies, DNA sequences, and sighting information for
hundreds of whales.
--Aquatic ecosystem research.--Aquatic ecosystems research includes
predictive modeling and riparian ecosystems research, and
focuses on questions of restoration, management, and
monitoring, drawing on resources of the Museum and facilities
of the Southwestern Research Station.
--Biotic surveys and inventories.--The CBC has conducted floral and
faunal surveys in Bolivia and Vietnam, providing data on the
distribution and abundance of species, and enabling researchers
to analyze the role of climate change on land cover and develop
plans to reduce threats to biodiversity. Researchers are also
experienced in training local field biologists and conservation
managers how to conduct surveys using RS data and biophysical
measures and how to apply results to the long-term conservation
of biodiversity.
Collections data and access.--Museum researchers use GIS to bring
the Museum's vast collections alive and to increase exponentially the
analyses that researchers can carry out for conservation research and
decision-making. By coupling GIS with the Museum's increasingly strong
web presence, researchers worldwide are able to pose more sophisticated
questions and uncover new connections and relationships among the
collections data.
Public education and outreach.--The Museum features current NOAA-
related science and discovery in the Hall of Ocean Life as well as in
its other educational programs and resources. For example, the Museum
is collaborating with partners such as the New York State Marine
Education Association and the New York Sea Grant on an annual
conference, scheduled for Summer 2004, to promote marine awareness and
encourage the growth and exchange of instructional resources within the
scientific, commercial, and educational communities.
These applications for GIS and other technologies demonstrate the
Museum's unique capabilities to advance environmental forecasting,
provide decision makers with reliable scientific information, and
foster global environmental stewardship.
We therefore request $1 million to continue in partnership with
NOAA to build its marine environmental sciences initiative.
Contributing its participatory share with funds from nonfederal as well
as federal sources, the Museum will use cutting-edge technologies to
advance basic and applied research, integrated with education and
access efforts, related to marine environments. In so doing, we seek to
increase scientific understanding and public awareness of vital
environmental resource management issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) and the University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research (UCAR)
On behalf of the 235 institutions that constitute the University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), we
thank the Subcommittee for your support of weather and climate research
and education within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Under your leadership, Congress has taken
important steps to recognize NOAA's contribution to our nation's
quality of life, national security, public health, and economic well-
being. However, UCAR and NASULGC have grave concerns that the fiscal
year 2005 President's budget request places that progress in serious
jeopardy by recommending significant reductions or eliminations of
funding compared to the fiscal year 2004 appropriated amount.
The proposed reductions in funding for extramural research and
education programs are very worrisome and seem in direct contradiction
to the atmospheric science community's repeated request to establish a
significant peer-reviewed NOAA extramural research fund to strengthen
NOAA research by creating strong partnerships between the agency and
the academic and private sectors. Enabling such collaborations among
the country's best scientists is warranted given the statement
contained in the fiscal year 2005 Budget Request that, ``Weather- and
climate-sensitive industries, directly or indirectly, account for
approximately $2.7 trillion of the Nation's gross domestic product.''
We urge the Subcommittee to return NOAA to its fiscal year 2004
appropriated level of $3.689 billion at the very minimum.
Currently, NOAA is undergoing a congressionally mandated evaluation
of its research enterprise. During this time of change and uncertainty,
it is critical that Congress continue to support, and use any
restructuring to enhance, NOAA's core research programs and competitive
programs and partnerships with the academic community. These
partnerships leverage research and research applications expertise,
bring the best talent to bear in addressing high priority technology
development requirements, and serve to train a new generation of
scientists that NOAA and the rest of the scientific community will
desperately need as present employees retire. As NOAA research
activities are strengthened, we urge the Subcommittee to keep in mind
the concept of the competitive, peer-reviewed Collaborations Fund, an
external, peer-reviewed grants program to accelerate progress in the
nation's weather research, for which the atmospheric sciences community
has been advocating for several years.
We would like to offer the following specific NOAA program
recommendations:
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)
Climate and Global Change Program.--The fiscal year 2005 budget
request includes a reduction of $9.15 million and 12 FTE for the
Climate and Global Change program. We understand that this is a partial
offset to fund climate increases for observation programs, but we
question the choice of programs, all involving the external research
and education communities, that will be diminished greatly or
eliminated. Each of the targeted programs has much to do with the
nation's basic climate research and the future of the atmospheric
science in this country. They include NOAA's entire post doctoral
program in climate science; NOAA's entire participation in the inter-
agency funded, Presidential award-winning Significant Opportunities in
Atmospheric Research and Science (SOARS) program for undergraduate
students who are underrepresented in the atmospheric sciences;
university climate research grants that enable this country to
participate in international field programs, such as the Climate
Variability and Predictability World Climate Program (CLIVAR), designed
to improve our ability to observe, understand, predict, and respond to
changes in the global environment; and the entire Human Dimensions of
Global Change Research Program that funds competitively awarded social
sciences research grants to advance understanding of the human response
to and planning for the effects of climate variability. NOAA is the
only agency funding this applied social sciences research examining how
social and economic systems are influenced by fluctuations in short-
term climate (seasons to years), and how human behavior can be affected
by variability in the climate system, and it is the only agency funding
this country's participation in CLIVAR. We urge the Subcommittee to
restore the fiscal year 2005 Climate and Global Change funding and
personnel levels to the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of $69.66
million and current FTE level.
Climate Observations and Services.--We urge the Subcommittee to
support the requested amount of $72.82 million, particularly the
increases requested for the Global Ocean Observing System (increased by
$10.7 million over current program levels) and Carbon Cycle Atmospheric
Observing System (increased by $6.5 million over current program
levels). The increases for these programs will build the climate
observing system required to support the research, modeling, and
decision support activities for the Administration's Climate Change
Research Initiative. We ask that the Subcommittee urge NOAA to expand
partnerships with academia in this area, as we understand that most of
the research is slated to be conducted internally.
Educational Partnership Program for Minority-Serving Institutions
(EPPMSI).--We urge the Subcommittee to support the fiscal year 2005
$15.0 million request for EPPMSI, and to support the requested transfer
of the program from Program Support to OAR. The under-representation of
minorities in the earth science disciplines continues to be a glaring
problem, and NOAA's outreach initiatives provide vital contributions
toward correcting the imbalance. EPPMSI also has the full support of
NASULGC's Office for the Advancement of Public Black Colleges.
National Weather Service (NWS)
The U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP) is an interagency program
that is dedicated to making forecasts of high-impact weather more
specific, accurate, and reliable, thereby saving lives and property,
and helping regional economies. It is a program that engages in basic
research, the societal applications of that research, and to moving
these applications into operations. It therefore straddles the missions
of OAR (research and applications oriented) and NWS (operations
oriented). Within the President's fiscal year 2005 request, USWRP is
moved from OAR to NWS. Before this is accomplished, we ask that the
Subcommittee take into consideration relevant recommendations of the
NOAA Research Review Team, of a current internal USWRP study, of the
OAR and NWS administration, and of congressional authorizers. We
support any plan that is carefully considered and that strengthens
NOAA's leadership role in this interagency program. We urge the
Subcommittee to support the fiscal year 2005 request of $4.25 million
for USWRP.
THORPEX.--A Global Research Program is a component of the USWRP
that has its own line in the fiscal year 2005 request. THORPEX is an
interagency, international program the goal of which is to provide, for
the benefit of society and the economy, 7-14 day forecasts that are as
reliable and useful as are current 2-3 day forecasts. We urge the
Subcommittee to support the fiscal year 2005 THORPEX request of $2.3
million.
The Space Environment Center (SEC) is the national and world
warning center for solar disturbances that can affect people and
equipment working in the space environment as well as the
communications network of the nation. We agree with the
Administration's conclusions that the operational nature of SEC is a
good fit with the NWS mission and that the Center should therefore be
transferred from OAR. We urge the Subcommittee to support the $7.5
million requested for the Space Environment Center, as well as the
proposed SEC transfer to NWS from OAR.
The Cooperative Observer Network Modernization (COOP) will
eventually provide the country with a network of accurate surface
weather data that is critical to the maintenance of the country's
climate record as well as to work of NWS local field offices and
university research laboratories. We urge the Subcommittee to support
the reinstatement and modernization of the Cooperative Observer Network
by appropriating the requested fiscal year 2005 funding level of $1.4
million.
The NOAA Profiler Network is zeroed out in the fiscal year 2005
request, terminating the nation's 35 stations that provide hourly wind
profiles from the ground to 53,000 feet to operational weather
forecasters and weather models. These data provide invaluable support
in the forecasting of tornadoes, winter storms and flash floods. The
Network saves lives and helps mitigate the destruction of property in
severe weather. The fiscal year 2004 enacted funding for the Network
was $4.1 million, an amount that allowed continued operation of the
stations while the NWS prepared a report, requested by Congress,
analyzing the need for a profiler network and producing a plan for
implementation of a modernized system. This report has not been
completed. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to restore in fiscal year
2005 $4.1 million plus inflation for the continued operation of the
Profiler Network, and to urge the NWS to produce, as soon as possible,
the detailed plan requested by Congress for the replacement of the
current Network with a much-needed state-of-the-art system.
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
(NESDIS)
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS).--We support the requested increase of $30.9 million for
NPOESS, and urge you to ensure that the necessary resources are
provided to guarantee the system's capability to utilize, manage,
store, and make available the data from this critical observing
program. Resources are necessary also for education and training
activities that are critical to encourage and enable the efficient and
effective use of these data. This service is provided through the
Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education and Training
(COMET) program. We urge the Subcommittee to support the requested
fiscal year 2005 amount of $307.6 million for NPOESS.
Regional Climate Centers.--The President's budget terminates
funding for these centers, which are located on university campuses and
continue to provide detailed climate and related products essential to
private sector economic activities specific to each of the regions.
They are needed to address the expanding demand for climate services,
currently growing at a rate of 25 percent per year. We urge the
Subcommittee to restore funding for Regional Climate Centers to the
fiscal year 2003 level of $2.98 million.
Facilities
Boulder Facilities Operations.--Six OAR laboratories, one NESDIS
Data Center, one OAR Joint Institute, and the Denver Forecast Office of
the National Weather Service are all housed in Boulder at the David
Skaggs Research Center. The rent for this important facility should
definitely be paid out of facilities operating costs and not have to be
taken from research funding as has been forced upon NOAA in past years.
We urge the Subcommittee to support the $4.56 million fiscal year 2005
request for Boulder Facilities Operations.
About UCAR
UCAR is a consortium of 68 universities that manages and operates
the National Center for Atmospheric Research and additional atmospheric
and related sciences programs. In addition to its member universities,
UCAR has formal relationships with approximately 100 additional
undergraduate and graduate schools including several historically black
and minority-serving institutions, and 40 international universities
and laboratories.
About NASULGC
NASULGC is the nation's oldest higher education association.
Currently the association has 213 member institutions--including the
historically black Land-Grant institutions--located in all fifty
states. Its members constitute the major public research institutions
in the nation. The Association's overriding mission is to support high
quality public education through efforts that enhance the capacity of
member institutions to perform their traditional teaching, research,
and public service roles.
Conclusion
The academic community is cognizant of the serious budgetary
constraints that face the Congress in the coming fiscal year. However,
short-term savings achieved by cutting funding for extramural research
and education programs will surely result in long-term degradation of
NOAA's ability to meet its core mission requirements which are critical
to the economic health, safety, and security of the nation. We thank
you for your past support for atmospheric science and look forward to
working with you to restore and stabilize the funding base for NOAA's
extramural research and education programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association for Enterprise Opportunity
Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Hollings and other Members of the
Subcommittee: On behalf of the Association for Enterprise Opportunity
(AEO), thank you for the opportunity to submit comments to the
Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Subcommittee regarding the
proposed termination of the Small Business Administration (SBA)
Microloan Program and the Program for Investments in Microentrepreneurs
(PRIME) in the President's fiscal year 2005 budget. My name is Bill
Edwards, and I am Executive Director of AEO. AEO is the national trade
and membership association for microenterprise development in the
United States with nearly 500 member organizations nationwide. The vast
majority of AEO's membership consists of microenterprise practitioner
agencies, including over half of all Microloan Intermediaries and PRIME
grantees. AEO is requesting $30 million in lending capital for the SBA
Microloan Program, $25 million for SBA Microloan Technical Assistance,
and $15 million for the SBA PRIME Program.
The Administration's proposed elimination of the SBA Microloan and
PRIME Programs threatens to wipe out two essential federal funding
sources for microenterprise development in the United States,
effectively terminating the only available sources of business
assistance for thousands of underserved entrepreneurs across the
country.
AEO respectfully requests that this Subcommittee fund these crucial
SBA programs at the following levels: $30 million for Microloan Lending
(requiring a $2.8 million appropriation), $25 million for Microloan
Technical Assistance, $15 million for PRIME, and $14.5 million for
Women's Business Centers.
The SBA Microloan Program
The SBA Microloan Program, the single largest source of funding for
microenterprise development in the nation, was created in 1992 to help
small business owners in need of small amounts of capital (less than
$35,000) that are not yet ``bankable'' in the private sector lending
community. Since 1992, SBA Microloan Intermediaries have made nearly
19,000 Microloans totaling over $213 million, primarily to women,
minority, and low-income entrepreneurs. In fiscal year 2003,
Intermediaries made 2,422 loans, totaling $29,932,410.49, well
exceeding the SBA's stated goal of $28 million in new loans.
The Administration contends that banks will now lend to Microloan
borrowers through 7(a) loan programs such as SBA Express, Community
Express, and Lowdoc. This is not true. While banks may at times make
business loans under $35,000, these programs serve entirely different
borrowers, using entirely different criteria. Microloan borrowers often
have FICO credit scores as low as 550, past credit problems, little or
no collateral, and a lack of business experience. Traditional banks
will simply not lend to these borrowers, with or without a SBA
guarantee. Also, it is important to note that 40 percent of SBA
Microloans go to start-ups while 7(a) loan guarantees require that
individuals already be in business anywhere from 1 to 3 years.
Despite lending to the riskiest borrowers, the Microloan Program
has experienced a default rate of less than 1 percent. This
accomplishment can be primarily attributed to the countless hours of
intensive technical assistance that Intermediaries provide to Microloan
borrowers. The technical assistance acts as a driver for business
success and greatly improves the chances for successful business
repayment.
Finally, the Administration claims that the Microloan Program costs
taxpayers $.97 per $1.00 loaned, but fails to recognize that this cost
is directly related to the high level of technical assistance that
borrowers receive and, thus, to the success of the program itself.
Without technical assistance, these borrowers would be ill-equipped to
manage a business! AEO is awaiting the SBA's response to a question
posed by the Senate Small Business Committee regarding the methods by
which the $.97 per $1.00 loaned were calculated.
The SBA PRIME Program
PRIME is the only federal microenterprise program that provides
intensive training and technical assistance to low- and very low-income
entrepreneurs. For many entrepreneurs, lack of access to capital is
only one of the barriers to starting or growing a successful small
business. PRIME provides grants to microenterprise organizations
throughout the country to offer this invaluable assistance. In
addition, PRIME is unique in that at least 50 percent of all grant
award dollars must be used to provide these services to very low-income
individuals.
The Administration has proposed the elimination of the PRIME
Program for the past four years. However, Congress has continued to
fund PRIME each year and in doing so has recognized that by investing
in very low-income entrepreneurs, the program succeeds in creating jobs
and income in communities that need it most. PRIME is just that--an
investment. PRIME clients create and retain jobs, move off of public
assistance and pay increased taxes as their businesses and incomes
grow.
The SBA Women's Business Center Program
The Women's Business Centers (WBC) of the Office of Women's
Business Ownership provide training and technical assistance to women
starting or expanding their businesses. In 2003 alone, Women's Business
Centers across the country trained and counseled over 104,000 women in
core business areas such as marketing, bookkeeping and finance. The
Centers serve an invaluable role in meeting the special needs of female
entrepreneurs across the country.
America's 9.1 million women-owned businesses employ 27.5 million
people and contribute $3.6 trillion to the economy. However, women
continue to face unique obstacles in the world of business and greatly
need the specialized services that Women's Business Centers provide.
Again, we ask that the Subcommittee do what is truly best for small
business in America and appropriate: $30 million for Microloan Lending
(requiring a $2.8 million appropriation), $25 million for Microloan
Technical Assistance, $15 million for PRIME, and $14.5 million for
Women's Business Centers.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) and the Consortium for Oceanographic
Research and Education (CORE)
On behalf of the 256 institutional members of the Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education and the National Association of
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, thank you for your support
of ocean sciences within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Under your leadership, Congress has taken
important steps to recognize NOAA's contributions to our nation's
quality of life, national security, public health, and economic well-
being. However, CORE and NASULGC have serious concerns that the
Administration budget request for fiscal year 2005 puts that progress
in jeopardy by recommending significant cuts in funding for NOAA's
extramural ocean research programs.
As you are aware, NOAA is the third largest source of federal
funding for marine academic research, oversees the nation's coastal and
ocean monitoring networks, and participates in several important
climate research programs. In that capacity, NOAA provides support for
scientists at many of our member institutions to conduct research that
provides critical information to policy-makers. This external research
offers important benefits to NOAA, leveraging limited resources to meet
ever-expanding needs for scientific support of its missions.
University research funds are awarded through peer-reviewed,
competitive processes, ensuring that tax dollars support the best
science and that duplication is minimized. In addition to grants
awarded by NOAA, the states and universities themselves support
academic research through their contributions to scientists' salaries
and research facilities. This reduces NOAA's personnel and
infrastructure costs, and gives the agency greater flexibility to make
rapid changes in order to address emerging issues and priorities.
NOAA-sponsored extramural research also is essential to support the
training of the next generation of ocean scientists and engineers.
Because the competitive review process ensures that funding is awarded
to the highest-priority science, graduate students have the opportunity
to work on cutting edge research. These students will provide the
foundation upon which our nation's future ability to understand and
manage marine issues is built. University partnerships will also be the
best remedy for the large number of anticipated NOAA retirements in the
coming years. Currently NOAA is undergoing a congressionally mandated
evaluation of its research enterprise. During this time of change and
uncertainty, it is critical that Congress continue to support, and use
any restructuring to enhance NOAA's competitive research programs and
partnerships with the academic community. These partnerships will allow
NOAA to bring the best talent to bear in addressing high priority
research and development requirements.
The academic community recognizes the serious budgetary constraints
that Congress faces in the coming fiscal year. However, short term
savings achieved by cutting funding for extramural research programs
could seriously jeopardize NOAA's long term capacity to meet its core
mission requirements.
We thank you for your past support for ocean science and look
forward to working with you to restore and stabilize the funding base
for NOAA's extramural programs. A list of recommended funding levels
for specific programs is below.
Thank you for your consideration.
National Ocean Service
Competitive programs of the National Centers for Coastal Ocean
Science (NCCOS).--The Administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request
includes reductions of approximately $10 million from the competitive
research programs of the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science.
These programs support important peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary
research in three goal areas: coastal ecosystem studies, cumulative
coastal impacts, and harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. The proposed
cuts would have devastating impacts on ongoing research and threaten
the viability of future science plans, and we urge you to restore
funding to the previously appropriated level of $23.5 million.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS).--We support the
National Estuarine Research Reserve Association's requested level of
$20 million for NERRS, an increase of $3.6 million over the fiscal year
2005 President's request. This level is necessary to maintain support
for the system's basic operating requirements and core programs, and to
provide support for one new site in Texas. NERRS operates the only
national monitoring program for estuaries, identifying short-term
variability and long-term trends in coastal environmental quality and
health at national, regional, and local levels. These funds would also
support the NERRS graduate fellowship program that brings academic
research expertise to bear upon coastal and estuarine research data
gaps and trains the next generation of scientists.
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
Climate and Global Change Program.--The fiscal year 2005 budget
request includes a reduction of $9.15 million for the Climate and
Global Change program. This important competitive grants program helps
further our understanding of how the oceans control Earth's climate and
enhances our predictive capability with respect to forecasting climate
cycles affecting the United States. We urge you to restore the program
to the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of $69.7 million.
Global Ocean Observing System.--For fiscal year 2005, NOAA is
requesting an increase of $10.7 million to continue building a global
ocean observing system. These funds bring the completion of the system
to 53 percent, establishing a global network of ocean reference
stations to document long-term ocean/atmosphere variability and provide
validation points for climate forecast models. This funding is an
important step towards completion of a multi-year plan to fully
implement the ocean climate observing system by 2010.
Oceans and Human Health.--The fiscal year 2004 omnibus
appropriations bill provided $10 million to continue an important new
program in NOAA studying the role of the oceans in human health. This
developing effort is composed of three key elements: establishment of
NOAA centers of excellence, implementation of a competitive external
research grants, and support for traineeships and distinguished
scholars. NOAA's program, which complements the joint National Science
Foundation and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
initiative, is particularly important given the agency's unique
leadership position with respect to ocean and coastal stewardship. We
urge the Committee to continue the program and provide a modest
increase of $2 million in fiscal year 2005.
National Sea Grant College Program.--For over 35 years, Sea Grant
has proven its value to U.S. taxpayers as a program that supports
rigorous, high-quality research that is directly responsive to the
concerns of coastal constituents. Over 300 Sea Grant institutions
across 31 programs collaborate to respond to issues of national and
regional importance using federal, state and industry partnerships that
provide an extraordinary return on a modest federal investment.
Congress recognized the value of Sea Grant when it reauthorized the
program in 2002 at funding levels 25 percent higher than before.
However, Sea Grant has lost significant opportunities to respond to
critical national issues simply because actual program funding has not
kept pace with inflation and needs. For this reason, we urge you to
provide $68.4 million for Sea Grant in fiscal year 2005.
Ocean Exploration.--The Administration's fiscal year 2005 budget
requests a decrease of $1.8 million for the Ocean Exploration program
which funds partnerships with public and private institutions to search
for new ocean resources, assess and explain the diversity of marine
organisms, survey and explore historic shipwrecks, monitor ocean
acoustics, and support educational efforts and outreach. This reduction
will lead to a 20 percent decline in funding available for the academic
community and other partners to engage with NOAA's program on specific
projects. We urge you to restore this funding so that the ocean science
community will be able to continue their participation in efforts to
promote ocean exploration and research.
National Undersea Research Program (NURP).--Each year, NOAA's
undersea research program supports over 200 research projects focused
on developing the tools and expertise needed to work in the undersea
environment. Projects are carried out primarily through the six
regional NURP Centers, and are chosen on the basis of a merit-based
peer-review process. This open, competitive process ensures a variety
of high quality research projects directed towards pressing national
and regional problems. We urge you to provide funding of $15 million in
fiscal year 2005 to support the work of the NURP centers.
Educational Partnership Program for Minority-Serving Institutions
(EPPMSI).--We support the request of $15 million for EPPMSI, and
support the requested transfer of the program from Program Support to
OAR. The under-representation of minorities in the earth science
disciplines continues to be a glaring problem, and NOAA's outreach
initiatives are vital steps towards correcting the imbalance. This
program also has the support of NASULGC's Office for the Advancement of
Public Black Colleges.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Marine Mammals.--Sound is an essential tool for ocean researchers
to penetrate the otherwise opaque waters of the sea. However, in recent
years, concerns have grown about the impact of many types of noise on
marine mammals, including acoustic research. One of the primary
challenges to addressing this issue is our current, very limited
scientific understanding of the effects of sound on marine mammals.
Increasing this understanding would clarify and guide NOAA managers in
developing administrative policies to allow the conduct of ocean
research in compliance with applicable environmental laws as well as
making it easier for researchers to include effective mitigation
measures in their experimental plans. We urge that $4 million be made
available to NOAA for its participation in an independent, peer-
reviewed interagency research program on the effects of sound on marine
mammals. In addition, we urge that $1 million be provided to NOAA
Fisheries to strengthen its permitting capabilities and develop more
efficient and effective criteria and guidance for ocean researchers
with respect to marine mammals.
NOAA Education Programs
National Ocean Sciences Bowl (NOSB).--Since its establishment in
1997, the National Ocean Sciences Bowl has reached more than 8,200
students and teachers in 24 regions, bringing the oceans into high
school classrooms. The NOSB, an academic competition for high school
students who excel in math and science, is funded through a partnership
with NOAA and other federal agencies, academia, foundations and
industry. The Committee's past support for the NOSB has supported
important program enhancements including a pilot program to introduce
the NOSB in inner-city schools with high numbers of disadvantaged
students, the National Ocean Scholars program in which students who
have participated in the NOSB compete for two-year college
scholarships, and increased regional support. To continue and expand
the NOSB program, $1.5 million is requested for fiscal year 2005.
Program Support--Marine Operations and Maintenance
Oceanographic Fleet Support.--For fiscal year 2005, NOAA has
requested $2.5 million from the University-National Oceanographic
Laboratory System fleet to support work in the Pacific Ocean. The time
at sea would be used to support long-time series research for
Fisheries-Oceanographic Coordination Investigations (FOCI), studies of
deep-sea vents and the maintenance of tsunami moorings in the Gulf of
Alaska and the Pacific Ocean. Increased utilization of the UNOLS fleet
by our federal colleagues helps to lower the overall costs of fleet
support, leaving more funding for agency operations and research and
experimentation.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of University Fisheries
and Wildlife Programs
The National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife
Programs (NAUFWP) appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
concerning the fiscal year 2005 budget of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NAUFWP represents approximately 55
university programs and their 440 faculty members, scientists, and
extension specialists, and over 9,200 undergraduates and graduate
students working to enhance the science and management of fisheries and
wildlife resources.
The National Sea Grant College Program provides essential academic
research, education, and extension services for the oceans community.
Sea Grant research is critical to the maintenance and improvement of
the nation's marine resources, such as in the areas of combating
aquatic nuisance and marine invasive species. The program is an
excellent example of collaboration between federal and state
governments and universities. Unfortunately, the Sea Grant program has
been undermined by project terminations and a requested decrease in
fiscal year 2005. Therefore, NAUFWP strongly urges Congress to
appropriate $62.4 million for this program in fiscal year 2005, which
is $5 million above the President's request.
NAUFWP supports the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) Program to
prevent and control invasive species, and the Marine Aquaculture
Program. These partnership programs within NOAA provide information to
support policy and management decisions, increase knowledge of coastal
and marine ecosystems, and provide the scientific basis for enhancing
the Nation's marine economic sector. NAUFWP supports the
Administration's request of $500,000 for NISA/Prevent and Control, and
$1.612 million the Marine Aquaculture Program. We urge Congress to
appropriate these amounts for fiscal year 2005.
Thank you for considering the views of universities with fisheries
and wildlife programs. We look forward to working with you and your
staff to ensure adequate funding for fish and wildlife research,
education, and conservation. Please include this testimony in the
official written record.
______
Prepared Statement of The Ocean Conservancy
The Ocean Conservancy (TOC) is pleased to share its views regarding
the marine conservation programs in the budgets of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of State's Bureau
of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs and
the Marine Mammal Commission and requests that this statement be
included in the official record for the fiscal year 2005 Commerce,
Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies bill.
TOC cannot overstate the importance of this Subcommittee in
advancing marine conservation and appreciates the funding provided in
fiscal year 2004. TOC is deeply troubled by the severe cuts totaling
over $237 million to the National Ocean Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service proposed in the Administration's fiscal year 2005
budget request. If enacted, these cuts will cripple the agency's
ability to properly manage our oceans. TOC recognizes the constraints
this Subcommittee faces, but with the upcoming release of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy's draft report, we urge that you reject
these cuts and make ocean conservation a top priority.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Conservation Trust Fund
Passed by Congress in 2000, the Conservation Trust Fund is a
groundbreaking bipartisan accomplishment and represents a major
advancement in conservation funding. TOC is grateful that this
Subcommittee has upheld its commitment to funding the Conservation
Trust Fund over the last four fiscal years and calls for your continued
commitment in fiscal year 2005 by dedicating $560 million for critical
ocean and coastal conservation activities within NOAA. We also urge you
to protect the integrity of the trust fund by limiting its uses to net
increases, rather than using the fund as a substitute for base funding.
Coral Reef Conservation
NOAA plays a critical role in protecting coral reefs, serves on the
Interagency Coral Reef Task Force and has major responsibilities for
implementing the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs. Through
monitoring, mapping, restoration and outreach activities, NOAA works
with state, territorial, local and other parties to reduce land-based
pollution, overfishing, diseases, and other threats to coral reefs. TOC
urges the Subcommittee to provide $2 million above the Administration's
request, which will leverage an additional $2 to $4 million in matching
resources, to support local action strategies to protect coral reefs
through partnerships with local, state and territorial governments,
universities and the private sector.
National Ocean Service
National Marine Sanctuary Program
The 13 U.S. national marine sanctuaries encompass more that 18,000
square miles of our most significant marine resources. TOC applauds the
Subcommittee's recognition of the importance of the Sanctuary program
by providing $49 million for operations in fiscal year 2004 and urges
at least level funding in fiscal year 2005. Continued funding at this
level will reduce staffing shortages, support conservation, community
outreach, research, and education programs, as well as provide the
necessary funds for updating sanctuary management plans as required by
law. TOC also supports $10 million for construction, particularly for
interpretive facilities to educate the public about the federal
government's role in managing our nation's ocean and coastal resources.
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
TOC appreciates this Subcommittee's continued support of NOAA's MPA
initiative and requests $5 million in fiscal year 2005. This $0.5
million increase will allow NOAA to work more effectively with federal
and state agencies and other partners to acquire data for the ongoing
MPA inventory, support the Marine Protected Areas Advisory Committee
and better assist stakeholders, including states and the National Park
Service, by holding regional workshops and providing training and
technical assistance.
Nonpoint Pollution Implementation Grants
Polluted runoff continues to be the nation's largest source of
water pollution. TOC urges the Subcommittee to reject the
Administration's proposed termination of this program and maintain
level funding in fiscal year 2005 to help coastal states and
territories continue to implement their approved nonpoint pollution
control plans.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Expanding Fisheries Stock Assessments
The status of roughly two-thirds of our commercially caught ocean
fish populations is unknown due in large part to lack of funding for
basic research and regular stock assessments. We applaud the
Subcommittee's decision to increase stock assessment funding to $18
million in fiscal year 2004 and urge that this trend continue with
$33.9 million in fiscal year 2005, $15 million above the
Administration's request. Regular stock assessments will give managers
baseline information critical to managing our fisheries and help reduce
the backlog in research days-at-sea, which currently exceeds 3,800 days
according to NMFS's current 10-year plan. This funding is one of The
Ocean Conservancy's highest priorities.
Fisheries Observers
Along with stock assessments, reliable, objective information about
how many fish and marine wildlife are being caught, directly and as
bycatch, is crucial to responsible management of our ocean resources.
Observers are a key means of collecting such information. TOC
recommends $35 million for fisheries observers in fiscal year 2004,
$12.5 million above the Administration's request, and encourages the
Subcommittee to prioritize the following programs.
--West Coast Observers.--TOC respectfully requests that the
Subcommittee fund west coast observers at $5 million in fiscal
year 2005, $120,000 above fiscal year 2004 enacted.
--Pelagic Longline Observers.--TOC strongly supports $3 million in
funding for Atlantic and $4 million in funding for Western
Pacific pelagic longline fisheries observers. High interaction
rates with endangered sea turtles have resulted in partial
closures in both fisheries in recent years to avoid
jeopardizing the continued existence of these species. In 2004,
fishermen will return to the closed areas with gear and bait
modifications expected to reduce the number and severity of sea
turtle interactions. Adequate observer coverage is essential to
determine the effectiveness of these modifications in each
fishery. NMFS will require 100 percent observer coverage in the
reopened longline swordfish fishery in the Western Pacific. TOC
believes that a minimum of 20 percent observer coverage should
be required throughout the Atlantic, with 100 percent coverage
for any further gear research. Since 2001, Atlantic observer
coverage has not met even the 5 percent level required by NMFS
in order to comply with the ESA. As a result, NMFS estimates
that several hundred endangered sea turtles were captured in
excess of authorized levels before the agency took action to
require further protections.
--New England Observers.--TOC appreciates this Subcommittee's
inclusion of report language and $9.3 million for New England
groundfish observers in fiscal year 2004 and requests level
funding and the inclusion of the following report language in
fiscal year 2005: ``The Subcommittee expects NMFS to allocate
sufficient funds to achieve ten percent observer coverage in
the New England groundfish fishery, and in the non-directed
fishery to the extent practicable.''
--Bycatch Observers.--TOC respectfully requests the Subcommittee
support level funding at $4.9 million in fiscal year 2005.
Endangered Species Act--Other Species
TOC urges the Subcommittee to restore funding in fiscal year 2005
for Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery planning and implementation.
This funding is vital for NMFS to support the recovery of endangered
marine species like the smalltooth sawfish, respond to listing
petitions in a timely fashion, conduct Section 7 consultations,
designate critical habitat and implement recovery plans. Of the 52 ESA-
listed species managed by NOAA, less than one-third have recovery plans
in place, most of which are critically out of date. We implore the
Subcommittee to address this problem and provide $5.7 million in fiscal
year 2005, $2.0 million above the Administration's request.
Marine Mammal Protection
A lack of adequate resources has severely hampered NMFS's ability
to effectively implement the Marine Mammal Protection Act. TOC is
deeply disappointed that the Subcommittee cut funding in fiscal year
2004 and strongly urges the Subcommittee to provide at least $15
million in fiscal year 2005. This will allow NMFS to fund top priority
studies identified by the take reduction teams; design and implement
fishery management plans that will not endanger marine mammals; conduct
research on population trends, health, and demographics; and carry out
education and enforcement programs. This funding is one of The Ocean
Conservancy's highest priorities. In addition, we urge the Subcommittee
to restore funding for the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response
Program, which was cut in fiscal year 2004, and provide $2 million in
fiscal year 2005. Die-offs of large numbers of marine mammals,
including a recent bottlenosed dolphin event in Florida, are of
significant conservation importance. Determining the cause of these
events requires not only expertise, but also financial resources.
Protected Resources Stock Assessments
The MMPA and the ESA require NMFS to regularly evaluate the status
of approximately 230 stocks of marine mammals, sea turtles, and other
marine and anadromous species. Accurate and precise biological
information is necessary to carry out effective conservation programs,
promote recovery, evaluate listing status, and authorize scientifically
defensible incidental take permits. Unfortunately, over 130 marine
mammal stocks and all U.S. sea turtle populations lack the necessary
data required under MMPA or ESA. TOC urges the Subcommittee to consider
providing $5 million in fiscal year 2005, which will begin to address
the problem.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementation
TOC supports the Administration's $8.0 million request for
implementing NEPA. This funding is critical, as NMFS is required by law
to consider and document potential environmental impacts of agency
actions, ranging from complex rulemakings to controversial research
permits. Of these funds, we urge the committee to dedicate $2 million
to ensure robust NEPA analyses for marine mammal permitting.
Highly Migratory Shark Fisheries Research Program
This effective multi-regional collaborative effort conducts vital
research on shark and ray populations in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Atlantic, and the Pacific. This research provides NMFS with critical
information necessary for effective management and conservation of
shark fishery resources. TOC appreciates the Subcommittee's rejection
of the Administration's proposed cut in fiscal year 2004 and requests
level funding at $2.0 million in fiscal year 2005.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
International Fisheries Commission Account
TOC requests $200,000 for the State Department to implement the
landmark Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation
of Sea Turtles and the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation
and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean
and South East Asia. The United States played a leading role in the
establishment of these conservation instruments and our continued
leadership and support will ensure that momentum continues.
MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION
TOC requests that the Subcommittee support the Marine Mammal
Commission's base program at $2.25 million in fiscal year 2004,
$350,000 above the Administration's request.
ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL RIDERS
TOC urges the Subcommittee to not attach any anti-environmental
rider to this or any other appropriations bill. In the past, riders
have been used by Members of Congress to roll back environmental
protections and prevent NOAA from advancing marine conservation.
These programs and issues are of the utmost importance to the
stewardship of the nation's living marine resources. We greatly
appreciate your support for these programs in the past and look forward
to continued, responsible funding for these programs in fiscal year
2005. Thank you for considering our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to this
Subcommittee requesting a $55 million appropriation for the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) in fiscal year 2005. As
the President and CEO of the National Federation of Community
Broadcasters, I speak on behalf of nearly 250 community radio stations
and related organizations across the country. This includes the new Low
Power FM service that has recently been authorized by the FCC. NFCB is
the sole national organization representing this group of stations,
which provide service in both the smallest communities and largest
metropolitan areas of this country. Nearly half of our members are
rural stations, and half are minority controlled stations.
In summary, the points we wish to make to this Subcommittee are
that NFCB:
--Supports funding for PTFP that will cover the on-going needs of
public radio and television stations.
--Supports funding for conversion of public radio and television to
digital broadcasting.
--Requests report language to ensure that PTFP utilizes any digital
funds it receives for radio as well as television needs.
Community radio supports $55 million in funding for the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program in fiscal year 2005. Federal
support distributed through the PTFP is essential to continuing and
expanding the public broadcasting service throughout the United States.
It is particularly critical for rural stations and for those stations
serving minority communities. PTFP funds new stations, expanding the
reach of public broadcasting to rural areas and to audiences that are
not presently served by existing stations. In addition, it replaces
obsolete and worn out equipment so that the existing stations can
continue to broadcast high quality programming. Finally, with the
advent of digital broadcasting, PTFP funding will help with the
conversion to this new technology.
We support $55 million in funding to ensure that both the on-going
program--currently funded in fiscal year 2004 at $22 million--will be
continued, and that the increase to $55 million will be available to
help cover the cost of radio and television converting to digital
transmission. This increase in funding is urgent because the FCC has
now endorsed a standard for digital radio broadcasting and the
television conversion deadline is imminent. In addition, commercial
radio stations are converting to digital transmission and public radio
should not be left behind.
Funding from PTFP has been essential to keep public radio stations
on the air by funding replacement of equipment, often after 20 or more
years of use. The program is administered carefully to be sure that
stations are acquiring the most appropriate type of equipment. They
also determine that equipment is being properly maintained and will not
fund the replacement of equipment before an appropriate length of time.
PTFP has also helped bring public radio service to rural areas where it
is not available. Sometimes they fund translators to expand the
coverage of an existing station and sometimes they help with the
planning and equipment needs of a new station. Recently, many of these
new projects have been for Native American controlled stations on
Indian Reservations or new local Low Power FM installations.
Federal funding is particularly critical to stations serving rural
and underserved audiences which have limited potential for fundraising
because of sparse populations, limited number of local businesses, and
low income levels. Even so, PTFP funding is a matching program so that
the federal money is leveraged with a local commitment of funds. This
program is a strong motivating factor in raising the significant money
necessary to replace, upgrade and purchase expensive broadcast
equipment.
Community radio supports funding for conversion to digital
broadcasting for public radio and television. While public television's
digital conversion is mandated by the Federal Communications
Commission, public radio is converting to digital to provide more
public service and to keep up with the market. The digital standard for
radio has been approved. The initial conversion of radio stations is
being concentrated in 13 seed markets and it is important that public
radio be part of this project. Most exciting to public radio is the
encouraging results of tests that National Public Radio has conducted
that indicate that stations can broadcast two high quality signals,
even while they continue to provide the analog signal. The development
of 2nd digital audio channels will potentially double the public
service that public radio can provide, particularly to unserved and
underserved communities.
We appreciate Congress' direction to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting that it utilize its digital conversion fund for both radio
and television and ask that you ensure that the PTFP funds are used for
both media. Congress stated, with regard to the fiscal year 2000
digital conversion funds:
``The required (digital) conversion will impose enormous costs on
both individual stations and the public broadcasting system as a whole.
Because television and radio infrastructures are closely linked, the
conversion of television to digital will create immediate costs not
only for television, but also for public radio stations. Therefore, the
Committee has included $15,000,000 to assist radio stations and
television stations in the conversion to digitization . . .'' (S. Rpt.
105-300)
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. If the
Subcommittee has any questions or needs to follow-up on any of the
points expressed above, please contact: Carol Pierson, President and
CEO, National Federation of Community Broadcasters, 1970 Broadway,
Suite 1000, Oakland, CA 94612. Telephone: 510-451-8200. Fax: 510-451-
8208. E-mail: [email protected].
The NFCB is a twenty-nine year old grassroots organization which
was established by and continues to be supported by our member
stations. Large and small, rural and urban, NFCB member stations are
distinguished by their commitment to local programming, community
participation and support. NFCB's nearly 250 members come from across
the United States, from Alaska to Florida; from every major market to
the smallest Native American reservation. While urban member stations
provide alternative programming to communities that include New York,
Minneapolis, San Francisco and other major markets, rural members are
often the sole source of local and national daily news and information
in their communities. NFCB's membership reflects the true diversity of
the American population: 41 percent of members serve rural communities,
and 46 percent are minority radio services.
On community radio stations' airwaves examples of localism abound:
on KWSO in Warm Springs, Oregon, you will hear morning drive programs
in their Native language; throughout the California farming areas in
the central valley, Radio Bilingue programs five stations targeting
low-income farm workers; in Chevak, Alaska, on KCUK you will hear the
local weather reports and public service announcements in Cup'ik/Yup'ik
Eskimo; in Dunmore, West Virginia, you will hear coverage of the local
school board and county commission meetings; KABR in Alamo, New Mexico
serves its small isolated Native American population with programming
almost exclusively in Navajo; and on WWOZ you can hear the sounds and
culture of New Orleans throughout the day and night.
In 1949 the first community radio station went on the air. From
that day forward, community radio stations have been reliant on their
local community for support through listener contributions. Today, many
stations are partially funded through the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting grant programs. CPB funds represent under 10 percent of
the larger stations' budgets, but can represent up to 50 percent of the
budget of the smallest rural stations. PTFP funding is a critical
source of matching funds for these essential community resources.
______
Prepared Statement of the Marine Fish Conservation Network
The Marine Fish Conservation Network (Network) is pleased to share
its views regarding National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) programs
in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) fiscal
year 2005 budget request. We ask that this statement be included in the
hearing record for the fiscal year 2005 Commerce, Justice, State, and
the Judiciary Appropriations Bill. We are requesting a budget increase
of $40.75 million for NMFS programs in the fiscal year 2005 budget to
be allocated for stock assessments ($15 million), observer programs
($12.5 million), essential fish habitat ($10.15 million), and vessel
monitoring systems ($3.1 million) as described below.
The Network is a national coalition of more than 160 environmental
organizations, commercial and recreational fishing associations,
aquariums, and marine science groups dedicated to conserving marine
fish and promoting their long-term sustainability. We greatly
appreciate the funding this Subcommittee has provided for the marine
fish conservation programs within NMFS in the past and we look forward
to working with the Subcommittee to enact adequate levels of funding
for the coming fiscal year.
There are four areas of the NMFS budget where we believe the
requested funding levels need to be increased to help the agency
fulfill its obligations as the federal government's fish management
agency.
STOCK ASSESSMENTS
Request: Total of $33.9 million
While we are pleased that NMFS has requested an $800,000 increase
in the expanding stock assessments line item, we remain concerned that
funding in this area is insufficient. There currently is a gap of over
$40 million between what NMFS needs to conduct stock assessments of
federally managed fish populations and the funding that is available.
Also, NMFS estimates that under current funding levels it has a deficit
of 3,811 days at sea, many of which are used to conduct stock
assessments. The impact of this deficit is demonstrated by the fact
that the status of three-quarters of all fish species managed by NMFS
is unknown, largely due to a lack of funding for basic research and
stock assessments. An additional $15 million, for a total appropriation
of $33.9 million for expanding stock assessments, would further this
essential work.
OBSERVER PROGRAMS
Request: Total of $35 million
As stated by NOAA in their budget summary, the current level of
funding will only provide observers for 43 fisheries and adequate
coverage for only 29 of those. Last year Congress took a strong
positive step to improve the management of America's fish populations
when it increased the overall fisheries observer budget by almost $11
million. Observers are an essential fish management tool because they
provide critical data on the amount and type of ocean wildlife killed
due to fishing. However, the proposed fiscal year 2005 budget would
decrease this funding by $2.3 million. A nationwide observer program
for all federal fisheries would cost approximately $118 million. A
smart investment toward the sustainability of our nation fisheries
would be to fully fund a national observer program. Increasing funding
for observers by $12.5 million to a total of $35 million, would be a
down payment on that effort.
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Request: Total of $15 million
Essential fish habitats (EFH) are those waters and substrate upon
which fish depend for reproduction and growth. Land-based activities
and destructive fishing practices threaten the viability of these
habitats and the sustainability of the fish populations that depend on
them. While the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 gave NMFS a clear
mandate to identify and protect EFH, too little has been done to
protect these habitats. NMFS has approximately $4.85 million in its
base budget for EFH. This level of funding is not nearly adequate for
protecting the EFH for the almost 1,000 federally managed fish, nor for
the research necessary to understand the relationship between habitat
and healthy fish populations. Increasing funding by $10.15 million to a
total of $15 million would better equip NMFS to gain the information
necessary to further refine EFH designations and take action to protect
EFH from the adverse impacts of fishing.
VESSEL MONITORING SYSTEMS
Request: Total of $12.4 million
Increasing funding for vessel monitoring systems (VMS) to $12.4
million would allow for the establishment and implementation of VMS, as
well as placing VMS transponders on many of the estimated 10,000
vessels in the U.S. commercial fishing fleet. This represents a $3.1
million increase over the President's request. VMS programs enhance
data collection and safety at sea. VMS is beneficial to regulators
because it will allow officials to know when a fishing vessel is
violating closed areas or is fishing beyond the end of a regulated
fishing season.
Thank you for considering our request for increasing funding for
these important fish management programs. These increases will go a
long way toward ensuring that NMFS can better manage and protect our
nation's fish resources now and for the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jimmie Kerr, Pinal County
Supervisor
Chairman Gregg, Ranking Member Hollings, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify today in
support of a $9 million Cooperative Assistance Grant (CAP) from the
U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) for expansion of the Pinal County
detention facility in the fiscal year 2005 Senate Commerce, Justice,
State and the Judiciary Appropriations bill.
As you may know, Mr. Chairman, Arizona is the second fastest
growing state in the nation. And, Pinal County is the fastest growing
county per capita in the state. Unfortunately, with increased
population comes increased crime. Simply put, our jails and prisons are
grossly overcrowded and each and every year this problem is only
exacerbated by our growing population. Our county has come up with a
unique proposal that will repay the federal government, help the
Marshals Service obtain much needed additional bed space, and, at the
same time, relieve our county's overcrowded prison population. This
proposal would be a win-win for the federal government and Pinal
County.
Under the proposal, the CAP grant would enable Pinal County to
build an additional 500 unit pod onto its new detention facility. In
return, the USMS would be guaranteed an additional 200 beds in the
Pinal County facility.
Pinal County would reduce the established USMS per diem rate for
all inmates in the facility by $18.60 per day until the grant is fully
repaid to the USMS. It is estimated that USMS would recover the entire
$9 million in less than seven years, which would save the USMS the
total annual operating cost equivalent of approximately 153,577
prisoner days over this roughly seven year period.
The reduced per diem rate, while working to pay back the USMS,
would also help fund the additional operating costs of the new facility
to the tune of about $2.92 million per year (200 inmates $40
365 days = $2,920,000). In addition, the USMS would save
nearly $1.4 million per year over the next seven years for operating
expenditures under this unique proposal ($18.60 200
365 = $1,357,800).
Again, our detention center facilities are way too overcrowded and
Pinal County's approach to this problem benefits both the federal
government and the county. At a time when the federal deficit threatens
fiscal solvency, this plan responds to those fiscal demands by repaying
the federal government for all the money that is borrowed.
Therefore, I strongly urge the Subcommittee to support Pinal
County's request for a $9 million CAP grant to expand its overcrowded
facility. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS)
Program
The Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program
respectfully requests that Congress appropriate for fiscal year 2005,
$50 million to continue their support in combating terrorism, drug
trafficking, and organized crime.
These funds will enable RISS to continue services to state and
local law enforcement agencies to identify, target, prosecute, and
remove criminal conspirators involved in terrorism activity, drug
trafficking, organized criminal activity, criminal gangs, and violent
crime that span multijurisdictional boundaries. Funds will allow RISS
to continue to support the investigation and prosecution efforts of
over 6,600 local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement member
agencies across the nation comprising over 744,000 sworn law
enforcement personnel.
Through funding from Congress, RISS has implemented and operates
the only secure Web-based nationwide network--called riss.net--for
communications and sharing of criminal intelligence by local, state,
tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies. Funds will allow RISS to
upgrade the technology infrastructure and resources to support
increased use and reliance on the system by member law enforcement
agencies and support the integration of other systems connected to
riss.net for information sharing and communication. Using Virtual
Private Network technology, the law enforcement users access the public
Internet from their desktops and have a secure connection over the
private riss.net intranet to all RISS criminal intelligence databases
and resources. RISS member law enforcement agencies accessed riss.net
an average of 3.6 million times per month during fiscal year 2003.
Riss.net is a proven, highly effective system that improves the quality
of criminal intelligence information available to law enforcement
officers to make key decisions at critical points in their
investigation and prosecution efforts.
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Regional Information Sharing
Systems (RISS) is a federally funded program comprised of six regional
intelligence centers. The six centers provide criminal information
exchange and other related operational support services to local,
state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies located in all
fifty states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, Canada,
Australia, and England. These centers are:
--Middle Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network
(MAGLOCLEN).--Delaware, District of Columbia, Indiana,
Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and New
York, as well as Australia, Canada, and England.
--Mid-States Organized Crime Information Center (MOCIC).--Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wisconsin, as well as Canada.
--New England State Police Information Network (NESPIN).--
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Vermont, as well as Canada.
--Regional Organized Crime Information Center (ROCIC).--Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as Puerto Rico and the
U.S. Virgin Islands.
--Rocky Mountain Information Network (RMIN).--Arizona, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, as well
as Canada.
--Western States Information Network (WSIN).--Alaska, California,
Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, as well as Canada, Guam, and
Australia.
RISS is a force multiplier in fighting increased violent criminal
activity by terrorists, drug traffickers, sophisticated cyber
criminals, street gangs, and emerging criminal groups that require a
cooperative effort by local, state, tribal, and federal law
enforcement. There is an increasing communications sophistication by
the criminal networks, including terrorists, and a rising presence of
organized and mobile narcotics crime. Interagency cooperation in
sharing information has proven to be the best method to combat the
increasing criminal activity in these areas. The RISS centers are
filling law enforcement's need for rapid, but controlled, sharing of
information and intelligence pertaining to known or suspected
terrorists, drug traffickers, and other criminals. Congress funded the
RISS Program to address this need as evidenced by its authorization in
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
The success of RISS has been acknowledged and vigorously endorsed
by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), as well as
other national law enforcement groups such as the National Sheriffs'
Association (NSA) and the National Fraternal Order of Police (NFOP).
RISS is operating current state-of-the-art technical capabilities
and systems architecture that allow local, state, tribal, and federal
law enforcement member agencies to interact electronically with one
another in a secure environment. The RISS system has built-in
accountability and security. The RISS secure intranet (riss.net)
protects information through use of encryption, smart cards, Internet
protocol security standards, and firewalls to prevent unauthorized
access. The RISS system is governed by the operating principles and
security and privacy standards of 28 CFR Part 23 (Criminal Intelligence
Systems Operating Policies). The technical architecture adopted by RISS
requires proper authorization to access information, but also provides
flexibility in the levels of electronic access assigned to individual
users based on security and need-to-know issues. Riss.net supports
secure e-mail and is easily accessible using the Internet. This type
system and architecture is referenced and recommended in the General
Counterdrug Intelligence Plan (GCIP) and is endorsed by the National
Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP).
The FBI Law Enforcement Online (LEO) system and the RISS system
achieved interconnection of the two systems in 2002 for distribution of
sensitive but unclassified homeland security information to authorized
users of both LEO and RISS. The value of this interconnection was
recognized in 2003 by the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan,
which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Plan
designates the RISS/LEO interconnection as the initial sensitive but
unclassified communications backbone for implementation of a nationwide
criminal intelligence sharing capability. This nationwide sensitive but
unclassified communications backbone supports fully functional,
bidirectional information sharing capabilities that reuse existing
local, state, tribal, regional, and federal infrastructure investments.
The Plan recommends that interoperability of existing systems with the
RISS/LEO communications capability proceed immediately to leverage
information sharing systems and expand intelligence sharing. The
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the U.S. Attorney
General, and other federal agency administrators endorse the Plan and
have adopted it as a national model for all law enforcement agencies,
organizations, and associations. RISS officials are working to
implement the Plan recommendations within current budgetary restraints.
In addition, RISS has recognized that the need for exchange of
information extends beyond law enforcement and the RISS/LEO virtual
single system. During 2003, RISS implemented a service available over
riss.net to link law enforcement with the public safety and first
responder agencies involved in securing our nation from terrorism. The
service is known as the RISS Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange, or
RISS ATIX, and includes a secure Web site, secure bulletin board, and
secure e-mail. Through this capability, users can post timely threat
information, view and respond to messages posted by government, police,
fire, emergency, and infrastructure security personnel, and collaborate
with law enforcement partners. These additional groups of users include
public service, public safety, emergency management, utility, and other
critical infrastructure personnel that have traditionally not been
served by RISS. RISS began this service with limited funding to provide
a rapid, secure means for first responder agencies to share
information.
RISS has entered into a partnership with the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) to electronically connect all of the HIDTAs
to riss.net for communications and information sharing. Currently, 16
HIDTAs are electronically connected as nodes to riss.net, and RISS is
working to complete the connection of the remaining HIDTAs. Twelve
state agencies are currently connected as nodes on riss.net. An
additional nine state law enforcement agencies are pending connection
as nodes to share information, including terrorism and homeland
security information, using riss.net.
The Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) has
connected staff to riss.net at each of the 93 U.S. Attorneys' Offices
(USAO) Anti-Terrorism Task Forces throughout the United States. Staff
at the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, has connected to
riss.net. RISS and the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) officials
entered into a partnership and have electronically connected EPIC as a
node to riss.net to capture clandestine laboratory seizure data from
RISS state and local law enforcement member agencies. Other systems
connected to riss.net include the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit
(LEIU), the National Drug Pointer Index (NDPIX), the National White
Collar Crime Center (NW\3\C), the National Law Enforcement
Telecommunication System (NLETS), and the Criminal Information Sharing
Alliance (CISA), formerly the Southwest Border States Anti-Drug
Information System (SWBSADIS). The United States Postal Inspection
Service (USPIS) is currently pending connection to riss.net as a node.
The National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) uses the RISS network as a
communications mechanism for publishing counterdrug intelligence
products to federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement members.
The integration of the above-mentioned state and federal agencies
and systems with the riss.net secure nationwide communications backbone
has increased the sharing of criminal intelligence and alerts and
homeland security information within their own agencies and among the
other agencies. The operation of RISS ATIX provides first responders
and critical infrastructure personnel with a secure means via riss.net
to communicate, share information, and receive terrorist threat
information.
Due to the interest of many law enforcement agency systems to
electronically connect to the RISS/LEO backbone, RISS has developed a
security architecture solution to allow users with various types of
security credentials to connect and traverse riss.net to share
information and access resources without being required to use the RISS
specific security credentials. Adequate funding is needed to implement
the technology.
--RISS is operating an unprecedented nationwide network for
communicating critical information in a secure environment to
both law enforcement and other first responders. To support the
increased needs of these personnel and continue to maintain the
RISS system and demand for RISS services and resources, RISS is
requesting an increase in funding to $50 million for 2005.
In view of today's increasing demands on federal, state, local, and
tribal law enforcement budgets, requests for RISS services have risen.
This support of law enforcement has had a dramatic impact on the
success of their investigations. Over the three-year period 2001-2003,
RISS generated a return by member agencies that resulted in 11,701
arrests, seizure of narcotics valued at over $189 million, seizure of
over $9.8 million in currency, and recovery or seizure of property
valued at over $31 million.
RISS continues to work with federal, state, local, and tribal
agencies in their efforts to combat the menace of drugs on our street,
and the significant influence of youth gangs in the distribution and
sale of drugs. RISS is working to foster relationships with public
safety and first responder agencies to increase information sharing on
terrorism and critical infrastructure matters among those groups and
with law enforcement.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance administers the RISS Program and
has established guidelines for provision of services to member
agencies. The RISS regional intelligence centers are subject to
oversight, monitoring, and auditing by the U.S. Congress; the General
Accounting Office, a federally funded program evaluation office; the
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance; and state and
local governmental units. The Bureau of Justice Assistance also
monitors the RISS centers for 28 CFR Part 23 compliance. This
regulation emphasizes adherence to individual constitutional and
privacy rights and places stricter controls on the RISS intelligence
sharing function than those placed on most federal, state, or local
agencies. RISS firmly recognizes the need to ensure that individuals'
constitutional rights, civil liberties, civil rights, and privacy
interests are protected throughout the intelligence process. In this
regard, RISS officials recently adopted a RISS Privacy Policy to
further strengthen their commitment and support of 28 CFR Part 23 and
protection of individual privacy rights.
It is respectfully requested that the Congress fully fund the RISS
Program as a line item in the Congressional budget, in the requested
amount of $50 million. Local and state law enforcement, who depend on
the RISS centers for information sharing, training, analytical support,
investigative funding, and technical assistance, are experiencing
increased competition for decreasing budget resources. It would be
counterproductive to require the RISS members from state and local
agencies to self-fund match requirements, as well as to reduce the
amount of BJA discretionary funding. The state and local agencies
require more, not less, funding to fight the nation's crime/drug
problem. The RISS Program cannot make up the decrease in funding that a
match would cause, and it has no revenue source of its own. Cutting the
RISS appropriation by requiring a match should not be imposed on the
program.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide the committee with
this testimony and appreciate the support this committee has
continuously provided to the RISS Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives
Interest of the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)
The IME is the safety and security association of the commercial
explosives industry. Our mission is to promote safety and the
protection of employees, users, the public and the environment; and to
encourage the adoption of uniform rules and regulations in the
manufacture, transportation, storage, handling, use and disposal of
explosive materials used in blasting and other essential operations.
ATF is one of the agencies that plays a primary role in assuring that
explosives are identified, tracked, and stored only to and by
authorized persons. The ability to manufacture, distribute and use
these products safely and securely is critical to this industry. With
this perspective, we have carefully reviewed the Administration's
fiscal year 2005 budget request and have the following comments.
Performance Measures Fall Short of Strategic Goals
The commerce of explosives is one of the nation's most heavily
regulated activities. ATF plays a key role in this regulatory scheme
through its implementation of Federal Explosives Law. To ensure that
the Bureau meets its statutory responsibilities, ATF has identified
goals and performance standards that can measure areas of progress or
areas needing attention. With regard to its explosives mission, the
Bureau states that its strategic goals are to ``counter crimes of
violence'' by effective enforcement of Federal Explosives Law (FEL) and
to ``protect public safety'' through regulation of the explosives
industry and explosives safety efforts.\1\ To accomplish these goals,
ATF sets a number of performance measures.\2\ Regrettably, with two
exceptions, these measures do not identify outcome measures as required
by Government Results and Performance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOJ Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary, page ATF-29.
\2\ DOJ Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary, page ATF-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two exceptions are the measures to ``investigate all reported
explosives thefts'' and to respond to all ``telephone inquiries from
industry [within] 72 hours.'' \3\ We support these measures. However,
we question ATF's determination to limit its efforts to timely respond
to inquiries from industry to those inquiries received by telephone.
This measure should be expanded to include other electronic forms of
communication, as well as letter correspondence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOJ Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary, page ATF-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This leaves a number of measures with questionable outcomes. Under
its goal to ``counter crimes of violence,'' the Bureau states that it
will open some yet to be determined number of explosives investigations
and related to this the ``number of [explosives] defendants
convicted.'' However, if ATF's enforcement initiatives were working, a
more meaningful outcome measure should be the number of investigations
closed or otherwise resolved, irrespective of whether a conviction was
obtained. Under its goal to ``protect public safety,'' the Bureau
states that it will conduct 33 percent of its universe of explosives
licensee/permittees, which it projects to be about 4,000, and that it
will resolve up to 850 unsafe explosives conditions discovered by its
inspectors. In fact, the statutory standard for inspection of licensee/
permittees is, with the exception of ``limited permittees,'' to inspect
all licensee/permittee applicants prior to the issuance of such license
or permit.\4\ Thus the appropriate inspection measure should be the
percentage of inspections performed within the timeframe required by
law. ATF's standard to resolve up to 850 unsafe explosives conditions
is also inadequate. ATF has used this estimate at least since the
Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget request when it suggested that
850 corrective actions were less than half the Bureau's current
workload.\5\ The Administration's fiscal year 2005 request does not
disclose what the Bureau's current corrective action workload is.
Without this context, the 850 corrective action standard has no basis.
If ATF's compliance initiatives are working, however, a more meaningful
outcome measure should be to show a decreasing trend in the percent of
non-compliance practices that industry fails to rectify after
corrective actions have been issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 18 U.S.C. 843(b)(4)(A).
\5\ Statement of Bradley A. Buckles, Director, ATF, Subcommittee on
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, House Appropriations
Committee, February 28, 2002, page 17. (Fiscal year 2001--1,813
violations; 1st quarter fiscal year 2002--1,763 violations.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns about the Adequacy of Budget Resources
To accomplish the missions of ATF's explosives and arson program,
the Administration requests $231.2 million, an increase of $16.1
million over fiscal year 2004, but only $2.6 million over current
services.\6\ Nearly half of this new money, $1.1 million is for partial
funding of 62 new positions (31 FTE).\7\ All of these FTP would be
brought in as inspectors.\8\ Still, the fiscal year 2005 budget request
raises questions about ATF's ability to perform assigned functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DOJ Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary, page ATF 29. About 9
percent of this request, $20.7 million, is programmed for information
and technology enhancements, basically a level funding of the fiscal
year 2004 allocation for these functions.
\7\ DOJ Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary, page ATF-A6
\8\ DOJ Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary, page ATF-A5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Baseline Data.--We cannot comment on the adequacy of ATF's services
to industries other than our own. Still, the budget request is
difficult to evaluate in terms of resources because it does not
disclose information about its current workload, with the
exception of reports due to Congress. Even that is incomplete
as noted below. To better justify the Bureau's budget
submission, ATF should be asked to provide information on: the
number of investigations that are open, the date of the oldest
and the number of new cases opened in the last fiscal year; the
number of inspections that will be required to be preformed do
to permit/license renewals; the number of times ATF failed and
for what reason to issue a permit or license within the 90-day
timeframe required by law; the number of background checks that
ATF has performed, within what average timeframe, and of those,
how many individuals failed to receive clearance, and of those,
how many appealed the Bureau's findings; the number of
rulemakings outstanding and their priority; turnover rates
among agents and inspectors; and the number of persons and from
what agencies that are trained through ATF programs. Absent
information of this type, it is unclear how Congress can
effectively oversee ATF's explosives operations and determine
the adequacy of its budget request.
--Inspections.--As noted above, the statutory standard for inspection
of licensee/permittees is, with the exception of ``limited
permittees,'' to inspect the licensee/permittee applicant prior
to the issuance of such license or permit. ATF has not met this
standard in all instances. We would hope, with the addition of
62 inspector positions, that this situation will improve.
--Rulemakings.--The last publication of a ``final'' rule of
consequence to the explosives industry was in 1998.\9\
Currently, ATF has six open rulemakings of interest and concern
to the explosives industry.\10\ The oldest of these was
proposed in 1997. Several are a result of the enactment of the
Safe Explosives Act (SEA) in 2002. Our primary interface with
ATF is through efforts to comply with the Bureau's regulations.
Two of these rulemakings, which implement the SEA, were issued
as ``interim final rules,'' which allows rules to be enforced
without standard input as to the effect of the rule on the
regulated community. Subsequently, IME raised a number
interpretative questions and concerns about these rules which
are critical to the continued commerce of commercial
explosives. Yet, ATF does not project finalizing these rules
until February 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 63 FR 44999 (August 24, 1998).
\10\ Semiannual Agenda, 68 FR 73169-72 (December 22, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another pending rulemaking deserving of comment stems from a
loophole in current regulations that allows the importation of
explosives with no marks of manufacture identification.
Conversely, ATF regulations require domestic manufacturers to
mark all explosive materials they manufacture for sale or
distribution for reasons of security and safety.\11\ ATF has
emphasized that the failure to apply these markings inhibits
law enforcement from tracking explosives to the source, and
proving criminal activity. The marks enhance safety because
some explosives deteriorate over time and the code allows users
to keep inventory fresh. Additionally, the marks are one of
industry's ``QA/QC'' tools, allowing the manufacturer the
ability to trace product quality problems back to the point of
manufacture and distribution. In 2000, IME petitioned ATF for a
rulemaking to close this loophole as it applies to high
explosives and blasting agents.\12\ Our petition would make it
unlawful for any licensee to import such explosive materials
without marking all explosives materials in the same manner
prescribed by the ATF for domestic manufacturers. ATF finally
published a proposed rulemaking on this issue in October
2002.\13\ In light of the priority given to strengthening
homeland security, we have not understood the lack of urgency
given to this rulemaking. In the latest edition of the
Administration's semi-annual regulatory agenda, ATF has pushed
back for the third time its ``deadline'' for completing this
rulemaking.\14\ Now, four years after the filing of our initial
petition, we ask you to insist that ATF not let this target
release date slip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 27 CFR 55.109(a).
\12\ March 7, 2000 and August 2, 2000.
\13\ 67 FR 63862 (October 16, 2002).
\14\ Semiannual Agenda, 68 FR 73170 (December 22, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Reports.--ATF acknowledges three reports that are due to House and
Senate Appropriations Committees.\15\ Two of the reports are
required ``prior'' to the obligation of the $14 million fiscal
year 2004 allocation to implement the SEA or the National
Explosives Licensing Center which will process the SEA license/
permit applications. The release of these funds is crucial to
the effective and efficient implementation of the SEA. We are
concerned by ATF's lack of timeliness in submitting these
reports given that the provisions of the SEA have been
effective since May 24, 2003. According to ATF's estimate,
nearly a year will have passed between the effective date of
the SEA and the ``target'' date of the delivery of these
reports to Congress. We find this delay without
justification.\16\ There are other reports due Congress from
the ATF and are not mentioned in the Bureau's budget request of
particular concern to IME. The Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 charged ATF, which was delegated the
authority, to report on the feasibility of tagging explosive
materials for purposes of detection and/or identification,
rendering common chemicals used to manufacture explosive
materials inert, and imposing controls on certain precursor
chemicals used to manufacture explosive materials.\17\ We
understand that ATF intends to provide two reports to meet this
mandate. One will address issues related to the tagging, and in
particular ``identification'' tagging, of explosive materials.
The other will address issues related to the enhanced control
of ammonium nitrate (AN)--a precursor chemical used to
manufacture explosives. We have been told by ATF that the
``AN'' report is pending at DOJ and that the ``Taggant'' report
has yet to clear the Bureau. We are particularly concerned
about the content and recommendations potentially contained in
the Taggant report. ATF initially planned to submit the report
to Congress by the end of fiscal year 2001. IME had worked with
ATF to ensure that the Bureau had the industry data required.
Throughout the process ATF made efforts to keep us informed of
the work on the study and preliminary findings. As late as
August 2001, we were led to believe that ATF's research had
concluded, as did contemporary assessments by the National
Academy of Sciences, that identification taggants cannot be
supported with current technology. However, following the
events of September 11, 2001, ATF informed us that the report
had been pulled back and its conclusions are being reassessed.
As tragic and sobering as the events of September 11th are, it
does not alter the fact that current technology does not
support identification taggants. In the Subcommittee's
oversight capacity, ATF should be asked about the release date
of the 1996-mandated report and, after seven years of study,
what if any of the reports recommendations have been changed
due to the events of September 11th.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ DOJ Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary, page ATF-A10.
\16\ While the President did not enact the law requiring these
reports until January 23, 2004, ATF was aware of congressional
intentions with regard to such reports as early as September 5, 2003.
In view of the fact that the Bureau has been enforcing the SEA since
May 2003, we would have thought that by September 2003 and certainly
January 2004, ATF would have a clear idea of its implementation funding
needs and priorities.
\17\ Public Law 104-132, Section 732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF has also from time to time, but we hoped annually, reported
on arson and explosives incidents. IME uses this data to inform
the industry and the public about these incidents, trends they
may suggest, and lessons we may learn. However, ATF's last
published version of this document is dated, reporting
incidents occurring in 1997. A similar, though not identical,
report is issued by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Since ATF released its 1997 report, the FBI has released a 1998
and a 1999 bombing incident report. When IME last asked ATF
about the anticipated release date of its report, we were told
that it was being held up pending a reconciliation of data
between the Bureau and the FBI. It begs the questions of
whether the ATF report will continue in its current or a
revised form now that the Bureau has been transferred to DOJ,
home of the FBI, and the FBI has been, with more regularity,
producing a type of explosives incident report.
The future of the ATF Arson and Explosives Incident Report is but
a small example of overlaps and duplications that may exist
between the Bureau and other law enforcement programs at DOJ,
and provides a segway to a report we are all anxious to review.
In the conference report to the fiscal year 2004 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, Congress directed DOJ to submit with its
fiscal year 2005 budget request ``a proposal to better blend
and eliminate duplication of explosives training and other law
enforcement programs at the [DOJ].'' \18\ In this regard, we
note that the Administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request
continues to carry forward language from earlier budget
requests that ``no funds made available by this or any other
Act may be used to transfer the functions, missions, or
activities of the [ATF] to other agencies or Departments in
fiscal year 2005.'' \19\ This language appears to be at odds
with any attempt to consolidate and streamline programs.
Meanwhile, we are anxious to understand what, if any,
recommendations in this report may impact how commercial
explosives are overseen, regulated and enforced within DOJ, and
once understanding these recommendations, reserving the
opportunity to provide additional comment to the Subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Conf. Rept. 108-401, to accompany H.R. 2673 (Public Law 108-
199).
\19\ DOJ Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Summary, page ATF-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The manufacture and distribution of explosives is accomplished with
a remarkable degree of safety. We recognize the important role played
by ATF in helping our industry achieve and maintain safe and secure
workplaces. Industry and the public trust that ATF has the resources to
fulfill its regulatory responsibilities. We, therefore, strongly
recommend full funding for ATF's explosives program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation of Oregon
Mr. Chairman, I, Garland Brunoe, Chairman of the Tribal Council of
the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon,
hereby submit this testimony regarding the fiscal year 2005
appropriation for the U.S. Department of Justice. All of our fiscal
year 2005 requests address programs in the Justice Department's Office
of Justice Programs, and are summarized below: (1) Restore State and
Local Law Enforcement Assistance funding for Indian tribes in the
amount of $15 million; (2) increase Tribal COPS funding by $10 million
to $30 million; and (3) provide $20 million for Tribal Juvenile Justice
programs for fiscal year 2005.
Our requests are more fully discussed below.
Restore State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance funding for Indian
tribes in the amount of $15 million
The fiscal year 2005 Department of Justice budget proposes to
completely eliminate funding for the State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance program, which in fiscal year 2004 included $2 million for
tribal jail construction, $8 million for tribal courts, and $5 million
for tribal alcohol and substance abuse prevention and treatment
programs. All of these programs are critical to public safety and
stability on Indian reservations. Our own jail, designed and built by
BIA, is out of compliance with federal standards and needs to be
substantially remodeled or rebuilt. Tribal courts are a key link in
tribal justice systems and essential to tribal sovereignty, and this
funding has been the only steady source of federal support, even as
small as it has been, for our court systems. And alcohol and substance
abuse plague our communities and significantly contribute to crime.
Accordingly, we request that fiscal year 2005 funding for Indian tribes
in the State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance program be restored
to at least their fiscal year 2004 levels.
Increase Tribal COPS funding by $10 million to $30 million
Indian tribes face significant difficulties in providing law
enforcement. Reservations are often rural and sparsely populated across
great distances. Unemployment is often high and infrastructure
inadequate. Many tribal economies are modest, and cannot on their own
support much in the way of law enforcement. The Bureau of Indian
Affairs law enforcement budget is also insufficient. As a result,
crime, including violent crime, is often exceptionally high in Indian
Country. Within the last ten years, alarming reports on reservation law
enforcement and public safety prompted support increases within BIA law
enforcement and also within the Department of Justice's Community
Oriented Policing Systems programs. The COPS program is a vital
component of law enforcement on many reservations, as demonstrated by
its retention within the drastically cut-back fiscal year 2005 national
COPS program. Accordingly, we request that the Tribal COPS program be
increased to $30 million for fiscal year 2005, an increase of $5
million over fiscal year 2004 and $10 million over the Administration's
fiscal year 2005 request.
Provide $20 million for Tribal Juvenile Justice programs for fiscal
year 2005
The fiscal year 2005 Department of Justice budget proposes to
completely eliminate funding for the Juvenile Justice Program, which in
fiscal year 2004 included $10 million for tribal youth. Tribal youth
often must confront joblessness and poverty, which can lead to despair
and delinquency. Today across the United States, Native American young
people already are among the most troubled, and particular care and
supervision are essential. A recent audit of Juvenile-related programs
and services at Warm Springs revealed a dramatic lack of services and
resources available to work with our troubled youth and correct
delinquent behavior. Without assistance to address these problems, the
already devastating circumstances for the young people in our
communities will only accelerate. Accordingly, we request that the
Tribal Youth funding in Juvenile Justice be doubled from its fiscal
year 2004 amount of $10 million to $20 million.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes the Confederated Tribes of the Warm
Springs Reservation's appropriations requests of your Subcommittee for
fiscal year 2005. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of The Asia Foundation
Mr. Chairman: The Asia Foundation is grateful for the strong
support of the Congress, including the appropriation of $13 million for
fiscal year 2004. Past committee report language has commended our
grant making role in Asia and the Appropriations Committees have
encouraged the Foundation to expand its programs in predominantly
Muslim countries, including Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and
Mindanao in the Philippines. Regrettably, the Administration decided to
use their fiscal year 2004 requests as the baseline for their fiscal
year 2005 requests. That resulted in a low fiscal year 2005 request for
the Foundation. We respectfully urge the Committee to sustain its
support for the vital work of the Foundation on behalf of U.S.
interests in this uniquely complex region, particularly as we deepen
our involvement in front line states, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and
Indonesia and India, a regional power of increasing importance to U.S.
interests in South Asia. The Asia Foundation is requesting a modest
increase to $15 million, below the $18 million authorized by the State
Department authorization bill recently passed by the House.
An appropriation of $15 million would allow The Asia Foundation to
strengthen programs it has begun in recent years with Congressional
encouragement, notably in the areas of protecting women and children
against trafficking, promoting women's political and economic
participation, strengthening Constitutional democracy and restoring a
functioning educational system in Afghanistan, promoting tolerance in
predominantly Muslim nations like Indonesia, protecting human rights,
and strengthening civil society throughout the region.
We are cognizant of the fiscal year 2005 budgetary pressures on the
Committee. However, any cut below the current funding level for the
Foundation would curtail important work, in some cases, just as the
program investments over the past few years have reached maturity, and
positive results are attainable. The Asia Foundation is the only
American organization with a distinctive history of fifty years of
presence and engagement in Asia, delivering concrete programs that
address some of Asia's most pressing needs. Curtailment of Foundation
programs in these key areas could wrongly signal to people in the
region a loss of U.S. commitment to democratic governance, civil
society and human rights in Asia.
OVERVIEW
The United States and Asia face new challenges, complicated by the
war on terrorism and fragile democracies in Afghanistan, Indonesia,
Pakistan, and even in Thailand and Korea. More than ever, we must
support political stability and economic reform, and give attention to
countries where recent events have complicated bilateral relations,
specifically in countries that have been traditional allies of the
United States, and in countries with predominantly Muslim populations.
Challenges to governance in the newly democratic countries of Asia,
including Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Korea, require
different approaches than in countries struggling to attain democracy,
peace and stability, such as Afghanistan, Nepal, and Pakistan.
Continued political instability in Indonesia, lack of a peace
settlement in the Southern Philippines, and the emergence of regional
terrorist networks threaten regional stability. Human rights abuses,
and impunity for perpetrators continue throughout the region. Even
though women in Asia have made gains in many places, such as Cambodia,
Thailand and Nepal, they are still subject to economic and political
inequities. In the worse cases, they are victims of trafficking and
abuse.
Working together with Asian organizations as a trusted partner
through a network of 17 offices in Asia, The Asia Foundation is a
nongovernmental, nonpartisan American asset combining local
credibility, a nuanced understanding of the issues facing each country,
and unparalleled access and relationships with government,
nongovernmental groups, and the private sector. The Asia Foundation is
a well recognized American organization, but its programs are grounded
in Asia, helping to solve local problems in cooperation with Asian
partners. The Foundation combines a long-term view of policy reform and
development in Asia, and a rapid response capacity through grant making
and expert staff to deliver short-term, high impact programs. In
addition to the importance of these programs to the lives of people in
Asia, the Foundation's efforts also make an important and tangible
contribution to public diplomacy for the United States.
THE ASIA FOUNDATION'S MISSION
The Asia Foundation's core objectives are central to U.S. interests
in the Asia-Pacific region:
--Democracy, human rights and the rule of law: developing and
strengthening democratic institutions and encouraging an
active, informed and responsible nongovernmental sector;
advancing the rule of law; and building institutions to uphold
and protect human rights;
--Open trade and investment: supporting trade, investment and
economic reform at the regional and national levels;
--Women's political participation: encouraging women's participation
in public life; protecting women's rights and supporting
advocacy training; prevention of trafficking and supporting
efforts to protect and provide shelter to victims;
--Peaceful and stable regional relations: promoting United States-
Asian dialogue on security, regional economic cooperation, law
and human rights.
The Foundation remains faithful to its grant-making role, steadily
building institutions and strengthening Asian leadership. Foundation
assistance supports training, technical assistance, and seed funding
for new, local organizations, all aimed at promoting reform, building
Asian capacity and strengthening United States-Asia relations.
Foundation grantees can be found in every sector in Asia, leaders of
government and industry and at the grassroots level, in an increasingly
diverse civil society.
The Foundation provides necessary technical assistance, and grants
that cover nuts and bolts necessities to support reform efforts. For
example, in the case of the drafting of the Afghan Constitution, the
Foundation provided expert advice on the drafting process, reference
materials, equipment and administrative support costs for the
Constitutional Commission, and later, the operational and logistical
support for the Constitutional Loya Jirga (CLJ). The Asia Foundation
was awarded a medal for its contribution at the closing ceremony of the
Loya Jirga by President Karzai. Special Representative of the U.N.
Secretary General for Afghanistan Brahimi stated at the end of the
Constitutional Loya Jirga: ``The Asia Foundation staff are the unsung
heroes of the CLJ process. Without the creativity, intellectual insight
and flexibility of The Asia Foundation, much that has been accomplished
would not have been done.''
PROGRAMS
The Asia Foundation makes over 800 grants per year. The Foundation
also facilitates programs, provides technical assistance and leverages
funding from public and private donors, to increase program impact and
sustainability. With additional funding in fiscal year 2004, the
Foundation's expanded activities include:
Human Rights, Conflict and Islam: in Indonesia, establishment of
the International Center for Islam and Pluralism (ICIP) the only
regional center for progressive Muslim scholarship and exchange in
Southeast Asia; education reform in 1,000 schools including training on
pluralism, human rights and civic education for 160 madrassa (day
schools) teachers through the Center for Human Resources Development
(PPSDM) at the State Islamic University; curriculum reform for 800
pesantren (boarding schools), part of the Foundation's education reform
of 625 Islamic schools nationwide, with over 215,000 students; in
Cambodia, Sri Lanka and Nepal, human rights education, monitoring, and
documentation through new information technology networking; in
Mindanao in the Philippines Local Peace Monitors for the cessation of
hostilities agreement and madrassa education research for the first
time in 15 years;
Civil Society: in Pakistan, public awareness and media campaigns
promoting democracy, human rights and access to education for women and
women's rights under the law, civil society development through
capacity building and training; in Afghanistan, girls education and
journalism training for women; in Cambodia, human rights and legal
services; in Indonesia, promote pluralism, tolerance and moderation by
mainstream Muslim organizations through public education, media through
radio talk shows and education reform;
Women's Programs: regionwide, with particular emphasis on
Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam and Mongolia, anti-trafficking
programs including prevention, services for victims, legal drafting and
advocacy to support increased prosecutions; services and advocacy for
women victims of domestic violence; in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka and Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Mindanao projects to
advance women's rights within an Islamic framework through analysis,
public education and outreach; in Afghanistan and Cambodia, support for
scholarships for girls' education;
Legal Reform: in Afghanistan, constitutional drafting technical
assistance and operations and logistics for the Constitutional Loya
Jirga in support of the UNAMA effort, technical support for the
Constitutional Secretariat and logistics for the delegate selection
process in Afghanistan; access to justice programs and public
consultation in lawmaking in East Timor; legal aid services and legal
education for migrant women workers in China; in Indonesia reform of
the Supreme Court including civil society input into the reform
process; in Nepal, mediation programs, legal reform within the courts,
establishment of legal information systems and watchdog citizens'
groups to raise awareness on corruption and official misconduct;
Economic Reform: In Indonesia, Vietnam, Nepal, Bangladesh, small
and medium enterprise policy reform; in Korea, Japan, China, Mongolia
and the Philippines, corporate governance reform and e-government
efforts to counter corruption;
International Relations: In China, Vietnam and India, scholarships
for young Ministry of Foreign Affairs leaders, study programs for
Southeast Asian young leaders to the United States, and support for
Track II programs on cross-straits relations and Council for Security
Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP).
CONCLUSION
As these examples of our work emphasize, The Asia Foundation is
first and foremost a field based, grant-making organization. The
Foundation has consistently received national recognition for its
efficient grant-to-operating ratio, reflecting its commitment to
maximizing program impact in Asia while keeping costs low. We are not a
research organization or academic institution, nor are we Washington
based. We operate on the ground in Asia as an accepted, trusted partner
and supporter of Asian reform efforts that simultaneously support and
reinforce American political, economic and security interests.
Public funding is essential to our mission. While the Foundation
continues to expand its private funding, the flexibility and
reliability that public funding lends to the Foundation's efforts are
critical. As an organization committed to U.S. interests in Asia, we
can only be successful if potential private donors understand that the
U.S. government continues to support our efforts in the region.
Furthermore, private funds are almost always tied to specific projects,
as are USAID funds for which the Foundation competes. These funds do
not replace public funding, either in scale or flexibility. Moreover,
the flexibility afforded by appropriated funds enables the Foundation
to respond quickly to fast breaking developments and program
opportunities. For example, we were the first American organization in
Kabul to assist the Emergency Loya Jirga process, having re-opened our
office in January 2002.
Now more than ever, the Foundation and its supporters believe that
its most important asset is its field office network in Asia, enabling
the Foundation to address critical development and reforms on the
ground. Maintaining offices overseas costs more than maintaining
operations within the United States and new demands to ensure adequate
security have added to the cost. Today, we continue to face budgetary
constraints. We must protect our staff, but at the same time, we are,
as always, committed to ensuring the maximum possible amount of
appropriated funds are dedicated to programs in Asia.
In closing, the Foundation has an opportunity and the obligation to
demonstrate America's strong commitment to working with Asian leaders
to assure the security, rights and well being of the people of Asia.
The Asia Foundation's programs represent a distinctive and positive
American response to the challenges facing Asia today, contributing to
the development of stable societies and advancing the interests of the
United States in the region. Additional funding would enable the
Foundation to sustain and expand its efforts to meet these goals. Thank
you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Small Business Development
Centers
The Association of Small Business Development Centers (ASBDC) urges
the Subcommittee to provide an appropriation of $100 million for the
U.S. Small Business Administration's Small Business Development Center
(SBDC) grant program in the fiscal year 2005 Commerce-Justice-State
appropriations bill. This is the funding level recommended by the
Senate Budget Committee for federal SBDC grants in fiscal year 2005.
Small businesses are struggling. BusinessWeek Online points out
that small businesses, which usually create most of the new jobs in the
initial stages of an economic recovery, are increasingly going bankrupt
and extinguishing jobs. America's SBDC network can help small
businesses lead the nation's economic recovery and create new jobs--as
well as generate the additional revenues needed to reduce the budget
deficit. But we need the resources to do the job.
Based on its record during the past decade, with an appropriation
of $100 million our nation's SBDC network could help SBDC in-depth
counseling clients to: create an estimated 88,846 new full time jobs;
increase sales by an estimated $7.1 billion; generate an estimated $211
million in additional revenue for the federal government; and, create
an estimated $315 million in additional tax revenues for state
governments.
Since fiscal year 2001, when Congress appropriated $88 million for
SBDC grants, the President's budget proposal has not called for an
increase in funding for SBDC grants, despite the effects of inflation
and a growing demand for SBDC services. As a result, federal funding
for our nation's SBDC network has decreased in real terms since fiscal
year 2001. The SBDCs in 24 states (including Kansas, Kentucky,
Maryland, New Mexico, West Virginia and Wisconsin) are operating with
less federal funding than they received in fiscal year 2002. The SBDCs
in the fifteen least populated states (including Alaska, Hawaii, New
Hampshire and Vermont) have not had an increase in federal funding
since fiscal year 1998. This year, SBDC grantees will receive less
federal funding than they received in fiscal year 2003, and OMB has
crafted a budget for fiscal year 2005 that proposes to reduce SBDC
grant funding even further.
There is room in the budget to provide a needed increase in funding
for SBDC grants. The Senate Budget Committee has recommended that
federal SBDC grants be funded in fiscal year 2005 at $100 million. In
addition, the Senate passed an amendment to increase the SBA's fiscal
year 2005 budget by $121 million, to fund increases in a range of
programs including the SBDCs. Moreover, while the SBA's fiscal year
2005 Congressional Budget Request proposes to cut funding for SBDC
grants, it calls for the total cost of the SBDC program to increase by
nearly $9 million--presumably for the SBA's expenses associated with
administering the SBDC program. The ASBDC would respectfully suggest
that any additional funding for the SBA to administer the SBDC program
would be better spent on the delivery of counseling and training
services to small businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs, by increasing
funding for grants instead of administration.
The Association of Small Business Development Centers (ASBDC)
represents the 63 State, Regional and Territorial SBDC programs
comprising America's SBDC network. SBDC programs are located in all 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, The Virgin Islands, Guam
and American Samoa. America's SBDC network is the most productive
federal management and technical assistance program for small business.
It is a unique partnership that includes Congress, the SBA and the
private sector, as well as the colleges, universities and state
governments that receive SBDC grants and manage the SBDC network.
Nationwide, SBDCs provided management and technical assistance to
more than 1.3 million small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs
last year. In 2003, SBDC services included face-to-face counseling of
an hour or more for 279,281 clients; 1.6 million total hours of
counseling; 25,970 group training sessions; training of two hours or
more for 408,254 clients; and more than two million total hours of
training for small businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs.
The SBDC program was designed to create a lasting partnership among
federal, state and local governments and institutions of higher
learning, to disseminate the very best practical business management
and technical knowledge to our nation's small business owners and
aspiring entrepreneurs, and grow the American economy. The plan has
worked remarkably well:
--SBDCs help create and save jobs. In the recession of 2001, as big
businesses downsized, SBDC in-depth counseling for small
businesses generated 46,688 new full time jobs and helped save
an additional 34,215 jobs.
--SBDC counseling clients create more jobs than average businesses.
Businesses that received in-depth SBDC counseling experienced
10 times the job growth of average businesses (8.4 percent
compared to 0.8 percent for U.S. businesses in general in
2001).
--SBDCs help small businesses increase sales. SBDC in-depth
counseling helped small businesses generate $3.9 billion in new
sales and save $4.3 billion in sales in 2001.
--SBDC clients' sales grow faster than other businesses' sales.
Established businesses that received in-depth SBDC counseling
experienced sales growth of 12.1 percent in 2001--compared to
3.1 percent for businesses in general.
--SBDC clients create new businesses. 50 percent of pre-venture SBDC
in-depth counseling clients start businesses within one year of
receiving assistance. In 2001, SBDC in-depth counseling clients
started 12,872 new businesses.
--SBDC clients make investments in our economy. SBDCs helped small
businesses obtain an estimated $2.7 billion in financing in
2001. Every dollar spent on the SBDC network helped small
businesses invest $15.89 in capital.
Outstanding institutions of higher education such as the University
of New Hampshire, the University of Alaska Anchorage, Santa Fe
Community College, the University of Kentucky, the University of
Houston, the Dallas County Community College District, Texas Tech
University, the University of Texas at San Antonio, Fort Hays State
University (Kansas), the University of South Carolina-Columbia, the
University of Hawaii at Hilo, the University of Maryland, the Vermont
State Colleges, the University of Wisconsin-Extension and Washington
State University, to name a few, are among the hosts of the SBDC
program. Many host institutions house the great business schools and
entrepreneurial programs in our nation, such as the Wharton School, the
Kenan-Flagler School of Business, the Robert H. Smith School of
Business, the Isenberg School of Management and the Terry College of
Business. SBDC hosts also include state governments such as the State
of Colorado and the West Virginia Development Office. These state
governments, like the institutions of higher learning that host SBDC
programs, bring to the SBDCs resources, relationships and unparalleled
leadership in their respective states.
Among the management and technical assistance services they
provide, SBDCs provide services in several areas that are of particular
concern to small businesses, and to members of the Subcommittee,
including export assistance, procurement and manufacturing.
Many SBDCs host specialized International Trade Centers, where
small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs receive
individualized, in-depth counseling and specialized training from
experts in international trade and export expansion. And because the
SBDC International Trade Centers are part of the larger SBDC network,
small businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs that seek international
trade assistance can also access the many other types of assistance--
from marketing to research--that they need to make their export
businesses succeed. In 2003, SBDCs trained 8,592 small business owners
and aspiring entrepreneurs in international trade, and provided
counseling on international trade matters to 9,378 clients.
SBDCs offer assistance with government procurement and are often
co-located with Procurement and Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs).
Services include help with registrations, identifying solicitations and
special programs, preparing certification documents and bids,
submitting applications, contract administration and contract close-
outs. In 2003, SBDCs provided government procurement counseling to
12,784 clients.
America's SBDC network is also responding to the need for
management and technical assistance among small manufacturers. Ninety-
five percent of American manufacturers are small and medium-size
businesses, employing half of all manufacturing workers in the United
States, and many of them rely on their local SBDCs for assistance. In
2003, SBDCs provided manufacturing counseling to 22,267 clients.
SBDCs serve women, minorities and America's veterans. In 2003, 37
percent of SBDC counseling clients nationwide were women, 35 percent
were minorities and 10.4 percent were veterans. Forty-five percent of
SBDC training clients were women, 25 percent were minorities and 8.2
percent were veterans.
SBA statistics for the SBDC program show that SBDC counseling cases
and training attendees combined increased from 650,000 to 685,000
between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. Counseling hours
increased from 1.47 million to nearly 1.57 million. Training attendees
increased from 384,000 to 408,000. Training hours increased from 1.58
million to 2.08 million. These figures clearly demonstrate that
America's small business owners know they need help and are
increasingly seeking it from the SBDC network. However, there is a
limit to the increases in services that the SBDC network can provide
with flat, or declining, federal funding.
Finally, SBDCs have a positive revenue impact on the federal
budget. The President's fiscal year 2004 Budget pointed out that an
independent evaluation of the SBDC program indicated that each $1 spent
on SBDC counseling resulted in $2.78 in tax revenues. The federal SBDC
budget of $88 million generated an estimated $182.9 million in federal
revenue in 2001. SBDCs also leverage federal, state, local and private
resources. For an SBDC to receive federal funding, it must first raise
an equal amount of funding from non-federal sources. The SBDCs raise a
minimum of $88 million a year in non-federal resources to serve small
business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs.
The ASBDC appreciates the Subcommittee's consideration of the
Association's views. We urge the Subcommittee to provide an
appropriation of $100 million for the SBDC grant program in the fiscal
year 2005 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, as recommended by
the Senate Budget Committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Doris Day Animal League
Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies, thank you
for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the 350,000
members and supporters of the Doris Day Animal League in support of our
request that the Federal Bureau of Investigation assign the crime of
animal cruelty its own classification in the agency's crime data
reporting system.
Law enforcement agencies already collect and submit data on animal
cruelty crimes, but those data are combined with other crimes in a
miscellaneous category where it is irretrievable and therefore useless.
Local law enforcement agencies and many others want this information to
help them better understand and respond to animal abuse and other
offenses. To minimize the cost of making this change, we are suggesting
that this category be added only as reporting agencies switch from the
original Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) to the current National
Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS, currently used by only 18
percent of reporting agencies) or to the new system (the ``national
indices initiative'') the FBI has just started to develop. Thus, we
estimate the cost to the FBI to add this category to NIBRS would be
minimal (less than $90,000, based on a comparable FBI estimate) to
modify materials and computer programs, with no additional costs to
local agencies beyond the costs they would incur anyway in the
changeover. There would, of course, be no incremental costs at all
associated with including this category from the start in the new
reporting system. Since the FBI has already started updating its crime
data reporting system, this is the perfect opportunity to ensure that
this serious category of crimes is handled in a way that makes the data
usable.
The Significance of Animal Cruelty as a Crime: ``The Violence
Connection''
Animal cruelty was once viewed as an offensive behavior unrelated
to other crimes. Now it is recognized as a serious crime with important
implications for human society. A growing body of research, produced
over the last 30 years, establishes a clear link between animal abuse
and human violence. One comprehensive study of data from a 20-year
period found that adults convicted of animal cruelty were more likely
than their peers to engage in other forms of criminal activities,
including violent crimes against humans, property crimes, and drug and
disorderly offenses. In addition to the association between animal
cruelty and criminal behavior, there is also evidence that the severity
of violence against animals can indicate the degree of aggressiveness
toward humans. Research on incarcerated adult males found that the most
aggressive inmates had the most violent histories of animal cruelty. It
is worth noting that in dangerous situations such as a hostage-taking,
the FBI has included a history of animal cruelty among the factors used
to determine an individual's threat level.
Another important link with serious policy implications is the co-
occurrence of family violence and animal abuse. In interview studies
with domestic violence victims, between 54 and 71 percent of the women
report that their partners also harmed or killed the family pet. Child
abuse and animal abuse also are linked: animal abuse was confirmed in
88 percent of families being supervised by a child welfare agency for
physically abusing their children.
In addition to being linked to other types of criminal activity and
family violence, animal abuse by children signals an important warning.
In fact, the FBI was one of the first to recognize the significance of
juvenile animal cruelty when it reported that many serial killers had
abused animals as children. It also has been reported that many of the
school shooters in the late 1990s had engaged in various forms of
animal cruelty.
The National Crime Prevention Council, the Department of Education,
and the American Psychological Association all list animal cruelty as
one of the warning signs for at-risk youth. Furthermore, researchers
agree that persistent aggressive behavior in childhood, termed
``conduct disorder,'' tends to be a fairly stable trait throughout life
and is the single best predictor of later criminal behavior. Animal
cruelty is one of the symptoms for a diagnosis of conduct disorder and
therefore can be one of the earliest indicators that a child is at
risk.
Not all children who abuse animals will become serial killers,
school shooters, or criminals as adults. However, research clearly
suggests that engaging in childhood animal cruelty conditions an
individual to accept, or engage in, interpersonal violence as an adult.
Responses to ``The Violence Connection''
Government agencies, professional organizations, and communities
have responded to the growing body of evidence of the animal abuse-
human violence connection. For example, before 1990, only seven states
had felony provisions in their animal anticruelty statutes; that number
is now 41 states and the District of Columbia. As of this date, 24
state animal anticruelty statutes permit or mandate psychological
counseling for offenders.
In addition to these changes in state cruelty laws, awareness of
the significance of animal abuse as a crime has resulted in the
development of a number of initiatives. ``Safe Pet'' programs, which
provide safekeeping for the pets of domestic violence victims so that
they feel free to leave dangerous situations, are being instituted in
communities throughout the United States. Animal control officers are
being trained to ``cross report,'' that is, to look for signs of child
and spousal abuse when investigating an animal abuse or neglect
complaint; likewise, social workers are taught to report animal abuse.
Intervention strategies for children and adults who abuse animals have
been developed and mental health professionals are being trained in
this area of treatment.
Modifying the Categories of the FBI's Crime Data Reporting Program
The FBI's crime data reporting program is a nationwide effort that
collects crime statistics from nearly 17,000 local and state law
enforcement agencies. During 2000, the participating agencies
represented 94 percent of the U.S. population. Reported crimes vary
from criminal homicide in Part I to curfew and loitering under Part II.
Law enforcement, criminologists, legislators, sociologists, municipal
planners, the media, and others interested in criminal justice use the
statistics for research and planning purposes. However, under the
current system, there is no separate category for reporting crimes of
animal cruelty, and thus no way to use those data, even though animal
abuse often is an indicator of other types of criminal behavior,
including family violence.
Assigning the crime of animal cruelty to its own classification
would have a number of advantages. Its inclusion in NIBRS would allow
precise identification of ``. . . when and where crime takes place,
what form it takes, and the characteristics of its victims and
perpetrators.'' (National Incident-Based Reporting System, p. 2, U.S.
Department of Justice, August 2000). Law enforcement agencies,
researchers, policy planners, and others would be better able to
understand the factors associated with animal abuse, track trends at
the state and national levels, and determine the demographic
characteristics associated with animal abuse--which is useful in
developing more effective intervention and prevention strategies to
interrupt the cycle of violence.
Designating a separate category for animal cruelty crimes in the
national indices initiative now being developed would add considerably
more data analysis capabilities: ``. . . variables such as felony
animal abuse arrests could be linked with a vast array of other
statistics to develop useful demographic information.'' (Letter from
Michael D. Kirkpatrick, FBI, Sept. 30, 2003). The expanded databases of
the new system would enable law enforcement agencies to identify and
track individuals with histories of violence.
Categorize Under ``Crime Against Society''
Animal cruelty is most appropriately categorized as a ``crime
against society.'' Like other crimes in this category (which include
family offenses, as well as gambling, drugs, and pornography), animal
cruelty offenses threaten the general order of society. Animal abusers
have often committed violent crimes against persons and been arrested
for property crimes, disorderly conduct, and substance abuse. Most
significantly, animal abuse is highly correlated with child, spousal,
and elder abuse; and juvenile animal cruelty is a leading indicator of
the development of aggressive behavioral disorders, which are
predictive of future violence. Although animals are often considered
``property'' under some laws, classification as a ``crime against
property'' is not appropriate because the nature of animal abuse is
qualitatively different from property crimes. It involves neglect or
violence toward a sentient being, often leading to serious injury or
death; it frequently involves an intimate relationship, as in family
violence; and it is associated with other crimes.
Proposed Report Language for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies
We respectfully request that the Subcommittee include the following
language in the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill report:
``The Committee directs the FBI to provide the necessary resources
to assign the crime of animal cruelty, defined as the violation of laws
or ordinances that prohibit cruelty to animals, its own classification
under the category `Crime Against Society' in the agency's current or
any future crime reporting data collection system by adding this
category to its software and other reporting mechanisms. The Committee
expects the FBI to establish this classification as quickly as possible
so that state and local law enforcement agencies will be able to plan
for its inclusion as they upgrade to the National Incident-Based
Reporting System, the upcoming national indices system, or any future
system.
``This will enable law enforcement agencies and researchers to
track crime rates, better understand the factors associated with animal
abuse and the characteristics of perpetrators, and identify with
precision when and where the crimes take place, thus facilitating more
effective interventions. Eventually, the capabilities envisioned for
the new National Indices Initiative now in development will allow
animal cruelty to be linked to other crimes, such as domestic violence,
child abuse, and other violence directed at humans.
``The Committee further directs the FBI to report to the Committee
by March 2005 on the integration of this category into its crime data
reporting program.''
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance for International Educational and
Cultural Exchange
As Chair of the Board of the Alliance for International Educational
and Cultural Exchange, I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony
in support of an overall appropriation of $400 million for the
educational and cultural exchange programs administered by the
Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA)
in fiscal year 2005. This level of spending will allow robust funding
for ECA's core exchange programs, restore funding to the former Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe through the FSA/SEED programs, and provide
funding for an Islamic Exchange Initiative.
The Alliance is the leading policy voice of the U.S. exchange
community, and has worked closely with the Subcommittee on exchange
issues. We note with gratitude the Subcommittee's role in increasing
exchange appropriations in recent years, and its consistent support for
exchanges.
The Alliance comprises 65 nongovernmental organizations, with
nearly 8,000 staff and 1.25 million volunteers throughout the United
States. Through its members, the Alliance supports the international
interests of 3,300 American institutions of higher education.
By engaging a very broad array of American individuals and
institutions in the conduct of our foreign affairs, exchange programs
build both enhanced understanding and a web of productive contacts
between Americans and the rest of the world.
Despite widespread support for exchanges in Congress, this account
still lags well behind its historic levels in constant dollars due both
to the deep cuts of the mid-nineties and to the significant reductions
in fiscal year 2004 funding. Coupled with the increases in fixed
program costs such as airfare and accommodation, reduced appropriations
have resulted in significantly diminished participant levels in
programs consistently cited by our embassies as one of their most
effective means of advancing U.S. policy interests.
The incorporation of funding for programs provided for under the
Freedom Support Act (FSA) and Support for East European Democracy Act
(SEED) into the ECA budget in the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle, at a
substantially lower level than previously allocated, has resulted in a
significant reduction in funding for those programs.
As our experiences since September 11, 2001, demonstrate clearly,
we need public diplomacy and exchanges more now than ever. We need to
build trust and understanding for our people and our policy goals not
just in the Muslim world--an effort that is of critical importance--but
around the globe. To win the war on terrorism and to rebuild Iraq, we
will need the help of our friends and allies in every region of the
world. This is a time to intensify and expand our public diplomacy, and
we believe there is strong bipartisan support in Congress to do exactly
that.
We therefore urge the Subcommittee to fund the Department of
State's exchange budget at $400 million in fiscal year 2005. This
amount would provide for targeted, meaningful growth in every region of
the world in support of our most important foreign policy objectives.
Core exchange programs
An appropriation of $400 million would allow for meaningful growth
in the Department of State's traditional exchange programs, programs
that remain at the core of our efforts to build mutual understanding
and respect between the United States and critical nations around the
world. These well-established programs--Fulbright and other academic
programs, International Visitor, and citizen exchanges--continue to
demonstrate their relevance and effectiveness as changing threats,
challenges, and opportunities present themselves in a rapidly evolving
world.
Among State's academic exchange programs, the Fulbright Program
continues to demonstrate its unique value in deepening mutual
understanding between the United States and 140 partner governments. A
record 5,700 U.S. students and young professionals applied for
Fulbright grants in 2003, demonstrating the desire of U.S. citizens and
communities to be internationally engaged.
Fulbright exchange programs in Iraq and Afghanistan were revived in
2003, bringing young leaders to study in U.S. graduate programs in
fields critical to the development of those societies. Other program
changes include: the cutting-edge research conducted by New Century
Scholars, which provides deep focus on a single global problem by
leading scholars from around the world; the Islamic Civilization
Initiative that incorporates outreach activities upon the American
student's return to the United States to increase knowledge of the
Muslim world on the campus and in local communities; and a conflict
resolution initiative for young leaders from the Middle East, South
Asia, and the Great Lakes region of Africa.
Other critical academic exchange programs include the Educational
Partnerships Program, which fosters substantive, ongoing relationships
between American universities and their counterparts in high priority
countries; the Humphrey Fellowships Program, which provides powerful
academic and professional training experiences for professionals in the
developing world; Overseas Educational Advising, through which
prospective foreign students receive reliable information about
American higher education and professional assistance in the
application process; the Gilman Fellowship Program, which enables
American students with financial need to study abroad; and English
teaching and U.S. Studies programs, designed to enhance understanding
of American society and values.
The International Visitor program continues to be ranked by many
U.S. ambassadors as their most effective program tool. This results-
oriented program allows our embassies to address directly their highest
priority objectives by bringing emerging foreign leaders to the United
States for intensive, short-term visits with their professional
counterparts. The program also exposes visitors to American society and
values in homes and other informal settings. An increase in funding for
the International Visitor program would allow the program to make an
even greater impact on such key issues as regional security in
Northeast Asia, counter-terrorism, international trade, and global
health.
Citizen exchanges continue to engage American citizens across the
United States in productive international activities. In addition,
these programs leverage their relatively modest federal dollars into
significantly more funding through the participation of local
communities, schools, businesses, and nongovernmental organizations.
Increased funding for citizen exchanges would permit an expansion of
these highly cost-effective activities, particularly in the critical
area of capacity building in communities across the United States. To
be globally competitive, American communities must be globally engaged,
and this enhanced capacity will allow for more extensive connections
and impact in support of U.S. interests in high priority countries
around the world.
Exchanges with the countries of the former Soviet Union and Central
Europe
As noted above, funding for exchange programs authorized by the FSA
and SEED Acts was shifted to the CJS bill for the first time last year.
The transfer has resulted in dramatic cuts for these programs,
estimated to exceed 50 percent from previous levels.
Exchanges under FSA and SEED provide opportunities to expose future
leaders to American civil society and values, and foster personal and
professional relationships between Americans and citizens of these
developing regions. We must continue this engagement with future
leaders of these important nations that are still emerging from decades
of totalitarian leadership. The recent election of Georgian President
Mikheil Saakashvili is a testament to the value of these programs.
Saakashvili benefited from a Muskie/FSA Graduate Fellowship, earning an
LL.M. degree from Columbia University in 1994. He also participated in
a 1999 International Visitor exchange on ``Judicial Reform.'' Members
of Saakashvili's cabinet are also alumni of U.S.-funded exchanges; for
example, Irakli Rekhviashvili, a participant in the Eurasian
Undergraduate Student Exchange Program, was recently appointed the
Georgian Minister of Economy.
While obstacles to exchange remain, interest in exchanges in the
region continues to grow. In recent years, professional and collegiate-
level programs with these countries have attracted many more applicants
than the programs can sustain. The Contemporary Issues Fellowship
Program, targeting influential policymakers and mid-level
professionals, receives nearly 1,300 applicants for 100 scholarships.
The Future Leaders Exchange Program (FLEX) for high school students
receives more than 50,000 applications for 1,300 slots.
We hope the Subcommittee will agree that a reduction in these
programs is unwise in a region of the world of such strategic
importance to the United States. This is particularly true when one
considers the effectiveness and impact of these exchange programs.
Islamic Exchange Initiative--Building Cultural Bridges
While the need for increased funding is worldwide, increased
exchanges with the Islamic world are particularly critical as we pursue
the war on terrorism. To defeat terrorism, the United States will need
more than the might and skill of our armed forces. To ultimately defeat
terrorism, we must also engage the Muslim world in the realm of ideas,
values, and beliefs.
Changing minds--or merely opening them--is a long, painstaking
process. There are no quick fixes. If we are to win the war on
terrorism, there will be no avoiding the need to build bridges between
the American people and the people of the Muslim world. We must begin
this process now.
In the Islamic world, we envision this initiative engaging the full
range of programs and activities managed by ECA: Fulbright and Humphrey
exchanges that will stimulate broader cultural understanding, joint
research and teaching, and foster positive relationships with a new
generation of leaders; the Partnerships for Learning Undergraduate
Studies Program (PLUS), that allows undergraduates from the Islamic
world to complete their B.A. degrees at U.S. universities; university
affiliations targeted toward key fields such as mass media and economic
development; International Visitor and other citizen exchange programs
designed to bring emerging leaders into significant and direct contact
with their professional counterparts and the daily substance of
American life; youth and teacher exchanges and enhanced English
teaching programs, all designed to bring larger numbers of young people
a direct and accurate picture of our society, based on personal
experience rather than vicious stereotyping.
Increasing the State Department's exchanges with the Islamic world
will give us the means to develop productive, positive relationships.
This initiative will engage the American public--in our communities,
schools, and universities--in an effort to project American values. We
will find no better or more convincing representatives of our way of
life.
And the engagement of the American public will leverage significant
additional resources to support this effort.
We commend the Subcommittee for funds made available in the fiscal
year 2002 supplemental for Islamic exchanges. The $10 million
appropriated by this Subcommittee has been put to good use by the
Department of State in key programs such as Fulbright, International
Visitors, and English teaching.
Strengthening exchanges with the Islamic world has strong
bipartisan support, evidenced by legislation sponsored in the 107th
Congress by Senators Edward Kennedy and Richard Lugar, and
Representatives Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos. These bills led to $20
million in appropriations funding, some of which was used to fund what
would become the Youth Exchange and Study Program (YES). YES has
brought approximately 138 Muslim high school students to the United
States for the 2003-2004 school year, and will bring an additional 365
students next year. To build on the YES program's very successful
beginning, the program requires a sustained funding commitment.
Conclusion
We recognize that a meaningful and effective Islamic exchange
initiative, restored funding for the FSA and SEED programs, and
sufficient funding for robust traditional exchange programs will
require a significant increase in the State Department exchanges
budget. We believe that a $400 million funding level is necessary and
appropriate given the importance of the tasks at hand.
The U.S. exchange community stands ready to assist you in these
efforts, and is grateful for your support.
______
Prepared Statement of Sister Cities International
On behalf of the 700 U.S. cities partnered with more than 1,700
international cities in 122 countries, I want to thank the subcommittee
for its continued support of international educational, cultural and
development exchanges that continue to impact U.S. foreign policy goals
throughout the world. Sister Cities International is a nonprofit,
citizen diplomacy network that creates and strengthens partnerships
between U.S. and international communities at the local level. Sister
Cities International works to promote sustainable development, youth
involvement, cultural understanding, and humanitarian assistance
through citizen diplomacy. Citizen diplomacy is a peaceful way to
promote American foreign policy by establishing links between people
within the international community. Sister Cities International works
to create citizen-to-citizen connections by promoting peace through
mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation at the local, county and
state level. I urge you to promote the ideals of citizen diplomacy by
carefully considering the critical legislation currently before the
subcommittee.
In the two years since September 11, 2001, the need to eliminate
global terror and institute avenues of intercultural understanding has
grown. Today, citizen diplomacy programs hold the highest incentive for
governments who are interested in establishing goodwill between states.
International education and exchange programs are critical elements in
the conduct of U.S. foreign policy and advance national security. The
United States must make deliberate efforts to forge sustainable,
mutually cooperative relationships between the United States and the
Islamic world in order to rebuild global security. Sister Cities
International is well positioned to play an integral role by supporting
long-term community partnerships through reciprocal exchange programs.
We believe that the Department of State, through the support and
encouragement of the subcommittee and Congress, should be strategically
investing in two key areas of international exchange: support for long-
term, ongoing programs such as Fulbright and the International Visitors
Program and building the capacity of public-private partnerships like
Sister Cities International. An investment in the capacity of
organizations like Sister Cities International makes good fiscal sense,
given the fact that Sister Cities International leverages significant
non-federal, community-based resources in support of international
exchange with the small amount of federal dollars we receive every
year. Nevertheless, from 1995-2001, core funding from the Department of
State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) declined
dramatically, reducing our efforts to reach out to many regions of the
world. Without additional core resources, Sister Cities International
will find it increasingly difficult to expand the number of
partnerships between U.S. and international communities and promote
active citizen involvement in international affairs.
Annually, 6,750 to 13,300 citizen exchanges occur between sister
city programs. With a federal investment of $370,440, each exchange
costs the U.S. government approximately $25 to $50. Moving into our
48th year as a leader in the citizen diplomacy arena, Sister Cities
International pledged in 2002 to double the number of partnerships in
underserved regions of the world over the next five years. New
partnerships will be established in the Middle East, Africa, Eurasia,
Latin America, and the Caribbean. However, this new endeavor can only
be accomplished with increased core grant support. Therefore, Sister
Cities International is working with key Congressional supporters on
our first initiative to increase our core grant by $164,000 to $534,000
for fiscal year 2005.
An increase in Sister Cities International's core grant of $164,000
will specifically lead to the following results:
--Expansion the Sister Cities International network by 100
partnerships a year over three years.
--An increase in the number of exchanges conducted under the Sister
Cities International umbrella by 3,000 over the three-year
period at a cost to the federal government of $55 per exchange.
--Expansion of the network in underserved regions of the world,
focusing on Islamic countries, Africa, Central and Eastern
Europe, and Eurasia.
--More capacity for local sister city partnerships to undertake
exchange programs focused on economic development, youth and
education, women in leadership, sustainable development, and
humanitarian assistance.
The second initiative seeks to alleviate the tension between the
United States and the Islamic World is the ``U.S.-Islamic Sister City
Partnership Program.'' Currently, there are 62 United States-Islamic
partnerships and with Congress' support, we hope to expand the number
of United States-Islamic partnerships by 38 to 100 over the next two
years. Through ``Islamic Friendship Grants,'' new and existing
partnerships would receive $25,000 each to develop humanitarian
assistance, international exchange, and community and economic
development programs in the region. Each ``Islamic Friendship Grant''
will be leveraged at least one-to-one, bringing in an additional
$25,000 in non-federal resources to each partnership, for an additional
investment of $5 million. For this particular initiative, we are asking
for $2.75 million through the expansion of the Islamic Exchange
Initiative funded by Congress in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental
Appropriations.
I want to thank the members of the subcommittee for their
leadership and consideration of this important matter. Given the
growing global challenges in which U.S. diplomacy is called upon to
protect American national interests and security, now, more than ever,
it is important to fully fund the International Affairs budget.
Although the 150 account only reflects approximately one percent of the
total federal budget, notwithstanding increases for the Millennium
Challenge Account (MCA), HIV/AIDS, and illicit drugs, 58 percent of
core mainline programs receive flat or decreased funding. Support for
the 150 Account is crucial for improving America's image abroad and
protecting our interests at home. I ask you to support the Presidential
requests for funding for the 150 Account and our requests to increase
funding for Sister Cities International.
Sister city and other international exchange programs are time-
tested and uniquely cost effective. They help ensure a prosperous
future for the United States and a more democratic world. Americans who
participate in citizen diplomacy programs experience a profound change
in the way they think about the world, leading to greater
understanding, mutual respect and cooperation around the complex issues
affecting our global community. This is the vision that drove President
Dwight D. Eisenhower to establish our organization in 1956 and it
remains the vision today by which we hope to promote peace--one
individual, one community at a time.
______
Prepared Statement of Florida State University
I am writing to tell you about two projects Florida State
University is pursing through the Department of Justice. The first is a
Juvenile Justice Education Program Model Study. The request is for $2.5
million through the Juvenile Justice Programs Office, Part C. The
second deals with Extreme Security for the Critical Infrastructure. The
funding level is $2.5 million and is being requested through the Byrne
Discretionary Grant Program.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony before this
Committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
Florida State University.
Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol, FSU is a comprehensive
Research I university with a rapidly growing research base. The
University serves as a center for advanced graduate and professional
studies, exemplary research, and top quality undergraduate programs.
Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment to quality in
teaching, to performance of research and creative activities and have a
strong commitment to public service. Among the current or former
faculty are numerous recipients of national and international honors
including Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and several members
of the National Academy of Sciences. Our scientists and engineers do
excellent research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often
work closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of the
results of their research. Florida State University had over $162
million this past year in research awards.
FSU recently initiated a new medical school, the first in the
United States in over two decades. Our emphasis is on training students
to become primary care physicians, with a particular focus on geriatric
medicine--consistent with the demographics of our state.
Florida State University attracts students from every county in
Florida, every state in the nation, and more than 100 foreign
countries. The University is committed to high admission standards that
ensure quality in its student body, which currently includes some 345
National Merit and National Achievement Scholars, as well as students
with superior creative talent. We consistently rank in the top 25 among
U.S. colleges and universities in attracting National Merit Scholars to
our campus.
At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
well as our emerging reputation as one of the nation's top public
research universities.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about a two projects we are pursuing
this year through the Department of Justice. The first project is a
Juvenile Justice Education Program Model Study.
In 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that the cost of
criminal victimization in this country is $450 billion a year. Given
that delinquent youth constitute a major part of the crime problem,
such promising methods of crime reduction as providing delinquent youth
high quality education that can serve as a positive turning point in
their delinquent to adult crime life course should be vigorously
pursued. This is the intent of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act which
mandates the receipt of ``best education'' services for the country's
incarcerated delinquent youth to ensure their successful community
reintegration following release from juvenile justice institutions.
The USDOE as well as the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the American
Correctional Association have recognized Florida's system of juvenile
justice education as an exemplary state system. This recognition
reflects Florida's commitment to accountability and its implementation
of an approach to the identification and validation of best practices
in juvenile justice education. In 1998, to fulfill this commitment, the
Florida Department of Education awarded funding for the Juvenile
Justice Educational Enhancement Program (JJEEP) to FSU's School of
Criminology and Criminal Justice. During the subsequent years of
JJEEP's operations, Florida's system of best practices and
accountability have become recognized as a model for providing juvenile
justice youth quality and accountable education services that embodies
the major components of NCLB.
During JJEEP's early years of implementing both best practices and
an accountability system for Florida's juvenile justice education
system, a number of implementation impediments were experienced and
ultimately overcome. JJEEP's experiences in overcoming these
implementation impediments should not be repeated but rather used to
benefit other states as they attempt to successfully implement NCLB.
Most importantly, JJEEP has conclusively documented that the receipt of
best education practices as envisioned in NCLB well-served numerous
Florida juvenile justice youth as they exited juvenile justice
institutions and reentered their communities. With the successful
nationwide implementation of NCLB, every juvenile justice student,
regardless of state residence, will be able to receive accountable
juvenile justice education best practices that increase the likelihood
of their successful community reintegration and thereby reduce the
incidence of crime, criminal victimization and associated costs.
This project's methodology will be centered upon the development
and maintenance of effective working partnerships in each state between
those responsible for juvenile justice education, the national project
staff, and USDOE. These partnerships will involve collaboration
throughout all phases of the project to ensure consensus and
appropriate implementation of the NCLB requirements. Following the
initial assessment of each state's juvenile justice education system,
the findings will be compared to Florida's system and experiences and
the requirements of NCLB to develop each state's NCLB implementation
plan. Moreover, and throughout the process, ongoing training, technical
assistance, and evaluation will be provided to ensure successful
implementation of the NCLB requirements in each state's juvenile
justice education systems.
We believe this is an outstanding program and will reap very
positive outcomes for Florida and the Nation.
The second project we are pursuing deals with Cybersecurity. The
Cybersecurity Research Institute of Florida (CRIF) at Florida State
University is seeking funding to support the implementation of extreme
security through the development of a new model of a cybersecurity
management infrastructure. Extreme security refers to protection
against a previously unanticipated attack on cyberinfrastructure. The
work will focus on the protection of the cybersecurity component of
this critical infrastructure. The critical infrastructure can be
identified as elements of the national/international infrastructure
such as the national power or water system, the international
telecommunication system, and the international banking system.
CRIF is in a unique position to research and develop a
cybersecurity protection model and management infrastructure through
its links with: the Florida Cybersecurity Institute (FCI) which was
recently established as a cooperative effort of Florida State
University, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the National
White Collar Crime Center to conduct research and education activities
in the areas of cybercrime; and the Security and Assurance in
Information Technology Laboratory (SAIT) at Florida State University
which was established in 1999 to promote research, education, and
outreach.
The Florida State University (FSU) has been designated as a Center
of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education by the
National Security Agency. Some of the world's top researchers in
cryptography, information security, and infrastructure protection work
in the Computer Science Department at FSU. Coupled with the
relationships and contacts of the FCI founding partners in academia,
government, and industry, CRIF is particularly capable of developing
and implementing a comprehensive model for extreme cybersecurity.
Our cybersecurity management model addresses such issues as cost of
the system, the implementability of the model in the critical
infrastructure, and definition of new risk models that focus on the
types of extreme attacks previously discussed. Our goal is the
survivability of the cybersecurity critical infrastructure under
extreme conditions.
CRIF will conduct research related to the development of the
cybersecurity management model, and then implement it in one of the
critical infrastructure environments--the banking system in the state
of Florida. The banking system in Florida is a particularly important
system as Florida is one of the states with the largest number of small
businesses. These small businesses are notorious for not having
technical assistance that larger companies use for cyberinfrastructure
protection. If the banking system is disrupted for these small
businesses, many would fail, having an incredibly negative effect on
lives, livelihoods, and the State's short- and longer-term economy.
This work will provide proof of concept of our approach to assist in
protecting the cyberinfrastructure of the banking industry in Florida.
We will develop a range of extreme security levels, based on costs and
capabilities that can be incrementally implemented by the various
critical infrastructure groups. Lessons learned could be transferred
nationally.
Mr. Chairman, these are just of couple of the many exciting
activities going on at Florida State University that will make
important contributions to solving some key concerns our nation faces
today. Your support would be appreciated, and, again, thank you for an
opportunity to present these views for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our fiscal year 2005 funding request of $500,000
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for
CCOS as part of a Federal match for the $9.4 million already
contributed by California State and local agencies and the private
sector. We greatly appreciate your past support for this study
($500,000 in fiscal year 2001, $250,000 in fiscal year 2002, and
$250,000 in fiscal year 2003) as it is necessary in order for the State
of California to address the very significant challenges it faces as it
seeks to comply with air pollution requirements of the federal Clean
Air Act.
Most of central California does not attain federal health-based
standards for ozone and particulate matter. The San Joaquin Valley has
recently requested redesignation to extreme and is committed to
updating their 1-hour ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) in 2004,
based on new technical data. In addition, the San Joaquin Valley,
Sacramento Valley, and San Francisco Bay Area exceed the new federal 8-
hour ozone standard. SIPs for the 8-hour standard will be due in the
2007 timeframe--and must include an evaluation of the impact of
transported air pollution on downwind areas such as the Mountain
Counties. Photochemical air quality modeling will be necessary to
prepare SIPs that are approvable by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
The Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable
central California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone SIPs as
well as advance fundamental science for use nationwide. The CCOS field
measurement program was conducted during the summer of 2000 in
conjunction with the California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study
(CRPAQS), a major study of the origin, nature, and extent of excessive
levels of fine particles in central California. This enabled leveraging
of the efforts of the particulate matter study in that some equipment
and personnel served dual functions to reduce the net cost. From a
technical standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently was a
unique opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter and
ozone control efforts. CCOS was also cost-effective since it builds on
other successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin Valley Ozone
Study.
CCOS includes an ozone field study, data analysis, modeling
performance evaluations, and a retrospective look at previous SIP
modeling. The CCOS study area extends over central and most of northern
California. The goal of the CCOS is to better understand the nature of
the ozone problem across the region, providing a strong scientific
foundation for preparing the next round of State and Federal attainment
plans. The study includes five main components: Designing the field
study; conducting an intensive field monitoring study from June 1 to
September 30, 2000; developing an emission inventory to support
modeling; developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the
region; and evaluating emission control strategies for upcoming ozone
attainment plans.
The CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting
of representatives from Federal, State, and local governments, as well
as private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing
state, local government, and industry, have contributed approximately
$9.4 million for the field study. The federal government has
contributed $4,874,000 to support some data analysis and modeling. In
addition, CCOS sponsors are providing $2 million of in-kind support.
The Policy Committee is seeking federal co-funding of $2.5 million to
complete the data analysis and modeling portions of the study and for a
future deposition study. California is an ideal natural laboratory for
studies that address these issues, given the scale and diversity of the
various ground surfaces in the region (crops, woodlands, forests, urban
and suburban areas).
For fiscal year 2005, our Coalition is seeking funding of $500,000
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This
request will be used to continue NOAA's involvement in developing
meteorological simulations for CCOS episodes, which are also being used
as inputs to SIP-related photochemical modeling. NOAA has a direct
stake in the CCOS because the extensive meteorological data collected
as part of the field study can be used by NOAA to improve its
meteorological forecasting abilities, particularly by providing NOAA
with a new database for use in the evaluation of U.S. western boundary
conditions for weather forecasting models. As you know, NOAA is also at
the scientific forefront of the development of meteorological models
including the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model that is
viewed as a future replacement for the current Mesoscale Meteorology
Model, Version 5 (MM5). Thus, NOAA's involvement in the CCOS would
facilitate the use of CCOS measurements in the development of WRF. In
addition, the CCOS includes atmospheric airflow research, and data were
collected on sea breeze circulations, nocturnal jets and eddies,
airflow bifurcation, convergence and divergence zones, up-slope and
down-slope flows, and up-valley and down-valley airflows. This research
provides fundamental data needed to understand airflows over complex
terrain, and has national applicability.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
CURRENT CCOS STUDY SPONSORS
Private Sector
Western States Petroleum Association
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Electric Power Research Institute
NISEI Farmers League and Agriculture
Independent Oil Producers' Agency
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Associations
Local Government
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (on
behalf of local cities and counties)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Mendocino County Air Pollution Control District
State Government
California Air Resources Board
California Energy Commission
Federal Government
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Agriculture
Department of Transportation
______
Prepared Statement of the National American Indian Court Judges
Association
On behalf of the National American Indian Court Judges Association
(NAICJA), I am pleased to submit this testimony on the proposed fiscal
year 2005 budget for the Justice Department's Indian Country Law
Enforcement Initiative and the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and
Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559). We request $73.4
million for Tribal Courts including $15 million for Indian Country Law
Enforcement Initiative and $58.4 million in funding for the Indian
Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law
106-559). In addition, we request full funding for the following areas
or, at minimum, proportional increases in keeping with economic growth.
Specifically, this includes:
--Increase by $4.74 million Administration proposed cuts in Law
Enforcement under the COPS program in DOJ.
--Increase by $7.59 million Administration proposed cuts in Tribal
Courts under DOJ.
--Increase by $2 million Administration proposed cuts in BIA for
``contract support costs'' to $135,314,000.
--Increase by $2.46 million Administration proposed cuts in DOJ for
Indian Country Prison grants.
The National American Indian Court Judges Association (NAICJA),
www.naicja.com, was incorporated in 1969. NAICJA is the largest
organization representing Tribal Judges and Tribal Courts in the United
States. The mission of NAICJA is to strengthen and enhance all Tribal
justice systems through improvement and development of Tribal Courts
and Tribal Court Judges.
Justice Department Funding: Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative
and Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-559)
$15 million for Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative.--NAICJA
strongly supports full funding for the Indian Country Law Enforcement
Initiative. NAICJA would like to specifically emphasize our support for
the funding of the Indian Tribal Court Fund at a level of at least $15
million (Please note that this fund was formally authorized by the
106th Congress--see Public Law 106-559, section 201). Through the
increased funding for law enforcement under the Indian Country Law
Enforcement Initiative, more police officers have been added throughout
Indian Country. Without substantial additional funding, tribal courts
will be unable to handle the increased caseloads generated by this
increased law enforcement.
$58.4 million in funding for the Indian Tribal Justice Technical
and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559).--When the 106th
Congress enacted Public Law 106-559 in December 2000, it recognized the
vital legal and technical assistance needs of tribal justice systems--
finding in part that ``there is both inadequate funding and inadequate
coordinating mechanism to meet the technical and legal assistance needs
of tribal justice systems and this lack of adequate technical and legal
assistance funding impairs their operation'' and promised three grant
programs to address these Congressional recognized needs. It is vital
that Congress provide adequate funding for Public Law 106-559 (see the
Act itself for more specific information). NAICJA strongly supports
funding of Public Law 106-559 at the level of at least $58.4 million.
Failure to provide this funding level would make the Indian Tribal
Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559)
a hollow recognition of tribal justice systems needs without providing
needed resources.
We further express our concern with the Administration's fiscal
year 2005 Budget proposals regarding Tribal Courts. Decreases in these
areas will severely hinder effective law enforcement and Tribal Courts
in Indian Country.
We request full funding for the following areas or, at minimum,
proportional increases in keeping with economic growth. Specifically,
this includes: Cuts in Law Enforcement under the COPS program by $4.74
million in DOJ; cuts in Tribal Courts under DOJ by $7.59 million; cuts
in BIA for ``contract support costs'' by $2 million down to
$133,314,000; and cuts in DOJ for Indian Country Prison grants by $2.46
million.
IMPORTANCE OF TRIBAL COURTS
Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
institutions for maintaining order in Tribal communities.
``Tribal courts constitute the frontline tribal institutions that
most often confront issues of self-determination and sovereignty, while
at the same time they are charged with providing reliable and equitable
adjudication in the many and increasingly diverse matters that come
before them. In addition, they constitute a key tribal entity for
advancing and protecting the rights of self-government. . . . Tribal
courts are of growing significance in Indian Country.'' (Frank
Pommersheim, Braid of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary
Tribal Law 57 (1995)).
Tribal Courts must deal with the very same issues state and Federal
courts confront in the criminal context, including, child sexual abuse,
alcohol and substance abuse, gang violence and violence against women.
Tribal Courts, however, must address these complex issues with far
fewer financial resources than their Federal and state counterparts.
Judicial training that addresses the existing problems in Indian
Country, while also being culturally sensitive, is essential for Tribal
Courts to be effective in deterring and solving crime in Indian
communities.
INADEQUATE FUNDING OF TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS
There is no question that Tribal justice systems are, and
historically have been, underfunded. The 1991 United States Civil
Rights Commission found that ``the failure of the United States
Government to provide proper funding for the operation of tribal
judicial systems . . . has continued for more than 20 years.'' The
Indian Civil Rights Act: A Report of the United States Civil Rights
Commission, June 1991, p. 71. The Commission also noted that
``[f]unding for tribal judicial systems may be further hampered in some
instances by the pressures of competing priorities within a tribe.''
Moreover, they opined that ``If the United States Government is to live
up to its trust obligations, it must assist tribal governments in their
development . . .'' More than ten years ago, the Commission ``strongly
support[ed] the pending and proposed congressional initiatives to
authorize funding of tribal courts in an amount equal to that of an
equivalent State court'' and was ``hopeful that this increased funding
[would] allow for much needed increases in salaries for judges, the
retention of law clerks for tribal judges, the funding of public
defenders/defense counsel, and increased access to legal authorities.''
With the passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act, 25 U.S.C. 3601
et seq. (the ``Act''), Congress found that ``[T]ribal justice systems
are an essential part of tribal governments and serve as important
forums for ensuring public health, safety and the political integrity
of tribal governments.'' 25 U.S.C. 3601(5). Congress found that
``tribal justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack of
adequate funding impairs their operation.'' 25 U.S.C. 3601(8). In
order to remedy this lack of funding, the Act authorized appropriation
of base funding support for tribal justice systems in the amount of
$50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1994 through 2000. 25 U.S.C.
3621(b). An additional $500,000 for each of the same fiscal years was
authorized to be appropriated for the administration of Tribal Judicial
Conferences for the ``development, enhancement and continuing operation
of tribal justice systems . . .'' 25 U.S.C. 3614.
Nine years after the Act was enacted into law, and even after
reauthorization, no funding has been appropriated. Only minimal funds,
at best, have been requested. Yet, even these minimal requests were
deleted prior to passage. Even more appalling is the fact that BIA
funding for Tribal Courts has actually substantially decreased
following the enactment of the Indian Tribal Justice Act in 1993.
BIA-DOJ INDIAN COUNTRY LAW ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE
Full funding is requested for the Joint BIA-DOJ Law Enforcement
Initiative proposal to improve law enforcement in Indian Country. The
Final Report of the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law
Enforcement Improvements documents the ``stark contrast between public
safety in Indian Country and the rest of the United States.'' (Final
Report, p. 4.) ``While law enforcement resources have been increased
and deployed throughout the United States, BIA resources actually have
been reduced in Indian Country during the past few years.'' It is
axiomatic that ``as a consequence of improvements to law enforcement
services, a corresponding increase in funds is needed for judicial
services, especially tribal courts.'' (Final Report, p. 8).
The Initiative includes funding to continue the Department of
Justice Indian Tribal Court Program. We urge the Committee to support
full funding of the Tribal Court Program to assist in the development,
enhancement and continued operation of tribal judicial systems. While
funding has fallen far short of the $58 million in annual funding
promised by the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the Initiative will fail
without it. Without well-staffed, competent Tribal judiciaries to
handle the influx of the new criminal prosecutions flowing from the Law
Enforcement Initiative, the goal of providing service to 1.4 million
Native Americans who live on or near Indian lands the same ``protection
of their basic rights, a sense of justice, and freedom from fear''
enjoyed by Americans at large, will not be attained. (Final Report, p.
4).
CONCLUSION
Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate
institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities. They are key
to Tribal economic development and self-sufficiency. Any serious
attempt to fulfill the federal government's trust responsibility to
Indian nations, must include increased funding and enhancement of
Tribal justice systems.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Justice Department's
Budget Request for the fiscal year 2004 funding of the Indian Country
Law Enforcement Initiative and the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and
Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-559).
Please contact me at (715) 478-7255, or NAICJA Executive Director
Chuck Robertson, at (605) 342-4804 or [email protected] with
questions or comments. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Sportfishing Association
The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) recommends the
following as the Subcommittee considers appropriations for the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for fiscal year 2005. The American
Sportfishing Association is a non-profit trade association whose 600
members include fishing tackle manufacturers, sport fishing retailers,
boat builders, state fish and wildlife agencies, and the outdoor media.
The ASA makes these recommendations on the basis of briefings with
agency staff and from years of experience with fisheries management in
this Nation. It is important to note that sportfishing provides $116
billion in economic output to the economy of the United States each
year. Sportfishing in marine waters alone provides a $31 billion impact
each year to coastal states.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION--NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE
An important but often underrepresented NOAA constituency is the
Nation's 34 million sportfishing anglers, who collectively provide
billions of dollars in economic impact each year to the U.S. economy.
The importance of adequately including this group and their activities
in management decisions cannot be overstated.
Recreational Fisheries
With over nine million participants and 91 million fishing days,
saltwater recreational fishing is the fastest growing segment of
sportfishing in the United States. NOAA-Fisheries has a responsibility
to recreational anglers. Sportfishing in marine waters alone provides
$8.1 billion in salaries and wages to nearly 300,000 wage earners in
coastal areas. Good socio-economic information is critical for
effective marine resources management efforts, and the ASA applauds the
Administration's requested increase of $1,200,000 (for a total of $5.2
million) for additional economic and social science research, data
collection and analysis. But, the ASA asks Congress to require NOAA-
Fisheries to provide adequate data for sportfishing in marine waters
and that an additional $1.7 million be provided for economic and social
science research and data collection.
Stock Assessment and Monitoring
Our nation's valuable marine fish resources are under intense
pressure from coastal population growth, increasing fishing effort and
accompanying declines in habitat quality. These pressures demand well-
documented information on marine fish stocks. NOAA-Fisheries has not
fully demonstrated an ongoing and comprehensive commitment to
modernization and improvement of fisheries stock assessment and
management of marine systems. It will take a sustained commitment on
the part of the Administration, Congress and partner agencies to ensure
that these initiatives are in place, sustained and effective over the
long-term.
The ASA recognizes and supports the fiscal year 2005 President's
budget request to increase funds for fisheries stock assessments,
cooperative research, and management by $4 million to a total of $18.9
million, but the NOAA-Fisheries stock assessment program needs to build
to the $100 million level over the next five years if it is to be
effective in providing data for proper management of marine stocks. The
ASA recommends an additional $10 million to begin building this program
to the necessary level.
NOAA-Fisheries has developed successful joint programs in
statistics, including the RecFIN, and ComFIN programs and, most
recently, the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program. The ASA
recommends that Congress fund GulFIN at $4.5 million and RecFIN at $3.9
million, and urges NOAA-Fisheries to use the RecFIN funding for
cooperative data collection for recreational fisheries consistent with
statutory directives. The ASA is pleased with the President's request
of $3.0 million for PacFIN, the proposed $6.7 million for the Alaska
groundfish monitoring effort, and the recommended funding levels for
AKFIN at $3.2 million.
The ASA strongly urges Congress to address the statistics gaps on
the Atlantic Coast by supporting the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative
Statistics Program (ACCSP.) NOAA-Fisheries and the Atlantic states
share a commitment through and Memorandum of Understanding to proceed
with this program. The ASA urges Congress to appropriate the funds
necessary for success by adding a $5 million appropriation in fiscal
year 2005 for ``Fish Statistics--Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission'' as the ACCSP is fully prepared to utilize this amount
immediately as stated in their planning document.
Cooperative research programs, including the SEAMAP and MARFIN
programs, support fishery-independent research on high priority
species. MARFIN continues to provide funds for Congressionally mandated
shrimp bycatch studies. SEAMAP is building a long-term fishery-
independent database needed for managing heavily exploited species and
for identifying and protecting critical habitat. The ASA is concerned
with the decline in funding for these critical information-gathering
programs; therefore, the ASA recommends that the MARFIN competitive
grant program be funded at $6.0 million (with $4 million for the
Southeast and $2 million for the Northeast) and SEAMAP at $6.0 million.
Habitat Loss
The Administration has proposed the elimination of several habitat-
related programs including important work being carried out on the
Charleston Bump. The Charleston Bump is an important nursery habitat
for Atlantic Highly Migratory Fish species (HMS), and the ASA supports
continuation of this program at fiscal year 2004 levels.
The ASA supports the fiscal year 2005 request of $13.2 million for
Fisheries Habitat Restoration. This program provides funding to
foundations that awards grants to restore fish habitat. Specifically,
the ASA is pleased with the $1.5 million increase for the Community-
based Restoration Program (CRP) that has funded over 800 vitally
important restoration projects that entail volunteers and educational
opportunities to promote stewardship and public involvement. The ASA
recommends an additional $2 million for CRP grants that are regularly
matched by a 3-5 ratio and completed by many groups including regional
or national partners, non-profit organizations, communities, and
industry.
Interagency Efforts
The ASA strongly recommends that Congress appropriate $10.0 million
for the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. It
provides the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission with the
financial resources to carry out their Congressional mandates and the
program continues to accomplish goals, such as the continuing successes
in striped bass and weakfish management.
The ASA urges Congress to appropriate adequate funding for all
cooperative programs with state agencies, including ESA Section 6
cooperative programs and to implement restoration programs under the
authority granted in the Endangered Species Act. These agreements would
provide funding on a matching basis to accomplish conservation
activities and to protect candidate species at risk of extinction. It
is essential to protect the species important to recreational anglers
and to sustain populations through sound management. The ASA recommends
an additional $4 million be included in the fiscal year 2005
appropriation to provide funding for cooperative agreements with states
to enhance the states' roles under the Endangered Species Act.
Addressing the significant shortfalls in financial assistance to
accomplish mandated and timely fisheries management needs is critical
to allow for implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act. The ASA supports the additional
$800,000 in funding for NOAA-Fisheries Regional Fishery Management
Councils that will allow the Councils to provide a more timely response
to regional problems as fishing pressures continue to grow in many
areas.
Reliable fishery statistics provide the foundation upon which all
fishery management decisions are based. State participation in the
development and implementation of fishery statistics programs is
critical to ensure the validity, comparability, and usefulness of data.
The States and NOAA-Fisheries are each authorized to collect and
interpret statistics for marine fisheries. Therefore, it is essential
that States and the Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions participate
in cooperative statistics programs.
Other NOAA-Fisheries Issues
The ASA is pleased with the increase of $10.9 million for the
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund and the inclusion the state of
Idaho for salmon funding. We urge the Subcommittee to support funding
for this program that is essential to recovery efforts of endangered
and at-risk salmon species that are so critically important to the
Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Coastal salmon fisheries provide
outstanding opportunities for recreational anglers and the ASA
appreciates all efforts designated to restore these recreational
species.
The ASA is concerned over the continuing low level of funding for
implementation of the Anadromous Fisheries Act. The Anadromous
Fisheries Act budget line has traditionally been used to fund
activities that cannot be supported through other federal and state
funds, and the fisheries management community has been unable to
adequately address the needs of most anadromous fish stocks. Therefore,
the ASA urges Congress to fund the Anadromous Fisheries Act grants to
States at $8.0 million.
The ASA strongly recommends that Congress appropriate $30 million
for cooperative law enforcement arrangements with the states for fiscal
year 2005. Additionally, the ASA urges Congress to insist that NOAA-
Fisheries work with the Department of Justice to streamline the
reimbursement process to states prosecuting federal fisheries
violations, as was intended by Congress.
Other National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Programs
The ASA urges Congress to aggressively support the development of
new technologies to help address critical marine resource issues.
Several ongoing efforts, including the Hollings Marine Laboratory (HML)
and the Fish Cooperative Institute, are funded through the Oceanic and
Coastal Research line of the National Ocean Service budget. The ASA is
pleased with the Administration's recognition of this important work in
marine environmental health and the included funding level of $4.0
million for the HML and $0.750 for the Fish Cooperative Institute.
The National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) and Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) programs are two highly successful examples of state-
federal partnership efforts to improve the quality of our natural
resources. The ASA is pleased with the proposed $16.4 million for NERR
operations as well as with the Administration's request of $7.25
million for construction of research and educational facilities at NERR
sites. Additionally, the ASA is pleased that the Administration
recognizes the efforts of coastal states to address issues ranging from
public access to non-point source pollution to development and urban
sprawl. Increased development continues to have detrimental impacts on
the quality of life in our communities, and states and local
communities are in the best position to develop sound solutions to
these pressures. Therefore, the ASA strongly urges Congress to support
the nation's coastal zone management enterprise at a level of $85
million for Coastal Zone Management grants to help states and local
communities work to improve the quality of our coastal natural
environment.
The ASA is pleased with the Administration's acknowledgement of the
problems posed by pfiesteria and other harmful algal blooms. However,
the ASA is concerned over the proposed termination of work carried out
in concert with the states. The Administration has proposed to
terminate the $600,000 for pfiesteria work being carried out by the
South Carolina Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force. This effort is
especially important in evaluating the risks of harmful algal blooms in
tidal-dominated high flow systems, and the ASA urges Congress to
restore funding for this effort.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Council of Young Political Leaders
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies,
ladies and gentlemen:
The American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL) welcomes
this opportunity to present testimony as you consider the U.S.
Department of State's fiscal year 2005 appropriations for cultural and
educational exchange programs. My name is Brad Minnick, and as the
ACYPL's executive director, I oversee nearly 30 annual exchange
programs funded in part by a core grant from the State Department's
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). Today I offer some
perspectives about the value of exchanges like ours against the
backdrop of global terrorism and rising anti-Americanism around the
world. In my view, citizen exchanges are a critical component in the
war against terrorism and the promotion of democratic ideals.
Background and History of ACYPL
Since its founding in 1966 as an outgrowth of the Fulbright-Hays
Act, ACYPL has introduced nearly 6,500 select emerging leaders from
around the globe to international diplomacy and to each other. ACYPL
prepares in-depth study tours for young leaders, aged between 25 and 40
years old, to give them much-needed international exposure early in
their political careers. U.S. participants travel overseas to study the
political system and culture of another nation. Reciprocal visits bring
young leaders here from abroad for an introduction to American
democracy and culture and our federalist form of government.
We target young politicians likely to assume future positions of
responsibility and leadership. Here at home, our delegates are
typically state legislators, mayors, city council members and other
state and local elected officials. Many have never before traveled
outside the United States.
ACYPL programs are strictly bipartisan; our delegates are drawn
from all 50 states and equally from both major political parties. We
take particular care in putting together our delegations to demonstrate
to the world that this nation has diverse opinions, cultures,
ethnicities, religions, and politics. Similarly, ACYPL's overseas
delegations are chosen by our partners and U.S. Embassies abroad to
represent the political and cultural diversity of their home countries.
Here in the United States ACYPL can claim nearly 40 sitting members
of Congress among its distinguished alumni; six sitting state
governors; several current and former Cabinet secretaries and many
leaders in business, finance, community affairs, and education.
Overseas, our distinguished alumni include prime ministers, cabinet
officers, ambassadors and parliamentarians. The current Hungarian prime
minister and the current Hungarian ambassador to the United States were
roommates on an ACYPL exchange in 1983.
A Model for Experience and Understanding
ACYPL is but one of many international organizations actively
engaged in citizen diplomacy. Why are we unique and why are we
effective?
ACYPL is cost-efficient. For practically every dollar we receive in
federal funding, we turn it into at least two dollars through cost-
share, in-kind contributions and outside fundraising. Overall, we will
leverage nearly 160 percent of our base federal grant in corporate and
private funding support this year--a $1.2 million return on a federal
investment of $800,000.
ACYPL exchanges are bilateral. Appearing recently before the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, Ambassador
Edward Djerejian noted that ``the most effective programs of public
diplomacy--the ones most likely to endure and have long-term impact--
are those that are mutually beneficial . . .'' We host the same number
of delegates from each country that we send to those countries. Our in-
country counterpart organizations willingly organize and underwrite the
visits of our American delegates because we reciprocate.
We focus only on emerging political leaders. We believe
passionately in the need to identify, educate and introduce to each
other tomorrow's global leaders today. Through familiarity and
relationships comes knowledge and understanding. The earlier in one's
political career we can make these connections, the better.
As Assistant Secretary of State Patricia de Stacy Harrison is fond
of saying, ``if you don't go, you don't know.'' ACYPL brings young
leaders here to see for themselves the multicultural, pluralistic
nation of friendly and generous people that is the United States. A
delegation from Indonesia visiting Dearborn, Michigan was shocked to
see that Muslims here not only worship openly but are assimilated into
the fabric of American society. A Chinese delegation didn't know until
they met him that a Chinese-American could be and was elected one of
our nation's 50 governors.
American delegates make similar discoveries. Delegates to India and
Tanzania had never before seen such rampant poverty. Through their
meetings in Egypt, Jordan and Morocco delegates experienced first-hand
the intensity of anti-American sentiment among young adults. Delegates
in Vietnam saw the deep bitterness many government officials still hold
over the ``American war.'' In Australia delegates learned about the
true strength and history of our alliance.
ACYPL continues to engage its alumni. We view the initial exchange
as only the beginning of our delegates' experience as citizen
diplomats. And we tap these well connected alumni at home and abroad to
give current delegates access to leaders at the highest levels of
government. A recent Chinese delegation learned about the rule of law
directly from Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and White House
Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who is himself an alumnus of ACYPL.
Palestinian delegates quizzed Ambassador Dennis Ross and Secretary of
State Colin Powell about Middle East peace. Israelis met with former
Defense Secretary William Perry. In Jordan, U.S. delegates met with
King Abdullah; in Romania they talked NATO membership with Prime
Minister Nastase and Foreign Minister Geoana; in Uruguay, delegates
questioned President Battle about Iraq and international cooperation in
the war on terrorism.
Many alumni can testify about the deep impact the program had on
them as they rose through the ranks to their current position of
national or international leadership. The phrase most frequently used
in describing their ACYPL experience is ``life-changing.'' Here is a
typical comment from our delegate evaluations: ``As a state legislator,
I was never focused on foreign issues before this trip. This trip and
access to the political leaders has opened my eyes forever on our
responsibility as a nation.'' Said a recent foreign delegate: ``I have
come to realize that actually I know less about the United States than
I thought I did before going on this trip.'' Another wrote that going
forward ``I'll be able to avoid the fallacy of oversimplifying
America.''
U.S. Embassies abroad widely speak of the positive results ACYPL
visits generate. For example, a recent delegation spent time in
Malaysia, ACYPL's first visit there in over 10 years, where they were
introduced to some of the new political leadership elected just one
week before the delegates' arrival. We were told that this could not
have been a better time for the ACYPL delegation to come to Malaysia
because the visit allowed Embassy staff to meet many key contacts in
the major political parties, government officials and non-governmental
organizations for the first time. One notable contact was with the
executive director and secretary of the International Movement of
Muslim Youth (ABIM), based in Malaysia, who attended the ACYPL
welcoming reception hosted by the Embassy's deputy chief of mission.
This was the first time ABIM had ever accepted an Embassy invitation to
any event, and the occasion allowed Embassy staff and the ABIM to
discuss how they could work together in the future in places like Iraq.
Why Exchanges Are Needed
Current events around the world speak of the tragedy of the
increasing lack of understanding between the United States and some of
its traditional allies; it also speaks volumes to the deeply-rooted
mistrust of the United States felt by millions around the globe.
Citizen-to-citizen exchanges offer unique opportunities for learning
from one another about commonly-shared solutions to problems, as well
as about different perspectives on forms of government and the
aspirations other nations have for their citizens. This is especially
true when it applies to emerging democracies, post-conflict nations, or
in countries where the United States has a critical focus.
Worldwide, ACYPL has succeeded in addressing immediate national
public diplomacy interests. When U.S. relations with the People's
Republic of China were normalized in 1979, ACYPL was one of the first
exchange programs established between our two nations. This year we are
celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first ACYPL visit to mainland
China. We are proud to be in the vanguard of exchange programs that
seek to promote peace, reconciliation, and friendship among former
adversaries.
Our experience with China illustrates the benefits that come when
exchanges are sustainable over a quarter of a century. Since 1979
nearly 400 young leaders on both sides have gained valuable
understanding about the other; indeed, many of these alumni have risen
to high levels of leadership in both countries. This exchange never
fell victim to the ebb and flow of funding or of relations between our
two governments, even during Tiananmen Square or the downing of a U.S.
Air Force plane over Hainan Island. I remember vividly arriving in
Beijing as an ACYPL delegate myself the day martial law was declared in
1989. Despite the Tiananmen Square protests, both nations agreed our
visit should proceed. It was an experience I shall never forget.
With regard to public diplomacy in the Middle East and other areas
of focus by the State Department, ACYPL has strengthened its exchanges
to promote current priorities. While 25 percent of State Department
funding for exchanges this year will go to programs in the Middle East
and South Asia, fully 37 percent of ACYPL's exchanges in 2004 are with
nations with predominant Muslim populations. We have already brought to
the United States approximately 100 delegates from the Near East.
Recent inbound exchanges have included parliamentarians from Indonesia,
where it has been stated in a September 2003 General Accounting Office
report that only 15 percent of Indonesians view the United State
favorably. We are also hosting Egyptian parliamentary staffers who are
witnessing first-hand how representative government works in the U.S.
Congress; and later this summer a delegation from Jordan (where only 1
percent view the United States favorably, according the same GAO
report) will visit schools, citizen groups, and local legislators to
learn about a civil society. We feel these visits offer more than just
education, but an opportunity to expose mutual misconceptions; create
goodwill that promotes understanding and dialogue; and engage young
leaders in public diplomacy efforts with lasting results.
Where We Are Today and Challenges for the Future
Unfortunately, like many of our exchange program colleagues, ACYPL
does not have the resources to conduct and maintain exchanges worldwide
on the scale appropriate for the world's only super power. America's
national leaders agree on the value of educational and cultural
exchanges, yet those of us who organize these exchanges typically
operate on shoestring budgets. The United States spends less than one
percent of the annual Defense budget on all of its public diplomacy
programs combined. Because resources are so limited, my organization
must constantly choose between maintaining existing relationships or
establishing new ones. We cannot do both under existing funding.
The international exchange community understands the severe budget
pressures facing this subcommittee. But we also understand what America
gains from these exchanges. Government-to-government dialogue and
military strength can only reach so far and do so much. Public
diplomacy efforts underscore or compliment government-to-government
achievements while imparting personal experience and developing mutual
understanding among future leaders. Yet, without sustained or new
funding for programs like ours, progress towards impressing upon other
nations the blessings of democracy and freedom cannot be made fully;
nor will we reach those who need to hear our message the most. Indeed,
as Ambassador Djerejian notes in Changing Minds, Winning Peace, ``the
importance of public diplomacy in meeting the strategic challenge that
America faces in the Arab and Muslim world requires a dramatic increase
in funding.''
Our organization could facilitate exchanges with 100 emerging young
political leaders in Afghanistan and/or Iraq that focus on democracy,
rule of law, openness in government, civil society, women's rights, and
the importance of public service for $600,000. We could double the
number of countries we exchange with for $2 million. With $300,000 more
we could add enhanced follow-on activities and better communicate with
our global alumni.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts about why
public diplomacy programs like ours must be strengthened in a post 9/11
world. As you deliberate how best to allocate limited resources I
encourage you to consider the important role that ACYPL and its sister
exchange organizations can play in fostering improved understanding
among emerging leaders, combating global terrorism and changing
perceptions abroad about America. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Center for Victims of Crime
The National Center for Victims of Crime submits this testimony to
urge members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the
Judiciary to approve the President's budget request and release $675
million from the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Fund for fiscal year 2005.
In addition, we urge Subcommittee members to prevent the creation of
additional earmarks from the VOCA Fund and to discontinue the use of
earmarks from the VOCA Fund for federal positions.
The National Center for Victims of Crime is the leading resource
and advocacy organization for victims of crime. From our work with
crime victims and service providers across the country, we are well
acquainted with the funding needs of those who assist victims of crime.
Since our founding in 1985, the National Center has worked with public
and private non-profit organizations and agencies across the country,
and has provided information, support, and technical assistance to
hundreds of thousands of victims, victim service providers, allied
professionals, and advocates. Our toll-free information and referral
Helpline keeps us in touch with the needs of crime victims nationwide.
Through our day-to-day interactions with our members and with the 8,300
crime victim service providers in our referral network, we stay
informed of the work they do and of the impact that funding decisions
at the federal level have on their ability to meet the needs of
victims. We also interact with crime victim service providers through
our regional Training Institute, which offers training on a variety of
issues to service providers throughout the country. In short, we hear
from victims and service providers every day about the impact and
importance of the VOCA Fund.
About the VOCA Fund
The VOCA Fund was created twenty years ago to provide ongoing
federal support for state and local crime victim programs. It is funded
by criminal fines and penalties imposed on federal offenders. Since
fiscal year 2000, the VOCA Fund has carried over money from year to
year, with each year's VOCA Fund disbursement reflecting a cap on the
amount of money released from the Fund. The bulk of the funds are
distributed each year by formula grants to the states to fund: (a)
crime victim compensation programs, which pay many of the out-of-pocket
expenses incurred by victims; and (b) crime victim assistance. The VOCA
Assistance funding supports rape crisis centers, domestic violence
shelters, victim assistants in law enforcement and prosecutor offices,
and other direct services for victims of crime.
VOCA funding for victim assistance has decreased since fiscal year 2002
For the last two years, a cursory look at the federal
appropriations might indicate that VOCA funding for victim services has
increased. In fact, it has fallen since fiscal year 2002. The decrease
in VOCA funding for victim assistance has resulted from changes in the
statutory formula for disbursement of VOCA dollars and from the
disproportionate impact of the budgetary rescission on VOCA assistance
spending. While the total VOCA disbursement has increased, from $550
million in fiscal year 2002 to $625 million in fiscal year 2004, VOCA
assistance spending has dropped in that time, from $383 million in
fiscal year 2002 to approximately $356 million in fiscal year 2004.
This seven percent decrease has had a significant impact on rape crisis
centers, homicide survivor groups, and victim/witness programs that are
already suffering steep declines in support from states and private
funders.
Under the terms of the VOCA statute (42 U.S.C. 10601), there are
certain set asides for federal programs that are funded according to
their need. These programs are victim/witness coordinators in the
offices of U.S. Attorneys, victim assistants in FBI field offices, and
the federal automated victim notification system. Another set aside
exists for children's justice programs. From the remaining VOCA
dollars, five percent is allocated to the Office for Victims of Crime
for additional federal programs and for national-scope projects.
Payouts from the VOCA Fund to state crime victim compensation programs
are then made, based on a partial reimbursement of each state payments
to victims. The amount of funds remaining becomes that year's VOCA
assistance figure. Thus, any change in earmarks from the fund or in the
needs of the funded federal programs, any reduction in overall VOCA
spending, and any budgetary rescission, disproportionately impacts VOCA
assistance spending.
The importance of VOCA funding to state and local victim services
VOCA assistance money provides the crucial federal support for core
services to crime victims. Through the VOCA fund, the federal
government supports services for survivors of homicide victims and for
victims of assault, robbery, gang violence, hate and bias crimes,
intoxicated drivers, bank robbery, fraud, elder abuse, child abuse and
neglect, domestic violence, and sexual assault. VOCA assistance dollars
fund services that help victims in the immediate aftermath of crime,
including accompaniment to hospitals for examination; hotline
counseling; emergency food, clothing and transportation; replacing or
repairing broken locks; filing restraining orders; and more. This
program also funds assistance as victims move through the criminal
justice system, including notification of court proceedings,
transportation to court, help completing a victim impact statement,
notification about the release or escape of the offender, and
assistance in seeking restitution.
Organizations receiving VOCA assistance grants include sexual
assault and rape treatment centers, domestic violence programs and
shelters, child abuse programs, centers for missing children, mental
health services, and other community-based victim coalitions and
support organizations including those who serve homicide survivors.
Also funded are victim service programs operated by other types of
organizations, including criminal justice agencies, faith-based
organizations, emergency medical facilities, and others.
The need far outpaces the funds
Victims from around the country call our toll-free Helpline,
looking for the assistance that can help them rebuild their lives. Too
often we have had to tell rural domestic violence victims that the
closest services are 200 miles away, to tell mothers of sexual abuse
victims that they will have to drive over an hour to get to special
children's services, and to tell rape victims that there are no longer
services in their county and they will have to call the state coalition
for help. Immigrant victims find there are no service providers with
available interpreters; victims with disabilities can't locate
specialized services. Because the recent decrease in federal funding
follows decreases in state and private giving, any additional cuts come
at the expense of core services to victims.
--Service providers tell us they have long waiting lists for services
that victims need immediately. When a teenage sexual assault
victim turns to a rape crisis center, telling her she can come
back in three months isn't good enough.
--Program directors tell us they have had to chose between retaining
a volunteer coordinator who can provide the necessary
professional oversight to volunteers who inform victims about
their rights and assist them as they apply for compensation,
and a counselor who can provide in-depth counseling and group
therapy.
--Programs that formerly served multiple counties through satellite
offices have had to contract their services to a single
location. Not only does this change directly affect the
accessibility of their services, but it also means a lessening
of ties to others in the community who can collaborate to
respond to victims.
--Programs that have spent years making inroads into immigrant
communities are now faced with discontinuing their services
because they can no longer afford bilingual advocates.
--Services for ``secondary'' victims have been cut. While service
providers understand the need to provide services to children
of domestic violence victims, to non-offending mothers in cases
of child sexual abuse, and to family members of victims of
other violent crime, the combined budget cuts have often
resulted in eliminating those services.
--As programs have had to cut back, they report that experienced but
overworked staff are leaving the field. Where new staff have
been hired, directors report a lack of funding to train them.
Victim service providers understand the needs in their community.
With additional funding, they could increase their community
collaborations to reach out to underserved victims, including elderly
victims, teen victims, immigrant victims, victims with disabilities,
and victims in rural areas. They can also expand their core services to
meet the needs of those victims of crime, to help them rebuild their
lives. They also report a need for funding for technology that can
increase their efficiency and effectiveness--such as automated victim
notification systems, databases to enable service providers to
coordinate their efforts for a single victim, and Web technology to
improve their outreach to the community.
There must be no additional earmarks from VOCA
Finally, while our first priority is to see the cap on the VOCA
Fund raised to $675 million for fiscal year 2005, we also urge you to
prevent the creation of additional earmarks from the VOCA Fund, even
for projects that serve crime victims. VOCA formula grants are designed
to let each state fund victim services based on the needs and strategic
plans of that state. Money from the general VOCA Fund must not be set
aside for additional specific purposes.
We also urge that earmarks for federal positions from the VOCA Fund
be discontinued. New earmarks on the Fund have been enacted over the
last several legislative sessions, limiting the amount of money
ultimately available to states to fund local programs. These earmarks
result in a significant decrease in funding available to help the vast
majority of crime victims--victims whose cases are prosecuted and who
are served at the state and local levels. Such federal positions may be
warranted, but surely Congress can find other sources of revenue to
support federal employees. Moreover, because of the statutory
construction of those earmarks, they are immune from any budgetary
actions that restrict VOCA spending overall, and so are
disproportionately favored.
The most important action Congress can take to help this nation's
victims of crime is to provide the funding for services and
compensation programs that help them rebuild their lives. Congress'
creation of the VOCA Fund in 1984 was a landmark action that
fundamentally changed the way our society responds to victims of crime.
We urge you to continue this great effort, by approving the President's
budget request of $675 million for VOCA and holding fast against
pressure to earmark the Fund.
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission
Summary of GLIFWC's Fiscal Year 2005 Testimony.--The Commission
requests that Congress restore funding for the COPS Tribal Resources
Grant Program to $40 million in fiscal year 2005 in the Department of
Justice. The Administration is proposing to reduce funding for this
essential program to $20 million.
Disclosure of DOJ Grants Contracted.--The Commission is an
intertribal organization which, under the direction of its member
tribes, implements federal court orders governing tribal harvests of
off-reservation natural resources and the formation of conservation
partnerships to protect and enhance natural resources within the 1836,
1837, and 1842 ceded territories. Under COPS Tribal Resources Grant
Program, the Commission contracted:
--$172,924 in fiscal year 2000 for the purposes of replacing obsolete
radio equipment and to improve the capacity of GLIFWC's
officers to provide emergency services throughout the Chippewa
ceded territories;
--$292,190 in fiscal year 2001 for the purposes of replacing obsolete
patrol vehicles (boats, ATVs, and snowmobiles), purchasing
portable defibrillators, and training GLIFWC officers;
--$302,488 in fiscal year 2002 for the purposes of replacing obsolete
patrol vehicles (ATVs and snowmobiles), improving officer
safety (in-car video cameras), increasing computer
capabilities, and expanding training of GLIFWC officers in
interagency emergency response; and
--$280,164 in fiscal year 2003 for the purposes of hiring 3
additional officers, providing basic recruit training, and
supplying standard issue items.
Ceded Territory Treaty Rights and GLIFWC'S Role.--GLIFWC was
established in 1984 as a ``tribal organization'' within the meaning of
the Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638). It exercises
authority delegated by its member tribes to implement federal court
orders and various interjurisdictional agreements related to their
treaty rights. GLIFWC assists its member tribes in: securing and
implementing treaty guaranteed rights to hunt, fish, and gather in
Chippewa treaty ceded territories; and cooperatively managing and
protecting ceded territory natural resources and their habitats.
For the past 19 years, Congress and Administrations have funded
GLIFWC through the BIA, Department of Justice and other agencies to
meet specific federal obligations under: (a) a number of U.S./Chippewa
treaties; (b) the federal trust responsibility; (c) the Indian Self-
Determination Act, the Clean Water Act, and other legislation; and (d)
various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case,
affirming the treaty rights of GLIFWC's member Tribes. GLIFWC serves as
a cost efficient agency to conserve natural resources, to effectively
regulate harvests of natural resources shared among treaty signatory
tribes, to develop cooperative partnerships with other government
agencies, educational institutions, and non-governmental organizations,
and to work with its member tribes to protect and conserve ceded
territory natural resources.
Under the direction of its member tribes, GLIFWC operates a ceded
territory hunting, fishing, and gathering rights protection/
implementation program through its staff of biologists, scientists,
technicians, conservation enforcement officers, and public information
specialists.
Community-based Policing.--GLIFWC's officers carry out their duties
through a community-based policing program. The underlying premise is
that effective detection and deterrence of illegal activities, as well
as education of the regulated constituents, are best accomplished if
the officers live and work within tribal communities that they
primarily serve. The officers are based in 10 satellite offices located
on the reservations of the following member tribes: In Wisconsin--Bad
River, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Red Cliff, Sokaogon
Chippewa (Mole Lake) and St. Croix; in Minnesota--Mille Lacs; and in
Michigan--Bay Mills, Keweenaw Bay and Lac Vieux Desert.
Interaction With Law Enforcement Agencies.--GLIFWC's officers are
integral members of regional emergency services networks in Minnesota,
Michigan and Wisconsin. They not only enforce the tribes' conservation
codes, but are fully certified officers who work cooperatively with
surrounding authorities when they detect violations of state or federal
criminal and conservation laws. They also are certified medical
emergency first responders, including CPR, and in the use of
defibrillators, and are trained in search and rescue, particularly in
cold water rescue techniques. When a crime is in progress or
emergencies occur, local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies
look to GLIFWC's officers as part of the mutual assistance networks of
the ceded territories. This network includes the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Coast Guard, USDA-Forest
Service, State Patrol and Police, county sheriffs departments,
municipal police forces, fire departments and emergency medical
services.
GLIFWC Programs Currently Funded by DOJ.--GLIFWC recognizes that
adequate communications, training, and equipment are essential both for
the safety of its officers and for the role that GLIFWC's officers play
in the proper functioning of interjurisdictional emergency mutual
assistance networks in the ceded territories. GLIFWC's COPS grants for
the past four years have provided a critical foundation for achieving
these goals. Significant accomplishments with Tribal Resources Grant
Program funds include:
--Improved Radio Communications and Increased Officer Safety.--GLIFWC
replaced obsolete radio equipment to improve the capacity of
officers to provide emergency services throughout the Chippewa
ceded territories. GLIFWC also used COPS funding to provide
each officer a bullet-proof vest, night vision equipment, and
in-car videos to increase officer safety.
--Emergency Response Equipment and Training.--Each GLIFWC officer has
completed certification as a First Responder and in the use of
life saving portable defibrillators. In 2003, GLIFWC officers
carried First Responder kits and portable defibrillators during
their patrol of 275,257 miles throughout the ceded territories.
In remote, rural areas the ability of GLIFWC officers to
respond to emergencies provides critical support of mutual aid
agreements with federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies.
--Ice Rescue Capabilities.--Each GLIFWC officer was certified in ice
rescue techniques and provided a Coast Guard approved ice
rescue suit. In addition, each of GLIFWC's 10 reservation
satellite offices was provided a snowmobile and an ice rescue
sled to participate in interagency ice rescue operations with
county sheriffs departments and local fire departments.
--Wilderness Search and Rescue Capabilities.--Each GLIFWC officer
completed Wilderness Search and Rescue training. The COPS
Tribal Resources Grant Program also enabled GLIFWC to replace
many vehicles that were purchased over a decade ago including
10 ATV's and 16 patrol boats and the GPS navigation system on
its 25 foot Lake Superior Patrol Boat. These vehicles are used
for field patrol, cooperative law enforcement activities, and
emergency response in the 1837 and 1842 Chippewa Ceded
Territories. GLIFWC officers also utilize these vehicles for
boater, ATV, and snowmobile safety classes taught on
Reservations as part of the Commission's Community Policing
Strategy.
--Hire, train, and supply 3 additional officers.--Funding has been
contracted to provide 3 additional officers to ensure tribes
are able to meet obligations to both enforce off-reservation
conservation codes and effectively participate in the myriad of
mutual assistance networks located throughout a vast region
covering 60,000 square miles.
Consistent with numerous other federal court rulings on the
Chippewa treaties, the United States Supreme Court recently affirmed
the existence of the Chippewa's treaty-guaranteed usufructuary rights
(Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band, Case No. 97-1337, March 24, 1999). As
tribes have re-affirmed rights to harvest resources in the 1837 ceded
territory of Minnesota, workloads have increased. This expanded
workload, combined with staff shortages would have limited GLIFWC's
effective participation in regional emergency services networks in
Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. The effectiveness of these mutual
assistance networks is more critical than ever given: National homeland
security concerns; State and local governmental fiscal shortfalls; and
staffing shortages experienced by local police, fire, and ambulance
departments due to the call up of National Guard and military reserve
units.
Examples of the types of assistance provided by GLIFWC officers are
provided below: as trained first responders, GLIFWC officers routinely
respond to, and often are the first to arrive at, snowmobile accidents,
heart attacks, hunting accidents, and automobile accidents (throughout
the ceded territories); search and rescue for lost hunters, fishermen,
hikers, children, and elderly (Sawyer, Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, and
Forest counties in Wisconsin and Baraga, Chippewa, and Gogebic counties
in Michigan); being among the first to arrive on the scene where
officers from other agencies have been shot (Bayfield, Burnett, and
Polk counties in Wisconsin) and responding to weapons incidents
(Ashland, Burnett, Sawyer, and Vilas counties in Wisconsin); assist
with drowning incidents (St. Croix River on the Minnesota/Wisconsin
border, Sawyer county in Wisconsin, Gogebic county in Michigan) and
searching for lost airplanes (Ashland, Forest and Washburn counties in
Wisconsin); organize and participate in rescues of ice fishermen on
Lake Superior (Ashland and Bayfield counties in Wisconsin) and
assisting with Lake Superior boat rescues (Baraga county in Michigan
and with the U.S. Coast Guard in other parts of western Lake Superior);
and assist sheriffs departments with natural disasters (e.g. floods in
Ashland County and a tornado in Siren, Wisconsin).
Simply put, adding three additional officer positions will not only
assist GLIFWC in meeting its obligations to enforce tribal off-
reservation codes, but it will enhance intergovernmental efforts to
protect public safety and welfare throughout the region by the states
of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Foreign Service Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) and the 23,000 active-duty
and retired members of the Foreign Service, I express our appreciation
for the opportunity to share our views and concerns with you regarding
the 2005 fiscal year funding request for the Department of State and
its programs.
Our country is facing the most serious threat to its well-being
since the Cold War. Foreign Service personnel are working long hours,
in difficult circumstances with uncommon courage, to advance our
bilateral and multilateral relationships, fight the battle against
international terrorism, stop the flow of illegal drugs, uncover
international crime and illegal financing networks, and work for the
kind of development that will remove safe havens for international
terrorists. On July 1, the State Department will take on a task that
may reverberate for decades in the Middle East. The United States will
be turning over sovereignty to the Iraqi people and the Department of
State will be establishing one of the largest diplomatic missions in
its history. The United States will become a partner with the Iraqi
people in bringing peace and justice to their wartorn nation.
As the United States takes on these ever-expanding diplomatic
responsibilities, this Subcommittee's actions are vital to their
success. Your decisions determine whether we will have the resources
necessary to support the foreign affairs infrastructure and many of the
tools of diplomacy needed to implement our foreign policy.
The Subcommittee's and the Congress' past support of the
Administration's request in meeting staffing needs, improving
information technology systems, making posts and missions more secure,
and providing for an active exchange program is very much appreciated.
Certainly Secretary of State Colin Powell and his staff also must be
thanked for their hard work on our behalf. For over three years, the
Secretary has successfully served our Nation and the President as both
his principal foreign policy advisor and as the effective and inspiring
CEO of the Department of State.
PERSONNEL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
With the fiscal year 2004 funding, the Department completed its
three-year Diplomatic Readiness Initiative (DRI) and by September 2004
will have hired 1,158 new employees above attrition into the Foreign
and Civil Services. Because of DRI, the majority of the Department's
long vacant overseas positions will be filled. Further, the Department
will be able to staff new operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in
new offices like MEPI and HIV/AIDS without ``robbing Peter to pay
Paul'' as had been the practice.
However, the 1,158 additional Foreign and Civil Service personnel
target was chosen prior to the changes in the world brought about by
the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. When the numbers
were selected, it was a different time and a different world. For
fiscal year 2005 the Administration has requested an additional $76
million to fund 317 new positions which would include 183 individuals
for new staffing requirements, 63 positions for the Consular Associates
Replacement Program, and 71 new security positions.
AFSA supports this additional personnel request. Through
reprioritization, DRI allowed the Department to meet unforeseen
demands. However, this reprioritization also meant that current needs
are not being met. The additional personnel ``float'' that was needed
so that training could take place or positions will be covered while
our personnel move from one post to another, take home leave, or the
myriad other reasons for people to be in motion has not materialized.
This personnel float must be replaced. Also additional security
staffing is required to meet an increasingly dangerous world. Last
year, Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Service experienced the most mandatory
evacuations of posts than ever before, and we do not see this trend
abating soon.
Without the additional requested funding for staffing, the gains
made by DRI could be lost. With the lack of appropriate funding in the
decade of the 1990s, our foreign affairs infrastructure fell into a
state of near crisis. This cannot be allowed to happen again, and we
urge the Congress to meet the Administration's personnel request.
There is one other matter in terms of the funding request that AFSA
wishes to call to the Subcommittee's attention. In the State Department
authorization bill, there is a provision in the House and Senate bills
that would increase the hardship and danger pay differentials from a
maximum of 25 percent to 35 percent. AFSA requests that if this
increase is authorized, sufficient funding be included in this
appropriations bill to accommodate this increase in differentials. The
world has become a much more dangerous and difficult place to live. An
increasing number of posts have hit the maximum but there still is a
difference of ``worse and worst'' among these posts. An increase in the
differential would help acknowledge the greater hardship that is
required to live in the worst posts.
PERSONNEL ISSUES FOR SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Mr. Chairman, there is another issue to be considered is the
treatment of our personnel. The Foreign Service is very fortunate in
that we continue to attract from the best and brightest of our nation.
Today, because of DRI and increased funding, hiring finally has began
to increase. Currently nearly one-third of the State Department's
Foreign Service has been hired since 1998, which creates a new dynamic
for our institution. We ask for the Congress' attention in this matter
because it can create personnel problems that work against retention
and the morale of the Foreign Service.
The newer members of the Foreign Service have much in common with
their older colleagues. They, too, are the best that our nation has to
offer. They, too, are hard working, dedicated, patriotic individuals
who are willing to serve in dangerous and remote places. But one major
difference is the importance of the spouse and family concerns in their
consideration of their employment satisfaction level. In line with
societal trends, our new Foreign Service members are marrying well-
educated, career oriented spouses. These spouses do not see themselves
continually sacrificing their career and serving as part of a ``two-
fer'' couple. For many, spousal employment options and the attitudes of
the spouse constitute the single most important factor in determining
both mobility of the Foreign Service members and whether a person will
make the Foreign Service a career. The efforts made by the Department
in this area are noteworthy, but the problems have yet to be solved.
AFSA urges the Committee to work with the Department in seeking ways to
improve the career opportunities and the personal satisfaction of
spouses for the long-term health of the Foreign Service.
Another issue that should be addressed revolves around training and
the per diem provided. As DRI concept continues to succeed and more
individuals take additional training to learn new skills regarding
their next assignment or to learn new hard language skills, AFSA
believes that the per diem levels provided for those assigned to
training need to be revised. Current allowances do not accommodate
increased cost of living in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
AFSA asks that the Subcommittee provide funding to the Department of
State so that appropriate support levels for those in long-term
training can be provided.
EMBASSY SECURITY
Mr. Chairman, AFSA continues to thank both the Congress and the
Department of State for the impressive work they have been doing
together in improving the security of our posts and missions abroad
since the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998.
When Secretary Powell testified before this Subcommittee on March
25, he discussed the vast improvements being made in terms of embassy
security brought on by changes in management. He testified that at the
beginning of this Administration, one new secure embassy was being
built each year. Today, the Department is building 10 new secure
embassy compounds a year. Moreover, the embassy's program costs have
been reduced by 20 percent.
However, the threats to Americans and the historic number of
mandatory evacuations of our posts and missions abroad last year both
attest to the need to continue our efforts in this area. It must be
remembered that despite significant upgrades to the security of our
facilities around the world, the General Accounting Office reported in
its March 20, 2003 testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations that:
``. . . even with these improvements, most office facilities do not
meet security standards. As of December 2002, the primary office
building at 232 posts lacked desired security because it did not meet
one or more of State's five key current security standards . . .. Only
12 posts have a primary building that meets all 5 standards. As a
result, thousands of U.S. government and foreign national employees may
be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.''
Mr. Chairman, the Foreign Service does not seek hilltop fortresses.
Such would be counterproductive to our purpose for being in a country.
We accept that dangers are part of our profession. But we also expect
that our government, should provide for our safety as much as possible.
AFSA urges that funding continue at its current, if not an accelerated
pace, to complete the work of securing our posts and missions abroad.
In this regard, we are aware of the proposed Capital Security Cost
Sharing (CSCS) program to help provide additional funding to increase
the speed in which secure embassy compounds can be built. Given the
situation in the world today, no one can argue against building secure
facilities faster. However, we wish to express our hope that the
participating departments and agencies will be provided additional
funding to meet the additional CSCS building costs. It is our concern
that the mission that overseas staff were doing would be lost due to a
strictly budget driven decision.
SOFT TARGETS
Mr. Chairman, for the past few years, AFSA expressed its concerns
to this Subcommittee regarding the lack of attention the Department of
State seemed to give to the protection of soft targets. We have always
been appreciative of your and the Subcommittee's efforts to direct the
Department's attention to that area. As you know, this was a particular
concern to the Foreign Service because we believed that the term ``soft
targets'' was nothing more than a euphemism for attacks against our
spouses and children as we try and lead a somewhat normal life of going
to school, to church, and on other family outings.
It was thus particularly gratifying when the Secretary said to this
Subcommittee:
``Our budget request also, I might say, touches on physical
security improvements to those soft targets in our missions: schools,
recreational facilities. And you know that we have an extensive plan to
go after this soft targeting possibility, providing physical security
improvements to overseas schools attended by dependents of government
employees and other citizens. Our 2005 request includes $27 million for
this effort, including $10 million for the schools, $5 million to
improve security at employee association facilities, and $12 million
for residential security upgrades. Protection of Americans living and
working overseas is one of our highest priorities.''
PAY DISPARITIES BETWEEN SERVICE OVERSEAS AND SERVICE AT HOME
Finally Mr. Chairman, we wish to bring to your attention a concern
that grows each year and seriously damages the morale of those in the
Foreign Service. Because of prohibitions in the Federal Employees Pay
Comparability Act, federal employees under Title V cannot receive
locality pay when they go abroad. This means that currently when a
member of the Foreign Service is posted abroad, that person will take a
13 percent cut in base pay. Further, because of the ``rest of U.S.
concept'' in locality pay, there is no federal employee of the same
grade serving in the United States who will receive less than 8 percent
more than a member of the Foreign Service member posted abroad.
This difference has devalued the concept of differentials for
serving in hardship and danger posts, it devalues the concept of equal
pay for equal work, and it harms the individual because it affects the
amount a person serving abroad can contribute to his or her retirement.
There are now several pay disparities afflicting a member of the
Foreign Service serving abroad caused by locality pay. Two people of
the same rank, one serving in Washington and the other serving abroad,
will have a difference of more than 13 percent because of locality pay.
Since the adjustments in pay procedures for the Senior Executive
Service and the Senior Foreign Service, due to personnel changes in
last year's Defense Authorization bill, a member of the Senior Foreign
Service will receive 13 percent more than a colleague at the same post
but who is not at the Senior level. Finally, it is our understanding
those in this nation's intelligence services receive an overseas
adjustment similar to locality pay.
Mr. Chairman, AFSA believes the current situation needs to be
corrected, and we will seek that end. The laws will have to be changed,
but when that happens, we urge this Subcommittee to provide the
necessary funds to eliminate this pay disparity.
CONCLUSION
Again, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to share the views of the American Foreign Service
Association.
Ultimately, our security cannot be won on the battlefield alone.
Rather, it will turn on our ability to make foreign governments,
international organizations, and the people of the world understand the
threats that confront all of us and then face those threats with us. In
the long run, our best defense will be convincing others to work toward
an international society that is tolerant and just, as well as vigilant
against common threats. This is the work of diplomacy, and we trust
that you and your subcommittee will want to assign our diplomatic
efforts the same strategic priority and funding that is assigned to
this nation's military efforts.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 198
American Council of Young Political Leaders, Prepared Statement
of............................................................. 210
American Foreign Service Association, Prepared Statement of...... 217
American Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statement of........ 167
American Sportfishing Association, Prepared Statement of......... 208
Association for Enterprise Opportunity, Prepared Statement of.... 172
Association of Small Business Development Centers, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 193
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 49
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, Prepared Statement of........................ 204
Campbell, Senator Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator From Colorado,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 40
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 189
Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE),
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 174
Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 39
Doris Day Animal League, Prepared Statement of................... 196
Ekstrand, Laurie E., Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Issues, Government Accountability Office....................... 84
Prepared Statement of........................................ 86
Evans, Hon. Donald L., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Commerce......................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 5
Fine, Glenn A., Inspector General, Department of Justice......... 74
Prepared Statement of........................................ 76
Florida State University, Prepared Statement of.................. 202
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 215
Gregg, Senator Judd, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire:
Opening Remarks of........................................... 53
Questions Submitted by....................................... 28
Hite, Randolph, Director, Information Technology Architecture and
Systems Issues, Government Accountability Office............... 84
Hollings, Senator Ernest F., U.S. Senator From South Carolina,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 41
Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 41
Institute of Makers of Explosives, Prepared Statement of......... 186
Kerr, Honorable Jimmie, Pinal County Supervisor, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 182
Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 47
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 1
Questions Submitted by....................................... 44
Marine Fish Conservation Network, Prepared Statement of.......... 181
Mueller, Robert S., III, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Justice.......................................... 53
Prepared Statement of........................................ 57
National American Indian Court Judges Association, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 205
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges (NASULGC), Prepared Statements of...................170, 174
National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife
Programs, Prepared Statement of................................ 176
National Center for Victims of Crime, Prepared Statement of...... 213
National Federation of Community Broadcasters, Prepared Statement
of............................................................. 180
Powell, Colin L., Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary,
Department of State............................................ 119
Prepared Statement of........................................ 126
Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 183
Sister Cities International, Prepared Statement of............... 200
Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 38
The Asia Foundation, Prepared Statement of....................... 190
The Ocean Conservancy, Prepared Statement of..................... 177
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), Prepared
Statement of................................................... 170
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 28
Advanced Technology Program and Homeland Security Technologies... 29
American Jobs.................................................... 11
Assistance to Alaska Fishermen...................................14, 38
Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services............... 10
BIS Mission and Activities....................................... 37
Budget Choices...................................................20, 26
Climate Change Programs.......................................... 41
Climate Change Research Initiative............................... 22
Crab Rationalization Program..................................... 14
And Ocean Policy............................................. 38
DOC Manufacturing Report......................................... 9
Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program........................... 49
Exporting of Jobs................................................ 26
Focus on Creating Jobs........................................... 17
Funding for Census Programs...................................... 35
Global Climate Change............................................ 23
ITA Reorganization............................................... 39
And Collaboration With USTR.................................. 31
Infrastructure Protection........................................ 30
International Trade Administration Reorganization................ 9
International Travel to the United States........................ 43
Iraq Reconstruction.............................................. 32
Job Losses in Wisconsin.......................................... 47
Long-term Plan for Spectrum Management........................... 30
MEP Funding and Recompetition.................................... 47
Manufacturing Extension Partnership......................12, 19, 25, 44
NIST/Manufacturing Extension Partnership......................... 29
NOAA:
Funding...................................................... 39
N-Prime Satellite............................................ 8
NIST Boulder Campus.......................................... 40
Space Initiatives............................................ 28
National Sea Grant Program....................................... 46
New Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing......................... 49
Ocean Programs................................................... 27
Oceans Policy Commission......................................... 15
PTFP Grants...................................................... 30
PTO:
Funding and Reduced Pendancy................................. 35
Hiring Plan for 900 New Staff................................ 25
Increase..................................................... 24
Participation in Commodity Prices................................ 39
Patent and Trade Complaints and Backlog.......................... 49
Patriotism....................................................... 16
President's Economic Report...................................... 16
Public Telecommunications Facilities Program..................... 41
Section 201 Duties and Steel Imports............................. 50
Support for MEP.................................................. 21
Taking PTO Off Budget............................................ 36
Tourism.......................................................... 24
Industry..................................................... 23
Trade Deficit.................................................... 19
2010 Decennial Census and American Community Survey.............. 33
U.S. Dumping Laws................................................ 51
U.S. Economy..................................................... 16
WTO Ruling on Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act........... 50
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Additional OIG Reviews in the FBI................................ 81
Counterterrorism Agents.......................................... 70
Duplication of Efforts/Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical
Center......................................................... 65
Enterprise Architecture.......................................... 109
Explosives....................................................... 63
FBI Culture...................................................... 59
Federal Bureau of Investigation/Drug Enforcement Administration
Relationship................................................... 110
IDENT:
System....................................................... 72
IAFIS Integration............................................ 112
Information Technology...........................................56, 58
Language Translation............................................. 72
Legat Program.................................................... 114
Linguists........................................................ 115
Management....................................................... 56
Possible Integration of X-Base Into TEDAC........................ 66
Summary of TOPOFF 2 After-Action Report.......................... 69
TOPOFF........................................................... 68
Terrorist Screening Center....................................... 64
The Trilogy Project.............................................. 77
Training.........................................................55, 57
Transportation Security.......................................... 63
Trilogy Program.................................................. 59
Virtual Case File Contract....................................... 111
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Secretary
Afghanistan Over Iraq............................................ 144
Armed Services Will not Give Money............................... 140
Caring for the World's Most Vulnerable People.................... 132
Charles Taylor Before Tribunal................................... 156
Clarke Lacking................................................... 141
Clarke and State Connection...................................... 141
Department of Defense Sharing With State......................... 139
Failure of Clinton Administration With Terrorism................. 135
Funding for the Coalition Provisional Authority Post-July........ 149
Funds From the Department of Defense............................. 139
Hmong Refugees in Laos........................................... 153
Iraq Reconstruction, Cost of..................................... 159
Israel Fence Status and Cost and Israel-Palestinian Conflict..... 161
Keeping Americans Safe at Home and Abroad........................ 133
MOX Program; Status of Liability With Russia..................... 160
Mideast-West Dialogue............................................ 157
Money to Afghanistan............................................. 142
Our New Approach to Global Prosperity............................ 131
Putting More Aid in Afghanistan.................................. 143
Readiness of Iraqi Self-defense Forces........................... 150
Secretary Witness Clarke......................................... 142
State Budget in Iraq............................................. 139
Terrorism--High Priority......................................... 136
Transfer......................................................... 140
Update on Iraq and Afghanistan................................... 137
Who Pays the Coalition Provisional Authority..................... 139
Why Does the Department of Defense Fund the Coalition Provisional
Authority...................................................... 145
Winning the War on Terrorism..................................... 127