    [Senate Hearing 109-375]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                     S. Hrg. 109-375, Pt. 5

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                                Commerce, Justice, Science,

                                                       and Related Agencies

                                                             Appropriations

                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                                       2007

                                             109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
                                                                  H.R. 5672

    PART 5
            DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
            DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
            NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
            NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

     Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2007
                              (H.R. 5672)--Part 5

                                                     S. Hrg. 109-375, Pt. 5

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2007

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                                   H.R. 5672

      AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE, THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE,
    JUSTICE, AND COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
                   SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                             PART 5 (Pages 1-811)

                             Department of Commerce
                             Department of Justice
                 National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    27-360                      WASHINGTON : 2007
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    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

                      THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                HARRY REID, Nevada
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              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
    WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
                        J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
                  Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

        Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

                      RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex        ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
        officio)                           (ex officio)
                               Professional Staff
                                  Art Cameron
                                  Allen Cutler
                                  James Hayes
                               Rachelle Schroeder
                                 Goodloe Sutton
                            Paul Carliner (Minority)
                          Gabrielle Batkin (Minority)
                            Alexa Sewell (Minority)
                          Kate Fitzpatrick (Minority)

                             Administrative Support
                                 Augusta Wilson

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, April 5, 2006

                                                                       Page
    Department of Justice:
        Office of the Attorney General...............................     1
        Federal Bureau of Investigation..............................    36
        Drug Enforcement Administration..............................    45
        Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives..........    61
        United States Marshals Service...............................    73

                           Wednesday, April 26, 2006

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration....................   117

                             Wednesday, May 3, 2006

    Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary..................   197
    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   233

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:02 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Shelby, Stevens, Mikulski, Leahy, Kohl,
    Murray, and Harkin.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         Office of the Attorney General

    STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
        I want to welcome Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the
    subcommittee. He has been here before. And also, my second
    panel, we will have the Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Director Robert Mueller, Drug Enforcement Administration
    Director Karen Tandy, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
    Explosives Director Carl Truscott, and U.S. Marshals Service
    Director John Clark who will be appearing before the
    subcommittee this afternoon.
        Mr. Attorney General, in reviewing the Justice Department's
    budget request and anticipating the budget constraints weighing
    upon us due to the war on terror and the natural disasters that
    devastated the gulf coast, I believe it will take your unified
    leadership to make the tough choices regarding the allocation
    of scarce resources in this bill.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST

        The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department of
    Justice is $20.8 billion and represents a 0.5 percent decrease
    over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. While this request
    proposes increases for the FBI, the U.S. attorneys, and the
    U.S. Marshals Service, it proposes cuts to local law
    enforcement assistance programs and other critical areas that
    are troubling. In particular, it recommends a $1.6 billion
    decrease for State and local law enforcement programs. It
    proposes to rescind $142 million for the construction of two
    new Federal prisons and includes the same failed $120 million
    mandatory fee on explosives manufacturers to fund the day-to-
    day operations of critical law enforcement activities.
        The budget request for the FBI provides $6 billion, an
    increase of 6 percent over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
    As the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I
    know firsthand the challenges facing the Bureau's new national
    security branch, which is responsible for coordinating
    intelligence activities with the Director of National
    Intelligence. The Bureau's budget request seeks to permanently
    realign 300 special agent positions from criminal
    investigations to counterterrorism, to support the work of the
    NSB.
        This shift in resources signals the importance of
    reprioritizing funding and personnel to the threat of
    terrorism. However, this realignment may not go far enough, as
    the budget request only adds one new agent position for this
    upcoming year. Instead, the FBI budget funds a variety of
    technological improvements for intelligence infrastructure,
    information technology management, information technology
    infrastructure, and the next generation of the much-maligned
    Trilogy program.
        This subcommittee and the Bureau share the difficult task
    of targeting these resources in a manner that safeguards
    taxpayers' dollars while preserving public safety.
        The FBI's former $537 million technology initiative,
    Trilogy, while providing primitive functionality, was hardly a
    sound investment for the taxpayers. I was disappointed to learn
    that after spending in excess of $170 million, Trilogy's
    Virtual Case File system was basically a failure. This
    represents a devastating blow to the information technology
    needs of the FBI.
        The 2006 Government Accountability Office Trilogy report
    raises serious questions about the FBI's ability to oversee and
    to build any type of information technology system. The FBI's
    new technology initiative, Sentinel, like Trilogy, promises to
    bring the FBI into the 21st century. This new technology, I
    believe as you do, is critically important, but I remain
    concerned that the FBI does not possess the necessary project
    management expertise, nor do I feel that the FBI has applied
    lessons learned from past mistakes. We hope so.
        And while I support and realize the importance of
    information technology to the FBI's mission, as you do, I
    cannot support unlimited and unchecked resources. I do not
    believe this subcommittee would do that. We will not tolerate
    broken promises for results that were never realized or
    delivered, such as Trilogy.
        Given one failed attempt, Mr. Attorney General, I believe
    it is imperative that you proceed with caution to ensure that
    the FBI does not make the same mistakes. I expect results. We
    do here, and I will do everything we can to ensure there is a
    thorough congressional oversight for this program.
        The budget request for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms and Explosives imposes a $120 million tax on
    explosives manufacturers. I want to point out that even if
    Congress passed this proposal today, it would take the
    Department 2 years, I have been told, to begin collecting the
    fee. If this were true, I do not understand how the Department
    of Justice proposes to use the receipts from this fee to offset
    the 2007 ATF budget.
        This $120 million hole is just one example of many
    contained in this budget request. These shortfalls force the
    subcommittee to make extremely difficult choices that undermine
    our ability to fund critical budget increases for hard working,
    as you have, Department of Justice law enforcement agencies.
        While we believe that your new initiatives are extremely
    important, Mr. Attorney General, it will be difficult to give
    them consideration when the subcommittee must weigh this
    request with the numerous proposed rescissions, cuts, and
    eliminations of local law enforcement programs. State and local
    law enforcement agencies are the foundation of our Nation's law
    enforcement community. You know this as the former attorney
    general in Texas.
        These proposed cuts have the potential to significantly
    weaken the ability of these agencies to protect our communities
    from traditional crimes, to maintain vigilance in the war on
    terror and to prepare for catastrophic disasters. Continually
    proposing major reductions for local law enforcement assistance
    programs will cripple the police and sheriffs' departments
    which are fixtures in our Nation's communities.
        For the second year in a row, the Federal Bureau of Prisons
    has disregarded explicit congressional direction to construct
    new prisons in McDowell, West Virginia, and Burlington, New
    Hampshire. This year's proposed $142 million rescission,
    combined with last year's $314 million rescission, totals $456
    million in previously appropriated funding for the construction
    of additional correctional institutions. Not only are we facing
    significant prison overcrowding here in the country, but the
    Bureau of Prisons projects, according to what they tell us,
    approximately 8,500 new prisoners will enter the Federal system
    this year alone.
        I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Attorney General,
    first, and then the others later about your visions and the
    challenges that you see.
        Senator Mikulski.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    once again, as we open our hearings on the Commerce, Justice,
    Science appropriations we look forward to working with you on a
    bipartisan basis to achieve important national goals in terms
    of public policy and yet be stewards of the Federal purse.
        We want to welcome the Attorney General and our top law
    enforcement team from the FBI, DEA, ATF, and of course, the
    Marshals Service. Mr. Attorney General, I know we are anxious
    to get to your testimony, but we want to welcome you. We know
    that you said your goal was to help secure the American dream
    for all Americans and to keep America safe. We want to work
    with you to do that.
        Your Department is responsible for protecting America, for
    your Department is one of the agencies responsible for
    protecting America from a predatory attack by international or
    even domestic terrorists and at the same time protect Americans
    from predatory attacks in our own neighborhood, whether they
    commit arson against those people in our community trying to
    buy a home for the American dream; whether they are the sexual
    predators stalking and betraying children on the Internet; or
    whether they are the drug kingpins coming into our community.
    We need to protect America.
        We are concerned, as we look at all of this and the
    national goals about some of the aspects of the budget, but
    before we get into the cuts that I am concerned about, we
    understand that when we look at counterterrorism, which we know
    is one of your priorities, the FBI does get the largest
    increase to pay for investigations and technology upgrades.
        I share the flashing yellow lights and flashing impatience
    that has been shared with you by the chairman. I have met with
    the director of the FBI on our new approach to the case
    management system, and we are satisfied that a framework has
    been put in place that we can begin to get the best value in
    technology and the best value for the taxpayers' dollar. I want
    to work with the chairman and with the director on important
    oversight of this system.
        At the same time, we do know that while we are upgrading
    the technology, we need to upgrade our agents and make sure
    that they have the best training. I am concerned that the
    facilities at Quantico are aging, that they are tattered; that
    while our agents are being brought in that we need to be sure
    that where we train them and how we train them is as modern as
    the mission that we have given them.
        In the areas of agreement, we agree with you on reducing
    gun violence, ridding our streets of gangs, and keeping the
    Internet safe for our children, and protecting our fair
    housing. Those are your national goals, and we want to work
    with you on that. Yet, what we are concerned about is the cuts
    to local law enforcement. In my time, I would just like to
    focus on that, because your national goals, I will get to in
    there, but no matter how great the FBI, ATF, DEA is, they have
    to rely on local law enforcement. There is just not enough
    agents. There will never be enough agents. They have to be the
    cops on the beat, and they have to be trained. They have to be
    equipped, and they have to be ready to work with the kind of
    talent that we are asking.
        In my own hometown in Maryland, because we are in the
    Capital region, we fear a predatory attack from terrorists, and
    at the same time, we have one of the highest heroin addiction
    rates in the country, and we need DEA, and ATF has come to our
    rescue in helping to find people who are trying to burn down
    the homes of African-Americans moving into new neighborhoods.
        So we worry, though, that because the people that were
    caught were caught by local law enforcement, we are concerned
    about the cuts of several hundreds of millions of dollars in
    the Byrne grants and in other local law enforcement areas. So
    we want to hear from you how you think that is going to work,
    because as I said to you privately, and I said to you publicly,
    all of these members will feel this pressure.
        We do not want to be into the mother of all earmarking. And
    we are concerned that if the communities cannot get their money
    for their policemen through a grant program that is peer
    reviewed, based on competition, granted on merit, they come to
    us to be able to do this, to fight crime, upgrade their
    technology, gang initiatives, and also deal with this
    horrendous challenge of meth that is sweeping this country.
        So we need to find a way and a wallet to really deal with
    the local law enforcement that is the underpinnings that
    support in many ways the efforts of our very talented Federal
    law enforcement and the variety of agencies that they have. So
    let us work on those national goals, but really, the gang
    fighting, so many of these things, are done at the local level.
        So, Mr. Chairman, we will follow this up in more extensive
    conversations.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Senator Stevens.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, and welcome,
    Mr. Attorney General. I have another committee meeting, as a
    matter of fact, but I came to emphasize what Senator Mikulski
    has already addressed, and that is this methamphetamine. The
    COPS meth hot spots program was authorized for $99 million.
    This is a scourge as far as rural America is concerned. And I
    have got a question I would like to submit for the record and
    appreciate your answers, Mr. Attorney General.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

        Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I will put my whole statement
    in the record so we can go to the witnesses.
        Senator Shelby. Without objection.
        Senator Leahy. I would say that I am concerned, and I will
    raise this in my questions, about the budget cutting of funds
    for proven anti-crime and anti-drug and community safety
    efforts. They make a difference in your State, my State,
    Vermont and elsewhere. I see programs slated for elimination.
    Cuts include Byrne and the COPS grant, something every police
    department has benefitted from; the crime victims fund, the
    bullet proof vest partnership that Senator Ben Nighthorse
    Campbell and I started; the Violence Against Women Act
    programs; boys and girls clubs.
        We have unlimited amounts of money to build up everything
    that they want in Iraq. I think we should be worried more about
    crime victims and rank and file police in the United States.
        I will also ask questions about what, in heaven's name, we
    are allowing somebody as careless as ChoicePoint to get control
    of our data, but I will put my whole statement in the record,
    Mr. Chairman, and I will ask those questions.
        Senator Shelby. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy

        Mr. Chairman, I join you, the ranking member and our colleagues in
    welcoming all of our distinguished witnesses who are here to testify
    before our subcommittee today on the Justice Department's fiscal year
    2007 budget. I particularly want to welcome Attorney General Gonzales
    and FBI Director Mueller, both of whom I see from time-to-time when
    they come before the Judiciary Committee for oversight hearings. Today,
    however, I am here to wear my appropriator's cap and listen to them
    describe and attempt to justify the Justice Department budget request
    for the coming year.
        During recent years, the Justice Department has confronted the
    daunting challenge of protecting our Nation against international
    terrorism in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the
    subsequent anthrax attack and other threats. All the witnesses before
    us today deserve credit for their efforts to assure the safety of the
    American people.
        I was disappointed to see, however, that the administration's
    fiscal year 2007 Justice Department budget request calls for deep cuts
    in crime prevention programs that State and local police and sheriffs'
    departments have long relied upon, including key efforts such as Byrne
    Grants, the Crime Victims Fund, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
    Program, and the Violence Against Women Act programs. This budget would
    undermine proven anti-crime, anti-drug and community safety efforts
    that are making a difference in Vermont and in communities across the
    Nation. These budget priorities are out of whack. This budget puts more
    tax cuts for the rich at the front of the line, while leaving behind
    crime victims, local police and boys and girls clubs. This is simply
    irresponsible and wrong.
        In the wake of terrorist attacks, I recognize that the Justice
    Department focused much of its attention on the prevention of terrorism
    and the promotion of national security. Its top priorities continue to
    be the prevention, investigation and prosecution of terrorist
    activities against U.S. citizens and interests, which is evident in the
    request for $318.5 million in new investments for the FBI, including
    counterintelligence activities and justice information systems
    technology. Unfortunately, the FBI has not always been a good steward
    of those resources.
        It has been almost a year since the FBI announced it would have to
    scrap the $170 million IT project known as the Virtual Case File (VCF).
    I have repeatedly expressed my deep frustration and concern over the
    millions wasted on ``lessons-learned'' and the fact that more than 2
    years have passed since the original deadline; however, these
    technology goals are not yet met.
        In the year since the FBI announced the VCF's successor, the
    Sentinel program, I have seen nothing to boost my confidence in the
    Bureau's ability to manage the status and cost of this project. We
    learned recently that the FBI estimates that Sentinel will cost the
    American taxpayers $425 million to complete and that the full Sentinel
    system will not be deployed until 2009. The FBI has asked Congress to
    commit $197 million to the project between this year and the coming
    year, but it is already behind schedule and the FBI has yet to solidify
    its IT goals and plans for achieving them. The President's fiscal year
    2007 Budget proposes another $100 million for the Sentinel project. We
    must ensure that the FBI's technological capabilities keep pace. To do
    so requires an emphasis not just on providing funds, but also on
    effective use and implementation. I hope the latter is not neglected.
        No one will argue over the importance of counterterrorism programs.
    Nonetheless, I am concerned that the DOJ's traditional duties have
    recently garnered too little attention and support. The Justice
    Department must lead the Nation in deterring, investigating and
    prosecuting gun, drug and civil rights violations; incarcerating
    offenders; partnering with State, local and community groups to prevent
    crimes; and providing leadership and assistance in meeting the needs of
    crime victims. In recent years we have seen an end to the downward
    trend in violent crime, with rates leveling out instead of continuing
    to decrease. We must not allow daily responsibilities that keep our
    citizens safe to fall aside.
        The President claims that he wants to ensure that our State and
    local police receive the resources necessary to do the job the American
    public expects them to do. I am truly frustrated to see, however, that
    he proposes the elimination or reduction of funding by $1.31 billion,
    or 52 percent cut, for programs crucial to State and local law
    enforcement and terrorism prevention. As a Senator from a rural State
    that relies in part of Federal grants to combat crime, I am deeply
    concerned about these cuts.
        Under this budget, we would see an end to Byrne Memorial Justice
    Assistance Grants, which Congress recently reauthorized by law to
    provide vital grant funding to States to improve the functioning of the
    criminal justice system, as well as a $23.3 million cut COPS programs.
    Police departments nationwide would experience severe reductions in
    equipment and support staff grants to combat illegal drugs. In my home
    State, these programs have provided vital funding for the Drug Task
    Force, which combats the growing problem of heroin use and trafficking,
    as well as keeps the production and use of highly addictive
    methamphetamine from infiltrating Vermont's borders.
        The Bulletproof Vests Partnership Grant Program plays a vital role
    in distributing lifesaving bulletproof vests to law enforcement
    officers serving in the front lines nationwide. I am proud to have
    authored with our former colleague, Senator Campbell, the charter to
    create this program that saves lives and spares injuries of law
    enforcement officers nationwide by providing more help to State and
    local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. The Vests
    Partnership is authorized to allow for $50 million per year through
    fiscal year 2009 so that this successful program can continue to help
    protect the lives of State and local law enforcement officers. Indeed,
    it is so successful that since 1999 it has provided law enforcement
    officers in more than 11,900 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly
    450,000 new bulletproof vests.
        The President's budget, however, proposes to drastically reduce
    funding of this program by almost $20 million, or by 67 percent. This
    proposal comes at a time when the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
    is needed more than ever. Compounding the usual funding demand for help
    to purchase vests, concerns over the effectiveness of Zylon-based body
    armor vest have resulted in an estimated 200,000 of these vests needing
    to be replaced. Across our Nation, law enforcement agencies are
    struggling over how to find the funds necessary to replace defective
    vests that are less than 5 years old with ones that will actually stop
    bullets and save lives. We should be making sure that every police
    officer who needs a vest gets one.
        Two more points I would like to make: The Boys and Girls Clubs of
    America--a proven and growing success in preventing crime and
    supporting our children--would have its budget reduced by $25 million,
    a 30 percent cut. Finally, the President proposes to drain all amounts
    remaining in the Crime Victims Fund at the end of fiscal year 2007.
    This represents an estimated cut of $1.255 billion, and will place
    crime victim service programs in serious jeopardy. These cuts send the
    wrong message to our children and crime victims.
        Now is not the time to eliminate initiatives that we know to be
    effective in the prevention, enforcement and aftermath of crime.
    Strengthening security, information sharing and disaster response
    programs to combat terrorism must not totally overshadow the prevention
    of more traditional crimes.

        Senator Shelby. Senator Harkin.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN

        Senator Harkin. I just wanted to make one point. Mr.
    Attorney General, just echoing what Senator Mikulski and
    Senator Stevens were saying. Methamphetamine. I was looking
    through your statement, there are drastic cuts in the COPS
    program and in the Byrne grant program, and when my question
    comes around, that is what I want to focus on. Because I see no
    justification for this. We are just having the rug pulled out
    from underneath our local law enforcement by submitting a
    budget that zeroes out the Byrne grant program. I will have
    more to ask you about that when my question comes around.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Kohl.
        Senator Kohl. Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite getting to
    our witnesses, I will forego an opening statement.
        Senator Shelby. Without objection, so ordered.
        Senator Murray.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

        Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
    Mikulski for holding the hearing and Attorney General Gonzales
    and all the witnesses today. Like my colleagues, I just want to
    say that I have some serious concerns about the cuts to the
    Byrne grant and COPS programs. These programs really help
    reduce crime in communities all across this country, and Byrne
    grants in particular have allowed my State, the State of
    Washington, to take on the meth epidemic with some real
    resources. And I am proud to say that Washington State is now
    the national model in the fight against meth.
        You know, States from all over the country have been
    talking to leaders in law enforcement and education and
    treatment in my State about how to create similar comprehensive
    efforts to stop meth in their States. But Washington State got
    to be a leader in the fight on meth by showing that
    partnerships work, and not just partnerships between law
    enforcement and education and treatment community but
    partnerships at all three levels of the Government: Federal,
    State, and local jurisdictions. And there is no question that
    the Federal resources from COPS and the Byrne grant help these
    partnerships grow and become really a keystone in the fight
    against drugs.
        At the same time that police officers are retiring, and
    local funding has dried up for our drug task force, this
    administration wants to close the door on law enforcement, and
    I know that this subcommittee will hear about some newfound
    efficiencies and better partnerships. But let me be clear: any
    solution that lets the criminals win is not a win in my book.
        Speaking of meth, I want to just say that I am very
    concerned that the Department of Justice is not doing enough, I
    believe, to stop the spread of methamphetamine and other
    synthetic drugs. Although efforts in our States to increase
    precursor control and the passage of the Combat Meth Act are
    going to help, drug cartels are now flooding the market with
    meth.
        So just as we are now succeeding to stop some of the
    smaller mom and pop operations, we are now seeing these cartels
    use their immense resources and drug distribution chains to
    bring meth back into our neighborhoods and meet the demand that
    is out there. So I hope to hear this afternoon how you and
    Administrator Tandy are working on taking on those drug cartels
    to help stop this.
        Finally, I just want to mention, we have talked before, you
    and I, about the needs of local jurisdictions along our
    northern border. In Washington State, our northern border
    counties are spending millions of dollars on cases that are
    initiated by Federal agencies. Whether it is Customs or ICE,
    our Federal agencies are increasing the numbers of criminals
    that they bring into these local courts and detain in our local
    jails. And the U.S. Attorney's Office has been unable to meet
    the demand and often declines these cases and refers them
    directly to cities and counties for processing and prosecution.
        Whatcom County, which is on our northern border just across
    the border from Vancouver, British Columbia, is now spending
    over $2 million a year to process these federally initiated,
    declined, and deferred cases. So we have county sheriff offices
    who are unable to serve warrants now because their jails are
    full, and I hope that we can continue to work together to help
    the northern border communities so that our local communities
    are not forced to let their criminals go free because the
    Federal agencies are now forcing them to take more and more of
    these border related cases.
        This is really an equity issue, because as you know, along
    the southwest border, there is a program to reimburse those
    local costs associated with the criminals caught on the border,
    and I think it is time we fixed this problem and created a
    sister program to the Southwest border prosecution initiative
    to help States like mine and Alaska, New Hampshire, Vermont,
    Wisconsin, other northern border States that are facing the
    same problem.
        So I hope that we hear from all of you today about how your
    departments and agencies are finding better ways to partner
    with our local jurisdictions and working with our communities
    to help our neighborhoods be safe. And I think we can continue
    to create some success stories if we have increased law
    enforcement partnerships at the local, Federal, and State
    level.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. Attorney General, welcome again to the
    subcommittee. Your written testimony will be made part of the
    record. You may proceed as you wish.

                 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES

        Attorney General Gonzales. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
    Ranking Member Mikulski, and members of the subcommittee. First
    of all, Senator Mikulski, congratulations on last night's great
    victory.
        The men and women of the Department of Justice are working
    every day to secure the opportunities of the American dream for
    all Americans. As Attorney General, I want to ensure that our
    neighborhoods are safe, secure, and prosperous. This is an
    enormous goal and one that we have made steady progress on over
    the past few years.
        Today, I present the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
    for the Department. Mr. Chairman, in an administration that is
    committed to controlling overall Government spending, this
    budget prioritizes our top public safety needs. This is a
    budget that builds on our expertise, launches new programs, and
    eliminates or cuts programs that have not met our high
    standards. It focuses State and local assistance on priorities
    established by the administration and by Congress.

                        COUNTERTERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS

        Included in this $19.5 billion budget are the Department's
    six major priorities for the coming year. Our highest priority
    is to stop the terrorists who seek to destroy the American
    promise of liberty and prosperity. Waging the war on terror has
    been among the most difficult challenges that the Justice
    Department and the Government have ever undertaken. But we have
    made great progress, as evidenced by the hundreds of
    convictions we have obtained in terrorism-related
    investigations and by the terror cells that we have located and
    broken up from coast to coast.
        Still, we know that al Qaeda remains a threat. I want to
    thank Congress for reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act and providing
    resources in the war on terror. I look forward to your support
    of our effort to stand up the new National Security Division,
    which will enable us to house our counterterrorism and
    counterintelligence prosecutors side by side, making it faster
    and easier to connect the dots.
        The threat of terrorism is not going to go away, and
    neither is our commitment to do everything we can to stop it.
    And so, we are requesting over $330 million for new and
    directed counterterrorism and intelligence programs to protect
    our Nation from this continuing threat.
        Every American deserves to live free from the fear of
    violent crime. The President's Project Safe Neighborhoods is
    taking criminals off the streets and reducing gun and gang
    crime. Our efforts are working. Crime has plunged to 30-year
    lows, resulting in thousands of Americans who have not been
    threatened, have not been harmed, and have not been violated by
    gangs with guns. However, gang violence is still a problem, and
    this budget requests over $22 million in enhancements and
    almost $163 million in State and local grants to further
    liberate our communities from gang and gun crime.
        Illegal drugs poison children, destroy lives, and threaten
    the safety and the prosperity of our communities.
    Methamphetamine is particularly destructive, and the Department
    has worked harder than ever to combat methamphetamine over the
    past year. We have successfully dismantled some of the most
    deadly drug organizations that dump drugs into our
    neighborhoods. This budget requests almost $235 million in
    enhancements to stem the supply of drugs from overseas and
    secure our homeland and shut down our borders to illegal
    aliens.

                              CHILDSAFE INITIATIVE

        The Internet should be a safe, crime-free place for all
    Americans, especially our children. Our new Project Safe
    Childhood Initiative is designed to complement our other
    efforts to secure for every child the most important gift that
    we can give: a safe environment in which to live, grow, and
    learn.
        Through this initiative, we will identify, prosecute, and
    lock up those who victimize our children through the production
    and distribution of child pornography and those who use the
    shadow of the Internet to lure minors into sexual activity. In
    this budget, we seek more than $186 million to end the sexual
    exploitation of children and the proliferation of obscenity.

                             CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

        Securing the American dream requires protecting individuals
    from illegal discrimination, and I am pleased that the
    Department prosecuted a record number of criminal civil rights
    cases in the last 2-year period, but I am asking the Civil
    Rights Division to do even more: to vigorously protect our
    citizens' right to vote, to work, and to buy or rent a home
    free from discrimination. We are seeking over $113 million for
    the Civil Rights Division to accomplish these goals. We have
    also launched a new initiative, Operation Home Sweet Home,
    which expands our Fair Housing Act testing program.

                               HUMAN TRAFFICKING

        The Division is also focused on eradicating the modern day
    slavery of human trafficking. Prosecutions of this crime have
    increased over 300 percent during this administration, but even
    one victim is too many. In the coming year, we will continue
    our efforts to locate and rescue the victims of this atrocity.
        The sixth and final priority I want to emphasize is the
    Department's fight against Government and corporate corruption.
    Honesty and integrity in Government and in business are
    essential for a strong America. Prosperity cannot flourish if
    taxpayers and investors lose their confidence in these
    institutions. As part of our anticorruption commitment, more
    than 200 new FBI agents have been added in the past 3 years to
    anticorruption squads across the United States.
        Now, virtually all of these priorities require our Federal
    prosecutors to do more. Over the past several years, Congress
    has been supportive in providing law enforcement more agents
    and investigators to detect crime. But now that we have more
    cops on the street, we need more prosecutors in the courtroom
    to make sure that the criminals we identify are brought to
    justice. Accordingly, I am asking that you fully fund the
    budget for the United States Attorneys, to provide additional
    prosecutors to ensure justice in communities across the Nation.
        The priorities I outlined today in no way reflect all of
    our many important responsibilities. The Department serves as
    the Nation's chief prosecutor and litigator, representing the
    people of the United States in court not just to prosecute
    crime but also to enforce immigration laws, protect
    intellectual property, safeguard the environment, defend the
    laws that Congress passes, and protect the National Treasury
    against fraud.
        The Department also protects our communities by safely and
    securely confining all of the people in Federal custody. These
    are all tremendous responsibilities and require sufficient
    resources as well.
        Securing the American dream for all Americans is an easy
    thing to say, but it is a very difficult thing to do. In the
    past few years, America has been a safer, more secure place
    than it was a decade ago. We have faced many challenges, and we
    have made great strides. Others are still before us. You have
    my commitment that the men and women of the Department of
    Justice will work hard every day with the resources you provide
    to make the communities that we both serve as safe, secure and
    prosperous as possible.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Alberto R. Gonzales

        Good afternoon Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski, and Members of
    the Subcommittee: It is my pleasure to appear before you today to
    present the President's fiscal year 2007 Budget for the Department of
    Justice (``Department'' or ``DOJ''). My goal as Attorney General is
    simple: Secure the opportunities of the American dream for all
    Americans and for future generations. It is a goal I am sure this
    Committee supports. But it is no small task and requires the hard work
    of thousands of Department officials stationed around the country and
    the globe. With your continued support, I have established priorities
    and initiatives to guide the Department's efforts in the coming year.
        My highest priority remains keeping America safe by using every
    tool at our disposal, consistent with our Constitution, to prevent
    another terrorist attack on our Nation. At the same time, the
    Department continues to investigate, prosecute, detain, and incarcerate
    federal criminals. We are currently focusing on top initiatives such as
    an aggressive anti-gang program that will help combat some of the most
    violent gangs in the country.
        In pursuit of these and other priorities, for fiscal year 2007, the
    President's Budget requests $19.5 billion for DOJ, including $330.8
    million in new investments for preventing and combating terrorism. The
    fiscal year 2007 budget further strengthens counterterrorism efforts by
    investing in essential intelligence infrastructure and information
    technology. The budget also includes many new, critical investments
    that will continue to make America a safer place for law-abiding
    American citizens and a tougher place for criminals. An integral part
    of our funding need is support for the United States Attorneys'
    Offices. The budget prioritizes funding for our most important goals
    and proposes reductions to some programs, many of which have not shown
    effective results.
        I also want to thank the Congress for reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT
    Act. The USA PATRIOT Act is a vitally important tool for the
    Department, and its reauthorization will help us prevent another
    terrorist attack.

                       PREVENTING AND COMBATING TERRORISM

       In the 5 years since 2001, the Department has requested and the
    Congress has provided significant resources for counterterrorism and
    intelligence activities. With these resources, the Department has
    accomplished a great deal. But we must never forget we are under
    constant threat. Al Qaeda leaders continue to remind us of their desire
    to attack our homeland and murder our citizens. We must continue to
    work together to stop terrorists before they strike. To that end, the
    Department remains open to productive suggestions on how to improve our
    organizational capacity to accomplish our counterterrorism mission.
    With the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization, the Department
    is moving quickly to make operational the new National Security
    Division. Yesterday, I sent up to the Congress a reprogramming request
    for the National Security Division. I hope the Congress will support
    this request.
        The National Security Division was created in response to the
    recommendations presented by the Commission on the Intelligence
    Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
    (WMD Commission). This major organizational change reflects the
    Department's commitment to building a structure that best supports our
    national security mission. The fiscal year 2007 budget includes $67
    million to fund the new National Security Division. This Division will
    combine the Counterterrorism Section and the Counterespionage Section
    from the Criminal Division with the Office of Intelligence and Policy
    Review (OIPR). The Division will be led by a new Assistant Attorney
    General for National Security who will coordinate all of the
    Department's counterterrorism, counterespionage, and intelligence work.
    This new Assistant Attorney General will also serve as the lead conduit
    for our activities with the Intelligence Community and the Director of
    National Intelligence.
        The requested increase would add 21 attorneys to OIPR and 12
    attorneys to the Counterterrorism and Counterespionage Sections of the
    National Security Division. These additional resources will assist the
    new Division in meeting the increased workload of intelligence searches
    and surveillances, and will ensure that the Department aggressively
    pursues cases involving trade in weapons of mass destruction.
        Over the past 5 year's, the FBI has developed a distinct
    Intelligence Program and hired and trained thousands of new Special
    Agents and Intelligence Analysts who have contributed to our continuing
    safety. The fact that there has not been another major attack within
    the United States borders since September 11th is a credit to the hard
    work of those individuals, working alongside our prosecutors and
    partners in law enforcement and intelligence. With the support of
    Congress, the Department has realigned millions in base resources to
    support these efforts. This budget requests additional, critical
    resources to further enhance our counterterrorism efforts, while
    continuing to realign base resources to wage the war on terror. The
    Department will use these resources to remain on the offensive,
    detecting and disrupting the enemies' plans and bringing terrorist
    operatives to justice.
        As the lead federal law enforcement agency for counterterrorism,
    the FBI's critical mission requires a significant amount of personnel
    and infrastructure. To maximize the effectiveness of the additional
    personnel resources Congress has provided in recent years, this request
    stresses the FBI's infrastructure needs. The request provides a total
    of just over $6 billion for the FBI, with enhancements of $319 million
    to support the following objectives: the continued development of our
    intelligence infrastructure, including increasing the number of secure
    facilities to conduct intelligence analysis; enhanced intelligence
    collection systems and training for a growing and diverse workforce
    that can act upon intelligence information; the continued development
    of the SENTINEL case management system, which will improve productivity
    and information sharing; and upgraded fingerprint identification
    systems to improve screening activities and identify more criminals and
    terrorists.
        Since 2001, the Federal Government has added thousands of federal
    agents and analysts to the counterterrorism effort. The addition of
    these personnel has magnified the need for additional prosecutors in
    the field. For example, the criminal caseload for the United States
    Attorneys has increased by 18 percent in this same time frame. The 2007
    budget supports the ongoing activities for the United States Attorneys
    with over $1.6 billion in total resources, of which $92 million will
    support national security and terrorism-related prosecutions. I believe
    that it is very important that the President's budget request for
    United States Attorneys be fully funded.
        The United States Attorneys are vital to the Federal Government's
    counterterrorism effort. In the past year alone, the government has
    obtained convictions or guilty pleas in 40 terrorism-related cases
    across the Nation, continuing the successful record established since
    September 11th. For example, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was convicted of
    terrorism charges, including conspiracy to assassinate the President of
    the United States; conspiracy to commit air piracy; and conspiracy to
    destroy aircraft. Ali Al-Timimi was convicted on all charges in
    connection with the ``Virginia Jihad'' case. In a domestic terrorism
    case, Eric Robert Rudolph pleaded guilty to charges related to deadly
    bombings in Birmingham, Alabama, and in the Atlanta area, including the
    bombing at the 1996 Olympics. Since the September 11th attacks, the
    Department has charged more than 400 individuals in matters arising
    from terrorism-related investigations and obtained convictions or
    guilty pleas in more than 220 of those cases to date. Some of those
    cases include the conviction of John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid and the
    disruption of terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Ohio, Virginia, and
    North Carolina. This budget requests additional positions and $7.7
    million to enhance counterterrorism prosecution efforts by our United
    States Attorneys' Offices.
        This budget also supports other key intelligence initiatives within
    the Department. The Department is requesting an increase of $12 million
    for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to facilitate full
    coordination and information sharing with other members of the U.S.
    Intelligence Community. That coordination will enhance national
    security, combat global terrorism, and reduce the global supply of
    drugs. Even though DEA did not officially have capabilities in the
    Intelligence Community until February, it has been contributing to
    national security investigations for many years. In fiscal year 2005,
    DEA disrupted eight, and dismantled two, terrorist-linked Priority
    Target Organizations using information gathered during drug
    investigations. In support of our national security objectives, the
    fiscal year 2007 budget also provides resources to help the Executive
    Office for Immigration Review and the Civil Division's Office of
    Immigration Litigation address their expanded caseload.

                           PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS

        In 2001, the Administration announced the Project Safe
    Neighborhoods (PSN) initiative to reduce gun crime in our communities.
    PSN brings together local, State, and Federal law enforcement
    officials, prosecutors, and community leaders to implement a multi-
    faceted strategy to deter and punish gun criminals. This initiative is
    taking some of the most dangerous and violent offenders out of our
    communities. Today, federal firearms prosecutions are up nearly 73
    percent and violent crime is at its lowest level in 30 years. Since
    2001, the nonfatal firearm crime rate has dropped from 2.3 incidents
    per 1,000 residents to 1.4, and firearm incidents have dropped 40
    percent--from 467,880 to 280,890. With the support of Congress, the
    Department has dedicated over $1.5 billion to this important program.
    Those funds have provided necessary training, hired agents and
    prosecutors, and supported State and local partners working to combat
    gun crime. For 2007, the budget requests $395 million for PSN.
        In response to the danger that violent gangs pose to our
    neighborhoods, the Department recently developed a comprehensive
    strategy to combat gang violence as part of PSN. Building on the
    lessons learned fighting gun crime, this strategy coordinates
    enforcement, prosecution, and prevention resources to target gangs that
    terrorize our communities. The Violent Crime Impact Team (VCIT)
    program, part of the PSN initiative, helps reduce communities' homicide
    and firearms-related violent crime through the use of geographic
    targeting, aggressive investigation, and prosecution. This budget
    provides $16 million for ATF and the United States Attorneys to combat
    gang activity by expanding the VCIT program to 15 additional cities,
    for a total of 40 sites.
        The PSN request also includes enhancements of $44 million for DOJ's
    State and Local Gun Violence Assistance Program. This program is the
    State and local grant program that supports PSN in individual
    communities. This request also includes $15 million to initiate a new
    Gang Training and Technical Assistance Program that will provide
    assistance to States and localities in support of efforts to reduce
    criminal gang activity and reduce the threat of terrorism and violent
    crime through enhanced sharing of criminal intelligence; and a $29
    million increase for the National Criminal History Improvement Program,
    which provides grants to States to improve their criminal history and
    related records so that they are complete, accurate, and available for
    use by Federal, State, and local law enforcement.
        United States Attorneys' Offices across the country continue to
    work with law enforcement partners to develop strategies to make their
    communities safer. Thus, the fiscal year 2007 PSN request includes
    resources to prosecute gang members and gun criminals and to create new
    and strengthened partnerships with local agencies that are addressing
    gang violence and gun crime.

                      DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND BORDER SECURITY

        In February 2002, the President set an ambitious goal: ``To reduce
    the use of illegal drugs by 10 percent over 2 years, and by 25 percent
    over 5 years.'' To meet this goal, the Department announced a six-part
    drug enforcement strategy for DOJ. The Department focuses its drug law
    enforcement efforts on reducing the availability of drugs by disrupting
    and dismantling the largest drug supply and related money laundering
    networks operating nationally and internationally, including those on
    the Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) List. The CPOT
    list identifies the ``Most Wanted'' drug trafficking and money
    laundering organizations believed to be primarily responsible for the
    Nation's illicit drug supply. In fiscal year 2005, the Department
    dismantled 121 CPOT-linked drug trafficking organizations and severely
    disrupted another 204 CPOT-linked organizations. For example, DOJ
    arrested the two founders of the Cali Cartel and arrested two Afghan
    drug kingpins with ties to the Taliban. The fiscal year 2007 budget
    requests enhancements of $234.7 million for its drug enforcement
    efforts.
        The cornerstone of the Department's drug supply reduction strategy
    is the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program.
    Centrally managed within the Department, the OCDETF program combines
    the resources and expertise of DEA, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the U.S. Marshals Service, the
    Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the litigating forces of DOJ's
    Criminal Division, Tax Division, and the United States Attorneys'
    Offices. The fiscal year 2007 Budget contains $706 million for OCDETF,
    which includes a $208 million transfer of the Office of National Drug
    Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program.
    Transferring the HIDTA Program to the Department will facilitate
    strategic coordination with our other drug enforcement assets,
    eliminating duplication and ensuring the most effective use of limited
    resources.
        As the only federal agency with its sole focus on drug enforcement,
    DEA must have the necessary resources to invest in intelligence and
    operational requirements overseas to stem the supply of illegal drugs.
    This budget requests $13 million in additional funds to continue
    reducing the availability of illicit drugs and the diversion of licit
    drugs and precursor chemicals in the United States. The Department will
    achieve these goals by disrupting and dismantling significant drug
    trafficking and money laundering organizations as well as attacking the
    economic basis of the drug trade. DEA's drug trafficking and money
    laundering enforcement initiatives support and augment U.S. efforts
    against terrorism by denying both drug trafficking and money laundering
    routes to foreign terrorist organizations. DEA's work also helps stem
    the use of illicit drugs as barter for munitions to support terrorism.
    This request includes $4 million for Foreign Advisory Support Teams
    (FAST) to continue attacking drug trafficking and foreign terrorist
    organizations operating in Afghanistan, and $3.5 million for a new team
    to deploy in the Western Hemisphere. Focusing resources on a geographic
    area or group, like the FAST program, yields results: for example, DEA
    investigations have led to the indictment of 13 members and associates
    of the Colombian terrorist group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
    Colombia (FARC), on drug trafficking. In fiscal year 2005, two high
    ranking FARC officers were extradited to the United States to stand
    trial.
        After the drug arrests, searches, and seizures have been completed
    by DEA, the Federal Government also has the responsibility to clean-up
    the toxic chemicals left behind at methamphetamine labs. This budget
    provides $40 million to the Office of Community Oriented Policing
    Services for the clean-up of these toxic waste sites, an increase of
    $20 million over the enacted 2006 level. The additional funding would
    ensure that DEA is able to respond to the increased workload to clean
    up methamphetamine laboratories seized by State and local law
    enforcement agencies and fund the start up costs for State container
    programs.
        On November 28, 2005, President Bush outlined his plan to enhance
    America's homeland security through comprehensive immigration reform.
    Two major partners in this reform are the Department's Executive Office
    for Immigration Review (EOIR), and the Civil Division's Office of
    Immigration Litigation (OIL). The Department's fiscal year 2007 Budget
    requests significant increases to help EOIR and OIL keep pace with the
    growing workload resulting from DHS' increased border security efforts.
    A good portion of this workload is related to national security and is
    critical to the Department's mission to combat terrorism and violent
    crime.
        The EOIR request includes an increase of 120 positions and $8.8
    million to meet additional caseload requirements that have resulted
    from the increased resources DHS has received for immigration
    enforcement from 2003 to 2006. For example, EOIR caseloads increased by
    70,000 cases in 2005. In addition, the appellate caseload is expected
    to increase by approximately 4,000 cases annually. EOIR's requested
    increase is linked to DHS' increase of nearly 4,000 detention beds,
    which will be fully on-line by 2007.
        Established in 1983, OIL has jurisdiction over all civil
    immigration litigation and is responsible for the nationwide
    coordination of immigration matters before the federal district courts
    and circuit courts of appeals. Since fiscal year 2001, OIL's caseload
    has more than tripled as OIL attorneys defend the government's efforts
    to detain and remove illegal aliens, many of whom are criminals or
    suspected terrorists. This budget provides 114 positions and $9.6
    million in enhancements to assist OIL's vigorous defense of the cases
    that are critical to the safety of our communities.

                     CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND OBSCENITY

        The Department is committed to fighting child pornography and
    obscenity as well as to protecting children from trafficking and other
    forms of exploitation. The Department works with other law enforcement
    agencies to target, dismantle, and prosecute predatory child molesters
    and those who traffic in child pornography. In 2005, the Department
    increased its efforts, charging 1,503 individuals and obtaining 1,220
    guilty pleas and convictions in criminal cases involving predation of
    children.
        The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes an additional $2.7
    million to combat crimes against children and obscenity, $23.9 million
    for the Office of Justice Programs to direct to State and local law
    enforcement, and an enhancement of 26 positions and $2.6 million for
    the United States Attorneys' Offices to bolster their efforts in
    combating child exploitation. These requests are complemented by $50.9
    million for the Missing and Exploited Children Program (MECP), which is
    the primary vehicle for building an infrastructure to support the
    national effort to prevent the abduction and exploitation of our
    Nation's children. The request includes support for the National Center
    for Missing and Exploited Children.
        To enhance this work, I recently announced a new Project Safe
    Childhood initiative. This effort will be implemented through a
    partnership of United States Attorneys, Internet Crimes Against
    Children Task Forces, and other Federal, State, and local law
    enforcement officials in each district. These partnerships will
    investigate and prosecute crimes against children that are facilitated
    through the Internet or other electronic media. Communities will be
    able to design and execute programs tailored specially for their
    individual needs, while maximizing national resources and expertise. In
    fiscal year 2006, DOJ will award more than $14 million to the Internet
    Crimes Against Children program, a national network of 46 regional task
    forces funded by the Department's Office of Justice Programs. In fiscal
    year 2005, federal prosecutors charged 1,447 child exploitation cases
    involving child pornography, coercion, and enticement offenses. The
    Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, in
    conjunction with the FBI's Innocent Images Unit, will fully integrate
    the Project Safe Childhood Task Forces by sharing local leads that
    develop from its major national operations.

                                  CIVIL RIGHTS

        In 2005, the Civil Rights Division secured more convictions against
    human trafficking defendants, increased the number of trafficking cases
    filed by over 30 percent, and doubled the number of trafficking
    defendants charged from the previous year. We need to continue to
    support this concerted effort. The Civil Rights Division has also
    reported record enforcement of laws that protect the right to vote,
    ensure the disabled can fully participate in their communities, and
    provide the highest standard of care for institutionalized persons. It
    is my goal to build on these successes while supporting the
    reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and renewing the Department's
    commitment to the principle of fair housing.
        In addition to an increased Civil Rights Division budget request of
    $113 million, the President's 2007 Budget envisions the creation of
    Operation Home Sweet Home. This initiative will focus on ensuring fair
    housing practices through improved targeting, increased testing,
    aggressive public awareness, and partnership with fair-housing
    organizations across the country. The initiative will include
    concentrated housing discrimination testing in areas recovering from
    the effects of Hurricane Katrina and bring to an all-time high the
    number of fair housing test investigations nationwide.
        All Americans should have the same chance to pursue their dreams by
    earning a job, finding homes for their families, voting for their
    representatives, and living safe from fear and servitude. We will
    continue to aggressively combat discrimination wherever it is found.

                        PUBLIC AND CORPORATE CORRUPTION

        Another priority for the Department is ensuring the integrity of
    government and business. Integrity in these institutions is the
    foundation for a strong America--both taxpayers and investors deserve
    nothing less. The Department is engaged in robust efforts to prosecute
    corruption, and I have called on Justice Department employees to
    preserve the integrity of our public institutions and corporations.
        With several high-profile convictions over the last year, the
    Department has made great strides in this area. For example, former
    public relations specialist Michael Scanlon pleaded guilty to
    participating in a conspiracy to commit bribery, mail and wire fraud,
    and honest services fraud, and 40 defendants pleaded guilty in
    connection with Operation Lively Green, a widespread bribery and
    extortion conspiracy.

                      ENFORCING FEDERAL LAW IN THE COURTS

        The Department of Justice serves as the Nation's chief prosecutor
    and litigator, representing the United States in court by prosecuting
    crime and enforcing federal civil laws. The Department's work includes
    protecting civil rights, safeguarding the environment, preserving a
    competitive market place, defending the national treasury against fraud
    and unwarranted claims, as well as preserving the integrity of the
    Nation's bankruptcy system.
        As Congress puts more law enforcement agents on the street, the
    number of cases referred for prosecution continues to rise and the
    number of criminals incarcerated will climb. The fiscal year 2007
    budget request includes enhancements of $20.2 million to fortify the
    United States Attorneys' immigration and intellectual property crime
    prosecutions; enhance the Criminal Division's ability to investigate
    and prosecute intellectual property crimes; and provide sufficient
    resources to the Tax Division to handle an increased number of tax
    cases referred by the Internal Revenue Service. Also, the fiscal year
    2007 budget includes additional resources for the United States
    Trustees to address new requirements imposed by the recently enacted
    Bankruptcy Reform legislation.

                   JUDICIAL SYSTEM SUPPORT AND INCARCERATION

        As a result of successful law enforcement policies targeting
    terrorism, violent crime, and drug crimes, the number of criminal
    suspects appearing in federal court continues to grow, as does the
    number of individuals ordered detained and ultimately incarcerated. The
    fiscal year 2007 President's Budget requests significant resources to
    improve courtroom security and to provide for the detention and
    incarceration of those accused or convicted of violent crimes. During
    fiscal year 2005, the Nation's federal prison population rose 4
    percent, an increase of 7,499 inmates. During the same period, the
    federal prisoner detention population rose 7.8 percent, increasing by
    approximately 4,558 detainees per day. The request provides additional
    resources for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and Office of the Detention
    Trustee (OFDT) to manage this growth, including funds for additional
    contract beds. The fiscal year 2007 Budget requests $156.6 million in
    enhancements in these areas.
        The United States Marshals Service (USMS) provides protection to
    federal courthouses, members of the federal judiciary, and witnesses
    associated with federal court cases. The fiscal year 2007 budget
    provides 37 new positions and an increase of $4.6 million to enhance
    this mission. These resources will enable the marshals to detect,
    assess, and respond to potential threats in a timely manner and will
    strengthen threat analysis capability. This budget also provides new
    resources to make important upgrades to USMS information technology and
    financial management capabilities.
        The Department's BOP and OFDT protect American society by providing
    for the safe, secure, and humane confinement of persons in federal
    custody. This budget provides $1.3 billion for the OFDT and $5 billion
    for the BOP. The costs of federal incarceration and detention account
    for almost a third of DOJ's annual discretionary budget. At present,
    there are over 189,000 inmates in federal custody, of which
    approximately 11 percent were arrested on immigration-related charges
    and over 53 percent were arrested on drug-related charges. The BOP
    request will provide an additional $40.4 million to add contract beds
    at a new contractor-owned and operated low security prison in
    Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, to secure additional contract prison bed
    space and to begin the activation of a new housing unit at an existing
    correctional institution at FCI Otisville, New York, adding a total of
    1,962-beds. This budget also provides funds to house an average daily
    detainee population of 63,000. These funds will support the
    Department's goal of ensuring zero escapes from federal detention and
    secure BOP facilities.
        Criminals deserve to serve the time that they are sentenced in
    prison. However, once their time is served, they will re-enter society.
    The fiscal year 2007 Budget includes $14.9 million for a prisoner re-
    entry initiative at the State and local level, designed to reduce
    recidivism and the societal costs of crime by helping released
    offenders find work and stable housing when they return to their
    communities.

                      STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE

        State and local law enforcement agencies are critical partners in
    the war against terror and the fight against crime. The 2007 budget
    includes over $1.2 billion in discretionary grant assistance to States,
    localities and tribes. This funding includes $66.6 million to
    strengthen communities through programs providing services such as drug
    treatment; $44.6 million to fight terrorism; $409 million to assist
    crime victims; $88.2 million to combat crime, including enhancements to
    grant funding provided under Project Safe Neighborhoods; $214.8 million
    for law enforcement technology, including funding to continue and
    enhance the Administration's DNA initiative; and $209 million to
    support drug enforcement, including funding to continue the Southwest
    Border Drug Prosecution Program.
        In addition to the requested funding at DOJ, the Administration has
    continued its commitment to provide funding to State and local
    governments for homeland security by including $2.8 billion in funding
    for these programs in DHS' budget request for fiscal year 2007.
        The Department's fiscal year 2007 request provides enhancements to
    strengthen our communities, including $9.9 million for the Department's
    component of the Administration's offender re-entry initiative, which
    includes the participation of the Departments of Labor and Housing and
    Urban Development; $13.9 million for Capital Litigation Improvement
    grants that provide training to private defense counsel, public
    defenders, State and local prosecutors, and State judges to improve the
    competency of all participants connected with the trial of State
    capital cases; $59.3 million for Drug Courts; and $68.4 million for the
    President's DNA initiative.
        The fiscal year 2007 budget also contains $29.8 million for local
    prosecutor offices in the four Southwest border states--California,
    Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. This funding would provide for payment
    of approved prosecution and pre-trial detention costs for cases
    referred to local prosecutors by the United States Attorneys' Offices,
    and cases diverted from federal prosecution by law enforcement pursuant
    to a locally-negotiated agreement.
        The fiscal year 2007 request for State and local resources also
    includes $40.7 million in support of activities authorized in the
    Justice For All Act, including funds for the enhancement of the federal
    victim notification system as well as legal counsel and support
    services for victims of crime.

               MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS

        The Department of Justice is committed to providing the management
    and information technology necessary to ensure that our resources are
    used efficiently and effectively. The fiscal year 2007 President's
    Budget requests $133.9 million in enhancements for critical Department-
    wide initiatives that support the Department's Strategic Goals and the
    President's Management Agenda.
    DOJ Financial Management
        The Department of Justice is committed to full accountability and
    continuous improvement in its financial operations, and we were
    extremely pleased to restore the unqualified audit opinion on our
    public financial statements this past year. However, independent
    auditors again identified material weaknesses in the Department's
    outdated financial systems, weaknesses that the planned Unified
    Financial Management System (UFMS) is designed to address. To that end,
    we greatly appreciated the funding provided by Congress in fiscal year
    2006 for the UFMS project. That funding permitted us to make a contract
    award to begin implementation of the new system in the first two
    components (DEA and the Assets Forfeiture Fund). To continue this
    critical project in 2007, we are requesting $25 million to complete the
    component implementations begun this year and begin implementation work
    for three additional components, including the FBI.
    Other DOJ Information Technology Initiatives
        The fiscal year 2007 Budget request includes enhancements of $18.1
    million for the Justice Consolidated Office Network (JCON) to complete
    transition of the Bureau of Prisons to the JCON community. JCON
    provides a modern office automation system to multiple components using
    a common architecture for enhanced information sharing and
    interoperability. The request also includes $9 million and 29 positions
    for USMS audited financial statements and technology enhancements,
    including $3.9 million for the Justice Detainee Information System. The
    request also includes $83.7 million for FBI information technology
    enhancements, including $33 million for IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability
    activities.
        The Department continues to evaluate its programs and operations to
    improve management and stewardship. Our goal is to achieve both
    component-specific and Department-wide economies of scale, increased
    efficiencies, and cost savings/offsets to permit us to fund initiatives
    that are of highest priority. The Department is engaged in a multi-year
    process to implement a wide range of management and information
    technology improvements that will result in substantial savings.
    Enhancements in management and information technology will ensure all
    DOJ components are able to function in an interoperable environment,
    particularly with respect to preventing terrorist attacks on the United
    States.
    Working for America Act Implementation
        The Working for America Act requires agencies to manage, develop,
    and reward employees effectively and to implement a new pay and
    performance system. Implementing this Act requires significant
    investments in training. The Department requests $2 million to support
    the Working for America Act through the training of managers and
    supervisors in performance management and in using the new pay and
    performance system.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, Members of the Subcommittee, I
    recently started my second year as Attorney General. I would like to
    take this opportunity to commend the people of the Justice Department.
    Each day I work with people who could be Chief Executive Officers in
    the private sector or partners at private law firms, but they all
    choose to serve their Nation by working for justice. They work for
    justice because they believe in the work we do to fight crime and
    safeguard the American people from terrorism. I am honored to work
    alongside them every day.
        I ask for your support in providing the resources requested in the
    2007 budget, so that we can fulfill our mission to safeguard the
    American people. I am honored to testify before you and look forward to
    working with you on this budget proposal and other issues.
        Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might
    have.

                            STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
        Just to touch on a few subjects, we have all brought them
    up, Mr. Attorney General, the Department of Justice, as I said
    earlier, is requesting a 51.6 percent funding cut for State and
    local law enforcement assistance programs. The Department
    expresses how critical State and local law enforcement
    partnerships are in homeland security and the war on terror but
    continuously proposes these cuts.
        When you visited the gulf coast area devastated by the
    hurricanes of the 2005 season, what was the number one thing
    that State and local law enforcement officials needed from the
    Department of Justice in support of their recovery efforts?
        Attorney General Gonzales. They needed resources. They
    needed training. They needed support. That is what they were
    asking for. Mr. Chairman, this budget does have cuts in certain
    programs----
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Attorney General Gonzales [continuing]. That have
    benefitted State and local law enforcement. But I think if you
    study the budget, you will see that there is a lot of
    assistance being provided through this budget to State and
    locals in a wide variety of areas. There is $1.2 billion in
    discretionary grants to State and locals, for example. There is
    $66 million to help communities with issues like drug
    treatment; $44 million to fight terrorism--these are grants
    directly to State and locals--$409 million to assist crime
    victims; $82 million to fight crime, including enforcement for
    Project Safe Neighborhood programs; $214 million for law
    enforcement technology, including funding for the DNA
    databases; $209 million to support drug enforcement, including
    funds for the Southwest border drug prosecution program.
        And so, there is a lot of assistance and support for State
    and local agencies in this budget. I want to emphasize that. We
    understand how important these partnerships are. As I travel
    around the country, and I talk to State and local officials, I
    emphasize to them my commitment to continue working with them
    as hard as I can.
        We have difficult decisions that have to be made in the
    budget. This budget represents the President's priorities. We
    think this budget does provide a large amount of assistance to
    State and locals, but it is targeted in a way that meets the
    President's priorities and ensures that we are accountable in
    the way these funds are spent, we are accountable to the
    taxpayers in this country.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, the budget also
    proposes a 44 percent cut from last year in juvenile justice
    programs. Why such a drastic cut on programs that impact our
    children?
        Attorney General Gonzales. We have reduced juvenile justice
    programs by $150 million; $98 million of that is for
    demonstration programs that were earmarked funding that we
    simply are not requesting, and $49 million of that was for the
    juvenile accountability block grant that did not fare well in
    our evaluation and analysis process of whether or not programs
    that we are funding are effective. There is insufficient
    accountability.
        But we still fund $188 million for juvenile justice, and I
    think we should also get credit for the amount of money that we
    spend on law enforcement to help kids in the area of gangs,
    prevention, reinforcement, and reentry; OJP programs focusing
    on child prostitution, the sex offender registry, the ICACs,
    which are the Internet crimes against children task forces;
    Amber Alert; the money we spend to fund for new prosecutors to
    go after people exploiting children, trafficking in children;
    money for drug courts.
        So there is a lot of money in the President's budget to
    focus on crime specifically related to juveniles.

                                SEXUAL PREDATORS

        Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, the rate of
    recidivism among convicted sexual predators remains alarmingly
    high. According to the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children, there are approximately 550,000 registered
    sex offenders in the United States. It is estimated that nearly
    100,000 sex offenders have not registered or have failed to
    update their information. These people are normally obscure
    when living in our neighborhoods but have been convicted of
    preying upon families and children.
        Last year, the Department of Justice announced the creation
    of a National Registry website for sex offenders. Could you
    tell us about the registry, expand just a little on it, and any
    goals or successes the Department could share with us here? I
    think it is important.
        Attorney General Gonzales. We did announce a National
    Registry which would allow parents to go online to determine
    whether or not there were sex offenders living in their
    neighborhoods. The registry is dependent on the information
    provided by State records. To date, all the States but two are
    now part of this registry. So we have made good progress in
    getting States to participate in this program.
        There is, however, a problem, as I indicated. We are
    dependent on the records provided by the States and the upkeep
    of these records by the States, and we have discovered
    instances where some States are rather tardy in updating their
    records.
        Senator Shelby. Do they register them in different ways in
    different States?
        Attorney General Gonzales. It is different information.
    That is right. We did not want to impose upon the States a
    uniform method of providing the information. This was a way
    that we could provide information to parents fairly quickly,
    without a great deal of cost to the States. So that is why we
    took this approach. In my judgment, it has been effective, but
    again, we need to work with the States to ensure that they are
    updating their databases as often as possible so that we have
    the most current information for parents.
        Senator Shelby. How can you meet the challenge, that is,
    there are an estimated 100,000 sex offenders who are
    unregistered? How can you work with the Justice Department and
    local law people to get these 100,000 people to register?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Well, that is a very good
    question, Mr. Chairman. It is a challenge for the Department.
    As these offenders are, in fact, convicted, and first of all,
    we hope that there are requirements that they do register. If
    they do not register, there needs to be some kind of
    enforcement to ensure that there are consequences for it. But
    you are right. I do not have an answer for you, a good answer
    for you, Mr. Chairman. What I can tell you is that I am aware
    of the problem, and we will continue to work on it with State
    and local officials.

                                 FEDERAL PRISON

        Senator Shelby. I want to get into the Bureau of Prisons. I
    mentioned that in my opening statement.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. A couple of prisons that you recommended
    last year and this year, one in West Virginia, one in New
    Hampshire for rescission. How and under what statute could you
    justify ignoring the direction of Congress 2 years in a row by
    rescinding funding for two prison construction projects? Could
    this be clarified as an impoundment of funds, or what is it?
        Attorney General Gonzales. It is not an impoundment, Mr.
    Chairman, and it is not as a technical matter a rescission. No
    one has told the Bureau of Prisons or directed the Bureau of
    Prisons not to move forward with these two prisons. And in
    fact, with respect to the West Virginia prison, we expect that
    a contract for the design and planning will be let shortly and
    that there are sufficient funds in the budget for 2007.
        With respect to New Hampshire, we anticipate that that
    contract will be let sometime in the fall, and we will have a
    decision by this subcommittee as to whether or not funds will
    be available in 2007 for the design and plans of that facility.
    If the subcommittee makes the decision to not provide funds for
    the design and the planning of that facility for 2007, then
    what we will have to do is see if there are other resources
    within BOP, see if there are other resources within the
    Department.
        Again, if resources are not there, then what we will have
    to do is see whether or not we ought to look at--besides
    looking at building a new facility, is there a way we can
    renovate existing facilities? Is there a way that we can
    contract out for beds with State and local entities? We do need
    the beds, and the question is what is the most efficient way to
    obtain those beds? So that is my response to your question
    about the $142 million.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski.

                           NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION

        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Attorney General, the Justice
    Department is tasked with playing a very important role in the
    global war against terrorism. Under the PATRIOT Act, my
    question is going to go to the National Security Division that
    has been created through the PATRIOT Act.
        The 2007 budget includes the funding of $67 million for
    this National Security Division. Could you share with the
    subcommittee what this money will buy? Essentially, how does
    it--because we have now been through a look at the PATRIOT Act.
    How will this $67 million buy us more security, or is it buying
    us more bureaucracy?
        And how, then, does that differ from the national security
    branch that is going to be at the FBI? And how does it all fit
    together, and how do you fit in with the DNI? Let us start with
    what we buy for $67 million. That is a lot of money, and is
    this to stand up a new division? Is it to buy more gizmos and
    gear? Where are we heading here?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Well, currently, we are talking
    about consolidating three branches within DOJ: The Office of
    Intelligence Policy and Review, the counterespionage section
    and the counterterrorism section. So we are talking about 226
    individuals, 226 people with a budget of currently about $48
    million.
        And so, what we are asking for in 2007 is for an additional
    $19 million to add an additional 68 people to the National
    Security Division. You have to remember that part of what we
    are talking about is the branch that is responsible for
    preparing the applications for the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act (FISA). And there has been a lot of talk
    recently about FISA application and whether or not we have
    sufficient resources to continue to make FISA an effective tool
    not only in the war on terror but against other foreign powers.
        Senator Mikulski. You need $20 million more and 68 people
    just to do FISA applications?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Oh, no ma'am, that is not what I
    said, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. And does it cost $20 million to hire 68
    people? That is expensive even by some Government accounting.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, ma'am. But in addition, of
    course, there are going to be startup costs in connection with
    consolidation of these units. It is going to require special
    technology. We want more secure technology so that they can
    communicate with each other and also communicate more
    effectively with the entire intelligence community.
        And so, these are some of the costs that are going to be
    incurred. I would like the opportunity, Senator, to give you a
    more detailed breakdown.
        Senator Mikulski. Is this an awkward place to have this, in
    an unclassified setting?
        Attorney General Gonzales. No, ma'am, I do not think it is
    that, quite frankly. I just do not have the detail in my head
    that you are asking for. Okay; technology, the Sensitive
    Compartmental Information Facility (SCIF), we need more SCIFs
    and more intel analysts. So these are some of the additional
    things that we would need in connection with the startup of
    this division.
        And you asked whether or not this is the creation of a new
    bureaucracy. You have to remember that this was one of the
    recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. They recognized that of
    all the departments, all the agencies that focus on the war on
    terror, here you have the Department of Justice claiming that
    terrorism is our number one priority, and yet, we had no
    central location, no central officer below the Attorney General
    and the DAG that was focused primarily on the national security
    of our country with respect to law enforcement matters.
        And so, my hope and certainly my intent--this is not the
    creation of a bureaucracy, but we will make the Department more
    effective.
        Senator Mikulski. If I could jump in, the FBI, first of
    all, I understand we are into the 9/11 Commission reforms. We
    recommended some essentially one-stop shops: the Office of DNI;
    now, this at the Justice Department. And I am not disputing the
    value. We want to implement the--absolutely passionate about
    implementing the 9/11 Commission's report. But then, it says
    the Criminal Division of Counterterrorism and Counterespionage.
    But does the FBI not also have this?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. And are you duplicating what the FBI
    does?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Of course, their focus is in the
    investigation. We will be focused primarily on the prosecution
    side of it, and so, we will have different functions. And
    obviously, there will be a lot of interaction, and we will be
    working closely together.
        Senator Mikulski. You mean the prosecution of terrorism?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, ma'am, but not only the
    prosecution of cases but also detection and prevention. Working
    with----
        Senator Mikulski. Is that not what FBI is doing with
    detection and prevention?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, ma'am, and they will
    certainly be doing that as well.
        Senator Mikulski. You see my question is are we all going
    to be bumping into each other.
        Attorney General Gonzales. No, ma'am, we are not going to
    be bumping into each other. We have been working very hard.
        Senator Mikulski. And I am not being sarcastic.
        Attorney General Gonzales. And I do not take your comment
    as that.
        Senator Mikulski. It has been 5 years since 9/11, 5 years,
    and I do not know if I feel safer. We in the Capital region
    still do not have a clear evacuation plan. We in the Capital
    region do not have interoperable communication. We do know in
    the Capital region local law enforcement talks with each other
    and works together, as we saw under the leadership of the FBI
    and ATF the way we handled the sniper, which is considered a
    national model of dealing with a crisis, for which we were very
    grateful and very proud. But----
        Attorney General Gonzales. You asked whether or not we were
    safe.
        Senator Mikulski. Do you see where----
        Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. And so, I am looking at whatever we do,
    it is not about new boxes and new bucks. It is about safety,
    security, and strength.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I believe that this
    will make us safer, and I think we are safer than we were 5
    years ago. We have taken tremendous steps with the assistance
    of Congress, and thank you for that, to give us additional
    tools to make America safer. I believe, and I think others
    believe, including the President of the United States, that
    having a National Security Division which focuses on our number
    one priority, which coordinates the law enforcement efforts to
    prosecute and to prevent terrorism, is something that is
    necessary for the Department of Justice and will make us safer.
        You ask a legitimate question as to whether or not we are
    going to be bumping into each other. My goal is that we
    recognize that that cannot happen, and obviously, it is
    something that we have to be sensitive to as we stand up the
    National Security Division and as the FBI moves forward with
    the national security branch.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I know we will be pursuing this
    more when we talk to the FBI.
        I want to be very clear about what I said about feeling
    safer. I want to say hats off to the people who work in the
    intelligence community, to the FBI and others who are doing due
    diligence, that I believe have detected, derailed, destroyed
    the predatory attacks coming into the United States. So it has
    been 5 years since an attack. So I want to acknowledge that.
        But we have a lot more systemic reform that we need to do,
    and I sometimes am fearful that we get bogged down in boxes and
    charts and bureaucracy rather than safety and security. So I do
    not in any way doubt the energetic, dedicated work that people
    all over our country and all over the world who work for the
    Federal Government are doing to keep us safe, so I want to
    acknowledge that.
        That is why we want the best organization, the resources
    that they need along with the training and management and
    technology, that they do it right. So my time is up on this. I
    know that we will come back.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy.

                                  CHOICEPOINT

        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated in
    my earlier statement, I am concerned that the FBI signed a
    multimillion dollar licensing agreement with data broker
    ChoicePoint. I consider them the poster child for lax identity
    protection. They want to expand the use of software to help the
    Bureau analyze criminal organizations.
        Just to put this into context, earlier this year, the FTC
    levied the largest civil penalty on record on ChoicePoint. They
    found that they had sold 160,000 consumer records to identity
    thieves. Last year in the Senate Judiciary Committee, we heard
    that because of this, hundreds of Americans were victims of
    identity theft, and people who have faced that sometimes can
    spend years and huge amounts of money to get out of it.
        So now, we take the same company that has done horrible
    damage to their customers already, and they are to expand the
    FBI's analysis of criminal organizations. How do you justify
    entering into a multimillion dollar contract with ChoicePoint
    to handle sensitive investigative data about criminal
    enterprise operations when we know they are so lax that they
    used terrible judgment before with nonsensitive data, just
    normal data?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, obviously, there were
    mistakes made by ChoicePoint, and they have suffered the
    consequences for that. Let me just----
        Senator Leahy. Consequences, yes, they got a big fine, but
    why ChoicePoint? What is in their history that suggests that
    they know how to do this?
        Attorney General Gonzales. The decision was our
    determination that this was the best contract for the Bureau.
    It is a contract for technology and software only. It is not a
    contract for data services. It is a $12 million contract over 5
    years, and I think that it reflects the best judgment that this
    was the best contract for the Bureau.
        I want to emphasize that we understand the importance of
    respecting and protecting people's privacy, and we take those
    concerns very seriously. Those concerns were taken into account
    in connection with this contract.
        Senator Leahy. Well, you know, I want to beg to differ with
    you a little bit on taking the concerns of people's privacy
    seriously. Yesterday, the GAO found that the Justice
    Department, which uses private information services for law
    enforcement and counterterrorism and other investigations often
    does not even follow Federal rules. You do not even follow your
    own laws in protecting Americans' privacy.
        According to the report, the Department of Justice and
    three other Federal agencies spent about $30 million last year
    on companies such as ChoicePoint that maintain billions of
    electronic files about adults' current and past addresses,
    family members and associates, buying habits, personal
    finances, listed and unlisted phone numbers.
        I mean, this is going way beyond criminals or criminal
    organizations you are after. This is people in this room,
    tourists walking through this building or viewing the Grand
    Canyon or anything else. Now, what do you say about GAO? They
    say you are not even following the law. You are contracting out
    tens of millions of dollars. You are collecting a huge amount
    of data. Why should we feel more secure about this?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, obviously, the
    allegation that we are not following the law is a serious one.
    I have not read the GAO report, but obviously, we are going to
    study it very, very carefully, and if we are not doing what we
    are supposed to be doing, there should be consequences. We take
    our responsibilities very seriously, but again, I have not seen
    the report. I have not studied the report. I am not saying the
    report is incorrect.
        Senator Leahy. Mr. Attorney General, understand that I am
    not suggesting that you as Attorney General want to go and hand
    out this private data to crooks any more than I do or any more
    than anybody here. What I am saying is what level of competence
    are you requiring so that does not happen? Because it is not
    enough for us just to say, whoops, too bad if you have had
    somebody's life or their business ruined or their children's or
    their spouse's, or their medical records are all over the
    place, and they have lost their privacy. You see my concern.
        Attorney General Gonzales. I do understand your concern,
    and I share your concern. There should be only one standard,
    and that is what the law requires to ensure that the personal
    data with respect to individuals is not compromised. You are
    correct: when that happens, it can be devastating to
    individuals. We have an obligation to ensure that we are doing
    everything we are legally required to do and perhaps beyond
    that to ensure the protection of this kind of information. If
    we are not doing that, Senator, I am going to--I want to know
    why and----
        Senator Leahy. Well, I have asked this question. I will be
    following up with you, and somebody should look carefully into
    it.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, sir.
        Senator Leahy. I was glad to hear you say you want to keep
    FISA helpful in your answer to Senator Mikulski's question; I
    am glad to know that you consider it helpful. Next time you are
    down at the White House, you might want to mention it to them
    that it is helpful, because the word has not gotten there.

                               CRIME VICTIMS FUND

        I have one last question on the crime victims fund. I saw
    so many victims of crime when I was a prosecutor. It has gotten
    far worse now than it was then just because we have become a
    larger country, and crime has gotten even more vicious. The
    crime victims fund has been so helpful all over the country,
    and now I find the administration wants to raid it of roughly
    $1.25 billion by the end of the fiscal year. Last year, the
    administration tried to do that. Congress, in a bipartisan way,
    blocked it.
        Now, this is not money from American taxpayers. It comes
    from criminal fines----
        Attorney General Gonzales. And penalties.
        Senator Leahy [continuing]. And forfeitures. It has
    provided critical services: 4 million victims of domestic
    violence and sexual assault, child and elder abuse, drunk
    driving, all these other crimes, this is $1.25 billion, what we
    will spend between now and the end of the week in Iraq. But we
    are cutting this from people here in the United States who
    desperately need it. How can you justify that?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Well, Senator, there has been a
    cap on the use of this excess above what has been appropriated
    since, I believe, 2000 or 2001. And so, when you say how can
    you take this away from victims, the truth is we cannot even
    spend it on victims. There is an obligation cap on spending
    this money. What we are----
        Senator Leahy. Operation cap? This is going to leave it at
    zero going into 2008. I guarantee you, just go one dollar over
    zero, and we will spend that.
        Attorney General Gonzales. We begin collecting receipts for
    2008 in 2007. If we look at the record of the past few years,
    we can see the receipts will clearly reach a level of $625
    million, which is what both the administration and the Congress
    have indicated in the past few years is an appropriate level of
    expenditure with respect to----
        Senator Leahy. No, because last year, when you tried to cut
    it out, we put it back in, so now you are trying the same thing
    so we will put it back in?
        Attorney General Gonzales. But, Senator, you said you put
    it back in----
        Senator Leahy. Big spending Congress?
        Attorney General Gonzales [continuing]. We cannot spend it
    on victims. You characterize this as monies that are available
    for victims, and yet, you would not let us spend it. There is a
    cap.
        Senator Leahy. And drunk driving and child and elder abuse
    and a whole lot of other things. Maybe we are ships crossing in
    the night, but under your plan it is zeroed out by fiscal year
    2008. How many of these organizations that are using this are
    going to be able to plan for it?
        Attorney General Gonzales. We will commence collecting
    receipts for 2008 in 2007, and we will have a very good idea as
    to whether or not the receipts are going to be sufficient to
    meet the obligations.
        Let me just emphasize that again, this administration is
    very much committed to crime victims. That is why we support
    the $625 million to be spent on crime victims programs. What we
    are talking about is $1.2 billion, which represents a perpetual
    float. It is not appropriate--well, I am not an accountant, but
    it seems to me it seems an odd accounting--I do not want to say
    gimmick--but procedure to include this in the budget when, in
    fact, it cannot be spent for crime victims. And it simply rolls
    over year after year after year. We believe very strongly in
    ensuring that there is a large amount of money available for
    crime victims, and we believe $625 million----
        Senator Leahy. Well, I think it is going to come as a huge
    surprise to a lot of people who deal with crime victims around
    this country that, gosh, we have got too much money for you to
    use. I know so many crime victims organizations that are
    desperate for money for battered women----
        Attorney General Gonzales. But, Senator, you will not let
    us spend the money.
        Senator Leahy [continuing]. For abused children----
        Attorney General Gonzales. You will not let us spend the
    money.
        Senator Leahy. What?
        Attorney General Gonzales. You will not let us spend the
    money for crime victims above $625 million. So to say that
    the----
        Senator Leahy. Well, let me put it this way: you say the
    Congress, so it is Congress' fault. Has the administration ever
    asked us to put more money or lift these caps?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Well, I think the $625 million
    is sufficient to meet the needs of crime victims.
        Senator Leahy. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    the time.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Harkin.
        Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

                              BYRNE GRANT PROGRAM

        Mr. Attorney General, I want to get back to the Byrne grant
    program. Funding has been eliminated in the budget. One of the
    rationales offered is that the program has not demonstrated a
    satisfactory level of performance results. You said in your
    opening statement that your budget cuts programs have not met
    our high standards.
        However, the people in Iowa tell me that there has never
    been any effort on the part of the Bureau of Justice Assistance
    to actually measure the performance results of this program.
    Mr. Attorney General, has there been a valid effort to
    determine if Byrne dollars are working nationally as well as
    they are in Iowa?
        Attorney General Gonzales. My understanding, Senator, is
    that with respect to the Byrne grant funds that are
    discretionary, they are all earmarked, and it is very, very
    difficult for us to determine whether or not they are being
    effectively spent. I do not know the answer to your question as
    to whether or not there has been some kind of effort by the
    Department to evaluate the effectiveness of these grants in
    your State, but I can certainly find out and get back to you.
        Senator Harkin. I am talking about nationally. I mean, you
    said that you cut these programs that do not meet your high
    standards and that have not demonstrated a satisfactory level
    of performance results. Well, how can you zero out the Byrne
    grant program when you do not know?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Well, Senator, I think that
    again----
        Senator Harkin. May I correct one thing?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Yes.
        Senator Harkin. You said that all the dollars were
    earmarked? Is that what you said?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Well, with respect to Byrne
    grants, some are based on formulas to States.
        Senator Harkin. Yes, $416 million was formula.
        Attorney General Gonzales. And some are discretionary.
        Senator Harkin. $167 million.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Which are earmarked.
        Senator Harkin. $167 million.
        Attorney General Gonzales. All of it is earmarked.
        Senator Harkin. $167 million.
        Attorney General Gonzales. As I understand it.
        Senator Harkin. Pardon?
        Attorney General Gonzales. As I understand, all of it is
    earmarked.
        Senator Harkin. $416 million went out by formula.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Exactly; some of it is by
    formula to the States, and a portion of it, which is
    discretionary, and all of that is earmarked.
        Senator Harkin. And that is $167 million. I said that.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, sir, and part of the
    problem that we have with the earmarks is, quite frankly, it
    takes off the table the ability of nonprofit groups, faith-
    based organizations to compete for these dollars. They can
    provide services, very important needy services to the
    community, but they are precluded from doing so because these
    programs----
        Senator Harkin. Can you name me one NGO or faith-based
    group that is doing the kind of work that the local law
    enforcement people are doing under Byrne in fighting
    methamphetamine?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Perhaps not on the law
    enforcement side, but of course, in fighting methamphetamine,
    we are focused well beyond law enforcement. We are looking at
    education; we are looking at prevention; we are looking at
    reentry, and so, clearly, there are NGOs and faith-based
    organizations that are involved in that effort.
        Senator Harkin. That is true, but that is in another
    funding packet. Where do you fund that? That is not funded
    under Byrne. Byrne is for law enforcement.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Well----
        Senator Harkin. I still want to get back. I mean, how can
    you say it has not met your high standards when there has not
    been any effort done to quantify performance results?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I did not say that
    there has not been an effort. Let me find out and confirm that
    with you.
        Senator Harkin. Well, I have reviewed the publicly
    available so-called performance assessment rating tool, PART
    analysis of the Byrne JAG program. It does not contain any
    feedback from any of the program participants or beneficiaries.
    Again, I would think that feedback and actual results, which I
    can compile, would be included in any type of review. Why would
    that not be included?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Well, Senator, let me just say
    this, and I would like the opportunity to get back to you to
    respond to your question. I want to make sure that I give you
    the most accurate information that I can. But in terms of while
    Byrne grants may have been zeroed out, we are giving a lot of
    money to States, to local communities on a wide variety of
    issues including drugs, $10 million for the prescription drug
    monitoring program; $70 million for drug courts.
        And so, the fact that Byrne may have been cut does not mean
    that State and locals are not receiving Federal dollars with
    respect to some of these programs. What we have done is
    identified those priority areas for this President and focused
    money on those priority programs.
        Senator Harkin. Well, all I can say is that just between
    2005 and this year, Iowa absorbed a $2 million cut, 42 percent
    of the funding. And again, this paid almost exclusively for
    drug task officers going to have to be laid off in the middle
    of a meth epidemic.
        And again, I recognize you have to have education. We need
    more money for rehabilitation. We do not have enough money in
    there for meth rehab. The recidivism rate is very high, because
    we know that to effectively get people over the hump on meth,
    it takes 6 months to 1 year. Yet, we are treating them for 6
    weeks, and then, we are wondering why they are showing back up
    in our jails and our prisons again. So we do not have enough
    money for that either. But I am really upset. As far as I have
    heard from law enforcement all over this country, the Byrne
    grant program has worked. It is working well.
        I just want to say one other thing for the record, Mr.
    Attorney General. On the issue of performance results, States
    are required to report the results of the Byrne grant program
    to the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Last year, my staff asked
    BJA about this reporting. They were told that 20 States had not
    met the deadline to turn in their reports. So we investigated
    that. We called these States. And then finally got back to BJA,
    and they conceded that, in fact, only Guam and American Samoa
    had failed to turn in their performance results. We were being
    told that 20 States had not.
        So again, this all calls into question your justification
    for eliminating the program. You say you are going to get back
    to me on it. I appreciate that. But what in the meantime do I
    tell law enforcement officers in Iowa and others when I see the
    budget eliminated? You know, again, I just see no justification
    for it whatsoever. And I still do not know the answer as to why
    it has been eliminated. But if you can get back to me on that,
    I would appreciate it.
        [The information follows:]

                           Cuts to Byrne JAG Program

        In order to focus departmental resources on
    counterterrorism, which is and must be the Department of
    Justice's (DOJ) overriding priority, the Administration was
    required to make difficult choices in this budget proposal.
        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal recognizes
    the Federal government's responsibilities in regard to
    supporting effective law enforcement and improving the nation's
    criminal justice system. If approved as proposed, the
    President's fiscal year 2007 budget will provide over $1.2
    billion to State, local, and tribal law enforcement through the
    U.S. Department of Justice. This includes $66.6 million to
    strengthen communities through programs providing services such
    as drug treatment; $88.2 million to combat violence, including
    enhancements to Project Safe Neighborhoods; and $209 million to
    support drug enforcement, including funding to continue and
    expand the Southwest Border Drug Prosecution Program. The
    initiatives included in this proposal were selected by
    concentrating scarce resources on the highest priority criminal
    justice issues; promoting effective, evidence-based approaches
    to improving law enforcement and criminal justice system
    capabilities; and eliminating funding for programs that could
    not demonstrate results.
        The proposed elimination of the JAG Program in fiscal year
    2007 is based on this program's inability to clearly
    demonstrate its effectiveness. During the fiscal year 2005 PART
    assessment of the JAG Program and its predecessors (the Byrne
    Formula Grant Program and the Local Law Enforcement Block
    Grant), OMB concluded that these programs have not been able to
    clearly demonstrate through quantifiable performance measures
    that they had achieved nor were making progress toward their
    goals. In light of the broad array of assistance offered to
    State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies through OJP,
    the Administration determined that the funds currently devoted
    to the JAG Program could be used more effectively elsewhere.

                           VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT

        Senator Harkin. One last thing, Mr. Attorney General, and
    that is the Violence Against Women Act. The President hailed
    the reauthorization of it when he signed the bill in early
    January, but in February, the budget provided no funding for
    any of the new programs authorized by the Violence Against
    Women Act. That included $50 million in funding for victims of
    sexual assault. I was just visited in my office this morning by
    some people regarding that.
        It is the first time that sexual assault victims received
    dedicated funding. And again, if you have any information on
    that at your fingertips, I would like to know why there was not
    any funding for any of the----
        Attorney General Gonzales. Well, Senator, I believe that
    the President's budget does include $347 million for the Office
    on Violence Against Women. So perhaps I need to go back and
    check my figures, and I am happy to do that. If we need to give
    you more information about what we are doing for victims of
    violence, be happy to do that.
        Senator Harkin. Well, I would appreciate that, because I am
    told that there is no funding for any of the new programs, one
    of which is in funding for victims of sexual assault. It is the
    first time that they received dedicated funding, and there was
    no funding for it.
        Attorney General Gonzales. I would be happy to look at
    that.
        [The information follows:]

      Violence Against Women Act Funding Within the Department of Justice

        The 2007 President's budget for the Office on Violence
    Against Women (OVW) is $347,013,000. An additional $21,869,000
    is requested for victims of child abuse programs administered
    by the Office of Justice Programs. These amounts do not include
    increased funding or new initiatives based on the recently
    enacted reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act
    (VAWA), due to the fact that the reauthorization was signed
    just prior to the release of the 2007 President's budget. As
    the Administration prepares future budget proposals, the
    reauthorization will be considered. In the interim, OVW is
    actively working on a plan to make the changes directed by the
    new legislation for the current VAWA grant programs.

        Senator Harkin. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Attorney
    General.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Kohl.
        Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                  BYRNE GRANTS

        Just to conclude the Byrne grant questions, Mr. Attorney
    General, if you talked to police chiefs or sheriffs all across
    my State, all across the country, they say that the Byrne grant
    program is the backbone of Federal aid for local law
    enforcement. Now, it has been for many, many years. They have
    always attested that it was a good program, that the funds were
    used carefully.
        As you know, the funds are appropriated down to the local
    level so that each dollar becomes very important. We are not
    talking about billions. We are talking about, you know,
    millions and thousands and hundreds of dollars so that they see
    that these dollars are used very efficiently. I think there is
    ample evidence that that is true.
        Now, you have not told us why you would see fit not to cut
    this program but to scrap it. Did I hear your explanation, or
    have you not given it?

                            STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS

        Attorney General Gonzales. Well, let me try to clarify what
    I have said. With respect to Byrne, this has been a difficult
    decision. The decision was made that we have got to be more
    focused on the priorities of the administration. And if you
    look at the money that is going to State and locals, there is a
    lot of money that is being spent for State and locals on areas
    like terrorism, $40 million for terrorism. And so, it may not
    be going through a Byrne grant, but there is $40 million going
    to State and locals regarding terrorism; to reduce crime, $16
    million for VCIT programs; $59 million for Project Safe
    Neighborhoods; $15 million for gang training and technical
    assistance; $10 million for prescription drug monitoring; $7
    million for drug courts; $15 million for ICACs; $22 million for
    trafficking; $2 million for sex offender registry; $347 million
    for Office on Violence Against Women; $106 million for DNA; $40
    million for the national criminal history improvement program
    (NCHIP); $30 million for Southwest border prosecution; $50
    million for the weed and seed program; $31 million for Indian
    country problems; $40 million for meth cleanup; $3.9 million
    for training.
        The point is, Senator, is there is a lot of money going to
    State and locals. We have simply decided that it is better--we
    have a responsibility to the taxpayers to ensure that the
    monies that are being allocated to the States are focused on
    specific programs which we believe are effective, which we
    believe affect the most pressing needs of our communities.
        And we believe it is a more effective way to provide monies
    out to deal with local issues. This does not reflect in any way
    a lack of commitment to working with State and local officials
    who we consider our partners. We want to continue to build on
    that relationship, but we have a responsibility, too, to the
    taxpayers, and we believe this is a more responsible way to get
    dollars down to State and local officials.
        Senator Kohl. Are you saying that these programs total up
    to as much as more than the Byrne grant program.
        Attorney General Gonzales. No, sir, I am not saying that.
        Senator Kohl. I see.
        Attorney General Gonzales. I am not saying that, no, sir.
        Senator Kohl. I think when we add up the dollars, Mr.
    Attorney General, we are talking about cuts, significant cuts.
        Attorney General Gonzales. But, sir, I am not sure that our
    service to our communities can be measured solely in the
    dollars. The dollars have to be spent efficiently and wisely,
    and I know as a businessman, you understand that and can
    appreciate that.
        And so, that is the question: are we spending the
    taxpayers' dollars efficiently and wisely on programs that are
    targeted on the greatest needs in our communities?
        Senator Kohl. But you have never assessed the program. You
    are apparently saying the money was not being spent
    efficiently. You are sort of winging it when you say that, and
    I do not want to use that word inappropriately.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kohl. So we are just going to cut it.
        Attorney General Gonzales. No, Senator, what I am saying is
    that we have identified in this budget the President's
    priorities: the pressing needs within the communities, and the
    decision has been made that we ought to take the monies in the
    budget and target those needs and focus dollars on the programs
    that address the most pressing needs.
        Senator Kohl. That is fine, and I appreciate that. I think
    these scarce dollars that have been appropriated to local law
    enforcement should not have been cut; now, of course, we can
    have a difference of opinion on that, and it is very strongly
    felt out there at the local level, where I know you are
    focused.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Sir, I hear about it when I
    travel. Obviously, this is an important issue. But I think, and
    I may be wrong about this, but I think State and local
    officials, they care about the dollars. I am not sure that they
    care that they be funded through the Byrne program. If there is
    another way that the dollars are getting down to the State and
    local officials, obviously, that is what they care about.
        Senator Kohl. Just one other, and then, I will turn it over
    to Senator Murray.

                      COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES

        The COPS program, as you know, was a brilliant program for
    several years. It was universally acclaimed as being
    successful. It was at $1 billion at its zenith, and now, it is
    basically zeroed out. Now, when Attorney General Ashcroft was
    here several years ago, and we asked him about it, I want to
    quote what he said: he said the COPS program was, quote, a good
    thing, quote, that it had worked very well, and quote, that it
    had been one of the most successful programs that we have ever
    had, quote.
        So now, we are talking about taking a program that did as
    much good around our country again at the local level, which is
    where it is all about, and we are just saying let us forget
    about it. Why would you do that?
        Attorney General Gonzales. Let me just echo General
    Ashcroft's comments about the importance of the COPS program.
    Putting more people on the streets, I think, is one reason we
    have had a reduction in violent crime across America. The COPS
    program in terms of hiring more cops was focused on getting
    100,000 cops on the street by a certain period of time.
        We met that goal. I do not believe it was ever intended
    that we would continue to make monies available to continue to
    fund more hiring of State and local police officers on the
    streets. Now, having said that, there is still $400 million in
    proposed appropriations for the COPS program. There is $102
    million for COPS-administered programs, including $31 million
    for Indian country issues, $40 million for meth cleanup, $3.9
    million for training of State and local officials.
        And so, this notion that we have zeroed out COPS, there is
    no money for hiring additional police officers, but that was
    reflected in last year's budget approved by Congress. There
    were no additional COPS dollars for hiring police officers.
    That is the budget that Congress passed. And so, this is
    consistent with what Congress did in 2006, and I would just
    again remind you that there is $400 million in proposed
    appropriations in the COPS program.
        Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.

                                  DRUG CARTELS

        Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me ask you about the meth program, because I am deeply
    concerned that--well, back in 2001, actually, a Drug
    Enforcement Administration estimate said drug cartels made up
    80 percent of the meth consumed in the United States, and that
    has probably increased since then because of the crackdown we
    have done on some of the home mom and pop production.
        But what we do know is that these cartels require about 200
    metric tons of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine every year, and it
    is about 10 percent of the world's output of those legal
    chemicals. I am very concerned that we may be missing an
    opportunity to work with chemical factories abroad to prevent
    the cartels from getting their hands on these chemicals, and I
    wanted to know what you and the administration are doing to go
    after these cartels and their suppliers to stop the flow of
    meth into our communities.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Those are all very good
    questions, Senator. I am sure Administrator Tandy will be able
    to amplify on what I have to say.
        We are working with countries like China, Germany, and
    India to restrict the import of precursor chemicals into
    Mexico, because you are right, it is a serious problem. And we
    are working closely with our counterparts in Mexico about this
    issue. I have had several meetings with the Mexican attorney
    general. He and I are attending an anti-meth conference in
    Dallas in May, because he understands how serious this issue
    that we can do, we can pass all the laws here at the Federal
    level and at the State level which have been successful with
    respect to reducing mom and pop labs, but if we do not have
    some help from Mexico and the law enforcement efforts there, it
    is a tough, tough battle.
        And so, I share your concern. We are focused on it. I know
    Administrator Tandy is working on this issue, and Mexico has
    already passed legislation to--maybe not legislation; could be
    regulations to deal with limiting access to precursor chemicals
    as well. But you are right: the problem is that we have to put
    limits or try to retard efforts to have precursor chemicals
    come in from other countries, and we are doing that.
        Senator Murray. Good, we do not want to miss that, because
    I think it is the gorilla in the room if we are not focused on
    these drug cartels and where they are getting their supplies,
    so I really encourage you to do that and want to hear more
    about that as we go along.

                                NORTHERN BORDER

        Let me ask you another question, because the importance of
    local law enforcement agencies having the ability to work
    closely with their Federal counterparts has never been more
    significant, and in my opening statement, I talked about the
    concern I have about the need to increase Federal, State, and
    local law enforcement partnerships.
        In my State, southwest Washington is an area where law
    enforcement continues to talk to me about the need for an
    increased Federal presence. Vancouver, Washington right on the
    border, Columbia River, is now the fourth largest city in
    Washington. It is projected to be the second largest by 2010,
    and as you probably know, Federal agents cannot cross over the
    Columbia River, because that represents the dividing line of
    Federal jurisdiction.
        What that means is that southwest Washington's primary
    offices for Federal assistance are located more than 100 miles
    away, and there is a lot of threats we are hearing about
    including organized crime and drug trafficking. So a Federal
    presence in Vancouver is really essential for our State.
        And I wanted to know, I know we got about six new staff a
    few years ago, but I would like to ask if you would be willing
    to work with my office and law enforcement stakeholders in our
    region to take a look at this situation and really help us find
    some solutions to this.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I am told, and I do not
    know how current this information is, that the Department has
    769 personnel in your State. We may only have two agents in
    Vancouver.
        Senator Murray. Correct.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Period; that may be the sole
    scope of our presence.
        I am not sure that that is right, and so I have asked our
    folks to look at this issue, and I would be happy to work with
    you on it.
        Senator Murray. I would really appreciate if we could get
    together and focus on that with some of the folks from
    southwest Washington. I think we need to come up with some
    solutions for them. It is really becoming more and more
    critical.
        I also wanted to talk to you about the challenges facing
    our northern border States with respect to some of the
    typically border related cases. You and I have talked about
    this before. We are seeing increased border apprehensions for
    drug smuggling, money laundering, other crimes because we have
    increased the number of people on the border.
        The southwestern States, as I said, have a Federal program
    for reimbursement. We do not have a similar program at the
    northern border, and this really puts a tremendous burden on
    our local officials. I know they have talked to you. I know
    Senator Cantwell and I have mentioned this many times.
        I wanted to find out would you support an effort to expand
    the southwest border prosecution initiative program to our
    northern border States?
        Attorney General Gonzales. I would be happy to talk with
    you about it. I worry about the fact that 70 percent of our
    immigration cases are on the southern border, and 30 percent
    are on the northern border.
        [The information follows:]

                           Northwest Border Security

        The Department does not support an effort to expand the
    Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative to the Northern Border
    at this time. A review of the Department's statistics indicate
    that 68 percent of all immigration cases occur on the Southwest
    Border (12,318 immigration cases were filed in the Southwest
    Border Districts out of a total of 18,147 immigration cases
    filed nationwide in 2005). Furthermore, the Department did an
    extensive study of this issue and determined that while both
    borders share some of the same vulnerability the security of
    the SW border requires significantly more resources and
    personnel to address the explosion of people crossing the
    border illegally.

        Senator Murray. But I would remind you that Ahmed Rassam
    came through the northern border.
        Attorney General Gonzales. No question about it. Obviously,
    we need to be concerned.
        Senator Murray. I believe there was an investigation a few
    weeks ago that showed that a dirty bomb could get through that
    came through the northern border in my State.
        Attorney General Gonzales. No question about it.
        My own view of reimbursement of costs of State and local
    officials is that quite frankly, the Federal Government needs
    to do its job. It needs to do a better job of securing the
    border so that you do not have the kinds of burdens that we see
    today on municipalities and State governments. So I think that
    should be our focus. In terms of focusing on reimbursement, I
    think we ought to be focusing on, quite frankly, the Federal
    Government doing its job, but I would be happy to talk to you
    about it.
        Senator Murray. Well, we had the same conversation 1 year
    ago. It feels like we are in the same spot; no changes.
        So I would really like to hear from you if you could get a
    response back to us how we are going to deal with this critical
    issue.
        Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, we appreciate you
    appearing here today, and we appreciate your service to the
    Nation. We have a number of additional questions we will submit
    for the record, and we would appreciate your timely response if
    you can do it as soon as you can.
        Attorney General Gonzales. I will, Mr. Chairman.

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

    STATEMENT OF ROBERT MUELLER, DIRECTOR
        Senator Shelby. And at this time, we would like to call the
    second panel of witnesses. They are Director Robert Mueller,
    Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Administrator
    Karen Tandy, Drug Enforcement Administration; Director Carl J.
    Truscott, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;
    and Director John Clark, United States Marshals Service.
        Director Mueller, we will start with you. If you could just
    sum up briefly, because we have enough; your top points. We
    welcome you to the subcommittee, and we also appreciate your
    service, all of your service to the country.
        Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    having me today, and thank you, Senator Mikulski, Senator
    Leahy, for being here. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today in front of you. I want to thank you also for the funding
    that was provided to the FBI in the Hurricane Katrina
    supplemental, and I understand yesterday that the 2006 war
    supplemental may also have passed through the Senate, and we
    thank you for your support there.

                            NATIONAL SECURITY BRANCH

        My testimony sets forth the details supporting the budget
    request of the over 31,000 positions and $6 billion, and I do
    not want to spend a great deal of time on that because it is in
    my written remarks. I will say, I want to spend a couple
    moments at the outset first of all talking about the national
    security branch that was approved in September. And the mission
    of the national security branch, as you are well aware, is to
    position the FBI to protect the United States against weapons
    of mass destruction, terrorist attacks, and foreign
    intelligence operations.
        With regard to the budget for the national security branch,
    we have asked for $25.8 million for resources to respond to
    terrorist threats and incidents such as those posed by weapons
    of mass destruction; $15 million for essential infrastructure
    enhancements; and $16 million to support our core intelligence
    processes.
        I do want to make the point that while national security
    efforts remain our top priority, we continue to fulfill our
    crime fighting responsibilities as well. Public corruption is
    the top criminal priority for the FBI. In the last 2 years, our
    investigations have led to the conviction of over 1,000
    Government employees involved in corrupt activities, to include
    177 Federal officials, 158 State officials, 260 local
    officials, and more than 365 police officers.
        At the same time, we continue to focus on implementing the
    national gang strategy along with ATF. This strategy is
    designed to identify the prolific and violent gangs in the
    United States and to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle their
    criminal enterprises.

                                    SENTINEL

        Having made those two points, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
    spend a couple of moments to focus on Sentinel, which was
    raised in your opening remarks. As you are aware, as we have
    discussed, on March 16, we announced the award of a $305
    million contract to Lockheed Martin for the development,
    operation, and maintenance of the Sentinel program. And I would
    like to spend a couple of moments responding to anticipated
    questions and some of the remarks you made in your opening
    comments.
        As you are aware, the $305 million contract cost
    constitutes approximately $232 million for development of
    Sentinel, and this new information management system will be
    developed over a period of approximately 4 years and will be
    deployed in four phases. We anticipate completion of the first
    phase approximately 1 year from now. And as each phase is
    completed and deployed, we will begin to incur costs for
    operation and maintenance or O&M, as it is called.
        After completion of the final phase in 2009, we have the
    opportunity to exercise the option for Lockheed Martin to
    continue providing O&M for an additional 2 years, through 2011.
        With regard to these four phases, each phase will deliver a
    new standalone capability and will provide greater access to
    existing information and will, as importantly, facilitate the
    input of information into the system and the dissemination of
    information to others both inside the FBI as well as to our
    partners outside the FBI. In addition, Sentinel will provide
    the FBI a system that is flexible and adaptable to address
    future advances in technology and changes in our mission and
    the threat environment.
        I know that, Mr. Chairman, you are concerned as we are
    concerned about the success of this program, and to ensure the
    successful and the timely completion of Sentinel within budget,
    we have structured the contract with Lockheed Martin in such a
    way as to provide clear requirements, deliverables, and
    milestones. The contract is also structured so that each phase
    is an exercisable option. And in addition, we have invited
    close scrutiny of each phase of the Sentinel process through
    multiple venues, both internal and external.
        We have created a strong program management office for
    Sentinel and staffed it with skilled technical, programmatic,
    business management, and administrative subject experts. In
    fact, two of our program management employees have recently
    been honored by industry for their leadership and their
    accomplishments.
        We also have independent contractors who will conduct
    verification and validation reviews of the Sentinel program, of
    the management office, of the Lockheed Martin's performance and
    the performance of the subcontractors in order to ensure proper
    execution and delivery of Sentinel. We have asked the GAO and
    the inspector general to work with us as we undertake this 4-
    year program to ensure that we are on the right track.
        We are aware of the GAO's recently released report to which
    you averted in your remarks, and we welcome that report, and we
    have established safeguards for Sentinel, as has been
    recommended in that report by GAO. The Justice Department
    inspector general will be conducting audits of Sentinel
    throughout the development and implementation of the program as
    well, and it recently released its first report on the preaward
    phase of Sentinel, which in part confirms that we are
    addressing the issues identified in the GAO report.
        The Deputy Attorney General, the Department of Justice
    Chief Information Officer, the Office of the Director of
    National Intelligence, the Office of Management and Budget, are
    all meeting periodically with the Sentinel program manager and
    senior FBI management to ensure that Sentinel is proceeding as
    planned.
        We have engaged as well outside experts to help us review
    and assess the implementation of Sentinel, and finally,
    Sentinel will be subject to close congressional scrutiny. We
    are committed to keeping this subcommittee and/or other
    oversight committees informed as we move ahead.
        Mr. Chairman, we believe that the extensive internal and
    external oversight I have just described will ensure the
    successful delivery of Sentinel, and even so, we are ever
    mindful of the challenges of the past, and I believe we have
    learned from what went right and what went wrong with Trilogy.
    And I know you have a number of concerns, and I would like to
    briefly address three of those concerns, which you mentioned in
    your opening statement.

                           VIRTUAL CASE FILE PROJECT

        First, the cost to the taxpayers of the Virtual Case File
    project as compared with this project: if you recall, sir, in
    the beginning of 2004, we were presented with Virtual Case File
    by the contractor. It did not work. We went into negotiations
    with that contractor. We were told that it would take $50
    million in addition to the $170 million to get a project or a
    product that would work.
        We employed outside independent contractors to come in and
    see whether it was worthwhile spending that money. They said
    no. That contract ultimately would have been around $220
    million if we were lucky. This is around $232 million for the
    same development, but it is a development of a product that
    will put us on a firm foundation in the future.
        Let me turn to the deficiencies in the GAO report. As I
    mentioned briefly, we have taken, we have looked at those
    deficiencies. We have established a new unit to address those
    deficiencies that were identified in the GAO report, and I
    believe that we, with that new unit, we will be on top of the
    matters that were pointed out to us by the GAO.

                                    SENTINEL

        And last, Mr. Chairman, I know that there were concerns
    about two of the subcontractors on the Sentinel project. One of
    those subcontractors was involved in providing training to
    employees under the Trilogy project, but that was not an issue
    with regard to the successes and/or the failures of Trilogy.
    The other subcontractor acquired an entity that had previously
    performed work on the Trilogy project, but that division has
    nothing to do with providing work on the Sentinel project.
        Let me finish by summarizing and saying that we recognize
    that Sentinel is a large project and a large investment for the
    taxpayers of the United States.
        Senator Shelby. But an important one.
        Mr. Mueller. But a very important one, and it is important
    to the men and women of the FBI, who need this technology
    system, and I can tell you that we have learned from the
    mistakes of the past. We are intent in bringing this home, and
    we have, in Lockheed Martin, I believe, a partner who will get
    us across the finish line.
        And with that, I would be happy to respond to any questions
    on this or any other issues.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Robert S. Mueller III

        Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and Members of the
    subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
    to discuss the President's fiscal year 2007 budget for the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation (FBI). I also would like to thank you for
    passing the fiscal year 2006 Katrina supplemental which included $45
    million for the FBI. Our employees in the Gulf region endured great
    suffering and devastating property loss in the aftermath of Katrina. In
    addition to the horrific personal toll the storm took on the people of
    the Gulf region, the FBI offices in New Orleans, Beaumont, Gulfport and
    Pascagoula were either severely damaged or completely destroyed.
    However, your funding is helping to rebuild our offices, put our
    employees back to work, and enable us to bring our capabilities back to
    pre-Katrina levels.
        With this Committee's help, the FBI was able to establish Katrina
    Fraud Task Forces, in Lake Charles and Lafayette, Louisiana, to
    investigate and prosecute those unscrupulous individuals who seek to
    benefit from this national tragedy. We intend to continue this
    important work as the Gulf region recovers.

                              2007 BUDGET REQUEST

        The fiscal year 2007 budget totals 31,359 positions and $6.04
    billion. The net fiscal year 2007 program increases total 75 positions.
    Our fiscal year 2007 budget is focused on enhancing and improving our
    infrastructure. Since September 11th, the FBI has undergone significant
    reorganization and tremendous personnel growth. However, FBI
    Headquarters (HQ) facilities and infrastructure programs have not kept
    pace with our transformation from a law enforcement entity to a key
    player in the Government's war against terrorism.
        As an agency, we must find the proper balance between expanding our
    workforce and supporting on-board employees with the technology and
    infrastructure necessary to accomplish our dual mission as both a law
    enforcement and an intelligence entity. I believe the fiscal year 2007
    budget will go a long way in rectifying the gaps between our rapid
    growth in personnel and our current infrastructure.

                       IMPROVING PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

        The FBI's space for handling and storing classified information is
    currently inadequate. We are formulating a strategy to address
    Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) space requirements.
    The primary objective of the FBI's plan is to provide SCIF space and
    SCI connectivity to key national security field facilities by the end
    of calendar year 2007 which will be accomplished using resources
    requested in the fiscal year 2007 President's Budget.
        In fiscal year 2007, the FBI is requesting $33 million in
    construction funding for SCIF expansion. This funding would allow for
    information sharing between the FBI and our partners within the
    Intelligence Community (IC), as envisioned by the President and
    Congress. Without this SCIF expansion, the FBI cannot ensure an
    adequate intelligence infrastructure to achieve our strategic goals. In
    the fiscal year 2006 conference report you requested that we develop a
    plan to prioritize our SCIF expansion program. This report is currently
    under Administration review and we look forward to discussing it with
    the Committee once it is released.
        We are also requesting $8.8 million to acquire additional space for
    an FBI Headquarters Annex which would be located in the Washington,
    D.C. metropolitan area. Most of FBI's Headquarters components operate
    in fragmented and overcrowded office space. The FBI must secure an
    additional 150,000 square feet of useable space in order to accommodate
    the needs of new personnel coming on-board through fiscal year 2007.
        The current FBI Academy training facilities located at Quantico,
    Virginia are inadequate to address the training needs of our analysts
    and Special Agent personnel. Most of the Academy's facilities were
    designed in the late 1960s to accommodate small groups in a traditional
    classroom training setting. However, given the FBI's growth and dual
    mission requirements, the Academy can no longer support our expanding
    needs or provide us the forum to develop a world-class cadre of
    intelligence professionals.
        After the September 11th terrorist attacks, the FBI developed and
    implemented professional training for Intelligence Analysts (IA)
    throughout the FBI. In October 2001, the Center for Intelligence
    Training (CIT), formerly known as College of Analytical Studies, was
    established at the FBI Academy. The CIT was established to improve the
    FBI's analytical capabilities to meet our present and future
    investigative responsibilities. All courses delivered by the CIT are
    designed to support the FBI's Counterterrorism (CT),
    Counterintelligence (CD), and analytical missions. The CIT experienced
    significant growth during its first years of operation and, based on
    expected hiring levels of new IAs, the FBI expects the CIT to continue
    to expand its operational and training missions.
        In the fiscal year 2007 budget, we are requesting $6.3 million to
    upgrade our CIT facilities by beginning the process of designing the
    CIT training center at the FBI Academy complex in Quantico, Virginia.
    The CIT will be a major element in continuing to promote and develop
    the FBI's leadership training for FBI-wide, State/local, and
    international law enforcement personnel.
        We are also requesting $11.9 million for interim space at the FBI
    Academy for the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team (HRT). Although HRT's current
    space was built to accommodate only 50 employees, there are currently
    more than 200 staff members using this limited space. As with many FBI
    units, HRT's responsibilities have increased enormously since the
    September 11th terrorist attacks. Over the past 3 years, the HRT has
    been deployed on 159 occasions, of which over 62 percent were related
    to counterterrorism. The HRT was also utilized in support of search and
    recovery efforts in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Much
    of HRT's work is sensitive in nature and must be conducted in a secure
    area.

                             INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

        We continue to upgrade and enhance our technological
    infrastructure. In our fiscal year 2007 budget, we are requesting $100
    million for Sentinel. Sentinel will leverage technology to reduce
    redundancy, eliminate inefficiencies, and maximize the FBI's ability to
    use the information in its possession. Our objectives for Sentinel
    include the following: (1) Deliver a set of capabilities that provide a
    single point of entry for investigative case management and
    intelligence analysis; (2) Implement a new and improved FBI-wide global
    index for persons, organizations, places, things and events; (3)
    Implement a paperless information management and work-flow capability;
    and (4) Implement an electronic records management system.
        I want to stress that the Sentinel program is not a reincarnation
    of the Virtual Case File. In the past few years we have struggled with
    our information technology programs. However, we have learned hard
    lessons from our missteps and we are doing things very differently this
    time. Each phase of the Sentinel contracting process is being closely
    scrutinized by a team of FBI technical experts, the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO), the Office of Management and Budget, and
    the Department of Justice's Chief Information Office and Inspector
    General. Furthermore, at this Committee's recommendation, we have also
    engaged outside experts to help us review and assess the implementation
    of Sentinel.
        On March 16, 2006, we announced the award of the contract for
    development of the Sentinel to Lockheed Martin. Under the terms of the
    $305 million, 6-year contract, Lockheed Martin and its industry
    partners will use proven commercial off-the-shelf technologies to
    produce an integrated system that supports processing, storage and
    management of the FBI's current paper-based records system. The program
    includes an incremental development and delivery of Sentinel
    capabilities including $73 million for operations and maintenance
    activities.
        Now that the contract has been awarded, we are moving forward with
    phase one of the development process. Each of the four phases will
    introduce new stand-alone capabilities and will be user-focused. As
    each phase is implemented, existing information will be transferred to
    new systems and old legacy systems will be retired. As a result,
    Sentinel will replace a number of legacy applications including:
    Automated Case Management System (ACS); ASSET; Criminal Informant
    Management System; Bank Robbery Statistical Application; and Financial
    Institution Fraud and Integrated Statistical Reporting Analysis
    Application (ISRAA).
        I will continue to update this committee on the progress of
    Sentinel and I expect and welcome your strong congressional oversight
    of this program.

                      NGI AND IAFIS/IDENT INTEROPERABILITY

        We are also requesting funding for major enhancements to our
    Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). IAFIS
    is the ten-rolled fingerprint identification system that was
    successfully deployed in 1999 and is used by Federal, State, and local
    law enforcement and authorized non-criminal justice agencies to
    identify subjects with criminal history information. While IAFIS was a
    state-of-the-art system at its inception, technology has since
    advanced, and we must update IAFIS in order to meet the needs of our
    customers.
        The FBI intends to meet these new requirements by implementing a
    Next Generation Identification system (NGI). We are currently
    conducting a comprehensive requirements study that will produce an
    Implementation/Strategy Plan, baseline Systems Requirement Document
    (SRD), Functional Requirements Document, and Requirement Traceability
    Matrix.
        Once we have completed the planning effort, we will design,
    develop, and implement modular builds with each module providing
    improved functionality, such as improved accuracy and speed. The FBI is
    requesting $38 million to support development of NGI.
        Along with improvements to IAFIS, the FBI is developing
    interoperability with the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
    Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). DHS's IDENT program
    is a two-flat fingerprint identification system. Various legislative
    acts have required the FBI and DHS to ensure that the systems are
    interoperable and that the criminal and immigration information that
    they contain is accessible to, and shared among, other Federal, State,
    and local law enforcement agencies. In 2002, the FBI began providing
    DHS with extracted, partial data from IAFIS. This is a temporary
    solution until full interoperability can be achieved.
        Interoperability efforts between IAFIS and IDENT are advancing. A
    multi-agency Interoperability Integrated Project Team (IPT) was
    established to address the problem. In June 2005, FBI Criminal Justice
    Information Services (CJIS), DHS United States Visitor and Immigrant
    Status Indicator Technology (US VISIT) and the Department of State
    signed a charter which established cooperative guiding principles for
    IPT. IPT is aggressively pursuing different interoperability models to
    find a solution to the problem. For fiscal year 2007, the FBI is
    requesting $33 million to purchase hardware, software, and contract
    services to support this interoperability initiative.

                                HUMAN RESOURCES

        During fiscal year 2005, this Committee provided the FBI with the
    legislative authority and resources to help us compete with other
    homeland security and Intelligence Community (IC) organizations who
    often recruited employees away from the FBI. The funding allowed us to
    provide recruitment bonuses for potential new hires, retention and
    relocation bonuses to existing employees with job offers from other
    government entities, and increased funding for our University Education
    Program and student loan repayments. Thanks to your support, the FBI
    used approximately $22 million for these purposes during fiscal year
    2005, including almost $5 million on recruitment initiatives, $1.6
    million on employee retention and relocation bonuses, and $14.9 million
    on degree programs and student loan repayments.
        The additional funding this Committee provided as an extension of
    these authorities is allowing the FBI to extend relocation bonuses to
    agents assigned to high cost of living offices. Each of these
    incentives is providing us with the leverage to retain a high-caliber
    workforce to better serve the Nation in our fight against terrorism.
        Additionally, this Committee provided for the establishment of our
    Sabbatical Program. Last year, the FBI sent participants to the St.
    Andrews Program for International Security Studies and to Harvard's
    John F. Kennedy School of Government. This year, we added several new
    partners to our Sabbatical Program and are able to provide
    opportunities for FBI employees to attend Mercyhurst College; the
    George C. Marshall Center; the National Defense University; the Naval
    Postgraduate School; the Marine Corps University; and the Naval War
    College. Students will benefit from receiving various certificates and
    degrees ranging from Applied Intelligence to National Resource
    Strategy.
        The FBI is developing programs designed to recruit, train, develop,
    and retain professionals who have the skills necessary for the success
    of its national security missions. Among these workforce programs are
    the Special Agent career path and the Intelligence Career Service.
    These programs are designed to enhance the national security workforce
    and to create training and development opportunities for agents,
    analysts, linguists, and surveillance specialists in the FBI's national
    security programs. Last year, the FBI trained 589 new agents and over
    1,000 Intelligence Career Service professionals.
        The FBI will expand current in-service and virtual intelligence
    training initiatives for FBI employees and our partners in other
    Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies. Efforts are underway to
    assess our training and to develop the capabilities we need as we go
    forward. Revisions to New Agents and Cohort training programs are also
    underway. We are requesting $5 million in fiscal year 2007 to provide
    advanced intelligence training curriculum development and $1 million to
    establish our Intelligence Officer certification program.

                       NATIONAL SECURITY BRANCH--CT/CI/DI

        Over the past 4 years, the FBI has developed its intelligence
    capabilities and improved its ability to protect America from threats
    to national security. We have built on our established capacity to
    collect information and enhanced our ability to analyze and disseminate
    intelligence. Implementation of the National Security Branch (NSB) is
    the next step in the FBI's transformation.
        On June 28, 2005, in response to the findings of the Commission on
    the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of
    Mass Destruction (WMD Commission), President Bush directed the FBI to
    create a ``National Security Service'' within the FBI. The FBI
    implemented this directive through the creation of a new entity--the
    National Security Branch (NSB)--that integrates the FBI's primary
    national security programs under the leadership of a single Executive
    Assistant Director, and through policies and initiatives designed to
    enhance the capability of the entire FBI to support its national
    security mission.
        The mission of the NSB is to optimally position the FBI to protect
    the United States against weapons of mass destruction (WMD), terrorist
    attacks, foreign intelligence operations, and espionage by integrating
    investigative and intelligence activities against current and emerging
    national security threats; providing useful and timely information and
    analysis to the intelligence and law enforcement communities; and
    effectively developing enabling capabilities, processes, and
    infrastructure, consistent with applicable laws, Attorney General and
    Director of National Intelligence guidance, and civil liberties.
        The FBI's NSB was established and is making significant progress in
    integrating the missions, capabilities, and resources of the
    Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Directorate of Intelligence
    (DI) programs. The NSB builds on the success of the DI and other
    initiatives already underway by helping to integrate the FBI's
    intelligence mission more fully into the FBI and into the IC, so that
    the IC can better understand FBI operations, while enhancing the FBI's
    ability to protect the Nation.
        The NSB essentially puts one face on the FBI's intelligence mission
    to stakeholders, including Congress, other IC agencies, and the general
    public. The FBI is currently working with the Department of Justice
    (DOJ) and the Administration to ensure that the NSB meets the
    directives set forth by the President and is responsive to the Office
    of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
        A major part of our counterterrorism work has been supporting the
    war on terror overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. The FBI's
    responsibility there is to protect U.S. interests and persons from
    terrorist attacks by conducting investigations and acquiring
    intelligence that would prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist
    operatives targeting America. The U.S. military and IC are partners
    with the FBI in this mission.
        As a result of our intelligence gathering overseas, IC reports
    indicate Al-Qa'ida has declared its intent to execute a WMD attack
    against the United States. A successful attack using a WMD device
    consisting of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear payload
    would have catastrophic consequences. Preventing the detonation of a
    WMD device through an effective, coordinated, and technically
    proficient response program is an FBI responsibility defined by
    Presidential Decision Directive-39. The FBI is requesting $25.8 million
    to provide resources to respond to terrorist threats and incidents such
    as WMD and other explosive devices.
        The DI oversees the Field Intelligence Groups (FIGs). FIGs are
    central to the integration of the intelligence cycle into field
    operations. The FIGs coordinate, manage, and execute all the functions
    of the intelligence cycle. FIGs include Special Agents and Intelligence
    Analysts as well as officers and analysts from other intelligence and
    law enforcement agencies. The establishment of FIGs in every field
    office during October 2003, and the issuance of initial guidance for
    their operations, laid the groundwork for enhancing the FBI's
    intelligence capability in the field. From January 2004 through January
    2006, Intelligence Analyst staffing increased on the FIGs 61 percent,
    from 617 to 995. Work will continue with the implementation of a plan
    to more fully integrate the intelligence cycle into FBI field
    operations through standardized processes, pilot implementation
    projects, specialized training, and refinement of roles and
    responsibilities. We have also assessed our field-wide intelligence
    collection capabilities to include human, technical, and physical
    collection posture. Our fiscal year 2007 budget request reflects our
    need for resources to close gaps identified in our Intelligence Program
    infrastructure.
        In addition to overseeing the national security operations of the
    CT, CD and DI, the NSB is also accountable for the functions carried
    out by the other FBI divisions that support the national security
    mission, such as language translation support and Field Intelligence
    Group program management.
        Today's FBI linguist cadre is 69 percent larger than it was on
    September 11th. The three languages with the largest growth are Somali,
    Pashto, and Turkish, each with an increase of over 400 percent. This
    growth was made possible by the resources provided by this Committee.
        Another way we are providing support to counterterrorism and
    counterintelligence investigations is through the West Virginia
    Translation and Analysis Center. The Center provides field offices with
    an alternative to processing their Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
    Act audio collections. Analysts at the Center listen for pertinent
    English conversation containing intelligence material and provide
    English summaries and occasional full transcripts.
        The National Virtual Translation Center (NVTC) is an excellent
    example of the continuous transformation efforts underway at the FBI:
    creative and aggressive recruiting; interagency resource sharing and
    collaboration; and streamlined methods for serving agencies across the
    United States government in support of the war on terrorism. The NVTC
    was established with Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) resources under
    the authority of the USA PATRIOT Act to provide accurate and timely
    translations of foreign intelligence material to the IC.
        During 2003, the CIA awarded the FBI executive agency authority
    over the NVTC. Together with the CIA, we have recruited translators
    from the military and colleges, and secured added assistance through
    civilian contract staff. We continue to benefit from the interagency
    sharing of translation resources, collaborative use of human and
    automated translation capabilities, and parity in translation workload
    across various IC elements.
        Additional fiscal year 2007 enhancements to the NSB include:
      --$15 million for Intelligence infrastructure requirements. This
            funding will provide essential infrastructure enhancements for
            the Intelligence Program including multi-media workstations,
            FALCON notebook computers for language analysts, electronic
            surveillance data management system development, expanded
            SIPRNET access, and IC XML application, Intelligence website
            support, and non-English web page postings.
      --$16 million for Intelligence Operations and Production. This
            funding will support initiatives that comprise the core
            intelligence processes that are aligned with the intelligence
            production cycle. This would provide 5 positions for human
            source validation, 52 positions for intelligence operations and
            production, FBIHQ operations and maintenance funding for the
            FBI's IIR Dissemination System [FIDS], a human source
            validation system, and physical surveillance support.

                                     CYBER

        The cyber threat confronting the United States is rapidly
    increasing as the number of people with the tools and abilities to use
    computers against us is rising. The country's vulnerability is
    escalating as the United States economy and critical infrastructures
    become increasingly reliant on interdependent computer networks and the
    World Wide Web. Large scale computer attacks on the Nation's critical
    infrastructure and economy could have devastating results. The Internet
    knows no boundaries. A perpetrator can sit at his computer anywhere in
    the world and gain unauthorized access to systems throughout the globe
    with complete anonymity. This puts law enforcement at a severe
    disadvantage and we must leverage all of our existing resources to
    bring cyber investigations to successful conclusions.
        We must continue to increase our capability to identify and
    neutralize enterprises and individuals who illegally access computer
    systems, spread malicious code, or support terrorist or state-sponsored
    computer intrusion operations. Since fiscal year 2001, the FBI has seen
    a 906 percent increase in International terrorism, Counterintelligence,
    and Domestic Terrorism computer intrusion cases. The FBI's Legal
    Attaches are working closely with our international law enforcement and
    intelligence partners to combat this rising threat.

                             LEGAL ATTACHE PROGRAM

        The FBI continues to expand its Legal Attache (Legats) program.
    International cases have become the rule, rather than the exception,
    for the Bureau. Legats are a key component of our extraterritorial law
    enforcement effort and often provide the first response to crimes
    against the United States that have an international nexus. Legats also
    provide a prompt and continuous exchange of information with foreign
    law enforcement. But Legats are no longer just information conduits.
    Rather, these offices assist our counterparts overseas on joint
    investigations, intelligence-sharing, and the development of new
    methods to prevent terrorist attacks. Currently, we have 53 fully
    operational Legal Attaches offices, and 13 fully operational sub-
    offices covering over 200 countries throughout the world.
        This year we plan to open six more offices, located in Afghanistan,
    Qatar, Sudan, South Africa, Algeria, and El Salvador, and convert two
    sub-offices, Port-of-Spain and Jakarta, to fully operational Legats.
    The San Salvador Legat office is being opened with the support and
    resources provided by this Committee for the intended purpose of
    working with El Salvador's law enforcement to target the MS-13 gang's
    leadership in one of its Central America strongholds.

                               CRIMINAL PROGRAMS

        Although much of my testimony has been geared toward a discussion
    of the FBI's national security efforts, we continue to take great pride
    in our criminal programs. As with all of our investigative efforts,
    these criminal programs are in concert with the Attorney General's
    priorities, as announced earlier this spring. Specifically, as I
    mentioned earlier, we are aggressively pursuing any Katrina-related
    criminal fraud. The Attorney General has asked the United States
    Attorneys' Offices to adopt a ``zero tolerance'' policy toward all
    cases involving hurricane relief related fraud. To date, over 150
    investigations have been initiated and over 100 individuals have been
    indicted on corruption and fraud related charges.
        Public corruption is the top criminal priority for the FBI. The
    FBI's highly sensitive public corruption investigations focus on all
    levels of government. The heightened focus has helped increase both the
    number and quality of the cases being investigated. Over the last 2
    years, FBI investigations have led to the conviction of more than 1,060
    government employees involved in corrupt activities, to include 177
    federal officials, 158 state officials, 360 local officials, and more
    than 365 police officers.
        We also continue our work refining and implementing the National
    Gang Strategy (NGS). Developed in 1993, the goal of the NGS is to
    identify the prolific and violent gangs in the United States and to
    aggressively investigate, disrupt, and dismantle their criminal
    enterprises through prosecution under the federal racketeering statutes
    and other appropriate laws.
        I know the escalation of gang violence is an area of particular
    concern to this Committee and the FBI appreciates the efforts and
    resources you have provided to law enforcement to attack this growing
    problem. With your help, in 2005, the National Gang Intelligence Center
    (NGIC) was formed to allow State, local and Federal agencies to share
    gang data across jurisdictions and identify trends related to violent
    gang activity and migration.
        This multi-agency center functions from the Washington D.C. area
    and has coordinated information sharing with other investigative and
    intelligence operations of local, State, and Federal criminal justice
    agencies, and has become a national center for case coordination and
    information. The gang information provided by Federal, State and local
    agencies is one of the most vital aspects of this center for the
    successful integration and sharing of data.
        Another area of concern for the FBI's Criminal Investigative
    Division is the escalating level of violence in the Southwest border
    region. The recurring violence on the Southwest border revolves around
    the Gulf Cartel drug trafficking organization, which has traditionally
    dominated the region and commanded smuggling operations along this
    stretch of the border.
        The FBI is taking proactive measures to assess and confront this
    threat to public safety on both sides of the border through
    participation in multiple bi-lateral multi-agency meetings, working
    groups, and enforcement operations. The FBI, along with DHS, the Drug
    Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Department of State, are
    working with the Mexican Attorney General's Office to identify Gulf
    Cartel members and is using all available techniques to disrupt and
    dismantle this dangerous organization and reduce the violence in the
    Southwest border region.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and Members of the subcommittee,
    today's FBI is part of a vast national and international campaign
    dedicated to defeating terrorism. Working hand-in-hand with our
    partners in law enforcement, intelligence, the military and diplomatic
    circles, the FBI's primary responsibility is to neutralize terrorist
    cells and operatives here in the United States and help dismantle
    terrorist networks worldwide. Although protecting the United States
    from terrorist attacks is our first priority, we remain committed to
    the defense of America against foreign intelligence threats as well as
    enforcing federal criminal laws while still respecting and defending
    the Constitution.
        This year will mark the 5-year anniversary of September 11. The FBI
    has changed dramatically since the terrorist attacks and we will
    continue to evolve to meet the emerging threats to our country. We have
    expanded our mission, radically overhauled our intelligence programs
    and capabilities, and have undergone tremendous personnel growth. With
    the fiscal year 2007 budget request, in order to capitalize on these
    changes and our past investments in personnel, we intend to bridge the
    gap between our growth and infrastructure by focusing on updating our
    technology and facilities.
        Once again, I thank you for your continued support of the FBI. I am
    happy to answer any questions you may have.

                        Drug Enforcement Administration

    STATEMENT OF KAREN TANDY, ADMINISTRATOR
        Senator Shelby. Administrator Tandy.
        Ms. Tandy. Good afternoon, Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member
    Mikulski, and members of the subcommittee. It is my pleasure to
    appear before you this afternoon to present and discuss the
    President's 2007 budget request for the Drug Enforcement
    Administration (DEA).
        I want to thank this subcommittee for its support and
    guidance to DEA, also for your passage of the supplemental
    yesterday affecting DEA as well. Our enforcement efforts have
    been successful, and they have contributed to the 19 percent
    overall reduction in drug use over the past 5 years. As
    Congress appreciates and certainly this subcommittee, the
    devastation of drugs knows no bounds and takes an enormous toll
    on both human lives and our country's economy. It takes victims
    as young as the 10-month-old baby who died in January from
    ingesting a massive amount of his parents' heroin to 90-year-
    old nursing home patients who are hospitalized from exposure to
    methamphetamine that was being cooked in their nursing home.

                                METHAMPHETAMINE

        Meth labs have now been found in every State in this
    country. Last year, about 35 percent of the meth consumed in
    America was homemade. Thanks to congressional leadership and
    new State laws, the number of small toxic labs in America has
    decreased, but meth use still remains high.
        Today, about 20 percent of meth consumed in America is made
    here. The balance is manufactured and distributed by Mexican
    trafficking organizations operating in the United States and
    Mexico. DEA and the government of Mexico have joined together
    to combat that threat by redirecting our resources to
    specifically target Mexican meth manufacturing and trafficking
    both here and in Mexico.

                               GLOBAL DRUG TRADE

        The global drug trade is a continuing and serious national
    security threat to Americans at home and to our interests
    abroad. Colombia produces about 90 percent of the cocaine that
    is smuggled into the United States. DEA is attacking that trade
    at its source and transit zones. Just 2 weeks ago, we charged
    50 leaders of the FARC, a State Department-designated foreign
    terrorist organization. We charged those 50 leaders with
    supplying more than 60 percent of the cocaine in the United
    States that is valued at $25 billion.
        Through our DEA operations in Afghanistan, DEA seeks to
    prevent that country from returning as a major U.S. supplier of
    heroin, as it was in the 1970s and 1980s and to help stabilize
    the Afghanistan government. Last year, DEA-led investigations
    resulted in the first ever extradition from Afghanistan to the
    United States.

                         DRUG FLOW PREVENTION STRATEGY

        DEA's drug flow prevention strategy, which targets
    transportation choke points, focuses on disrupting the flow of
    drugs, money, and chemicals between the source and transit
    countries and America. We are requesting a budget enhancement
    to fund this strategy, which already has resulted in record
    seizures and disrupted trafficking in the western hemisphere,
    actually forcing them to suspend drug operations, change their
    modes of drug transport, and even jettison loads of drugs.
        With this request, we can expand our foreign-deployed
    advisory support teams, the FAST teams that are in Afghanistan,
    to include one of those FAST teams in the western hemisphere
    and solidify as well the base for funding of our five existing
    FAST teams that are operating in Afghanistan.
        DEA's drug flow prevention strategy, as I mentioned,
    included a 65-day interagency operation late last year that
    targeted the transit zones both in the eastern Pacific and in
    the Caribbean, and it was during that 65-day operation that 46
    metric tons of cocaine were seized under our strategy. It
    included among those seizures the largest eastern Pacific
    seizure in the history of the Joint Interagency Task Force-
    South for that period. A temporary reduction in the ability of
    cocaine in the United States also appears to have resulted from
    this operation under this strategy.
        DEA continues our assault on drug traffickers' illegal
    proceeds as well, and last year, I am very pleased to say that
    we stripped domestic and foreign drug traffickers of a record
    breaking $1.9 billion in drug proceeds and in the denial of
    drug revenue. This exceeds internal goals in DEA, aggressive
    goals that were set for 2005, where we had a goal of $1 billion
    to be seized in 2005; it exceeded our goal by 90 percent and
    got us one step closer to the point where the risk of seizure
    will begin to outweigh the financial gains for drug
    traffickers.

               DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION INTELLIGENCE ROLE

        The second, the other budget enhancement, supports DEA's
    recent reentry to the intelligence community in order to
    provide DEA with the infrastructure required to function in the
    community and to increase our contribution to national security
    while at the same time protecting the primacy of the agency's
    law enforcement functions.
        Nearly half of all State Department foreign terrorist
    organizations have ties to the drug trade. DEA is poised to
    make valuable and lasting contributions in the intelligence
    arena, and the President's 2006 supplemental request that you
    passed last night included $5 million to enable DEA to
    jumpstart that initiative this year, while the 2007 budget
    requests for funding remain so that we can continue this
    initiative through 2007.
        The men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration
    thank you for your support as we continue to score major
    victories and protect America against drugs. Thank you, and I
    look forward to your questions.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Karen P. Tandy

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: Good afternoon, and
    thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the President's
    Fiscal Year 2007 Budget request for the Drug Enforcement Administration
    (DEA). I appreciate your strong and continued support for the important
    work of DEA--reducing the availability of illicit drugs in the United
    States. Every single day, DEA's brave men and women combat the world's
    drug trafficking organizations. We wage the battle on every front. It
    begins with the cultivation or manufacturing of drugs, complete with
    the movement of chemicals, carries on through the transit zones and
    final distribution in our Nation's communities, and concludes with the
    laundering of the distribution proceeds. Furthermore, the battle
    extends well beyond our borders into foreign lands and into cyberspace.
    To this end, DEA continues to be an active partner in the war against
    global terrorism and protecting the homeland.
        While we have made great strides over the years and continue to
    adapt to the increasingly complex challenges that face modern-day law
    enforcement, much work remains to be done. The resources that Congress
    provides are critical to our success and all of us at DEA are grateful
    for the chairman's and the subcommittee members' leadership.
        In my statement, I will summarize some of our important successes
    of 2005, summarize the President's request for DEA, and discuss some of
    the challenges that lie ahead. An attachment for the hearing record
    that provides additional mission-related data also is included.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Through continuous strategic thinking and planning, DEA is able to
    meet the ever-changing demands of contemporary drug enforcement. Ours
    is an organization that has had to be agile and resourceful in order to
    combat those whose criminal methods become more and more refined and
    complicated. Our successes in fiscal year 2005 are in those areas that
    are the agency's foremost priorities:
        Financial and Money Laundering Operations.--DEA focuses on the
    dismantlement of the financial infrastructures of drug trafficking
    organizations, and the payoff has more than met expectations. In fiscal
    year 2005, DEA stripped domestic and foreign drug traffickers of nearly
    $1.9 billion in drug proceeds and revenue denied, which included $1.4
    billion in asset seizures and $477 million in drug seizures. This, Mr.
    Chairman, exceeds DEA's fiscal year 2005 $1 billion goal for asset and
    drug seizures by 90 percent. Furthermore, DEA's seizures nearly match
    DEA's fiscal year 2006 enacted appropriation for our Salaries and
    Expenses Account. We have developed a 5-year plan with an ultimate goal
    of taking $3 billion away from all drug trafficking organizations by
    fiscal year 2009, and we are committed to meeting our goal. In fiscal
    year 2006, DEA will transform its current temporary staffing in Dubai,
    United Arab Emirates, into a permanent presence, with a commitment of
    four positions (including two agents). These positions will serve as a
    liaison for all drug enforcement matters, including financial
    investigations. We also are in the process of standing up a financial
    investigations team that will be staffed in Bogota and Cartagena,
    Colombia, and we anticipate establishing a money laundering group in
    Mexico City. It is our goal by adding offices in these regions, that we
    will be able to bolster our efforts to take potentially billions in
    drug profits away from trafficking organizations, and inflict enough
    damage to leave them unable to reconstitute their operations.
        Since the launch of our ``Money Trail Initiative'' in July 2005,
    more than $36.2 million in proceeds that traffickers attempted to
    smuggle from the United States have been seized. An investigation
    during fiscal year 2005 by a DEA-led multi-jurisdictional Organized
    Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) of a Colombian-based money
    laundering operation resulted in 81 arrests and the seizure of $7.8
    million. During fiscal year 2005, DEA continued to be a key leader in
    the multi-jurisdictional law enforcement effort that targeted the 45
    ``Most Wanted'' drug trafficking and money laundering organizations,
    commonly referred to as CPOTs (Consolidated Priority Organization
    Target). As a result of this critical supply reduction strategy, 6
    CPOTs have been dismantled and removed from the list of 45, and the
    operations of another 6 were significantly disrupted. In addition, in
    fiscal year 2005, 121 CPOT-linked drug trafficking organizations were
    dismantled and 204 CPOT-linked organizations were severely disrupted.
        Fighting Methamphetamine.--DEA has redoubled its efforts to fight
    methamphetamine and continues to turn the tide against the use,
    trafficking, and manufacture of the drug. DEA takes a comprehensive
    approach to combating a problem that poses a unique and deadly threat
    to communities across America--enforcement, domestic and international
    precursor chemical control, and the identification and cleanup of the
    large number of small toxic laboratories. As trafficking patterns have
    changed, so has DEA. We have shifted our focus from the super labs in
    the United States, to the small toxic labs that spring up as a result.
    This is in addition to targeting precursor chemical control and
    increasing our focus on the Mexican organizations that conduct the vast
    majority of the methamphetamine trade. In fiscal year 2005, DEA spent
    an estimated $176 million to combat methamphetamine, including $18.8
    million to administer 8,897 clandestine laboratory cleanups.
        In August 2005, DEA wrapped up ``Operation Wildfire''--a nationally
    coordinated law enforcement initiative that was designed to target all
    levels of the methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution chain in
    the country. Two hundred cities took part in the operation and the
    results were unprecedented--427 arrests and the seizure of 95 kilograms
    of methamphetamine, 201,035 tablets of pseudoephedrine, 153 kilograms
    of pseudoephedrine powder, and 224,860 tablets of ephedrine. In
    addition, 56 clandestine laboratories were seized and 30 children were
    rescued. A second operation in August, ``Operation Three Hour Tour'',
    resulted in 170 arrests and the dismantlement of three major drug
    transportation rings with international ties, as well as 27 United
    States distribution groups. We estimate that these groups were capable
    of transporting enough methamphetamine into the United States to
    provide product for over 22,700 methamphetamine users every month.
    1,634 kilograms of cocaine, 159 pounds of methamphetamine, 9 ounces of
    crack, 7 kilograms of heroin, 216 pounds of marijuana, and 22,000
    dosage units of MDMA were seized in the operation.
        In addition to these large scale operations, DEA's Mobile
    Enforcement Teams (METs) continued their methamphetamine focus. Since
    1995, METs have significantly increased the number of methamphetamine
    deployments. At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, 66
    percent of MET deployments initiated targeted methamphetamine
    trafficking organizations. This compares to 21.8 percent in fiscal year
    2003, 27 percent in fiscal year 2004, and 41 percent in fiscal year
    2005.
        DEA also has continued its work with our global partners including
    Canada, Hong Kong, and Mexico to target international methamphetamine
    traffickers and to increase chemical control efforts abroad. For
    example, the United States and Mexico have obtained a commitment from
    Hong Kong not to ship chemicals to the United States, Mexico, or Panama
    until Hong Kong authorities have received an import permit or
    equivalent documentation. Hong Kong officials also agreed to provide
    advance notice to a receiving country before a shipment is made. On the
    training side, in fiscal year 2005, DEA trained 105 Mexican officials
    in the areas of chemical control and clandestine laboratory cleanup. In
    partnership with Mexican law enforcement, DEA targets Mexican
    methamphetamine manufacturers, distributors and sources of supply based
    in the western United States and Mexico. One operation that culminated
    in March 2006, included the seizure of nearly 200 pounds of
    methamphetamine.
        Internet Drug Trafficking.--In fiscal year 2005, DEA initiated 100
    new internet investigations involving the online sales of
    pharmaceutical controlled substances. Over the course of fiscal year
    2005, DEA arrested 62 individuals and seized $44 million in cash,
    property, computers, and bank accounts from individuals who had been
    selling prescription drugs via the Internet. As a result of one
    internet drug trafficking investigation, Operation Cyberchase, DEA
    identified approximately 200 web sites that illegally sold prescription
    drugs and arrested 25 individuals who had been operating in the United
    States, India, Asia, Europe, and the Caribbean. DEA also led a 21-month
    OCDETF investigation that concluded with criminal charges against the
    principal Mexican steroid manufacturers, whose U.S. sales totaled an
    estimated $56 million annually. DEA has arrested nine individuals, one
    of whom was the owner of three of the world's largest anabolic steroid
    manufacturing operations. Eighty percent of the steroids seized in the
    United States last year originated from Mexican manufacturers.
        War on Terror.--DEA is well-placed to identify those threats posed
    by international terrorism funded by drug proceeds. The case of Afghani
    Bashir Noorzai, who was arrested in the United States in April 2005,
    illustrates the link that exists between drug trafficking and terrorist
    organizations. Noorzai was the leader of the largest Central and
    Southwest Asia-based heroin drug trafficking organization known to DEA.
    Noorzai is charged with providing explosives, weaponry, and personnel
    to the Taliban in exchange for protection for his organization's opium
    poppy crops, heroin laboratories, drug transportation routes, and
    members and associates. Noorzai was also a close associate of a member
    of the Taliban leadership. During fiscal year 2005, DEA operations also
    included the deployment of 5 Foreign-deployed Advisory and Support
    Teams (FAST) to Afghanistan and the disruption of 8 and dismantlement
    of 2 terrorist-linked Priority Target Organizations (PTO).
        Currently, Afghanistan is not a major heroin supplier to the United
    States; only about 8 percent of the United States supply comes from
    that country. However, DEA operations in Afghanistan serve a dual
    purpose--preventing the country from returning as a major supplier of
    heroin to the United States, as it was in the 1970s and 1980's, and
    helping stabilize the Afghanistan government as it battles the powerful
    drug warlords for control of portions of the country.
        Mr. Chairman, I also am very proud to report that the FASTs have
    played a pivotal role in protecting the lives of both our U.S. military
    and our coalition partners in Afghanistan. The teams have identified
    narcotics traffickers involved in targeting U.S. forces with improvised
    explosive devices (IEDs) and have provided critical information
    obtained from DEA Human Intelligence (HUMINT) sources to U.S. Special
    Forces Teams. In fact, on several occasions after DEA shared its source
    information, the Special Forces have successfully intervened and seized
    IEDs, other bomb making materials, and weapons caches.
        Assisting Local Law Enforcement.--This year, we had an additional
    mission in our longstanding support of state and locals--rescue and
    cleanup in the Gulf Region following Katrina. Our office in New Orleans
    sustained some damage and our Gulfport office was uninhabitable. Our
    operational assets had to be temporarily moved to Baton Rouge. With the
    funding DEA was provided in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental
    appropriation, repairs have been made and we have been able to return
    to our New Orleans office. Currently, we are operating in temporary
    space in Gulfport until repairs can be made for safe occupancy at our
    permanent location. In the aftermath of the storm, 251 DEA personnel,
    including Special Agents, Special Agent pilots, Intelligence Analysts,
    and other technical and logistical staff were deployed to provide law
    enforcement and rescue/humanitarian assistance to 13 law enforcement
    agencies in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. We established and
    manned mobile command posts and communications systems, and assisted
    with the rescue of 3,340 stranded victims using DEA helicopters, which
    included 70 senior citizens from a nursing home that had been flooded.
    DEA also assisted with patrol assignments, transported medicine to law
    enforcement personnel to combat hepatitis, and worked with Texas and
    Arkansas pharmacy boards on emergency refill procedures to serve
    Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama residents. I am very proud of the
    many members of the DEA community who gave so selflessly at a time of a
    national tragedy. You may be sure that we will continue to support the
    recovery efforts in the stricken areas in any way we can.
        In addition to Katrina assistance, DEA remained dedicated to our
    critical state and local partners. For example, in fiscal year 2005,
    DEA led 217 State and Local Task Forces, with an on board strength of
    2,096 Task Force Officers and 1,253 DEA Special Agents. We also have
    provided drug enforcement training to 41,000 state and local police
    officers in fiscal year 2005. DEA's Jetway Program, which instructs
    state and local law enforcement officers how to address interdiction
    issues in airports, bus and train stations, and hotel/motel
    environments, conducted nine schools in cities across the country
    during fiscal year 2005. Our Pipeline/Convoy Program, which teaches
    highway patrol officers how to address commercial and passenger vehicle
    interdiction issues, conducted 16 seminars in fiscal year 2005. These
    two important programs trained a total of more than 3,000 officers. DEA
    has trained drug unit commanders, DEA and other federal, state and
    local law enforcement intelligence analysts, and international
    narcotics leaders. Furthermore, we trained 1,100 police officers in the
    enforcement areas of clandestine labs and diversion.
        Outreach and Public Awareness.--9,000 people have received victim,
    witness, and drug-endangered awareness training in fiscal year 2005. We
    also launched a public website (justthinktwice.com) in fiscal year
    2005, designed for young people that provides information on topics
    such as methamphetamine, prescription drugs, drugged driving,
    marijuana, and drug legalization. Since the launch of the site, there
    have been an average of 200,000 hits per month, and many Governors have
    written to the Attorney General to express how useful they have found
    the website to be and have pledged to publicize the website widely in
    their states.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST

        For fiscal year 2007, the President's Budget requests $1.9 billion
    for DEA ($1.7 billion under the Salary and Expenses Account and $212
    million under the Diversion Control Fee Account). A total of 9,310
    positions, of which 4,066 are Special Agent positions, will be funded.
    This request represents an increase of $72 million over fiscal year
    2006. I would like to call attention to a few highlights of the
    President's request.
    Salaries and Expenses Account
        The request includes a $24.8 million investment to fund two
    initiatives:
        Drug Flow Prevention Initiative ($12.8 million and 10 positions)
    involves multiple agencies in multiple countries targeting major drug
    trafficking organizations (CPOTS). This initiative is designed to
    disrupt the flow of drugs, money, and chemicals between the source
    zones and the United States. The strategy DEA employs is to attack the
    organizations' vulnerabilities in their supply, transportation systems,
    and financial infrastructures. The program supports the Department of
    Justice's Strategic Goal of preventing terrorism and promoting the
    nation's security and enforcing federal laws and representing the
    rights and interests of the American people.
        As part of this program, $7.5 million is requested for our very
    valuable FAST operations. With this request, DEA has the necessary
    resources, coupled with Department of Defense funds, to permanently
    support the five FAST teams now operating in Afghanistan. In addition,
    one new team will be created whose initial focus will be on Western
    Hemisphere operations. Under the Drug Flow Prevention program, 10
    positions and $5.3 million also are requested to expand a successful
    multi-agency cocaine interdiction program known as ``Operation Panama
    Express.'' Since its inception in February 2000, Operation Panama
    Express has seized 356 metric tons of cocaine, which averages almost
    4\1/2\ tons per month for the past 6 years. The Country Offices in
    Venezuela, Guatemala, Honduras, and Ecuador and the Caribbean Field
    Division would receive additional Special Agent positions. Resources
    will be used to recruit additional HUMINT sources to provide
    information to DEA regarding drug smuggling operations involving the
    transit of drugs through Central America, and the Caribbean and Eastern
    Pacific zones. The information from these sources will provide an early
    warning against narcotics and terrorist threats, which will ensure that
    our southwest border strategy has a defense-in-depth capability.
        I would add, Mr. Chairman, that this initiative follows a
    successful DEA 2005 international Drug Flow Prevention initiative
    (``Operation All Inclusive I-2005'') that targeted the Eastern Pacific
    and Western Caribbean transit zones of Central America and the Central
    America land mass. By concentrating law enforcement efforts in this
    corridor, multi-ton bulk drug shipments were interdicted before
    reaching Mexico. All Inclusive's success with respect to seizures was
    unprecedented. Over 46 metric tons of cocaine was seized in transit
    zones during the 65-day operation, and included the largest EASTPAC
    seizures for the month of August in JIATF South's history, 21.3 metric
    tons. At the same time, DEA's domestic seizures decreased by 29 percent
    compared to the 65-day period prior to the operation. DEA's domestic
    cocaine seizures for the three-month period following the operation
    decreased by 27 percent compared to the three-month period preceding
    the operation, and by 36 percent compared to the same three-month
    period in 2004. Although other explanations are possible, preliminary
    analysis suggests that All Inclusive may have resulted in a temporary
    reduction in the availability of cocaine in the United States. Other
    All Inclusive seizures included: the largest ever cocaine seizure in
    Belize--2,376 kilograms; the largest ever currency seizure in
    Nicaragua--$1.2 million; 3.9 metric tons of cocaine and $5.7 million in
    currency seized in Panama; 21 metric tons of marijuana seized in
    Mexico. Furthermore, as a result of All Inclusive, we found that
    traffickers were forced to delay or suspend their drug operations,
    divert their routes, change their modes of transportation, and even
    jettison loads.
        Intelligence and National Security ($11.9 million and 57
    positions--including one Special Agent and 42 Intelligence Analysts).
    In February of this year, Director of National Intelligence John
    Negroponte and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed a joint
    memorandum designating an element of DEA's Intelligence Division to be
    a member of the Intelligence Community (IC). IC membership will allow
    DEA to expand and strengthen its existing relationships with our
    nation's intelligence agencies. With 86 offices in 62 countries--the
    largest law enforcement presence abroad--DEA is poised to make valuable
    and lasting contributions in the intelligence arena. In DEA,
    intelligence drives enforcement strategies and operations. This
    approach has yielded impressive results: since the terrorist attacks of
    September 11, 2001, DEA's Special Operations Division has produced
    26,499 counterterrorism products for United States law enforcement
    agencies with counterterrorism missions; during fiscal year 2005, the
    El Paso Intelligence Center responded to more than 260,000
    counterterrorism inquiries from federal, state, and local law
    enforcement agencies, of which 12 percent were directly related to
    counterterrorism. Moreover, as of December 31, 2005, DEA has identified
    48 percent (21 of 44) of the organizations on the Department of State's
    Foreign Terrorist Organizations list as having possible ties to the
    drug trade.
        This request will fund DEA's entry into the IC. $4 million and 20
    positions (including one Special Agent and 9 Intelligence Analysts)
    will create a National Security Intelligence Section (NN) within DEA's
    Intelligence Division. Through DEA's newly designated element, DEA will
    pass to the IC any counterterrorism or national security information it
    obtains during the course of its Title 21 drug enforcement mission. The
    NN objective will be to maximize DEA's contribution to national
    security, while protecting the primacy of the agency's law enforcement
    functions. $7 million and 37 positions (including 33 Intelligence
    Analysts) will fund the development of a Central Tasking Management
    System (CTMS)\1\ at DEA. The CTMS will track the acquisition of law
    enforcement investigative information and the dissemination of this
    information to other law enforcement and IC elements; establish
    policies and procedures for information acquisition and dissemination;
    produce acquisition plans, and establish an interface with acquisition
    management elements in the law enforcement community. Finally, $1
    million will establish base funding to continue the Reports Officer
    Program, which began as a pilot project in June 2004. The Reports
    Officers have proven beneficial in extracting and passing in a timely
    manner, DEA law enforcement information that is relevant to IC
    requirements. Specifically, the Reports Officers review DEA law
    enforcement intelligence reporting and develop reports based on that
    information which responds to IC taskings.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The CTMS is formally the Collection Requirement Management
    System (CRMS) as discussed in the fiscal year 2007 President's Budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Program Offsets
        In order to fund the Drug Flow Prevention and Intelligence and
    National Security initiatives, the President's Budget includes the
    following three offsets:
        Regional Enforcement Teams (RET).--DEA proposes to eliminate the
    RET program, for a reduction of $9 million and 34 positions (23 Special
    Agents). DEA's remaining resources would continue to target the drug
    trafficking organizations having the most significant impact on the
    United States. RET was seen as a program that did not tie as closely to
    DEA's core focus on international drug trafficking organizations.
        Demand Reduction Program.--DEA proposes to eliminate all positions
    dedicated to this program for a reduction of 40 positions (including 31
    Special Agents) and $9.2 million. This proposal would allow DEA to
    focus on its core mission of drug law enforcement. When possible,
    however, Special Agents would participate in demand reduction
    activities on a collateral duty basis.
        Mobile Enforcement Teams (MET).--DEA proposes to reduce by 151
    (including 132 Special Agents) the number of positions dedicated to the
    MET program, for a reduction of $30.2 million. The remaining $20.5
    million and 83 positions (including 80 Special Agents) would continue
    to support the MET program, with priority focus on methamphetamine
    investigations. In addition to MET deployments targeting
    methamphetamine organizations, in the areas of the county where the
    number of clandestine labs has declined but methamphetamine use still
    remains high, I have directed DEA's Clandestine Laboratory Enforcement
    Teams (CLET) to begin investigating United States domestic networks
    that are distributing Mexican produced methamphetamine. At the same
    time, CLETs will continue their investigations of synthetic drug labs
    and will continue to assist state and local law enforcement agencies
    with laboratory, precursor, and distribution investigations. Finally,
    DEA would continue to administer funds from the Community Oriented
    Policing Services (COPS) program for clandestine laboratory cleanups.
    Diversion and Control Fee Account (DCFA)
        As I stated earlier, the President's request includes $212 million
    under the DCFA, a $10.4 million increase over fiscal year 2006. Of the
    total requested amount, DEA proposes funding of $3.4 million for DCFA
    program improvements. This funding would allow DEA to boost
    intelligence support (33 Intelligence Analysts) needed for diversion
    investigations. This request is a continuation of the fiscal year 2006
    Diversion Intelligence Initiative, whose goal is to place one
    Intelligence Analyst in every Field Division Diversion group.
    Base Transfer
        Since 2002, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has annually
    reimbursed DEA approximately $6 million to DEA for providing
    counterterrorism related information to multiple federal agencies. The
    President's Budget proposes that these resources (which fund 45
    positions, including 11 Special Agents) would be permanently
    transferred from the FBI to DEA.

                              OPPORTUNITIES AHEAD

        Mr. Chairman, DEA continues to make steady progress in all facets
    of its mission and has seen some encouraging trends, particularly as it
    relates to drug use among our nation's children. In fact, the Office of
    National Drug Control Policy reports that since 2001, teen drug use is
    down by 19 percent and on track to decline by a total of 25 percent by
    2007 to meet the President's drug use reduction goals. We are a key
    partner in the effort through the DEA mission to reduce the drug supply
    in America. Drug prevention will not take hold and treatment will not
    succeed if Americans are surrounded by cheap and plentiful drugs. DEA
    implements the President's National Drug Control Strategy by disrupting
    the supply of illegal or diverted drugs, through national and
    international attacks to dismantle the entire infrastructure of the
    most significant drug trafficking and money laundering organizations
    that supply our nation's illicit drug market.
        As you know, the devastation of drugs knows no bounds and takes an
    enormous toll on both human lives and our country's economy. Moreover,
    we are seeing that the global drug trade continues to be an evolving
    national security threat to Americans at home and to our interests
    abroad. To address these disturbing facts, DEA takes a proactive and
    aggressive approach. In addition to the fiscal year 2007 initiatives I
    have outlined, we will use our existing resources to focus on the
    following areas during fiscal year 2006:
        Establishing a Methamphetamine Task Force.--The fiscal year 2006
    Department of Justice Appropriations Act directs the Attorney General
    to establish a Methamphetamine Task Force (MTF) within DEA. The purpose
    of the Task Force will be to improve and target the federal
    government's policies related to the production and trafficking of
    methamphetamine. The MTF is comprised of three DEA Special Agents, two
    Diversion Investigators, one Program Analyst, and attorneys from DEA's
    Office of Chief Counsel, and the Justice Department's Office of Legal
    Policy and the Criminal Division's Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
    Section. These are veteran personnel with extensive experience and
    knowledge in the field, who will acquire and analyze investigative and
    intelligence information from numerous sources. Their analysis will
    focus on trends in: chemical trafficking and manufacturing methods;
    clandestine laboratory cleanup issues; changes in trafficking routes
    and patterns; regional abuse and distribution patterns; chemical and
    equipment sources and methods of procurement; foreign and domestic
    precursor sources, and smuggling and methods of financing. The MTF will
    propose recommendations for addressing issues identified from the
    analysis, and forward them to the National Synthetic Drugs Interagency
    Working Group for review and action.
        Implementing the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005.--As
    you know, President Bush recently signed the USA PATRIOT Improvement
    and Reauthorization Act of 2005, which includes the provisions of the
    Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. These provisions provide law
    enforcement with the necessary tools to address the spread of
    methamphetamine manufacture and abuse across the country and the
    devastating effects that this drug is having on society. With these
    much needed chemical control measures, clandestine laboratory operators
    will have more difficulty in obtaining large quantities of
    pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products at retail outlets for use in
    methamphetamine manufacture. The Act also closes a loophole that
    allowed importers to sell pseudoephedrine to companies that were not
    identified on the original import notice, and enhance criminal
    penalties for methamphetamine traffickers. These measures are part of a
    comprehensive national approach toward controlling this growing problem
    and protecting our nation's children.
        Increasing Internet investigations and halting the diversion and
    abuse of legal controlled substance pharmaceuticals.--The Internet has
    increased the opportunities for diversion and is the means by which
    many abusers are now purchasing Schedule III and Schedule IV drugs.
    DEA's plan to target and dismantle online pharmacies, builds on the
    successes of our online pharmacy strategy, which combines enforcement,
    regulatory, and technological efforts to detect and prevent diversion.
    The strategy calls for DEA to coordinate its Internet investigations
    with Federal, State, and local agencies, and provide training for
    investigators, prosecutors, the pharmaceutical industry, and DEA
    registrants. We have supported legislative and regulatory initiatives
    aimed at curtailing and preventing online diversion of controlled
    substances. Finally, DEA has taken a leadership role in the development
    and use of new technologies as investigative tools.
        Improving the measures of effectiveness for DEA programs and
    operations.--DEA is developing a management information tool, the Drug
    Enforcement Strategic Target Analysis Review (DrugSTAR), to establish
    links between a Priority Target's disruption or dismantlement and its
    impact on drug availability. It will be a key component of the agency's
    overall strategic management system. Using DrugSTAR, DEA will be able
    to identify our challenges and best practices, focus on performance and
    accountability, and demonstrate results in compliance with the Office
    of Management and Budget's management requirements.
        Under DrugStar, DEA also has been piloting the Significant
    Investigation Impact Measurement System (SIIMS), which collects and
    analyzes enforcement, public health, and social service statistics both
    before an organization is taken down and for the 6 months that follow.
    This analysis will determine whether DEA targeting and enforcement
    operations had real impact and, if not, enable DEA to redirect
    resources and revise operations to achieve great impact. The SIIMS
    system has generated assessments of three takedown operations in 2005.
    For example, a SIIMS assessment of a successful New Orleans operation
    involving pain clinics and pharmacies revealed that the operation had
    significant impact on the availability of diverted drugs in that area,
    lasting for months after the enforcement operation. Specifically, SIIMS
    analysis revealed that, among other things, there were no seizures by
    DEA New Orleans of three illegally prescribed medications in the two
    months following the operation. This type of information can be useful
    when evaluating DEA's performance in reducing drug availability and for
    reporting purposes for the Attorney General, Congress, and the Office
    of National Drug Control Policy.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to
    answer any questions.
                                     ______

                                   Attachment

                       DRUG THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES

    Methamphetamine
        Methamphetamine is the most widely abused and most frequently
    clandestinely produced synthetic drug \1\ in the United States.
    Methamphetamine appeals to people across all genders, ages, and socio-
    economic levels. Methamphetamine has a high rate of addiction, a low
    rate of sustained recovery, and is cheap to manufacture. It has become
    a problem of epidemic proportions in the United States, devastating
    users, their families, and local communities. According to the 2004
    National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 583,000 persons 12 and
    older used methamphetamine during the past 30 days (a 4 percent
    decrease from 2003) and 1.4 million have used it in the past year, a 10
    percent increase from 2003. The estimated number of past year
    methamphetamine users is three times the number of estimated past year
    heroin users.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The term ``synthetic drugs'' refers to controlled substances
    such as methamphetamine, MDMA ``ecstasy'' (and its analogues), GHB (and
    its analogues), ketamine, and other substances, which are not of
    primarily organic origin and are usually associated with clandestine
    manufacture.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By effectively targeting and arresting the main suppliers of bulk
    precursor chemicals, DEA has successfully reduced the number of ``super
    labs'' \2\ in the United States. As a consequence, operators of ``super
    labs'' have shifted their production to Mexico. Current drug and lab
    seizure data suggest that 80 percent of the methamphetamine consumed in
    the United States comes from larger labs, for the most part in Mexico,
    and that approximately 20 percent of the methamphetamine consumed comes
    from the small, toxic laboratories (STLs) in the United States. STLs
    generally are unaffiliated with major drug trafficking organizations,
    but nevertheless present enormous environmental challenges.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Super labs'' are those labs that are capable of producing at
    least 10 pounds of methamphetamine per cycle.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In recent years, the proliferation of STLs has been fueled by the
    ready availability of pseudoephedrine, the key ingredient in
    methamphetamine and by the fact that the manufacturing process is
    simple, inexpensive, and recipes can be found easily on the Internet.
    In 1990, there were 2 States with 20 or more clandestine laboratory
    seizures. In 1996, this number increased to 10 States. In 2004, there
    were over 40 States where 20 or more seizures of clandestine
    laboratories occurred. From 2002 through 2005, more than 55,000 STLs
    were discovered and seized.
        According to the Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System database
    located at the DEA's El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), 11,746 labs,
    dumpsites, and chemicals, glass, and equipment were seized in the
    United States in calendar year 2005. Of those seized, 5,308 labs were
    capable of producing only up to one pound of methamphetamine per cycle.
    In fiscal year 2005, DEA domestic seizures of methamphetamine totaled
    3.1 metric tons, which is the equivalent to approximately 367 million
    dosage units. Fiscal year 2005 seizures increased by 24 percent from
    fiscal year 2004, when 2.5 metric tons were seized.
        The most promising means of eliminating STLs is to choke off the
    sources for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. DEA has removed a number of
    distributors of grey market drug products (those that can be purchased
    at truck stops, party/liquor stores, etc.) from the marketplace.
    Following DEA's success with removing grey market distributors, STLs
    have become heavily reliant on obtaining precursor chemicals from cold
    and asthma drug products (usually packaged in blister packs) from
    traditional retail outlets, such as chain drug stores. Based on
    clandestine lab seizure statistics, those States restricting the
    availability of methamphetamine precursor chemicals, like
    pseudoephedrine, have seen a dramatic decrease in the number of small
    toxic labs. With the enactment of Federal and State legislation
    limiting the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine,
    further reduction in the number of STLs is anticipated.
        Once a STL has been identified, it must be dismantled. DEA assists
    State and local law enforcement by providing hazardous waste contractor
    clean-up services administered through Community Oriented Policing
    Services (COPS) grant funding. In fiscal year 2005, DEA administered
    8,678 State and local clandestine clean ups. This is a decrease from
    fiscal year 2004 when 9,474 clean ups were administered. In addition,
    DEA has trained nearly 12,000 Federal, State, and local law enforcement
    personnel since 1998 to conduct investigations and dismantle seized
    methamphetamine labs to protect the public from methamphetamine lab
    toxic waste.
        At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were 298
    active DEA Priority Target Organization (PTO) investigations with
    methamphetamine as the primary drug type. Seven (7) of the 44
    organizations (16 percent) on the fiscal year 2006 Consolidated
    Priority Organization Target (CPOT) list are engaged in methamphetamine
    trafficking. At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there
    were 157 active PTO investigations linked to those seven CPOTs. Since
    the inception of the PTO program, DEA has disrupted or dismantled 427
    methamphetamine PTOs.

              Operational Highlight: Operations Cold Remedy and Aztec
            Flu.--From March 2003 to March 2005, as part of DEA's
            Operations Cold Remedy and Aztec Flu, more than 5 metric tons
            of 60 milligram tablets of pseudoephedrine were seized in the
            United States, Mexico, and Panama--which could have yielded an
            excess of 3 metric tons of methamphetamine. The seizures were
            conducted by DEA with Mexico's Organized Crime Prosecutor's
            Office and Hong Kong law enforcement authorities. Operations
            Cold Remedy and Aztec Flu are investigations run under the
            auspices of Project Prism, an international initiative aimed at
            assisting governments in developing and implementing
            cooperating procedures more effectively control and monitor
            trade in amphetamine-type stimulant precursors to prevent their
            diversion. Participants of Project Prism include 95 countries
            and 5 international organizations.
              Operational Highlight: MET Case Against Street Gang ``Satan's
            Disciples''.--On March 7, 2006, the DEA Dallas Field Division
            MET concluded a 9 month deployment and OCDETF/PTO investigation
            that resulted in the dismemberment of seven methamphetamine
            trafficking organizations and two crack cocaine organizations.
            The investigation targeted Rocky Salazar who headed a street
            gang named Satan's Disciples, responsible for distributing
            methamphetamine in the Gainesville, Texas area. The Satan's
            Disciples also distributed narcotics and laundered money in
            three separate casinos located on Indian Reservations in nearby
            Oklahoma. The investigation culminated with the arrest of 93
            individuals (81 State and 12 Federal), including priority
            target Salazar, and the seizure of 0.6 kilograms of crack
            cocaine, 0.2 kilograms of powder cocaine, 2.5 kilograms of
            marijuana, 8.8 kilograms of methamphetamine, 0.6 kilograms of
            GHB, 65 firearms, $167,000 in U.S. currency, $70,000 in real
            property, and four vehicles. DEA conducted this enforcement
            operation together with ATF, BIA, the Chickasaw Indian Nation,
            and State and local officers from Texas and Oklahoma.
    Marijuana
        Marijuana continues to be a significant threat because today's
    potent marijuana causes more teens to be dependent on it. This is
    supported by the following data: (1) More teens seek treatment for
    marijuana dependency than for all other drugs combined including
    alcohol. (2) Marijuana was involved in 79,663 emergency department
    visits \3\ in calendar year 2003, second only to cocaine among drug-
    related visits.\4\ (3) The 2004 NSDUH found that marijuana was the most
    commonly used illicit drug with 14.6 million users (6.1 percent of the
    population 12 and older) during the past month in calendar year 2004--
    the same as in calendar year 2003.\5\ (4) Past year use of marijuana
    remained unchanged statistically between calendar year 2003 and
    calendar year 2004 at 10.6 percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ A visit to the emergency room is referred to as an episode, and
    every time a drug is involved in an episode it is counted as a mention.
        \4\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
    and Mental Health Services Administration. Detailed Emergency
    Department Tables from DAWN: 2003. December 2004.
        \5\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
    and Mental Health Services Administration. (2005). Overview of Findings
    from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Marijuana trafficking is prevalent across the Nation, with both
    domestic and foreign sources of supply. The most recent supply
    availability estimates indicate that between 10,000 and 24,000 pure
    metric tons of marijuana are available in the United States \6\ and
    that Americans spend more than $10.4 billion every year on
    marijuana.\7\ Since the demand for marijuana far exceeds that for any
    other illegal drug and the profit potential is so high, some cocaine
    and heroin drug trafficking organizations traffic marijuana to help
    finance their other drug operations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Drug Availability Steering Committee, Drug Availability
    Estimates in the United States, December 2002.
        \7\ Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug
    Control Policy. What Americans Spend on Illegal Drugs 1988-1998.
    December 2000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mexican drug trafficking organizations dominate the transportation
    and wholesale distribution of the majority of foreign-based marijuana
    available in the United States and cultivate marijuana on U.S. public
    lands throughout California. High grade marijuana from Canada, commonly
    referred to as ``BC Bud,'' also is available in every region of the
    United States.
        At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were 146
    active PTO investigations with marijuana as the primary drug type.
    Twelve (12) of the 44 organizations on the fiscal year 2006 CPOT list
    (27 percent) are engaged in marijuana trafficking. At the end of the
    first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were 385 active DEA PTO
    investigations linked to these 12 CPOTs. Since the inception of the PTO
    program, DEA has disrupted or dismantled 208 marijuana PTOs.

              Operational Highlight: Operation Falling Star.--As of the end
            of 2005, this Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force
            (OCDETF)/SOD coordinated operation targeting a Detroit and
            Phoenix-based marijuana drug trafficking organization (DTO),
            resulted in 63 arrests, and the seizure of $13.7 million in
            cash, 16.4 metric tons of marijuana, 305 kilograms of cocaine,
            14 properties, 22 vehicles, and 42 weapons, leading to the
            dismantlement of the drug trafficking organization. The Detroit
            target, Quasand Lewis, has been targeted for approximately 10
            years by State and local law enforcement agencies for his
            suspected involvement in several homicides and extensive drug
            trafficking and witness intimidation. The focal point of the
            investigation, Giovanni Ruanova, coordinated multi-million
            dollar currency transportation routes and pick-ups from
            Detroit.
    Non-medical use of prescription drugs
        Non-medical use of addictive prescription drugs has been increasing
    throughout the United States at alarming rates. In calendar year 2004,
    an estimated 6.0 million \8\ Americans age 12 and older reported past
    month use of prescription drugs for non-medical purposes compared to
    3.8 million in calendar year 20009 \9\--a 58 percent increase in 4
    years. Nationally, the misuse of prescription drugs was second only to
    marijuana in calendar year 2004.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
    and Mental Health Services Administration. (2005). Overview of Findings
    from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
        \9\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
    and Mental Health Services Administration. (2002). National Household
    Survey on Drug Abuse: Vol 1. Summary of National Findings.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Individual users can easily acquire prescription drugs through a
    variety of means, generally dependent on type of drug. DEA and other
    data sources reveal that OxyContin and other Schedule II drugs are
    most commonly obtained illegally through ``doctor shopping'' or are
    sold illegally by registrants (e.g., doctors/pharmacists). On the other
    hand, Schedule III and Schedule IV drugs (e.g., anti-anxiety
    medications, hydrocodone, and anabolic steroids) are often purchased
    through the Internet. Many of these e-pharmacies are foreign-based and
    expose the purchaser to potentially counterfeit, contaminated, or
    adulterated products.

              Operational Highlight: An Advanced Pain Management Case.--In
            April 2005, DEA culminated a 5 year OCDETF and Priority Target
            investigation that resulted in the dismantlement of a major
            prescription drug trafficking organization and the seizure of
            $1.6 million in cash, $4.7 million in financial and
            approximately $4.8 million in real assets. Five individuals,
            including three physicians, were arrested and charged with the
            distribution of pharmaceutical controlled substances,
            distribution of drugs to a minor, conspiracy, and money
            laundering. The physicians prescribed a cocktail of
            hydrocodone, Xanax and Soma to approximately 100-300 patients
            per day under the guise of ``pain management''. To date, this
            investigation has resulted in Immediate Suspensions of DEA
            Registrations of the doctors and four pharmacies were also
            issued.

        DEA, in collaboration with its State and local law enforcement
    counterparts, investigates registrants and non-registrants who
    intentionally divert prescription drugs. DEA has made pharmaceutical
    investigations a priority and continues to focus its drug enforcement
    efforts toward the most important members of the drug supply chain. In
    fiscal year 2005, DEA opened 1,672 investigations focused on the
    diversion of pharmaceutical controlled substances by registrants and
    non-registrants, an approximate increase of 11 percent over fiscal year
    2004 (1,508). DEA's fiscal year 2005 Priority Target pharmaceutical
    investigations of key drug supply organizations (59) represents a
    dramatic increase (168 percent) over fiscal year 2004 (22).
        Combating the diversion of OxyContin remains a priority within
    DEA. Of the 1,668 open investigations in fiscal year 2005, 117 were
    open OxyContin investigations involving 48 doctors. Of those 117
    OxyContin investigations, 25 were Priority Target investigations.
        The illicit sale of controlled pharmaceutical substances, including
    narcotics, anti-anxiety medications, steroids, and amphetamines, is a
    serious global problem and the Internet has become one of the most
    popular sources for these products. DEA targets its investigations on
    domestic Internet pharmacies using data from available data bases (such
    as the Automated Reporting of Completed Orders System--ARCOS) to
    determine which retail pharmacies are most likely involved in
    distribution of large quantities of controlled substances over the
    Internet. In fiscal year 2005, 11.2 percent of investigative work hours
    dedicated to open diversion cases were Internet cases. This is an
    increase of 30 percent from fiscal year 2004 when Internet cases
    represented 8.6 percent of the investigative work hours dedicated to
    open diversion cases. In fiscal year 2005, as a result of online
    pharmacy investigations, DEA seized over $32 million in financial and
    property assets. This is a 184 percent increase from fiscal year 2004
    when asset seizures totaled $11 million.

              Operational Highlight: Operation Cyber Chase.--In April 2005,
            a 1-year, multi-jurisdictional OCDETF investigation (Operation
            Cyber Chase) was concluded with the dismantlement of the Bansal
            drug trafficking organization and the arrest of 20 individuals
            in New York, Philadelphia, India, Costa Rica, Austria, and
            Hungary. Those arrested were distributing drugs worldwide using
            rogue Internet pharmacies to dispense controlled substances
            directly to customers without a medical evaluation by a
            physician. The Bansal organization used over 200 websites to
            distribute 2.5 million dosage units of Schedule II through IV
            pharmaceutical controlled substances per month. Electronic mail
            communications among the co-conspirators included: ``It's not
            easy to get rich. My goal is towards the upper echelon of
            economic independence. All things considered, it should only
            take about 800 million. That's um, 3,000 packs of valium sold a
            day for 5 years. Well, that's actually about 921 mill, but I'm
            not sure there'll be a few costs in there somewhere.'' As of
            September 30, 2005, Operation Cyber Chase has resulted in 26
            arrests, the seizure of 5.8 million dosage units of Schedule
            II--IV controlled substances, 105 kilograms of Ketamine, and
            $8.6 million.
    Cocaine
        Cocaine remains a major illegal drug of concern throughout the
    United States based upon abuse indicators, violence associated with the
    trade, and trafficking volume. After marijuana and prescription drugs,
    cocaine continues to be the most widely used illicit drug among all age
    categories. The 2004 NSDUH found that 2 million people used cocaine
    within the past 30 days and that over 5.6 million people used it within
    the past year. According to the 2003 DAWN report, cocaine is the most
    frequently reported illegal drug in hospital emergency department
    visits, accounting for 1 in 5 (20 percent) drug related emergency room
    visits in calendar year 2003.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
    and Mental Health Services Administration. Detailed Emergency
    Department Tables from DAWN: 2003. December 2004.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although Columbia is the principal supplier of cocaine to the
    United States, most of the wholesale cocaine distribution in the United
    States is controlled by Mexican drug trafficking organizations and
    criminal enterprises. Even in areas dominated by Colombian and
    Dominican drug trafficking organizations, such as the Northeast and
    Caribbean regions, the influence of Mexican drug trafficking
    organizations is increasing.
        At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were
    1,028 active DEA PTO investigations with cocaine as the primary drug
    type. Thirty-nine (39) of the 44 organizations on the fiscal year 2006
    CPOT list (89 percent) are engaged in cocaine trafficking. At the end
    of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were 514 active PTO
    investigations linked to these 39 CPOTs. Since the inception of the PTO
    program, DEA has disrupted or dismantled 1,208 cocaine PTOs.

              Operational Highlight: Operations Firewall and Panama
            Express.--DEA's multi-agency cocaine interdiction programs--
            known as Operation Firewall and Operation Panama Express--
            combine investigative and intelligence resources to interdict
            and disrupt the flow of cocaine from the northern coast of
            Colombia to the United States. Since the July 2003 commencement
            of Operation Firewall, 29.2 metric tons of cocaine have been
            directly seized. In addition, Operation Firewall has provided
            assistance in Operation Panama Express seizures of 33.2 metric
            tons of cocaine, and in other foreign countries with the
            seizure of 25.7 metric tons of cocaine. Since the February 2000
            implementation of Operation Panama Express to December 31,
            2005, 356 metric tons of cocaine have been seized, 109.2 metric
            tons of cocaine have been scuttled, and 1,107 individuals
            arrested. As of December 31, 2005, these combined operations
            have resulted in total seizures of 410.9 metric tons of
            cocaine.
    Heroin
        The overall demand for heroin in the United States is lower than
    for other major drugs of abuse such as cocaine, marijuana,
    methamphetamine, and MDMA.\11\ However, one cause for concern is the
    recent increase in heroin use. According to the 2004 NSDUH, 166,000
    people aged 12 and older (0.1 percent) reported using heroin during the
    past 30 days in calendar year 2003 compared to 119,000 (0.1 percent) in
    calendar year 2003.\12\ Heroin remains readily available in major
    metropolitan areas and is the third most frequently mentioned illegal
    drug reported to DAWN by participating emergency departments after
    cocaine and marijuana, accounting for 47,604 mentions in calendar year
    2003.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
    and Mental Health Services Administration. (2005). Overview of Findings
    from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
        \12\ Ibid.
        \13\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
    and Mental Health Services Administration. Detailed Emergency
    Department Tables from DAWN: 2003. December 2004.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Most of the heroin entering the United States is produced in South
    America and Mexico. Although heroin production in these areas has
    decreased in recent years, the production capacity remains sufficient
    to meet U.S. demand for the drug.\14\ In 2004, Afghanistan produced
    more than 90 percent of the worldwide heroin produced.\15\ However,
    Afghanistan is not currently a major heroin supplier to the United
    States; only about 8 percent of the U.S. supply comes from that
    country.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center.
    (2006). 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment.
        \15\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were 240
    active DEA PTO investigations with heroin as the primary drug type.
    Fourteen (14) of the 44 organizations on the fiscal year 2006 CPOT list
    (32 percent) are engaged in heroin trafficking. At the end of the first
    quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were 514 active PTO investigations
    linked to these 14 CPOTs. Since the inception of the PTO program, DEA
    has disrupted or dismantled 357 heroin PTOs.

              Operational Highlight: Operation Containment and FAST.--
            Through Operation Containment, DEA is working with a coalition
            of 19 countries from Central Asia, the Caucasus, Europe, and
            Russia, to reduce the flow of Afghan heroin into world markets,
            prevent Afghanistan from becoming a major heroin supplier to
            the United States, and disrupt drug related terrorist
            activities that could hamper the long term stabilization of the
            Afghanistan government. In fiscal year 2005, Operation
            Containment resulted in the seizure of 11.5 metric tons of
            heroin, 1.3 metric tons of morphine base, 43.9 metric tons of
            opium gum, 14.2 metric tons of precursor chemicals, and 248
            clandestine opium, morphine, and heroin conversion
            laboratories. By comparison, just 3 years prior, .47 metric
            tons of heroin was seized, representing a 2,300 percent
            increase in fiscal year 2005. Operation Containment also
            resulted in the initiation of 146 investigations and led to the
            disruption of two CPOTs, including the Haji Bashir Noorzai and
            Haji Baz Mohammad organizations in fiscal year 2005. DEA's
            Foreign-deployed Advisory Support Team (FAST) Program augments
            Operation Containment. Since being deployed in April 2005, the
            FAST program has trained over 100 Afghan officers who work bi-
            laterally with DEA's FAST teams. One successful FAST operation
            occurred on June 18, 2005, when the DEA Kabul Country Office,
            FAST, United Kingdom forces, and the U.S. trained Afghan
            officers raided and destroyed four fully operational
            clandestine heroin laboratories. One of the four opium-to-
            morphine base conversion laboratories destroyed was one of the
            largest seized in Afghanistan. Approximately 4.4 metric tons of
            opium, hundreds of gallons of chemicals, four opium presses,
            six opium vats, and 500 kilograms of soda ash were destroyed.
    Transit Zones
        The Southwest Border area is the principal arrival zone for most
    illicit drugs smuggled into the United States. From that area, the
    smuggled drugs are distributed throughout the country.
        Most cocaine is transported from South America, particularly
    Colombia, through the Mexico-Central America Corridor via the Eastern
    Pacific transit zone (50 percent) and the Western Caribbean zone (40
    percent). Most of the cocaine transiting these two areas is ultimately
    smuggled into the country via the Southwest Border. The remaining 10
    percent of cocaine transported from South America mostly transits the
    Caribbean zones to Florida and the Gulf Coast.\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center.
    (2006). 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment,
    methamphetamine seizures increased from 1.12 metric tons in calendar
    year 2002, to 1.73 metric tons in calendar year 2003, to 1.98 metric
    tons in calendar year 2004. Most of the foreign-produced marijuana
    available in the United States is smuggled into the country from Mexico
    via the Southwest Border by Mexican drug trafficking organizations and
    criminal groups, as evidenced by calendar year 2004 seizures of 1,103
    metric tons on the Southwest Border versus 9.2 metric tons on the
    Northern Border.
        In calendar year 2004, seizures for Southwest Border points of
    entry included 22.4 metric tons of cocaine, 388 kilograms of heroin,
    1,070 metric tons of marijuana, and 2.3 metric tons of methamphetamine.
    By comparison, seizures in the Florida/Caribbean arrival zone for the
    same time period included 10.5 metric tons of cocaine, 481 kilograms of
    heroin, 4.9 metric tons of marijuana and no methamphetamine.

              Operational Highlight: Discovery of Narcotics Smuggling
            Tunnel.--Acting on intelligence from a confidential source, in
            January 2006, a joint investigation between DEA, Immigration
            and Customs Enforcement, United States Border Patrol, and the
            Mexican Policia Federal Preventia culminated in the discovery
            of a narcotics smuggling tunnel. The tunnel spanned the United
            States/Mexican border just east of the Otay Mesa, California
            Port of Entry and resulted in the seizure of approximately two
            tons of marijuana. The discovery of the tunnel followed an
            extensive investigation resulting from DEA and ICE confidential
            source information. The tunnel, approximately 86 feet deep and
            nearly three-quarters of a mile long, originated inside a small
            warehouse in Otay Mesa, Mexico, and exited inside a vacant
            warehouse in San Diego, California.

                            FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS

        Drug trafficking organizations are motivated by one thing--money.
    According to the 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment, between $13.6
    billion and $48.4 billion is generated annually by wholesale-level drug
    distribution.\17\ To truly dismantle drug enterprises, we must attack
    the drug trafficking organizations' ability to collect proceeds from
    the drug trade.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center.
    (2006). 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DEA has reenergized and refocused its attack on the financial
    infrastructure of drug cartels. DEA's Office of Financial Operations
    and specialized Money Laundering Groups in DEA's 21 domestic field
    divisions principally target the drug money laundering systems and the
    drug profits that flow back to the sources of drug supply. In fiscal
    year 2005, DEA established a 5-year plan with annual milestones through
    fiscal year 2009. The plan calls for DEA to increase seizures until we
    seize drug profits at a level each year that will actually destroy drug
    networks rather than being viewed by traffickers only as an expected
    cost of doing business. To do this, DEA must seize $3 billion from drug
    trafficking organizations each year. In the first year under this plan,
    DEA denied drug traffickers $1.9 billion in revenue in fiscal year
    2005--including $1.4 billion in seized assets and $477 million in drug
    seizures--exceeding DEA's first year goal of $1 billion in seizures by
    90 percent.
        The smuggling of large sums of cash across our borders continues to
    be the primary method used to expatriate drug proceeds from the United
    States to the source countries. To address this increasing threat, the
    DEA has initiated a bulk currency program to coordinate all U.S.
    highway interdiction money seizures. Bulk currency cash seizures in
    fiscal year 2005 totaled $407 million, a 28 percent increase over the
    $317 million seized in fiscal year 2004.

              Operational Highlight: Arrest of Martin Tremblay.--On January
            20, 2006, Martin Tremblay, a Canadian national and President
            and Managing Director of the Bahamas-based investment firm
            ``Dominion Investments, LTD'' was arrested by the DEA and other
            Federal and State law enforcement agencies. Tremblay was
            indicted for conspiracy to launder narcotics proceeds in a
            long-term money laundering scheme from approximately 1998
            through December 2005. Tremblay conspired to launder $1 billion
            in illegal drug proceeds for ``Dominion Investment'' clients in
            exchange for a substantial commission. Dominion Investment was
            used by Tremblay to create shell companies and fictitious
            entities to launder the drug proceeds he received to offshore
            accounts in the United States, Canada, Switzerland, and
            elsewhere around the world. Tremblay's activities as a money
            launderer were first identified in an international DEA drug
            investigation targeting subjects distributing GHB over the
            Internet (Operations Webslinger and Black Goblin). Other
            Federal and State law enforcement agencies involved in this
            case include the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal
            Investigations Division (IRS/CID) the New York State Police,
            and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Strike Force in New
            York, New York.
              Operational Highlight: Operations Dirty Dinero/Common
            Denominator.--On March 2, 2006, in a joint action between the
            Colombian National Police and the Drug Enforcement
            Administration, Financial CPOT Ricardo Mauricio BERNAL-
            Palacios, his brother Juan BERNAL-Palacios and Tier 1 Money
            Broker Camillo ORTIZ-Echevi were arrested in Bogota, Colombia.
            These arrests were based on provisional arrest warrants filed
            against the three in relation to a February 2006 indictment in
            the Southern District of Florida charging 48 counts of money
            laundering, 18 USC 1956(h) and one count of conspiracy to
            distribute cocaine, 21 USC 846.

                                     GANGS

        Gangs have become an increasing threat to our nation's security and
    the safety of our communities. Seventy-five percent of the United
    States Attorneys report that parts of their districts currently have a
    moderate or significant gang problem. Gangs commonly use drug
    trafficking as a means to finance their criminal activities.
    Furthermore, many have evolved from turf-oriented entities to profit-
    driven, organized criminal enterprises whose activities include not
    only retail drug distribution but also other aspects of the trade,
    including smuggling, transportation and wholesale distribution.
        Criminal street gangs, outlaw motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs
    are the primary retail distributors of illegal drugs on the streets of
    the United States and the threat of these gangs is magnified by the
    high level of violence associated with their attempts to control and
    expand drug distribution operations. Gangs primarily transport and
    distribute cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine. Authorities
    throughout the country report that gangs are responsible for most of
    the serious violent crime in the major cities of the United States.
        DEA is committed to combating the gang problem within the United
    States. As of February 7, 2006, approximately 12 percent (239) of DEA's
    total active Priority Target investigations target gangs. In addition,
    DEA's Mobile Enforcement Teams (METs) target violent drug trafficking
    organizations in areas where State, local, and Tribal law enforcement
    is challenged by limited resources to counter the threat. Often, these
    MET deployments target violent gangs involved in drug trafficking
    activity, such as the Hell's Angels, Latin Kings, Bloods, Crips,
    Mexican Mafia, and Gangster Disciples. In fiscal year 2004,
    approximately 27 percent (11 of 40) of MET deployments targeted gangs.
    Gang related MET deployments increased to 38 percent in fiscal year
    2005, when 15 of 39 MET deployments initiated targeted gangs. Through
    the second quarter of fiscal year 2006, 5 of 14 deployments (35
    percent) targeted gangs.
        DEA also recognizes the value of an integrated, collaborative and
    comprehensive approach to multi-faceted gang organizations and their
    operations. DEA participates in a number of anti-gang initiatives with
    other law enforcement components, including Violent Crime Impact Teams,
    Project Safe Neighborhoods, Weed and Seed Program, Safe Streets and
    Safe Trails Task Forces and the Attorney General's Anti-Gang
    Coordination Committee.

              Operational Highlight: Operation Motor City Mafia.--Operation
            Motor City Mafia was a Special Operations Division-supported,
            OCDETF and PTO investigation of the Black Mafia Family (BMF).
            DEA and the Internal Revenue Service identified the BMF as a
            major cocaine and crack cocaine distribution organization with
            cells in major metropolitan cities including Detroit, Atlanta,
            Los Angeles, Miami, St. Louis, Orlando, and Louisville. The BMF
            uses the rap music industry to distribute hundreds of kilograms
            of cocaine and to launder millions of dollars in drug proceeds.
            The BMF has used intimidation, violence, and murder to maintain
            their strong presence among their urban drug trafficking
            organizations. As of January 27, 2006, Operation Motor City
            Mafia resulted in the arrest of 53 defendants and the seizure
            of 385 kilograms of cocaine, 1.2 metric tons of marijuana, $4.6
            million, and other assets valued at over $16 million.

                           STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE

        DEA provides direct assistance to State and local law enforcement
    agencies through its State and Local Law Enforcement Officer Training
    program, State and Local Task Force program, and Mobile Enforcement
    Team (MET) program. In addition, DEA provides clandestine laboratory
    clean up assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies.
        State and Local Training.--DEA trained 22 percent more State and
    local officers in fiscal year 2005 (41,853) than fiscal year 2004
    (34,183), including training in responding to clandestine laboratories,
    drug diversion, and law enforcement intelligence. Sec.
        State and Local Task Forces.--DEA's partnerships with Federal,
    State, local, and international law enforcement entities serve as force
    multipliers in our efforts to reduce the availability of illicit drugs
    in America. As of the end of first quarter fiscal year 2006, DEA's
    State and Local Task Forces numbered 214 and included over 2,500
    authorized Task Force Officers with more than 1,100 authorized DEA
    Special Agents.
        Mobile Enforcement Teams.--In April 1995, DEA created the MET
    Program to assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement in the
    disruption or dismantlement of violent drug trafficking organizations
    and gangs. Since March 2005, METs have prioritized deployments on
    methamphetamine, targeting repeat meth offenders and clandestine
    laboratory operators in areas of the United States that have a limited
    DEA presence. Since the re-direction of MET, 44 percent (20 out of 45)
    of new MET deployments opened in fiscal year 2005 were methamphetamine
    deployments. This is nearly double the methamphetamine deployments by
    METs from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004. During this period, an
    average of 24 percent of new MET deployments were focused on
    methamphetamine.
        Hazardous Waste Program.--Established in 1990 to address
    environmental concerns from the seizure of clandestine drug
    laboratories, DEA's hazardous waste program promotes the safety of law
    enforcement personnel and the public by using highly qualified
    companies with specialized training and equipment to perform the
    removal of the methamphetamine-related wastes at seized laboratories.
    In fiscal year 2005, DEA administered 8,678 State and local clandestine
    clean ups. In addition, DEA has trained nearly 12,000 Federal, State,
    and local law enforcement personnel since 1998 to conduct
    investigations and dismantle seized methamphetamine labs to protect the
    public from methamphetamine lab toxic waste. To accelerate the clean up
    process and reduce costs borne by State and local governments
    associated with seized sites, DEA has developed a hazardous waste
    container program that will allow for the central collection of waste
    products, reducing the time and expense of lab clean ups. A pilot
    program in Kentucky produced savings of $800,000 in fiscal year 2005
    and approximately $500,000 in fiscal year 2004.

              Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

    STATEMENT OF CARL J. TRUSCOTT, DIRECTOR
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Truscott.
        Mr. Truscott. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mikulski,
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
    appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal year
    2007 budget for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
    Explosives. I appreciate very much the support----
        Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Shelby. Yes, Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. And I apologize, you know, you are my
    favorite chairman the way you run things. I just got called. I
    have to go back for the immigration bill. Would it be possible
    to ask Administrator Tandy just a couple of short questions? I
    may get stuck on the floor.
        Senator Shelby. Can you just submit them for the record,
    where we can keep it going? If you would submit them for the
    record.
        Senator Leahy. Well----
        Senator Shelby. I would rather you just submit them for the
    record.
        Senator Leahy. Okay, I will try to come back, because I
    find when I submit them, I never get the answers.
        Senator Shelby. We will lose our rhythm otherwise.
        Senator Leahy. All right.
        Senator Shelby. I appreciate it, Senator Leahy, but we've
    got to keep the subcommittee going.
        Mr. Truscott. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the
    support that this subcommittee has given to ATF and the
    interest it has demonstrated in ATF's missions and programs.
    Thanks to the leadership and support of this subcommittee and
    the dedication and diligence of the men and women of ATF, we
    are improving the lives of Americans.
        Your investments in our efforts produce real results, safer
    neighborhoods where all of us can live without fear. The
    statement I provided for the record goes into great detail on
    ATF's programs and accomplishments, so I will use the time I
    have today to briefly highlight our budget request, which
    includes expansion of our violent crime impact team program,
    one of ATF's most effective initiatives. I will also provide a
    brief overview of our response to the recent church fires in
    rural Alabama and our activities in support of the coalition
    forces in Iraq.

                   ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS BUDGET REQUEST

        The President's budget for fiscal year 2007 requests $860
    million and 5,030 full-time equivalent positions for ATF. The
    President's request also includes $120 million from a fee on
    explosive industry operations, which would bring our total
    resources to $980 million. I believe these investments will
    provide essential benefits to the American people.

                           VIOLENT CRIME IMPACT TEAMS

        Our fiscal year 2007 request includes new funds for the
    VCIT program. VCIT is a focused and cooperative law enforcement
    component of the President's Project Safe Neighborhoods
    Initiative. Through VCIT, ATF-led teams work with local law
    enforcement to identify and arrest the most violent offenders,
    including gang members in specific geographic locations with
    high crime rates. The program began in 15 selected communities
    and since has expanded to a total of 23, and because VCIT has
    proven so successful, the administration has requested $16
    million and 44 FTEs to support the initiative and offer more
    Americans the opportunity to enjoy safer neighborhoods.

                       ALABAMA CHURCH FIRES INVESTIGATION

        Mr. Chairman, I want to inform you and the subcommittee of
    the steps that we have taken, including my colleagues here at
    the table, to respond to the church fires in rural Alabama in
    early February. We view the intentional burning of a place of
    worship as a violent attack on the community's well being. Upon
    learning of the fires, ATF immediately activated our national
    response teams to investigate the fires. The teams include
    special agents, forensic chemists, fire protection engineers,
    accelerant detection canines, geographic and criminal
    profilers.
        ATF's partnership with Federal, State, and local law
    enforcement was vital to this effort. I am pleased to report
    that through law enforcement's hard work, this investigation
    was brought to a successful conclusion. Three individuals were
    indicted in connection with the church fires and are being
    charged with one count of conspiracy and nine counts of arson.

                      ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND IRAQ

        With respect to Iraq, ATF is contributing the expertise of
    our special agents and our explosive enforcement officers to
    the combined explosives exploitation cells. In cooperation with
    the U.S. Army, we are training Army explosive units at our
    National Center for Explosives Training and Research, and we
    are doing that prior to their deployment to Iraq. In addition,
    ATF provides post-blast training for U.S. and coalition forces
    in Iraq and for the Iraqi National Police. ATF-trained
    explosive detection canines are also deployed there. ATF has
    special agents assigned to the Regime Crimes Liaison Office to
    investigate in the investigation and the prosecution of war
    crimes. ATF personnel are also working in support of the newly
    established U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
        I have referenced several of our activities in support of
    our mission to prevent terrorism, reduce violent crime, and
    protect our Nation. We are committed to working directly and
    through partnerships to investigate and reduce crime involving
    firearms and explosives, acts of arson, and illegal trafficking
    of alcohol and tobacco products.
        Once again, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Mikulski, members
    of this subcommittee, on behalf of ATF, I thank you for your
    support of our crucial work. I also thank you for this
    opportunity to testify before you today, and I look forward to
    answering any questions you may have.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Carl J. Truscott

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the
    accomplishments of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
    Explosives (ATF) and the President's fiscal year 2007 Budget for ATF.
        As you know, ATF is a principal law enforcement agency within the
    United States Department of Justice dedicated to preventing terrorism,
    reducing violent crime, and protecting our Nation. The men and women of
    ATF perform the dual responsibilities of enforcing Federal criminal
    laws and regulating the firearms and explosives industries. We are
    committed to working directly, and through partnerships, to investigate
    and reduce crime involving firearms and explosives, acts of arson, and
    illegal trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products.
        I appreciate very much the support the subcommittee has given to
    ATF and the interest it has demonstrated in ATF's missions and
    programs. Thanks to the leadership and support of this committee, and
    the dedication and diligence of the men and women of ATF, our efforts
    are producing real results: safer neighborhoods, where all of us can
    live without fear.
        With your support during the fiscal year 2006 appropriations
    process, ATF received funding to expand its Violent Crime Impact Teams
    (VCIT), participate in the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center
    (TEDAC), and plan a permanent facility for the National Center for
    Explosives Training and Research (NCETR). These investments are in
    direct support of ATF's core mission.
        The President's budget request for fiscal year 2007 builds on your
    fiscal year 2006 investments with $16 million to further enhance VCIT,
    a focused and cooperative law enforcement component of the President's
    Project Safe Neighborhoods (SN) initiative.

                         RESPONSE TO HURRICANE KATRINA

        Before I give an overview of ATF programs and our fiscal year 2007
    budget request, first I would like to briefly inform the committee of
    the resources we deployed to the Gulf Region and the efforts we
    undertook as part of the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina.
        In the week proceeding Katrina making landfall in New Orleans, we
    prepared by identifying resources and personnel to send to the affected
    areas and held daily meetings and teleconferences of our Emergency
    Management Working Group. On August 30, one day after Katrina made
    landfall, we activated our Continuity of Operations (COOP) site in
    Mandeville, Louisiana, and established an alternative division office
    in Shreveport, Louisiana. At that time, we also began planning forward
    command posts in Mandeville, New Orleans, and Biloxi, Mississippi, and
    decided to establish a Critical Incident Management Response Team
    (CIMRT) in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. ATF field offices from across the
    Nation immediately began moving manpower and equipment to the region,
    while personnel in the affected areas made locating missing ATF
    employees their top priority. In the following days, we deployed two
    Special Response Teams (SRTs) to New Orleans to address, in
    coordination with the New Orleans Police Department, the looting and
    violence in the aftermath of the storm.
        Despite catastrophic damage to our facilities, the onerous
    logistics of re-establishing operations, and the severe personal
    hardships endured by our personnel, I am proud to point out that ATF
    was able, without interruption or a reduction in effectiveness, to
    continue our mission of enforcing Federal law and safeguarding the
    public. By September 22, less than 4 weeks after the levee breaches in
    New Orleans, ATF had assisted with over 600 law enforcement actions.
    Twelve arrests were made by ATF, including the September 5th arrest of
    a suspect who was observed by ATF SRT members firing on a helicopter
    conducting relief efforts. This arrest was the first of many Federal
    arrests, both by ATF and other Federal partners, for firearms
    violations in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
        ATF was given primary jurisdiction in the 1st and 8th Police
    Districts in New Orleans, responded to firearms-related calls, stopped
    looting, assisted in rescue operations, provided surveillance, assisted
    in the establishment of a detention center, and provided security to
    Assistant United States Attorneys. During that time, ATF also
    proactively reached out to all Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and
    Federal Explosives Licensees (FELs) in affected areas. As an extension
    of those efforts, we established a toll-free number for FFLs and FELs
    to contact ATF regarding the status of their premises, records, and
    inventory; and we instituted a plan to systematically inspect all 742
    FFLs and 182 FELs where looting and flooding occurred.

                                      IRAQ

        I would also like to provide the committee with a brief overview of
    our activities in support of the coalition forces in Iraq before I move
    on to a discussion of ATF programs. I would like to thank the committee
    for its support for ATF's fiscal year 2006 Iraq Supplemental request.
    Currently, ATF is contributing the expertise of its special agents and
    Explosives Enforcement Officers to the Iraq Combined Exploitation Cells
    (CEXCs). This participation has been praised by the Department of
    Defense. In cooperation with the U.S. Army, we are training Army
    explosives units at our National Center for Explosives Training and
    Research (NCETR) prior to their deployment to Iraq. In addition, ATF
    provides post-blast training for United States and coalition forces in
    Iraq and for the Iraqi National Police, and ATF-trained explosives
    detection canines are deployed in Iraq. ATF also has special agents
    assigned to the Regime Crimes Liaison Office in Iraq to assist in the
    investigation and prosecution of war crimes.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2007 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST

        ATF's mission supports the priorities of the administration and the
    Department under the Department's Strategic Goals 1 and 2, to ``Prevent
    Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security'' and ``Enforce Federal
    Laws and Represent the Rights of the American People.''
        The President's 2007 budget request for ATF is 5,030 FTE and
    $860,128,000 for salaries and expenses and for program enhancements,
    offset by a $20,000,000 reduction in the firearms decision unit and a
    $120,000,000 explosives user fee.
        The fiscal year 2007 request includes funds for the expansion of
    the VCIT program. VCIT is one of ATF's most effectively designed
    initiatives and is an important part of PSN. The President's budget
    requests $16,000,000 and 44 FTE to further enhance the initiative and
    offer more Americans the opportunity to live in safer neighborhoods.
    This initiative would increase the number of VCIT teams from 25 to 40
    in the coming fiscal year.

                                    FIREARMS

        ATF enforces Federal firearms laws and provides requested support
    to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight
    against crime and violence. Our agents investigate a broad range of
    firearms violations that can be generally divided into three
    categories:
      --investigations of those persons who are prohibited by law from
            possessing firearms, such as felons, illegal aliens, and drug
            traffickers;
      --investigations of persons possessing firearms that are generally
            prohibited, such as machineguns and sawed-off shotguns; and
      --investigations of firearms trafficking.
        From these types of investigations, ATF agents concentrate on
    firearms traffickers diverting firearms out of lawful commerce into the
    hands of criminals. Firearms trafficking investigations can be complex
    and time-consuming. They can involve illegal straw purchases of
    firearms for those unable to legally possess firearms, illegal dealing
    at gun shows or other locations, robberies of gun stores, and thefts
    from interstate shipments.
        We are a major participant in the administration's PSN initiative,
    which began in 2001. This cooperative program builds upon the
    enforcement efforts of the past, and includes the use of advanced
    technology and effective sharing of intelligence and information. Law
    enforcement, prosecutors, and community leaders work together on
    deterrence and prevention. Agencies develop focused enforcement
    strategies to investigate, arrest, and prosecute violent offenders,
    prohibited possessors of firearms, domestic and international firearms
    traffickers, and others who illegally attempt to acquire firearms. ATF,
    local law enforcement, U.S. attorneys, and local prosecutors evaluate
    cases and seek the most appropriate venue for firearms prosecution. The
    Department filed 10,841 federal firearms cases in fiscal year 2005--a
    73 percent increase since PSN's inception. ATF-related firearms
    investigations resulted in over 8,300 convictions in fiscal year 2005.

                           VIOLENT CRIME IMPACT TEAMS

        In June 2004, former Attorney General Ashcroft, former Deputy
    Attorney General Comey, and I announced the VCIT initiative, a new
    program to reduce violent crime in specific geographic locations with
    high crime rates. Through VCIT, ATF-led teams work with local law
    enforcement to identify and arrest the most violent offenders in each
    area. The program began in 15 selected communities and has since
    expanded to a total of 23. VCITs are now in place in: Albuquerque, New
    Mexico; Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Baton Rouge and New
    Orleans, Louisiana; Camden, New Jersey; Columbus, Ohio; Fresno and Los
    Angeles, California; Greensboro, North Carolina; Hartford, Connecticut;
    Houston and Laredo, Texas; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami and Tampa, Florida;
    Minneapolis, Minnesota; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
    Richmond, Virginia; Tucson, Arizona; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and the
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia area. We plan to expand to 25 cities
    in this fiscal year and 40 cities in fiscal year 2007.
        ATF-led VCIT teams in these cities bring the targeted area's
    Federal, State, local and Tribal law enforcement officials together.
    The VCIT strategy counsels each team to create an individualized
    strategy, then to work together to remove those responsible for violent
    crime. Civic leaders and law enforcement officials have praised VCIT's
    positive impact on their communities. I am proud to note that, in
    August 2005, six ATF personnel received the Attorney General's
    Outstanding Contributions to Community Partnerships for Public Safety
    Award, honoring them for developing, organizing, and implementing VCIT.

                               ANTI-GANG EFFORTS

        We have developed expertise in working against criminal groups,
    particularly gangs. As such, ATF played an integral role in the
    development of the Department of Justice's Gang Strategy Report for the
    House Appropriations Committee. This reflects our years of experience
    in working against violent gangs, including outlaw motorcycle
    organizations active in firearms and narcotics trafficking. In fact,
    ATF oversees a comprehensive gang strategy, combining education,
    prevention, training, and a variety of criminal enforcement tactics to
    take violent gang members and their organizations off the streets. As
    part of the strategy, ATF shares investigative information with other
    law enforcement agencies on gangs nationally through its case
    management system. This system allows every agent and task force member
    the ability to access information about other cases in order to
    coordinate efforts.
        Our efforts have resulted in ATF referring more than 7,750 gang
    members and their associates to Federal and State prosecutors for
    prosecution during the past 5 years--3,100 of them during fiscal year
    2005 alone--for charges including firearms violations, continuing
    criminal enterprise violations, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
    Organization Act (RICO) violations, and arson and explosives
    violations. During this same 5-year period, as a result of our
    investigations, more than 3,000 gang members have been convicted of
    firearms offenses. In the past 2 fiscal years, we also traced more than
    12,000 firearms linked to gang activity to assist in developing
    investigative leads for law enforcement.
        The Regional Area Gang Enforcement (RAGE) unit, an ATF led task
    force, was established in June 2003 to contend with the growing Latino
    gang problems in the Maryland portion of the Washington, DC
    Metropolitan region. RAGE has had contact with and identified
    approximately 1,000 members of various Latino gangs in this area. RAGE
    is currently comprised of investigators from ATF, ICE, FBI, Prince
    George's County Police, Maryland National Capital Park Police, Howard
    County Police, Montgomery County Police, Hyattsville City Police,
    Fairfax County (VA) Police and Maryland State Police. RAGE
    investigators have identified three Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS-13) cliques
    which are the most violent and involved in criminal activity, and
    consequently present the greatest threat to the public and law
    enforcement. MS-13 is an extremely violent street gang with documented
    involvement in homicides, rapes, aggravated assaults, carjacking,
    citizen robberies, prostitution, firearm trafficking, extortion,
    witness intimidation, auto theft, burglaries and other crimes.

                          SOUTHWEST BORDER INITIATIVE

        In October 2005, the Attorney General established an ATF-led VCIT
    in Laredo, Texas, to address increased violent crime along the border
    between the United States and Mexico. The Laredo VCIT serves as the
    focal point for ATF's Southwestern Border Initiative. This Initiative
    coordinates resources from four field divisions and previously
    established VCITs in Tucson, Albuquerque, and Houston. The initiative
    fights regional and cross-border violence and firearms trafficking by
    employing the tools of the VCIT strategy--geographic targeting,
    partnership and technology. ATF is working closely with the Laredo
    Police Department to identify targeted geographical areas and the worst
    offenders. ATF also is working in a reciprocal partnership with
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] lending support to Operation
    Community Shield and Operation Blackjack while ICE supports VCIT to
    ensure the full use of the expertise and resources of both agencies.
    Through its International Programs Branch, ATF is working closely with
    the Mexican government to ensure that U.S.-sourced firearms recovered
    in Mexico are properly identified and documentation is submitted to ATF
    for tracing. ATF uses the trace results to identify and investigate
    firearms traffickers who illegally divert firearms to drug traffickers.
    Other technologies being used include crime gun mapping and ballistic
    tracing.

                            NATIONAL TRACING CENTER

        ATF's National Tracing Center (NTC) is the largest operation of its
    kind in the world. This facility conducts traces of firearms recovered
    at crime scenes for any Federal, State, local, or international law
    enforcement agency. In fiscal year 2005, the NTC traced over 260,000
    firearms. The NTC stores information concerning multiple sales of
    firearms, suspect guns, and firearms with obliterated serial numbers,
    and is also the only repository for all records of FFLs that have gone
    out of business. The NTC provides ATF personnel and other law
    enforcement agencies with crime gun data specific to their geographic
    areas, and helps them identify emerging trends and patterns in
    firearms-related criminal activity.
        In the conference report accompanying the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005, Congress expressed support for
    the NTC Program known as Access 2000 and encouraged us to emphasize and
    expand it. I am pleased to inform the committee that we have done so.
    Under the Access 2000 initiative, which benefits both ATF and our
    industry partners, servers supplied by ATF have been installed at 49
    firearms manufacturers and major wholesale distributors, all of them
    FFLs, who have voluntarily partnered with ATF in this effort. FFLs
    enter firearms information into the servers; the NTC connects to these
    servers remotely and can obtain information on a firearm's disposition
    in the course of a crime gun trace. This program substantially reduces
    administrative costs to the FFL and the time it takes ATF to trace a
    firearm.
        In order to reduce violent crime, ATF will continue to develop and
    employ technology that will help law enforcement at all levels. Through
    the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) Program,
    ATF has installed automated ballistic comparison equipment at 230 sites
    in participating forensic laboratories in the continental United States
    and its territories, giving these State and local law enforcement
    agencies the opportunity to identify ballistic links between crimes not
    otherwise known to be connected.

                                   EXPLOSIVES

        In addition to our investigative efforts against firearms
    trafficking and violent firearms crime, ATF agents investigate
    bombings, unlawful distribution of explosives, thefts of explosives,
    and other violations of explosives laws. ATF industry operation
    investigators (IOIs) ensure that the manufacture, importation, and
    commerce in explosives are conducted lawfully. Other programs combine
    advanced technology with ATF's years of expertise, providing critical
    intelligence for Federal, State, and local law enforcement to use in
    investigating explosives incidents in their areas.
        As part of the Department of Justice's efforts to ensure the
    coordination of explosives investigations, explosives information
    sharing, and other related explosives matters amongst its law
    enforcement components, the Department of Justice reviewed the
    explosive programs of ATF, FBI, and others and on August 11, 2004,
    issued a policy memo outlining roles and responsibilities as they
    relate to explosives issues. Former Attorney General Ashcroft's policy
    memorandum regarding coordination of explosives investigation and
    related matters helped to clarify the responsibilities of ATF, and a
    few of the decision points are as follows:
      --Mandated that ATF would control the investigation of all explosives
            incidents except those related to terrorism and those where the
            FBI has traditionally exercised jurisdiction [bank robberies,
            organized crime, etc].
      --Tasked ATF to maintain all DOJ arson and explosives databases
            currently maintained by other DOJ components.
      --Mandated the consolidation within ATF of all budget, curriculum,
            teaching, and scheduling functions related to DOJ post-blast
            explosives training for Federal, State, local, and
            international entities.
      --Directed ATF to establish standards to certify all explosives
            detection canines used by DOJ components.
        I am honored by the confidence that the Attorney General placed in
    ATF when he made these decisions. Mr. Chairman, I believe that these
    policies will be responsible for significant financial efficiencies.
        ATF strives to investigate each and every report of theft or loss
    of explosives in the United States in order to ensure that these
    explosives do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. In
    fiscal year 2005 alone, ATF's diligent investigative efforts have led
    to the recovery of more than 15,000 pounds of high explosives, in
    addition to 1,533 pounds of low explosives, 5,280 blasting agents,
    14,356 detonators, and 6,859 grenades. Mr. Chairman, the recovery of
    these items has made our Nation a safer place.
        At the end of last year, the theft of a large quantity of
    explosives and detonators garnered significant public attention. On
    December 18, 2005, ATF, the Albuquerque Police Department, the
    Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department, the New Mexico State Police,
    and the FBI began investigating the theft of approximately 400 pounds
    of explosives from a Federal Explosive Licensee (FEL) located just
    outside Albuquerque, New Mexico. Five subjects have been subsequently
    arrested and charged with Federal explosives- and firearms-related
    violations. All of the stolen explosives have subsequently been
    recovered with the exception of one or two detonators.
        While all ATF special agents receive substantial explosives-related
    training, special agents who qualify as certified explosives
    specialists (CESs) are among the most experienced, best-trained
    explosives experts in the Federal Government. They conduct explosives
    crime scene examinations, lend expertise in support of security
    measures implemented at special events, and assist ATF's law
    enforcement counterparts at the Federal, State, local, and
    international levels in their efforts to investigate explosives-related
    incidents. CESs are highly trained in all aspects of explosives
    handling, instruction, identification, demonstration, and destruction.
    Because of their proficiency in explosives investigation, CESs are used
    regularly as instructors for explosives-related training throughout the
    United States and at the International Law Enforcement Academies in
    Budapest, Hungary; Bangkok, Thailand; and Gaborone, Botswana.
        ATF has other experts in the field of explosives. ATF's explosives
    enforcement officers (EEOs) provide technical assistance and support in
    explosives matters. These bomb technicians have between 12 and 35 years
    of experience in explosives and bomb disposal. EEOs render explosive
    devices safe, disassemble explosive and incendiary devices, prepare
    destructive device determinations, and render expert testimony in
    support of such determinations in State and Federal criminal court
    proceedings. EEOs also provide expert analysis and onsite investigative
    technical assistance at bombing and arson scenes and other scenes where
    explosions of an undetermined nature have occurred. They provide
    assistance and training in all aspects of explosives handling, usage,
    and destruction; threat vulnerability assessments; and all other
    explosives-related matters for ATF and State and local law enforcement
    agencies. EEOs use a full range of bomb disposal equipment including
    such robotic equipment as the All-purpose Remote Transport System
    (ARTS), which is designed to remotely disrupt car and truck bombs that
    are too large to disarm by traditional methods--ATF is one of the few
    Federal agencies with ARTS capability.
        To comply with the Attorney General's 2004 August memorandum, ATF
    has transferred the Arson and Explosives National Repository (AENR) to
    the United States Bomb Data Center (USBDC). The information maintained
    within the USBDC is this country's most comprehensive set of data
    describing fire/explosion incidents. The incidents are divided into
    specific categories such as targets, locations, motives, and victims.
    Trends, patterns, and criminal methodologies, as well as the identities
    of known previous offenders, can be derived from the data set. Most
    importantly, ATF agents or other law enforcement officials can contact
    USBDC to query the construction characteristics of an explosive device,
    and match the device to others with similar characteristics.
        ATF is now using the latest information management technology to
    make case information available to law enforcement nationwide through
    the Bomb Arson Tracking System (BATS). This program facilitates and
    promotes the collection and dissemination of fire, arson, and
    explosives incidents and information among participating agencies. Law
    enforcement agencies are able to enter their case information and query
    information entered by others, both locally and across agencies. BATS
    benefits its users by providing real-time incident-based information,
    records management functions, and there are plans to incorporate a
    feature providing spatial representation of incidents via an integrated
    Geographical Information System--all within a secure law enforcement
    environment. Eventually, the wealth of case information available
    through the USBDC will also be accessible through BATS.
        ATF is sharing its expertise by training Federal, State, local,
    military, and international bomb technicians and investigators in
    explosives disposal and investigation techniques at NCETR, currently
    located at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia. ATF offers numerous advanced
    courses related to explosives disposal and post-blast investigation
    techniques at NCETR, which was authorized in the Homeland Security Act
    of 2002. As previously noted, we are currently training Army explosives
    units prior to their deployment to Iraq. In addition, ATF provides
    post-blast training to members of the Department of State, the Naval
    Criminal Investigative Service, and the Air Force Office of Special
    Investigations. Since ATF began holding training classes at Fort A.P.
    Hill in 2000, we have provided training to more than 4,000 Federal,
    State, local, and international bomb technicians and investigators. The
    fiscal year 2006 conference agreement (Public Law109-108) provides $5.0
    million in funding for site selection, architectural design, site
    preparation for the construction of a permanent site for NCETR. In
    considering site selection, ATF is directed to consider a site co-
    located with other law enforcement and Federal government entities that
    provides similar training and research. The dynamic of these collective
    resources will provide a unique opportunity to leverage assets,
    knowledge, and expertise in the field, providing Federal, State and
    local law enforcement explosives expertise at a single location.

                                     ARSON

        ATF's arson investigative work includes two recent high-profile
    arson cases. In December 2004, fires were set in a new housing
    development in Charles County, Maryland, resulting in damage to over 30
    homes--a number of which were completely destroyed. Our agents
    investigated and our state-of-the-art Forensic Science Laboratory
    analyzed all of the evidenced gathered. The results of our efforts were
    two guilty pleas and a conviction. The second example is the District
    of Columbia (D.C.) serial arsonist investigation. From June 2003
    through April 2005, ATF, with other law enforcement organizations,
    investigated over 50 fires in the District of Columbia and adjoining
    Prince Georges County, Maryland. These fires caused considerable loss
    of property for residents, and in the District of Columbia, were
    responsible for the deaths of two people. We examined more than 1,000
    leads and 1,300 suspects and were ultimately able to identify the
    person responsible using DNA evidence. In June, the defendant pled
    guilty to 50 arsons and two counts of murder. In subsequent interviews,
    he has acknowledged setting as many as 350 additional fires. By
    investigating and solving these crimes with our State and local
    partners, we are also helping to prevent future arsons.
        ATF's arson enforcement efforts are an integral part of ATF's
    overall violent crime reduction strategy, and are directed toward
    preventing the crime of arson, providing effective post-incident
    response, and reducing the community impact of crimes involving fire.
    ATF investigative efforts are generally focused on arsons of Federal
    interest, including those at houses of worship, commercial buildings,
    and reproductive health clinics. In fiscal year 2005, ATF opened nearly
    2,000 fire investigations. I would like to address some of ATF's arson
    program areas and assets, including the certified fire investigator
    (CFI) program, ATF's response to animal-rights and environmental-rights
    extremism, the ATF Church Arson Task Force, and the ATF Fire Research
    Laboratory.
        After fire departments extinguish the flames, the work begins for
    cause and origin investigators who must determine whether the fire was
    intentionally set and whether a crime was committed. The agents
    participating in ATF's CFI program are at the forefront of fire
    investigation. The special agents who participate in this program are
    the only federally trained and federally certified cause and origin
    investigators in the Federal Government. These CFIs are able to qualify
    as expert witnesses, that is, opinion witnesses, in fire cause and
    origin determinations. Each CFI has participated in hundreds of
    investigations and has undergone hundreds of hours of training to
    qualify in giving expert testimony. The CFI program is the only one of
    its type in Federal law enforcement and has received national and
    international acclaim. ATF currently has CFIs who are based in 39
    States and provide support to the entire United States and its
    territories.
        ATF also investigates bombings and crimes of arson by environmental
    and animal rights extremists, such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
    and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Because of ATF's expertise in
    these areas, we have made these investigations a priority and will
    continue to do so. In the last several years we have initiated about
    100 explosives and arson investigations believed to be linked to ALF
    and ELF. Most recently, 11 defendants were indicted by a Federal grand
    jury on 65 counts including arson, conspiracy and destruction of an
    energy facility for allegedly participating in a criminal campaign in
    five western states on behalf of ELF and ALF. In the past, many of the
    fires set by these extremists have been set utilizing a particular
    methodology, and the USBDC--which has records and intelligence on these
    acts spanning decades--stands ready to assist fire investigators in
    determining the methodology used in future incidents, linking events,
    and identifying suspects.
        One of the most painful and destructive crimes that ATF
    investigates is arson directed at houses of worship. In fiscal year
    2005, ATF responded to approximately 223 such fires and explosives
    incidents. Out of that number, 108 of the fires were determined to be
    incendiary, that is, set by human hands. Those 108 arsons caused over
    $23 million in damage.
        In addition to the Forensic Science Laboratory, one of ATF's newer
    fire investigation resources is the Fire Research Laboratory (FRL). The
    FRL houses a one-of-a-kind fire test center with the capability of
    replicating initial fire scenarios approaching a quarter acre in size,
    to scale, and under controlled conditions allowing for detailed
    analysis. This facility is the only such facility in the United States
    that is dedicated to providing case support in fire investigations
    using forensic fire science, and the facility will support ATF's
    investigative requirements well into the future.

                   CRIMINAL DIVERSION OF ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO

        ATF is engaged in ongoing efforts to reduce the rising trend of the
    illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products by criminal gangs,
    organized crime, and terrorist groups. In fiscal year 2002 we had 61
    defendants, 35 arrests, and 18 convictions relating to tobacco
    diversion. In fiscal year 2005, we had 314 defendants, 162 arrests, and
    73 convictions, increases of 515 percent, 463 percent, and 406 percent
    respectively. From the hijacking of tractor trailer loads and cargo
    containers of cigarettes, to the armed robbery of tobacco retailers,
    wholesalers, and distributors, to traditional smuggling conspiracies,
    ATF has successfully investigated and prosecuted the criminals
    involved. Current investigations have identified several instances of
    terrorist groups forming alliances with tobacco traffickers to generate
    funding to support their organizations and activities. We have built
    complex cases against individuals and organizations that have used
    proceeds from the illegal sales of cigarettes to fund organized crime
    and terrorism, and these cases have been successfully prosecuted. ATF
    also works in partnership with other Federal, State, and local agencies
    to enforce the laws under their jurisdiction. Where a terrorism nexus
    is present, ATF works with the local Joint Terrorism Task Force.
        Illegal trafficking of ATF-regulated commodities using the Internet
    is a growing problem, particularly with tobacco products. The illicit
    sale of tobacco products via the Internet is increasing and causing a
    substantial loss of excise tax revenue to Federal and State
    Governments. ATF utilizes laws such as the Contraband Cigarette
    Trafficking Act and Wire Fraud, Mail Fraud, and money laundering
    statutes to interdict illicit interstate cigarette distribution via the
    Internet and the mail.

                      INDUSTRY OPERATIONS: ATF'S DUAL ROLE

        ATF's role in Federal firearms and explosives laws, with both
    regulatory and enforcement responsibilities, is unique. ATF industry
    operations investigators ensure that the manufacture, import, and sale
    of firearms and explosives are conducted lawfully. Through education
    and industry partnerships, we work to keep firearms and explosives out
    of the wrong hands.
        According to the Institute of Makers of Explosives, over 5.6
    billion pounds of commercial explosives are used every year in the
    United States in mining and other applications. ATF ensures compliance
    with explosives laws and regulations through its explosives regulatory
    program. The purpose of this program is to protect interstate and
    foreign commerce against interference and interruption by reducing
    hazards to persons and property arising from the misuse and unsafe or
    unsecured storage of explosive materials. This is accomplished through
    the explosives field inspection effort; through the development,
    implementation, and evaluation of regulatory enforcement procedures and
    policy; through the screening of prospective and current explosive
    licensees/permittees and their employees; and through regular and open
    communication with the explosives industry and its representatives.
    ATF's field inspection program includes the thorough review of records
    and inventory to ensure product accountability, as well as the visual
    inspection of explosives storage facilities to ensure safe and secure
    product storage to prevent theft and misuse of explosives and
    accidents. Investigators verify that explosives storage magazines meet
    Federal construction and location requirements, including the required
    distance from explosives storage areas to roads or residential areas.
        The Safe Explosives Act (SEA) enhanced ATF's unique statutory
    mission of regulating the explosives industry. With the passage of this
    act in 2002, ATF assumed a significant additional workload such as
    continued issuance of renewal licenses/permits for nearly 13,000
    explosives-related businesses; increased inspection efforts and more
    thorough license application processing, including background checks
    for all employees who possess explosives. Further, the SEA decreed that
    ATF physically inspect every new explosives licensee applicant to
    ensure public safety. ATF's proposed explosives user fee will offset
    the explosives industry inspections that are currently carried out by
    ATF in furtherance of its mission.
        ATF's investigators are also responsible for firearms licensee
    inspections. Day in and day out, these investigators ensure that FFLs
    follow appropriate guidelines and procedures. Their work helps to
    prevent the acquisition of firearms by prohibited persons. Further, by
    promoting proper recordkeeping and business practices, they help ensure
    effective firearms tracing in critical investigations by the Nation's
    law enforcement community. Cooperative programs such as ``Don't Lie for
    the Other Guy,'' a joint venture between ATF and the National Shooting
    Sports Foundation, provide essential education for FFLs. In addition,
    our Federal Firearms Licensing Center in Atlanta screens all FFL
    applicants by coordinating background checks on persons responsible for
    firearms operations. I would like to note that, consistent with the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 (Public Law 108-
    447), we are in the process of moving the licensing center to the site
    of our National Tracing Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Co-
    locating these facilities will result in increased efficiencies and
    improved service to the public.

                            INTELLIGENCE/TECHNOLOGY

        ATF recognized the opportunity to improve intelligence support
    internally and externally, and created an Office of Strategic
    Intelligence and Information (OSII) in 2003. The new directorate,
    headed by an assistant director, provides timely, accurate, and focused
    intelligence through the collection and analysis of information which
    enhances decision-making for all Bureau customers. Thus, it ensures
    that our special agents and investigators receive the necessary
    information to disrupt criminal organizations and individuals that
    threaten public safety. The creation of OSII was a big step toward
    enabling ATF to put its information to the best possible use. The
    dynamic exchange of intelligence information between headquarters and
    field offices allows ATF to leverage data collection and analytical
    expertise to aid in providing accurate and timely intelligence support.
    I would also like to note that ATF has committed resources to all Joint
    Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) nationwide. The ultimate outcome of these
    efforts will be better information to investigators, which will, we
    hope, help prevent future incidents.
        ATF's Forensic Science Laboratories are an invaluable resource in
    perfecting ATF cases and in serving as a resource for State and local
    law enforcement. ATF's Forensic Science Laboratory system is composed
    of the National Laboratory Center (NLC) in Ammendale, Maryland, and the
    regional laboratories in Atlanta, Georgia, and San Francisco,
    California. The laboratories are equipped with state of the art
    forensic and scientific technologies. ATF laboratory personnel perform
    fire debris analysis, tool mark comparisons, explosives scene evidence
    examinations, searches for the presence and comparison of identifiable
    latent fingerprints, and examine trace evidence from crime scenes such
    as hair, paint, or fibers.
        ATF is a participant in the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical
    Center, or TEDAC, operated at the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia.
    At this center, ATF and other partners analyze explosive devices from
    Iraq and Afghanistan in an effort to identify bombers and to prevent
    further attacks. Experts work to evaluate improvised explosive device
    (IED) components to identify similarities and potential bomb makers,
    provide timely intelligence to military and law enforcement, and
    collect latent prints and DNA from terrorist IEDs to link the same
    person to similar devices. Four ATF employees work full-time at the
    center--including an ATF special agent who serves as TEDAC's Deputy
    Director--providing their technical expertise in identifying components
    of IEDs. TEDAC has provided assistance to U.S. military and
    intelligence personnel in preventing fatal detonations of IEDs and in
    tracking down bombing suspects. This is an example of how we are
    working within DOJ to prevent terrorism, and contributing our knowledge
    to a common goal.
        I have worked closely with Federal Bureau of Investigation Director
    Robert Mueller to strengthen interagency collaboration on a number of
    international efforts, including TEDAC. Under Director Mueller's
    leadership, and with the assistance of an ATF special agent serving as
    deputy director, TEDAC's device component analyses has more than
    doubled. ATF is incorporating this information on terrorist IEDs in
    State and local training programs to better equip local investigators
    and bomb technicians in recognition and investigative skills to alert
    on potential criminal and terrorist IEDs.

                                SPECIAL PROGRAMS

        Several of ATF's programs, such as the National Response Team
    (NRT), Special Response Team (SRT), and the canine program, strengthen
    our efforts in firearms, explosives and arson, and alcohol and tobacco
    diversion. They contribute to our missions of preventing terrorism,
    reducing violent crime, and protecting our Nation.
        In the wake of a major fire or explosives incident, law enforcement
    investigators can rely on the expertise and advanced technology of
    ATF's NRT. The NRT augments the investigative expertise of special
    agents in each field office and are capable of responding within 24
    hours to major explosives or fire incidents. NRT members--consisting of
    highly trained special agent CFIs as well as CESs, EEOs, chemists,
    intelligence and audit support, legal advisors, and others--work
    alongside State and local officers in reconstructing the scene,
    identifying the seat of the blast or origin of the fire, conducting
    interviews, sifting through debris to obtain evidence related to the
    explosion and/or fire, assisting with the ensuing investigation, and
    providing expert court testimony. Since the NRT was created in 1978, it
    has been activated 601 times. In fiscal year 2005 alone there were 13
    activations. The effectiveness of this response capability and the
    expertise of the team members were evident in the NRT's responses to
    incidents, such as the 1993 World Trade Center and 1995 Oklahoma City
    Federal Building bombings and the 2001 attack on the Pentagon.
        One of ATF's major assets in the fight against violent criminals is
    our SRTs consisting of some of the bravest, most dedicated, and most
    professional special agents in Federal law enforcement. The special
    agents on these teams conduct high-risk tactical operations such as the
    execution of arrest warrants, search warrants, and buy/bust operations.
    In fiscal year 2005, the SRT planned 150 operations and executed 101 of
    these high risk enforcement actions. In addition, two SRT Teams were
    assigned to New Orleans for 60 days to assist in the law enforcement
    response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
        In September of last year, ATF had the privilege of providing a
    demonstration of our explosives and accelerant detection canine program
    to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Integration
    and Oversight. After the demonstration, the branch chief for the canine
    training program testified before the subcommittee regarding the status
    of ATF's program and progress made on establishing a National Odor
    Recognition Standard for all explosives canines. ATF's unique training
    methodology enables its 35 explosives detection canines to find
    explosives and gunpowder residue, IEDs, post-blast debris, firearms,
    ammunition, bulk explosives, and spent shell casings. By breaking down
    the thousands of known explosive compounds into five recognizable and
    consistent chemicals, the canines can detect explosives used in up to
    19,000 known explosives compounds. It is important to note that ATF is
    the only agency systemically training canines on peroxide explosives
    such as those used in the July 2005 terrorist attacks on the London
    transportation system.
        Our canine program trains and certifies explosives detection
    canines for State, local, and Federal agencies as well as foreign
    countries. To date, we have trained 621 canines for the use of our
    agents and our domestic and international law enforcement partners. In
    compliance with former-Attorney General Ashcroft's mandate, we have
    established standards to certify all canines used by DOJ components
    which will ensure that these components have an efficient tool to
    identify and locate explosives. Because there are so many other
    providers of explosives detection canines that are trained under a
    variety of standards and conditions, the National Bomb Squad Commanders
    Advisory Board, which represents State and local bomb squads, asked ATF
    to implement a National Canine Basic Odor Recognition Standard for all
    explosives canine teams domestically. While ATF shares the concern of
    the advisory board that explosives detection canines used domestically
    should be trained to a national odor recognition standard, this cannot
    currently be accomplished within existing resource levels. ATF is
    evaluating ways to further implementation of the standard within
    existing resource levels. Moreover, our 60-accelerant detection canines
    help to identify potential points of origin at a fire scene. In
    addition to supporting local authorities, the accelerant detection
    canines respond with the NRT and are used by ATF field offices on a
    case-by-case basis.
        Although the original goal of the explosives detection canine
    program was to locate explosive devices, these canines have also proven
    themselves to be a valuable asset in firearms investigations through
    their ability to locate hidden firearms and ammunition. Using this
    existing asset in a new way has been invaluable during search warrants
    and following shootings when other means of locating firearms,
    ammunition, and spent shell casings have failed. On October 20, 2002,
    following a shooting connected to the District of Columbia sniper
    investigation, an ATF canine team searching the woods surrounding the
    crime scene found a .223 shell casing. This ballistics discovery also
    led investigators to a note tacked to a nearby tree which had been
    placed by the suspects in an effort to communicate their demands. The
    shell casing was analyzed by the ATF National Laboratory and was
    eventually matched to the Bushmaster rifle recovered at the arrest
    site.

                                 INTERNATIONAL

        Law enforcement agencies worldwide use our firearms tracing
    capabilities to gain additional information about crime guns. In fiscal
    year 2005, Congress provided ATF's National Tracing Center with a $1
    million increase to cover the cost of increased international trace
    requests. In that fiscal year, ATF traced over 12,000 firearms for
    foreign law enforcement representing 56 foreign countries. Our
    international activities enhance public safety in many countries
    worldwide, and in so doing, they protect American interests.
        ATF provides extensive support to America's diplomatic activities.
    Regional Security Officers from the Department of State's Diplomatic
    Security Service (DSS) participate in post-blast training led by ATF.
    The training focuses on explosives crime scene processing, management
    and preservation, and includes explosives identification and effects.
    Other countries have benefited from ATF's expertise in training
    explosives detection canines: through a partnership with the Department
    of State, ATF has trained approximately 375 canines for international
    law enforcement agencies since the program's inception in 1990. Also,
    our International Response Team (IRT) deploys in support of DSS
    investigative responsibilities and foreign government requests. The IRT
    has been deployed 25 times in response to fire and explosives incidents
    since its inception in 1991, most recently to investigate a deadly fire
    in Granada.
        ATF works with agencies worldwide to prevent firearms from reaching
    the hands of organized criminal gangs, drug traffickers, terrorist
    organizations, and other criminals. ATF enforces provisions of the Arms
    Export Control Act (AECA), and has primary jurisdiction over permanent
    firearms and ammunition imports. The Department of State administers
    the temporary import and export provisions of the AECA, and the
    Department of Homeland Security enforces all AECA provisions at U.S.
    ports and borders.

                                  PARTNERSHIPS

        At ATF, we believe that working together is not just a good idea--
    it is a matter of national security. Our agency has a long history of
    collaborating effectively with other enforcement agencies, industry,
    and the scientific and academic communities. Our successes are directly
    related to our ability to work effectively with our colleagues.
        As part of our robust support for joint efforts to counter the
    grave threat of terrorism, we share our expertise in firearms,
    explosives, and alcohol and tobacco diversion. As noted previously, ATF
    contributes to the Department of Justice's fight against terrorism
    through the JTTF program. ATF personnel assigned to JTTFs function as
    in-house experts on firearms and explosives violations and on tobacco
    diversion act as liaisons between the FBI and ATF at the local level on
    intelligence matters, and are a vital part of the joint investigative
    team. ATF has 43 full-time and 17 part-time personnel assigned to JTTFs
    around the country with an additional 42 personnel designated to
    liaison with the remaining JTTFs not located in proximity to an ATF
    field office--therefore, ATF has committed resources to all JTTFs
    nationwide.
        ATF works closely with other Federal agencies and with the academic
    and scientific communities, to conduct research and monitor
    developments in explosives research, blast mitigation, and explosives
    detection. ATF representatives also serve as a subgroup co-chair and as
    task managers on several research efforts funded through the Technical
    Support Working Group (TSWG). The TSWG, administered by DOD under the
    auspices of the National Security Council, conducts rapid research,
    development, and prototyping of multiple use technologies for law
    enforcement and military purposes. ATF also has collaborative research
    partnerships with the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
    Center, and has partnerships with Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; University of Missouri, Rolla;
    and University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Also, ATF closely and
    regularly collaborates with representatives of foreign governments,
    including the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada.
        ATF leverages its resources to better inform, advise, and educate
    its stakeholders and customers. For instance, ATF has partnered with
    The Fertilizer Institute to launch voluntary campaigns to raise the
    awareness of industry, law enforcement, and the public on the sale,
    security, storage, and transportation of ammonium nitrate, the chemical
    that was mixed with fuel oil in the Oklahoma City bombing.
        ATF employees hold key positions in many prestigious professional
    organizations. I am a member of the executive committee of the
    International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and, since 1990,
    an ATF agent has chaired the IACP Arson and Explosives Committee.
    Similarly, ATF has maintained outstanding relationships with the
    International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators, the
    International Association of Arson Investigators, the International
    Association of Explosives Engineers, the National Sheriff's
    Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Police Research Forum,
    and the National Bomb Squad Commanders. Also, as stated previously, ATF
    has a partnership with the National Shooting Sports Foundation in
    conducting the ``Don't Lie for the Other Guy'' program which provides
    essential education for FFLs.

                                   MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Chairman, ATF is a well-managed and effective organization, and
    external evaluations of our abilities confirm this. In the last 2
    years, the Office of Management and Budget has evaluated ATF's
    explosives and arson programs and our firearms programs. In each
    review, we received a rating of ``moderately effective,'' one of the
    higher ratings received by Federal law enforcement programs. Also, as
    part of the President's Management Agenda, the Office of Personnel
    Management sponsored a survey of 115 Federal subcabinet agencies. On
    this survey of employee satisfaction, I am proud to say that ATF ranked
    15th. With the continued support of the Department and this
    subcommittee, we will continue to provide innovative management and
    personnel.
        The ATF Headquarters building is being constructed here in
    Washington, DC. The vision for this high-tech, environmentally friendly
    building is threefold: it fulfills Congress' intention to move ATF
    employees and mission to safer and more secure facilities; it will
    serve as a landmark facility for the Federal government; and it will
    support the revitalization efforts of the city. ATF is scheduled to
    move to its new Headquarters this fiscal year.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski, Members of the subcommittee, on
    behalf of the men and women of ATF, I thank you for your support of our
    crucial work. In the last year, we have worked to stop those whose
    violent and criminal behavior threatens the peace of our communities.
    We have investigated explosives incidents and arsons. We have helped to
    ensure that the firearms and explosives industries operate safely and
    lawfully. And we have shared our knowledge with other law enforcement
    personnel through extensive training programs and effective
    partnerships. Yet I believe that our greatest achievements are still to
    come. We have made much progress--but we know there is much more to do.
    We are determined to succeed in our mission of preventing terrorism,
    reducing violent crime, and protecting our Nation. We look forward to
    working with you to pursue this goal.

                         United States Marshals Service

    STATEMENT OF JOHN F. CLARK, DIRECTOR
        Senator Shelby. Director Clark.
        Mr. Clark. Thank you, Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski,
    and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity
    to appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal
    year 2007 budget request for the United States Marshals
    Service. I am also honored to appear before the subcommittee
    today as the first career employee of the Marshals Service and
    also with my distinguished colleagues.

                 UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        I just want to briefly outline some of our most recent
    accomplishments to set the stage for our 2007 budget request.
    Protecting the American judicial system continues to be a top
    priority for the Marshals Service. Last year, we protected
    2,200 Federal judges, 5,500 U.S. attorneys and their staff, as
    well as numerous juries and other people associated with the
    American judicial system. We provided the safekeeping for
    nearly 55,000 pretrial prisoners, produced prisoners for
    650,000 court proceedings, provided protection for over 200
    individuals who had received threats; we analyzed and
    investigated over 950 threats to those protectees.

                         FUGITIVE REGIONAL TASK FORCES

        In the area of violent crime, we continued to use our
    fugitive regional task forces. Last year, we apprehended over
    77,000 Federal fugitives and 52,000 State and local fugitives.
    We safely handled 673 international extraditions, a record high
    for fiscal year 2005. We increased our fugitive efforts in
    foreign field offices, most notably in Mexico. We conducted
    several major fugitive roundups, such as Operation Falcon,
    which netted an unprecedented 10,000 fugitives in a single
    week. And we continue to manage over $1 billion in seized
    assets.

                   SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST

        For the sake of time, I will move into our 2007 budget
    request. Our fiscal year 2007 budget request addresses the
    Marshals Service highest priority needs. In total, we are
    requesting 66 additional positions and $13.6 million to address
    critical needs related to judicial security, information
    technology, and audited financial statements. We are also
    proposing $9.4 million in program offsets.

                               JUDICIAL SECURITY

        In the area of judicial security, in order to keep pace
    with a growing workload and to improve judicial security, we
    are requesting 37 positions and $4.6 million. The requested
    resources will allow the Marshals Service to hire 28 additional
    deputy marshals and nine administrative support staff for our
    district offices as well as fund the ongoing costs associated
    with the home security monitoring systems.

                             INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

        In the area of information technology, in order to maximize
    the agency's use of new technologies and strengthen the
    information technology infrastructure, we are requesting 14
    system administrators and $7.2 million. The Marshals Service
    has made significant progress in the information technology
    area, but more is needed to successfully accomplish our mission
    and support the Department's Federal initiatives.

                          AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

        In the area of the audited financial statements, we are
    requesting 15 positions and $1.8 million to correct material
    weaknesses and reportable conditions identified in the 2005
    financial audit and to address the increased financial
    oversight and internal control workload associated with the
    Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
        With regard to the offsets mentioned previously, in 2006,
    the Congress generously provided resources in addition to our
    request. The Marshals Service needs to reduce the levels of
    these programs by $9.4 million in fiscal year 2007 to ensure
    that adequate resources are available for judicial security.
        I appreciate again the opportunity to appear before the
    subcommittee, and I look forward to taking your questions now.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of John F. Clark

        Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski, and Members of the subcommittee,
    I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
    President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the United States
    Marshals Service.
        Since September 11, the Marshals Service has had an integral role
    in the Nation's efforts to combat terrorism. We were among the first
    responders at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11.
    Our primary mission is to protect the judicial process, and in doing
    so, we have taken aggressive measures to protect courthouses and secure
    courtrooms in order to handle the many high threat trials involving
    suspected terrorists, violent gang members, and drug traffickers.
        Most recently, the Marshals Service sent hundreds of deputies to
    Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas to assist in rescue,
    recovery, evacuation, and law enforcement activities in the aftermath
    of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I would like to thank this subcommittee
    for its support of the Marshals Service and for the supplemental
    funding we received to repair our courthouses and replace damaged
    equipment.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        The legal proceedings of Zacarias Moussaoui have been ongoing
    through all of fiscal year 2005. The USMS has continued to provide
    security for this high-profile trial. Thankfully, we have been
    successful in producing the defendant safely and securing the judicial
    proceedings. On April 22, 2005, Mr. Moussaoui pleaded guilty to all of
    the charges against him. The trial is now in the penalty phase and we
    expect this phase to last 2 to 3 months.
        As the former U.S. Marshal in the Eastern District of Virginia, I
    can speak firsthand about the planning and resource requirements
    necessary to prepare for a high threat trial. The Moussaoui case is
    just one example. Agency-wide, our personnel produced prisoners for
    650,000 court proceedings; all without one escape or injury to a judge,
    witness, or prosecutor. Last year, we investigated over 950 potential
    threats to Federal judges and prosecutors. Our Deputy Marshals provided
    200 personnel protective details and another 300 event protective
    details. All were completed without a single incident of violence.
        The increase in gang-related trials also presents many challenges
    for us. For example, in Santa Ana, California, we are securing the
    largest capital murder case in United States history. Forty defendants
    affiliated with the Aryan Brotherhood are on trial for a variety of
    violent crimes including conspiracy to commit murder and drug
    trafficking. At least 8 gang members face the death penalty. Not only
    are the defendants part of this gang, but so are the witnesses. At
    least 12 former gang members are expected to testify.
        In addition to the Aryan Brotherhood gang, the Mara Salvatrucha
    gang, referred to as MS-13, is expanding its influence internationally.
    Last year in Alexandria, several members of the MS-13 gang were
    successfully convicted of a brutal murder. That trial included
    producing participants from the Witness Security Program which required
    additional security precautions. Providing protection for witnesses who
    testify against a gang known for its viciousness is a daunting task. I
    would like to thank this subcommittee for its continued support of the
    Witness Security Program and for recognizing their role in stopping
    gang violence.
        Outside of the courtroom, the Marshals Service is working
    diligently to achieve the offsite security initiative funded through
    the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the
    Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief. We are grateful for the
    support provided by Congress. The funds will allow the Marshals Service
    and the Judiciary to install home intrusion detection systems in the
    homes of federal judges. After planning the implementation of this
    system, we have hired a contractor to provide and install the systems.
    The four pilot sites concluded successfully and systems are being
    ordered and installed throughout the country.
        Over 4 days in August 2005, the Marshals Service conducted a unique
    fugitive apprehension initiative, Operation Fugitive Safe Surrender, in
    the Northern District of Ohio. This operation combined the efforts of
    the Marshals Service, State and local law enforcement, local
    prosecutors, and community leaders in creating an environment where
    fugitives were encouraged to surrender under circumstances that
    guaranteed their safety and the safety of the surrounding community.
    This innovative, faith-based initiative resulted in the peaceful
    surrender of 850 fugitives, of which 350 were fugitive felons. Later
    this year, we will expand this initiative into 6 cities including:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico; Camden, New Jersey; Louisville, Kentucky;
    Phoenix, Arizona; Richmond, Virginia; and Washington, DC.
        The Marshals Service continues to improve strategies used to
    apprehend fugitives. In April of 2005, the Marshals Service conducted
    the largest fugitive roundup undertaken by any law enforcement agency
    in the United States. By working with law enforcement officers from
    Federal, State, county, and city agencies, Operation FALCON (Federal
    and Local Cops Organized Nationally) apprehended over 10,000 violent
    fugitives and cleared 14,000 warrants. Agency-wide, our Deputy Marshals
    apprehended over 77,000 Federal fugitives and another 52,000 State and
    local fugitives.
        We have also made a substantial impact on the fugitive workload in
    Mexico, Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic. The placement of deputy
    marshals in these foreign field offices led to 673 extraditions in
    2005; a record-high number for the Marshals Service. One of these
    extraditions from last February involved deputy marshals working with
    Mexican authorities on the return to the United States of a sex
    offender who had kidnapped a 15-year-old girl and taken her to Mexico.
    Once in Mexico, the offender abused the girl for 2 weeks before she
    managed to escape. Criminal acts of this nature must be investigated
    vigorously and immediately. We thank our Mexican counterparts for their
    diligence and continued cooperation.

                             CHILDREN'S SAFETY ACT

        The protection of the nation's children from those who would prey
    upon them is important to our nation's future. For that reason, I would
    like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of this subcommittee
    for co-sponsoring the Children's Safety Act of 2005 (H.R. 3132). This
    important piece of legislation would establish a comprehensive national
    system for the registration of sex offenders. Failure to register would
    make it a federal crime which in turn would generate additional federal
    fugitives. We would welcome the opportunity to become involved in this
    vital effort to keep our children and families safe.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST

        Our fiscal year 2007 budget request addresses the Marshals
    Service's highest priority needs. In total, we are requesting 66
    additional positions and $13.6 million to address critical needs
    related to judicial security, information technology, and audited
    financial statements. We are also proposing $9.4 million in program
    offsets.

                               JUDICIAL SECURITY

        Protection of the judicial process--with a heavy emphasis on
    judicial security--remains the primary mission of the United States
    Marshals Service. The workload associated with judicial and courthouse
    security has significantly increased in the last 5 years due to the
    Nation's heightened awareness of possible threats. The murder of Judge
    Lefkow's husband and mother in retaliation for her rulings demonstrates
    why judicial security is vital in maintaining the Federal judicial
    process. To keep pace with a growing workload and to improve judicial
    security, we are requesting 37 positions and $4.6 million. The
    requested resources would allow the Marshals Service to hire 28
    additional deputy marshals and 9 administrative support staff for
    district offices, as well as fund the ongoing costs associated with
    home security system monitoring.

                             INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

        In order to maximize the agency's use of new technologies and
    strengthen the information technology infrastructure, we are requesting
    14 systems administrators and $7.2 million. The Marshals Service has
    made significant progress in the information technology area but more
    is needed to successfully accomplish our mission and support
    departmental and Federal initiatives. We will use the requested
    resources to enhance the Justice Detainee Information System, purchase
    replacement servers and software, and provide additional systems
    administrators to district offices. JDIS is a critical law enforcement
    tool because it marries our judicial threat data with warrant, criminal
    history, prisoner scheduling, and booking information into a single
    database. Our long term goal is to share this information with other
    agencies, including the Federal courts, so we all can take advantage of
    this law enforcement information. These resources will ensure that the
    Marshals Service is working not only harder but smarter and taking full
    advantage of available technologies.

                          AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

        Finally, we are requesting 15 positions and $1.8 million to correct
    material weaknesses and reportable conditions identified in the 2005
    financial audit and to address the increased financial oversight and
    internal control workload associated with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
    2002. In the 2005 financial audit of the Marshals Service, auditors
    provided an unqualified opinion on our financial statements; however,
    they also identified three material weaknesses and one reportable
    condition. The requested program increase will ensure that the
    auditors' recommendations are addressed and that we continue to provide
    appropriate financial oversight, policy compliance, and delivery of
    timely, accurate and reliable financial statements.

                                    OFFSETS

        In 2006, Congress generously provided resources in addition to our
    request. Though appreciated, the Marshals Service needs to reduce the
    levels of these programs by $9.4 million in fiscal year 2007 to ensure
    that adequate resources are available for judicial security. The
    proposed offsets reduce funding for courthouse renovations and fugitive
    apprehension.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present the Marshals Service
    budget request for fiscal year 2007. We appreciate your ongoing support
    and hope to prove efficient stewards of the resources entrusted to us.
    I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

        Senator Shelby. Thank you. We will start with the FBI, Mr.
    Director. We will have a number of questions for the record,
    but we will try to move this.

                                    SENTINEL

        We are both--we all were interested in Trilogy. We wanted
    it to work. We want the next one, Sentinel, to work. Last week,
    I wrote a letter to you requesting answers to a lot of the
    questions the staff is interested in regarding the procurement
    and the FBI's new $500 million procurement of Sentinel. I have
    a copy of this that we will make part of the record here, but I
    know there are lots of questions here, Mr. Director.
        Can you assure us you will get those answers as soon as
    possible just for our information of the subcommittee?
        Mr. Mueller. Again, Mr. Chairman, we are working. We are
    working. I think there are something like 85 questions.
        Senator Shelby. It is a lot of them.
        Mr. Mueller. And a number of them go back to Trilogy.
        Senator Shelby. They do.
        Mr. Mueller. Which was two-thirds of it was successful,
    one-third not successful.
        Senator Shelby. We know.
        Mr. Mueller. And what we are focusing on is making certain
    that Sentinel is successful. We would be happy to brief your
    staff at any time and in addition to take suggestions from your
    staff or others on the Hill on how we can do it better. We have
    always come up and said we are open to any suggestions that you
    might have in terms of how we can make sure this is successful,
    because I know we both want to make it successful.
        Senator Shelby. I know you do, and I believe that you have
    probably learned things. We have all learned. But we have that
    responsibility on money, even if it is a dollar. But in this
    case, it was a lot of money, and we know the FBI has to have
    the modern technology. You know it better than I know, and
    Senator Mikulski knows it very, very well herself.
        Mr. Mueller. I can use your help in one area, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. Yes.
        Mr. Mueller. And that is we have welcomed oversight both
    within Congress but also outside in terms of GAO and the
    inspector general and the like. We have persons who are
    dedicated to Sentinel, and to the extent that we can
    consolidate requests and briefings, it would be helpful in
    terms of freeing up the personnel to work on the project.
        Senator Shelby. I understand.
        Mr. Mueller. And so, we are working on those questions now,
    but we also ask your assistance in helping us to consolidate
    the requests so that our personnel can respond to the
    legitimate requests but also spend time on the project.
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely. We want you to be successful.
    And our interest in oversight is to be constructive. If we are
    being critical, it is because we have a job to do. But we know
    the ultimate goal is to modernize the technology that you have
    at the FBI; is that correct?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. And we want to help you do that, want to
    make sure.

        DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION INVOLVEMENT IN THE INTELLIGENCE
                                   COMMUNITY

        Administrator Tandy, the 2000 budget includes $12 million
    for the DEA to formally become part of the intelligence
    community. How will this funding change DEA's current
    contributions to the intelligence community? Do you have
    sufficient intelligence sources in your foreign offices to help
    with this transition? I know you have good people, but for the
    record, we are interested in this.
        Ms. Tandy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, DEA is reentering the intelligence community
    with a lapse since 1980.
        Senator Shelby. We know.
        Ms. Tandy. We have the largest law enforcement presence in
    foreign countries around the world, and from that standpoint,
    we are extremely well positioned with our 80-plus offices in 62
    countries to contribute to the community and the flow of
    intelligence to protect our national security. DEA did not
    receive additional authorities, so we continue with our primary
    drug enforcement function. But what you should see as a
    difference with DEA in the community is the flow of
    intelligence. First of all, DEA has rich intelligence and
    sources around the world. We----
        Senator Shelby. Great resources.
        Senator Mikulski. And sources.
        Ms. Tandy. Thank you.
        Senator Shelby. And sources; she is right, Senator
    Mikulski, resources and sources.
        Ms. Tandy. We have tremendous people developing those.
        But as a result of that, we will now know what is important
    to the intelligence community, and as we speak to our sources
    during the course of our normal drug enforcement work, we will
    be able to expand those areas that we are covering with our
    sources to include the areas that are important to this country
    in the intelligence community. I think that is the principal
    benefit, and we hope there will be a two-way street as well.
        Senator Shelby. I think it is something you have got to
    mine. It will be very rich for the intelligence community.
        Director Truscott, I want to welcome you back. You are no
    stranger to the Appropriations Committee.
        Mr. Truscott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. You have worked here with us before.
        I appreciate personally the work that you explained a few
    minutes ago, the professionalism of your organization in
    dealing with the church burning in my home State of Alabama.
        Mr. Truscott. Thank you.
        Senator Shelby. You did a good job; so did the Bureau, you
    know, working there. And you are to be commended not only one
    time but many times, especially by we who help fund you.

                  ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS USER FEE PROPOSAL

        I commented earlier on my serious concerns with the $120
    million fee proposal included in your budget request. I am
    told, as I said earlier, that it would take nearly 2 years for
    the ATF to implement this proposal if it were enacted into law
    by the Congress. Is the ATF ready to implement this fee? And if
    the fee does not become law, what would be the impact on your
    agency?
        Mr. Truscott. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your comments
    regarding our efforts.
        With regard to the $120 million user fee, ATF has the
    statutory responsibility to regulate the explosives industry.
    And there are approximately 12,000 licensed explosives entities
    throughout the United States. And this user fee would be an
    offsetting receipt for the work that we do.
        There are approximately 6 billion pounds of explosives,
    both imported and domestic, that this user fee would apply to
    at the rate of 2 cents per pound. And so, the intent is that
    this would serve as a mechanism to offset the expenses that we
    have, the regulatory effort that we have to undertake this
    requirement that we have.
        In terms of if it were not able to be funded in some sort
    of way, it would have a very significant impact on the agency;
    $120 million is well over 10 percent of ATF's budget, so it
    certainly would impact our ability to regulate the explosives
    industry, but it also would roll into our ability to enforce
    explosives related statutory authority as well as the Federal
    firearms licensees that we also have the regulatory authority
    for, because it is the same industry operations investigators
    who do the explosives and the firearms regulatory work.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.

                               JUDICIAL SECURITY

        Director Clark, judicial security, that is a big issue with
    the Marshals. A March 2004 inspector general review showed that
    the Marshals Service assessment of threats against members of
    the Federal judiciary were deficient in several respects. The
    report found that the threat assessments are often untimely and
    of questionable validity. Further, the Marshals Service has
    limited capability to collect and share intelligence on
    potential threats, so its said, the report.
        The inspector general also found that the Marshals Service
    lacks adequate standards for determining the appropriate
    measures that should be applied to protect the judiciary
    against danger.
        Do you agree with the inspector general's finding? Do you
    take issue with it? And second, what is the status of the
    Marshals Service's efforts to protect judicial security in this
    country?
        Mr. Clark. Thank you, Senator, yes; as I said earlier,
    judicial security remains a top priority for me and for the
    Marshals Service. Since serving as the Acting Director and more
    recently being appointed as Director, we have taken several
    steps to improve some of the findings that were brought forward
    by the inspector general's report. Most notably, we have
    established a 24/7 or are in the process, I should say, of
    establishing a 24/7 threat analysis and intelligence center.
    This will help us speed up the process for analyzing threats
    against the judiciary and investigating them.
        We plan on increasing the number of staff at this center
    with analysts and deputy marshals.
        Senator Shelby. Will you be working with the FBI on this?
        Mr. Clark. Most certainly. We in fact use their joint
    terrorism task forces as one of the avenues to collect and
    gather intelligence that we might need to protect the
    judiciary.
        We are also in the process of conducting security awareness
    training for the members of the judiciary as well as retraining
    a number of the members of our staff in the Marshals Service on
    protective operations. We have been working very, very closely
    with the Judicial Conference and the Judicial Security
    Committee as an avenue to solicit their input on how we can
    best serve and protect them.
        Most notably recently, you may be aware that we are working
    diligently to install the home intrusion alarms in many of the
    judges' residences around the country.
        Senator Mikulski. The what?
        Mr. Clark. We have been working to install the home
    intrusion alarms.
        Senator Shelby. Home intrusion.
        Mr. Clark. Yes, within----
        Senator Shelby. No, home intrusion alarms.
        Mr. Clark. That is correct, yes.
        Senator Mikulski. No, it is the arm of the Marshals, but--
    --
        Mr. Clark. And using that as an additional security
    enhancement to protect them.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
    just have a few questions, but I do want to say something about
    the agencies that are represented before us and truly how much
    they are appreciated, Mr. Chairman, and I know you feel the
    same way from your own State of Alabama, but we in Maryland are
    part of the Capital region. We in Maryland, when we are
    fighting drugs, are an intersect for several States, whether it
    is Virginia or West Virginia, whether it is Pennsylvania or
    Delaware, and we are also a high threat area.
        And it is the people of my State, both its citizens and its
    law enforcement as well as those around the Beltway that turn
    to these people. Whether it is the sniper that is now indicted
    on which the ATF and the FBI were the lead agencies, but we did
    not federalize continuing to rely on local law enforcement. We
    had our fires in a community where African-Americans who had
    worked hard to be able to afford $500,000 saw the American
    dream go up in smoke.
        So we want to thank all of the people who work in these
    agencies. They work 24/7; lots of times, when we are having
    Thanksgiving dinner, or we are off to church to hear the melody
    of ``Silent Night'', they are out there working to protect us.
    And I think everybody who works at these agencies are an agent,
    whether they are people like Agent Perkins, who is now at the
    Budget Office, but over there in the FBI, Mr. Chairman, there
    is a lady who worked for the FBI as a secretary for 50 years
    who went to the same high school Nancy Pelosi and I did. She
    has trained more FBI agents and could run this Sentinel program
    better than anybody else, and we could go down the line.
        Senator Shelby. You might need to find her.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, I think we do. So I just want to say
    thank you, and I mean that very, very, very sincerely, and we
    are safer because of the work that has been done.

                        DRUG TRADE FUNDING AND TERRORISM

        Let me go on, though, to the questions, first of all, on
    terrorism. Ms. Tandy, you talk about the fact that DEA is now
    coming back into the intel business, and I am delighted to hear
    that, because in your testimony, you talk about nearly half of
    the State Department's listed foreign terrorist organizations
    have ties to the--nearly half of the State Department's listed
    terrorist organizations have ties to the drug trade.
        That is a stunning statement, stunning. Are we saying that
    it is the drug trade that is one of the primary sources of
    revenue for terrorism?
        Ms. Tandy. Senator, I am not sure I could say it is the
    primary revenue for each of them, although it certainly is for
    many of them. For others, it may be part of not just the money
    flow but trading drugs for munitions.
        Senator Mikulski. What do you mean by munitions? Is that
    everything from a handgun to a Stinger?
        Ms. Tandy. Yes, it could be a Stinger missile, an anti-
    aircraft missile. It could be weaponry, ammunition, all kinds
    of munitions used by terrorists.
        Senator Mikulski. But what would be the range of its lethal
    character? I mean, do they have it to buy an ICBM? I mean, are
    they talking about weapons that would just be used in small
    areas, in kind of urban guerilla terrorist attacks, or are we
    talking about somebody who could take down an aircraft or
    someone who could have the capability of launching a weapon of
    mass destruction?
        Ms. Tandy. I do not have any information about weapons of
    mass destruction, but certainly, as you have noted, Stinger
    missiles are capable of shooting down aircraft. That is what
    they are there for. There are examples of undercover
    investigations that DEA on the one hand, and the FBI on the
    other, were involved in where there were two different drug
    trafficking organizations, two different locations in the
    United States, San Diego and Houston, where the organizations
    were trading cocaine on the one hand for a Stinger missile, and
    on the other, it was heroin for a Stinger missile, one out of
    Colombia and one out of Pakistan. So you do have some of that
    associated with those foreign terrorist organizations on the
    State Department list.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I know Senator Leahy will have some
    of his own questions in that area, but I think we would like
    very much to be kept posted on that and also particularly on
    the DEA efforts on Afghanistan.
        We do not have the time to go into this, but in our hearing
    with Secretary Rice, she told us at the State Department
    approps hearing that literally, if we do not get a handle on
    the drug traffic in Afghanistan, it would have a severely
    destabilizing effect on Afghanistan's permanent move to
    democracy. So we think what you are doing is really important
    in that area.

                           NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION

        Director Mueller, on terrorism, you heard the questions
    that I was asking the Attorney General. Can you tell us,
    though, what is your new national security office, and is this
    the beginning of like what the Brits have, an MI-5 agency
    within the FBI? What will it do, and how is it not bureaucracy
    but an antiterrorist effort?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, for our national security branch, it
    consolidates counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and
    intelligence under one authority so that you eliminate overlap;
    you make certain that we are addressing the same targets.
        And one thing that cannot be lost, I do not think, when you
    raise the specter of an MI-5 is the importance of our criminal
    programs in terms of training, in terms of providing us the
    capabilities to do an effective job in addressing terrorism or
    counterintelligence. We also see that the criminal programs are
    an abundant source of intelligence, because many of those who
    support terrorism are involved in criminal matters in a variety
    of ways and it may not be just supporters of terrorism but may
    be recruiting individuals or the gaining funds that would
    support terrorism through their criminal activities.
        So it is my belief that it is important to establish a
    national security branch so we have recruiting, training and
    executive development in these specialized areas, but it has to
    be part of the FBI.
        Your questions directed to the Attorney General were also
    directed to the establishment of the National Security Division
    in the Department of Justice. And the differentiation I would
    make is between our investigative responsibilities and
    intelligence development and gathering responsibilities through
    our collectors, agents, and analysts to, on the other hand, the
    role of the Department of Justice in taking that information
    and prosecuting those individuals who are found guilty of
    violation of any one of the statutes.
        One of the prime components of the new National Security
    Division at the Department of Justice is the office that
    handles the FISA process. And I do believe it is important to
    focus on the FISA process to eliminate any holdups, glitches,
    giving it the support that it needs so that we have an
    effective, swift FISA response in that area.
        So the development of the National Security Division, I
    believe, replicates what is being done in the FBI but does it
    in a way that focuses on the legal side of the house as opposed
    to the investigative side of the house.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I think that is a very important
    clarification, and we would like to look at it. They are
    talking about $67 million to, I would hope, do more than the
    legal side. That is a lot of money and a lot of people to
    implement FISA. If FISA needs it, then, we would like to know
    about it, because you, Ms. Tandy, said you have got a
    supplemental here of $5 million to get your agency back in this
    very important antiterrorism, and I think you are going to be
    an important linchpin; exactly what the Director said. You all
    are abroad. You are abroad. You are abroad, Director Truscott.
    You are picking up this information as much as any intel
    collection source.

                     DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ANTI-TERRORISM

        Is that going to be enough money? I mean, you have got $67
    million over there at Justice to stand up a new agency. You are
    talking about a supplemental--I would hope that what you are
    talking about is more than $5 million.
        Ms. Tandy. It is, Senator. The $5 million in the
    supplemental is just to get us through the rest of 2006.
        Senator Mikulski. What is it that you need, and is it in
    here?
        Ms. Tandy. It is in there in the 2007 budget to get us
    through the 2007 fiscal year. It includes analysts to establish
    the infrastructure at DEA in order to have the collection, the
    intel taskings to go out from headquarters. It expands our
    existing SCIF to accommodate this additional load of intel
    collection and taskings from the community. So between the
    supplemental for the rest of this year and the 2007 budget,
    that will get us started.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, you know, each one of you, we could
    ask several more questions, and Director Mueller, we will be
    following up to just see how this goes as well as the Sentinel
    and this.

                             LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

        I am going to have one last question that really goes down
    the line. You have heard from our colleagues their intense
    feelings about the cut in the COPS and the Byrne program. We
    feel that in addition to the superb work that you all do, it is
    really the cops out there on the beat that you work with.
    Certainly, we saw that in the snipers. You did not federalize
    that. And we could go on.
        My question is how would the cuts proposed by the President
    to State and local law enforcement grant programs do you think
    will affect your respective agencies? Director Clark, why do we
    not start with you and just go down? But please be brief. I
    know Senator Leahy returned, and he has got to return to the
    floor.
        Mr. Clark. Sure, thank you, Senator.
        As you may know, we work very, very closely with our State
    and local partners, particularly in the area of fugitive
    apprehension. And we have been able to work with them and help
    fund, particularly with the regional task force efforts, one of
    which covers suburban Maryland, with some of the resources they
    need.
        Senator Mikulski. But how will the cuts affect your
    operation? How do you think the cuts in local law enforcement
    could impact on you? Will you have more work? Less work? Are
    you going to be less effective? Thank you for your work in
    Maryland.
        Mr. Clark. Yes, thank you, Senator, yes. I do not see it
    having a direct impact on our operations, and the funding that
    we are able to provide them with regard to violent crime
    initiatives I think, right now, is very adequate, as we have
    used it very successfully to do a lot of our fugitive roundups,
    particularly in this Capital region, for example. So I do not
    think it will have a significant impact.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Mr. Truscott.
        Mr. Truscott. Senator, like the Attorney General indicated,
    I have heard anecdotally from some of the State and local
    representatives from law enforcement that I speak to from time
    to time about their concerns. But I do not think that
    necessarily, it is going to have a negative impact on their or
    our ability to do our job. I think it forces us to work
    smarter, to leverage our resources; certainly, the DOJ
    component agencies that are represented here today, I think we
    partner and share our expertises to the best extent possible to
    benefit not only the Department of Justice but the American
    people.
        So it will just force us to work a little bit harder in
    that regard.
        Ms. Tandy. Senator, I think the area where it will be felt
    the most is in our mobile enforcement teams with our assistance
    to police chiefs and sheriffs in oftentimes remote areas.
        Senator Mikulski. That is what we are hearing from Prince
    Georges, yes.
        Ms. Tandy. It is about a two-thirds cut to that program. We
    will still have 80 agents, but it will affect the timing of our
    ability to respond to requests for our mobile enforcement
    teams, and we will probably have to move to a regional concept
    of our MET team deployments.
        On the other hand, Senator, I think it is important to add
    to this that DEA shared $176 million with our State and local
    partners last year. We have a very aggressive strategy, policy,
    and priority to go after the money and to turn that back around
    to State and local law enforcement as well as----
        Senator Mikulski. That has been one of the more successful
    efforts then to get money out of hard work, money goes back to
    fight even more crime.
        Ms. Tandy. We are very proud of the success we have had.
    When I came through the door in 2003, our receipts from seized
    assets were below $500 million. As I said in my statement, we
    are at well over $1 billion last year and climbing.
        For our participation in the HIDTA, we lead 54 HIDTA groups
    with State and local law enforcement. That will not change. The
    work that we do in training State and local law enforcement
    will not change. We trained 42,000 State and local law
    enforcement officers last year, and we will continue to do
    that.
        I think it really is going to be in the MET area, which is
    where we serve Indian country, gangs, and methamphetamine.
        Mr. Mueller. And let me reiterate what I think was said by
    many. We are a small agency compared to the 800,000 State and
    local law enforcement around the country. And in order to be
    successful against the threats of the future, there is no one
    agency that can do it alone. We have to leverage our resources
    both on the Federal level as well as with our partners at State
    and local law enforcement.
        That said, the adverse impact for us may be down the road
    if police departments are less willing to participate in task
    forces because of the crunch in terms of persons. I am
    sympathetic and supportive to the argument of the Attorney
    General that we need to focus the funds for State and local law
    enforcement. We have not seen that diminution of interest in
    the joint terrorism task forces or other task forces, but that
    is a possible consequence.
        The only other observation I would make is, as you talk to
    State and local law enforcement, they are concerned about the
    grants, but they are also concerned about the balance between
    funds going to first responders and funds going to law
    enforcement.
        The argument being made that you want to prevent the
    attack, and it is the police officers on the street; it is
    those that know the community that can prevent the attack, and
    when you are looking at the balance between those monies going
    to the first responders and those going to law enforcement, the
    argument is made that perhaps we ought to be focusing more of
    those funds on law enforcement as opposed to more of the
    balance going to the first responders.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I appreciate all of those answers
    and your candor.
        Just a word about first responders. The Federal program for
    first responders was created by Senator Bond and myself with
    many members here at this table, and it was at $900 million. It
    has now been cut down to $274 million. So it never reached over
    $1 billion when Byrne grants were $2.2 billion.
        But it is not meant to be a zero sum game. Each has what
    they need to be needed for. But we thank you for your candor;
    we thank you for your dedication. We look forward to working
    with you.
        Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would note that as I am sure we all realize, among those
    first responders are a lot of law enforcement, and we
    anticipate that in many cases, they will be. I realize Homeland
    Security is the first responder when we get these unexpected
    emergencies like the hurricane that we expected for 1 week or
    more, and I know that they are going to have their homes down
    there rebuilt any year now. So it is not a zero sum game.

                              COCAINE TRAFFICKING

        Administrator Tandy, I find interesting the successes you
    have had, and all of us want you to be successful. I am just
    curious: has the supply of cocaine, is it any more difficult to
    get cocaine in the United States than it was, say, 3 years ago?
    I am told by local law enforcement that it is not.
        Ms. Tandy. Senator, I think that has varied over time with
    the increase in eradication efforts.
        Senator Leahy. Is it any more difficult, if someone is a
    cocaine user, if they wanted to go, say, a few hundred yards
    from this building or 200 yards from the State house in pick
    whatever State you want, would they have any more difficulty
    getting cocaine today than they would have 3 years ago?
        Ms. Tandy. I have seen impact on the availability of
    cocaine. I cannot tell you that it is sustained. With our drug
    flow prevention strategy, which is part of our request, we saw
    impact there.
        Senator Leahy. I understand that, but I am told that the
    prices have not gone up, and the availability is about the same
    as it was 3 years ago. I realize it is a bit of a
    generalization, but would you disagree with that
    generalization?
        Ms. Tandy. There have been some changes in areas with the
    price of cocaine where----
        Senator Leahy. Significant?
        Ms. Tandy. It has been statistically significant. It is
    measurable, and that is in certain areas of the country which
    would follow from market changes with the eradication, with
    record-breaking----
        Senator Leahy. How about here in the District of Columbia?
        Ms. Tandy. Excuse me?
        Senator Leahy. What about right here in Washington, the
    Nation's Capital?
        Ms. Tandy. I do not know the answer to that. I would have
    to get back to you on that one.
        [The information follows:]

                       Price of Cocaine in Washington, DC
    Price
        DEA data reveal that cocaine prices in Washington, DC, have
    remained stable over the past five years, as have cocaine availability
    and abuse patterns. Cocaine price data for 2005 indicate the sale price
    for cocaine powder (cocaine hydrochloride) ranged between $650 and
    $1,250 per ounce in the D.C. metropolitan area. Data for 2005 indicate
    the sale price for crack cocaine ranged between $550 and $1,250 per
    ounce in the D.C. area.
        Price data was derived from undercover buys, confidential source
    information, and defendant information. Much of this information is
    anecdotal, and thus the data cannot be validated by DEA through any
    scientific methodology. Since DEA does not often purchase kilogram
    quantities, price estimates for kilograms are less accurate than
    estimates for smaller quantities. Furthermore, in DEA's experience
    price data is not a completely accurate indicator of supply and demand.
        The following chart provides 2001 to 2005 cocaine prices for
    Washington DC, as well as the national price range for comparison.

                                         POWDER COCAINE (COCAINE HYDROCHLORIDE)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Year                                 Kilogram            Ounce             Gram
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    WASHINGTON, DC PRICE RANGE

    2001......................................................   $16,500-$35,000       $900-$1,250          $50-$100
    2002......................................................   $17,500-$35,000       $600-$2,000           $30-$80
    2003......................................................   $17,000-$35,000       $825-$1,300          $50-$100
    2004......................................................   $24,000-$25,000       $900-$1,100              $100
    2005......................................................   $23,000-$27,000       $650-$1,250           ( \1\ )

                       NATIONAL PRICE RANGE

    2001......................................................   $13,000-$35,000       $400-$1,600          $20-$200
    2002......................................................   $10,000-$35,000       $400-$3,500          $24-$150
    2003......................................................   $10,000-$35,000       $375-$1,800          $25-$150
    2004......................................................   $10,000-$35,000       $350-$1,800           $9-$200
    2005......................................................           ( \2\ )           ( \2\ )           ( \2\ )
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ N/A.
    \2\ Pending.

    Source: Quarterly Trends in the Traffic Report--DEA Washington Division.

                                              CRACK COCAINE (COCAINE BASE)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Year                                 Kilogram            Ounce             Gram
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    WASHINGTON, DC PRICE RANGE

    2001......................................................   $28,000-$34,000       $900-$1,300          $80-$100
    2002......................................................           $30,000       $900-$1,750          $80-$100
    2003......................................................   $28,000-$34,000     $1,000-$1,300          $80-$100
    2004......................................................   $28,000-$34,000     $1,000-$1,200           ( \1\ )
    2005......................................................   $28,000-$34,000       $550-$1,250           ( \1\ )

                       NATIONAL PRICE RANGE

    2001......................................................   $13,000-$50,000       $300-$2,800          $10-$200
    2002......................................................   $13,000-$35,000       $325-$2,800          $10-$130
    2003......................................................    $7,500-$35,000       $325-$2,000          $10-$130
    2004......................................................    $7,500-$60,000       $325-$2,000          $18-$200
    2005......................................................           ( \2\ )           ( \2\ )           ( \2\ )
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ N/A.
    \2\ Pending.

    Source: Quarterly Trends in the Traffic Report--DEA Washington Division.

    Availability
        In determining the availability of drugs DEA looks at various
    indicators, such as price and purity, defendant and confidential source
    debriefings, and the professional judgment of colleagues in the law
    enforcement community. Source information, such as the source of
    cocaine supplied to the D.C. area, is gathered as a normal course of
    investigations. For example, whenever drug traffickers are arrested,
    they will be asked for information such as, ``Who hired you to pick up,
    transport, deliver, and sell the drugs?''
        According to the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department
    (MPD), cocaine availability has remained stable over the past several
    years. The MPD also reports that drug-related violence remains static,
    with the exception of homicides, which have decreased over the past
    four years.
        Kilogram quantities of cocaine hydrochloride (HCl) continue to
    arrive in the Washington, DC area. Powder cocaine sold at the mid- to
    retail level remains widely available. The quantities of cocaine HCl
    available in any given area greatly depend on abuse patterns and the
    level of distribution at which a particular dealer conducts business.
    Cocaine HCl most commonly is found in gram and ounce quantities for
    resale in suburban and rural areas, but in larger quantities (i.e.,
    quantities appropriate for redistribution after conversion to crack) in
    urban areas of the D.C. area.
        Crack cocaine is available throughout the D.C. area in quantities
    ranging from small quantities up to one kilogram. Most of the crack
    cocaine distributed within the D.C. area originates as cocaine HCl and
    is subsequently converted to crack. Generally, significant quantities
    of crack cocaine are not stockpiled and are manufactured according to
    demand.
        The main change in cocaine trafficking in the D.C. metropolitan
    area pertains to cocaine sources of supply. Over the past years,
    cocaine smuggling from the Southwest Border (especially Texas and
    Arizona) to the D.C. area has increased. The flow of cocaine through
    North Carolina has also increased. This mainly impacts southern
    Virginia but also affects the northern Virginia area, including
    Washington, DC. However, drug trafficking organizations in New York
    City still appear to be the principal cocaine suppliers for the
    Washington, DC. area.

        Senator Leahy. I think you would be shocked to hear the
    answer that the price, availability is roughly the same, the
    price is roughly the same. I believe if you took a general view
    of the country, you would find that the availability is roughly
    the same, and the price is roughly the same. Of course, there
    are fluctuations in everything. We are paying three times more
    for gasoline now than we were 5 or 6 years ago.
        And now, you said 2 weeks ago you charged 50 leaders of
    FARC, a State Department designated foreign terrorist
    organization, with supplying 60 percent of the cocaine in the
    United States. In the last 5 years, how many FARC members that
    your administration has indicted have actually been extradited
    and brought to trial?
        Ms. Tandy. There actually are two high-ranking members of
    the FARC that are here in the District of Columbia who are
    facing trial this year. One was a financial officer----
        Senator Leahy. That is two out of how many that have been
    indicted over the last 5 years?
        Ms. Tandy. I would have to get you the actual numbers.
    Fifty was an extraordinary number for us. And that was----
        Senator Leahy. Would you agree that most of the kingpins
    that we have indicted, and I certainly would want you to
    indict, but most of the kingpins, we have not been able to
    extradite from Colombia? Would you disagree with that
    statement?
        Ms. Tandy. Actually, I would differ with that statement. We
    have had tremendous success with President Uribe's
    administration and extraditions out of Colombia.
        Senator Leahy. Of kingpins. I am talking about Major----
        Ms. Tandy. Absolutely.
        Senator Leahy. I had a discussion with President Uribe
    about this just 1 month ago, and I want to see if your answer
    in any way relates to what his is. How many of the kingpins,
    some of the major paramilitary, some of the others that we have
    indicted, how many have actually been extradited, have actually
    been sent to the United States?
        Ms. Tandy. I would have to get you the actual numbers, but
    I can give you some examples that are significant. The founders
    of the Cali cartel who were extradited in the time that you are
    talking about are here on U.S. soil facing trial. We have, as I
    recall, about 20 percent of the most wanted drug trafficking
    organizations on the consolidated priority organization target
    list who have been extradited.
        Senator Leahy. So one out of five have been extradited to
    the United States. That would be a large number. Would that not
    be about 50, 60 people?
        Ms. Tandy. The CPOT list, which is the one I just referred
    to, is actually one that varies over the years, but it is about
    44 on the list right now, and so, 20 percent, about 80 percent
    of the targets, the targeted organizations have been indicted
    on that list, and about 20 percent of them, as I recall, I want
    to get you the exact figure.
        [The information follows:]

                   Indictments and Extraditions From Colombia

        Since 2002, 360 individuals have been extradited from Colombia to
    the United States. The Department of Justice Criminal Division
    estimates that approximately 94 percent of these extraditions have been
    for drug charges.

                          EXTRADITIONS FROM COLOMBIA TO THE UNITED STATES (AS OF JUNE 2, 2006)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Extraditions by Year                         2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    Total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Extradited from Colombia..................................      40      68      91     134      27     360
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Because Colombians are indicted by grand juries in various federal
    districts and a single indictment may charge multiple individuals, DOJ
    does not know the exact number of Colombians indicted since 2002.
        Over the past two years, several key traffickers have been
    extradited to the United States from Colombia, including members of the
    Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the Norte Valle Cartel,
    and the Cali Cartel. Some of these key extraditions include the
    following:
    2006
                Julio Cesar Lopez Pena
        In March 2005, Julio Cesar Lopez Pena was extradited to face
    racketeering and drug charges. According to a May 2004 indictment,
    Lopez Pena operated a cocaine laboratory under the control of the Norte
    Valle Cartel beginning in 1998.
    2005
                Jairo Aparicio Lenis
        In October 2005, Jairo Aparicio Lenis was extradited to the United
    States to face racketeering and drug charges. According to an April
    2004 indictment, Aparicio Lenis was a member of the Norte Valle Cartel
    responsible for laundering the cartel's cocaine proceeds.
                Elias Cobos Munoz
        In April 2005, Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT)
    Elias Cobos Munoz was extradited from Colombia to face cocaine
    conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy charges. Cobos Munoz is
    allegedly responsible for importing more than three metric tons of
    cocaine per month from Colombia into the United States since 2000,
    which is approximately 10 percent of the cocaine available in the
    United States. Cobos Munoz was extradited along with two co-defendants,
    Florentino Riviera-Farfan, aka ``Tarzan,'' and Jorge Ivan Lalinde-
    Lalinde, aka ``El Mono.''
                Nayibe Rojas Valderama
        In March 2005, FARC Commander Nayibe Rojas Valderama, aka
    ``Sonia,'' was extradited from Colombia to the United States to face
    drug trafficking charges in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Columbia. Prior to her arrest, Rojas Valderama was allegedly the
    finance officer for the FARC's 14th Front. Rojas Valderama is charged
    in an indictment together with the leader of the 14th Front, Jose
    Benito Cabrera Cuevas, aka ``Fabian Ramirez.'' Cabrera Cuevas is
    allegedly a member of the Central General Staff, the second highest
    governing body of the FARC, and he is the second-in-command of the
    Southern Block which is composed of 12 fronts containing approximately
    600-700 FARC members. Rojas Valderama, Cabrera Cuevas, and two
    international drug traffickers were indicted in December 2003.
                Rodriguez Orejuela Brothers
        Colombian CPOT Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela was extradited from
    Bogota, Colombia, to Miami, Florida, in March 2005. His brother, CPOT
    Gilberto Jose Rodriguez Orejuela, was extradited to the United States
    in December 2004. The Rodriguez Orejuela brothers were allegedly the
    heads of one of the largest cocaine and money laundering organizations
    in Colombia and were key figures in the establishment of a
    sophisticated cocaine trafficking consortium known as the Cali Cartel,
    which has operated since the 1980s. They remain two of the most
    significant Colombian drug traffickers extradited to the United States
    to date.

        Senator Leahy. So eight or nine have been extradited?
        Ms. Tandy. That is my recollection, but I will confirm
    that. I was also told, Senator Leahy, that at 1:30 this
    afternoon, Mexico put on the plane 1 of our top 25 fugitives
    who they have extradited to the United States.
        Senator Leahy. As you know, Colombia is one of the largest
    recipients of U.S. aid. Of the 50 leaders that you have
    charged, the most successful, of course, would be if you get
    all 50 up here. What if you got 40? Would that still be a
    success?
        Ms. Tandy. That would be a tremendous success.
        Senator Leahy. What if you got 30?
        Ms. Tandy. It would be a tremendous success, and I will
    tell you why.
        Senator Leahy. What if you got 20?

     FUERZAS ARMADAS REVOLUCIONARIAS DE COLOMBIA--EJERCITO DE PUEBLO--FARC

        Ms. Tandy. The 50 members of the FARC who are indicted
    decimate the entire leadership of the FARC. So how ever many of
    those----
        Senator Leahy. Only if they are in jail. But if they go
    into an amnesty program and are in Colombia and are allowed to
    go right back out, how does that decimate the FARC? I mean, I
    can see it would decimate it if we bring them up here and put
    them in jail, but that is what I am asking: of that 50, I mean,
    we will probably come back to this next year, but of that 50, a
    year from now, how many do you expect to actually see in the
    United States?
        Ms. Tandy. I cannot answer that, Senator. We certainly have
    had success with our partners in Colombia of getting two major
    FARC members arrested and extradited and here now facing trial.
    I have confidence that we will get more, but I could not
    possibly give you a number.
        Senator Leahy. How many would you expect at this time next
    year if you would consider it to be a success? And I will let
    you designate what a success is. Of the 50, how many would you
    want to see here this time next year so that you could consider
    it a success?
        Ms. Tandy. I would like to see all 50 of them, but I would
    not anticipate that we will succeed in getting all 50 arrested
    and extradited to the United States before I see you next year.
    I just could not give you a number, Senator. Any one of these
    50 are leaders.
        Senator Leahy. Suppose we only had three or four. Would
    that be a success?
        Ms. Tandy. We would consider any one of these 50 leaders of
    the FARC being extradited to the United States a success.
        Senator Leahy. Would it be a success if a large number of
    them went into the amnesty program and were returned to society
    in Colombia?
        Ms. Tandy. I know that those are issues that are
    principally related to the other terrorist organization, one of
    the other two remaining in Colombia, the United Self-Defense
    Force of Columbia (AUC). Those are issues that the State
    Department and the government of Colombia are addressing in
    terms of the parameters of that amnesty.
        Senator Leahy. Well, the parameters of amnesty is a nice
    term, but the fact is every time the Appropriations Committee
    tries to put any kinds of controls on our large amount of
    foreign aid that we actually have to get some of these people
    to come here and not just be given amnesty and turned back,
    your administration objects to that.
        And more and more of these people, the members of the drug
    cartels, the members of the terrorist organizations, the
    members involved with human rights violations, are told they
    can turn over some weapons and rejoin society.
        So I am trying to--and it is like Hotspur in Shakespeare.
    You know, I can call them from the vasty depths; well, so can
    I; so can anybody, but will they come when you call? And it is
    a nice statement. It has been my experience many times with all
    administrations that when law enforcement officials come here
    for appropriations hearings there are usually indictments
    shortly before so they can talk about success.
        I want to know how many are going to come here. Now, of 50,
    you indicted 50. But I wonder if only half a dozen of those 50
    actually come here to face justice, because one does not see
    them really facing it down there.
        Ms. Tandy. Senator, I can tell you that this is not an easy
    case to make. It is very complicated to penetrate the FARC and
    to identify the leaders and to amass the evidence that was put
    together against these 50.
        The counterparts of ours in Colombia have been partners for
    us in this effort, and I have a great deal of confidence that
    if these members of the FARC can be located and arrested that
    we will see them here. The demobilization that you are talking
    about has not been extended to the FARC, to the best of my
    knowledge. DEA is very pleased, very proud of this effort, as
    we were with the return of the founding heads of the Cali
    cartel earlier this year, not before this hearing, as well as
    the other two members of the FARC who were returned and facing
    trial, not before this hearing.
        Senator Leahy. Well, will you have your staff keep me
    informed of when they do come here?
        Ms. Tandy. Yes.
        Senator Leahy. I have been supportive of President Uribe. I
    think he has tried very hard. I have a great deal of admiration
    for him. He and I meet several times a year. But I do worry
    that sometimes, the claims we make are not borne out by the
    facts, and certainly, when I watch what is happening with
    cocaine and meth and all, prices do not go up. Availability
    does not go down, which would be the best example that this
    effort is paying off with the billions upon billions of dollars
    we are spending down there.
        Director Mueller, you and I have discussed the case
    management system. You have expressed your concern to me that
    you feel I have been critical when I should not be. I get
    critical of anybody spending the taxpayers dollars if I do not
    see the results I think I would like to see. I have been just
    as critical of a Democratic administration as a Republican
    administration.

                             VIRTUAL CASE FILE COST

        You scrap the Virtual Case File. It is not just the money
    that was lost, and I realize you recaptured some of it, but it
    was the time that was lost. I still think back, and this was
    not your fault; this came from your predecessors, but I
    remember being down there right after 9/11, and people figured
    out how they could fly pictures of the hijackers around the
    country, and everybody is writing down information on pieces of
    paper, putting them in one file, which is written down by
    somebody else and put in another file, and kids in my
    neighborhood would just e-mail those pictures back and forth to
    each other.

                                 SENTINEL COST

        Now, we understand your estimate is that Trilogy's
    successor Sentinel is going to cost the American taxpayers $425
    million to complete. It will not be ready until the end of this
    decade. You set aside $97 million for it this year. You are
    asking for another $100 million for fiscal year 2007. Are you
    confident about the final cost estimate of this program?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, Senator; let me say at the outset that
    nobody is as harshly critical as I am of the mistakes that were
    made in the past. My concern is that we do not focus on the
    successes of Trilogy in terms of the networks and the modern
    computers that were put on the desks.
        Great work has been done since September 11 in putting
    together the investigative data warehouse, where you have in
    excess of 250 million documents searchable by the latest tools.
    Also, my concern exists because we all want to make this work
    in Sentinel and we will need to have an open mind toward what
    we have undertaken to assure not only the success of this but
    visibility into what we are doing every step of the way.
        And when it comes, then, to your question with regard to
    the cost, the cost is $425 million.
        Senator Leahy. Is that the FBI's estimate, or is that
    Lockheed Martin's estimate?
        Mr. Mueller. No, it is not. It is our estimate. But the
    contract with Lockheed Martin is $305 million. Of that, $232
    million is the development contract, which if you ask, if you
    add the $50 million to $170 million, it is comparable to what
    we were going to spend on Virtual Case File.
        The other monies go to exactly what the GAO, the Inspector
    General, and Congress wants us to do. Preaward was $4 million.
    Program management operations, the program management that we
    have to put into place to make this successful is almost $75
    million. The independent validation and verification is $6
    million.
        Senator Leahy. Who does that?
        Mr. Mueller. Risk management.
        Senator Leahy. Who does that?
        Mr. Mueller. Those are independent contractors who are
    doing that aspect of it. That is not Lockheed Martin. We have
    an independent contractor.
        Senator Leahy. Do you know off hand who that is?
        Mr. Mueller. I do not know off hand.
        Senator Leahy. Could somebody give me that?
        Mr. Mueller. Assuredly.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

      Independent Verification and Validation of Sentinel's Implementation

        The FBI is establishing a multi-award Independent
    Verification & Validation (IV&V) contract. At the Department of
    Justice's (DOJ) request, this contract will be made available
    DOJ-wide. The FBI's Financial Division is currently managing
    the preacquisition effort and eventual contract award.
        Until this DOJ-wide contract award is in place, the Office
    of Information Technology Program Management's (OIPM) Program
    Oversight Unit will provide interim IV&V services.

        Mr. Mueller. And so, the package will cost down the road
    $425 million, but the pieces of it are that which we have put
    into place to make certain that it will be successful down the
    road.
        Senator Leahy. So will there be additional funding or
    reprogrammed funds that the FBI will need to complete it?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, down the road, 2008-2009.
        Senator Leahy. If a reprogramming is required, do you have
    any idea which programs you would shift funds out of?
        Mr. Mueller. No, and my problem last year is that you had
    asked what is the cost of the Sentinel going to be? I could not
    tell you until we had the contract, until we had the bids in
    and identified the ultimate cost for that bid. Now that we have
    the bids in, now that we have the monies, we put aside $97
    million for this year that we had to reprogram. We are asking
    for $100 million next year, and we will be asking in 2008 for
    those sums we need to complete this package.
        Now, the other point I make as well is that we are now part
    of the intelligence community. We are not just law enforcement;
    we are part of the intelligence community. That which we are
    putting together, whether it be Sentinel or any number of our
    other programs that are meant to develop the domestic
    intelligence capacity of the Bureau should be treated as part
    of the intelligence community and perhaps looked to for dollars
    in terms of supporting our intelligence side of the house.
        And so, we will be looking for additional funds for
    Sentinel down the road, but we will also be asking for the
    Congress and others to look at us as not just a law enforcement
    entity but also as an intelligence entity.

                                  CHOICEPOINT

        Senator Leahy. There has been a great deal of criticism up
    here by both Republicans and Democrats in both bodies about
    ChoicePoint, and you have entered into a multimillion dollar
    contract with them to handle sensitive investigative data about
    criminal enterprise systems. Did you or anyone in the FBI have
    any discussion with any of the Members of Congress who had been
    raising these concerns, the various chairmen and others, about
    ChoicePoint before entering into that contract?
        Mr. Mueller. I do not believe so, but let me, if I could,
    clarify exactly what we have from ChoicePoint.
        At the outset, let me say that I share your concerns about
    any breaches of privacy by ChoicePoint. As you point out in
    your recent press release, ChoicePoint has been fined by the
    FTC. I have no doubt that the fine was appropriate, that to the
    extent that ChoicePoint----
        Senator Leahy. Trust me, they would have fought it like
    hell if they thought it was too much.
        Mr. Mueller. All I have to say is that to the extent that
    ChoicePoint is liable for those fines or breaches privacy,
    then, they should be treated like any other corporation.
        What we have bought from ChoicePoint is a software package
    that will help our analysts do their jobs. It is a software
    package that has been used not by us but by other
    organizations. It is not a data package. It is a software
    package. It helps our analysts do the job. We would be remiss
    if we did not look at this software package, evaluate it along
    with other software packages and use it if it was the best
    software package----
        Senator Leahy. Who services that?
        Mr. Mueller. I will have to get back to you on that.
        [The information follows:]

                 Purchase of Software Package From ChoicePoint

        The FBI awarded a 5-year, fixed-price contract with i2,
    Inc., a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, on 12/1/05. The contract is
    serviced by ChoicePoint.

        Senator Leahy. Would it be ChoicePoint?
        Mr. Mueller. I do not know. I would have to get back to you
    on that. But let me give you another aspect----
        Senator Leahy. You understand the reason I am asking that
    question.
        Mr. Mueller. I do not know, and I will have to get back to
    you on that.
        But let me also indicate that we do seek data from
    ChoicePoint because ChoicePoint has public source data that it
    accumulates, and it is one of those entities that we would be
    remiss if we did not use that capability in certain
    circumstances to identify persons whom we need to locate within
    the United States.
        Go back to the 9/11 Commission report. I have this vague
    memory of it. Midhar and Alhamzi were in the United States, and
    if I am not mistaken, when the 9/11 Commission said we should
    have been on them and utilized tools such as ChoicePoint to
    identify those persons in the United States before they
    undertake this attack. So to the extent that we use ChoicePoint
    or other data accumulation companies, we would again, I would
    say, be remiss if we did not utilize those tools when they are
    accumulating public source data, not private data.
        Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, both the Administrator and the
    Director are going to get back to me on a number of things, and
    I will have, if you do not mind, I will have follow up
    questions for them once I have heard their answers.
        Senator Shelby. We will leave the record open.
        I think what the Director is saying, and I believe he is
    right on this, ChoicePoint did have a big breach, but they are
    also known for doing some good things in some certain areas. Is
    that not what you are basically saying?
        Mr. Mueller. They along with other companies----
        Senator Shelby. Right, absolutely.
        Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Have consolidated open source
    data----
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        Mr. Mueller [continuing]. That gives us an easy way to
    obtain information that comes from open sources relative to
    particular investigative leads that we have.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Shelby. We appreciate your cooperation from the
    subcommittee today. I know it has been a long afternoon, but we
    will have some other Senators, Senator Leahy and others, who
    will be asking questions for the record, and we hope you could
    respond to them by May 5.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                   Questions Submitted to Alberto R. Gonzales
                Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                NATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE TITLE INFORMATION SYSTEM

        Question. We know that by congressional direction the Justice
    Department has funded the NMVTIS (National Motor Vehicle Title
    Information System) program in the past but the funding stream stopped
    in 2004 leaving the majority of states unconnected to a system which
    could dramatically assist law enforcement in their efforts to track
    stolen vehicles. This is a mission which again is gaining attention as
    stolen U.S. cars have surfaced in terrorist bombings in Iraq, a
    particular concern when it comes to protecting our troops in the Green
    Zone.
        NMVTIS could also be helpful in tracking more than a half million
    vehicles, including school buses, flooded or damaged by hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita. Some of these have been driven to other states, re-
    titled as ``clean vehicles'' and sold to unsuspecting customers.
        Has the Justice Department given any thought or consideration to
    reviving the NMVTIS program in order to connect all the states, so we
    have a better way to stop these vehicles from falling into the wrong
    hands?
        Answer. The Department of Justice (DOJ) shares your concern
    regarding the continuing problem of auto theft. This past March, the
    Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) convened a focus group
    to discuss this issue. The group, which was comprised of
    representatives from federal, State, and local law enforcement,
    insurance corporations, and NMVTIS staff, agreed that the NMVTIS
    program is an important asset in reducing auto theft.
        While the Attorney General delegated responsibility to the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to oversee the implementation of the
    NMVTIS system, BJA has provided over $12 million in funding for NMVTIS
    since fiscal year 1997. BJA has been working closely with anti-fraud
    components within DOJ and with the FBI to assess the status and need
    for NMVTIS. Additionally, BJA engaged the Integrated Justice Systems
    Institute (IJIS) to assess NMVTIS' current technological architecture
    and has discussed with States how the system could be improved to
    encourage greater participation. These discussions and reviews are now
    complete and BJA will be working closely with the American Association
    of Motor Vehicle Administration, the FBI, and other law enforcement
    entities to make any necessary changes to the system, to improve the
    administration of the overall title information sharing effort, and to
    increase State and local law enforcement participation. A key aspect of
    any new approach will be to implement the ``self-sustaining'' aspect of
    the original authorizing legislation, which called for the States to
    support the system through user fees.
        BJA will also continue to address the costly problem of auto theft
    through various other efforts. This month, the FBI and BJA are
    convening a meeting of southwestern federal, State, and local law
    enforcement agencies to discuss the problem of vehicles being stolen in
    the United States and taken to Mexico. Intelligence and recent arrests
    indicate that Mexico is a prime location for cloning (replacing vehicle
    identification numbers of stolen vehicles with those of legal vehicles
    for resale), chopping (vehicles dismantled for parts), and foreign
    order fulfillment. We anticipate that this meeting will foster closer
    working relationships among agencies working the Mexico border and
    identify areas where the Department can provide assistance.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                    JUDICIARY NEEDS ON INTERNATIONAL BORDERS

        Question. Federal Judges serving in districts located on the
    southern international border have caseloads with an increasing number
    of immigration related matters. According to the Administrative Office
    of the Courts, for fiscal year 2004 my home state of New Mexico had
    1,502 immigration filings and 2,497 total criminal filings. Compare
    that to a northern border district--the Western District of Washington
    had 78 immigration filings and 539 total criminal filings.
        As we continue to work to secure our nation, we must be sure that
    we adequately equip all of the agencies involved in this fight,
    including the federal courts that must prosecute immigration related
    charges. I fear that we are not focusing on agencies outside of the
    Department of Homeland Security and their need for funding, as I have
    heard from New Mexico judges that their resources are insufficient to
    meet their increasing immigration-related caseloads.
        Additionally, I am afraid our Southwest border district courts will
    be unable to handle the increased immigration caseload that is sure to
    result from increased enforcement efforts without new judges.
        Can you speak to the crisis southwest border courts like Arizona
    and New Mexico face?
        Answer. The five judicial districts that comprise the Southwest
    border make up a significant percentage of the total workload for
    Department of Justice components such as the U.S. Marshals Service
    (USMS) and the U.S. Attorneys' Offices (USAOs). In the USAOs, 68
    percent of all immigration cases occur on the Southwest border--12,318
    immigration cases were filed in the Southwest border districts out of a
    total of 18,147 immigration cases filed nationwide in 2005.
        In fiscal year 2005, 31 percent of all prisoner productions
    (transporting a prisoner to a judicial proceeding) by the USMS were in
    the five Southwest border districts; there are 94 districts nationwide.
    Ten percent of all USMS prisoner productions were in Arizona and New
    Mexico in fiscal year 2005. In addition to court proceedings, the
    Southwest border districts have an enormous warrant workload. In fiscal
    year 2005, 21 percent of all Class I fugitive warrants (federal felony
    warrants and DEA warrants) were issued by federal judges working in
    Southwest border districts. Six percent of all Class I fugitive
    warrants were issued by federal judges in Arizona and New Mexico in
    fiscal year 2005.
        Question. What resources are being marshaled by the Department of
    Justice to assist federal courts faced with increasing caseloads due to
    our successful efforts to secure our country?
        Answer. Judicial security is one area where the Department of
    Justice can directly assist federal courts. The USMS strives to place
    its personnel in those districts with the greatest amount of workload.
    In fiscal year 2005, the USMS received 94 new Deputy U.S. Marshals for
    judicial security work in the districts. Of this amount, 34 percent (or
    32 Deputy U.S. Marshals) were allocated to the five Southwest border
    districts. The Department of Justice is providing significant
    resources, in the form of judicial security, to assist federal courts
    along the Southwest border. The Department has approved significant
    resource allocations to the United States Attorneys Offices along the
    Southwest border in recognition of increasing workload demands in a
    number of areas, most notably antiterrorism (border security),
    immigration and narcotics enforcement.
        Question. What other needs does the Department of Justice have on
    our international borders--is there a need for more Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys, Deputy U.S. Marshals, and/or Bureau of Prisons personnel?
        Answer. The 2007 President's Budget for the Department of Justice
    requests resources to fund additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs)
    and Deputy U.S. Marshals:

                             [Dollars in thousands]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Requested Fiscal Year 2007 Program
                   Increases                 Positions     FTE       Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Attorneys.........................        149         75    $23,205
    U.S. Marshals Service..................         66         33     13,619
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In addition, the budget request for the USAOs and USMS include
    $58.6 million and $57.7 million respectively for adjustments-to-base
    increases to cover rising pay, benefits and overhead costs. These
    additional resources, if fully funded, will be allocated based on
    Departmental priorities, and the latest workload and budgetary data
    available at the time of enactment.
        By way of background, the USAOs in the five districts along the
    Southwest Border are at the forefront of the Department's efforts to
    stem the tide of illegal immigration and drug trafficking. Between
    fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2005, a total of 97 new Assistant
    United States Attorneys positions were allocated to the five Southwest
    Border districts. These additional resources have helped to play a part
    in increasing the number of criminal immigration cases filed in the
    five Southwest Border districts by over 55 percent between fiscal year
    2000 and fiscal year 2005--from 7,942 to 12,318 cases filed.
        Question. Besides creating new district judgeships for border
    courts and providing more funding for these courts, what else can
    Congress do to assist the federal border courts that are in a situation
    the Judicial Conference has called a crisis?
        Answer. From time to time, the Department of Justice submits
    legislative proposals to the Congress that address a wide range of
    legal issues including those affecting the courts. Those proposals are
    the most effective avenue for responding to such a question. However,
    it is clear that as the judicial staffing and workload of the courts
    expand, the space, personnel and funding resources needed for
    Department of Justice components such as the USMS, USAOs and Bureau of
    Prisons also expands.

                           MENTAL HEALTH COURT NEEDS

        Question. The Department of Justice has estimated that 16 percent
    of all inmates in local and State jails suffer from a mental illness,
    and the American Jail Association estimates that as many as 700,000
    persons suffering from a mental illness are jailed each year. In New
    Mexico, we know the impact that such persons can have; on August 18,
    2005, a diagnosed schizophrenic shot five people to death in the space
    of 16 hours, including the two police officers who were sent to pick
    him up for a mental evaluation.
        In response to cases like this, America's Law Enforcement and
    Mental Health Project Act created Mental Health Courts with separate
    dockets to handle cases involving individuals with mental illnesses.
    Bernalillo County's Mental Health Court in New Mexico was created in
    2003 and ninety-two percent of its graduates are not arrested again.
    The $500,000 Congress provided for this court in fiscal year 2006 is
    expected to double the number of people the Bernalillo County Mental
    Health Court serves over the next two years.
        With success rates like this for such small sums of money, I
    believe this is an innovative approach to address the needs of those
    individuals suffering from mental illnesses that come into contact with
    the judicial system.
        How much does the Department of Justice propose spending on mental
    health courts in fiscal year 2007?
        Answer. There is not a dedicated funding line for Mental Health
    Courts in the fiscal year 2007 budget. The Office of Justice Programs
    (OJP) is working with federal partners, including the National
    Institute of Corrections, to develop a coordinated strategy for the $5
    million appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for the Mentally Ill Offender
    Act.
        Question. Do you have any suggestions on how we might otherwise
    help individuals who are charged with a non-violent crime and who
    suffer from a mental illness?
        Answer. Partnerships with criminal and juvenile justice agencies
    provide mental health agencies unique opportunities for early
    identification, diversion from prosecution to treatment, enhanced
    supervision and case management. Recent innovations in collaborative
    approaches, the use of assessment tools, targeted approaches, and
    appropriate interventions have shown promise in the areas of law
    enforcement, courts, and corrections. Mental health courts, an example
    of this innovative and collaborative approach, provide the voluntary
    opportunity for non-violent offenders to participate in court-
    supervised, community-based treatment. As in Bernalillo County, these
    efforts include continued judicial supervision and the coordinated
    delivery of health and social support services. Initial evaluations of
    mental health courts have shown that they result in fewer jail bookings
    and jail time, a greater number of treatment episodes, an increase in
    the frequency and volume of treatment services, and a reduction in drug
    use and psychological distress in participants, as compared to
    traditional misdemeanor defendants.
        During the last few years, OJP has been engaged in collaboration
    with other federal agencies to coordinate activities related to
    offenders with mental health issues. Many activities have been
    consistent with the recommendations of the President's New Freedom
    Commission and have also been formed in relation to the recommendations
    developed in OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA) Mental Health
    Consensus Project. Current areas of collaboration include coordination
    of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Targeted
    Jail Diversion program and BJA's Mental Health Courts Program. In
    fiscal year 2005, OJP expanded efforts into training law enforcement to
    assess and build partnerships in mental health.
        In fiscal year 2006, BJA received a $5 million appropriation to
    begin implementing the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime
    Reduction Act (Public Law 108-414). This funding supports critical
    efforts to build State, local and tribal capacity to better understand
    and address individuals with mental illness, who also often face
    substance abuse and other public health issues. This program is
    designed to increase public safety through innovative cross-system
    collaboration for individuals with mental illness who come into contact
    with the criminal and juvenile justice systems. It will encourage early
    intervention for system-involved individuals with mental illness;
    provide new and existing mental health courts with various treatment
    options; maximize diversion opportunities for non-violent offenders
    with mental illness and co-occurring disorders; promote training for
    justice and treatment professionals on court processes and mental
    health and substance abuse issues; and facilitate communication,
    collaboration, and the delivery of support services among justice
    professionals, treatment and related service providers, and
    governmental partners. These efforts will help individuals who are
    charged with a non-violent crime and who suffer from a mental illness.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

                          INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS

        Question. It is my understanding that some of the local West Texas
    communities, who stand to lose their contracts under the CAR 6 Project,
    issued long term municipal bonds to pay for expansion of their jails
    when the DOJ's sought additional bed-space years ago. It is also my
    understanding that Texas law required these local communities and then
    Texas Attorney General--my Senate colleague Senator John Cornyn--to
    first perform a ``due diligence'' review of the need for the issuance
    of these bonds. Did the DOJ assure these local communities that the
    Federal government's need was long term?
        Answer. Each Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is for three years
    only. There has been no contractual commitment by the Bureau of Prisons
    (BOP) beyond the IGA terms.
        Question. Further, it is my understanding that this Subcommittee,
    the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, directed the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) in the fiscal year 2006 CJS Appropriations
    Report to conduct a cost benefit study of agreements with local
    governments to house federal inmates. Has that study been completed? If
    not, why is it not more prudent to renew the agreements with these West
    Texas communities pending the results of the GAO cost study?
    Furthermore, the 2006 Appropriations Conference Report encouraged the
    Bureau of Prisons to expand the use of Intergovernmental Agreements.
    Why is DOJ moving to eliminate these large Intergovernmental Agreements
    in Texas, contrary to the directives of Congress and the President?
        Answer. The GAO study has not begun. All four agreements expire in
    early 2007 (January-April), and provide the opportunity to conduct a
    full and open competition for contracts in order to provide for the
    best value for the BOP and taxpayers. The BOP uses IGAs when
    appropriate and when the need exists. As of April 2006, BOP has 68 IGAs
    with State, county, and local governments throughout the country to
    provide about 800 beds. The fiscal year 2006 Conference Report also
    states: ``The BOP is encouraged to solicit proposals in a manner that
    allows for an optimal level of competition so that BOP's [bedspace]
    requirements can be met and the best value achieved.''
        The four agreements with the Texas local governments differ from
    other IGAs in that they are for the entire facility and are all managed
    by private companies; in one case the private company owns the prison
    facility. The private contractors hire and fire staff and are
    responsible for the daily operations of the prison. Each local
    government is like a ``silent partner'' generally removed from the
    daily operations at the facilities.
        Question. It is also my understanding that the CAR 6 Project will
    not result in any new bed-space for the DOJ, is this correct? As a
    follow up, if the CAR 6 Project will not result in new bed-space, why
    is the CAR 6 Project a prudent use of federal tax dollars?
        Answer. The CAR 6 Project will not result in any new BOP bed-space.
    However, by conducting a full and open competition, the BOP
    requirements can be met and the best value achieved including price and
    quality of service. In addition, the contracts will be for up to ten
    years which allows the BOP to ``lock-in'' pricing for the next ten
    years, thus assisting with budget projections and avoiding
    renegotiation of terms every three years. Full and open competition
    provides for a competitive market that assists in controlling prices.
        Question. Finally, has DOJ considered the long-term impact of the
    CAR 6 Project? Other agencies in your Department, including the U.S.
    Marshals Service, as well as the Department of Homeland Security
    utilize local governments agreements for correctional or detention
    purposes. If the CAR 6 Project causes these local Texas communities to
    go bankrupt or suffer significant financial hardship, I imagine other
    local governments will avoid partnering with the Federal Government,
    for fear of suffering the same fate as these West Texas local
    governments.
        Answer. Yes, the DOJ has considered the long-term impact of CAR 6
    and its benefits to both the Bureau and the taxpayers. All current
    providers under the Texas IGAs have the opportunity and have been
    encouraged to submit competitive proposals under the CAR 6
    solicitation. The BOP will consider multiple awards under the CAR 6
    solicitation. The BOP has an outstanding relationship with state and
    local governments throughout the United States using their available
    bed space for short-term needs, and we plan to maintain that working
    relationship.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

                      COMPETITION AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

        Question. There is a great deal of concern across the country that
    some of our trading partners don't always play fair, and that the U.S.
    Government needs to do more to protect the interests of U.S. businesses
    and workers. One issue that is of growing concern is the prospect of
    foreign countries using their competition laws to advance industrial
    policy goals in ways that prevent U.S. companies from competing fairly,
    or penalizing U.S. firms for conduct that is entirely legal under U.S.
    law. This problem is only going to grow as countries such as China ramp
    up their antitrust enforcement while looking for new ways to insulate
    local industries from U.S. competition.
        I know the United States has antitrust cooperation agreements with
    a few of our trading partners, but problems persist, and I don't see
    things getting any better without a more active role by your
    Department. Is the Antitrust Division prepared to step up its efforts
    to dissuade foreign governments from pursuing competition policies or
    imposing penalties that create barriers to trade? Do you agree that the
    time has come for the Administration to establish a standing
    interagency committee to address these problems as they arise?
        Answer. The Department, through its Antitrust Division, advocates
    around the world for antitrust enforcement based on rigorous legal and
    economic analysis, with the goal of promoting consumer welfare by
    preserving competition. We oppose any agency misusing antitrust to
    defend a country's own home companies or exclude competitors from other
    nations. The Division aggressively pursues international coordination
    and cooperation and substantive and procedural convergence around these
    principles, and these efforts will continue to be an important
    priority. The Division is working in international fora, including the
    International Competition Network and the Organization for Economic
    Cooperation and Development, as well as on a bilateral level with many
    foreign antitrust authorities, including the European Commission, both
    generally and on specific matters.
        The Department also takes an active role in negotiating free trade
    agreements. Beginning with NAFTA in 1994, the United States has
    negotiated provisions relating to antitrust enforcement and to conduct
    of official monopolies and state enterprises in a number of free trade
    agreements--including those with Chile, Singapore, and Australia--where
    we have taken the lead role in negotiating such provisions. These
    provisions help to ensure that the opportunities created by trade
    liberalization are supported by competitive domestic markets. The
    Department of Justice works with other parts of the Administration,
    including the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the
    Departments of State and Commerce, on these agreements and other
    competition issues as appropriate, and at this stage I believe that it
    is the most effective way to handle these competition issues.
        Question. I am aware that the Department of Justice has competition
    comity agreements with several of our trading partners, including the
    EU. Nonetheless, it remains the case that EU authorities sometimes
    reach results or impose penalties that conflict with our own--the
    proposed GE/Honeywell merger and the Microsoft case are two recent
    examples. Beyond the immediate impact on U.S. companies operating in
    Europe, I worry that competition authorities in other countries, such
    as China, will view this divergence as a justification to pursue even
    more radical measures against U.S. multinationals, particularly if they
    can give a helping hand to their own industries by doing so.
        Can you assure this Committee that the Department will put more
    effort into promoting U.S. antitrust policies around the globe and
    avoiding situations where U.S. companies are subject to one set of
    rules or remedies here, and an entirely different set elsewhere? Is the
    Department prepared to engage more energetically with the European
    Commission to resolve ongoing disputes and divergence in this area?
        Answer. With the globalization of markets, it is increasingly
    important that antitrust enforcers around the world base their
    enforcement decisions on sound legal and economic analysis. Antitrust
    laws should protect competition, not competitors. Antitrust laws should
    not be used to defend a country's own home companies or to try to
    exclude competitors from other nations. We are working with many
    foreign antitrust agencies in a variety of contexts, including the
    International Competition Network and the Organization for Economic
    Cooperation and Development, to achieve international consensus on
    sound antitrust enforcement. Those efforts are important, and we will
    continue to devote significant resources to those efforts.
        The Department also works closely with foreign antitrust agencies,
    particularly the European Commission, in order to achieve the greatest
    possible coordination with them on particular matters. Divergent
    outcomes can sometimes occur due to different legal regimes or
    different factual circumstances in different countries. When divergent
    outcomes do occur, we work with our foreign counterparts to minimize
    that divergence and to lessen the possibility of divergence in the
    future. The Department will continue to place a high priority on
    pursuing greater coordination and substantive and procedural
    convergence on antitrust issues with foreign antitrust agencies, at
    both the staff and policy levels, to limit the risk of significantly
    divergent outcomes in particular cases.
        Much of the work of minimizing duplication and divergence will
    continue to be done bilaterally, often on a case-specific basis. Cases
    like GE/Honeywell and Microsoft, though rare, understandably attract
    public attention and concern. But in most instances, we are succeeding
    in working very well with dozens of antitrust agencies around the world
    on particular merger and cartel matters with the goal of getting sound
    and consistent results. In the particular case of the European
    Commission, close collaboration has enabled us to achieve consistent
    results in several recent matters on both the determination of a
    violation and, where necessary, the remedy.
        In fact, there has been considerable convergence in recent years in
    both civil and criminal antitrust enforcement around the globe. Many
    jurisdictions are now making increasing efforts to combat cartels,
    which the U.S. Supreme Court has called ``the supreme evil of
    antitrust.'' Many jurisdictions have revised their merger process and
    enforcement policies, reducing complexity and business costs and
    bringing them into closer harmony with the U.S. merger review
    practices. These are good starts, but this is an ongoing effort, and it
    will remain a high priority for the Department.
        Question. U.S. antitrust policy is one of the principal tools used
    to promote free and open markets. Antitrust law should play the same
    role internationally by opening markets and removing barriers to trade.
    In nations where free market principles are not as fully developed as
    in the United States, however, competition law can play a more
    equivocal role--sometimes opening markets, but sometimes protecting
    local firms from U.S. competition. I understand that U.S. industry has
    raised precisely this concern with respect to Korea, where the
    competition authority has been aggressive in pursuing leading U.S.
    firms, even while local Korean conglomerates, or chaebol, continue to
    restrict competition in certain markets. Similar concerns have been
    voiced with respect to China, which is well on its way to adopting an
    anti-monopoly law that many fear will be used as a weapon against U.S.
    exports, technology, and investment.
        American companies and workers need the Department of Justice's
    help to prevent our trading partners from using competition law as a
    trade tool. Is the Department prepared to become more active in
    advancing U.S. interests in this area? Will the Department support
    adopting stronger competition commitments in U.S. free trade
    agreements?
        Answer. Antitrust laws should promote competition; they should not
    be used to defend a country's own home companies, or to try to exclude
    competitors from other nations. That is why it is critical that we work
    to ensure that other enforcers around the world rely on sound economics
    as the basis for antitrust enforcement. This is a priority in building
    our relationship with the South Korean antitrust agency, as in all our
    international competition policy efforts. It is important that burdens
    and inefficiencies that divergences in competition policy and antitrust
    enforcement create for United States companies operating in
    international markets be as low as possible, and the Department is
    working hard to achieve that end. Coordination and substantive and
    procedural convergence on antitrust must continue to be a high priority
    for the Department. The Department has been working with many foreign
    antitrust agencies in a variety of contexts, including the
    International Competition Network, the Organization for Economic
    Cooperation and Development, and bilaterally, both generally and on
    particular matters.
        The Department also supports strong competition commitments in free
    trade agreements. The United States has negotiated provisions relating
    to antitrust enforcement and to conduct of official monopolies and
    state enterprises in a number of free trade agreements, including those
    with Chile, Singapore, and Australia. These provisions help to ensure
    that the opportunities created by trade liberalization are supported by
    competitive domestic markets in foreign countries. The Department of
    Justice works cooperatively with other parts of the Administration,
    including the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Department
    of State, and the Department of Commerce, on these agreements.
     office of the inspector general cops methamphetamine initiative audit
        Question. In March 2006, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of
    the Inspector General (OIG) released its final audit report on the
    Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Methamphetamine (Meth)
    Initiative grant program. One of the targets of the audit was the
    Vermont State Police and the Vermont Drug Task Force. I am deeply
    concerned that DOJ is now attempting to contest how the Task Force used
    funds from the grants.
        The COPS Office has consistently approved the Vermont State Police
    grant applications to the COPS Methamphetamine Initiative grant program
    each year since 2001 with explicit knowledge that the money would be
    used primarily for fighting heroin abuse. I therefore object to DOJ now
    contesting how the funds were used and requesting that the contested
    sum be returned. The loss of $1.2 million would have a devastating
    effect on a small state such as Vermont and undo the progress and
    successes that have been accomplished in the last five years.
        I request that the Department of Justice stand behind its grant
    decisions and allow funds that have been used in the way the COPS
    Office approved them to be used to remain in the state. I further
    request your cooperation in resolving this situation.
        What are your suggestions for reaching a satisfactory solution?
        Answer. The COPS Office has been working closely with the Vermont
    State Police to obtain additional documentation surrounding the
    contested costs. The Vermont State Police have not been asked to return
    any grant funding, and COPS currently has no intention of making such a
    request. The COPS Office will continue to work with the Vermont State
    Police to close all audit recommendations as quickly as possible and
    work to ensure that expenditures made by the agency have been
    consistent with guidance issued by the COPS Office. If any expenditures
    are ultimately determined to be unallowable, whenever possible the COPS
    Office remedies such situations by allowing the grantee to use the
    funds in a manner which furthers the purposes of the grant, rather than
    through repayment of grant funds.
        Question. What steps will you take to work with the Vermont State
    Police and my office in achieving this goal?
        Answer. The Vermont State Police is currently in the process of
    compiling information requested by the COPS Office to demonstrate the
    expenditures under their grants. Once documentation has been submitted,
    the COPS Office will work closely with the agency to remedy the current
    situation, and will always remain available to address any questions or
    concerns regarding this audit. The COPS Office will be sure to inform
    your office of any significant developments that may arise during the
    process.

                              JUSTICE FOR ALL ACT

        Question. In the fiscal year 2006 CJS Appropriations conference
    report, Congress appropriated $1 million for improving the quality of
    representation in state capital cases authorized under the Innocence
    Protection Act (IPA), which was including as Title IV of the Justice
    for All Act, Public Law 108-405. The final authorizing language for the
    IPA reflects nearly five years of work--there were multiple hearings in
    both Houses, we studied the problem, we considered the alternatives, we
    agreed on a result. The program is aimed at helping states establish
    effective systems for appointing counsel in death penalty cases, and
    incorporates essential elements of the ABA's guidelines.
        What has the Justice Department done to date to administer this
    program, as authorized?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $1 million for
    capital litigation-related programs. Given this level of funding, it
    was not possible for OJP to enact the full range of activities outlined
    in the Innocence Protection Act (which provides authorization for up to
    $75 million to carry out the programs outlined in these sections).
        The Office of Justice Programs' Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA),
    which administers the Capital Litigation Improvement Program, convened
    a multi-disciplinary focus group of national, state, and local
    practitioners in early 2005 to develop a program plan for more
    effective systems for death penalty cases. This group identified a
    substantial need for sound curriculums, training, and technical
    assistance as an important priority for any effort to improve capital
    case litigation at the State and local level.
        Based on these findings, BJA determined that the most effective way
    to advance the goals underlying the Innocence Protection Act in regard
    to capital case litigation was to focus the limited resources available
    on the development of model training programs for capital case
    prosecutors, defense counsel and judges. Accordingly, awards were made
    to three organizations--the National District Attorneys Association
    (NDAA), National Judicial College (NJC), and National Legal Aid and
    Defenders Association (NLADA)--to develop appropriate training programs
    for prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys (respectively).
        Program deliverables completed include: (1) the development and
    implementation of curriculums at the State level, one for each of the
    three disciplines (prosecution, judiciary and defense); (2) sub-grants
    for curriculum delivery; and (3) technical assistance at the national
    level for death penalty inquiries from the states. The curricula--
    adaptable to incorporation of state statutes and death penalty
    constitutional law--focus on investigation techniques; pretrial and
    trial procedures, including the use of expert testimony and forensic
    science evidence; advocacy in capital cases; and capital case
    sentencing-phase procedures.
        During fiscal year 2006, the NDAA has provided training to
    approximately 125 prosecutors in Arkansas, Florida and Georgia; an
    upcoming training for 30 prosecutors will be held in Nevada. The NJC
    has trained approximately 150 judges in Arkansas, Virginia, North
    Carolina, Texas and Pennsylvania. The NLADA has sponsored training
    events in California, Texas, South Carolina, and Illinois which have
    reached approximately 140 defense attorneys. NDAA, NJC, and NACDL will
    continue to support the delivery of additional state trainings in
    fiscal year 2006. The program will also help maintain clearinghouses
    and websites offering capital case litigation materials.
        Question. If the Justice Department has not yet acted to administer
    this program, then what is the delay? Is the Department trying to
    reinvent the wheel with a new training program rather than following
    through on the bipartisan program that Congress worked out and
    President Bush signed into law?
        Answer. Implementation of the full capital litigation improvement
    program outlined in the Innocence Protection Act (IPA) is not possible
    without a significant increase in funding or the diversion of
    significant resources from other high-priority OJP programs through
    reprogramming. With only $1 million available, BJA determined that
    development of model training programs was the most realistic and
    practical option for advancing the goals of the IPA.
        Question. Secondly, on several occasions when you have testified
    before both this subcommittee and the Judiciary Committee, you assured
    me that you would work to ensure the successful implementation of the
    Justice For All Act. However, in the President's budget request for
    fiscal year 2006 and again for fiscal year 2007 the President has
    proposed funding a capital litigation program vastly different than
    that authorized by law.
        So once again I must ask the following: Will you pledge to work
    with me and the Appropriations Committees to ensure not only adequate
    funding but also the successful implementation of the Innocence
    Protection Act, as authorized by the Justice For All Act?
        Answer. The President and the Department share the goal of behind
    the Justice For All Act of ensuring that the best possible lawyers are
    available to litigate capital cases, but we believe the President's
    training initiative is more cost-effective, better at building
    capacity, and far less expensive than the authorized program. Under the
    authorized program, before any training could take place, States would
    have to qualify for the program, and to do so most would have to enact
    changes to their laws, delaying the onset of training. In addition,
    because of the burdens imposed by the law on States in order for them
    to receive the funds, we do not believe many States would opt to seek
    the funds, especially given the relatively modest sums that would be
    available to each participating State. While the sums available to each
    State would be relatively modest, the overall authorize level of
    funding under the Justice For All Act is beyond the Department's
    budgetary capacity at this time. Therefore, the Department will
    continue to seek to implement the capital-counsel training program
    announced by the President.
        Question. A report issued by the Government Accountability Office
    on April 4, 2006, found that the Justice Department, which uses private
    information services for law enforcement, counterterrorism and other
    investigations, often does not follow federal rules to protect
    Americans' privacy. According to the report, the Justice Department,
    and three other federal agencies examined by the GAO spent about $30
    million last year on companies--such as Choicepoint--that maintain
    billions of electronic files about adults' current and past addresses,
    family members and associates, buying habits, personal finances, listed
    and unlisted phone numbers, and much more.
        Do you agree with the GAO's findings in this report?
        Answer. The Department of Justice (DOJ) recognizes the important
    issues presented by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
    and agrees that additional measures could be taken regarding its use,
    in the form of revised or additional guidance and policy. However, the
    DOJ already places great importance on compliance with existing federal
    rules aimed at protecting Americans' privacy, namely the Privacy Act of
    1974 (5 U.S.C.  552a).
        When Congress enacted the Privacy Act, it recognized the fact that
    government operations are widely varied (including such activities as
    law enforcement and intelligence). Therefore, the Privacy Act
    incorporated some, but not all, of the Fair Information Practices by
    allowing agencies to exempt themselves from certain requirements of the
    Privacy Act. (The Fair Information Practices were first proposed in
    1973 by a U.S. government advisory committee and were widely accepted
    as including collection limitation, data quality, purpose
    specification, use limitation, security safeguards, openness,
    individual participation, and accountability.) For example, pursuant to
    regulations, criminal law enforcement records may be exempted from the
    Privacy Act's requirement that an agency make reasonable efforts to
    assure that a record is accurate, complete, timely, and relevant for
    agency purposes before disseminating that record to someone other than
    an agency or pursuant to FOIA. Therefore, the GAO should not have
    focused on whether agencies were satisfying all of the Fair Information
    Practices, because not all of the Fair Information Practices are
    incorporated into the Privacy Act. The more appropriate metric should
    be whether an agency has met the requirements of the Privacy Act.
        For this reason, DOJ believes that prior to the issuance of any new
    guidance or policy, a careful analysis and assessment of the degree of
    need for any new guidance should be conducted. That assessment should
    take into account agency resources, competing mission priorities, and
    the privacy protections already in place as a result of DOJ's
    compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C.  552a).
        Question. What steps is the Justice Department taking to address
    the privacy concerns raised in this report and to protect the privacy
    interests of law-abiding Americans?
        Answer. As indicated in response to subpart A, above, DOJ complies
    with the requirements of the Privacy Act, which prohibits the
    disclosure of protected information in the absence of a statutorily
    provided exception. In addition, DOJ has appointed its own Chief
    Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer (CPCLO) and the CPCLO has
    established a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board with three
    subcommittees: Outreach; Data Collection, Aggregation, and Maintenance;
    and Law Enforcement and National Security. The Data Collection
    Subcommittee has held its first meeting and established its initial
    task, which is to survey the Department's use of reseller data and then
    to develop a policy for the DOJ that will be informed by the
    Department's use of that information and by existing legal protections.
    Such a policy will include appropriate oversight mechanisms. The CPCLO
    has also mandated DOJ-wide compliance with the Privacy Impact
    Assessment (PIA) process established by the E-Government Act and will
    be the final approving authority for PIAs on all major record systems.
    The CPCLO recently issued guidance to the DOJ regarding PIAs. This
    guidance requires components to consider the privacy concerns of all
    information in identifiable form, including information received on a
    systematic basis from data resellers, in developing and maintaining
    computer systems that collect such information.
        The FBI has also appointed a Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer
    and uses the E-Government PIA process to evaluate privacy in major
    record systems prior to system implementation. The PIA process requires
    that the system sponsor or developer conduct a thorough, written
    analysis of the impact on privacy that will result from the creation of
    a proposed system prior to the system's implementation. The FBI
    assesses both impacts attributable solely to the proposed system and
    the cumulative impacts arising from the proposed system's interface
    with existing systems. The PIA provides senior FBI management officials
    with an assessment of a major new system's impact on privacy before the
    system becomes operational. The FBI PIA process includes a review of
    major systems by the FBI Privacy Council, a group composed of
    representatives from several FBI divisions, as well as the FBI Senior
    Privacy Official.

               CUTS TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

        Question. States, counties and communities nationwide continue to
    be overwhelmed by increasing homeland security mandates from the
    Federal government. The President often says that he wants to ensure
    that our State and local police receive the resources necessary to do
    the job the American public expects them to do, but then he goes and
    proposes a $1.309 billion, or 52 percent, in overall cuts to funds for
    assistance programs that have a proven track record and are primarily
    designed to assist state and local law enforcement agencies carry out
    their day-to-day public safety duties.
        The Administration proposes to slash funding for Community-Oriented
    Policing Services (COPS) by $161.2 million, or 61 percent, leaving it
    at $102.1 million. Programs targeted for elimination included the COPS
    Law Enforcement Technology Program, as well as drastic reductions in
    equipment and support staff grants that State and local police
    departments depend on to carry out their crime-fighting duties. This
    budget would also reduce by $23.3 million, or 37 percent, COPS
    Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-Up for state and local law
    enforcement programs to combat methamphetamine production and
    distribution, to target drug ``hot spots,'' and to remove and dispose
    of hazardous materials at clandestine methamphetamine labs.
        The President's proposed budget would eliminate all Byrne JAG
    funding. This grant program, which Congress funded at $327.2 in fiscal
    year 2006, provides vital funding to States to improve the functioning
    of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on violent crimes and
    serious offenders, and to enforce State and local drug laws. In the
    recently enacted Violence Against Women and the Department of Justice
    Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162), which the President
    signed into law on January 5, 2006, Congress codified the Byrne
    Memorial Justice Assistant Grant Program, and authorized funding for it
    at over $1 billion.
        Given the President's rhetoric expressing support for our State and
    local law enforcement, how does DOJ justify cutting funds to the highly
    successful and effective COPS Program and the Byrne Memorial Justice
    Assistance Grants?
        If the President's budget were followed, how would the Justice
    Department propose to address the needs of State and local police
    departments that are currently met by the COPS Program and the Byrne
    Memorial Justice Assistance Grants?
        Answer. In order to focus departmental resources on
    counterterrorism, which is and must be the Department of Justice's
    (DOJ) overriding priority, the Administration was required to make
    difficult choices in this budget proposal.
        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal recognizes the
    Federal government's responsibilities in regard to supporting effective
    law enforcement and improving the nation's criminal justice system. If
    approved as proposed, the President's fiscal year 2007 budget will
    provide over $1.2 billion to State, local, and tribal law enforcement
    through the U.S. Department of Justice. This includes $66.6 million to
    strengthen communities through programs providing services such as drug
    treatment; $88.2 million to combat violence, including enhancements to
    Project Safe Neighborhoods; and $209 million to support drug
    enforcement, including funding to continue and expand the Southwest
    Border Drug Prosecution Program. The initiatives included in this
    proposal were selected by concentrating scarce resources on the highest
    priority criminal justice issues; promoting effective, evidence-based
    approaches to improving law enforcement and criminal justice system
    capabilities; and eliminating funding for programs that could not
    demonstrate results.
        Drug enforcement continues to be one of the most significant
    criminal justice priorities of both the Administration and the
    Department of Justice. In addition to supporting drug enforcement and
    treatment initiatives, the fiscal year 2007 President's budget includes
    $706 million for the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force
    (OCDETF) program and $208 million for the High Intensity Drug
    Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program. These programs support drug
    enforcement efforts undertaken by task forces made up of Federal,
    State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies and enhance the
    coordination of efforts against drug trafficking and drug-related crime
    at all levels of government.
        The Administration applied the same principles it used to select
    initiatives for inclusion in the fiscal year 2007 budget to make
    decisions regarding reductions in or elimination of funding for
    existing programs. While these choices are often difficult, they are
    unquestionably necessary. Due to the fiscal pressures resulting from
    the need to fund an effective response to terrorism at home and abroad,
    reduce the Federal deficit and address the growing financial burdens
    created by Social security and health care entitlement programs,
    discretionary spending must be reduced.
        The proposed elimination of the JAG Program in fiscal year 2007 is
    based on this program's inability to clearly demonstrate its
    effectiveness. During the fiscal year 2005 PART assessment of the JAG
    Program and its predecessors (the Byrne Formula Grant Program and the
    Local Law Enforcement Block Grant), OMB concluded that these programs
    have not been able to clearly demonstrate through quantifiable
    performance measures that they had achieved nor were making progress
    toward their goals. Concerns were also raised about the broad range of
    the 29 purpose areas allowed under the JAG Program, making it difficult
    for the program to develop meaningful performance measures or focus its
    efforts on priority concerns. In light of the broad array of assistance
    offered to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies through
    OJP, the Administration determined that the funds currently devoted to
    the JAG Program could be used more effectively elsewhere.
        While the COPS grant programs have achieved a number of noteworthy
    successes, the primary mission of the Office of Community Oriented
    Policing Services--to hire 100,000 community policing officers to serve
    in law enforcement agencies throughout the nation--has been achieved.
    COPS has dedicated $12 billion to add 118,000 community policing
    officers to America's streets and schools. The Administration's
    decision to restructure the COPS grant programs and reduce overall COPS
    funding reflect the policy of directing Federal resources to the areas
    of greatest need.
        In fiscal year 2007, the President's budget request redirects COPS
    funding toward training and technical assistance in support of efforts
    to implement community policing strategies and provide increased grant
    assistance to tribal law enforcement agencies to meet the unique needs
    of Native American communities. Funding for interoperable
    communications technology, provided through the COPS Program in past
    years, is now requested in the budget of the Department of Homeland
    Security to ensure efficient coordination throughout the first
    responder community. Training, technical assistance and funding to
    support the clean-up of methamphetamine labs by State, local and tribal
    law enforcement agencies will be administered in partnership with the
    Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the recognized leader in this
    area. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request seeks $40 million
    for methamphetamine lab clean-up efforts, doubling the level of funding
    appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year 2006.
        Consistent with its standing policy of not requesting continued
    funding for earmarked projects, the administration is not requesting
    funding for the Byrne Discretionary Grant Program administered by the
    Office of Justice Programs (OJP) or the Crime Identification Technology
    Act (CITA) and Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-up (Meth Hot
    Sports) Grants administered by the COPS Office.
        Communities and law enforcement agencies receiving grants under the
    programs being proposed for elimination will be encouraged to look to
    other OJP and DOJ programs to fund their ongoing efforts. For instance,
    an interagency drug task force receiving funding from a JAG grant may
    be eligible for funding from a number of other OJP and DOJ programs,
    such as Project Safe Neighborhoods or the Organized Crime and Drug
    Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Program. The Department will continue
    to work closely with Congress to ensure that State, local, and tribal
    law enforcement and criminal justice agencies receive appropriate
    Federal support for efforts to protect America's citizens from crime
    and terrorism and strengthen the criminal justice system.

                    VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT CRIME VICTIMS FUND

        Question. I am greatly troubled by the Administration's proposal to
    raid at the end of fiscal year 2007 all amounts remaining in the Crime
    Victims Fund, projected to be more than $1.25 billion.
        Year after year, the Crime Victims Fund--financed by criminal
    fines, forfeitures and assessments; not the American taxpayers--plays
    an essential role in helping thousands of agencies provide critical
    services annually to nearly four million victims of domestic violence,
    sexual assault, child abuse, drunk driving, elder abuse and all other
    crimes.
        Despite the fact that Congress blocked this same proposal last year
    and has continued to express its intention that all deposits remain in
    the Fund to ensure its future, the Administration has once again
    proposed in its fiscal year 2007 budget proposal to siphon off all
    amounts remaining in the Fund at the end of the coming fiscal year to
    help offset the budget deficit that it has created. Such a move would
    leave the Fund with a balance of zero going into fiscal year 2008,
    jeopardizing the ability of thousands of agencies to staff and operate
    programs vital to victims' well-being.
        Attorney General Gonzales, how can the Administration justify
    expunging amounts from the Crime Victims Fund?
        Answer. The cap enables Congress to determine the appropriate level
    of expenditures required to maintain viable victims' programs. Excess
    balances above the cap remain in the fund and ``roll over'' from year
    to year. Significant rollover balances have existed in the fund since
    2000, creating what has been characterized as a perpetual float in the
    account well in excess of $1 billion. This float is not required to
    fund the enacted level of victims' programs, nor is it money that can
    be made available for other use. These balances have become fodder for
    temporary scoring proposals. This tactic undermines the budget process
    because the same offset is counted each year. As the fiscal year 2007
    President's budget proposes to rescind and permanently cancel the
    excess balance, returning the funds to the general fund of the
    Treasury, as a more straightforward approach to budgeting.
        Question. Just how does the Administration expect victims and
    victims' services to sustain themselves in the interim while the Fund
    is replenished in fiscal year 2008?
        Answer. While we do not believe that the proposal included in the
    President's budget would create an interim funding problem, we would be
    happy to work with you to develop language that both eliminates the
    budget gimmick and ensures uninterrupted funding availability for crime
    victims.
        Question. How long do you estimate it will take for the Fund to be
    replenished in any given year after the remaining monies are drained?
        Answer. Given recent history, our expectation is that the crime
    victims programs will be self-financing based on the fines and
    penalties paid into the Crime Victims Fund in any given year.
        Question. How will the Office for Victims of Crime determine how
    much money would become available in the course of any given fiscal
    year to allocate to each of the 50 states?
        Answer. The Department of Justice has not proposed to modify the
    formulas under which the bulk of the funds are distributed to the
    states each year for victims' compensation and crime victims programs.
    The amount of money distributed would be determined by the amount
    collected in the fund at time of disbursement.
        Question. Additionally, how could local agencies apply for funds
    when each state would have no idea how much money would come to them
    that year?
        Answer. Funding made available in the President's budgets and via
    the appropriations process has remained markedly stable in recent
    years. We are not anticipating at this point any dramatic departures
    from past funding levels. The Administration's fiscal year 2007
    proposal is intended to preserve $625 million in spending for crime
    victims programs while ending the budget gimmick that allows $1.3
    billion in balances to roll forward each year to be used as an offset
    for other spending. We certainly are willing to have some flexibility
    in working with the Congress to meet both of these objectives.
        Question. When faced with times when collections from fines and
    forfeitures are low or if we are faced with a national victims
    emergency, such as we were with the September 11 terrorist attacks or
    Hurricane Katrina, where do you propose to find the funds for victims'
    services and compensation, seeing how the Administration will have
    drained the Fund?
        Answer. If criminal fine collections decline in future years, the
    Administration would request additional appropriations, or in the event
    of a catastrophe, such as 9/11, request emergency supplemental funding
    to help offset those costs and restore the balance to sustainable
    levels.

                  BULLETPROOF VESTS PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM

        Question. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant Program has
    been vital to distributing lifesaving bulletproof vests to law
    enforcement officers serving in the front lines across the country.
    However, DOJ's budget for fiscal year 2007 proposes to slash funding
    for this program by almost $20 million, or by 63 percent. On January 5,
    2006, the President signed into law the Violence Against Women and
    Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162),
    which reauthorized the BVP Grant Program with funding levels at $50
    million per year through fiscal year 2009.
        Compounding the usual funding demand for help to purchase vests,
    concerns from the law enforcement community over the effectiveness of
    body armor surfaced over two years ago when a Pennsylvania police
    officer was shot and critically wounded through his relatively new
    Zylon-based body armor vest. In August 2005, DOJ announced that test
    results indicate that used Zylon-containing body armor vests may not
    provide the intended level of ballistic resistance. Unfortunately, an
    estimated 200,000 Zylon-based vests have been purchased--many with BVP
    funds--and now need to be replaced. The Justice Department has adopted
    new interim requirements for its body armor compliance testing program
    and also provided an additional $10 million at the end of fiscal year
    2005/beginning of fiscal year 2006 to assist agencies in their
    replacement of Zylon-based body armor vests.
        Vests cost between $500 and $1,000 each, depending on the style.
    The extra $10 million released by the Justice Department, while
    appreciated, is only a drop in the bucket when compared to the need.
        Across our nation, law enforcement agencies are struggling over how
    to find the funds necessary to replace defective vests that are less
    than five years old with ones that will actually stop bullets and save
    lives. How does DOJ justify cutting the BVP grant program by 63 percent
    in the face of needing to match costs for new vests, as well as to
    assist in the replacement of defective vests in fiscal year 2007?
        Answer. The Administration continues to support the Bullet Proof
    Vest Partnership (BVP) program administered by the Bureau of Justice
    Assistance (BJA), which utilizes federal funds to assist State and
    local law enforcement to purchase stab- and bullet-resistant vests that
    meet National Institute of Justice (NIJ) standards.
        The Attorney General, recognizing the crisis in the law enforcement
    community, added an additional $10 million to the $24.6 million
    appropriated for BPV in fiscal year 2005. This additional funding was
    made through a special BPV solicitation and resulted in 1,343 awards to
    State and local law enforcement agencies to replace 72,711 vests made
    with Zylon. In addition, through BJA's regular BPV process, in fiscal
    year 2005, BJA made $23.6 million in BPV payments to over 4,000
    agencies. These funds supported the purchase of more than 181,000 vests
    (over the next four years) for law enforcement officers across the
    country. In fiscal year 2006, $29.6 million is appropriated for BPV.
        Currently, there is over $70 million available for the BPV program,
    including the fiscal year 2005 appropriation of $24.6 million; $7.8
    million in reprogrammed funds; $10 million at the request of the
    Attorney General; and the fiscal year 2006 appropriation of $30
    million. The fiscal year 2007 President's budget request of $9.82
    million will sustain the program and should adequately fund the
    anticipated demand for new vests.
        Funding for BVP is also being allocated to support NIJ research on
    ballistic materials and armor performance under the Attorney General
    Body Armor Safety Initiative. The NIJ voluntary compliance testing
    program for bullet-resistant body armor has been revised to take into
    account performance of used armor.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl

                    OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE POLICY AND REVIEW

        Question. Do you believe this increase is sufficient to meet OIPR's
    needs? What information can you provide us with to demonstrate that
    this number will be sufficient to meet the needs of OIPR? Is this what
    OIPR told you they needed? Is that what they requested?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget includes an
    increase of 30 positions, of which 21 are attorneys, for functions
    performed by OIPR. This increase--20 percent over the 2006 position
    level--will help allow the Department to address the growth in Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications that are a key
    element in our fight against terrorism. If FISA-related workload
    continues to grow, additional resources for OIPR may be necessary.
    These additional needs would be reflected in future budget requests.
       eliminating the byrne grant program in the face of a meth epidemic
        Question. Local law enforcement officials back in Wisconsin have
    warned us that the meth epidemic could get even worse as the drug moves
    into our urban areas. Instead of being home-made in rural labs, meth is
    increasingly being mass-produced and trafficked by large drug cartels.
    What this all means is more meth will be on the streets and law
    enforcement is very worried that we may experience a meth epidemic even
    worse than the crack epidemic of the 1980s.
        In order to better combat the spread of crack cocaine which
    devastated our cities some 20 years ago and fight drug trafficking in
    general, Congress created the Edward J. Byrne Memorial Grant Program.
    The Byrne Grant Program provided federal funds to State and local
    police agencies to form regional drug task forces which coordinated law
    enforcement's efforts to fight drug crimes. By several accounts, the
    Byrne Grant Program was and remains successful--and it has become the
    backbone of federal aid for local law enforcement.
        We created the Byrne Grant Program twenty years ago to fight the
    rising tide of drugs in this country. Why now--when law enforcement is
    warning us that meth will be the new crack epidemic in our cities--is
    the Administration eliminating this program? We did not eliminate, we
    created, a federal program to help our local police fight drugs when
    crack exploded in the 80s. We should not be eliminating the Byrne Grant
    Program when we face the challenge of meth.
        Answer. Due to the limited resources available to the Department of
    Justice (DOJ), both the Administration and the Department have been
    forced to make many difficult choices while preparing the fiscal year
    2007 President's budget proposal. The decision to eliminate funding for
    the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program (JAG) was a difficult choice
    necessitated by the Department's need to focus available resources on
    its top priorities, such as antiterrorism efforts, and ensure that
    existing programs make the best possible use of the federal funds
    dedicated to them. We are actively working with Congress and State and
    local officials to help ensure that law enforcement needs are addressed
    nationwide.
        In fact, a number of critical and important investments for state
    and local law enforcement exist in the fiscal year 2007 budget--areas
    where funding is requested to target specific priority problems. In
    recent years, both the President and Congress have tended to focus
    funding on initiatives in key priority areas, where we have the best
    chance of making a difference, in lieu of funding large, broad-based
    programs that are not targeted and have not been able to show the same
    level of results. JAG represents less than one percent of all State and
    local spending in law enforcement.
        If the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request is approved,
    over $1 billion will be available to State, local and tribal law
    enforcement through the U.S. Department of Justice for many of the same
    purposes that JAG funded, such as training and equipment that logically
    cross-cut crime and drug issues. The DOJ fiscal year 2007 President's
    budget request includes $66.6 million to strengthen communities through
    programs providing services such as drug treatment; $88.2 million to
    combat violence, including enhancements to Project Safe Neighborhoods;
    and $209 million to support drug enforcement, including funding to
    continue and expand the Southwest Border Drug Prosecution Program.
        During its fiscal year 2005 PART assessment of the Byrne JAG
    Program and its predecessors (the Byrne Formula Grant Program and the
    Local Law Enforcement Block Grant), OMB concluded that the JAG Program
    has not been able to clearly demonstrate through quantifiable
    performance measures that it is achieving its goals. Concerns were also
    raised about the broad range of purpose areas allowed under the JAG
    Program; JAG funded efforts in a total of 29 different purpose areas,
    making it difficult for the program to develop meaningful performance
    measures or focus its efforts on priority concerns. Much of the
    justification for such assistance has diminished in comparison to other
    priority needs, such as increasing federal counterterrorism efforts.
        The Administration and the Department of Justice are committed to
    supporting interagency drug enforcement efforts. The fiscal year 2007
    President's budget includes $706 million for the Organized Crime and
    Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program and $208 million for the
    High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program. These programs
    support drug enforcement efforts undertaken by task forces made up of
    Federal, State, local and tribal law enforcement agencies and enhance
    the coordination of efforts against drug trafficking and drug-related
    crime at all levels of government. The Department will continue to work
    with Congress and State and local officials to address the many threats
    that methamphetamine and other illegal drugs pose to America's
    communities.

                            JUVENILE JUSTICE FUNDING

        Question. Once again, juvenile justice and delinquency programs are
    cut in half in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal. These
    programs, housed at the Office for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
    Prevention (OJJDP), are allocated $176 million, which is about half of
    what was appropriated last year (nearly $343 million).
        Juvenile justice programs have suffered during the Bush
    Administration. Just four short years ago, these programs received
    approximately $556 million, with more than $94 million for the Title V
    Local Delinquency Prevention Program and nearly $250 million for the
    Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) program. The
    Administration's proposed level of $176 million for juvenile justice
    programs represents more than a two-thirds cut from fiscal year 2002.
    The downward spiral of juvenile justice funding is a disturbing budget
    trend with ugly real world implications. Juvenile crime is an ongoing
    challenge and it is not a problem that is going to solve itself.
    Boosting funding for successful juvenile justice programs is the first
    step in addressing this challenge.
        Though we were able to increase that funding here in Congress last
    year, we wonder why this Administration targets reductions for juvenile
    justice programs year after year? Can you provide us some idea of
    whether or not this sort of funding will be a priority of yours, as it
    is to many of us here?
        Answer. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the Office of Justice
    Programs (OJP) proposes the elimination of the Juvenile Accountability
    Block Grant (JABG) Program, which received a ``results not
    demonstrated'' rating due to the lack of key information required by
    the Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment Rating Tool
    (PART) in fiscal year 2002. In an effort to increase accountability
    without undermining State juvenile justice programming, the OJP budget
    requests $33.5 million for the recently-authorized Part C: Juvenile
    Delinquency Prevention Block Grants Program from which State and local
    governments can fund similar activities.
        Funding for the Title V Incentive Grants Program is proposed for an
    overall reduction due to the elimination of two initiatives whose
    funding is carved out of this program at approximately $25 million
    each--Underage Drinking and Gang Resistance Education and Training.
    However, OJP is requesting an increase of $14.7 million in
    discretionary funding compared to the fiscal year 2006 enacted level
    for the Title V Program. Beginning in fiscal year 1995 (the second year
    of the Program), Congress allocated an increasingly larger portion of
    total Title V funds to earmarked programs which has resulted in fewer
    dollars being allocated to communities to formulate, implement, and
    evaluate comprehensive delinquency prevention plans through the
    Incentive Grants, the original intent of the Program.
        In addition, the fiscal year 2007 budget request includes an
    increase of $14.2 million for the Formula Grants Program which supports
    State and local efforts to develop and implement comprehensive State
    juvenile justice plans. Funds may be used for research, evaluation,
    statistics and other informational activities, and training and
    technical assistance. Funding is also available for training and
    technical assistance to help small, non-profit organizations, including
    faith-based organizations, with the federal grants process.

                            WHIRLPOOL-MAYTAG MERGER

        Question. Last week many of us were surprised when the Antitrust
    Division decided not to challenge Whirlpool's acquisition of Maytag. It
    was widely reported in the press that the Antitrust Division staff had
    recommended that the Justice Department should file suit to block this
    deal, because of the possibility that the deal could lead to injury to
    competition and higher prices for consumers. The merger will result in
    the combined company controlling about 70 percent of the washing
    machine market.
        The Justice Department's decision on this deal was contrary to the
    predictions of many antitrust experts. Diana Moss of the American
    Antitrust Institute argued that the combined company's market power
    would ``substantially lessen competition by impairing the ability of
    rivals to compete effectively.'' Even the Wall Street Journal--usually
    not an advocate of aggressive antitrust enforcement--reported that
    ``under traditional antitrust analysis, the deal would probably be
    rejected or reshaped because of the combined companies' majority share
    of the U.S. market for washers and dryers.''
        Why did you ignore the recommendation of the Antitrust Division
    staff in approving this merger?
        Answer. After thoroughly investigating Whirlpool's proposed
    acquisition of Maytag, the Antitrust Division determined that the
    proposed transaction was not likely to reduce competition
    substantially. We came to this conclusion because Whirlpool will likely
    achieve large cost savings and efficiencies, which would allow the
    combination of strong rival suppliers not to harm consumer welfare.
        Based on the evidence obtained during its extensive investigation,
    the Division found that this merger is not likely to give the merged
    entity market power in the sale of any of its products in the United
    States. The Division found that, despite the two companies' relatively
    high share of laundry appliance sales in the United States, any attempt
    to raise prices likely would be unsuccessful. Whirlpool and Maytag
    represent two well-known brands in the industry, but rival appliance
    brands such as Kenmore, General Electric and Frigidaire are also well
    established, and newer brands such as LG and Samsung have quickly
    established themselves in recent years. LG, Samsung, and other foreign
    manufacturers could increase their imports into the United States;
    rival U.S. manufacturers have excess capacity and could increase their
    production. Further, the large retailers through which the majority of
    these appliances are sold--Sears, Lowe's, The Home Depot and Best Buy--
    have alternatives available to help them resist any attempt by the
    merged entity to raise prices. Also, the parties substantiated large
    cost savings and other efficiencies that should benefit consumers.

                               TUNNEY ACT REVIEW

        Question. Two years ago I sponsored an amendment to the Tunney Act,
    the law which governs the manner in which the courts review government
    antitrust settlements with the government. My amendment was enacted
    into law. This amendment heightened the scrutiny that courts must give
    to such settlements. We intended to halt the practice of courts merely
    ``rubber stamping'' these settlements, but instead to ensure that the
    courts scrutinized these consent decrees to insure that the settlements
    were in the public interest.
        In the Justice Department's recent court filings in the SBC/ATT
    merger Tunney Act proceedings, the Department has asserted that these
    amendments ``did not materially affect the scope or standard of review
    courts are to apply in reviewing antitrust settlements.'' This
    assertion is contrary to the plain words and legislative intent of our
    Tunney Act amendments.
        Why has the Justice Department taken the position that our Tunney
    Act amendments have not changed the standard of review that courts are
    to follow in reviewing antitrust settlements? What basis do you have
    for ignoring the plain language and legislative history of our
    amendments that was intended to strengthen the court's review?
        Answer. The text of the 2004 amendments to the Tunney Act modified
    the list of factors a court is to consider in making its public
    interest determination and made judicial consideration of each factor
    mandatory rather than discretionary. The quotation in the filing you
    cite was in the context of that case, in which it was claimed that the
    2004 Tunney Act amendments somehow gave the court the authority to
    review a consent judgment on the basis of allegations that were not
    included in the underlying complaint. The 2004 Amendments do not in any
    way suggest that they altered the Tunney Act's fundamental purpose or
    standard in that respect.
        Section 221(a) contains a ``finding'' that ``it would misconstrue
    the meaning and Congressional intent in enacting the Tunney Act to
    limit the discretion of district courts to review antitrust consent
    judgments solely to determining whether entry of those consent
    judgments would make a `mockery of the judicial function.' '' Antitrust
    Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, Public Law 108-
    237,  221(a)(1)(B), 118 Stat. 661, 668 (2004). Senator DeWine stated
    that ``this bill makes clear that the Tunney Act requires what it has
    always required, and that mere rubber-stamping is not acceptable.'' 150
    Cong. Rec. S3610-02, *S3618 (Apr. 2, 2004) (statement of Sen. DeWine).
    The Department agrees. Both the statute and the case law make clear a
    court's Tunney Act role: far from applying a rubber-stamp, the court is
    to examine the proposed antitrust consent decree and determine whether
    that judgment addresses the harms alleged in the complaint and
    therefore falls within the reaches of the public interest based on the
    factors enumerated in the statute.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                       ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION

        Question. The Antitrust Modernization Commission recently held a
    hearing that discussed the risks that U.S. businesses face as a result
    of the growing number of competition authorities around the world.
    These authorities can impose requirements or remedies on U.S. companies
    that conflict with our own. As one witness testified, this situation
    ``has created the potential for a variety of adverse consequences,
    including increased transaction costs and heightened uncertainty for
    businesses, and instances of friction and conflict across
    jurisdictional boundaries.''
        Would the Department support efforts to deal with these issues, so
    that foreign antitrust authorities are more likely to defer to the
    rulings of the Department and FTC where the United States' interests in
    a transaction or conduct are paramount?
        Should the United States also seek to strengthen existing antitrust
    cooperation agreements to address this issue?
        Answer. The potential for foreign competition authorities to impose
    burdensome conflicting requirements and uncertainties on companies from
    other nations, or even to misuse enforcement to bolster a country's own
    home companies, has been an ongoing concern of the Antitrust Division
    for a number of years. The Division has actively worked to promote
    antitrust enforcement around the world based on sound economic and
    legal analysis. In this regard, one of the principles we have urged as
    part of international comity in antitrust enforcement is that, where
    appropriate, deference be given to the enforcement authorities in the
    country with the most significant relationship to the transaction or
    conduct.
        At the same time, the Department recognizes that there are numerous
    instances in which both the United States and a foreign antitrust
    authority have a significant interest in a particular course of conduct
    or a particular transaction. It is therefore critical that the
    Department work closely in a variety of contexts to achieve
    international consensus on sound antitrust enforcement, thereby
    limiting the risk of significantly divergent outcomes in particular
    cases. In recent years the Department has actively engaged antitrust
    enforcers around the world through the International Competition
    Network, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
    competition working groups, and bilateral and trilateral meetings. Our
    goal is to strengthen international cooperation, minimize unnecessary
    burdens on companies doing business globally, and promote convergence
    on sound antitrust principles. This will continue to be a priority for
    the Department.

                             SEX OFFENDER DATABASE

        Question. Mr. Attorney General, I met with you in February of 2005,
    and urged you to implement a national sex offender database that the
    public could access through the internet, along the lines of what I
    have proposed in Dru's Law. I appreciate the fact that the Justice
    Department has begun implementation of such a database.
        The database currently allows users to search for offenders by
    multiple zip codes, but not by a radius defined by users, as proposed
    by Dru's Law. I think the database would be far more useful if it
    allowed the user to ask for a list of offenders within, say, a 10-mile
    radius--rather than having to sit down with a map and figuring out the
    intricacies of the zip code system. Would you be willing to look into
    that?
        Answer. A zip code radius search has been a sought after function
    of the National Sex Offender Public Registry (NSOPR) since the
    inception of the program. After the initial release of NSOPR, the
    original zip code function was modified from single zip code search
    capability to the current search capability that allows users to search
    multiple known adjacent zip codes. With the final two states scheduled
    to participate in the program this summer, work is underway to develop
    zip code radius style searches.

         EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANTS (JAG) PROGRAM

        Question. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget would eliminate
    funding for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants program
    that was developed to help states and local law enforcement control
    violent crime and drug-related crime as well as improve operations and
    coordination.
        The Byrne grant program helps to fund the South Sakakawea Narcotics
    Task Force that services the southwest counties of North Dakota. Prior
    to having this task force, the Dickinson Police Department and Stark
    County Sheriff's Department combined to investigate narcotics. It was
    on a part time basis because it utilized detectives who had to work
    criminal cases as well and it was not effective enough to deter the
    dealers moving into our area.
        According to the Dickinson Chief of Police, the task force this
    past year handled 181 cases and made a total of 233 arrests. They also
    have confiscated about $29,000 in asset forfeitures.
        In eliminating funding, the Administration says the Byrne program
    is ``unable to demonstrate results'' and that there is ``little
    justification for continued funding.'' How can you justify cutting this
    program? What methods did the Department of Justice use to evaluate
    this program? Did you reach out directly to local law enforcement
    officials in North Dakota to gather facts and results?
        Answer. Due to the limited resources available to the Department of
    Justice (DOJ), both the Administration and the Department have been
    forced to make many difficult choices while preparing the fiscal year
    2007 President's budget proposal. The decision to eliminate funding for
    the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program (JAG) was a difficult choice
    necessitated by the Department's need to focus available resources on
    its top priorities, such as antiterrorism efforts, and ensure that
    existing programs make the best possible use of the federal funds
    dedicated to them. We are actively working with Congress and state and
    local officials to help ensure that law enforcement needs are addressed
    nationwide.
        In fact, a number of critical and important investments exist in
    the fiscal year 2007 budget--areas where funding is requested to target
    specific priority problems. In recent years, both the President and
    Congress have tended to focus funding on initiatives in key priority
    areas, where we have the best chance of making a difference, in lieu of
    funding large, broad-based programs that are not targeted and have not
    been able to show the same level of results. JAG represents less than
    one percent of all state and local spending in law enforcement.
        If the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request is approved,
    over $1 billion will be available to State, local and tribal law
    enforcement through the U.S. Department of Justice for many of the same
    purposes that JAG funded, such as training and equipment that logically
    cross-cut crime and drug issues. The DOJ fiscal year 2007 President's
    budget request includes $66.6 million to strengthen communities through
    programs providing services such as drug treatment; $88.2 million to
    combat violence, including enhancements to Project Safe Neighborhoods;
    and $209 million to support drug enforcement, including funding to
    continue and expand the Southwest Border Drug Prosecution Program.
        During its fiscal year 2005 PART assessment of the Byrne JAG
    Program and its predecessors (the Byrne Formula Grant Program and the
    Local Law Enforcement Block Grant), OMB concluded that the JAG Program
    has not been able to clearly demonstrate through quantifiable
    performance measures that it is achieving its goals. Concerns were also
    raised about the broad range of purpose areas allowed under the JAG
    Program; JAG funded efforts in a total of 29 different purpose areas,
    making it difficult for the program to develop meaningful performance
    measures or focus its efforts on priority concerns. Much of the
    justification for such assistance has diminished in comparison to other
    priority needs, such as increasing federal counterterrorism efforts.
        The Administration and the Department of Justice are committed to
    supporting interagency drug enforcement efforts. The fiscal year 2007
    President's budget includes $706 million for the Organized Crime and
    Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program and $208 million for the
    High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program. These programs
    support drug enforcement efforts undertaken by task forces made up of
    Federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies and enhance
    the coordination of efforts against drug trafficking and drug-related
    crime at all levels of government. The Department will continue to work
    with Congress and State and local officials to address the many threats
    that methamphetamine and other illegal drugs pose to America's
    communities.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

    NSA'S DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM AND ITS POSSIBLE UNDERMINING AFFECT
                          ON COUNTERTERRORISM EFFORTS

        Question. The Administration has been very vocal about its disdain
    for the information leaked concerning domestic wiretapping program. Is
    it possible, that by ignoring FISA, as well as the FISA court, the
    Administration has encouraged intelligence gatherers and analysts to
    engage in constitutionally-suspect activities, and that the leaks that
    have resulted have come about not through any dereliction of duty, but
    from a real concern that individuals have been asked to conduct
    domestic surveillance outside the rule of law?
        If this is in fact true, then not only has the NSA's domestic
    surveillance program been conducted illegally, it has placed
    counterterrorism agents beyond the law, and possibly caused the leaks
    it now condemns. What is the Administration's response to its possibly
    undermining counterterrorism efforts by its brazen indifference to FISA
    and the Constitution?
        Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to address these questions,
    which I believe reflect several misunderstandings. We hope our response
    will allay your concerns.
        First, the care that the Administration has taken in establishing,
    implementing, and overseeing the Terrorist Surveillance Program
    described by the President bears emphasis. The Administration has gone
    to extraordinary lengths to ensure that, even while it protects the
    American people from another catastrophic terrorist attack, it observes
    the constitutional protections that we, as a Nation, cherish. For this
    reason, the Administration sought and received the legal advice of the
    Department of Justice and of the career attorneys who specialize in
    this area of law at the National Security Agency (NSA) before the
    program was first authorized, and it continues to seek such advice when
    appropriate. The Program is narrowly focused, targeting only
    international communications for which a trained intelligence
    professional concludes there is probable cause to believe at least one
    of the parties is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated
    terrorist organization. The need for the Program is reevaluated
    approximately every 45 days to minimize the risk of any unnecessary
    interception of communications. Finally, from the very beginning, the
    Administration has kept Congress informed through appropriate briefings
    of the Intelligence Committees and leadership.
        Second, the Administration has not ``circumvent[ed] procedures
    required by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the
    Constitution,'' nor has it ``ignored'' FISA. As explained in the
    Department's January 19, 2006 paper, the Terrorist Surveillance Program
    is fully consistent with FISA. FISA expressly recognizes that
    electronic surveillance can be authorized by statutes other than FISA.
    See 50 U.S.C.  1809(a)(1) (providing that electronic surveillance is
    not prohibited if it is ``authorized by statute''). The Authorization
    for the Use of Military Force of September 18, 2001 (``Force
    Resolution'') is just such a statute. The Supreme Court has explained
    that the Force Resolution must be understood to have authorized
    ``fundamental and accepted'' incidents of waging war. Hamdi v.
    Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 518 (2004) (plurality opinion); see id. at 587
    (Thomas, J., dissenting). As explained at length in the January 19th
    paper, the use of signals intelligence is a fundamental incident of the
    use of military force. Consistent with this traditional understanding,
    other Presidents, including Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, have
    interpreted general force authorization resolutions to permit
    warrantless electronic surveillance to intercept suspected enemy
    communications. Cf. generally Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith,
    Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism, 118 Harv. L. Rev.
    2048, 2091 (2005) (explaining that, with the Force Resolution,
    ``Congress intended to authorize the President to take at least those
    actions permitted by the laws of war''). The Force Resolution thus
    authorizes the President to conduct the Terrorist Surveillance Program
    against al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations, and does so in
    a way explicitly contemplated by FISA. At the same time, as we have
    explained repeatedly, the Administration understands and appreciates
    FISA's value. It and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have
    been of enormous assistance in protecting the Nation from terrorist
    attacks and other threats to the national security. The Administration,
    accordingly, makes full use of the FISA.
        Third, we do not agree that concerns about the legality of the
    Terrorist Surveillance Program caused the unauthorized leak that
    publicly revealed the existence of the Program. Even if an employee
    were concerned about the legality of the program, although the program
    has been, from the beginning, subject to legal review at several
    levels, there has long been a mechanism in place--the Intelligence
    Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998--that would allow an
    employee to bring such concerns to the attention of the relevant
    Inspector General and, if that did not resolve his concerns, the
    Intelligence Committees of Congress. This act provides a mechanism to
    address concerns while protecting sensitive intelligence sources and
    methods. No concern for the legality of the Program could have impelled
    someone to break the law and cause irreparable harm to the national
    security by leaking highly classified information when this alternative
    was open.
        Finally, the Terrorist Surveillance Program has been critical to
    protecting the Nation from a subsequent al Qaeda attack and is in no
    way ``undermining counterterrorism efforts.'' We hope these
    clarifications allay your concerns.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted to Robert S. Mueller III
                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl

                                  FBI ANALYSTS

        Question. Director Mueller, since 9/11, you have tried to transform
    the FBI into an intelligence agency, one that actively prevents
    terrorist attacks instead of just responding to them. Last year, we
    talked about an Inspector General report that criticized the FBI for
    its inability to recruit, train, and retain qualified intelligence
    analysts. Connecting the dots, of course, is crucial to that
    transformation. The FBI fell well short of its analyst hiring goals in
    2004, but you assured me that you would get that back on track in 2005,
    and that you would meet your goals. What goals did the FBI set for
    2005, and were they met? What sorts of people did you hire as analysts?
    Are you fully satisfied with the qualifications of the applicants?
        Answer. The FBI has worked hard to recruit the best possible
    candidates to move us forward during our transformation. This work is
    exemplified by our effort to hire intelligence analysts (IAs); through
    an extremely aggressive recruiting effort, we have increased our total
    on-board IA complement over the 9/11/01 level by 108 percent.
        Throughout this period, we have set very high IA hiring goals, and
    achieving these goals has been quite challenging. The FBI's goal in
    fiscal year 2005 was to hire 780 analysts and, with the benefit of
    streamlined pre-employment procedures and a hiring ``blitz,'' we hired
    678 analysts. (Of these, 170 IAs counted against our fiscal year 2004
    goal, so that the total IAs hired against our fiscal year 2005 goal of
    780 was 508). Both our efforts and our challenges are continuing; in
    the first two quarters of fiscal year 2006, we hired 233 IAs.
        While the hiring of skilled and motivated federal employees in such
    large numbers is always challenging, the hiring of IAs in adequate
    numbers is made more challenging by the fact that the same backgrounds
    and expertise we are seeking are also being sought by other
    intelligence organizations. In order to close the gap created by hiring
    shortfalls, the FBI has established a team that consists of
    representatives from the Directorate of Intelligence, Administrative
    Services Division, Security Division, and Training and Development
    Division, who meet weekly to address hiring and training needs
    throughout the FBI. We will sustain our vigorous hiring effort until we
    meet our hiring goals.
        The FBI has established policies and procedures designed to ensure
    we have the highest quality IAs, and the qualifications of the IAs
    hired in fiscal year 2005-2006 have been outstanding. For example, 48
    percent of the recent hires have advanced degrees and, of those with
    baccalaureate or advanced degrees, 25 percent possess critical skills
    in such areas as Islamic studies, international banking, analytical
    studies, or computer science.

                            SENIORS INVESTMENT FRAUD

        Question. Since 9/11, the FBI has focused on protecting our
    homeland and rightfully so. But the FBI also has other law enforcement
    priorities. Recently, I chaired an Aging Committee hearing that focused
    on the growing issue of securities fraud that seniors are facing. One
    of the messages from that hearing was that law enforcement must focus
    on both prosecuting fraud complaints and investigating potential scams
    before they ensnare seniors' life savings. I understand that the FBI
    has begun working on this, but can you tell us what additional
    resources you need to step up your efforts in this area?
        Answer. Securities fraud is a priority of the FBI's White Collar
    Crime Program. During fiscal year 2005, the FBI had more than 1,500
    pending securities fraud cases. These investigations resulted in 479
    indictments or informations, 479 convictions, over $4.9 billion in
    court-ordered restitution, and approximately $25 million in
    forfeitures. The FBI will work with DOJ and Congress to identify any
    additional resources needed to increase our securities fraud program as
    it relates to senior citizens.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

                                  CHOICEPOINT

        Question. On April 3, 2006, the FBI announced that it was entering
    into a $12 million, 5-year licensing agreement with ChoicePoint to
    expand the use of software that helps the FBI analyze criminal
    organizations. During the Committee's April 5, 2006, hearing, you
    stated that the FBI did not consult with Congress before entering into
    this agreement.
        Given the well-publicized problems that ChoicePoint has had with
    maintaining data security, how can the Justice Department possibly
    justify entering into a multi-million dollar contract with ChoicePoint
    to handle sensitive investigative data about how criminal enterprises
    operate?
        Answer. The FBI awarded a 5-year, fixed-price contract to i2, Inc.,
    a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, on 12/1/05. ChoicePoint issued a press
    release announcing this contract on 4/3/06, which created some
    confusion as to whether the contract was for ChoicePoint data services
    or for i2 analytical tools. In fact, this contract is solely for i2's
    software applications and analytical tools, and not for ChoicePoint
    data services. These i2 applications and tools include software
    licenses, software upgrades, technical support for the ``Analyst's
    Notebook'' (i2's primary product), a scaled-down version of i2's
    ``Visual Notebook,'' and related tools. The ``Analyst's Notebook'' is a
    link-node analysis tool that has proven highly useful in
    counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal investigations that
    involve large volumes of data.
        Like private investigators, paralegals, and others who subscribe to
    such services, the FBI continues to use commercial databases, such as
    ChoicePoint, that contain public-source information as well as
    proprietary information that is privately owned and commercially
    available at the owner's discretion. This information is available to
    the FBI from the same sources that provide it to the commercial
    databases. What these commercial databases offer their customers,
    including the FBI, by contract is a consolidation of this information
    so that, rather than going to multiple databases for this information,
    it can be obtained through one or two searches.
        The FBI contracts with commercial data providers, such as
    ChoicePoint, in order to access the information they maintain. We do
    not provide FBI information, including FBI investigative data, to these
    organizations, and neither they nor their other clients have any access
    to FBI information as a result of our contract or our access.
        Question. Given the well-publicized problems that ChoicePoint has
    had with maintaining data security, why did the FBI choose to not
    consult Congress before entering into this licensing agreement?
        Answer. As indicated in the response above, the recent contract did
    not concern ChoicePoint's data services, but was instead a contract for
    i2's software applications and analytical tools. Furthermore, the FBI's
    spending with regard to contracts with ChoicePoint and other data
    brokers has always been consistent with resources appropriated for such
    matters.
        Question. Did the FBI conduct a review of ChoicePoint's data
    security procedures and privacy policy before entering into this
    licensing agreement? If so, please describe that review process.
        Answer. Because the recent contract with i2, Inc., was for software
    applications and analytical tools, rather than for data services, it
    did not raise any concerns regarding data security procedures or
    privacy policy. These tools were evaluated as part of the FBI system's
    security certification and accreditation process, in accordance with
    FBI data security procedures and privacy policy.

                           VIRTUAL CASE FILE/SENTINEL

        Question. Director Mueller, you are well aware of my ongoing
    interest in getting a fully functional case management system into the
    hands of agents. Last year, after consultants pronounced it obsolete
    and riddled with problems, the FBI scrapped its $170 million Virtual
    Case File component of the Trilogy program, which was supposed to
    create an instantaneous and paperless way for FBI agents and analysts
    to manage all types of investigations.
        We recently learned that the FBI estimates that Trilogy's
    successor, Sentinel, will cost the American taxpayers $425 million to
    complete. Additionally, Sentinel will not be fully deployed until 2009.
    The FBI has already set aside $97 million for Sentinel this year and
    you are asking for an additional $100 million for this project for
    fiscal year 2007.
        How confident are you about the final cost estimate for the
    Sentinel program?
        Answer. The FBI is confident that the approved contract will meet
    the requirements specified in the statement of work at the contracted
    price. Should modifications be required, we will make the proper
    notifications within the FBI and to the Department of Justice (DOJ),
    OMB, and Congress. The total value of the contract with Lockheed Martin
    is $305 million over 6 years, including both development and Operations
    and Maintenance (O&M). The FBI estimates that the total cost for the
    Sentinel program, including program management, systems development,
    O&M, and independent validation and verification (IV&V), will be $425
    million over 6 years.
        Question. Based on this cost estimate, how much additional funding
    or reprogrammed funds will the FBI require to complete this program? If
    reprogramming is required, what programs do you anticipate will lose
    funds?
        Answer. The funding requested in the President's fiscal year 2007
    budget will fund O&M for Phase 1 and a portion or all of the system
    development, training, and program management costs for Phase 2. Final
    funding requirements for Phase 2 are dependent on the completed
    contract negotiations and other factors. Funding for Phases 3 and 4 and
    for the remainder of O&M for all Phases will be requested in future
    year budget submissions. If additional Phase 2 costs are identified in
    fiscal year 2007 beyond the $100 million in the President's budget, the
    FBI will work with DOJ, OMB, and Congress to redirect existing funds
    where available or request additional funding as needed.
        Question. I am trouble[d] by reports that two of the companies that
    are part of the Sentinel contract team--Computer Sciences Corp. and
    CACI International Inc.--also played roles in the earlier failed
    Trilogy effort. How do you justify entrusting these companies with
    taxpayer funds again?
        Answer. Although it is true that two of the 11 companies partnering
    with Lockheed Martin are common to both Trilogy and Sentinel (Computer
    Science Corporation (CSC) and CACI), these companies were associated
    with the Transportation Network and Information Presentation components
    of the Trilogy contract rather than with the Virtual Case File portion,
    which was led by SAIC.
        The FBI believes both CSC and CACI will make significant
    contributions toward Sentinel's success. CSC will provide subject-
    matter expertise regarding legacy systems, system design, commercial
    off-the-shelf software selection, and O&M support. CSC will also
    provide information technology security services, a business line in
    which they have excelled while working with the FBI's information
    assurance program during the past three years. CACI will provide
    subject-matter expertise in support of case management, records
    management, development and testing, and implementation and
    integration.
        The FBI has strengthened its internal controls to avoid a
    repetition of prior problems. For example, we have improved our
    contract oversight in four significant ways. First, this contract has
    clear reporting requirements and clear, defined deliverables at each
    contract phase (each of the four phases delivers capability to the end-
    user), and the contract can be terminated at any point should these
    results be unsatisfactory. Second, those responsible for contract
    management have clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and the
    management function is structured so as to ensure that accountable
    personnel review all documentation and expenses. This contract
    management function will be supplemented by internal financial
    management audits. Third, an IV&V specialist who reports directly to
    the Chief Information Officer will independently assess the efficiency
    and progress of the Program Management Office (PMO) and the work of the
    Sentinel contractors. Fourth, to eliminate the likelihood of ``scope
    creep,'' any significant requirements changes must first be approved by
    the Executive Steering Council chaired by the FBI's Deputy Director.
        The FBI has implemented measures to verify the FBI's receipt of the
    contract's deliverables and to validate their costs when invoiced.
    Unlike Trilogy, these measures include the creation of a PMO that
    includes personnel with the expertise to ensure proper contract
    administration. The Sentinel PMO includes a contracting officer and a
    dedicated unit that is specifically assigned to track, monitor, and
    control all program and development costs. This dedicated unit, which
    includes a business manager, budget analyst, Earned Value Metrics
    analyst, cost estimator, and full-time contracting officer's technical
    representative, will used detailed invoicing procedures developed by
    the PMO to validate all internal and external costs. As recognized in
    the recent GAO and IG reports, the FBI has conveyed to Lockheed Martin
    the importance of detailed cost tracking and adherence to established
    policies and protocols. Lockheed Martin has assured the FBI that they
    understand and concur in our requirements and will implement
    appropriate policies and processes to ensure compliance.
        Generally a government entity has no direct relationship with
    subcontractors, who instead work for prime contractor, submitting
    invoices to the prime contractor for approval and payment. While this
    is true of the FBI's relationship with subcontractors in this case, as
    well, the FBI has requested greater transparency of subcontractor
    activities and charges with respect to the Sentinel contract, and
    Lockheed Martin's monthly reports will be required to include
    subcontractor costs in the same manner as their own costs.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Shelby. We will review the 2007 budget request for
    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on Wednesday,
    April 26 in this room, and at that time, the NASA
    Administrator, Dr. Michael Griffin, will be here to discuss the
    budget for the programs under his jurisdiction. Until then, the
    subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 4:38 p.m., Wednesday, April 5, the
    subcommittee was recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m., Wednesday,
    April 26.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:07 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Shelby and Mikulski.

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, ADMINISTRATOR

                           CHAIRMAN'S OPENING REMARKS

        Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order. Today
    we welcome the NASA Administrator Dr. Michael Griffin, who has
    joined us to testify on the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
    request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    (NASA).
        The proposed budget for NASA is $16.8 billion. After
    accounting for one-time supplemental funds provided for
    Katrina-related expenses, the increase to NASA-based programs
    becomes $519 million, an increase of just over 3 percent. The
    requested increase can be attributed to nearly $900 million to
    fund the Vision and Exploration Program. While this is a
    significant increase, there are a number of programs slated for
    decreases that are troubling. Specifically, funding for
    aeronautics and education have been cut, and science has been
    shortchanged with little hope for funding in future years that
    I see now.
        Dr. Griffin, I feel that fulfilling NASA's goals including
    returning to the Moon are important and will take more than
    just plans for rockets and research missions. It will also take
    a sound financial structure, as we've talked about, a skilled
    workforce, and capable management. One of the greatest
    challenges that I believe NASA faces is building and retaining
    a technical workforce that we have talked about. NASA is one of
    the most publicly recognized agencies within the Federal
    Government. Such high visibility can be a powerful tool for
    aspiring future scientists, engineers, and explorers. The
    success of NASA programs in science and exploration seen by
    students today is the inspiration needed to attract the young
    people of this Nation to the careers of tomorrow.
        Further investment in education is the direct link to
    future generations. I believe we agree that we must continue to
    encourage young people to explore these educational avenues and
    endeavor to carry on the important research and exploration
    capabilities for which NASA is so well known. It is a serious
    issue that must be addressed in order to ensure that future
    exploration in space can occur, and one that I do not believe
    should be sacrificed.
        Dr. Griffin, this budget before us reflects the process of
    implementing the Vision for Space Exploration, and I understand
    that the path was laid out in the exploration systems
    architecture study. I believe that the intent of the study is
    commendable in its aim to reach the goal of returning to the
    Moon in a fiscally prudent, and safe manner. However, it is my
    hope that such implementation can be accomplished while
    maintaining the capabilities that NASA has developed in other
    areas of its mission. I do not believe that we should sacrifice
    important capabilities that will be vital to future missions
    and efforts at NASA in trying to attain this goal. I believe
    that we can and should find a balance, and I believe you will.
        The path laid out for returning to the Moon is contingent
    on several factors. However, we are both keenly aware that any
    unexpected bump in the path could pose significant challenges
    to NASA's long-term plans. Today we can point to the sizable
    funding requirements of the space shuttle, as well as the
    ongoing construction of the International Space Station (ISS)
    as hefty fiscal burdens on NASA's ability to continue down the
    path laid out in the Vision for Space Exploration.
        The evident strain on funding in the science missions and
    aeronautics budgets for NASA are indicators that we are
    traveling down a tenuous path. Return to Flight and the
    implementation of the Exploration Vision are a significant
    financial strain on NASA, and, therefore, require other aspects
    of NASA to remain relatively flat or decline over the next 5
    years. It is all important.
        I also believe that we will have an ongoing dialogue over
    the course of the year about NASA's ability to achieve the
    President's vision for space exploration. I am very interested
    in discussing how NASA will preserve its ongoing programs and
    how it will modernize its institutions and facilities which are
    critical to NASA's success in the coming years. Again, I
    believe that we can, and we have to, strike an appropriate
    balance.
        The Vision laid out by the President in 2004 calls for a
    return to the Moon, and building upon that foundation to
    eventually set foot on another planet. I am excited by the
    opportunities that lay ahead with the Exploration Vision at
    NASA, but I must point out that there are fiscal realities that
    may affect the vision.
        Dr. Griffin, I believe that this subcommittee has made
    every effort to work with you, and we will continue to do that,
    to provide NASA with the appropriate level of funding in an
    effort to ensure that roles and missions are protected and
    preserved. Along with that funding comes a fair amount of
    direction, but the subcommittee has provided NASA with
    reprogramming flexibility to react to those bumps in the path
    that I discussed. However, in return, there is the expectation
    that NASA will be a wise steward of taxpayers' dollars. I am
    concerned that the financial systems for NASA have earned the
    worst rating possible from the administration with little
    progress toward correcting the problem over the past 3 years. I
    realize that you have not been there all that time. Even more
    troubling is a recent report of NASA having violated the anti-
    deficiency laws. These reports come at a time when NASA is
    holding an unprecedented amount of unobligated funds while
    claiming to need every additional dollar in order to accomplish
    the missions they have set out before them. Such reports have a
    tendency to erode confidence in NASA's ability to responsibly
    manage the funds that have been appropriated. Dr. Griffin, I
    appreciate, as I said a minute ago, that you have only been in
    your position for about 1 year, and I trust that you are
    working diligently, and I want to work with you to correct
    these problems, and ensure that there will be no further issues
    in complying with anti-deficiency laws. In addition, I expect
    that we will continue to discuss the unobligated balances that
    NASA has accumulated over the years and how those best can be
    utilized toward moving forward.
        I look forward to hearing your insights on how NASA can do
    better, your views, and the challenges ahead.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.

                RANKING MINORITY MEMBER MIKULSKI OPENING REMARKS

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    again I, too, wish to welcome Dr. Griffin.
        It has been a very busy and in many ways successful year
    for NASA, and I believe it is today that we celebrate the 25th
    anniversary of the first shuttle flight, in which we thought
    the shuttle was going to do wonderful things, and it did, but
    now the shuttle is getting old and we need to be able to look
    ahead.
        There have also been an amazing set of accomplishments in
    science. Dr. Bennett, of my very own Johns Hopkins, saw the
    first light, and actually almost the beginning, of the Big Bang
    through a gamma ray burst. We are looking at how we can
    successfully launch the mission to Pluto by a team at APL;
    Cassini, the probe that gave us the best pictures on Saturn;
    and of course, the Hubble telescope and many other things.
        Despite what we have been able to do, and despite the
    successes of NASA, it has been a difficult year for NASA. The
    cost of running the space shuttle to flight has run into delays
    which are absolutely crucial to ensure our number one priority,
    the safety of the astronauts, but it has also increased by $2.4
    billion. Hurricane Katrina caused over $600 million of damage
    to two NASA centers, and hats off to how the employees saved so
    much of the facility, and know even slept on floors, but
    nevertheless, will be a tremendous cost to rebuild, and the
    years of flat budgets have put great stress on all of NASA's
    programs.
        In looking at areas ahead, we know that we are facing new
    external challenges; a challenge from China. We know China
    wants to go to the Moon. We know that they want to be the first
    to go back to the Moon. We cannot let China be the first back
    to the Moon. I know we have to go to the Moon and go in a way
    that we can stay there for a variety of reasons.
        At the same time, the President has challenged us and
    worked with us on a bipartisan basis to be competitive, to
    promote innovation and discovery, to focus on education and
    research, innovation-friendly government. But we are concerned
    as we have responded to the call raised in the excellent report
    ``Gathering Storm,'' that NASA was left out of that. I felt so
    strongly about that in a bipartisan meeting at the White House,
    to talk with the President about how his bold vision of
    returning to Mars was exactly what could inspire people,
    promote the development of incredible technology and
    breakthroughs that would help inspire the next generation of
    scientists, engineers and technologists, but also the kinds of
    new technologies that end up in the marketplace and help us be
    an economic superpower.
        What we have seen though is a fairly flat budget, a modest
    increase, but we are deeply concerned about the consequences of
    what we see here. NASA's role in promoting science is not
    included in the budget in the way we had hoped. Science is cut
    over $2 billion; Mars; solar system research; aeronautics
    research which is cut by $100 million which is so crucial. We
    need a robust science program, we do need human exploration, we
    do need a crew return vehicle (CRV), but we know that we have
    enormous stresses in our own appropriations.
        I'm going to work with my colleague, Senator Shelby, to
    find a balanced space program, to get that shuttle flying again
    and fix that shuttle, so as to move on to our next generation
    of science, technology, and aeronautics. But I am concerned
    that we are doing too much with too little money, that we have
    an aging workforce, we have aging technology, and that, quite
    frankly, I believe we have to find a way to do more, and we
    cannot continue to do more with less.
        So we look forward to your ideas. We thank you for your
    leadership and we thank you for your candor. I particularly
    want to express my appreciation for the way you have handled
    the question of the ability to speak your scientific views and
    so on, truth through power, and so we look forward to hearing
    your testimony today.
        Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, your written testimony will be
    made part of the record without objection, and you may proceed
    as you wish. Welcome to the subcommittee, sir.

                     OPENING REMARKS OF MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN

        Dr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator Shelby and Senator
    Mikulski. I am pleased to be here to discuss our fiscal year
    2007 budget request and how we are carrying out our missions of
    space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics
    research, within the resources provided. With a 3.2 percent
    increase over last year's appropriation, this budget does
    represent the President's commitment to our Nation's civil
    space program, and especially so in view of the many pressures
    in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the war on terrorism.
        As we begin, I want to thank this subcommittee for its
    leadership over the past year in providing emergency
    supplemental funds for NASA's recovery and repair efforts after
    Hurricane Katrina. We are also very appreciative of the action
    taken by the Committees on Appropriations, and by the Congress
    as a whole, in providing $16.5 billion in fiscal year 2006
    appropriations to the agency, and essentially the level of the
    President's fiscal year 2006 request before the application of
    rescissions, as well as the strong endorsement of the Vision
    for Space Exploration, timely development of the crew
    exploration vehicle (CEV) and the crew launch vehicle (CLV),
    and support for NASA's other core programs. We need the help of
    this subcommittee now, and will continue to need it in the
    future. Senator Shelby, I want specifically to address the
    concerns you raised, because I think they are very fair.

       NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

        With regard to NASA's financial management, we delivered to
    the Congress this past February an integrated cross-NASA
    corrective action plan to address the findings and
    recommendations to which you referred that were made by Ernst &
    Young in the 2005 financial audit. Through this plan we are
    working toward resolution of those audit issues by the third
    quarter of this fiscal year, fiscal year 2006. NASA does not
    control the opinion delivered by its auditors, but we fully
    expect that resolution of the issues they raised by the third
    quarter of this year will allow the auditors to perform a
    complete audit of NASA's 2006 financial statements. We will
    know when their opinion is released on November 15 of this
    year. I could not take your concerns more seriously, nor be
    more personally concerned about them myself.

                         ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT VIOLATIONS

        You mentioned the ADA violations, Anti-Deficiency Act
    violations. Two of these did occur as a result of the agency's
    failure to file apportionment requests in fiscal 2004. The
    first was of magnitude $1.6 billion that was obligated in 2005,
    and a smaller one, $30.4 million, obligated in 2004. The funds
    were not willfully or knowingly obligated or overly expended,
    but that does not excuse the fact that it was done. We did
    catch it ourselves, and we brought both instances to OMB's
    attention. Again, that does not excuse the behavior, but we
    sought to mitigate it to the maximum extent possible. We
    addressed both of those issues without the need for
    supplemental funds, and we have implemented corrective actions
    in our financial accounting chain of command to see to it that
    they do not happen again. I am certain that our auditors will
    explore those issues as well.

                              UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

        With regard to the point you made about unobligated
    balances, it is true that as we sit here today we have $625
    million presently unobligated. Ninety-six percent of funds have
    been obligated. Of the $625 million, $108 million is for
    construction, and $517 million is for nonconstruction
    activities. We have definite plans for all of these funds. All
    of them will be obligated, and all of the funds are required or
    programs that have been approved by this Congress. I say again,
    I am happy to work with your staff or with you as Members to
    convince you that these statements that I am making today are
    true. I have been here but a year, however, I fully accept and
    in fact require ownership of these problems that you have
    raised. They became my problems on April 14 of last year when
    the Senate confirmed me, I do own them and we are working
    toward a resolution.
        In many ways, Mr. Chairman, NASA is a victim of its own
    success. Our can-do attitude toward the Nation's greatest
    technical challenges has left many people believing that NASA
    can do anything and everything. I hate to say it, but I am here
    to testify before you that NASA cannot do everything that our
    many constituencies would like us to do within our proposed
    $16.8 billion budget. I am truly sorry that this is so, but it
    is a fact. Given this fact, I believe that the President's
    fiscal year 2007 budget request before this Congress strikes a
    careful, disciplined approach to meeting congressional
    priorities and Presidential priorities for the Nation's civil
    space program within the resources we have. NASA must go as we
    can afford to pay across our entire mission portfolio of human
    space flight, science, and aeronautics.
        To gain a sense of perspective, I think it is useful to
    recall that at the peak of the Apollo Program, NASA's budget
    represented 4.4 percent of Federal outlays. Today, NASA's top
    line is six-tenths of 1 percent of the Federal budget. During
    Apollo, NASA funding employed over 400,000 contractors, civil
    servants, technicians, scientists, and engineers across all of
    its programs, and more than that. Today, NASA employs about
    75,000 full-time equivalent employees throughout the aerospace
    industry. NASA cannot and should not in this fiscal environment
    try to do everything. We need to set priorities carefully, and
    we need to execute our programs to match the resources
    available with incredible schedules.

                              NATIONAL PRIORITIES

        The national priorities that we have that have been agreed
    upon by this Congress are, to fly the space shuttle as safely
    as possible while using it to complete the assembly of the
    International Space Station, using the minimum number of
    flights necessary to do that, and to fulfill our commitments to
    international partners. To conduct a space shuttle servicing
    mission if technically possible to the Hubble space telescope,
    pending outcome of the next Return to Flight mission. To retire
    the space shuttle in 2010, and to bring on-line a new crew
    exploration vehicle and crew launch vehicle not later than
    2014, and possibly sooner. To develop a space shuttle derived
    heavy lift launch vehicle to enable lunar missions not later
    than 2020, and later missions to Mars and other destinations.
    To develop a balanced program of space and Earth science, along
    with aeronautics research, that appropriately leverage the new
    direction of NASA's Human Space Flight Program. To pursue
    appropriate commercial and international partnerships,
    especially with the International Space Station.
        These priorities require a careful balance of time, money,
    and energy within the overall agency budget. Thus, our budget
    request shifts resources to the space shuttle and the
    International Space Station from both science and exploration,
    to ensure that our highest priorities have the resources
    necessary to accomplish them between now and 2010. NASA's
    science missions remain one of our Nation's greatest
    achievements, but we must defer some missions that we would
    prefer to do sooner but simply cannot afford at this time. We
    will continue to maintain a robust portfolio of missions and
    research within the $5.33 billion science budget requested for
    fiscal year 2007. NASA is listening to the priorities of the
    science community in this process, and we will keep this
    subcommittee informed if we believe that any adjustments in
    mission or research priorities within that planned total
    funding are necessary.

                              AERONAUTICS RESEARCH

        In aeronautics research, NASA is developing a national
    policy and plan in concert with the White House, Office of
    Science and Technology Policy, and other Federal agencies,
    including the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Federal
    Aviation Administration (FAA), a policy which dedicates us to
    the mastery and intellectual stewardship of the core
    competencies of aeronautics in all of its flight regimes. This
    plan will focus our research efforts on those areas appropriate
    to NASA's unique capabilities. We hope to provide this plan
    which will inform future budget resource decisions to the
    Congress by December as required in our authorization act.

                              BALANCING THE BUDGET

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, NASA's fiscal
    year 2007 budget request represents a careful balance,
    conscientiously apportioned. We will need your help to maintain
    that balance. As this subcommittee proceeds to mark up our
    appropriation for fiscal year 2007, I most strongly urge you to
    avoid the temptation to rob Peter to pay Paul by taking funds
    from NASA's replacements for the space shuttle, the CEV and
    CLV, to pay for science missions beyond the $5.33 billion
    requested. Doing so will delay the CEV beyond 2014, and will
    exacerbate problems in safety, workforce, and, frankly,
    perceptions of a loss of U.S. leadership in space during this
    gap in human space flight.
        Likewise, it is important to fly out and retire the space
    shuttle in a safe and orderly manner. The next several years
    are critical as we effect this transition from the space
    shuttle to the crew exploration vehicle. Indeed, this is NASA's
    greatest management challenge, and we will need your help to
    meet it.
        The Space Shuttle Program is dealing with many technical
    issues today, not least of which is fixing the external tank
    foam shedding problems. I believe we have a grasp on those
    issues, and I invite Members and staff of this subcommittee to
    their next launch which will be space shuttle Discovery STS-
    121. The launch window opens in July, and we are making
    preparations for it, but we will fly only when we are ready.
        I must also ask your help in considering limits to
    redirection of funds to pay for congressional interest items.
    Back in fiscal 1997, specific direction for NASA constituted
    only $74 million for six specific projects. In fiscal year
    2006, NASA was earmarked at a total of $568.5 million for 198
    projects and programmatic increases. We and I fully acknowledge
    the prerogative of the Congress to direct and appropriate
    funds, but we desperately need your help and that of your staff
    to minimize impact on our proposed programs and activities. We
    simply cannot afford everything that everyone would like us to
    do.

                          EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS

        We are also asking for this subcommittee's help in
    providing some flexibility to use as much as $60 million in
    emergency supplemental funds to reimburse our space shuttle and
    space station programs for the funds used last fall to pay for
    immediate Hurricane Katrina damage recovery. We are still
    refining estimates of the total cost for the repair,
    refurbishment, and hardening of our facilities at Michoud
    assembly facility and the Stennis Space Center, but our most
    recent estimate is a little bit less than $500 million. As you
    consider the pending emergency supplemental appropriations
    bill, I ask that you favorably consider this legislative
    provision enabling flexibility for NASA. As we continue to
    refine our total estimates for Katrina recovery, we will keep
    the subcommittee fully informed as to how we would use this
    flexibility. I look forward to working with you to address this
    matter, and I think at this point it is good to thank the
    subcommittee for the help you have provided within the last two
    hurricane seasons which have been especially tough on NASA's
    facilities in Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. I regret to
    say that I will probably be counting on your help in the
    future.

                               HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

        Space flight remains a dangerous endeavor. Following the
    loss of space shuttle Columbia, the Nation's leadership in both
    the White House and the Congress recognized that the broader
    goals of human space flight must be worth the cost and risk
    involved. The Vision for Space Exploration articulates just
    such goals, goals which are worthy of pursuit by a great
    nation. Our purpose is not to impress others, or merely even to
    explore the Moon and Mars, but, rather, to advance U.S.
    scientific, security, and economic interests through leadership
    in the grandest expression of human imagination of which we can
    conceive. Put simply, human space flight is today one of those
    strategic capabilities that define a nation as a superpower.
    Other nations and societies aspire to this capability and have
    achieved it, or will. The United States once surpassing command
    of this arena has vanished, but international cooperation
    leavened with a healthy dose of competition is what makes the
    United States the greatest country in the world. The pursuit of
    this vision requires technical excellence, hard work,
    sacrifice, and the necessary resources, but we also need
    leadership and we need the help of this Congress.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Mr. Chairman and ranking member Mikulski, we have a long
    journey ahead of us. We need your help. I look forward to
    working with you and the members of the committee. Thank you.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Dr. Griffin.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Michael D. Griffin

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
    opportunity to appear today to discuss NASA's plans as represented in
    the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for NASA. I will
    outline the highlights of our budget request and discuss the strategic
    direction for NASA in implementing the priorities of the President and
    Congress within the resources provided. The President's fiscal year
    2007 budget request for NASA of $16,792 million demonstrates his
    commitment to the Vision for Space Exploration and our Nation's
    commitment to our partners on the International Space Station. The
    fiscal year 2007 budget request is a 3.2 percent increase above NASA's
    fiscal year 2006 appropriation, not including the $349.8 million
    emergency supplemental for NASA's recovery and restoration efforts
    following Hurricane Katrina. However, let me put NASA's budget into
    perspective. NASA's budget is roughly 0.7 percent of the overall
    Federal budget. This is a prudent investment to extend the frontiers of
    space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. With
    it, we enhance American leadership, our safety and security, and our
    global economic competitiveness through the technological innovations
    stemming from our space and aeronautics research programs. Our Nation
    can afford this investment in NASA.
        On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced the Vision
    for Space Exploration to advance U.S. scientific, security, and
    economic interests through a robust space exploration program. NASA is
    very appreciative of the action by the Committees on Appropriations and
    Congress in providing regular fiscal year 2006 appropriations for the
    Agency totaling $16,456.8 million--essentially the level of the
    President's fiscal year 2006 request before application of
    rescissions--including a strong endorsement for the Vision for Space
    Exploration, timely development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)
    and Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and support for NASA's other core
    programs. NASA is also grateful to the Congress for endorsing this
    Vision last December in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law
    109-155) and providing guidance and expectations for us in carrying out
    the Agency's missions of space exploration, scientific discovery, and
    aeronautics research. To that end, NASA is implementing the priorities
    of the President and Congress within the resources available. NASA
    carries out its missions with a ``go as you can afford to pay''
    approach where we assume NASA's top line budget will grow at the
    moderate rate laid out in the President's 2007 budget request. NASA's
    Strategic Plan and fiscal year 2007 Congressional Budget Justification,
    provided to the Congress in February, reflect those priorities and
    describe how NASA is implementing those policies into practice by
    describing our programs, projected resources, and workforce needs.
        As part of his fiscal year 2007 budget request to Congress, the
    President proposed the American Competitiveness Initiative, or ACI, to
    encourage American innovation and strengthen our Nation's ability to
    compete in the global economy. Many have asked why NASA is not a part
    of the ACI. My response is that it is the mission of NASA to pioneer
    the future of space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics
    research, while the ACI is focused on bolstering the Nation's economic
    competitiveness in areas such as information technology and
    nanotechnology. NASA contributes to the Nation's competitiveness
    through all of the cutting-edge exploration, science, and aeronautics
    investments accomplished by our Mission Directorates. As part of the
    President's Vision for Space Exploration, NASA expects to spawn entire
    new industries in this Nation. Furthermore, NASA's education and
    training initiatives are designed to enhance math and science
    education, as well as to provide research opportunities at the
    university level. We are currently reviewing our portfolio of education
    programs to assess opportunities for potential collaboration at the
    invitation of the Department of Education, National Science Foundation,
    and other Federal agencies. NASA can offer opportunities and
    inspiration to students as no one else can. For example, a University
    of Colorado-Boulder student-built experiment on the New Horizons
    mission is currently being activated and will be operated by university
    students all the way to Pluto and beyond.

                            IMPLEMENTING THE VISION

        Later this year, NASA will continue the assembly of the
    International Space Station (ISS) with the minimum number of Space
    Shuttle flights necessary to fulfill our commitments to our
    international partners before the Space Shuttle's retirement in 2010.
    The commitment of resources in the President's budget has shown our
    international partners that NASA and the United States are good
    partners through thick and thin and this commitment will encourage them
    to team with us in future endeavors of space exploration and scientific
    discovery. NASA has consulted with our international partners on the
    configuration of the ISS, and is working closely with them to determine
    the crew size and logistics necessary during this assembly period as
    well as the period following the retirement of the Space Shuttle. The
    heads of space agencies from Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia and the
    United States met at Kennedy Space Center on March 2, 2006, to review
    ISS cooperation and endorse a revision to the ISS configuration and
    assembly sequence. The partners reaffirmed their agencies' commitment
    to meet their mutual obligations, to implement six person crew
    operations in 2009, and to conduct an adequate number of Space Shuttle
    flights to complete the assembly of ISS by the end of the decade. The
    partners also affirmed their plans to use a combination of
    transportation systems provided by Europe, Japan, Russia, and the
    United States in order to complete ISS assembly in a timeframe that
    meets the needs of the partners and to ensure full utilization of the
    unique capabilities of the ISS throughout its lifetime. The fiscal year
    2007 budget request provides the necessary resources to purchase Soyuz
    crew transport and rescue for U.S. astronauts as well as needed
    Progress vehicle logistics support for the ISS from the Russian Federal
    Space Agency. Likewise, the fiscal year 2007 budget request provides
    necessary funds for U.S. commercial industry to demonstrate the
    capability to deliver cargo and/or crew to the ISS. If such cost-
    effective commercial services are successfully demonstrated, NASA will
    welcome and use them.
        The next return to flight test mission, STS-121 commanded by
    Colonel Steve Lindsey, will confirm that we can safely return the Space
    Shuttle to its primary task of assembling the ISS. We have continued to
    reduce the risk associated with the release of foam debris from the
    external tank by eliminating the liquid hydrogen and the liquid oxygen
    protuberance air load ramps. We are now working toward a July launch,
    which is the next available lighted launch window as mandated for STS-
    121. The window is open from July 1 through July 19. NASA will launch
    when ready. Pending the results of this test flight, I plan to convene
    my senior management team for space operations as well as my Chief,
    Safety and Mission Assurance and my Chief Engineer in order to
    determine whether the Space Shuttle can safely conduct a fifth
    servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope in 2007-08. NASA's
    fiscal year 2007 budget provides the necessary resources to conduct
    this mission.
        In previous budget requests, NASA reported only placeholder budget
    estimates for the Space Shuttle for fiscal year 2008-2010. The Agency's
    management focus on return to flight efforts of the Space Shuttle
    resulted in NASA deferring this analysis until the fiscal year 2007
    budget. As I testified before Congress last year, NASA's estimates of
    the budget shortfall required to safely fly out the Space Shuttle with
    the minimum number of flights necessary to complete ISS assembly and
    meet our international partner commitments were $3-$5 billion. With the
    fiscal year 2007 budget runout, NASA has added $2.4 billion to the
    Space Shuttle program and almost $1.5 billion to the International
    Space Station in fiscal year 2008-2010 compared to the fiscal year 2006
    budget runout. There is no ``new money'' for NASA's top line budget
    within the budget projections available given our Nation's other
    pressing issues, so, working with the White House, NASA provided
    sufficient funds for the Space Shuttle and ISS programs to carry out
    their missions by redirecting funds from the Science and Exploration
    budgets.
        There are several strategic implications behind this decision.
    Foremost among them is that our Nation will keep its commitment to our
    international partners on the ISS. Thus, with limited resources, we
    made some difficult decisions. Leadership means setting priorities of
    time, energy, and resources, and I have tried to make these decisions
    with the best available facts and analysis. The plain fact is that NASA
    simply cannot afford to do everything that our many constituencies
    would like the Agency to do. We must set priorities, and we must adjust
    our spending to match those priorities. NASA needed to reallocate
    budgeted funds from the Science and Exploration budget projections for
    fiscal year 2007-2011 in order to ensure that enough funds were
    available to properly support the Space Shuttle and the ISS. Thus, NASA
    cannot afford the costs of starting some new science missions at this
    time. It is important to know that NASA is simply delaying missions,
    not abandoning them. With the limited resources available, I believe
    that fulfilling our commitments on the International Space Station and
    bringing the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) online in a timely manner,
    not later than 2014 and possibly much sooner, is a higher priority than
    these science missions during this period.
        There are several reasons not to delay the CEV farther. First and
    foremost is increased risk to the Vision due to an extended gap in our
    Nation's ability to launch humans into space after we retire the Space
    Shuttle in 2010. I experienced first-hand the stagnancy in the
    aerospace industry that existed during the gap in human spaceflight
    between the end of the Apollo program and the first flight of the Space
    Shuttle in 1981, and I know that our Nation's space program suffered
    greatly from the unintended loss of critical expertise. Our Nation's
    space industrial base withered. A longer gap in U.S. human spaceflight
    capabilities will increase risk and overall costs and lead to even more
    delays in pursuing the Nation's vision. Equally important, the United
    States may risk a perceived, if not a real loss of leadership in space
    exploration, if we are unable for an extended period to launch our
    astronauts into space when other nations are establishing or building
    on their own abilities to do so. An extended gap in U.S. human
    spaceflight capabilities also increases our risk posture to adequately
    maintain and utilize the ISS and, unless a commercial capability arises
    to transport our astronauts, NASA would continue to be reliant on the
    Russian Soyuz.
        Thus, further delays in the CEV are strategically more damaging to
    our Nation's space program than delays to these other science missions.
    I stand by my decision regarding how to implement the priorities of the
    President and Congress within the resources provided, and I will work
    closely with our stakeholders in Congress and the scientific community
    to make sure they understand my rationale. Some of our stakeholders
    will not agree with my position, but it is important for everyone to
    understand the rationale. These are difficult decisions, but we must
    balance the competing priorities for our Nation's civil space and
    aeronautics research endeavors with the limited resources available.
        If the funds budgeted for Exploration Systems were to be used to
    provide additional funds for Science missions, additional Aeronautics
    Research, or other Congressionally-directed items, I must advise the
    Congress that such redirection of already-budgeted funds will directly
    impact NASA's ability to effectively and efficiently transition the
    workforce and capabilities from the Space Shuttle to the new CEV
    systems. Funds available to carry out this transition are already lean,
    with little management reserve or margin for error. This transition
    from the Space Shuttle to the CEV is NASA's greatest management
    challenge over the next several years, and we will need everyone's help
    within NASA, industry, and our stakeholders to make the transition
    successful.
        Beyond fulfilling our existing commitment, NASA's fiscal year 2007
    budget provides the necessary resources to carry out the next steps of
    the Vision for Space Exploration. The fiscal year 2007 budget provides
    $3,978 million for Exploration Systems. Last summer, NASA defined the
    architecture for the exploration systems that will be necessary in
    carrying forth that Vision, and we notified the Congress of NASA's need
    to curtail several research and technology activities not directly
    contributing to the near-term priorities of timely development of the
    CEV and Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) based on the results of that
    exploration architecture study and the limited funds available. I want
    to thank the Congress for its endorsement of the general architecture
    plans in the fiscal year 2006 Appropriations Act for NASA (Public Law
    109-108) as well as the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-
    155).
        The fiscal year 2007 budget request is sufficient to bring the CEV
    online no later than 2014, and potentially much sooner. Given the
    analysis I have today and the need to balance budgets with proposed
    development work for the CEV and launch vehicles along with the cost
    estimates for that work, I cannot be more specific for our stakeholders
    in the White House and Congress at this time about the specific point
    between 2010 and 2014 when NASA will be able to bring the CEV online.
    NASA requested industry proposals for the CEV, and we have considerable
    incentives for an industry bidder to propose a planned development for
    the CEV as close to 2010 as possible. NASA has begun to evaluate those
    industry proposals, with a planned contract award in late summer/early
    fall 2006. NASA plans to select one industry contractor team for the
    design and development of the CEV. Concurrently, NASA will refine its
    independent cost estimates for the CEV and launch systems as well as
    find cost savings through workforce synergies and contract efficiencies
    between the Space Shuttle and CEV launch systems within the budget
    profile projected in fiscal year 2007. We believe we can find synergies
    and contract efficiencies by sharing or transferring subsystems,
    personnel, resources, and infrastructure between the Space Shuttle
    propulsion elements and the CEV, CLV, and Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle. I
    believe that with the fiscal year 2007 budget, NASA and industry have a
    real opportunity to make the CEV operational sooner than 2014. I should
    be able to report a more definitive date for bringing the CEV online by
    the time we award the CEV contract. Until then, NASA is in the midst of
    source selection for the CEV procurement, and we are limited in our
    ability to provide information in this competitive environment
    involving a multi-billion dollar procurement.
        For the CLV, NASA has directed two industry teams to begin initial
    development of the vehicle's propulsion systems, and to develop designs
    for the CLV upper stage. The Agency also plans to award design,
    development, test, and evaluation contracts later this year. NASA is
    planning a systems requirements review for this project in the fall
    with a preliminary design review in 2008 in order for this new launch
    vehicle to be ready for when the CEV comes on-line.
        While NASA needed to significantly curtail projected funding for
    biological and physical sciences research on the ISS as well as various
    research and technology projects in order to fund development for the
    CEV, the U.S. segment of the ISS was designated a National Laboratory
    in the NASA Authorization Act. Thus, NASA is seeking partnerships with
    other government agencies like the National Science Foundation,
    Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department
    of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology as
    well as the commercial sector to conduct research onboard the ISS.
    However, the research utilization of the ISS is impacted due to limited
    cargo and crew transportation. For this reason, NASA's need for
    investment to spur a commercial cargo and/or crew transportation
    service is even more compelling.

                              SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY

        In 2005, NASA's science missions enjoyed a year of significant
    achievements. Deep Impact traveled 268 million miles to meet comet
    Tempel 1, sending its impactor to collide with the comet and providing
    researchers with the best-ever comet data and images. The Mars twin
    rovers continue studying the harsh Martian environment, well beyond
    their expected mission life. Cassini may have found evidence of liquid
    water erupting from below the surface of Saturn's moon Enceladus. The
    Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter successfully launched and went into orbit
    around Mars, to help us better understand the history of water on Mars.
    The Voyager 1 spacecraft entered the vast, turbulent expanse of the
    heliosheath, 8.7 billion miles from the Sun, where no human-made object
    has traveled before. The Hubble Space Telescope continues its
    successful mission of discovery and exploration. Among its many
    achievements was the discovery that Pluto may have three moons,
    offering more insights into the nature and evolution of the Pluto
    system and Kuiper Belt. Through coordination of observations from
    several ground-based telescopes and NASA's Swift and other satellites,
    scientists solved the 35-year old mystery of the origin of powerful,
    split-second flashes of light called gamma-ray bursts. The Tropical
    Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) provided data to aid our
    understanding of the changes inside a hurricane, helping scientists re-
    create storms on computer forecast models, which can assist in the
    forecasting of future tropical cyclone transformations. On January 19,
    2006, we successfully launched the New Horizons Mission, beginning its
    nine year journey to Pluto for scientific discovery. In the near
    future, we will launch CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared
    Pathfinder Satellite Observations) and Cloudsat from Vandenberg Air
    Force Base. Together, they will provide new perspectives on Earth's
    clouds and aerosols, answering questions about how they form, evolve,
    and affect water supply, climate, weather, and air quality. Truly, this
    has been a successful year of science achievements--a trend I expect to
    continue.
        NASA's fiscal year 2007 budget request provides $5,330 million for
    the Agency's Science portfolio to explore the universe, solar system,
    and Earth. My decision to curtail the rate of growth for NASA's Science
    missions is not intended in any way to demonstrate any lack of respect
    for the work done by NASA Science. On the contrary, NASA's science
    missions remain one of the nation's crowning achievements, and NASA is
    a world leader with 54 satellites and payloads currently operating in
    concert with the science community and our international partners. My
    decision to slow the rate of growth for NASA's Science missions is
    simply a matter of how the Agency will use the available resources
    within the overall NASA portfolio. In fact, the Agency's Science budget
    has grown much faster than NASA's total budget since fiscal year 1993.
    In 1992, the Science budget represented only 24 percent of the overall
    NASA budget while it represents 32 percent of the Agency's budget in
    fiscal year 2007. NASA's Science budget is moderated to 1.5 percent
    growth in the fiscal year 2007 budget request compared with the amount
    appropriated for NASA in fiscal year 2006 (in accordance with NASA's
    Initial Operating Plan provided to the Committee) and then 1 percent
    per year thereafter through fiscal year 2011.
        In the fiscal year 2007 budget, there are some additional budget
    shifts within the Science portfolio to rebalance the program to better
    reflect our original science priorities and consistent with the fiscal
    year 2006 Budget Amendment. Within the Science budget, the Solar System
    Exploration budget provides $1,610 million to fund missions to all
    solar system bodies and to maintain the Deep Space Network. Mars
    exploration is kept at roughly its current level of funding which
    allows missions every 26 months when the Earth and Mars are in
    planetary alignment. Mars will be the most thoroughly studied planet
    besides our own Earth. NASA continues a series of openly competed
    missions for Discovery, New Frontiers, and Scout missions to various
    planetary bodies in the solar system. Juno, a competitively-selected
    mission to study Jupiter, is slated to be the next New Frontiers
    mission, following the New Horizons mission on its way to Pluto after
    its successful launch in January.
        After extensive reviews, NASA has extended the mission operating
    life of several Earth Science missions including TRMM and Terra,
    Heliophysics missions such as both Voyager spacecraft, and Astrophysics
    missions including Chandra and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
    Probe.

                              AERONAUTICS RESEARCH

        NASA's fiscal year 2007 request for the Aeronautics Research
    Mission Directorate is $724 million. Proper stewardship of this funding
    requires a coherent strategic vision for aeronautics research, which we
    are working to develop. While I am concerned that our Nation's aviation
    industry not lose market share to global competitors, NASA's research
    must benefit the American public by supporting a broad base of
    aeronautics research. NASA's aeronautics research cannot and will not
    directly subsidize work to specific corporate interests. There are
    fundamental questions in aeronautics research needing to be answered,
    and NASA will focus its aeronautics research on those issues. NASA will
    take responsibility for the intellectual stewardship of the core
    competencies of aeronautics for the Nation in all flight regimes, from
    subsonic through hypersonic flight. We will also conduct the
    fundamental research that is needed to meet the substantial challenges
    of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS), and we intend
    to work closely with our agency partners in the Joint Planning and
    Development Office (JPDO).
        Across our aeronautics portfolio, NASA is taking a long-term,
    strategic approach to our research plans to ensure that we pursue the
    cutting-edge across the breadth of aeronautics disciplines that will be
    required to support revolutionary capabilities in both air vehicles and
    the airspace in which they fly. NASA's commitment to technical
    excellence requires a commitment to rigor and discipline and will not
    focus on demonstrations that lack the traceability and scalability
    required for true scientific and engineering advancement. Hence, we are
    turning away from the four-demo approach proposed last year under the
    Vehicle Systems Program. Instead, our Fundamental Aeronautics Program
    will focus on fundamental research that addresses aeronautics
    challenges in areas such as aerothermodynamics, acoustics, propulsion,
    materials and structures, computational fluid dynamics, and
    experimental measurement techniques. The Fundamental Aeronautics
    Program will generate data, knowledge, and design tools that will be
    applicable across a broad range of air vehicles in subsonic (both fixed
    and rotary wing), supersonic, and hypersonic flight.
        In the Aviation Safety Program, NASA is developing strategic
    research plans, ensuring that the research conducted will lead to
    capabilities and technologies for improving safety consistent with the
    revolutionary changes anticipated in air vehicles foreseen in the
    future. The focus will be vehicle-centric, with areas of research that
    include vehicle health management, resilient aircraft control, aging
    and durability challenges, and advanced flight deck technologies.
        In the Airspace Systems Program, NASA will conduct the fundamental
    research required to bring about the revolutionary capabilities
    articulated in the JPDO's vision for the NGATS. Our research will focus
    on the development of future concepts, capabilities, and technologies
    that will enable major measurable increases in air traffic management
    effectiveness, flexibility, and efficiency.
        In addition to the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate's three
    research programs, NASA is committed to preserving as national assets
    those aeronautics test facilities which are deemed mission critical and
    necessary to meet the needs and requirements of the Agency and the
    Nation. NASA has established the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP), a
    component of the Shared Capability Assets Program (SCAP), as a long-
    term, funded commitment by NASA to retain and invest in test
    capabilities that are considered important to the Agency and the
    Nation. ATP's purpose is to ensure the strategic availability of the
    requisite, critical suite of wind tunnel and ground test facilities
    which are necessary to meet immediate and future National requirements.
        As part of our overall portfolio, NASA program managers and
    researchers will work closely and constructively with industry,
    academia, and other Government entities to enhance our Nation's
    aeronautics capability. In this vein, as a principal member of the
    interagency JPDO, NASA has established investment priorities that
    directly address the research and development needs of the NGATS which
    will enable major increases in the capacity and mobility of the U.S.
    Air Transportation System. NASA also plans to collaborate closely with
    industry and academia through the use of competitive research awards
    and Space Act agreements on prospective research work in line with the
    critical thrust areas of the Aeronautics program that will enable
    numerous commercial aviation and scientific applications. Our goal is
    to focus our total research investments on fundamental aeronautics
    questions that need to be answered, and that will benefit the broader
    community of academia, industry, and Government researchers. We will
    transition the achievements from NASA's Aeronautics research and
    technology for use by both Government and industry. Additionally, and
    in line with the refocused program's priorities, NASA will leave to
    others work more appropriately performed or funded by other Agencies or
    the private sectors.
        In accordance with the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice,
    Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 109-108),
    NASA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy have been jointly
    developing a National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy which
    will establish a long term policy and guidance for future aeronautics
    research and development activities. This policy will establish the
    appropriate role for Federal investment in U.S. aeronautics research:
    near- and far-term, high-priority objectives; roles and
    responsibilities of the multiple agencies involved; and, guidance on
    related infrastructure and workforce challenges.

                         CROSS-AGENCY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

        In the fiscal year 2007 budget, NASA proposes a new direct budget
    category for programs that cut across NASA's portfolio of space
    exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. These
    Cross-Agency Support Programs include: NASA's Education programs funded
    at $153.3 million; Advanced Business Systems, or more commonly known as
    the Integrated Enterprise Management program, is called out as a
    separate program rather than being budgeted from within Corporate and
    Center General and Administrative accounts and is funded at $108.2
    million; NASA's Innovative Partnership Program, including Small
    Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
    Transfer (STTR), has been transferred from Exploration Systems so that
    these partnerships may better address Agency-wide needs and is funded
    at $197.9 million. Also, the Shared Capabilities Assets Program is
    funded at $32.2 million (with additional funding located in the Mission
    Directorates) and will ensure that NASA's unique facilities (e.g., wind
    tunnels, rocket engine test stands, high-end computing, thermal vacuum
    chambers, and other capital assets) are adequately managed with agency-
    level decision-making to address NASA's and the Nation's needs.
        NASA's Education budget request sustains our commitment to
    excellence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
    education to ensure that the next generation of Americans can accept
    the full measure of their roles and responsibilities in shaping the
    future and meeting the workforce needs to implement the Vision for
    Space Exploration. NASA will continue to provide innovative programs
    that use STEM resources (NASA content, people and facilities) to
    inspire the next generation of explorers and innovators. I have
    outlined three primary goals for our education investments: (1)
    strengthening NASA and the nation's future workforce; (2) attracting
    and retaining students in the STEM pipeline; and, (3) engaging
    Americans in NASA's mission through partnerships and alliances. The
    greatest contribution that NASA makes in educating the next generation
    of Americans is providing worthy endeavors for which students will be
    inspired to study difficult subjects like math, science, and
    engineering because they too share the dream of exploring the cosmos.
    These students are our future workforce. Our education investment
    portfolio is directly linked to our overall workforce strategy.

                            NASA WORKFORCE STRATEGY

        The Vision for Space Exploration is a unique endeavor that will
    last many generations. The NASA management team has been working to
    build NASA as an institution having ten healthy field Centers known for
    technical excellence. We continue to define program management and
    research roles and responsibilities for each Center in order to carry
    out NASA's missions of space exploration, scientific discovery, and
    aeronautics research. All of our centers must contribute to NASA's
    primary missions. We are beginning the process of assigning specific
    research programs and projects to appropriate NASA Centers. We are not
    done, but we are taking the necessary steps to make it happen.
        We have many challenges in the Agency, but none more important than
    the technical excellence of NASA's workforce. Likewise, we are
    beginning to address the problems posed by the aging of NASA's
    facilities and physical assets. The overall objective is to transform
    the composition of NASA's workforce so that it remains viable for the
    long-term goals of NASA's missions. We have a lot of work cut out for
    us in the coming months and year ahead in assigning these program
    responsibilities and re-building the Agency's technical competence in
    performing cutting-edge work. NASA has been addressing the challenge of
    mitigating the number of civil service employees in the Agency that are
    not currently assigned or supporting NASA programs (the so-called
    ``uncovered capacity'') through a number of means, which were addressed
    in a draft report, shared with the Subcommittee in February in
    compliance with the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. The final workforce
    report, reflecting input from our unions, was provided to the
    Subcommittee earlier this month. NASA will conduct a reduction in force
    of our civil servants only as an action of last resort consistent with
    our statutory constraints. Instead, NASA is focusing its efforts to
    solve its uncovered capacity workforce problems through a number of
    other actions, including the assignment of new projects to research
    Centers that will strengthen their base of in-house work, the Shared
    Capability Assets Program that should stabilize the skills base
    necessary for a certain specialized workforce; the movement of certain
    research and technology development projects from certain centers not
    suffering from uncovered capacity problems to centers that are;
    retraining efforts at field centers so that the technical workforce can
    develop new skills; and the pursuit of reimbursable work for projects
    and research to support other government agencies and the private
    sector through Space Act Agreements.

                          NASA'S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

        Earlier this month, NASA notified the Committee that it had two
    violations of the Antideficiency Act. The violations resulted from the
    Agency's failure to request from the Office of Management and Budget
    timely reapportionment of Congressionally-approved fiscal year 2004
    funds and timely apportionments of unobligated balances carried over
    from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. The Agency has corrected the
    errors without the need for additional appropriations. The Agency has
    also identified the root cause of these errors and has addressed them
    through its aggressive staff training and process improvements.
        NASA has continued to make progress in addressing its other
    financial management and reporting challenges. The Office of Management
    and Budget has recently provided feedback to NASA affirming the
    Agency's progress. The Agency finalized a Corrective Action Plan
    addressing financial weaknesses identified in NASA's 2005 financial
    audit. The plan was delivered to the Congress, specifically at the
    request of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the Committee
    on Science and the Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance and
    Accountability of the Committee on Government Reform, on February 15,
    2006. It incorporates the expert advice of NASA's Inspector General. In
    addition, we have reviewed the plan with the Office of Management and
    Budget. This Corrective Action Plan provides an integrated, cross-NASA
    approach to resolving the Agency's outstanding deficiencies.
    Implementation of these corrective actions is reviewed regularly by the
    NASA Deputy Administrator. While these corrective actions will require
    some time to implement, NASA remains committed to improving its
    financial management and reporting.

                      IMPACT OF EARMARKS ON NASA'S MISSION

        NASA pioneers the future in space exploration, scientific discovery
    and aeronautics research. In order to carry out this mission, NASA
    awards peer-reviewed science grants and conducts competitively-selected
    procurements to select research and development projects to benefit the
    public based on the priorities of the Congress, President, and
    scientific community. NASA is implementing these priorities within the
    resources provided. NASA's fiscal year 2006 appropriation totals
    $16.623 billion, including $349.8 million in emergency supplemental
    appropriations for Hurricane Katrina recovery at NASA facilities in
    Louisiana and Mississippi. Within this fiscal year 2006 appropriation
    is a total of $568.5 million in directed funding for 198 discrete site-
    specific and programmatic Congressional interest items, a record high
    in both dollar amount and number of individual items. These
    Congressional interest items are offset by reductions within NASA's
    budget, to ongoing and planned NASA programs. Earmarks have increased
    by a factor of more than 30 in number and almost 8 in dollar value
    since fiscal year 1997, when NASA was earmarked $74 million, for 6
    discrete items. The growth of these Congressional directions is eroding
    NASA's ability to carry out its mission of space exploration and peer-
    reviewed scientific discovery.
        In formulating our budget, NASA prioritizes activities to achieve
    an integrated package of programs and projects to best achieve the
    priorities that have been provided us by both the President and the
    Congress. The redirection of funding erodes the integrity of our plans,
    has resulted in delays and/or cancellation of planned activities, and
    may conflict with timely development of the CEV. In fiscal year 2006,
    as a result of earmarks, NASA had to redirect a significant portion of
    many planned budgets. Fully 50 percent of the planned Education program
    required redirection, 16 percent of the Innovative Partnerships
    Program, 5 percent of the Exploration Systems budget, and 4 percent of
    the Science budget. Further, the scientific community bases its
    research priorities on a peer-review process. Congressional site-
    specific earmarks circumvent this process for setting research
    priorities within the science community and erode the integrity of that
    process. Site specific earmarks to institutions outside of NASA
    exacerbate the problems of NASA's ``uncovered capacity'' workforce,
    where NASA civil servant scientists and engineers do not have funds for
    their own research and development projects. As stated in the
    President's ACI, ``The rapidly growing level of legislatively directed
    research funds undermines America's research productivity.'' NASA seeks
    the assistance of this Committee and Congress in reducing earmarks in
    the fiscal year 2007 budget process.

                               NASA'S NEXT STEPS

        For the last three decades, NASA and the Nation's human spaceflight
    program have been focused on the development and operation of the Space
    Shuttle and the ISS. In its final report, the Columbia Accident
    Investigation Board (CAIB) was very forthright in its judgment that
    these goals are too limited to justify the expense, difficulty, and
    danger inherent to manned spaceflight, given the limitations of today's
    technology. The CAIB was equally forthright in calling for a national
    consensus in the establishment of a program having broader strategic
    goals. The Vision for Space Exploration is that endeavor. The Congress
    has endorsed it, and NASA is working to implement it. But to effect
    these changes, NASA must engage in a major transformation--taking the
    capabilities we have throughout the Agency and restructuring them to
    achieve a set of goals for the 21st Century that we have outlined
    earlier this month in our 2006 NASA Strategic Plan. This is an enormous
    challenge, but we have begun to transform our entire organization to
    foster these changes and to enhance a positive, mission-driven culture.
        The CAIB was also clear in its assessment that the lack of open
    communication on technical and programmatic matters was a direct cause
    of the loss of Columbia. We have understood and embraced this
    assessment, and are absolutely and completely committed to creating an
    environment of openness and free-flowing communication. However, NASA
    still has to make a number of improvements in its internal
    communications as well as how we communicate externally to our
    stakeholders, the scientific community, and the public. NASA is making
    a concerted effort to address all problems in this area.
        For America to continue to be preeminent among nations, it is
    necessary for us also to lead in space exploration, scientific
    discovery, and aeronautics research. It is equally true that great
    nations need allies and partners. The spirit of innovation and the
    muscle of government and industry are needed to turn the Nation's
    Vision for Space Exploration into reality. These journeys to the ISS,
    the Moon, Mars, or even Pluto are the most difficult things our nation
    does. June Scobee Rodgers, the widow of Dick Scobee, Commander of the
    Space Shuttle Challenger on that ill-fated day twenty years ago,
    recently noted, ``Without risk there's no discovery, there's no new
    knowledge, there's no bold adventure . . . the greatest risk is to take
    no risk.'' We must continue our journey. America, through NASA, leads
    the way.

                    INTERNAL WEAKNESSES IN INTERNAL CONTROLS

        Senator Shelby. Can you be a little more specific on
    addressing the material weaknesses in internal controls that
    have been reported for several years?
        Dr. Griffin. I can be.
        Senator Shelby. Could you do that for the record?
        Dr. Griffin. I will do that for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                    Internal Weaknesses in Internal Controls

        NASA's independent financial auditors identified three
    material weaknesses and one reportable condition through its
    fiscal year 2005 financial audit. The weaknesses are repeat
    findings from prior financial audits. NASA submitted a
    Corrective Action Plan in February 2006 to Congress, OMB and
    NASA's Office of Inspector General that addresses each of the
    recommendations made by the independent financial auditors.
    NASA has been executing this plan throughout fiscal year 2006.
        For your convenience, we have attached NASA's Financial
    Management Corrective Action Plan, which provides a complete
    list of in-process actions to address each material weakness.

                ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT VIOLATIONS PREVENTIVE STEPS

        Senator Shelby. And the next question, what steps have you
    taken to prevent this type of ADA violation from occurring
    again? Do you want to do that for the record?
        Dr. Griffin. We will do it for the record to get the
    details right and proper.
        Senator Shelby. That will be fine.
        [The information follows:]
                        ADA Violations Preventive Steps
        NASA agrees with each of the OIG's specific recommendations:
      --OIG Recommendation #1.--We recommend that the Administrator report
            the ADA violations for the funds carried over from fiscal year
            2004 to fiscal year 2005 for each affected account and for the
            $30,413,590 to the President of the United Statues through the
            OMB Director, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
            President of the Senate, and the Comptroller General of the
            Government Accountability Office, as required by the ADA and by
            OMB Circular A-11, section 145.7
      --OIG Recommendation #2.--We recommend that the Administrator request
            a comprehensive demonstration by the OCFO that the
            appropriations available to be spent in fiscal year 2006 can be
            traced from appropriation to apportionments to allotments to
            commitments and to obligations to help ensure that NASA is not
            violating the ADA for fiscal year 2006
        In addition to accepting and acting upon NASA's OIG two specific
    recommendations, NASA has implemented specific correction actions in
    the OCFO. These corrective actions include:
      --Certification of reconciliations by responsible financial
            management personnel. Both the Directors of Accounting and
            Budgeting reconcile NASA appropriations to OMB apportionments.
            They jointly certify apportionment requests to OMB. This
            ensures that the operations of each organization, the budget
            and execution of the budget, are appropriately reflected in
            NASA financial systems. In addition, a manual of all related
            apportionment transactions is maintained;
      --Met with the NASA OIG to demonstrate that the core financial system
            has effective system controls that prevent obligations from
            exceeding apportionment control totals;
      --Conducted Appropriations Law training for 30 staff in January 2006,
            and 8 in March 2006;
      --Conducted OMB Circular A-11 training for 24 staff in February 2006.
            An additional course is currently being scheduled;
      --Increased the staff size in the Funds Distribution branch from 7 to
            14; and
      --Documenting enhanced internal controls, to include: Logging and
            tracking of all OMB apportionment requests and approvals; and
            reconciliation of OMB apportionments to Congressionally
            approved Operating Plans to the funds loaded into the Agency's
            centralized financial system.

        Dr. Griffin. But, basically, we have put additional cross-
    checks in. We are working on training staff, and we have put
    additional cross-checks into the system so that it, frankly,
    does not happen again.
        Senator Shelby. We think that that is important, but I want
    to say again, Dr. Griffin, you may have inherited a lot of
    this, and you are strong to say it is your deal now, and it was
    not always your deal, but it does have to be addressed, as you
    know.
        Dr. Griffin. I thank you for that observation, Senator. You
    hired me to fix the problems, and we will fix them.

                    INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

        Senator Shelby. What is NASA's current estimated cost to
    develop, implement, and maintain the Integrated Enterprise
    Management Program including those costs incurred to resolve
    data integrity issues resulting from the initial implementation
    of the core financial system?
        Dr. Griffin. Sir, again, I do not have those figures.
        Senator Shelby. Will you do that for the record?
        Dr. Griffin. I will be happy to provide that for the
    record. We do have that data. I just don't have it right here.
        [The information follows:]

                    Integrated Enterprise Management Program

        The development and implementation costs for NASA's
    Integrated Enterprise Management Program, including all the
    hardware, software, civil service labor, contractor labor,
    travel, and overhead costs associated with re-engineering
    business processes and implementing business systems for human
    capital management, financial management, asset management, and
    procurement and contract management are estimated at $842
    million for the development years 2000 through 2011, consistent
    with the fiscal year 2007 President's budget request.
        Of this total development estimate, $82.6 million is being
    expended to update NASA's financial system, which, among other
    benefits, helps resolve data integrity issues identified with
    the initial core financial system implementation. Approximately
    $50 million per year is expended operating and maintaining this
    business systems environment.

                    ROBOTIC LUNAR EXPLORATION PROGRAM (RLEP)

        Senator Shelby. I know it is a complicated question. The
    Robotic Lunar Exploration Program?
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Let's get into that. Last December, NASA
    announced that the Marshall Space Flight Center would be the
    project lead for the second mission under the Robotic Lunar
    Exploration Program (RLEP-2). The intent of the announced
    mission is to land on the lunar surface and search for deposits
    of water and ice as a precursor to later human missions.
    Unfortunately, no funding for this mission was included in the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2007, and there are
    concerns that RLEP-2 is no longer a priority for NASA. Could
    you provide us an update on the overall RLEP program and the
    current projects under the program, and is the RLEP-2 mission
    still proceeding as announced, and so forth?
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. The concern that you cite that the
    RLEP Program is not a priority is not a well-founded concern.
    Indeed, it is a priority. As you know, sir, in order to meet
    our unfunded obligations for the space shuttle and space
    station, we had to remove from the Science Program $2.2 billion
    over the 5-year run-out, and $1.6 billion from exploration, the
    crew launch vehicle and crew exploration vehicle, and those
    budget hits to the tune of almost $4 billion have resulted in
    deferring some missions. We probably will not start RLEP-2 in
    fiscal year 2007. We will do that mission. Marshall Space
    Flight Center will continue to retain the project lead for that
    mission.
        Senator Shelby. You are committed to the mission?
        Dr. Griffin. I have committed to the mission. In the wake
    of difficult funding decisions, I cannot commit to the date,
    but I have committed to the mission, and to the leadership of
    the mission and to do so in a timely way to provide precursor
    information for returning humans to the Moon, but it probably
    will not start in fiscal year 2007.
        Senator Shelby. Would you give us a status of each of the
    elements for the next manned spacecraft, specifically focusing
    on the crew exploration vehicle, the crew launch vehicle, and
    the launch operations aspect of the program? I know it is early
    in the program.
        Dr. Griffin. It is, but I can give you a top-level status.
    If you want more when I am done, I will be happy to provide it
    for the record.
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Dr. Griffin. At the top level, since I last met with you in
    this formal setting, we have refined and issued the request for
    proposals for the crew exploration vehicle. There are two
    bidders on that. They have completed and submitted their
    proposals. The Source Evaluation Board is considering those
    proposals as we sit here at this moment. Later this spring we
    will enter into negotiations and oral presentations by those
    bidders, and this summer we will make a selection for the crew
    exploration vehicle which will represent a real milestone. It
    will be the first new development of a piloted space vehicle by
    this Nation in 35 years.
        The crew launch vehicle is the launch side of that. In
    fact, Marshall Space Flight Center has the lead for that. The
    crew launch vehicle is coming along slightly behind the crew
    exploration vehicle. The folks down there are actually led by
    Program Manager Steve Cook under the management of Center
    Director Dave King, and are doing a great job pulling together
    the concept design for that vehicle. We expect to have a
    request for information out on the street shortly. It will be
    followed by a request for proposals to industry. That program
    is on track.
        Launch operations modifications down at the Cape are at
    this point I can only say under study. We have asked for bids
    from construction contractors to begin work on those systems.
    Of course, the launch operations infrastructure has to follow
    from the nature of the launch vehicle and the crew vehicle that
    it serves, and so it necessarily follows a bit behind. But I
    am, frankly, real pleased with where we are on that.
        Senator Shelby. I understand progress has been made in the
    overall Constellation architecture by establishing project
    offices for the various elements involved. What is the time
    line for establishing the project offices for the remaining
    elements of the architecture such as the lunar lander?
        Dr. Griffin. The lunar lander is not the current first
    thing on our plate. We don't need that until starting out
    around 2012. As I think I just mentioned, Johnson Space Center
    has the crew exploration vehicle, Marshall Space Flight Center
    has got the launch vehicles, both the crew launch vehicle and
    the heavy lift launch vehicle. Kennedy Space Center, of course,
    will be the site for launch operations. Within those broad
    assignments of responsibility are our other seven centers. Each
    will have pieces because the effort overall must occupy all of
    NASA. By mid-May we will be I think prepared to say at the next
    level of detail down which elements of the system are going
    where.

                          VISION FOR SPACE EXPLORATION

        Senator Shelby. The Vision for Space Exploration is an
    initiative that will last a long time. While a lot of interest
    is paid on how much the exploration initiative will cost, an
    area that must also be addressed is the current state of NASA
    facilities. Many of the centers that will play significant
    roles in the Vision have aging infrastructures, we have talked
    about this before, and in many cases, buildings that were
    inherited from other agencies when we last went to the Moon.
    How does NASA address the need for facilities in this budget?
    What are the actual funding requirements to truly address the
    shortfalls in facilities? And do you believe that a worthwhile
    use of the billions in unobligated balances would provide the
    agency with the facilities? How do we attack this, I guess is
    what I'm saying.
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir, I understand the intent of the
    question. I must lead by saying that whatever the problem, the
    source of those funds cannot and should not be the unobligated
    balances, because although those are unobligated, in the sense
    that the fiscal accounting people go off in a corner and talk
    about unobligated funds, yes, they are unobligated.
        Senator Shelby. You have specific plans for them?
        Dr. Griffin. Precisely, sir. They are not unspoken for.
        Senator Shelby. That is a good phase, unspoken.
        Dr. Griffin. They are not unspoken for. You raise a very
    important point. NASA's physical infrastructure like many of
    the other bridges, roads, and buildings that are important to
    this country's public life, is an aging infrastructure, much of
    it in our newest buildings in our overall NASA infrastructure,
    all 10 centers. The newest buildings, the newest centers, by
    and large are approaching 50 years old, and many go back to
    World War II, and some are pre-World War II. They are aging,
    they are expensive to heat, and expensive to maintain. In a
    perfect world, we would have plenty of money to fix all those
    buildings. We do not. We have to set priorities.
        If I must be made to choose between executing missions,
    being run out of old buildings, or having new buildings and not
    being able to execute missions, then I'm going to choose the
    former. We replace buildings or modify or upgrade them in ones
    and twos as the need expresses itself, but we simply do not
    have the funding to embark on a substantial building campaign.
    I wish that we did.
        With regard to the buildings, infrastructure, and
    facilities needed for the Vision for Space Exploration, just
    exactly as the launch operations infrastructure at the Cape
    must follow the definition of the launch vehicle and the crew
    vehicle, so, too, must the buildings to support the mission
    follow the definition of all these things. I do not today have
    a plan for you regarding which of our NASA infrastructure we
    need for the future and which should be mothballed or
    demolished. I do not have that plan today.
        Senator Shelby. I agree with you to some extent that the
    mission must go on and just brick and mortar will not do it, it
    has to be beyond that, but sometimes you have to have a little
    brick and mortar to cover the roof.
        Dr. Griffin. You do, indeed. We try in our construction of
    facilities as compared with our mission priorities to set a
    reasonable balance and to make sure that this subcommittee and
    your staff knows where we are on that balance.

                              PROPULSION RESEARCH

        Senator Shelby. On propulsion, the Vision for Space
    Exploration will require many new technologies and systems to
    be developed in order to maximize our investment in returning
    to the Moon. One of these areas that will require ongoing
    research and development is in the area of, as you have told me
    before, propulsion. The Marshall Space Flight Center has
    expertise in this area and has worked on propulsion systems
    from the time of the last missions to the Moon and to the
    present. As research and development on Vision-related vehicles
    and systems begins, what do you anticipate we will need for
    propulsion research and development this year and in the
    future? In other words, where are we going and what do we need
    to get there?
        Dr. Griffin. That is an excellent question, and with all
    respect, the propulsion research needs to implement the Vision
    for Exploration are at this point rather minimal, and likely to
    remain so for a little while. One of the things that I tried
    very hard to do in crafting our exploration architecture was to
    utilize the technology and infrastructure for which the Nation
    had already paid in past years and decades. We have available
    or can restore to production the rocket engines that are needed
    for the Vision for Space Exploration. We have those today, by
    and large. That is not the most critical need. In some cases,
    we may need to resume or restore production on certain units,
    we may need to make modifications, but it is not in the nature
    of propulsion research.
        If we look much further out to when we are really ready to
    go to Mars in another 20 years, I would like to believe that
    the Nation will allocate funding for new propulsion research. I
    would like to believe that the decisionmakers of those later
    times will be able to restore research in, for example, nuclear
    thermal propulsion, one of my highest interest items. We do not
    need that technology for the Moon which means we do not need it
    anytime in the next 15 years, and certainly we do not in the
    next 15 years have the money for it. So what we need to do is
    we need to restore in this Nation's space program basic
    capabilities and basic infrastructure that we once owned and we
    have allowed to atrophy.
        Senator Shelby. When would that research you are talking
    about begin?
        Dr. Griffin. Sometime in the next decade. The research
    levels would begin sometime in the next decade.

         NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION'S SCIENCE BUDGET

        Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, in order to address the budget
    needs for the exploration program, NASA has reduced the rate of
    growth of the agency's science budget from about 6 percent to
    about 1 percent. I understand that the science budget at NASA
    is on a growth path, although at a reduced rate than previously
    projected. I also understand that the science activities at
    Marshall are actually taking a 10-percent cut over the next
    fiscal years. Would you provide us some insight into that
    reduction?
        Dr. Griffin. I can provide the specifics of that 10-percent
    reduction at Marshall Space Flight Center for the record.
        Senator Shelby. That would be fine.
        [The information follows:]
             Science Reductions at the Marshall Space Flight Center
        In the fiscal year 2007 budget request, there is a reduction of
    approximately 10 percent for Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)
    Science activities compared with fiscal year 2006. This is due, in
    part, to the fact that some projects are ending as planned. However,
    since release of the fiscal year 2007 budget, additional work for MSFC
    has been defined in several Science projects, and additional funding is
    likely, particularly in projects with pending competitive selections.
    Additional funding is likely in New Frontiers, James Webb Space
    Telescope, Chandra, Solar Terrestrial Probes, and other areas. When
    this new work (actual and likely) is factored in, fiscal year 2007
    Science funding to MSFC is expected to be equal to or higher than
    fiscal year 2006.
        At the same time, it should be noted that, as one of NASA's premier
    space flight centers, MSFC has been given project management
    responsibility for the new Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and Cargo Launch
    Vehicle (CaLV), both critical elements to our Nation's plans for humans
    to explore the frontiers of space. These responsibilities are supported
    by the President's fiscal year 2007 request from Exploration Systems.
        Specifically, Marshall's responsibilities include:
      --Responsible for achieving all CLV and CaLV objectives for the
            agency.
      --Lead associated systems engineering and integration activities, all
            CLV and CaLV safety and mission assurance activities.
      --First stage design and upper stage engine development contracts
            management, as well as leading or otherwise overseeing CLV
            associated demonstration testing.
      --Responsibility for advanced development flight test-0 and other
            flight demonstrations.
      --Support responsibilities for the Crew Exploration Vehicle.
      --Support for launch abort systems, service module, and abort test
            booster.
        Level II or project tasks include:
      --Safety, Reliability & Quality assurance (SR&QA)--Support integrated
            hazards analysis and probabilistic risk assessment; represent
            SR&QA at assigned systems integration groups; support quality
            assurance, risk management, and safety software system
            development; support Constellation SR&QA panels.
      --System engineering and integration: Co-Lead for several system
            integration groups including thermal and environmental control
            and life support, environments, human factors/human rating,
            loads and structures.
      --Test and verification lead for loads/structures and environments
            system integration group.
        In support of lunar exploration, Marshall will:
      --Establish a Lunar Precursor and Robotic Program Office, which
            includes the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Lunar Crater
            Observation and Sensing Satellite.
      --Establish a Lunar Lander Project Office, under the Constellation
            Program, responsible for performing early trade studies and
            developing requirements for the Lunar descent stage.
      --Plan to use the Michoud Assembly for CLV and CaLV tank
            construction.

        Dr. Griffin. But do understand, please, that Marshall Space
    Flight Center is receiving, and will receive substantial
    increases as we embark on the Crew Launch Vehicle Program. So
    although the skill mix of those employed at Marshall Space
    Flight Center may change, the overall employment base at
    Marshall Space Flight Center is and will continue to be quite
    healthy. Yes, it is true, prior to my tenure the science
    community had been promised growth rates of 5, 6, or 7 percent
    in science, but NASA's growth rate as a whole is only 2.4
    percent, averaged over the next several years.
        Senator Shelby. I agree with you that we need more money.
        Dr. Griffin. I did not say that.
        Senator Shelby. I can say it.
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Within the amount of money that the
    administration has chosen to allocate to the program, I cannot
    have science growing at 6 percent while the agency is growing
    at 2.4 percent and the science program at NASA is a full one-
    third of our overall program, and in my judgement, sir, it is a
    very robust program.

                       SPACE SHUTTLE FLIGHT RATE SCHEDULE

        Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, assuming a successful shuttle
    launch this summer, NASA will begin a very aggressive flight
    schedule for construction of the International Space Station
    and the Hubble space telescope servicing mission. We pray you
    will be successful there. In order to accomplish the 16 to 18
    flights necessary for these missions and to retire the shuttle
    by 2010, as you mentioned earlier, would require a flight rate
    that has not been achieved for many years. How much
    flexibility, Dr. Griffin, is there in the schedule for the
    remainder of the flights of the space shuttle? Is there any
    room for unexpected delays that will not compromise both the
    retirement date of the shuttle and the completion of our
    agreements on the ISS? And how does NASA intend to balance the
    need for such a sizable workforce to maintain the shuttle
    program until it is retired and at the same time to build up
    Moon missions and so forth? I know it is a tough question.
        Dr. Griffin. But it is a good one, and I understand the
    question, so let me try to answer. First of all, I must simply
    say it is not correct that the fight rate required of the
    shuttle to complete the International Space Station by the
    shuttle's retirement date is something that we have not seen.
    In fact, the required flight rate is nothing more than our
    average flight rate over 25 years of history, and that
    includes, as I know you recall because you have been here, that
    includes basically 6 years of down time due to shuttle
    accidents and other technical problems. So even factoring in
    all of that down time, our average flight rate for the shuttle
    program over 25 years has been 4\1/2\ flights per year. If we
    fly successfully in July or if we fly successfully in September
    and then merely execute our average flight rate for the balance
    of the program, we will finish with margin to spare. So I
    believe we can do it.

                            WORKFORCE TRANSITIONING

        Now with regard to your question about transitioning the
    workforce, you are correct, and I have said this in many
    forums, our biggest challenge over the next 5 years is to
    develop a plan that allows us to fly the last shuttle mission
    as safely as the next one. At the same time, to be able to have
    the appropriately skilled workforce involved with the design
    and development of the replacement vehicle, the CEV, and to not
    damage either program in the process of doing so. We are
    working on that. We spend time on that at every Management
    Council meeting I have in NASA. We care about that problem a
    lot. I have top-level plans that I can share with your staff,
    and are those plans in their detail, we will be happy to share
    those plans with your staff as well.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you very much. I am going to go vote.
    Senator Mikulski has voted, and she is recognized.
        Dr. Griffin. Thank you, sir.

                          AGING AND DAMAGED FACILITIES

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    know Administrator Griffin, you probably have covered some of
    these issues. We know that you and the NASA budget is under a
    lot of stress.
        Let me go to the question about aging facilities and
    damaged facilities. I know that Senator Shelby talked about the
    aging facility issue. You talked about some of these go back to
    Apollo.
        Dr. Griffin. Or before.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, sir. But let's go to what was
    damaged because of Katrina, again, acknowledging the
    magnificent efforts of the NASA staff and local responders, et
    cetera. The subcommittee provided $300 and some million last
    year toward this. The President's supplemental request had
    nothing in it. We had $35 million which is just a chunk of
    change. You estimate that it is going to be $500 million to
    really restore these facilities properly. Where are we, and
    where is this money going to come from?
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, ma'am. Yes, Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. You need to know I was very disappointed
    that there was not money in the President's budget to do this,
    and it's beyond the scope of an individual Member, for example
    like myself, to find a $500 million offset, and we could not
    take it from the troops.
        Dr. Griffin. Of course not. I'm sorry, the damage estimate
    that we have is just under $500 million, $484 million to be
    specific. As we have continued to refine our estimates, we have
    kept you and your staff current on what those are. And you are
    right, last year the subcommittee, of course, appropriated
    roughly $330 million in supplemental funding to repair the
    damage. The balance of the money must come out of program funds
    which is shuttle and station unless we move money across
    accounts, and that would require special permission from our
    oversight committees.
        Senator Mikulski. How much would you need this year?
        Dr. Griffin. Pardon me?
        Senator Mikulski. No construction occurs at once.
        Dr. Griffin. At once, right.
        Senator Mikulski. What do you think for both Stennis and
    Louisiana would be required for this year?
        Dr. Griffin. I will answer for the record on the phasing of
    the money. The total that we know we need is $484 million at
    this point.
        Senator Mikulski. And that would take care of both?
        Dr. Griffin. That would take care of all years.
        Senator Mikulski. But it would take care of both Stennis
    and Louisiana?
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, Senator.
        [The information follows:]
                          Aging and Damaged Facilities
        After a detailed review by the Katrina Headquarters Recovery Team,
    as of April 25, 2006, the Agency reduced its total estimate of all
    costs for responding to Katrina and for catastrophic risk mitigation
    projects that would protect against future hurricanes to $483.8
    million. This estimate includes the following:
      --Michoud Assembly Facility--$220.2 million;
      --Stennis Space Center--$208.7 million;
      --NASA Shared Services Center--$7.7 million;
      --Other NASA Centers/HQ Support--$8.1 million; and
      --Program Contingency/Reserves--$39.2 million.
        Review of the content of this estimate is ongoing and will continue
    to be revised; NASA will keep the Committee informed of future
    adjustments to the estimate.
        As has been discussed during hearings and in briefings with
    Committee staff, NASA borrowed $100 million in fiscal year 2005 funds
    from the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) crew/cargo
    programs to provide immediate support of hurricane recovery efforts in
    the Gulf region before any supplemental funds were provided. The intent
    was to eventually repay these programs for this initial outlay of
    funds, and NASA repaid $20 million of the amount borrowed in the May
    update to the fiscal year 2006 Operating Plan.
        NASA currently has available $384.8 million in fiscal year 2006
    funding from two emergency supplemental appropriations and $80 million
    in fiscal year 2005 funding that was borrowed from the Shuttle and ISS
    crew/cargo programs. NASA may repay approximately $20 million in
    additional borrowed fiscal year 2005 funds that are not yet spent in a
    future Operating Plan update. The Agency continues to require transfer
    authority to use up to $60 million in available fiscal year 2006
    supplemental funding to repay the balance of funds borrowed and
    expended in fiscal year 2005 to allow the Agency to adequately fund the
    requirements of the Space Shuttle and ISS programs.
        Hurricane-related Center recovery and operations costs, along with
    real property repairs and programmatic recovery requirements are
    accommodated within the current funding availability. Catastrophic loss
    mitigation projects will be addressed on a priority basis depending on
    the availability of funding.
        The following Center recovery operations, real property repairs,
    and programmatic recovery activities are likely covered within
    available funding:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Estimated Cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      STENNIS SPACE CENTER

    Center Recovery Operations Support......................           17.0
    IT/Communications/Environmental/Other...................            6.0
    Programmatic Recovery...................................            3.0
                                                             ===============
    Real Property Repairs...................................       \1\ 82.61
        Repair Site wide Electrical Distribution System.....            7.79
        Repair/Replace Roofing Various Administration                   7.95
         Buildings..........................................
        Replace Bldg 2204 Roof..............................            7.91
        Repair Administration Building 1100.................            7.65
        Repair and Replace Perimeter Fencing................            7.95
        Replace Bldg 1100 North Wing & Bldg 1105 Roof.......            1.03
        Repair Bldg 2205 High Bay Roof (complete)...........             .73
        Repair Building 1100 North Wing--Interior...........            2.70
        Site wide Mold Remediation and Asbestos Abatement...            2.44
        Replace Bldg 2201 Roof..............................            3.50
        Repair/Replace Roofing Various Industrial Complex               1.74
         Buildings..........................................
        Repair/Replace Roofing Various Test Complex                     1.99
         Buildings..........................................
        Site wide Debris Cleanup............................            1.59
        Replace Bldg 8100/8110 Roofs........................            3.04
        Site wide Lightning Protection Repairs (Multiple                 .80
         Projects)..........................................
        Relocate Roads and Grounds Building.................             .87
        Repair and Pave Roads for Heavy Vehicles............            2.88
        Education Center (Replacement for Bldg 1200)........            1.93
        Site wide Electrical Panel Enhancements and Database            1.06
        Local Projects (<$500,000) and Maintenance Items....            7.06

                    MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY

    Center Recovery Operations Support......................           20.9
    IT/Communications/Environmental/Other...................            2.4
    Programmatic Recovery...................................           42.5
                                                             ===============
    Real Property Repairs...................................       \2\ 69.00
        Hazardous Materials Investigation...................             .05
        Repairs of B103, Phase 1............................            2.50
        Repairs of B451, Phase 1............................             .75
        Repairs of B114.....................................             .60
        Repairs to Damaged Elevator B110....................             .10
        B303 Temporary Roof Repair..........................             .09
        TBD Projects during test and checkout...............             .50
        MSFC--COSS Contractor Support for damage assessment.             .04
        MSFC--M1 Yard Roof Repairs..........................             .01
        MSFC--Remove Damaged Trees and Repair B4707 Tower                .02
         Roof...............................................
        Work Plans for B420, 110, 114, 103, 303, 451, 220,               .94
         101, 102, 173, 175, 320, 404.......................
        Local Projects (<$500,000) and Maintenance Items....            5.21
        Repairs of B110, Phase 2............................            6.40
        Repairs of B173.....................................            2.02
        Repairs of B175.....................................             .68
        Repairs of B220.....................................            1.37
        Repairs of B303.....................................            6.60
        Repairs of B320A....................................            1.54
        Repairs of B320B....................................             .94
        Repairs of B404.....................................            1.49
        Repairs of B420.....................................            5.63
        Repairs of B103, Phase 2............................            4.77
        Repairs of B451, Phase 2............................            1.50
        Repairs of B101.....................................            5.04
        Repairs of B102.....................................            8.22
        Repairs B75, 105, 106, 107, 109, 113, 119, 127, 130,           12.00
         131, 135, 140, 171, 176, 177, 178, 179, 201, 203,
         206, 207, 221, 232, 239, 301, 302, 304, 305, 307,
         308, 318, 321, 327, 329, 359, 351, 360, 361, 406,
         409, 421, 423, 424, 419, 450, 480, 485.............

                   NASA SHARED SERVICES CENTER

    Recovery/Workarounds....................................            7.7

              OTHER NASA CENTERS/HQ SUPPORT/RESERVE

    Center Recovery Operations Support......................            2.2
    Other General Support...................................            4.0
    FEMA Volunteers.........................................            1.9
    Program contingency/Reserves............................           39.2
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Does not include $13.7 million in program manager reserve.
    \2\ Does not include $10 million in program manager reserve.

        The following potential catastrophic loss risk mitigation projects
    been identified. Unless noted, the majority of these projects have not
    yet been approved for funding. Projects for each Center are listed in
    order of priority.

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Estimated Cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      STENNIS SPACE CENTER

    Hurricane Proof Emergency Operations Center.............       \1\ 14.90
    Replace and Enhance Backup Generator Capability Site-               3.00
     wide...................................................
    Enhance Site-Wide Electrical Distribution System                   18.65
     Hardening..............................................
    Add Additional Bulk Diesel Storage......................             .50
    Enhancement to Potable Water Pump Houses................             .10
    Emergency Communications and EMCS Enhancements..........             .90
    Hurricane Proof Record Retention Facility...............            2.50
    Relocate Electrical Equipment Building 1200.............            1.00
    Expand and Enhance Communication Ductbank...............            3.00
    Inspect Bridge and Locks................................            1.00
    Dredge Canal............................................            3.00
    Enhance Administration Building 1100....................            3.00
    Test Complex High Pressure System Uninterruptible Power.           30.00
    Design Cost (6 percent).................................            4.89
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................           86.44
                                                             ===============
                    MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY

    Upgrades to Pump House..................................       \2\ 11.00
    Install levee floodgate at barge dock...................             .70
    Upgrades to Emergency Operations Building...............        \2\ 3.30
    Rewire security cameras to operate on emergency power...         \2\ .70
    Replace electrical feeders on poles below ground........            5.00
    Reconfigure computer servers to provide critical ops                5.00
     during severe weather..................................
    Replace main manufacturing building exterior siding.....            7.00
    Levee improvements (requires Corp of Engineers                      5.00
     coordination and app)..................................
    100 percent increased labor, materials, and                        37.7
     transportation costs...................................
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................           75.4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Project is approved for funding. The total project cost is $21.4
      million; the remaining $6.5 million will be funded with fiscal year
      2005 Institutional CofF funds.
    \2\ $1.7 million in funding has been approved for MAF projects as
      follows: $300,000 for designs and studies, $600,000 for remote
      controls for the existing Pump House, $500,000 for relocating the MAF
      Emergency Operations Building, and $300,000 for security cameras. The
      ``Install levee floodgate at barge dock'' project will be approved for
      funding as soon as design is complete.

                                CUTS IN SCIENCE

        Senator Mikulski. As we look ahead to our own mark up, I
    have not had a chance really to confer with Senator Shelby in-
    depth until we complete all of our hearings. We have heard from
    Justice, the Byrne grants and COPS Programs have been cut. This
    is not to lay this on you. In just looking at NASA and know
    that it was flat-lined now and it has been flat-lined under
    this administration and the previous one, President Clinton, I
    feel we need more money. One of the things that I am going to
    suggest to Senator Shelby is that we look at the repair related
    to the Katrina damage in some kind of an emergency way so that
    it does not add further stress to the NASA budget. I don't even
    know if it is possible, but I am looking for legitimate ways to
    bring other revenue into our subcommittee, so just know that.
    That is why the sequencing of how much, so that we do ask for
    or even ponder appropriate amounts. You need to have your
    facilities, dedicated people have to work somewhere, and we
    have to be dedicated in restoring it as they did to protecting
    it.
        Your comments were don't rob Peter to pay Paul, don't go
    after the science budget, to some back to the other priorities,
    but in some ways I feel that is what we are doing. We are
    juggling and rearranging, and that you robbed Paul to give it
    to Peter, and you are telling us don't rob Peter to give it
    back to Paul. We don't see it as robbing, we see it as a give-
    back.
        Could you tell us about the consequences of this deferral
    in science? I know you are committed to science programs, but
    we are troubled about the cuts in science. Could you tell us
    what you think the consequences are in this deferral? We are
    particularly concerned about all science. We are concerned
    about the impact on big science as people talk about it, the
    Webb telescope mission, like Earth science and some of the
    others? Could you share with us?
        Dr. Griffin. At the top level I can, and, again, as always
    I am happy to coordinate details with your staff at your
    discretion.
        Yes, I did propose and I am proposing taking money from
    both exploration and science in order to pay our bills for our
    nearer-term priorities to finish out the station and fly out
    the shuttle. The shuttle and station accounts as we both know
    when I took this job in the out-years had placeholder amounts
    in them. We did not have realistic amounts. Those were in the
    out-years at the time. The out-years have arrived, and if we
    are going to fly the shuttle and finish the station, then those
    bills had to be paid, and the only other source of money was
    exploration and science. So that is why I did what I did.
        As to the impact of deferrals, first of all, James Webb
    telescope mission as I think everyone knows is the National
    Academy's highest priority in their decade-old survey plan for
    astronomy, and that priority continues to be respected. James
    Webb telescope mission may be delayed a bit, but only because,
    I exaggerate to make a point, about 15 minutes after I was
    confirmed, the folks on the James Webb Program brought to me a
    $1 billion plus overrun on the program which is presently in
    its formulation stages. So we are currently in the middle of
    re-baselining that program not, to alter its priority within
    the queue. But I do not have over that time period an extra
    billion dollars laying around to fix it. So it will slip a
    little bit in schedule, not because of anything going on with
    the shuttle and station, but just because it is overrun.
        With regard to Earth science, before I took office, Earth
    science had been I would say damaged in the budgetary planning,
    and I have acted to restore that. It is not all the way back,
    but I know that you know, and that your staff will tell you,
    that I have acted to restore that as I have with heliophysics,
    but I cannot do it instantaneously.
        Senator Mikulski. They have shared that with me, and I
    appreciate it.
        Dr. Griffin. Other missions that we believe are very
    important to do like the space interferometry mission will be
    delayed for a couple of years.
        Senator Mikulski. So could I say what you are saying is
    though that they have not been eliminated, they have been
    deferred?
        Dr. Griffin. Correct.
        Senator Mikulski. But given where we are, do you think is
    deferral going to become a de facto elimination in some
    categories? I am not going to ask you to enumerate.
        Dr. Griffin. There may be smaller missions which just will
    not make the cut, but the major mission priorities that had
    been established and were on the table when I took office will
    continue to be respected. We must defer something. We will
    either defer the CEV, the Nation's replacement for the shuttle,
    or we will defer some of these science missions. In truth, I
    have delayed both of them a bit and I would be very
    uncomfortable delaying the CEV any more.

                                 SPACE SHUTTLE

        Senator Mikulski. This brings me back to, first of all,
    Senator Shelby and me, and the whole committee, we are
    absolutely committed to the shuttle mission. The safety of the
    astronauts is a committee obsession that we share with you, so
    we know that is the priority. Second, I appreciate your
    willingness to consider a Hubble rejuvenation mission.
        Dr. Griffin. If we can possibly do Hubble, we will do
    Hubble.
        Senator Mikulski. And I understand now that it is up to the
    technical matters, but I appreciate your commitment to analyze
    as we progress, so we know what that is going to take, but we
    do not know how much more it is going to take. Am I correct?
    And it has cost $2 billion more to do the shuttle and return to
    flight than we had originally anticipated. And that is not a
    fault-finding. It is just a fact-finding.
        Dr. Griffin. Of course. I understand. I just want to answer
    accurately. We needed $3.8 billion more to fly out the shuttle
    and finish the station; $3.8 billion more was needed for those
    accounts than was bookkept in those accounts in the fiscal year
    2006 run-out. So as we prepared the fiscal year 2007 run-out,
    we had to fix that problem, so the total was $3.8 billion.
        Senator Mikulski. I am glad we are getting this out in the
    sunshine, quite frankly, because the only way we can truly get
    the proper national priorities, and the framework is there, but
    in other words, you inherited something that you have had to
    straighten out and get real life-cycle costs and accounting
    into it. Am I correct?
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, Senator. The way that I would phrase it
    is to say that, in having decided a couple of years ago that we
    would retire the shuttle, there was considerable uncertainty as
    to how much the run-out costs would be in retirement. As we
    have analyzed it as carefully as we can, we have concluded that
    the run-out costs to retire it do not drop off as rapidly as--
    --
        Senator Mikulski. We are committed to this, and, again, I
    think I feel secure in saying this, I liked what you said when
    you said the next shuttle flight is going to be as safe as it
    possibly can be made, but that the last shuttle flight will be
    as safe. So we have a big kind of shaking-hands commitment that
    we need to make with you to ensure that safety of the next
    astronauts or the last astronauts to fly that shuttle, so we
    are in agreement with that. Then that is like a fixed cost that
    we have to almost be neurotic about. Am I correct?
        Dr. Griffin. Exactly, Senator. Exactly, and I have been
    neurotic about it, and the amount was $3.8 billion.

                          INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

        Senator Mikulski. I say that, because, again, it is the
    safety of our people.
        That takes me then to the station itself. Having done that,
    completed it, do all those things along the questions that
    Senator Shelby has raised, the 16 flights, et cetera, are we
    going to use the station? And how are we going to get to the
    station to use the station? Soyuz has been a lifesaver, but it
    is little, it cannot do cargo.
        Dr. Griffin. You are right, Senator.
        Senator Mikulski. We have this fantastic machinery at
    tremendous cost to build and maintain.
        Dr. Griffin. Let me try to answer.
        Senator Shelby. Is this going to be a techno-whoops? Then
    what will that take if we are talking about science and Webb
    and going to the Moon and so on? Or is this going to be one of
    those, well, now we have it, but we cannot afford to use it?
        Dr. Griffin. I certainly hope not. For the station for the
    next few years, the choices which confronted us were, given the
    available shuttle flights, that we could use the station
    approximately as it exists today, which is fairly stable but
    does not have much power and does not have a lot of research
    facilities, we could use it to a very limited extent. Or we
    could finish assembling it but not use it. I do not have enough
    shuttle flights to assemble it and utilize it at the same time.
    We have talked about this, we have committed to finishing the
    assembly.
        As the assembly is finished, it will be the full-up station
    that you have come to know and love with substantial research
    capability and a crew of six. In the period between retirement
    of the shuttle and deployment of the CEV, we will have no
    choice but to depend on international partner logistics and
    resupply. Or if our COTS initiative, our commercial initiative,
    works well, we hope that we may be able to bring some U.S.
    commercial capability on-line with seed funding from NASA. But
    the CEV, which is, of course, intended to service the station
    as well as go to the Moon, will not be available for
    operational use until, at this point, 2013-2014.
        Senator Mikulski. Then my question is, why should we do
    this now if we are not going to use it? We thought we are going
    to build it and they will come, but we are going to be building
    it but we cannot get there. I have not been harsh or sarcastic,
    and yet we are making a tremendous investment for the shuttle
    to go up there, for the safety of our astronauts, only then to
    complete an assembly of something.
        Dr. Griffin. We can use the station in concert with our
    international partners, and we can use it as soon as the CEV
    becomes available, and this, of course, addresses the gap that
    you have been so forceful about, and we can use it if we can
    get some commercial capability in space flight.
        Senator Mikulski. There are a lot of ifs.
        Dr. Griffin. But with our existing budgetary resources,
    there will be a gap between retirement of the shuttle and
    deployment of the CEV.
        Senator Mikulski. I think this is a dilemma.
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, Senator, it is.

                             INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS

        Senator Mikulski. Within the scope of the hearing it is
    difficult to discuss, and I am not advocating what we should
    do, but I am advocating that we need to come to grips with this
    dilemma, and a tremendous cost to finish our commitment. What
    do our international partners say about this, Dr. Griffin?
    Would they be able to use it? They have been very patient and
    steadfast, I think, in their ongoing commitment, and the
    Russians have proved to be a fairly reliable partner.
        Dr. Griffin. All of that is true. You, I believe,
    understand the situation perfectly. The international partners
    are appreciative of the renewed United States commitment to
    finish the station, because unless it is finished, the
    laboratory modules that they have worked on for many years will
    not fly. So they are appreciative of that. They, we, and I are
    concerned about what we will do in the period following
    retirement of the shuttle and prior to deployment of the CEV.
    We, as you say, are very grateful to our Russian partners for
    the reliability with which the Soyuz and Progress systems have
    worked, but they have, frankly, very minimal capability to
    really utilize the assets of the station and other partner
    capabilities.
        Senator Mikulski. So it will be hard for our international
    partners to get up there to use it.
        Dr. Griffin. Until we have the CEV deployed, right.
        Senator Mikulski. Let me try to get a timeframe. If
    everything works the way we hope and anticipate, when will the
    completion of the assembly of the station be done?
        Dr. Griffin. 2010.
        Senator Mikulski. Then at the same time, that is when you
    hope to retire the shuttle upon the completion?
        Dr. Griffin. Correct.

                            CREW VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT

        Senator Mikulski. Then with hopefully the new crew vehicle,
    with your time table, that would be 2013?
        Dr. Griffin. The first test flight, which is not the same
    as an operational flight, of course, of the CEV, at this point
    with the resources we believe we have to bring to bear on it,
    we project for 2012, and then operational use would be in the
    2013-2014 timeframe.
        Senator Mikulski. So there will be 4 years in which the
    United States of America will, number one, have a space gap?
    And, number two, 4 years where the station will be up there but
    will not be utilized, and I presume could even begin to
    deteriorate. Space, as you would share with me, is a harsh and
    demanding environment. I wonder where we are going here with
    the station.
        Dr. Griffin. That is, on the face of it, correct. I remind
    you again that we have the ISS Crew Cargo Program, our
    commercial orbital transportation or COTS initiative, where we
    are making available as seed funding to industry $500 million
    over the next few years to bring on-line, hopefully, a
    capability to ferry cargo and later crew to and from the
    station. If that works and industry invests, they stand to make
    a good profit, and we stand to be able to buy services.
        Senator Mikulski. First of all, we have been through the X-
    Plane, and X-Planes have not come out too well. I would hope
    that the private sector could develop a cargo vehicle.
        Dr. Griffin. I hope they can. I hope they can. I consider
    it be a good gamble. It is well past time for NASA to do
    everything it can to stimulate commercial space transportation
    capability, and I am trying to do that. But you raise an
    excellent point, we cannot count on it.
        Senator Mikulski. And we will not know until 2012 whether
    it is going to happen. Is there any way you can accelerate in a
    prudent way, prudent, again, meaning always the safety factors,
    and prudent in fiscal reality, the development of a crew
    vehicle?
        Dr. Griffin. Again, Senator, not without moving money from
    other things which we all also like.
        Senator Mikulski. What do you think from a technological
    and engineering standpoint, and you are the expert in this?
        Dr. Griffin. From a technical and engineering standpoint, I
    could have a crew vehicle deployed in 2011, following right on
    the heels of the shuttle, from a technical and engineering
    standpoint.
        Senator Mikulski. What would it take to do that?
        Dr. Griffin. Fiscally I will have to take that for the
    record. I do not have that in my head because that is not a
    program we have been studying. We know we do not have that
    money, and so we are funding limited, as you have said.
        Senator Mikulski. Again, I do not know if we could even
    contemplate that. I know our colleague, Senator Hutchison has
    raised that with you yesterday at the Commerce hearing in which
    you testified.
        Dr. Griffin. She did.
        Senator Mikulski. I know we are troubled by the gap, and
    yet we do not want to take from Peter to pay Paul, and we do
    not want to take from Paul to pay Peter.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski, if you would yield, it is
    obvious that we need more money to fund NASA.
        Senator Mikulski. I think that that is it, Mr. Chairman,
    and that is where I was trying to ponder as we went through
    this.
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely. You are absolutely right.
        Dr. Griffin. From a technical point of view, the crew
    vehicle could be delivered to you in 2011. Anything after that
    is controlled by the funding.
        Senator Mikulski. Why don't you share with us what you
    think would be a realistic option?

                              AERONAUTICS RESEARCH

        One last point which goes to the aeronautics issue when we
    talk about commercial cargo in space. I really do not want us
    to lose ground aeronautically in the international marketplace,
    and I know we have declined an aeronautic research at 18
    percent. What do you think we can do about this? Again, I am
    concerned about the consequences, not only in futuristic sonic,
    hypersonic flight, but even aviation safety. We have a
    consortium in Maryland that is working on cockpit safety. One
    is at our historically black college, Morgan, the largest
    producer of African-American engineers in the State, and maybe
    even in the country. They are so enthusiastic. They feel they
    are working on things that are going to spur our economy, and
    working on cockpit safety. That is the next generation. They
    will be sitting there 20 years from now. So what can we do?
        Dr. Griffin. I am ready to give it to them sooner if you
    would like. With regard to aeronautics research, I share your
    concern. I think when you look at the loss of competitiveness
    in aeronautics to which you refer and that you see about you
    today, I believe that in actuality that is a consequence not of
    funding decisions, but of strategic decisions, what the money
    is spent on, that go back a decade or two.
        We have not in my opinion been doing in some areas the
    right things with our aeronautics funding. We are recrafting
    our Aeronautics Program to focus on basic aeronautical science
    which underlies the entire discipline of all flight regimes to
    learn new things and to be out at the frontiers of the state of
    knowledge in aeronautics. That, I believe, is in past decades
    what provided the kind of capability that allowed American air
    frame manufacturers to be second to none.
        When we started focusing on demonstrations and point
    designs and things that were off the beaten track for NASA's
    research skills, I believe that is when we started to lose
    ground. So I am trying to recraft and put into place----
        Senator Mikulski. Is that what we will get in the December
    report?
        Dr. Griffin. Yes, ma'am, that is what you will get.
        Senator Mikulski. What I would hope we could try to do,
    Senator Shelby, is stay the course or do a bit better, but that
    we really join hands and focus on this, because I think we are
    going to win the international markets not because we are going
    to be the most subsidized like other countries, but because we
    are going to be the smartest and the best, and we want to help
    you get there.
        Dr. Griffin. We have to be the best.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I think I have gone over my
    questions.

                        AMERICAN COMPETITIVE INITIATIVE

        Senator Shelby. No, you have asked some good questions. Dr.
    Griffin, I will get into the American competitiveness
    initiative. I was surprised to see that NASA was not included
    as part of the American competitiveness initiative, ACI. The
    goal of ACI, as I understand it, is to ensure that the United
    States prominence in technology and our continued
    competitiveness in an ever-evolving global economy and ensure
    that we are there. Your stated goals for the education
    component of NASA's budget are to strengthen the Nation's
    future workforce, attract and retain students in science and
    engineering, as in your own background, and to engage Americans
    in NASA's missions, coupled with high public visibility and
    recognition that NASA enjoys. It seems that NASA would be a
    natural fit for such an initiative. Why was not NASA not
    included in this initiative in your judgment? I was surprised.
        Dr. Griffin. Senator, I have spoken with Dr. Marburger on
    precisely that issue, and the point that I would make is that
    the ACI was designed to target those agencies or portions of
    agencies such as physical science within the Department of
    Energy, which have not received good support in the recent past
    and which need significant help to get back to even. NASA
    received a 3.2 percent increase even without being part of the
    ACI in an environment where overall domestic nondefense
    discretionary funding is down by one-half of 1 percent. So NASA
    was treated by the President 3.7 percent better than the
    average domestic discretionary nondefense agency.
        It is hard to do better than that. I believe that we were
    well treated within the context of the overall administration,
    and to be part of the American competitiveness initiative was
    not really on point.
        Senator Shelby. I think it was not either.
        Senator Mikulski.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby, I just want to comment
    and share this with Dr. Griffin. I was part of a group at the
    White House with Senators Alexander and others talking about
    this, and I asked the President the same thing in a very
    cordial way because I thought his Mars statement was to inspire
    the next generation, and they said that they were going to give
    it more consideration. I wanted to follow-up with some of the
    staff.
        Senator Shelby. I think you are absolutely right.
        Senator Mikulski. Perhaps that is something that you and I
    could follow-up with.

                           CHAIRMAN'S CLOSING REMARKS

        Senator Shelby. We could work together because we think it
    is important, and Dr. Griffin is a product of it himself of
    many years.
        If I could, Dr. Griffin, I want to thank you on behalf of
    the subcommittee for your appearance here. We both are
    committed to NASA and we want to continue to work with you. I
    personally believe that NASA is still underfunded, as Senator
    Mikulski does.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. We know that it is a tough environment, but
    we have some, I think, lofty goals out there and we want you to
    implement them, and you have the capability to do that.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        We appreciate your appearance before the subcommittee
    today. There are a number of Senators, and we have been voting,
    and I keep the record open where they can submit questions for
    the record. I am going to ask you to, if you could, respond to
    them no later than June 9, which is a month or so.
        Dr. Griffin. We absolutely will do that, sir.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the agency for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                              financial management
        Question. NASA was recently cited for violation of the
    Antideficiency Act (ADA). According to the Inspector General, a lack of
    internal controls within the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
    (OCFO) was a major cause of the violations. It is also troubling that
    the Inspector General was unable to determine the exact size or number
    of ADA violations due to the unreliability of the agency's financial
    management system.
        What are the Agency's plans for addressing the material weaknesses
    in internal controls that have been reported for several years?
        Answer. NASA's independent financial auditors identified three
    material weaknesses and one reportable condition through its fiscal
    year 2005 financial audit. The weaknesses are repeat findings from
    prior financial audits. NASA submitted a Corrective Action Plan in
    February 2006 to Congress, OMB and NASA's Office of Inspector General
    (OIG) that addresses each of the recommendations made by the
    independent financial auditors. NASA has been executing this plan
    throughout fiscal year 2006.
        For your convenience, we have attached NASA's Financial Management
    Corrective Action Plan, which provides a complete list of in-process
    actions to address each material weakness.

     Corrective Action Plan Fiscal Year 2005 Financial Audit--February 15,
                                      2006

                       CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER'S MESSAGE

        I am pleased to present the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration's (NASA) financial audit corrective action plan.
    Achieving financial management excellence is essential to achieving
    NASA's Vision for Space Exploration. Efficiently managing all of our
    precious resources will maximize the opportunities for creative and
    safe programs and projects. In the Office of the Chief Financial
    Officer, from Headquarters to Field Centers, we are working hard to
    improve the financial management of our Agency.
        Reviewed by NASA's Office of Inspector General, the plan represents
    the collaborative efforts of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer,
    the Integrated Enterprise Management Program (IEMP), and the Office of
    Infrastructure and Administration. The plan articulates NASA's strategy
    for eliminating the root cause(s) of the four reportable conditions
    (three of which are material) identified in the 2005 financial audit:
      --1. Financial Systems, Analyses and Oversight (material weakness)
      --2. Fund Balance with Treasury (material weakness)
      --3. Property, Plant and Equipment (material weakness)
      --4. Environmental Liabilities
        For each of the four reportable conditions and related
    recommendations, the plan defines NASA's goals, objectives, strategies,
    activities, due dates and responsibilities for execution. Progress will
    be monitored throughout the execution of this plan.
        Our ability to improve the quality of the Agency's financial
    information, to better manage our assets, and to achieve business
    efficiencies is dependent on the successful execution of this plan with
    the support of the entire NASA community. NASA has always had a well-
    deserved reputation for successfully meeting challenges head on, and
    this effort will be no different.
                                               Gwendolyn Sykes,
                                               Chief Financial Officer.
        introduction to the financial audit corrective action plan (cap)
        This corrective action plan addresses the material and significant
    weaknesses identified through NASA's 2005 financial audit. Those
    weaknesses reflect process, system and internal control issues that
    cross NASA functional areas, including procurement, infrastructure and
    administration, systems management, and financial management.
    Accordingly, this plan was developed through a coordinated effort with
    all NASA organizations that have a critical role and primary
    responsibility in the execution of it. In addition, the NASA Office of
    the Inspector General (OIG) reviewed and provided comments to this
    plan. The OIG's comments were considered in the final product.
        For each noted weakness, this plan documents the goals, objectives,
    strategies and planned corrective actions determined to be the most
    effective and efficient means for mitigating or eliminating those
    weaknesses. Through the course of implementation, changes to strategies
    or corrective actions may be either required or advisable given new
    information or events. The implementation approach and progress toward
    plan goals and objectives will be monitored, and plan adjustments made,
    by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer on a regular and ongoing
    basis until the those goals and objectives have been met. Status
    reviews will be conducted with NASA's Deputy Administrator.
        The weaknesses addressed in this plan are not new to NASA's 2005
    financial audit. They have, in fact, been noted in previous NASA
    financial audits. Significant work has already been performed to
    address them. The repetition of the recommendations is an indication of
    the technical complexity and organizational breadth of the issues. This
    corrective action plan reflects the work planned by NASA organizations
    over the next year, and highlights the work performed in previous years
    to address the audit recommendations. The integration of strategies and
    plans from multiple NASA organizations is an important success factor
    and reduces the risk of potentially disjointed, non-complementary
    solutions to common issues. Several other challenges to the successful
    accomplishment of plan goals have been identified and will be managed
    throughout plan implementation. These include:
      --Resource constraints. Sufficient resources to appropriately staff
            the corrective action implementation teams have not yet been
            fully secured. Authority for additional Office of the Chief
            Financial Officer staff at both Headquarters and Field Center
            locations was provided by NASA's Administrator in 2005. The
            OCFO is in the process of hiring additional staff to support
            NASA's financial management improvement initiative efforts.
            While additional resources are being secured, there is a
            familiarization and training lag before these resources are
            fully able to contribute. Other areas of NASA, such as asset
            management, which are critical to the success of this plan,
            have identified additional staffing needs for which staffing
            plans will be developed. These plans will identify staffing
            shortfalls and associated options.
      --Change management. The anticipated process changes necessary to
            resolve NASA's identified weaknesses, particularly in the area
            of Property, Plant & Equipment (PP&E), will impact the way
            business is conducted at NASA. These changes will require a
            significant portion of NASA's workforce, both institutional and
            programmatic, to change the way they currently perform their
            daily activities. Communicating the need for change,
            documenting new procedures and delivering training are key
            elements embedded in each of the corrective action initiatives.
            Additionally, initiative owners will work with NASA leadership
            to build buy-in and support at the most senior levels of the
            organizations for the changes that must take place. The strong
            commitment provided by NASA's Executive leadership will be a
            major factor in overcoming this challenge.
      --External support. Some of the proposed strategies--such as those
            for PP&E and Environmental Liabilities--include changes to
            policy or procedures that will require support from NASA
            vendors and contractors. Just as process changes will impact
            employees' daily activities and procedures, so will they impact
            the activities and reporting requirements of NASA's vendors and
            contractors. Contract changes, procedural changes, reporting
            changes; all will take time and money to implement. Through the
            course of executing the improvement initiatives, the OCFO will
            be evaluating the risk, cost, benefit and trade-offs of each of
            the changes that may be required to ensure the actions taken
            are the most cost effective.
        While the challenges and risks are considerable, the strategies and
    plans presented in this corrective action plan are designed to achieve
    NASA's goals and objectives within the targeted timeframes.

                     CHAPTER 1: FINANCIAL AUDIT IMPROVEMENT
                    WHY NASA NEEDS A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN

        NASA's vision for Space Exploration is an ambitious and bold
    journey into areas of space that man has never visited and into areas
    of science and research that man has yet to fully comprehend or master.
    Complex research and development projects, like those at NASA, require
    effective project planning and management to meet quality, schedule and
    budget requirements. Having ready access to accurate and reliable
    financial information is critical for NASA's program and project
    managers to achieve their own technical goals. Budget constraints
    combined with the uncertainties inherent in primary research and
    development further highlight the need for effective program and
    project financial management information.
        While NASA's program and project managers are the ultimate users of
    financial information, NASA management and external stakeholders have
    an important need for information that helps them to prioritize the
    allocation of scarce Federal dollars. Congress and the White House must
    be assured that NASA is using its resources in the most effective
    manner to achieve the goals they have set for the Agency. Only through
    well designed and implemented processes and systems, effective internal
    controls and well trained and disciplined staff will the Agency be able
    to deliver the fidelity of financial information that is required.
        Today it is clear from audit reports and the OCFO's own analysis of
    its processes, systems and data that improvement is necessary before
    the required fidelity is achieved. This comprehensive and integrated
    financial audit corrective action plan is an important tool for
    organizing and efficiently managing NASA's financial audit
    improvements. The problems cited in IG audit reports did not appear
    overnight; nor will they disappear quickly, either. This plan is a
    realistic reflection of the time and effort required to make the
    necessary improvements.
        This plan takes a holistic view of the financial management
    challenges at NASA. It recognizes the interrelatedness of process
    across the organization; how problems in an operations process can
    ultimately contribute to problems with how costs are captured and
    reported in financial management processes. With that perspective, this
    plan identifies and resolves the root causes of NASA's financial audit
    weaknesses.

                        WHAT THE CAP IS AND WHAT IT DOES

        NASA's financial audit corrective action plan (CAP) is NASA's
    response to the financial audit recommendations made by IG auditors in
    the 2005 financial audit. The CAP is organized around the reportable
    conditions contained in the auditor's Report on Internal Control (NASA
    Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, pages 190-212).
    For each reportable condition, the plan is further organized by the
    specific recommendations contained in the Report on Internal Control.
    For each recommendation, NASA has developed, and has begun
    implementation of, logical, interdependent sets of specific actions
    that directly address that recommendation. The CAP lays out how NASA
    will address each recommendation made by the IG auditors. The
    graphicdepicts the layout of the plan for one sample reportable
    condition.

        The CAP is designed to provide NASA's framework for resolving the
    internal control and management weaknesses identified by the IG
    auditors. These extend beyond financial accounting into the operations
    of the agency. Effectively resolving the identified weaknesses will
    take a coordinated and integrated effort involving the support, buy-in
    and ownership of many NASA offices and directorates. Affected
    organizations have been involved in the creation of this plan, and, in
    many cases, have been assigned the primary responsibility for taking
    the necessary actions to resolve the identified weaknesses.
        The financial audit CAP is a living document. Performance against
    the plan will be monitored on a regular basis and initiatives will be
    adjusted as needed to ensure that results continue to meet the goals
    and objectives of the plan. The plan projects actions and target dates
    for resolving the issues. All projections are based on currently known
    information and may change over time.
            linking the cap to nasa's financial leadership plan (rp)
        In 2004, NASA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer published a
    four-year Financial Leadership Plan. This plan lays out the vision for
    financial management at NASA through three comprehensive goals:
      --1. Provide the Agency's Mission Directorates and Mission Support
            Areas with the financial knowledge, information and tools
            required to effectively manage programs, projects, institutions
            and overall NASA resources.
      --2. Ensure that all stakeholders have a clear understanding and
            accurate assessment of how NASA resources effectively and
            efficiently support NASA's vision.
      --3. Enable the OCFO workforce to provide world-class management and
            processes in support of the Agency's Mission Directorates and
            Mission Support Areas.
        Each of these four-year goals is supported by a set of one to two-
    year objectives. Each objective, or set of objectives, has associated
    with it initiatives intended to help NASA achieve that objective.
    Financial Leadership Plan initiatives are solution sets to known issues
    or improvements to current operations that contain specific activities
    scheduled, sequenced, and assigned in documented project plans. These
    initiatives are led by staff members from headquarters or one of the
    NASA Field Centers, and staffed by appropriate subject matter experts
    from across NASA. The graphic depicts the relationships throughout the
    planning process.

        This corrective action plan represents one set of initiatives that
    specifically addresses NASA's ability to provide accurate, reliable and
    timely financial information to decision-makers and external
    stakeholders. The Financial Leadership Plan includes other financial
    management improvement initiatives not directly linked to NASA audit
    recommendations.

                              MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT

        NASA's commitment to making financial management improvements is
    evident at all levels of the organization, not just in the Office of
    the Chief Financial Officer. This plan was developed through a combined
    effort of the owners and operators of both the financial and those non-
    financial processes that are contributing to the identified weaknesses.
    Through the sponsorship of NASA's Administrator and Deputy
    Administrator, the Agency is clear about the importance of resolving
    these outstanding management and internal control weaknesses. Several
    infrastructure elements are in place to help ensure the plan's success.
    OCFO Governance Structure
        The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has developed a
    governance structure that will help to guide and speed information flow
    during the implementation of the corrective action plan.
    Recommendations for change that result from implementation of the plan
    will be presented to either the OCFO Financial Steering Group or the
    Financial Executive Roundtable, depending on the scope and magnitude of
    the anticipated changes, for approval and disposition. These groups are
    made up of OCFO headquarters and Field Center leadership who will have
    the ultimate responsibility for implementing changes in NASA financial
    processes and systems. The use of the governance structure will add
    discipline to the corrective action process, and speed communications
    and implementation.
    Monthly and Quarterly Oversight
        Measuring progress against the corrective action plan begins with
    regular status reports from the initiative owners. The OCFO's program
    management function will asses progress, make project management
    recommendations, and suggest changes to specific initiatives, as
    necessary. Progress is measured both in terms of completed activities
    and assessments of work products.
        The OCFO will report on overall corrective action plan progress
    monthly to the Agency's Deputy Administrator. The Deputy Administrator
    has the authority to determine Agency improvement priorities and to
    address resource needs.
        The OCFO will provide regular updates to NASA's Inspector General
    and, as needed, with IG auditors.
    Enhanced Human Resources
        Having the necessary resources to implement the plan is a
    recognized challenge. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has
    received the authority to hire the staff and engage the contractors it
    needs to execute its responsibilities against the plan. The challenge
    lies in finding the right people at the right time, quickly
    familiarizing those people with the current issues, processes and
    systems, and doing all of this while managing the day-to-day operations
    of the office.

          CHAPTER 2: THE ELEMENTS OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
              CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED BY THE NASA INSPECTOR GENERAL

        Each year the Inspector General (IG) conducts financial audits
    assessing NASA's operations and facilities as required by the Chief
    Financial Officers' Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-576) as amended. In
    2005, as in 2004 and 2003, the IG's independent public auditors
    determined that the scope of their work was not sufficient to enable
    them to express an opinion on NASA's financial statements.
        From the work that the independent public auditors were able to
    perform, they identified four reportable conditions, three of which
    they considered to be material. Each of these reportable conditions is
    a repeat condition from the fiscal year 2004 financial audit. A
    material weakness is an identified problem that may impact the accuracy
    and reliability of financial information. NASA is committed to
    implementing solutions that best resolve these weaknesses.
        The reportable conditions and NASA's goals, objectives and
    strategies for resolving them are contained in this section of the
    plan.
    Initiative Overviews
        Financial Systems, Analyses, and Oversight
        Fund Balance With Treasury
        Property, Plant & Equipment
        Environmental Liabilities
    1. Financial Systems, Analyses, and Oversight. (Material Weakness)
        ``Although progress was made [since the 2004 audit], significant
    financial management issues continue to impair NASA's ability to
    accumulate, analyze, and distribute reliable financial information.''
    (Reference: NASA Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report
    (PAR), Part 3, page 193)
                Background
        The implementation of NASA's Core Financial system in fiscal year
    2003 represented a major transformation in NASA's financial management
    systems and processes. Immediately following the completion of the
    system's implementation, challenges were identified in system
    processing, configuration and capabilities. While challenges from this
    major change were anticipated, it has taken longer than expected to
    stabilize the financial environment. The current version of NASA's
    automated financial system has capability limitations which have
    required the definition and implementation of compensating controls.
    Examples of these limitations include:
      --Audit trails within the system do not distinguish between source
            documents of original entry and correction transactions
      --Lack of fully automated support for adjustments to prior year
            obligations
        The independent public auditors specifically noted that
    documentation regarding significant accounting events, recording of
    non-standard transactions, and post closing adjustments, as well as
    corrections and other adjustments made in connection with data
    conversion issues must be strengthened. (Fiscal Year 2005 PAR, page
    211)
        Future versions of the Core Financial system promise to provide
    capabilities to improve the integrity of budgetary ledger postings and
    to further automate accounting processes. NASA has scheduled a system
    update early in fiscal year 2007 that is intended to address many of
    these issues through enhanced system capabilities and process
    improvements.
        Implementation of a Commercial Off-the-Shelf Software (COTS)
    package in the federal government has presented its own set of
    challenges. The alignment of NASA processes and its enterprise resource
    planning (ERP) system is an ongoing activity.
                Goal
        NASA's goal for resolving this material weakness is to improve
    NASA's financial management system and processes to achieve accurate,
    reliable and timely financial information.
                Objective
        Supporting that goal is the objective of developing core standard
    agency-wide procedures and tools to review and validate that financial
    data and processes are consistent with authoritative guidance issued by
    FASAB, Treasury and OMB.
                Strategy
        The strategy for achieving that objective is to develop and
    implement procedures to identify and validate financial data and
    processes in IEMP, to strengthen internal controls to ensure
    consistency with authoritative guidance, and to implement automated
    financial system enhancements to complement process changes.
                Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2005
        NASA made progress in 2005 towards resolving this material
    weakness, which was also identified in 2004. Highlights of these
    accomplishments are provided below, grouped by categories identified in
    the 2004 financial audit.
        ``Lack of Integrated Financial Management System'' (2004 Audit
    Finding Category)
      --NASA eliminated noted weaknesses in its Integrated Enterprise
            Management (IEM) information technology control environment
            (NASA's financial system is one component of IEM). The
            weaknesses were identified in three control areas: access
            controls; systems software; and, segregation of duties.
      --NASA implemented compensating controls and improved system
            capabilities to improve its ability to identify and document
            correction activities within the Core Financial system. With
            these improvements, audit trails have been established by
            identifying and linking certain system transactions between
            original, reversal and re-post transactions.
      --Through systems configuration analysis and modification, and
            through the reconciliation of remaining data anomalies from
            conversion in 2003, NASA generated fully supported year-end
            financial statements directly from the Agency's Core Financial
            system. Year-end balances are now supported by the Core
            Financial system.
        ``Financial Statement Preparation and Analysis'' (2004 Audit
    Finding Category)
      --Through policies and procedures established in NASA's Financial
            Management Requirements (FMR), Volume 19, Periodic Monitoring
            Controls Activities, all NASA Field Centers are performing 23
            financial reconciliations or verifications on a scheduled
            basis. Field Center CFOs are providing certifications for each
            reconciliation or verification to Headquarters, where they are
            tracked and reviewed.
      --NASA Field Center CFOs and Deputy CFOs reviewed and certified the
            year-end financial management data from their Centers, and
            included a statement that all corrections were fully
            documented, for audit trail purposes, in NASA's official audit
            tracking system.
      --NASA developed and adopted enhanced financial statement validation
            procedures and checklists for use at all Field Centers and
            Headquarters. Through the preparation of extensive crosswalks
            between NASA and Treasury financial data, the Agency has
            validated that both the data and the business rules for posting
            data into specific accounts are accurate. Also, checklists are
            now in place for the preparation of financial statements. These
            checklists are reviewed and certified by Field Center
            management.
        ``Additional Controls Need to be Strengthened'' (2004 Audit Finding
    Category)
      --NASA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) increased
            staffing to support financial management activities. In May
            2005, NASA's OCFO received relief from a NASA-wide hiring
            freeze and approval to increase its headcount in fiscal year
            2006 at Headquarters by 34 positions (including 2 Senior
            Executive Service leadership positions) and at Field Centers by
            50 positions. As of February 1, 2006, 90 percent of these
            positions have been filled.
      --NASA published the first volumes of the NASA Financial Management
            Requirements (FMR) to ensure complete and consistent
            application of NASA financial management policy. The FMR has
            been distributed to appropriate Headquarters and Center staff.
      --NASA established a financial quality assurance function to provide
            direction and focus for NASA Internal Control activities. This
            function has developed an agency-wide Policy Compliance Review
            Plan, a corporate quality assurance strategy, and a
            comprehensive internal control strategy to ensure that the
            agency is positioned to successfully meet OMB A-123
            requirements. In addition, all Centers have received internal
            control training in conjunction with quality assurance visits.
      --Other noted weaknesses have been addressed through compensating
            controls for subsidiary ledgers and systems, including
            property, to ensure the quality of data entered into the
            official accounting system. A new system was created for
            Contractor held assets, Contractor-Held Asset Tracking System
            (CHATS). CHATS implementation has provided additional
            validation and checks and balances for property data input.
                Approach for Fiscal Year 2006
        NASA has developed a comprehensive set of planned corrective
    actions to further address each of the financial audit recommendations.
    Following is a set of tables that track each planned corrective action
    to the recommendations in the financial audit report.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Material Weakness or Reportable
      Condition with Recommendation      Number                        Planned Corrective Action (PCA)                       Target Date for PCA Completion
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #1 Financial Systems, Analyses,                Perform a review and verification to ensure that information presented   11/15/06
     and Oversight (1a-g)                           in the Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) is accurate and
    Recommendation 1a: Continue to                  consistent with OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements.
     improve its financial reporting       PCA 1   Submitted fiscal year 2005 PAR to AGA for feedback on the construction,  Complete
     and internal quality review                    content, and applicability of the report, as part of the CEAR Award
     procedures to reasonably assure       PCA 2    process.                                                                3/31/06
     that information presented in         PCA 3   Review results of CEAR review process..................................  3/31/06
     the Performance and                   PCA 4   Gather feedback on PAR from OMB and Mercatus...........................  2nd Quarter
     Accountability Report is                      Review latest revision of OMB Circular A-136 and incorporate required
     accurate and consistent with the      PCA 5    updates for fiscal year 2006 PAR.                                       3/31/06
     requirements of OMB Circular A-               Review PAR's from other Federal Agencies to identify potential areas of
     136, Financial Reporting              PCA 6    improvement for NASA.                                                   Draft by 7/31/06. Final by 11/15/
     Requirements.                                 Incorporate improvements in the Management Discussion and Analysis        06
                                           PCA 7    (MD&A) section of the PAR as appropriate based on feedback received.    Volume to accompany Draft MD&A
                                                   Verify accuracy of the MD&A portion of the PAR and compile supporting     by 7/31/06. Volume to accompany
                                                    documentation.                                                           Final by 11/15/06
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #1 Financial Systems, Analyses,                Modify the statement of net cost (SONC) to provide a breakdown of net    To coincide with 2nd quarter
     and Oversight (1a-g)                           costs consistent with strategic plan and in the Management Discussion    financial statements
    Recommendation 1b: Configure the                and Analysis (MD&A) section by major line of business.                  ................................
     Core Financial Module to provide      PCA 1   Defined the requirements and breakdown for the SONC; submitted a         Complete
     a breakdown of net costs                       Service Request (SR) to initiate the development of the report in SAP;
     consistent with programs                       and reviewed the requirements with IEMP Competency Center (CC).
     identified in NASA's strategic
     plan and in the Management's
     Discussion and Analysis (MD&A)
     section of the financial
     statements.
                                           PCA 2   Developed the report in SAP based on the requirements submitted by OCFO  Complete
                                                    and coordinate with OCFO as needed.
                                           PCA 3   Test (jointly) the report to ensure the report meets the requirements,   2/21/06
                                                    with OCFO approval required for production client.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #1 Financial Systems, Analyses,        PCA 1   Generate monthly financial statements and review prior to interim and    Monthly
     and Oversight (1a-g)                           year-end reporting dates to ensure completeness. Produce monthly
    Recommendation 1c1: Ensure that                 financial statements from SAP.
     systems used to prepare the           PCA 2   Establish a cross-Agency task team to develop monthly schedule with due  3/1/06
     financial statements are                       dates for data processing, reconciliations, verifications, feedback,
     complete and have been                         and reports.
     sufficiently tested prior to
     interim and year-end reporting
     dates.
                                           PCA 3   Distribute monthly schedule to Centers.................................  3/3/06
                                           PCA 4   Implement monthly schedule.............................................  3/31/06
                                           PCA 5   Established procedures to ensure that all system configuration changes   Complete
                                                    are subject to regression tests and year-end test procedures which
                                                    validate that changes made to the Core Financial System are valid,
                                                    appropriate, and do not adversely impact end-to-end business
                                                    processes, including external reporting.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #1 Financial Systems, Analyses,        PCA 1   Update Center workplans to capture remaining data anomalies from fiscal  2/10/06
     and Oversight (1a-g)                           year 2003.                                                              ................................
    Recommendation 1c2: NASA should        PCA 2   Coordinate corrective actions with Centers and IEMP Competency Center    3/31/06
     continue to validate its data                  to determine necessary steps.                                           ................................
     within the Core Financial Module      PCA 3   Monitor progress until remaining data anomalies are resolved...........  6/30/06
     to resolve issues with data
     integrity that date back to the
     system conversion in fiscal year
     2003 to ensure that date is
     accurate and complete.
                                           PCA 4   Perform monthly reconciliation of financial data residing in the core    Monthly
                                                    financial system.
                                           PCA 5   Verify that Centers and IEMP Competency Center are executing standard    Monthly
                                                    reconciliation procedures.
                                           PCA 6   Review results of Center and IEMP Competency Center reconciliation       Monthly
                                                    procedures.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #1 Financial Systems, Analyses,        PCA 1   Establish and implement an error correction and prior period adjustment  2/28/06
     and Oversight (1a-g)                           procedure consistent with the FASAB (SFFAS #7) standards that allows
    Recommendation 1c3: In addition,                for the tracking of these items within SAP.
     NASA should continue to develop
     a long-term solution within IEMP
     to identify, support, and track
     adjustments made to general
     ledger accounts.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #1 Financial Systems, Analyses,        PCA 1   Established safeguards to ensure that system does not pay cost in        Complete
     and Oversight (1a-g)                           excess of obligation.                                                   ................................
    Recommendation 1d: Continue to         PCA 2   Develop compensating procedures to analyze Business Warehouse on a       3/31/06
     devise short-term and long-term                quarterly basis to ensure that liabilities are appropriately recorded.  ................................
     resolutions to IEMP systematic        PCA 3   Formed cross-functional task team to review current process and          Complete
     and integration issues. Lack of                identify opportunities for reengineering.
     internal controls surrounding
     costs in excess of obligations
     and downward adjustments.
                                           PCA 4   Conducted benchmarking sessions with Dept. of Education, Dept. of        Complete
                                                    Agriculture, and others to identify best practices and lessons learned
                                                    for funds control, cost collection, and accrual processing.
                                           PCA 5   Drafted proposed process design and high level requirements............  Complete
                                           PCA 6   Obtained OCFO and Center CFO approval of SAP Version Update Project      Complete
                                                    Scope Document which incorporated requirements from task team efforts.
                                           PCA 7   Incorporate process design into Core Financial System Update Version     3rd Quarter Fiscal Year 2006
                                                    proj-  ect.
                                           PCA 8   Implement Core Financial System Version Update project, including        10/1/06
                                                    improved process designs.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #1 Financial Systems, Analyses,        PCA 1   Developed an Operational Level Agreement (OLA) for the IEMP Competency   Complete
     and Oversight (1a-g)                           Center and Agency CFO to operate under that prescribes their            ................................
    Recommendation 1e1: Formally                    respective responsibilities pertaining to master data management and    ................................
     document roles and                             periodic closing processes.                                             ................................
     responsibilities of                   PCA 2   Finalized the OCFO Governance Structure, which encompasses the decision  Complete
     Headquarters, IEMP Competency                  making process within the financial management community and its        ................................
     Center, and center financial                   communications with IEMP.                                               ................................
     management personnel across all       PCA 3   Developed performance metrics for Center CFOs to monitor compliance      Complete
     levels to ensure that                          with OCFO priorities, strategies, and objectives, as documented in the
     appropriate responsibilities are               Financial Leadership Plan.
     aligned with job functions and
     that accountability is achieved
     at each level.
                                           PCA 4   Shared performance metrics with Center CFO's...........................  2/1/06
                                           PCA 5   Begin capturing metric information.....................................  2/28/06, utilizing 1st Quarter
                                                                                                                             data
                                           PCA 6   Conduct quarterly evaluations or progress with Center CFO's............  Quarterly beginning 4/26/06
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #1 Financial Systems, Analyses,        PCA 1   Continue to hire as expeditiously as possible up to allocated ceiling..  On-going
     and Oversight (1a-g)
    Recommendation 1e2: Additionally,
     we recognize that resource
     limitations may constrain NASA's
     ability to execute its mission.
     Management should continue to
     focus on filling key vacancies
     within the financial management
     organization.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #1 Financial Systems, Analyses,        PCA 1   Issued quarterly report documenting all training conducted during the    Complete
     and Oversight (1a-g)                           1st quarter of fiscal year 2006.                                        ................................
    Recommendation 1f: Provide             PCA 2   Utilize a needs assessment and develop a training plan for providing     3/31/2006
     additional ``hands-on'' training               the following training: Processing transactions, Performing account
     for financial personnel--at                    analyses and reconciliations, Maintenance of supporting documentation,
     headquarter and center levels--                and Financial reporting requirements.
     to ensure that they understand
     their roles in processing
     transactions, performing account
     analyses and reconciliations,
     maintaining supporting
     documentation, and updating
     their knowledge of financial
     reporting requirements.
                                           PCA 3   Execute and monitor the plan on a quarterly basis......................  9/30/2006
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #1 Financial Systems, Analyses,        PCA 1   Produce a series of management reports to facilitate financial           Monthly 15th working day
     and Oversight (1a-g)                           management oversight and analysis; e.g. aging, delinquencies, prompt
    Recommendation 1g: Develop                      payment, etc. Suite of reports will be continually enhanced based on
     reports from the Core Financial                management requests.
     Module to facilitate reviews and
     ensure that aging of
     transactions and open items, un-
     liquidated obligations, grants,
     and other key areas are
     periodically assessed,
     researched, and resolved.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Further Research Required to Resolve Fund Balance With Treasury
            Differences. (Material Weakness)
        ``Although we were informed that many errors from fiscal year 2003
    were resolved, significant errors within the accounting system were
    still being identified by NASA in fiscal year 2005. Fund balance with
    Treasury reconciliation processes were ineffective in fiscal year 2004
    and much of fiscal year 2005, through the date of our visits to
    centers, but it is our understanding that steps taken by NASA in the
    last quarter of the year are believed by NASA management to have
    substantially improved the effectiveness of such reconciliations.''
    (Reference: NASA Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report
    (PAR), Part page 201)
                Background
        NASA's Fund Balance with Treasury represents monies the agency can
    spend for authorized transactions. Each month, NASA is required to
    reconcile the difference between the amount of money it reports to be
    in its Fund Balance with Treasury with the amount that Treasury reports
    to be in the account. The 2005 audit identified FBWT as a material
    weakness due to unreconciled discrepancies between Treasury's balance
    and the balance represented in NASA's Core Financial system.
        IG auditors indicated that documentation to support the application
    of rigorous reconciliation processes was not available for their
    review. (Fiscal Year 2005 PAR, page 211)
                Goal
        NASA's goal for resolving this material weakness is to fully
    reconcile the agency's Fund Balance with Treasury and to process any
    future corrections in a timely manner.
                Objective
        Supporting that goal is the objective of monitoring Fund Balance
    With Treasury on a regular basis to ensure compliance with NASA and
    Treasury policies, procedures and practices.
                Strategy
        The strategy for achieving that objective is three-fold:
      --1. Center CFOs will perform monthly reconciliations and certify
            their completion with Agency OCFO.
      --2. Agency OCFO will perform monthly reviews of Center
            reconciliations to ensure compliance with reconciliation
            policies and procedures.
      --3. OCFO will institute management reviews and monitor compliance
            with the following metrics:
        --a. Reconciliations performed every 30 days
        --b. Corrections processed within 120 days of discovery
                Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2005
        In fiscal year 2005, NASA enhanced its funds distribution process
    through policy and procedural changes to minimize manual and repetitive
    process steps. The Agency will continue to refine and implement
    enhancements.
        In addressing previous year differences in NASA's Fund Balance with
    Treasury, the OCFO reduced the out of balance condition through the
    following actions:
      --Developed and implemented a standard process that requires a review
            and approval process be followed to correct errors, supported
            with appropriate documentation.
      --Implemented across all Field Centers standard reconciliation
            procedures and associated templates to monitor FBWT status on a
            monthly basis. These procedures will help to ensure timely
            resolution of variances. The procedures make up the Periodic
            Monitoring Controls Activities handbook, Volume 19 of NASA's
            Financial Management Requirements (FMR). Policy was also
            implemented requiring each Field Center CFO to review and
            certify to Headquarters monthly that the reviews and
            reconciliations were performed, and are complete and accurate.
      --Developed and implemented a standard process to review and approve
            the write-off of unsupportable differences.
      --Established teams to resolve identified FBWT issues at targeted
            NASA Field Centers.
      --Implemented monthly Agency cash monitoring procedures and
            guidelines to track reconciliations and the timely resolution
            of differences.
      --Implemented across all Field Centers an automated cash
            reconciliation tool to identify differences and augment timely
            processing of transactions.
                Approach for Fiscal Year 2006
        NASA has developed a comprehensive set of planned corrective
    actions to address each of the financial audit recommendations.
    Following is a set of tables that track each planned corrective action
    to the recommendations from the financial audit report.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Material Weakness or Reportable
      Condition with Recommendation      Number                        Planned Corrective Action (PCA)                       Target Date for PCA Completion
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #2 Further Research Required to        PCA 1   Status Center CFOs to ensure monthly reconciliations are performed.....  Monthly
     Resolve Fund Balance with             PCA 2   Review and monitor compliance with Fund Balance with Treasury policies,  Monthly
     Treasury Differences (2a).                     procedures, and practices.                                              ................................
    Recommendation 2a: We recommend        PCA 3   Perform a CRCS to SAP reconciliation and resolve differences...........  6/30/06
     that NASA continue to improve         PCA 4   Established Fund Balance with Treasury metrics.........................  Complete
     its current procedures to ensure      PCA 5   Assess compliance with Fund Balance with Treasury policies, procedures,  3/31/06
     that all reconciling items are                 and practices.
     thoroughly researched, timely
     resolved, and reviewed by
     appropriate center and
     headquarters OCFO personnel. In
     addition, NASA should retain all
     reports and documentation used
     in performing its fund balance
     with Treasury reconciliations to
     ensure that detailed, documented
     explanations and resolution
     actions are maintained for a
     sufficient audit trail.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Enhancements needed for controls over Property, Plant and Equipment
            (PP&E) and materials. (Material Weakness)
        ``Consistent with prior year audit reports, our review of property,
    plant, and equipment (PP&E), totaling approximately $35.0 billion,
    identified serious weaknesses in internal control that, if not
    corrected, could prevent material misstatements from being detected and
    corrected in a timely manner.'' (Reference: NASA Fiscal Year 2005
    Performance and Accountability Report (PAR), Part 3, page 203)
                Background
        NASA Mission-related products are designed, built and deployed to
    carry-out the agency's exploration and research objectives. Given the
    unique scientific nature of the agency's work, these programs, such as
    Hubble and the International Space Station, are highly specialized, and
    to develop and maintain them, NASA contracts with industry. Often
    multiple contractors participate in the design and creation of these
    products in a cycle that, in some cases, has taken as long as forty
    years from concept through deployment.
        The primary issues related to NASA property, plant and equipment
    are threefold:
      --1. the accuracy and completeness of the financial records--meaning
            the classification (expense or asset) and valuation--of project
            property, plant and equipment, as well as the coding of
            documents at obligation that carry through expenditure
      --2. the accountability for the materials and equipment used in the
            construction of physical products
      --3. the accuracy and timeliness of contractor provided financial
            information--including the classification (expense or asset)
            and valuation--related to the status of contractor-held
            property, plant and equipment and materials
        First, given the complex and unique nature of its research and
    development work, NASA and its respective auditors and GAO
    representatives, have struggled over the years to define and agree upon
    an approach, and related policies, for reporting program and product
    costs in a manner consistent with FASAB guidelines. This impacts the
    classification of PP&E costs (asset or expense), the valuation of
    interim and finished products, and, ultimately NASA's financial
    statements.
        Second, as contractors develop parts and components of an overall
    product, they ship them from the manufacturing location to various NASA
    Centers across the country in preparation for assembly into a finished
    product. NASA has been working to ensure proper control over these
    components.
        Finally, preparation of NASA's financial statements is dependent
    upon contractors and their NASA program counterparts reporting costs
    associated with developing these parts. The accuracy, completeness and
    timeliness of this reporting must be improved.
        IG auditors specifically noted that controls relating principally
    to contractor-held PP&E and materials and NASA-held assets in space
    (Theme Assets) need improvement, and that headquarters oversight needs
    improvement. (Fiscal Year 2005 PAR, page 211)
                Goal
        NASA's goal for resolving this material weakness is to improve the
    agency's internal controls over its property, plant and equipment
    (PP&E).
                Objective
        Supporting that goal are the objectives to:
      --1. Develop core standard agency-wide procedures and tools to review
            and validate that financial data and processes are consistent
            with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for
            Federal reporting entities.
      --2. Provide relevant, accurate, reliable, and timely financial
            property information to stakeholders.
                Strategy
        The strategy for achieving that objective has six elements:
      --1. Define Asset Categories (NASA-Held vs. Contractor-Held and
            Program Related vs. Non-Program Related), based on published
            accounting guidance (e.g. SFFAS #'s 6, 8, & 11 and SFAS #2)
      --2. Define appropriate accounting treatment of an asset based upon
            its use (Alternative vs. No Alternative Future Use), based on
            published accounting guidance (e.g. SFFAS #'s 6, 8, & 11 and
            SFAS #2);
      --3. Review NASA's revised capitalization policy with OMB, OIG, GAO,
            FASAB, and E&Y;
      --4. Review and revise, as necessary, the PP&E policy regarding the
            accounting treatment;
      --5. Engage the entire NASA community (OCFO, Project/Program
            Managers, Procurement, Logistics and Facilities) in improving
            PP&E financial management and internal controls;
      --6. Define, Communicate, Train and Implement procedures for
            effective Property, Plant & Equipment Lifecycle Management, to
            include valuation of Assets.
                Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2005
        NASA has made great strides toward enhancing its internal controls
    and addressing the weaknesses in NASA's accounting for its Property,
    Plant and Equipment and Materials.
        NASA successfully implemented a system to account for assets held
    by contractors, Contractor Held Asset Tracking System (CHATS) to
    address the potential concern of inadequate supervisory reviews of the
    Contractor submitted data and have a data base for the costs of these
    fixed assets. The system is currently being used and was in place when
    DCAA conducted its audit of agreed upon procedures on NASA's largest
    contractors. As a part of the audit, DCAA reviewed whether Contractor
    policies and procedures provide for detecting and correcting errors
    reported on the Monthly CHATS reports.
        The DCAA reviews were conducted closer to the end of the fiscal
    year than had previously been the case in order to support the asset
    balance on NASA's Balance Sheet at year-end. DCAA was also tasked with
    reviewing contractor compliance in resolving prior year reported
    deficiencies. Preliminary feedback from the draft reports indicates
    that progress has been made during fiscal year 2005 toward resolving
    these deficiencies.
        NASA now performs the following activities to ensure
    reconciliations of asset transfers between contractors:
      --Completion of a monthly validation checklist requiring that all
            transfers of $1 million or more be supportable with appropriate
            documentation.
      --Preparation monthly of a Transfer Matrix report by the NASA Center
            property accountants. This report, using the data in CHATS,
            lists all transfers made between and among contractors or with
            NASA Field Centers. This reporting will assist NASA
            Headquarters with readily identifying inter-contract transfers.
        In keeping with the auditors' recommendation to fundamentally
    revisit its approach to capitalizing property, NASA developed a
    proposed change in accounting policy for the capitalization of Theme
    Assets--the largest portion of NASA's PP&E. This policy would require
    NASA to expense all costs as incurred for projects that are exploratory
    in nature, that have no alternative future uses and are not reusable or
    repairable (i.e. research and development type costs). The change would
    more accurately reflect the nature of program and project expenditures.
        NASA also implemented the Project Management Information
    Improvement (PMI\2\) initiative in 2005. PMI\2\ is a project work
    breakdown coding structure that tracks a project from obligation
    through expenditure. PMI\2\ benefits include:
      --Alignment of the Agency's technical WBS with the financial coding
            structure
      --Data standardization and configuration management
      --Consistent and standardized tool for project management reporting
      --Timely, consistent and reliable information for management
            decisions
      --Program and Project managers gain the ability to view detailed
            costs and obligations at the project level
                Approach for Fiscal Year 2006
        NASA has developed a comprehensive set of planned corrective
    actions to address each of the financial audit recommendations.
    Following is a set of tables that track each planned corrective action
    to the recommendations from the financial audit report.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Material Weakness or Reportable
      Condition with Recommendation      Number                        Planned Corrective Action (PCA)                       Target Date for PCA Completion
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #3. Enhancements Needed for            PCA 1   Defined Asset Categories based on published accounting guidance and      Complete
     Controls Over Property, Plant,                 NASA's business environment--Finalized how property will be classified
     and Equipment and Materials.                   (e.g., NASA Held and Contractor Held Program Related vs. Non-Program
    Recommendation 3a1: We recommend       PCA 2    Related, etc.).                                                         Draft Complete
     that NASA continue to focus on                Completed draft defining appropriate accounting treatment per Asset      Final Complete
     resolving prior year issues and                category and use (based on published accounting guidance and NASA's
     completing its implementation of      PCA 3    business environment).                                                  2/28/06
     suggested recommendations and         PCA 4   Provide OMB, GAO, FASAB, and OIG NASA's revised capitalization policy..  3/15/06
     developing detailed corrective        PCA 5   Adjust capitalization policy as necessary..............................  3/31/06
     action plans.                                 Flowchart and document desired business processes and procedures, and
    Recommendation 3a2a: In addition,               define roles and responsibilities for effective PP&E lifecycle
     we once again place further                    management, to include valuation of Assets.                             ................................
     emphasis on recommending that                    Incorporate OIG comments in the flow charts as appropriate and        ................................
     NASA fundamentally revisit its        PCA 6       disposition.                                                         3/31/06
     approach to capitalizing                      Identify and coordinate changes that must be made to existing policies
     property.                                      Agency-wide.
    Recommendation 3a2b: Documenting,                 Meet with HQ Mission Support Offices (Procurement, Office of Chief
     analyzing, and implementing                       Engineer, Institutions & Management, etc.).
     robust control changes from end                  Develop a list of potential associated policy impacts
     to end to all categories of PP&E.                Coordinate with HQ Mission Support Offices to obtain draft policy
    Recommendation 3a3: We also                        updates.
     recommend that all NASA
     obligation documents and
     expenditures be coded to
     identify whether they relate to
     a property acquisition to create
     a control for comparison to
     recorded property transactions
     and subsidiary ledgers, be they
     NASA activities or contractors.
                                           PCA 7   Assign cross-functional teams to participate in Working Groups to re-    4/3/06
                                                    engineer, as necessary, NASA's current processes and procedures.
                                           PCA 8   Engage working groups to:                                                5/31/06
                                                      Identify process and system(s) gaps between current processes and
                                                       desired processes, as well as, identifying solutions. Specifically,
                                                       teams will focus on the following areas of PP&E Lifecycle
                                                       management:
                                                        Planning
                                                        Acquisition
                                                        Management Control and Accountability
                                                        Disposition
                                                      Ensure that OIG comments regarding specific corrective actions are
                                                       incorporated in the flow charts as appropriate and dispositioned.
                                                      Review Compensating Control Team recommendations and other relevant
                                                       material.
                                                      Establish single points of accountability within the PP&E Lifecycle.
                                                      Establish a certification requirement (Center Director for Real and
                                                       Personal Property/Chief Engineer or Mission Director for Program
                                                       Assets).
                                                      Establish format for new RSSI disclosure reporting requirements.
                                           PCA 9   Develop Process Implementation Plan for Changes Agency-wide............  6/16/06
                                          PCA 10   Complete interim policy and process changes, as necessary, to include    9/29/06
                                                    the following:
                                                      Program/Project Management policies
                                                      Procurement policies
                                                      Financial policies
                                                      Logistics policies
                                                      Facilities policies
                                                   Conduct focused communication forums with accountable parties to
                                                    discuss their roles and responsibilities within the PP&E lifecycle.
                                                   Prepare analysis and record changes to reported fixed assets and
                                                    expenses based upon revised policies.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Internal controls in estimating NASA's Environmental Liabilities
            require enhancement.
        ``During our review of NASA's environmental liability estimates
    totaling $825 million as of September 30, 2005, and related disclosures
    to the financial statements, we continued to note weaknesses in NASA's
    ability to generate an auditable estimate of its unfunded environmental
    liabilities (UEL) and to identify potential financial statement
    disclosure items because of a lack of sufficient, auditable evidence.''
    (Reference: NASA Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report
    (PAR), Part 3, page 207)
                Background
        Due to the highly complex scientific and technical nature of NASA's
    work, the Agency's scientific and engineering community develops the
    actual estimates for environmental liabilities. The OCFO provides
    accounting expertise in the form of policy and guidance to the
    Environmental Liabilities staff responsible for developing these
    estimates. Once estimates have been developed, they are then delivered
    to the OCFO accounting staff, who records them in NASA's Core Financial
    system.
        IG auditors specifically noted weaknesses in NASA's ability to
    generate auditable unfunded environmental liability estimates and to
    identify disclosure items. (Fiscal Year 2005 PAR, page 211)
                Goal
        NASA's goal for resolving this material weakness is to validate the
    tools and methodology used to prepare the unfunded environmental
    liability estimates.
                Objective
        Supporting that goal are the objectives to:
      --1. Develop standard agency-wide procedures to be applied by all
            Environmental Liability staff on the preparation, reviewing,
            validation, and processing of environmental liabilities, in
            agreement with guidance from statutory agencies (OMB, FASAB,
            Treasury, and State and local Governments).
      --2. Ensure that all staff involved in the development of the
            environmental liability estimates and in the review, analysis,
            and processing of those estimates in the financial system are
            properly trained.
                Strategy
        The strategy for achieving that objective is to improve existing
    environmental liability procedures and implement needed internal
    controls to assure the improved procedures are adhered to and followed.
    NASA will also provide proper training to all staff involved in the
    development of the environmental liability estimates and the review,
    analysis, and processing in the financial system.
                Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2005
        The OCFO and the Environmental Management Division (EMD) developed
    a close working partnership to coordinate policies, processes and
    controls for estimating NASA's environmental liabilities. Members from
    both offices met weekly to identify and resolve issues, and determine
    the most appropriate steps toward improved estimates.
        NASA has developed and conducted training in conjunction with the
    EMD for staff that provides guidance and policy for estimating
    environmental liabilities. The training outlines the process for
    estimating environmental liabilities, explains Federal accounting
    standards and guidance, defines quality review processes, and addresses
    existing audit findings.
        NASA has developed and published documented procedures for
    estimating environmental liabilities. These procedures have been
    distributed to all Centers.
                Approach for Fiscal Year 2006
        NASA has developed a comprehensive set of planned corrective
    actions to address each of the financial audit recommendations.
    Following is a set of tables that track each planned corrective action
    to the recommendation from the financial audit report.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Material Weakness or Reportable
      Condition with Recommendation      Number                        Planned Corrective Action (PCA)                       Target Date for PCA Completion
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #4 Internal Controls in                PCA 1   Update the plan developed in response to the 2004 management letter      2/28/06
     Estimating NASA's Environmental                comments.
     Liability Require Enhancement.        PCA 2   Host the second joint, OCFO and Environmental Management Division        3/31/06
    Recommendation 4a1: We recommend                (EMD), training course to expedite the overall resolution of the
     that NASA expedite the progress                action plan.
     on the action plan it developed
     in response to our fiscal year
     2004 audit.
                                           PCA 3   Develop and have available for auditor review, the Environmental         5/31/06
                                                    Liability estimates based on 2nd quarter data.
                                           PCA 4   Conduct review of Environmental Liability estimation process...........  7/15/06
                                           PCA 5   Complete final liability adjustments based on current information......  9/15/06
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #4 Internal Controls in                PCA 1   Update 2004 plan to include action and timeframes for addressing and     2/28/06
     Estimating NASA's Environmental                resolving center and facility specific findings.
     Liability Require Enhancement.
    Recommendation 4a2: In addition,
     we recommend that NASA include
     in the action plan the center
     and facility specific findings
     that were identified during the
     fiscal year 2004 audit as
     opposed to the current work plan
     steps which address only those
     fiscal year 2004 observations
     that were thought to be common
     across all centers or apply to
     headquarters.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #4 Internal Controls in                        Jointly assess the effectiveness of UEL internal controls, cost
     Estimating NASA's Environmental                estimation process and data gathering procedures.                       ................................
     Liability Require Enhancement.        PCA 2   Develop review/internal control checklist..............................  3/1/06
    Recommendation 4a3: We also            PCA 3   Conduct site visits utilizing checklist................................  7/15/06
     recommend that NASA's OCFO            PCA 4   Generate report for management review and disposition..................  8/30/06
     perform a self-assessment of the      PCA 5   Incorporate changes as necessary based on joint assessment.............  9/15/06
     Unfunded Environmental Liability
     (UEL) estimation and aggregation
     process. This assessment should
     focus on identifying additional
     weaknesses in NASA's UEL system
     that went undetected because no
     final estimates were available
     for our review at the time of
     our audit.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #4 Internal Controls in                PCA 1   Assess utilization of IDEAL parametric model...........................  8/30/06
     Estimating NASA's Environmental       PCA 2   Incorporate changes as necessary.......................................  9/15/06
     Liability Require Enhancement.
    Recommendation 4b: NASA should
     also continue to validate the
     tools (including IDEAL) and
     methodology used at the center
     and facility level to prepare
     the UEL estimates.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        chapter 3: initiative workplans
        Initiative Workplans
      --Financial Systems, Analyses, and Oversight
      --Fund Balance With Treasury
      --Property, Plant & Equipment
      --Environmental Liabilities

                                    APPENDIX
                                    ACRONYMS

        CAP--Corrective Action Plan
        CC--Competency Center
        CEAR--Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting
        CFO--Chief Financial Officer
        COTS--Commercial off-the-shelf
        CRCS--Central Resources Control System
        DCFO--Deputy Chief Financial Officer
        EMD--Environmental Management Division
        E&Y--Ernst and Young
        FASAB--Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
        FBWT--Fund Balance With Treasury
        GAO--General Accounting Office
        HQs--NASA Headquarters
        IDEAL--Integrated Data Evaluation and Analysis Library
        IEMP--Integrated Enterprise Management Program
        MD&A--Management Discussion and Analysis
        NASA--National Aeronautics and Space Administration
        OCFO--Office of the Chief Financial Officer
        OIG--Office of the Inspector General
        OLA--Operational Level Agreements
        OMB--Office of Management and Budget
        PAR--Performance and Accountability Report
        PCA--Planned Corrective Action
        PP&E--Plant, Property and Equipment
        RSSI--Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
        SAP--Systems, Applications, and Products
        SFAS--Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
        SFFAS--Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards
        SONC--Statement of Net Cost
        SR--Service Request
        UEL--Unfunded Environmental Liability

        Question. Given this state of affairs, how can the Agency oversee
    the expenditure of its appropriated resources and ensure that its
    programs and operations are efficient and effective?
        Answer. NASA relies upon an integrated system of management
    controls to oversee the expenditure of its appropriated resources.
    These controls span multiple phases of resource management from the
    planning, programming and distribution of appropriations through to the
    application and use of those resources across the entire program and
    project lifecycle.
        With respect to oversight of appropriated funds, as appropriations
    are received and distributed, the Agency tracks them from appropriation
    to apportionments to allotments to commitments and to obligations to
    help ensure that NASA is tracking resource allocation through the
    program lifecycle.
        Efficient and effective programs and operations begin with planning
    and budgeting. NASA's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution
    (PPBE) is NASA's four-phased methodology for aligning resources in a
    comprehensive, disciplined approach that supports NASA's Mission and
    directs Agency resources toward the priorities set forth by Congress
    and the President. PPBE also enhances financial management quality and
    accountability by linking the Agency's financial, programmatic, and
    institutional communities for mission success. PPBE provides Agency
    leaders with timely, accurate, and useful information about where
    initiatives are and are not succeeding. This process helps to ensure a
    budget that supports the Agency's strategic priorities and that is
    traceable to outcomes.
        As NASA's Mission Directorates use these funds to accomplish their
    goals, NASA's three-Council governance structure helps to ensure that
    they are doing so efficiently and effectively. The Strategic Management
    Council serves as NASA's senior decision-making body for strategic
    direction and planning by determining NASA's strategic direction and
    assessing Agency progress in achieving NASA's Mission and the Vision
    for Space Exploration. The Operations Management Council oversees
    Center, or institutional, operations and performance while the Program
    Management Council (PMC) serves as NASA's senior decision-making body
    for base-lining and assessing program/project performance to ensure
    successful achievement of NASA Strategic Goals and outcomes.
        Below the PMC-level, NASA enforces the Agency's governance
    principles of ``Checks and Balances'' and ``Balance of Power'' by
    balancing and integrating the activities and authorities of the Chief
    Engineer, the Independent Technical Authority, Program Managers, and
    the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance.
        Funding requirements are set by law for government programs. The
    Independent Technical Authority not under program direction sets
    technical requirements. And, schedule requirements are set by a variety
    of factors, usually external and outside the Program Manager's control.
        In NASA, the Chief Financial Officer ensures funding compliance.
    Appropriate third parties monitor funding and schedule compliance. The
    Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) ensures compliance with
    the established critical technical requirements. Schedule compliance is
    assured by third parties depending on the source of the schedule
    requirements. For these reasons, the Chief Financial Officer, the IG,
    the Independent Technical Authority, and OSMA are not in the Program
    Manager's chain of command.
        Three independent inputs give the NASA Administrator the confidence
    that the Agency has exercised appropriate checks and balances of
    Authorities, Responsibilities, and Accountabilities.
        Below these governing structures, NASA employs financial management
    and programmatic staff at each of its centers. These individuals have a
    thorough knowledge of each of the Agency's programs and projects,
    including the resources budgeted and expended to support those programs
    and projects. The processes and procedures employed to monitor program
    and project spending and performance were in place before the
    implementation of NASA's new financial management system in fiscal year
    2003. As the Agency continues to stabilize its centralized financial
    management system, our center financial management staff, as well as
    programmatic staff, continue to monitor and analyze the financial
    health of the Agency's programs and operations.
        Question. What steps has NASA taken to prevent this type of ADA
    violation from occurring again?
        Answer. NASA agrees with each of the OIG's specific
    recommendations:
      --OIG Recommendation #1.--We recommend that the Administrator report
            the ADA violations for the funds carried over from fiscal year
            2004 to fiscal year 2005 for each affected account and for the
            $30,413,590 to the President of the United States through the
            OMB Director, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
            President of the Senate, and the Comptroller General of the
            Government Accountability Office, as required by the ADA and by
            OMB Circular A-11, section 145.7.
      --OIG Recommendation #2.--We recommend that the Administrator request
            a comprehensive demonstration by the OCFO that the
            appropriations available to be spent in fiscal year 2006 can be
            traced from appropriation to apportionments to allotments to
            commitments and to obligations to help ensure that NASA is not
            violating the ADA for fiscal year 2006.
        In addition to accepting and acting upon NASA's OIG two specific
    recommendations, NASA has implemented specific correction actions in
    the OCFO. These corrective actions include:
      --Certification of reconciliations by responsible financial
            management personnel.
      --Demonstrated effective system controls that prevent obligations
            from exceeding apportionment control totals.
      --Conducted Appropriations Law training for 30 staff in January 2006
            and 8 in March 2006.
      --Conducted OMB Circular A-11 training for 24 staff in February 2006.
            An additional course is currently being scheduled.
      --Increased the staff size in the Funds Distribution branch.
      --Documenting enhanced internal controls, to include:
        --Logging and tracking of all OMB apportionment requests and
                approvals; and
        --Reconciliation of OMB apportionments to Congressionally approved
                Operating Plans to the funds loaded into the Agency's
                centralized financial system.
        Question. What is NASA's current total estimated cost to develop,
    implement, and maintain the Integrated Enterprise Management Program,
    including those costs incurred to resolve data integrity issues
    resulting from the initial implementation of the Core Financial system?
        Answer. The development and implementation costs for NASA's
    Integrated Enterprise Management Program, including all the hardware,
    software, civil service labor, contractor labor, travel, and overhead
    costs associated with re-engineering business processes and
    implementing business systems for human capital management, financial
    management, asset management, and procurement and contract management
    are estimated at $842 million for the development years 2000 through
    2011, consistent with the fiscal year 2007 President's budget request.
        Of this total development estimate, $82.6 million is being expended
    to update NASA's financial system, which, among other benefits, helps
    resolve data integrity issues identified with the initial core
    financial system implementation. Approximately, $50 million per year is
    expended operating and maintaining this business systems environment.

                                 ADA VIOLATION

        Question. The NASA Office of Inspector General reported that NASA,
    as a result of actions by officials in the Office of the Chief
    Financial Officer violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA). According to
    the IG report, the ADA violations occurred because of the lack of
    internal controls within the OCFO and OCFO personnel's misunderstanding
    of OMB apportionment requirements.
        The NASA Administrator agreed to report the ADA violations to the
    President of the United States through the OMB Director, the Speaker of
    the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate, and the
    Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office, as
    required by the ADA.
        Question. When will NASA provide its report on the ADA violations?
        Answer. By letter dated June 23, 2006, the Administrator informed
    the Committee of activities initiated regarding recommendations
    concerning two ADA violations identified by the NASA Office of
    Inspector General (0IG) in a report dated April 10, 2006. The
    Administrator outlined his commitment to ensuring that the root causes
    of the violations are addressed and that effective remedies are
    instituted for all of NASA's financial management processes and
    systems. As part of those efforts, and in conformance with the
    requirements of OMB Circular No. A-11 and NASA Policy Directive
    9050.3E, Administrative Control of Appropriations and Funds, the
    Administrator received a determination from NASA's Office of the Chief
    Financial Officer regarding the identification of the alleged
    responsible party for the violations. That individual, no longer
    employed with the Agency, in response to notification and the
    opportunity to comment, has raised matters that the Administrator
    determined require further investigation.
        Accordingly, the Administrator directed an intra-Agency team, to
    include representatives from the NASA Offices of Program Analysis and
    Evaluation, Human Resources, and General Counsel, to conduct a de novo
    review of the situation. That review is now expected to be completed by
    July 31, 2006, and is expected to provide the requisite information for
    the Administrator to accurately and comprehensively meet reporting
    obligations per OMB Circular No. A-11 and complete formal
    notifications.
        Question. Who was responsible for the ADA violations?
        Answer. As indicated above, the Administrator has directed an
    intra-Agency team to conduct a de novo review that is expected to
    provide the requisite information to enable him to accurately and
    comprehensively meet reporting obligations per OMB Circular No. A-11
    and complete formal notification, including identification of
    responsible party/parties.
        Question. Has disciplinary action been considered as required by
    OMB Circular No. A-11?
        Answer. This determination will be an outcome of the review
    currently underway.
        Question. The IG's report noted that the OCFO was unable to
    determine the exact amount of the ADA violations because of the
    unreliability of NASA's financial management system. Given this state
    of affairs, how can the Agency oversee the expenditure of its
    appropriated resources and ensure that its programs and operations are
    efficient and effective?
        Answer. The ADA violations occurred because of NASA's failure to
    file timely reapportionment requests with the Office of Management and
    Budget and not as a result of NASA's financial management system.
        NASA has implemented corrective actions to ensure that
    reapportionment requests are filed in a timely manner and that internal
    controls are in place. These actions include:
      --Certification of reconciliations by responsible financial
            management personnel.
      --Demonstrated effective system controls that prevent obligations
            from exceeding apportionment control totals.
      --Conducted Appropriations Law training for 30 staff in January 2006
            and 8 in March 2006.
      --Conducted OMB Circular A-11 training for 24 staff in February 2006.
            An additional course is currently being scheduled.
      --Increased the staff size in the Funds Distribution branch.
      --Developing and documenting enhanced internal controls, to include:
        --Logging and tracking of all OMB apportionment requests and
                approvals; and
        --Reconciliation of OMB apportionments to Congressionally approved
                Operating Plans to the funds loaded into the Agency's
                financial system.
        Question. In committing the ADA violations, did NASA expend any
    funds beyond those appropriated by Congress or, in a way that was
    inconsistent with Congressional direction?
        Answer. NASA did not expend funds beyond those appropriated by
    Congress or in a way inconsistent with Congressional direction. NASA's
    violations were the result of its failure to file timely
    reapportionment requests with the Office of Management and Budget. The
    first violation occurred during fiscal year 2005 when NASA authorized
    and obligated in fiscal year 2005 the unobligated balance of
    congressionally appropriated two-year funds from fiscal year 2004
    without requesting an fiscal year 2005 reapportionment as required by
    OMB Circular A-11. The second violation occurred when NASA failed to
    submit a timely reapportionment request to OMB in August 2004 to match
    congressionally approved Operating Plan changes.
        Question. Were any NASA programs or operations adversely impacted
    financially or operationally as a result of the ADA violations?
        Answer. No programs were impacted as a result of the first
    violation and no funding adjustments were necessary. To correct the
    second violation, NASA de-obligated $30 million of fiscal year 2004
    funds and used fiscal year 2005 funds to correct the overobligation.
    These de-obligated funds remain available to the impacted Mission
    Directorate to make any future upward adjustments to contracts awarded
    in fiscal year 2004.
        Question. What has NASA done to assure itself that it has not
    committed any additional ADA violations?
        Answer. NASA's Office of the Inspector General has recommended, and
    NASA has agreed, that NASA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer
    demonstrate to the NASA Administrator that the appropriations available
    to be spent in fiscal year 2006 can be traced from appropriation to
    apportionments to allotments to commitments and to obligations to help
    ensure that NASA is not violating the ADA for fiscal year 2006.
        Question. What steps has NASA taken to prevent this type of ADA
    violation from occurring again? Will there be any independent analysis
    to affirm that the measures implemented by NASA will prevent future ADA
    violations, in any form?
        Answer. NASA has implemented corrective actions to ensure that the
    weaknesses that led to the violations have been addressed. These
    actions include:
      --Certification of reconciliations by responsible financial
            management personnel.
      --Demonstrated effective system controls that prevent obligations
            from exceeding apportionment control totals.
      --Conducted Appropriations Law training for 30 staff in January 2006
            and 8 in March 2006.
      --Conducted OMB Circular A-11 training for 24 staff in February 2006.
            An additional course is currently being scheduled.
      --Increased the staff size in the Funds Distribution branch.
      --Developing and documenting enhanced internal controls, to include:
        --Logging and tracking of all OMB apportionment requests and
                approvals; and
        --Reconciliation of OMB apportionments to Congressionally approved
                Operating Plans to the funds loaded into the Agency's
                financial system.
        NASA's Office of the Inspector General has recommended, and NASA
    has agreed, that NASA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer
    demonstrate to the NASA Administrator that the appropriations available
    to be spent in fiscal year 2006 can be traced from appropriation to
    apportionments to allotments to commitments and to obligations to help
    ensure that NASA is not violating the ADA for fiscal year 2006.

                                  NASA CENTERS

        Question. One of the dilemmas that NASA faces is that some centers
    are better positioned to have future work on missions than others at
    NASA. It has been mentioned that an option NASA would entertain is to
    move the work to centers that will be having difficulty in the next few
    years in order to keep skilled workers at NASA. While NASA should do
    all it can to keep the skilled employees at NASA, I am concerned that
    this option could marginalize all of the centers.
        How do we ensure this does not occur? Could you please provide this
    Committee with an update on how NASA has eliminated, or is eliminating,
    the uncovered capacity related to facilities? Could you please explain
    how moving research projects from a Center with low uncovered capacity
    to a Center with high uncovered capacity reduces NASA's total uncovered
    capacity?
        Answer. As the NASA Administrator testified to both the House and
    Senate, ``NASA is focusing its efforts to solve its uncovered capacity
    workforce problems through a number of other actions, including the
    assignment of new projects to research Centers that will strengthen
    their base of in-house work, the Shared Capability Assets Program that
    should stabilize the skills base necessary for a certain specialized
    workforce; the movement of certain research and technology development
    projects from certain centers not suffering from uncovered capacity
    problems to centers that are; retraining efforts at field centers so
    that the technical workforce can develop new skills; and the pursuit of
    reimbursable work for projects and research to support other government
    agencies and the private sector through Space Act Agreements.''
        None of the above actions marginalizes any one Center. NASA's goal
    is not to make all Centers equally unhealthy, nor to transfer work
    packages so that all Centers end up with equal or near-equal amounts of
    future work on NASA missions. Such an expectation is not realistic.
    Rather the goal is to increase the future work at Centers currently
    having difficulty sustaining workforce skills, while not damaging the
    ability of the other Centers to maintain their workforce skills that
    are critical to NASA's future. NASA Centers cannot grow in size, but
    must effectively use other field Centers to get programs done. Work
    moving between Centers will be done with assurances that it does not
    aggravate an existing or potentially problematic situation. The
    decisions associated with work transfers, however, will not be based
    solely on numbers, but also on skills' availability and mismatches. For
    example, NASA may seek to place additional scientific work at a Center
    with uncovered scientists, but may move a limited number of engineering
    tasks (where its engineering workforce is saturated with work) to
    another Center that has uncovered engineers with the necessary skills
    to complete those tasks. Such transfers allow the Agency, ``to do all
    it can to keep skilled employees at NASA.''
        Regarding facilities and related workforce, NASA continues to pare
    the infrastructure wherever we can do so without compromising our
    mission. This is an ongoing process. To date, the workforce has been
    reduced by over 900 people through buyouts. Eligible employees for
    buyouts included those associated with excess infrastructure.

                                  PROCUREMENT

        Question. This Committee has consistently noted their concern about
    NASA's lack of transparency in contracting practices as well as
    significant cost overruns. These issues have also been recognized by
    the GAO and the NASA IG.
        What is the Agency doing to improve its management of these
    programs in order to reduce its vulnerability to additional cost
    overruns?
        Answer. Over the past three years since the GAO and IG reports were
    issued, NASA has implemented a number of initiatives aimed at improving
    its cost estimating performance. These include an overarching
    initiative called Continuous Cost Risk Management, which requires the
    NASA project management, and cost estimating community to identify
    elements in projects, which have the potential to induce high cost and/
    or schedule risk. CCRM goes on to include methods for tracking these
    risks throughout the life cycle and methods for applying cost risk
    dollars toward risk mitigation. The proper use of cost risk analysis
    itself has been greatly emphasized by the Agency as a new tool in its
    programmatic planning process. All major projects are now required to
    perform a cost risk analysis to identify the range of cost that is
    indicative of the risk of projects. Based on the cost risk analysis,
    the Administrator is requiring projects to budget to an independent
    cost estimate (ICE) that generally achieves a 70 percent level of cost
    confidence.
        Other improvements in NASA cost estimating includes the
    institutionalization of a new cost data collection system, the Cost
    Analysis Data Requirement (CADRe) which takes ``snapshots'' of each
    project's technical, programmatic and cost status at 5 key milestones
    across the project life cycle. The CADRe forms the basis of estimate
    for ICEs, which are being performed by the Independent Program
    Assessment Office within the Program Analysis and Evaluation
    organization at NASA Headquarters. All CADRe submissions are being
    maintained in a new NASA cost estimating data base, ONCE (One NASA Cost
    Engineering Data Base) for the use of the NASA cost estimating
    community.
        All of the above efforts should lead to a vastly improved ability
    to estimate projects more accurately at their outset and at the time
    the Agency makes a formal commitment to OMB and Congress, which is at
    Preliminary Design Review (PDR). After PDR, Earned Value Management
    (EVM) systems are being set up and used by ongoing projects to manage
    cost throughout the balance of the life cycle.
        It must be remembered that NASA projects often include cutting edge
    technology, which makes accurate cost estimation much more difficult.
    But better initial cost estimating and the use of EVM to manage the
    fiscal health of projects once underway, should significantly reduce
    the Agency's vulnerability to cost overruns.

                       NASA'S UNOBLIGATED BALANCE GROWTH

        Question. The Committee recognizes that NASA is authorized to
    obligate funds over a 2-year period, and that a research and
    development agency like NASA is expected to carry over some unobligated
    funds at the end of each fiscal year. While the Committee recognizes
    that NASA can use unobligated funds to help transition from one fiscal
    to the next, there is no firm guidance on how much NASA should carry
    over from year to year. NASA's balance of unobligated funds has more
    than tripled from $616 million at the end of fiscal year 2000 to $2.1
    billion at the end of fiscal year 2005.
        Please explain to the Committee why these balances have built up at
    NASA?
        Answer. First and foremost, let us assure you that all of these
    funds will be obligated within the assigned Mission Directorate or
    Office and all of these funds are needed to carry out NASA's missions.
    These are not ``extra'' funds that can be used to offset potential
    reductions to NASA's fiscal year 2007 budget request or to support
    unrequested activities. All of NASA's unobligated funds are needed to
    carry out the Agency's planned activities, and our multi-year resource
    planning strategy requires all of these funds. Unobligated funds are
    simply not yet committed under a binding agreement (e.g., grant or
    contract). Thus, the Agency has plans in place and needs all of its
    appropriated funds.
        There are several reasons why the unobligated balances have been
    increasing over the last few years. There has been a tremendous amount
    of change at NASA over the last several years, and many factors
    associated with those changes have contributed to an increasing
    unobligated balance. Effective in fiscal year 2004, we began
    implementation of a new financial system, and also implemented full
    cost management, budgeting, and accounting. As a result of these
    changes, unobligated balances increased for several reasons. Labor
    dollars embedded in the programs initially caused the slowing of
    funding allocation and distribution throughout the Agency. Providing
    the Mission Directorates (MDs) with full cost funding resulted in
    increased funding being held at Headquarters. The new funds
    distribution process slowed down the release of funding to the Centers,
    which led the centers to seek more forward funding at the beginning of
    the fiscal year in order to cover labor and other expenses.
        In addition, there were several programmatic changes that
    contributed to this instability. The Columbia accident required a major
    shift in resources, curtailing many planned activities. The Vision for
    U.S. Space Exploration announced January 2004, required redirection of
    about $11 billion over five years. The Exploration Systems Architecture
    Study identified some major shifts in budgetary resources, curtailing
    many technology activities to provide more funding for major
    development projects. Increasing levels of earmarks for NASA have had
    the effect of slowing program definition and the release of funding.
    Overall, through all these major changes over the last few years, there
    has been less program definition at the start of the fiscal year for
    guidance to be distributed down to the NASA Centers, and Centers have
    been slower to obligate given the rate of change and the uncertainty
    surrounding all these changes, and maturing definition of major
    programs such as Constellation.
        NASA recognizes this increasing trend over the last several years,
    and is working to reverse the trend. As of May 19, 2006, NASA had
    obligated 97 percent of our fiscal year 2005 appropriations ($535
    million is not yet obligated), and approximately 50 percent of our
    fiscal year 2006 appropriations ($8.1 billion is not yet obligated).
    NASA has definite plans for all of these unobligated funds. The funds
    include a total of $304 million for construction of facilities.
        While NASA does not consider the levels of fiscal year 2005 and
    fiscal year 2006 unobligated funds to be unreasonable, we are working
    to expedite the obligation process where possible, and, as required in
    the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 109-108), have begun reporting
    prior year, unobligated balances to the Committees on Appropriations on
    a quarterly basis.
        Question. What is the minimum amount of unobligated funds that NASA
    needs to transition from one fiscal year to the next? How much in
    unobligated funds does NASA believe it needs for other reasons?
        Answer. There is no general minimum amount of unobligated funds
    that can be applied generically. Over the past 2 months, NASA has
    performed its standard midyear ``phasing plan review'' that has
    consisted of an in-depth review of its expenditures down to the project
    and Center levels at all NASA installations. Both the current status of
    obligations and forecasts for expenditures has been scrutinized and
    monthly spending plans throughout the remainder of fiscal year 2006
    have been developed. Note that our 61 programs involve thousands of
    contractual actions for obligating funds across the Agency and at all
    Centers. In developing our spending plans, these procurements were
    viewed for each of the 555 projects within their respective program.
    The purpose of this standard in-house review was to ensure that we are
    allocating and spending our resources in the most efficient manner, and
    to ensure that we have the correct level of apportioned funding at the
    appropriate points in time for our programs. Projections for
    unobligated balances are about 9 percent at the Agency level, and range
    from a low of 2 percent for the Aeronautics Research Mission
    Directorate, to a high of 16 percent for the Science Mission
    Directorate. Program management at all levels at both NASA Headquarters
    and the Centers have participated in this expenditure review, and agree
    that these levels of unobligated balances are appropriate in order to
    ensure a smooth transition from one fiscal year to the next without a
    lapse in funding that could prompt potential work stoppages.
        Question. Has NASA ever submitted a request for more new budget
    authority than it can realistically use?
        Answer. No. NASA has never submitted a request for more new budget
    authority than it can realistically use.

                BANKING FUNDS FOR CREW EXPLORATION VEHICLE (CEV)

        Question. At a House Science Committee hearing in February, Dr.
    Griffin acknowledged that NASA is ``banking'' funds to smooth the
    funding profile for the CEV.
        Is NASA using a portion of past unobligated balances to bank
    funding for CEV? For how many additional fiscal years will NASA
    continue this practice? Is NASA banking funds to smooth the funding
    profiles of other major development efforts?
        Answer: The development profile for the Constellation program
    requires a funding curve that peaks in fiscal years 2008, 2009, and
    2010.
        This is the normal profile for hardware development efforts that
    maximizes the chances of Program success and provides the basis for any
    cost confidence evaluation.
        Confronted with a flat Agency budget, Constellation's management
    strategy is to carry unobligated fiscal year 2006 funds into fiscal
    year 2007 and use uncosted funds from fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year
    2008 to cover the peak requirements in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year
    2010 (the years that the funds will be costed).
        These carry-in funds will be used to smooth the overall
    constellation development funding curve for all the Constellation
    development projects, including Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Crew
    Launch Vehicle (CLV), Launch and Mission Systems (LMS), and Exploration
    Communication and Navigation Systems (ECANS).
        Current plans are to obligate money on the CEV contract that will
    be signed early this fall and on the CLV and LMS contracts that will be
    signed in 2007. As much as 90 percent of these funds will be obligated
    by the end of the fiscal year.
        NASA's strategy of using carry-in to smooth out the peak funding
    requirements is prudent use of multi-year funding to maintain schedule
    and reduce total costs.

                          LUNAR ROBOTIC ORBITER (LRO)

        Question. NASA recently announced that a small secondary payload
    has been selected to accompany the Lunar Robotic Orbiter mission in
    2008. NASA noted that the secondary mission should cost no more than
    $80 million.
        What is the current cost estimate for this secondary LRO mission?
        Answer. NASA has decided on the Lunar Crater Observation and
    Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) as its secondary payload on the Lunar
    Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission. Per NASA's original request for
    information requirements, the LCROSS vehicle should cost no more than
    $80 million. Integration for flight will cost an estimated $15 million.
    The total cost of LCROSS is therefore estimated to be $95 million.
        Question. Where is the funding coming from to pay for this
    secondary mission?
        Answer. The Lunar Precursor and Robotic Program (LPRP, formerly
    Robotics Lunar Exploration Program) has an existing funding line for
    ``Future Missions'', specifically designed to accommodate missions like
    LCROSS.
        Question. Did NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget or Initial Operating
    Plan specifically include the requirement or justification for this
    secondary mission?
        Answer. The LRO mission is still in formulation, and as a result,
    did not have an established life-cycle cost and program content at the
    time of either the fiscal year 2006 or the fiscal year 2007 budget
    submission. Critical Design Review (CDR) is scheduled for this fall.
        In NASA's fiscal year 2007 budget submission, NASA rebaselined LRO
    for launch on an EELV (from a Delta II). This change decreased risk to
    the LRO development by reducing pressure to retain large design
    contingencies and by eliminating a spacecraft spin stability issue
    related to its original Delta II launcher.
        As a result of the rebaselining to an EELV, NASA issued a request
    for information, in January 2006, to industry to provide secondary
    payload concepts to take advantage of the additional capacity afforded
    by the launch vehicle. NASA's requirements for the secondary payload
    were that it benefit the robotic lander program, cost no more than $80
    million for development, and not exceed 2,205 pounds (1,000 kilograms).
    After a competition involving NASA centers and industry, LCROSS was
    selected as a secondary payload in April 2006.
        The secondary payload is a cost-effective component of the overall
    LRO mission. It will provide an important capability to help determine
    whether water-ice is present in the Moon's polar cold traps. Total cost
    of the secondary payload is estimated at $80 million, to be funded
    within LPRP through fiscal year 2009. The secondary payload supports
    LPRP LRO Level-1 Requirements (RLEP-LRO-M70), which state that, ``The
    LRO shall identify putative deposits of water-ice in the Moon's polar
    cold traps at a spatial resolution of better than 500m on the surface
    and 10km subsurface (up to 2m deep).''
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                   UPPER MIDWEST AEROSPACE CONSORTIUM (UMAC)

        Question. The Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium (UMAC) is a
    collaboration of eight universities in a five state region that
    partners with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
    to take data gathered from NASA satellites and makes it available in
    everyday applications to educators, farmers, ranchers and residents in
    the Upper Great Plains.
        The group is headquartered at the University of North Dakota in my
    state. I was proud to help connect the University to NASA in the 1990s
    and have worked with NASA and my colleagues in Congress to support
    funding to continue this important work.
        Do you agree that UMAC and other groups like it play an important
    role in connecting more Americans to the work and breakthroughs at
    NASA?
        Answer. Groups that connect Americans to NASA's research increase
    the return the public receives on its investment in NASA. Features
    common among such groups are: use of data provided by NASA satellites,
    ties to the NASA-sponsored research community in academia and industry,
    and direct connection to providers of goods and services to the public
    and the organizations that serve the public. To the extent that UMAC
    and other groups exhibit these features, they can perform a valuable
    function.
        Question. What role do you see for groups like UMAC in the future,
    especially as it relates to new space and exploration missions?
        Answer. NASA is dependent on the university community for the
    successful implementation of its new space and exploration missions.
    Opportunities to participate in NASA's missions will be openly
    competed, and peer review will be used to identify the most outstanding
    opportunities for participation by the university community.
    Opportunities to participate will span the entire array of mission
    activities including development of flight hardware (instruments and
    full missions), development of data processing and data archiving
    systems, participation in science teams including science operations,
    and analysis of data returned from NASA missions.

                 WINDOW OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH FACILITY (WORF)

        Question. NASA once intended to install a facility, Window
    Observational Research Facility (WORF), on the International Space
    Station (ISS) within which various earth-observing instruments could be
    operated. The University of North Dakota has been developing AgCam, a
    sensor intended to operate on the WORF.
        Is the Window Observational Research Facility (WORF) scheduled to
    be installed on the International Space Station? If so, when?
        Answer. NASA has assessed its plans for the utilization of the ISS,
    and focused its research and technology development goals toward those
    activities that most closely support the Vision for Space Exploration.
    In this environment of limited opportunities for the launch of
    facility-class payloads, it is critical that utilization planning align
    as closely as possible with the needs of the human exploration planning
    effort. The only missions for which specific payloads have been
    manifested on the Space Shuttle are the first two Return to Flight
    missions. Consistent with the Vision, the Space Shuttle will be retired
    by 2010. Prior to its retirement, it will be utilized primarily for the
    assembly of the ISS. Our top priority will be to make each flight safer
    than the last. As we noted in our November 2004, correspondence to you
    on this topic, in the event that an appropriate future flight
    opportunity does become available, the WORF facility will be considered
    for delivery to the ISS.
        Question. If not, will it be possible to install small instruments,
    such as AgCam, on the ISS that make use of the optical quality window
    but do not use the WORF rack?
        Answer. The AgCam hardware has been designed and built to be
    operated in the WORF. The WORF would provide resources such as power,
    thermal control, data and mounting positions for operations of the
    AgCam. The hardware as designed could not operate independently of the
    WORF. It might be possible to redesign the AgCam hardware and its
    operations concepts, but it would require additional funding, testing,
    and development time. Even with such a redesign, it is unclear whether
    the redesigned hardware could achieve the expected scientific value
    without the WORF.

                                      DC-8

        Question. The University of North Dakota (UND) recently signed a 5-
    year agreement to operate the NASA DC-8 research flying lab. The
    transfer of the DC-8 from an in-house NASA operation to a UND operation
    has set a new precedent. To date, UND, on behalf of scientists
    everywhere has operated two missions, Stardust and INTEX-B with total
    success. I believe this approach has benefited education and public
    outreach.
        Does NASA see benefit in transferring some of its activities from
    NASA centers to universities and other research organizations?
        Answer. The success of the NASA program relies on partnerships with
    universities and other research organizations. It also relies on NASA
    maintaining core capabilities within the NASA Centers. In addition to
    the operations of the DC-8, NASA also relies on universities and other
    research organizations for activities such as the operation of the
    Hubble Space Telescope, operation of the Earth Science Distributed
    Active Archive Centers, and operation of the NASA Infrared Telescope
    Facility. NASA will consider proposals that offer benefits to both the
    science community and NASA.
        The NASA Centers have unique capabilities that are critical to the
    nation's preeminence in space science as well as to the successfully
    carrying out the NASA mission. In order to maintain ten healthy
    Centers, and in order to maintain critical core capabilities at the
    NASA Centers, it is necessary that certain activities remain at NASA
    Centers.

               GLOBAL EARTH OBSERVATION SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS (GEOSS)

        Question. Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) is an
    international program in earth-observing designed to inform decisions
    that benefit all humanity.
        What will be NASA's role in providing societal benefits in the
    Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS)?
        Answer. NASA's Earth science activity is closely coordinated
    through interagency and international activities such as the Climate
    Change Science Program, US Group on Earth Observations, and Joint
    Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology, as well as their
    international counterparts. The majority of NASA's space-based
    observations of Earth involve such international partnerships on the
    instruments and flight missions that comprise the space-based
    contribution to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).
        NASA Earth system science results in research and development of
    space-based observations and improved modeling capability are
    recognized as contributing nearly 46 instruments on 16 spacecraft for
    the international Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).
    NASA Earth science applications are recognized for collaborating with
    partners to benchmark integrated system solutions to each of the nine
    societal benefit areas highlighted in the Strategic Plan for a U.S.
    Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) and the 10-Year Plan for a
    Global Earth Observation System of Systems.
        NASA develops and uses innovative remote sensing approaches to
    provide new views of the Earth to improve predictive capabilities for
    weather, climate and natural hazards and benchmarks the capacity to
    contribute to societal benefits through decision support. As an
    example, NASA collaborations with EPA, USDA, and the FAA have resulted
    in benchmarks for integrated solutions for air quality Nowcasting,
    global crop assessments, and de-icing assessments for aviation safety.
        The observation and Earth system modeling techniques NASA develops
    and tests are a basis for future operational systems carried out by
    other organizations (most notably NOAA and USGS). Through
    collaborations, NASA observations are tested to determine their
    capacity to contribute to policy formulation and resource management
    through decision support systems.
        Question. Will there be a role for universities to develop and
    deliver benefits to the residents of their regions?
        Answer. In implementing its Earth science program, the NASA Applied
    Sciences Program conducts solicitations for ``Decision support through
    Earth Science Research Results'' to provide universities, private
    sector and others an opportunity to participate in extending the
    benefits of NASA sponsored observations and predictive capabilities
    through decision support tools. NASA involves the broad research
    community through solicitation of principal investigator-led satellite
    missions, technology and applications development, and a basic research
    program as well as focused research efforts tied more specifically to
    the results of our satellite programs. In particular, the university
    community is very strongly represented in these areas, and the research
    carried out at universities is critical to the education and training
    of the next generation of Earth and environmental scientists.
        Question. How seriously do the reductions in Earth Science limit
    the U.S.'s role in the international program?
        Answer. The International GEOSS and the U.S. IEOS include framework
    architectures that can accommodate and benefit from the observations
    and predictions/forecasts resulting from NASA research and development
    of space-based Earth observation systems; including the ground
    segments, data handling capacity, modeling, computing, knowledge, and
    applied sciences and system engineering.
        NASA's Earth Science budget contributes to GEOSS and fluctuations
    in NASA Earth Science funding have a corresponding effect on
    contributions to GEOSS. NASA's plans for research and development of
    Earth observation systems include support for national and
    international priorities and goals, including the U.S. IEOS and
    international GEOSS. The GEOSS is architected to benefit from the full
    scope of the results of NASA research and development programs, flight
    missions and applied sciences partnerships on benchmarking enhancements
    to integrated system solutions for the nine societal benefit areas.
    Reductions in NASA's Earth Science flight program budget in recent
    years directly impact the U.S. Earth Observing space-based capabilities
    and therefore the U.S. contributions to that aspect of GEOSS. An
    example is the delay of the Global Precipitation Measurement mission
    (GPM) that is based on an international collaboration and has been
    viewed as a prototype satellite constellation for GEOSS. Reductions in
    the R&A budget have an indirect and non-immediate impact on system
    contributions to GEOSS, by effectively delaying the utilization of
    Earth observations in research and, further on, the development of
    products and services.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin

        Question. There has been significant publicity about the ``muzzling
    of scientists'' by the Administration when their conclusions do not
    match the policies of the Administration. Because science requires
    freedom of thought and discussion, we are concerned that this muzzling
    could have a chilling effect on the critical work that scientists
    pursue, as they will be afraid to undertake work that may lead to
    conclusions that clash with Administration policy. Since it is in the
    national interest to ensure that scientific discovery is free and
    unconstrained by political ideology, we would like you to explain the
    efforts you are making to ensure that NASA scientists are free to
    present their findings both publicly and to the media, without any fear
    of public affairs oversight that could limit their speech.
        Answer. Earlier this year, NASA's Administrator assembled a policy
    development team comprised of NASA employees with science, legal, and
    public affairs backgrounds to review existing policies, identify ways
    to improve them, and develop Agency practices to maintain our
    commitment for full and open discourse on scientific, technical and
    safety issues. The team recently concluded their review of the existing
    NASA policies and has produced a substantially revised document: http:/
    /www.nasa.gov/pdf/145687main_information_policy.pdf
        In addition, the NASA Administrator issued an agency-wide statement
    on his views of Scientific Openness last February: http://www.nasa.gov/
    about/highlights/griffin_science.html
        The revised policy and the personal commitment by the NASA
    Administrator reaffirm the Agency's commitment to open scientific and
    technical inquiry and dialogue with the public.
        Question. Around the world, governments are taking aim at our
    aeronautics industry--increasing their investment and making
    aeronautics R&D a top priority. Meanwhile the United States continues
    to deemphasize aeronautic research. For example, while NASA continues
    to downsize and internalize its aeronautics program, implementation of
    the European Union's Vision 2020 is accelerating. This trend will have
    a serious impact on the nation's competitiveness, national security,
    and our position as the world's leader in aeronautics research. How
    does the fiscal year 2007 budget request address this trend?
        Answer. To address this question, one must first ask, what is
    NASA's role in helping to ensure that the United States maintains its
    ``edge'' in aeronautics? The answer is simply this: NASA's most
    important role in aeronautics is to provide technical leadership. And
    that is true regardless of budget.
        Over the past several years, many independent reviews by the
    National Research Council (NRC), the Aerospace Commission, and the
    National Institute of Aerospace (NIA) have all raised the concern that
    NASA needs to get back to the pursuit of long-term, cutting-edge
    research. Historically, that is what NASA aeronautics has been known
    for and that is what the Nation has relied upon NASA to provide. These
    concerns were raised independent of the budget, and the concerns were
    valid.
        The Aerospace Commission Report of 2002, commonly referred to as
    the ``Walker Report,'' stated that Government investment in long-term
    research will be essential for the United States to maintain its global
    leadership in aerospace. The report concluded that long-term research
    enables breakthroughs in new capabilities and concepts and provides new
    knowledge and understanding, often resulting in unexpected
    applications, and the creation of new markets. It also noted that
    industry has the responsibility for leveraging Government research and
    for transforming it into new products and services.
        NASA's Aeronautics program is currently undergoing a comprehensive
    restructuring to ensure that we have a strategic plan in place that
    enables us to pursue long-term, cutting-edge research for the benefit
    of the broad aeronautics community. A commitment to the pursuit of the
    cutting-edge, coupled with an unwavering commitment to technical
    excellence, will ensure a strong, positive impact on the U.S. aviation
    community.
        Question. Though I am concerned with the level of NASA funding for
    aeronautic research and development, I am equally concerned that a
    national aeronautics policy be created that is consistent with the
    government's historic role, to promote continued United States'
    leadership of civil and military aeronautics research. How will these
    cuts influence the national aeronautic policy? What progress has NASA
    made on the policy? When will a draft be released for comment? What
    input has NASA received from industry, academics and/or user groups on
    the national aeronautics policy?
        Answer. Work is currently underway on the creation of a National
    Aeronautics Science and Technology Policy. In anticipation of the call
    for a policy, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
    Committee on Technology chartered an Aeronautics Science and Technology
    (AS&T) Subcommittee in September 2005. The AS&T Subcommittee is co-
    chaired by NASA's Associate Administrator for Aeronautics Research and
    OSTP's Transportation and Aeronautics Representative. The AS&T
    Subcommittee is comprised of members from NASA, DOD (OSD, Air Force,
    Navy, Army), DOT (FAA), JPDO, DOE, DHS, DOC, EPA, NSF, NSC, and the EOP
    (OSTP, OMB, OVP, DPC and CEA). The development, publication, and, to
    some extent, execution through governance of the policy called for by
    statute, have been tasked to the AS&T Subcommittee. Round-table
    outreach discussions with industry and academia occurred in April 2006
    to ensure input from the stakeholder community. The policy is planned
    for completion by December 2006. A detailed implementation plan will
    follow completion of the National policy.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Shelby. For the information of the Senators and
    people in the audience on the subcommittee, we will review the
    fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department of Commerce
    on Wednesday, May 3, in room S-146 of the Capitol. At that
    time, the Secretary of Commerce will be with us to discuss the
    budget for the programs under his jurisdiction. Until then, the
    subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., Wednesday, April 26, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Wednesday,
    May 3.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:04 p.m., in room S-146, the
    Capitol, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Shelby and Mikulski.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS GUTIERREZ, SECRETARY

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
        I want to welcome all of you to the third hearing of the
    Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Subcommittee.
        We are pleased to have with us today the Secretary of the
    Department of Commerce. Mr. Secretary, the subcommittee
    appreciates your willingness to appear as a witness and discuss
    the needs of your Department.
        Overall, the Department of Commerce budget request for the
    2007 fiscal year is $6.1 billion. This is a decrease of nearly
    $300 million from the Department's fiscal year 2006
    discretionary funding level. The Commerce Department contains
    some of our Nation's most important economic development,
    economic analysis, and science and research agencies, including
    the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the National
    Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        The Department is staffed by some of the most dedicated and
    distinguished experts in their fields, including three Nobel
    Prize winners. These scientists, engineers, and economists are
    in high demand inside and outside of the Government, and I hope
    we can hold onto them, Mr. Secretary.
        The subcommittee is concerned, Mr. Secretary, about your
    Department's ability to maintain the level of qualified
    personnel required to provide such needed services to the
    Nation. I hope that you can provide us some assurances today
    that this budget request will not require reorganizations or
    restructuring that will put your ability to support these
    important personnel at risk.
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--or
    NOAA--remains one of our Nation's preeminent science agencies
    and represents nearly two-thirds of the Department's budget at
    $3.7 billion. NOAA provides important support for our Nation's
    fisheries, severe weather prediction, and navigation of the
    waters surrounding our country.
        Up-to-date and accurate maps of our navigable waters are
    critical to the shipping industry as well as the fishing
    industry, and I am hopeful that the budget before us today will
    allow NOAA to continue their work in this area.
        Some here today may be surprised to learn that nearly 90
    percent of our world's oceans remain unexplored. In fact, we
    have higher resolution maps of the entire surface of Mars than
    we do of the ocean floor. I am concerned about the lack of
    leadership and direction on ocean policy.
        Recent reports from the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S.
    Commission on Ocean Policy indicate that we are not doing
    enough to manage and preserve our ocean resources. As a Senator
    from a coastal State whose economy is strongly linked to our
    commercial ports, the fishing industry, and tourism, I am
    concerned about the health of our oceans, our fisheries, and
    the future of marine research.
        I would like to commend the Department for their efforts
    surrounding the recent hurricanes. Particularly, I would like
    to thank the men and women of the National Weather Service
    (NWS) and the NOAA corps.
        In an upcoming hearing, we will talk with Admiral
    Lautenbacher and Max Mayfield in more detail about hurricane
    preparedness and response. But I wanted you, Mr. Secretary, to
    know how much the entire gulf coast appreciates your
    Department's efforts. They have been on time in their
    predictions and accurate.
        We look forward to your testimony today. Your written
    testimony will be made part of the hearing record, and I hope
    you summarize whatever you care to.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you.
        Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And I, too, would welcome Secretary Gutierrez for his
    second hearing before the subcommittee. And just want to echo
    your statements in terms of concerns about NOAA and the
    outstanding contribution that it does in oceans and some of the
    others.
        When we think about the Department of Commerce budget, we
    really think about what it needs to keep America competitive
    and what we need to do to be able to innovate. We know that the
    President has outlined an innovation strategy, as well as our
    own colleagues, with the famous report now called ``Gathering
    Storm.''
        But when I think about the Commerce Department, we do think
    about innovation, where there will be new technologies
    developed that will lead to new products. The National
    Institute of Standards and Technology will create jobs and also
    set the standards so that the private sector can create jobs,
    manufacture or develop products or processes that then can go
    around the world.
        Our own Patent and Trademark Office, which is under your
    administration, also is the key first step to protecting an
    inventor's intellectual property.
        So, as we look at this year's budget, I want to look at
    what is it we are going to do to sponsor innovation and also to
    have an innovation-friendly government that protects patents
    and promotes free enterprise and the American know-how around
    the world.
        We have fantastic agencies within the Commerce Department.
    Several are located in Maryland. NOAA is headquartered in
    Silver Spring. And we have talked about how they focus on
    saving lives and saving property through their weather
    declarations, and also the very important role that they play
    in oceans management and fisheries management.
        The National Institute of Standards and Technology is in
    Gaithersburg and, again, sets those standards for reliability,
    security, doing important research, and then our census.
        So, but what we are concerned about, and I will discuss
    this, is the cuts. When we look at NOAA, the National Ocean
    Service is cut by 30 percent. Marine fisheries by 8 percent.
    NOAA research by 8 percent. We are grateful that the NOAA
    satellites are getting an increase because that is the bread
    and butter of forecasts. But we are afraid that we could get
    out of kilter there.
        In terms of NIST, we are very grateful to the fact that the
    President wanted to increase the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology budget, but it seems to be robbing
    Peter to pay Paul, taking out of the advanced technology
    program and manufacturing extension partnership. And we will
    talk about that.
        And last, but not at all least, among the many things we
    could talk about, I and, I know, my colleagues are concerned
    about the backlog of patents and what we can do in partnership
    to make sure that they are standing in line to buy American
    products. They are not standing in line to patent those
    products that are going to keep us a global force.
        So we look forward to your testimony and working with you.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, we welcome you again. You
    may proceed as you wish.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CARLOS GUTIERREZ

        Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Mikulski.
        If I may, Mr. Chairman, before I get started on my written
    statement, I would like to let you know that all tsunami
    warnings and watches have been cancelled. There was an
    earthquake this morning in Tonga, and we just got word that all
    the warnings and watches have been cancelled.
        So it looks like it wasn't a tsunami in the making. That is
    good news.
        Senator Shelby. Earthquake?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. Was the magnitude as high as----
        Secretary Gutierrez. Well, they took it from 8.1 to 7.8,
    which is still very high. But----
        Senator Shelby. So you think things are going to be okay?
        Secretary Gutierrez. That is what we are hearing.
        Senator Shelby. What you are hearing.
        Senator Mikulski. Praise the Lord.
        Secretary Gutierrez. I will probably give you the----
        Senator Mikulski. Praise the Lord and our sensors.
        Senator Shelby. That takes care of my first question.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Again, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Mikulski, I am pleased to present President Bush's fiscal year
    2007 budget request for the Commerce Department. It is a tight
    and targeted budget. It reflects the President's commitment to
    reducing the deficit while maintaining America's economic and
    competitive leadership.
        At the Commerce Department through each of our agencies, we
    promote economic opportunity for the American people. To
    support this vital mission, the President's total budget
    request for our Department is $6.1 billion, and I will briefly
    highlight some of the key components.
        For our NIST laboratories, which, as you rightly mentioned,
    Mr. Chairman, have produced three Nobel Prize winners, we are
    requesting $581 million. This includes an increase of $104
    million for research and development (R&D) in the physical
    sciences to begin to implement the President's 10-year American
    competitiveness initiative (ACI).
        The ACI funding will help advance innovative NIST research.
    It will also be used to start renovation at our NIST campuses.
    The Boulder facility especially is in desperate need of repair.
        For the International Trade Administration, the request is
    $409 million. These funds will support programs to ensure that
    U.S. companies and workers have access to international
    markets, can compete on a level playing field, and have their
    intellectual property rights protected.
        For NOAA, which did an outstanding job in providing
    warnings during the busiest hurricane season on record, the
    request is $3.7 billion. This includes $19.7 million to support
    robust fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and part of the
    administration's rebuilding effort in the gulf region.
        The budget proposal for the Economic Development
    Administration is $327 million, including $297 million for
    grants to economically distressed areas.
        We are requesting $878 million in discretionary funds for
    the Census Bureau, which is ramping up their 2010 census. In
    order to meet new fiscal priorities, no new funds are requested
    for the Advanced Technology Program.
        We are requesting $46 million for the Hollings
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). This will maintain
    an effective network of MEP centers around the country.
        To ensure the security, health, and safety of our
    employees, we are requesting $5.9 million to begin installation
    of blast mitigation windows and $18 million to correct basic
    code deficiencies and modernize the 73-year-old Hoover
    Building.
        Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you and the subcommittee for
    your support of Commerce programs. We look forward to working
    with you to provide the best and most efficient services to the
    American people.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        And I welcome, as always, your comments and questions and
    would like to submit my written testimony for the record.
        Senator Shelby. Your written testimony will be made part of
    the record in its entirety, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Carlos Gutierrez

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    appear before you today to present the President's Budget request for
    economic, scientific, technological, and environmental programs of the
    Department of Commerce. Our request of $6.1 billion in discretionary
    funds reflects both the Administration's commitment to promote and
    sustain economic growth and opportunity, and the need to restrain
    discretionary Federal spending. Enactment of this budget will enable
    the Department to effectively support its diverse mission, including
    programs that promote strong and equitable trade relationships; improve
    our scientific and technological capabilities; protect intellectual
    property rights; upgrade our capabilities for weather observations and
    forecasting; and, ensure the long-term economic and ecological
    sustainability of our natural resources.
        I would like to highlight some of the work our bureaus have planned
    in the fiscal year 2007 President's Budget. Each bureau within the
    Department supports one of three strategic goals; I will address each
    bureau within its relevant goal.
    Foster science and technological leadership by protecting intellectual
            property, enhancing technical standards, and advancing
            measurement science.
        The National Institute of Standards and Technology is a high-
    leverage Federal research agency that performs high-impact basic
    research and contributes to the development of economically significant
    innovations in areas such as new materials and processes, electronics,
    information technology and advanced computing processes, advanced
    manufacturing integration, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and new
    energy sources such as hydrogen. In his State of the Union Address,
    President Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI),
    which provides an agenda for maintaining our leadership in intellectual
    and human capital, two areas that significantly contribute to our
    nation's innovation capacity. A centerpiece of the ACI is the
    President's strong commitment to double investment over ten years in
    the key Federal agencies that support basic research in the physical
    sciences--the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's
    Office of Science, and the Department of Commerce's National Institute
    of Standards and Technology (NIST). The President's fiscal year 2007
    Budget requests $581 million for NIST. To start implementation of the
    ACI, the request includes an increase of $104 million for NIST core
    activities (laboratory programs and facilities, less congressionally-
    directed projects).
        NIST accomplishments in high-impact basic research are evidenced by
    the three Nobel Prizes that have been awarded to its scientists in the
    last decade. NIST research has led to innovations that we can see
    today, from the high-density magnetic storage technology that makes
    devices such as computer hard drives and mp3 players so compact, to
    protective body armor for law enforcement officers and diagnostic
    screening for cancer patients.
        NIST also plays a critical role in developing standards that are
    used by the private and public sectors. In fiscal year 2007, NIST will
    seek to focus 3,900 scientists and engineers from government, industry,
    and universities--an increase of 600 researchers over fiscal year
    2006--on meeting the Nation's most urgent measurement science and
    standards needs to speed innovation and improve U.S. competitiveness.
        Also in the NIST budget, the President is requesting $46.3 million
    to fund the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program.
    This is a reduction from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level that would
    be made in order to address the Nation's most pressing funding needs in
    this austere fiscal environment. NIST will focus the fiscal year 2007
    MEP funding to maintain an effective network of centers with an
    emphasis on activities that promote innovation and competitiveness in
    small manufacturers.
        No fiscal year 2007 funds, however, are requested for the Advanced
    Technology Program (ATP). The fiscal year 2006 appropriations for ATP
    and estimated recoveries will be sufficient to meet all existing
    obligations and to phase out the program.
        The Technology Administration (TA), which includes the National
    Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Technical
    Information Service (NTIS), seeks to maximize technology's contribution
    to economic growth, high-wage job creation, and the social well-being
    of the United States. In fiscal year 2007, the key administrative and
    policy operations within the Office of the Under Secretary will be
    streamlined. TA will remain an effective advocate for technology within
    the Department of Commerce. TA, for instance, was the lead office at
    the Commerce Department responsible for working on the recent
    competitiveness summit hosted at the Department.
        The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) promotes the research,
    development, and application of new technologies by protecting
    inventors' rights to their intellectual property through the issuance
    of patents. The PTO also enables businesses and consumers to clearly
    identify specific products through the issuance of trademarks. In the
    United States, intellectual property-intensive industries--the
    biotechnology and information technology sectors, for example--account
    for over half of all U.S. exports, represent 40 percent of our economic
    growth, and employ 18 million Americans whose wages are 40 percent
    higher than the U.S. average. PTO has launched a vigorous reform effort
    aimed at enabling the Office to examine patent and trademark
    applications in a more timely manner, without compromising quality. The
    President's fiscal year 2007 Budget request of $1.84 billion in
    spending authority for the PTO includes increases for both patent and
    trademark processes. By hiring additional examiners, refining the
    electronic patent application filing and processing system, improving
    quality assurance programs, and implementing higher standards for
    examiner certification and recertification now, the PTO will
    significantly reduce application processing time and increase the
    quality of its products and services in the out-years. Consistent with
    recent years, the Department proposes to fund the PTO budget
    exclusively through offsetting fee collections.
        The National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA)
    develops telecommunications and information policy, manages the Federal
    radio spectrum, and performs telecommunications research, engineering,
    and planning. The Department's request for NTIA supports its core
    activities and eliminates all new funding for Public Telecommunications
    Facilities, Planning & Construction, as funds for those activities are
    available from other sources.
        The Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund, created
    by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, funds a number of programs with
    the auction proceeds of electromagnetic spectrum recovered from
    discontinued analog television signals. Programs supported by this Fund
    in fiscal year 2007 will provide consumers with vouchers to aid in
    their purchase of digital-to-analog television converter boxes, assist
    public safety agencies in acquiring interoperable communications
    systems, and support an interim digital television broadcast system for
    New York City. In 2007, most activity will be related to planning for
    these programs, with actual grant making expected to begin in 2008.
    Observe, protect and manage the earth's resources to promote
            environmental stewardship.
        The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the busiest on record and
    extended the current period of increased hurricane activity which began
    in 1995--a trend likely to continue for years to come. This season
    shattered records that have stood for decades--the most named storms,
    most hurricanes, and most category five storms. Arguably, it was the
    most devastating hurricane season the country has experienced in modern
    times. The devastation along the Gulf Coast from Hurricanes Katrina,
    Rita, and Wilma is like nothing I have witnessed before. It is
    catastrophic. Words cannot convey the physical destruction and personal
    suffering in that part of our nation.
        The Department, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA), Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA),
    NTIA, and Census, has served a critical role in the repair and recovery
    of the region. I am committed to utilizing the tools and expertise of
    the Department to facilitate the resurgence of the Gulf Coast region. I
    would also like to recognize the efforts of the professionals at NOAA
    for their timely and accurate predictions, which prevented further loss
    of life. Hurricane forecasts for Katrina and Rita were more accurate
    than ever for storm track, size, intensity, surge, and warning lead
    time, allowing for evacuation of 80 percent of New Orleans and 90
    percent of Galveston. This is a key component of NOAA's mission to
    understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, as well as
    to conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our
    Nation's economic, social, and environmental needs. NOAA continues to
    apply its scientific and technological expertise to a wide range of
    issues that serve to expand our knowledge of the world around us and
    strengthen our economic prosperity.
        Data from NOAA's satellites are essential to public safety and the
    economy. Weather and climate-sensitive industries, both directly and
    indirectly, account for approximately $3 trillion of the U.S. Gross
    Domestic Product. Average annual damage from tornadoes, hurricanes, and
    floods is $11.4 billion. The Geostationary Operational Environmental
    Satellites (GOES) serve as some of the key sentinels that observe
    hurricanes and other severe weather. The President's fiscal year 2007
    Budget request includes an increase of $113 million to continue the
    GOES-R series system acquisition, which will have key enhancements over
    the GOES-N platform.
        In addition to the geostationary satellites, NOAA is also a
    participant in the National Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite
    System (NPOESS), which will replace the current Polar-Orbiting
    Environmental Satellite (POES) program. The Department requests an
    increase of $20 million for NOAA's share of this tri-party system (Air
    Force, NOAA, NASA), which will deliver more accurate atmospheric and
    oceanographic data to support medium- to long-range weather forecasts
    and severe storm warnings, further reducing loss of life and property.
        The NPOESS request is based on the funding profile from last year's
    Budget. As you know, the NPOESS program has experienced schedule
    slippage and higher costs than we expected. We are currently
    participating in the Nunn-McCurdy review being conducted by the
    Department of Defense, which will be completed in June. In addition,
    the Government Accountability Office and our Office of Inspector
    General are reviewing the program. We will keep the Committee informed
    of the results of these reviews and our plans going forward, including
    any impact on our fiscal year 2007 request or out-year estimates. Our
    goal will be to ensure the best possible approach for meeting the
    Nation's civilian and military meteorological needs and protecting the
    taxpayer.
        As part of the National Weather Service's overall plan to improve
    the timeliness and accuracy for all weather-related hazards, the
    Department requests $12.4 million to sustain our commitment to the U.S.
    Tsunami Warning System. This funding level will be used to operate and
    maintain the equipment and networks created following the 2004 Indian
    Ocean Tsunami. I wish to thank this Committee for its support of the
    Administration's tsunami warning initiative in the fiscal year 2005
    supplemental and the fiscal year 2006 appropriation.
        Construction will continue in fiscal year 2007 on the NOAA Center
    for Weather and Climate Prediction, which just had its groundbreaking.
    With the requested increase of $11 million, the facility will be ready
    to start operations in 2008. This project is a key component of the
    NWS' effort to improve its weather and climate modeling performance, to
    accelerate the transfer of newly developed scientific information into
    operations, and to improve the use of global environmental satellite
    data.
        NOAA also serves as the lead coordinating agency for the U.S.
    Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which integrates a broad range
    of climate-related observations, field studies and computer model
    projections sponsored by 13 federal agencies. CCSP has a goal of
    substantially improved understanding of both the causes and the
    potential effects of climate variability and change, on time scales
    extending from weeks to decades. NOAA's mission also includes the
    implementation of climate predictive and interpretive services for a
    wide range of applications, thereby providing significant benefits to
    users in several sectors of the economy.
        Through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the
    Department proposes an increase of $19.7 million for activities in the
    Gulf of Mexico. As the Gulf region rebuilds, these programs will ensure
    that adequate science and management resources are available to promote
    and support sustainable and robust fisheries. Also within NMFS, the
    Department requests $6 million for the Open Rivers Initiative (ORI).
    ORI will remove obsolete river barriers in coastal states, thus
    enhancing populations of key NOAA trust species and supporting the
    President's Cooperative Conservation Initiative.
    Provide the information and tools to maximize U.S. competitiveness and
            enable economic growth for American industries, workers, and
            consumers.
        The Economic Development Administration (EDA) supports the federal
    economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness
    and preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide
    economy. The President's fiscal year 2007 Budget expands EDA's Economic
    Development Assistance Programs by $47 million to $297 million and
    streamlines the program to reflect the Administration's emphasis on
    regional development strategies, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
    Regions and communities can achieve significant competitive advantage
    by identifying and then aligning research, educational infrastructure,
    and private activities around fields in which they have unique
    strengths. Four of EDA's programs, representing the majority of EDA's
    funding, will be merged into a new Regional Development Account that
    will administer their competitive grant component, including support
    for University Centers.
        The Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) promotes the
    understanding of the U.S. economy and its competitive position. ESA's
    Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides key objective data on the
    Nation's economic condition, including the Gross Domestic Product
    (GDP), in a timely and cost-effective manner. The Department requests
    $80.5 million to maintain the level of funding ESA Headquarters and BEA
    need to efficiently and accurately provide these statistics, as well as
    research and policy analysis, that are critical to public and private
    sector decision-making.
        The Census Bureau serves as the leading source of quality data
    about the Nation's people and economy. The President's fiscal year 2007
    Budget requests $878 million in discretionary funds for the Census
    Bureau, of which the largest component is the 2010 Decennial Census
    Program. The re-engineering of the decennial census has made great
    strides: the annual American Community Survey has been fully
    implemented to replace the once-a-decade long form, the modernization
    of the geographic database of all U.S. counties is over halfway
    complete, and the technological developments for the short-form-only
    decennial census are progressing on schedule.
        In 2007, only three years out from Census Day 2010, the extensive
    planning, testing, and development activities related to the short form
    consume the majority of the decennial budget--a trend that will
    continue through 2010. In addition to continued preparation for the
    2010 Decennial Census, fiscal year 2007 will see increased activity for
    the Economic Census and the Census of Governments, the five-year
    snapshots of our economy that provide critical data.
        The rapid world-wide development and transfer of technology present
    great opportunities and risk to the United States' economic and
    national security. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regulates
    the export of sensitive goods and technologies, striking a balance
    between those economic opportunities and the security of the United
    States. The President's fiscal year 2007 Budget requests $78.6 million
    to enable BIS to effectively carry out this mission. The proposed
    budget includes a $0.3 million increase for modernization of the Export
    Control Automated Support System, which is the tool used to process
    export licenses.
        The International Trade Administration (ITA) supports U.S.
    commercial interests at home and abroad by strengthening the
    competitiveness of American industries and workers, promoting
    international trade, opening foreign markets to U.S. businesses, and
    ensuring compliance with domestic and international trade laws and
    agreements. ITA conducts domestic and international analyses to ensure
    that the U.S. manufacturing and service sectors can compete effectively
    and meet the demands of global supply chains, and to understand the
    competitive impact of regulatory and economic changes. ITA directly
    supports U.S. businesses via a Trade Information Center that provides
    customers a single point of access to ITA's programs and services. The
    President's fiscal year 2007 Budget requests $409 million for ITA,
    which includes an increase of $2 million to support the President's
    Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. This
    partnership will accelerate the development and deployment of clean
    technologies among partner countries. Commerce's role will be to
    promote the use of American products and technologies in Australia,
    China, India, Japan, and South Korea by providing U.S. firms with
    market research on those countries and coordinating trade missions to
    those countries.
        The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) focuses on
    accelerating the competitiveness and growth of minority-owned
    businesses by helping to close the gaps in economic opportunities and
    capital access. The President's fiscal year 2007 Budget requests $29.6
    million to enable MBDA to continue pursuing additional avenues to
    leverage resources and expand the availability of services to minority
    business enterprises.
    Achieve organizational and management excellence.
        The Department's headquarters building, the Herbert C. Hoover
    Building (HCHB), is in critical need of major renovation and
    modernization. The 73-year-old HCHB is one of the last historic
    buildings in the Federal Triangle to be scheduled for renovation and
    modernization. The Department is requesting $18 million to correct
    basic health and safety code deficiencies, replace failing mechanical,
    electrical, and plumbing systems, and incorporate major security
    upgrades. In addition to the renovation, the Department also requests
    $5.9 million for the installation of blast resistant windows for one-
    third of the HCHB.
        Departmental Management (DM), in addition to funding the Offices of
    the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary, develops and implements policy,
    administers internal operations, and serves as the primary liaison to
    other executive branch agencies, Congress, and private sector entities.
    The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is charged with promoting
    economy and efficiency, and detecting and preventing fraud, waste, and
    abuse. The President's fiscal year 2007 Budget request continues to
    support these objectives.
    Conclusion
        The President has submitted a budget that implements the
    Department's mission in a manner that maximizes benefits to our public.
    The Department of Commerce is home to a diverse collection of agencies,
    each with a unique area of expertise and a wide array of needs, tied
    together in a common commitment to ensure an environment exists that
    allows us to lead the world in competitiveness and innovation. The
    President's fiscal year 2007 Budget successfully addresses those needs
    in an efficient manner, mindful of the fiscal restraint required to
    sustain our economic prosperity. I look forward to working with the
    Committee to ensure that together we are providing the best services to
    the American people.

                          HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS

        Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, I have a number of questions
    and I will go through them one by one.
        In December, Mr. Secretary, the President signed the third
    supplemental bill into law. In mid-March, our subcommittee was
    informed that $55 million in supplemental funds that were
    appropriated for NOAA had not yet been distributed to the
    intended recipients. This is May now.
        The Senate soon will pass another supplemental bill
    providing additional funds necessary for ongoing activities in
    relation to the war in Iraq and the recovery from Hurricane
    Katrina and other hurricanes in the 2005 season, which proposes
    additional funds for NOAA.
        Mr. Secretary, have all the December supplemental funds
    been distributed by NOAA as of now, and if not, why not?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is they
    have been distributed to all of the line offices.
        Senator Shelby. Okay. How will the Department handle the
    distribution of additional supplemental funds?
        Secretary Gutierrez. We will ensure, given the dimension of
    this, that we do everything to get the money out there as soon
    as possible.
        Senator Shelby. Where it is needed?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Okay. Could you provide the subcommittee
    with a timeline of events for getting supplemental funds to the
    intended recipients? You can do that for the record, if you
    want.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, sir. If I may?
        Senator Shelby. You can do that.
        [The information follows:]

       Timeline of Events for Getting Supplemental Funds to the Intended
                                   Recipients

        Public Law Signed--December 30, 2005
        Apportionment Submitted to Department of Commerce--January
    21, 2006
        Apportionment Submitted to OMB--February 01, 2006
        OMB Approval of Apportionment--February 09, 2006
        Signed Apportionment received in NOAA--February 10, 2006
        Final transfer to NOAA Line Offices--February 15, 2006

                      ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

        Senator Shelby. While the subcommittee is pleased that the
    2007 budget request proposes an overall increase of more than
    $46 million for the economic development assistance programs, I
    remain concerned that the proposal favors the creation of a new
    regional development account while zeroing out four other
    accounts--public works, technical assistance, research and
    evaluation, and economic adjustment.
        How would this restructuring of accounts be more beneficial
    to our communities that rely on these grants for economic
    improvement? And should the subcommittee agree to the changes
    in the accounts as proposed in the budget request, what
    assurances, Mr. Secretary, can you provide this subcommittee
    that the restructuring will not lead to gaps in assistance,
    considering there were four of those programs?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. We have tried
    to simplify the procedure in that we had four different types
    of grants, which led to four different types of processes and
    ways of looking at public works versus infrastructure. And we
    believe that there is a common way of looking at these funds.
    Do they create jobs? Do they attract private sector grants? Do
    they improve the community?
        Senator Shelby. Those are good questions.
        Secretary Gutierrez. And so, we simplified the process and
    just have a common way of looking at all grants as opposed to
    four different buckets, which have a lot of overlapping
    criteria.
        Senator Shelby. Will you give us some more detail on this
    for the subcommittee? I think that Senator Mikulski would also
    like that.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, of course.
        [The information follows:]
       Economic Development Administration--Regional Development Account
        The Regional Development Account (RDA) simply consolidates funding
    for EDA's four primary competitive investment (grant) programs into a
    single, more flexible account. This will allow EDA to strengthen its
    long-standing focus on regional economic development investments.

                                 EDA TODAY FISCAL YEAR 2006: MULTIPLE PROGRAM ``SILOS''
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Economic       Research and Tech.      Partnership
       Public Works $158.3 million     Adjustment $44.2     Assistance $8.7     Planning $26.7       TAA for Firms
           (fiscal year 2006)           million (fiscal     million (fiscal     million (fiscal      $12.8 million
                                          year 2006)          year 2006)          year 2006)      (fiscal year 2006)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Development and upgrade of        Strategy            Research on         Supports Economic   Supports network
     physical infrastructure in        development,        leading edge        Development         of Trade
     areas of chronic economic         technical           economic            Districts to        Adjustment
     distress.                         assistance, and     development         develop and         Assistance
                                       physical            practices as well   execute regional    Centers to help
                                       infrastructure to   as information      Comprehensive       manufacturers and
                                       respond to sudden   dissemination and   Economic            producers respond
                                       and severe          efforts to          Development         to the world-wide
                                       economic distress.  provide targeted    Strategies (CEDS).  marketplace.
                                                           technical
                                                           assistance
                                                           including
                                                           University
                                                           Centers.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       EDA PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2007: CONSOLIDATION OF PRIMARY INVESTMENT
                                    ACCOUNTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Partnership
      Proposed Regional Development      Planning $27        TAA for Firms
      Account (RDA) $257.6 million      million (fiscal      $12.9 million
           (fiscal year 2007)             year 2007)      (fiscal year 2007)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Activities as funded under        Supports Economic   Supports network
     current Public Works, Economic    Development         of Trade
     Adjustment, Research and          Districts to        Adjustment
     Technical Assistance programs,    develop and         Assistance
     for both chronic and sudden and   execute regional    Centers to help
     severe economic distress:         Comprehensive       U.S.
                                       Economic            manufacturers
                                       Development         respond to the
                                       Strategies (CEDS).  world-wide
                                                           marketplace.
        Physical infrastructure
         development.
        Strategy development.
        Technical assistance.
        Research and information
         dissemination.
        University Centers.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Regional Development Account (RDA) will:
      --Allow investment partners (grantees) to engage simultaneously in
            multiple activities in support of a common initiative through
            just one EDA grant (e.g., infrastructure and technical
            assistance).
      --Provide EDA additional flexibility to respond to sudden and severe
            economic dislocations (e.g., a significant plant closure,
            natural disaster covered by the Stafford Act, or a military
            base closure).
      --Mirror the flexibility of EDA's popular and proven Economic
            Adjustment account.
      --Build on EDA's existing regional development work through Economic
            Development Districts and University Centers.

                      EDA'S FOCUS ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

        Since its inception, EDA has emphasized regional economic
    development approaches. The creation of Economic Development Districts
    (EDDs) (which are primarily multi-county areas charged with supporting
    a coordinated economic development strategy across an economic region)
    simultaneously with EDA's original authorization in 1965 was a
    meaningful force for regional development approaches.
        For fiscal year 2007, EDA will continue its long-standing emphasis
    on regional economic development strategies. EDA will work with
    communities on economic development strategies and implementation that
    support the development plan of an entire economic region. This will
    help ensure that EDA-supported investments are compatible with and can
    better leverage other economic development initiatives in an economic
    region.
        The RDA helps support the principle of regional economic
    development by allowing EDA investment partners (grantees) to engage in
    multiple EDA-supported activities through a single grant. For example,
    an infrastructure grant to a city to help develop an inter-modal
    transportation facility can be coupled with technical assistance
    support to help the city build strategic linkages with neighboring
    cities and counties--in the same grant.
        It is important to note that the RDA:
      --Benefits investment partners (grantees) by allowing multiple EDA
            programs to be executed toward a common goal with just one
            grant--eliminates redundant application and reporting
            requirements.
      --Increases EDA's efficiency by providing a single, flexible program
            account and avoids the accounting and management challenge of
            managing four separate ``buckets'' of funding across the six
            EDA regions.
      --Has no impact on EDA's: investment selection criteria, balance
            between rural and urban investments, or focus on economic
            distress.
      --Utilizes existing EDA legislative authorities.
      --Bolsters the President's request for a $47 million increase in EDA
            program funds (total Economic Development Assistance program
            budget: $297.5 million).

           INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND ENFORCEMENT

        Senator Shelby. I want to get to the Patent and Trademark
    Office. I am just going down the line because you have a lot of
    jurisdiction.
        The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has initiated a number
    of programs to assist with the intellectual property
    enforcement, such as the help hotline and the www.stopfakes.gov
    and the Global Intellectual Property Academy and training
    around the globe, which provides curriculum and training for
    foreign government officials in intellectual property rights
    protection and enforcement.
        I know these are only a few examples of the work being done
    to enforce intellectual property rights at home and abroad. Can
    you give us an update, if you would, Mr. Secretary, on the U.S.
    Patent and Trademark Office's intellectual property education
    outreach and enforcement effort? Because this is a real problem
    in the world as we expand our global trade.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        We have, as you mentioned, done several outreach efforts to
    small businesses. We have provided free legal services to small
    businesses. We have a hotline. We now have people on the ground
    in China, and we are focused on four countries--Brazil, Russia,
    India, and China--given that this is really where the illicit
    world economy takes place.
        We have a working group with the European Union, which is
    the first time that they have agreed to work with us to have a
    clear message to the rest of the world about Europe and the
    United States. Up until now, we have sort of been in different
    camps. And I think the illicit world would use that to their
    benefit. We are now together. We are talking with one voice,
    and we have an IPR working group.
        We have just agreed with Japan that we are going to do the
    same thing. So now they can't isolate us as well. Japan, the
    European Union, and the United States will continue to speak as
    one voice when it comes to illicit trafficking of intellectual
    property.
        The other thing that I will mention, which we believe is
    very important through the National Intellectual Property Law
    Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLECC), is enforcement.
    Because, ultimately, it is going to be our ability to enforce
    and our ability to stop some of these factories that are
    producing these products.
        Our prosecutions have grown by 97 percent in 2005.
    Internationally, we have been able to collaborate with other
    countries to seize about $50 million of merchandise. And very
    importantly, at our border, in 2005, we seized $232 million, up
    from $190 million a couple of years earlier.
        So everything indicates that not only are we training
    people, we are providing service for foreign officials, helping
    them understand the philosophy of intellectual property. We are
    working with foreign governments, and we are ensuring that we
    are enforcing IPR and that people know there is a price to pay
    for this.
        I knew you were going to ask about this, Mr. Chairman and
    Senator Mikulski. We have been putting a lot of pressure on
    China, and they came back with their action plan on IPR
    protection 2006. We think the significance of this is that this
    is a plan developed by them. So it tells us that they should
    have more ownership for it, that they should want to make it a
    success because it was their idea.
        And I thought you would be interested. This is one of the
    areas, one of the things that they agreed to here is to require
    that all PCs have pre-installed software.
        Senator Shelby. But this is a challenge for your
    Department?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And we are going to
    follow up on that and ensure that it is not just on paper, but
    that they are executing. And I look forward to updating you in
    the future on any progress.

       NATIONAL POLAR-ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SYSTEM

        Senator Shelby. Absolutely. The National Polar-Orbiting
    Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program has
    experienced significant schedule delays and cost overruns for
    the 2006 budget, and yet the 2007 budget request includes an
    increase of $20 million for a total request of $337.8 million
    for this program. That is a good bit of money.
        The more than 25 percent cost overruns in this program
    triggered the Nunn-McCurdy process within the Department of
    Defense (DOD). And I understand there is an ongoing
    investigation at DOD that may lead to a total reevaluation of
    the entire program.
        In your opening statement for the record here, you say that
    your Department's goal will be--I quote you--``to ensure the
    best possible approach for meeting the Nation's civilian and
    military meteorological needs and protecting the taxpayer.''
    That is what we want you to do.
        What exactly are the options being considered within NOAA
    in response to the increased costs and schedule delays for
    NPOESS? And for the record, could you tell the subcommittee how
    your Department is addressing additional or potential gaps in
    satellite coverage, given the delays that have already been
    experienced and the possibility of even more delays due to the
    Nunn-McCurdy process?
        Is that too much?
        Secretary Gutierrez. No, Mr. Chairman. It is very good.
        When we heard about the overruns and we had knowledge of
    this, we called in the chief executive officers (CEOs) of both
    Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, which are the two companies that
    are on this and----
        Senator Shelby. You are used to that from your business
    background?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, I was. And we just let them know
    that this is not the way we like to do business. This is not
    something that we like to see, and they are going to do
    everything possible to do what they can to keep the overruns at
    a minimum.
        We know that this triggers the Nunn-McCurdy Act, and we
    will have a better understanding of how much we are talking
    about here in June.
        Senator Shelby. What is the rationalization for the
    overruns? Do you know offhand?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Their basic argument was that they
    believe that the initial estimate was too low.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Secretary Gutierrez. But it is an overrun, and for us, that
    is the bottom line. And as a result, we thought it was
    appropriate to call them in and let them know that we are
    disappointed.
        So we are working very closely with them. And I am going to
    have another meeting with them. Deputy Secretary Sampson has
    met with them again. He is going to go out and visit their
    factories. So----
        Senator Shelby. See what is----
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. We are not going to let up on
    them.
        Senator Shelby. Well, your business background could
    certainly come in handy, Mr. Secretary, here.
        Secretary Gutierrez. I am not used to these overruns.
        Senator Shelby. Don't get used to them.
        Secretary Gutierrez. I used to have to go to my board for a
    10 percent overrun, and it would be a very tough week every
    time I did that. So we want to make it tough on them.
        Senator Shelby. I have more questions, but I am going to
    rest and let Senator Mikulski be recognized for questions.

                NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. ``Rest''
    isn't usually part of your vocabulary.
        First of all, I am very pleased at the exchange between you
    and Senator Shelby on the NOAA satellite issue. This is a
    source of great concern. We need to have the most modern
    satellites, and they are the key to our weather prediction. But
    if we get into the overruns, well, you know the consequences.
        In looking at the NOAA budget, I was puzzled by what seems
    like a 6 percent cut in NOAA, but really, it is
    disproportionate. The 30 percent cut in ocean services, 8
    percent in marine fisheries, and 8 percent in NOAA research.
        Could you share with us the rationale of cutting 30 percent
    in oceans, particularly after the rather firm reports that came
    from the Joint Ocean Commission and the Pew Foundation, as well
    as marine fisheries and NOAA research, which, of course, is so
    important to climatic change and others?
        Could you tell us the rationale, and what are the
    consequences of these cuts? Will there be layoffs? Do they
    agree, sir? What is the deal?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Senator, we believe that we can carry
    on the mission and many of the initiatives that we have
    started. Of our $3.7 billion budget, about $1.8 billion is
    related to oceans and fisheries. So a big bulk of NOAA is
    really oceans and fisheries.
        And we have a lot of activities going. We just submitted
    for reauthorization our Organic Act. We submitted the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act for reauthorization, as well as the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act. We have the Proposed National Offshore
    Aquaculture Act. We have extramural grants in place for
    research. We have four different scholarship programs.
        So while we are working within a tight budget, we believe
    that we have our focus on the right things, and we have got
    plenty going to be very active throughout 2007.
        Senator Mikulski. But a 30 percent cut in National Ocean
    Service is a big cut. That is not at the margin. What will be
    the consequences?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I believe, if we were to go back and
    look at it, that some of the difference you cite would be
    versus the fiscal year 2006 enacted budget. So we are, rightly
    or wrongly, comparing the President's budget requested amount
    to the base budget. So they may have been these one-time
    projects for fisheries.
        But our big projects, and especially coming off the ocean
    policy, our big projects, our big commitments are being funded,
    and we are not looking at the major layoffs or anything that
    would be distracting and that would take us off our fundamental
    mission and the big projects that we have going.
        Magnuson-Stevens, aquaculture, marine mammals, our
    scholarships--those are funded and very well----
        Senator Mikulski. Sea grants----
        Secretary Gutierrez. Sea grants, yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Secretary, a little bipartisan
    group--Senator Dodd and myself, Senator Sununu, Senator Gregg--
    went to both Admiral Watkins and Leon Panetta and asked them to
    do a report for us on their reports, if you will--like
    Alexander and Bingaman went to the national academies--and said
    give us the 10 ideas now to really make sure that we save our
    oceans or enhance our oceans.
        They are going to, Mr. Chairman, have this report ready
    sometime this summer, and which I would like to share. But
    then, you know, because there is endless reports. There is
    endless five points this and three-point programs for that. And
    I agree with you that we need to have at least a core basic set
    of programs we are going to support, and then at the end of the
    year or the end of a 3- to 5-year period we can honestly say
    what we have accomplished.
        And I know from, again, private sector background, you are
    a benchmark guy. And I think we would like to share the same,
    which is to say what are some of our national goals in terms of
    these and then really make a commitment on a bipartisan basis
    to work on these.
        Secretary Gutierrez. That would be great.

                            NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE

        Senator Mikulski. So we are going to keep you posted on it.
        In terms of NOAA weather, we know that the budget includes
    a $3 million increase for the National Weather Service, which
    we think is important and much needed. But we are concerned
    that some smaller programs were eliminated like the Susquehanna
    basin, which essentially goes from New York down through
    Maryland and are the sensors along those rivers that kind of
    give the river almost like a ``river watch.''
        Well, it is. It is the Susquehanna River watch that alerts
    communities to flooding. A couple of years ago, when we had the
    big snow and the big meltdown, the Susquehanna alerts really
    saved a great deal of lives in Maryland because we had the
    early warning.
        It is one of those earmarks that everybody gets cranky
    about. But we want to be sure that when we are looking at
    weather, we are looking at the big picture on this. And I am
    going to alert you to some of these.
        But we are concerned that there is now a move to privatize
    the National Weather Service in the National Weather Service
    Duties Act. Are you familiar with that?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I have heard, just not officially, not
    formally. But I have been made aware.
        Senator Mikulski. Does the administration have a position
    on that bill yet?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I don't believe there has been a
    statement of administration policy (SAP) issued for that. As I
    think about it, the National Weather Service is a public
    service. Everyone has access to it. So I haven't thought much
    about it as a private service.

                            PATENT EXAMINERS HIRING

        Senator Mikulski. Well, we just want to alert you to that.
    I, too, think that the National Weather Service is a public
    service that should be in the public domain and operated as
    such. And the old saying is, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix
    it?''
        We know very few that the private sector value-adds to the
    National Weather Service and even develops either niche
    products or something like that for which we are appreciative.
        Let me go to the patents. Five hundred thousand backlog,
    and we know we have increased the new hires. Is that correct?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. One thousand new examiners?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. And we also know that there were fees
    charged for that. But isn't the fee authority going to expire?
    Not for the overall collection of the patents.
        The patent, PTO is funded through, is paid by inventors.
    The authority to get current fee levels were expired. I think
    we raised fee levels. Am I correct in that?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. So that we could add more people. I think
    it is going to expire this year.
        Secretary Gutierrez. I think it is renewed----
        Senator Mikulski. Can you kind of tell us where you are
    with this?
        Secretary Gutierrez. My understanding is that----
        Senator Mikulski. And whether we need to continue to hire
    and use this as a tool or mechanism?
        Secretary Gutierrez. It is an annual renewal in the
    appropriations bill. So we get a 1-year extension, essentially,
    every year. We collected about $1.5 billion of fees. So this
    is----
        Senator Mikulski. B? Like in ``Barb?''
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. I hope that is right.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, that sounds about right.
        Senator Shelby. That is a lot of money.
        Secretary Gutierrez. And we have 4,000 examiners. We are
    hiring 1,000 over the next 5 years. And unfortunately, you are
    right. The pendency is growing from about 29 months to 32
    months. So it is not going in the direction we want.
        We are hiring more examiners. We are trying to make the
    process a lot smoother at the beginning, trying to avoid
    patents that we don't need to put through the process, getting
    more quality in the beginning.
        We have a conflict here between the quality of the patent
    and the pendency. So we want to lower pendency, but not at the
    expense of quality, especially technology.
        Senator Mikulski. We don't want to have other BlackBerry
    cases and so on.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Exactly. So technology folks are very
    concerned about the quality aspect. Everyone is concerned about
    the quality aspect.
        So we are working on that. We are hiring more people. We
    have just gone online for the first time. We have what we think
    is the most efficient patent application system, where people
    can apply online.
        Senator Mikulski. They couldn't do that before?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Not to the extent that they can today.
    And we launched just about 1 month ago. That should help our
    pendency. We have monthly reports on productivity, monthly
    reports on production. People are rewarded for that. They are
    measured on that. These metrics are cascaded throughout the PTO
    offices.
        So, more and more, it is being managed by the numbers and
    quality of the patents. We agree with your challenge that as we
    improve quality, we also have to take down pendency. We just
    can't afford to have our pendency continue to increase.
        Senator Mikulski. See, this is part of the innovation-
    friendly government. And people in Maryland who are inventors
    and then someone in the bio fields, which is another dynamic,
    is they have to stand in two lines. One to get their patent,
    the other to get their FDA approval. So that, in and of itself,
    is time.
        What they have shared with me is that, say, if they are
    waiting for their patent, some of their intellectual property
    has already been stolen. And so, that is an issue. It is a big
    issue.
        Do you feel that the 1,000 examiners that you hired will be
    enough, or do you think you need to have more?
        Secretary Gutierrez. We believe that, for now, it should be
    enough. But if we see that it isn't, we will be coming back to
    you.

                 PATENT EXAMINERS QUALIFICATIONS AND RETENTION

        Senator Mikulski. Well, what are the tools then for
    retention? First of all, share, as you did with me, with
    Senator Shelby what are the basic qualifications to be a patent
    examiner?
        Secretary Gutierrez. We have actually gone back and looked
    at this. We hire mostly engineers and lawyers. About 19 percent
    of the engineers we hire also have a law degree.
        Senator Mikulski. See, so this is a big bucket of talent
    here?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Oh, this is----
        Senator Shelby. Important talent.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, very important. And we actually
    retain people for about 6\1/2\ years. So they come, an average
    of tenure with PTO is about 6\1/2\ years. So they know they are
    getting the best training you can get, working with very smart
    people. They are at the leading edge of seeing what
    technologies are happening and who is innovating.
        If they don't have a law degree, we provide them with
    financial help to get a law degree. We give them training to
    help them manage people. We are constantly trying to upgrade
    their skills. So it is a way of keeping them there.
        Our starting salaries average about $56,000. And that
    ranges anywhere from $35,000 to $70,000, depending on their
    GPA, depending on their skills. That is about 10 percent below
    the private sector.
        So we know that we have to fill that gap with other ways--
    --
        Senator Mikulski. You mean for a young associate in a law
    firm----
        Secretary Gutierrez. For a young associate coming in, that
    is right.
        Senator Mikulski. That would be focused on intellectual
    property?
        Secretary Gutierrez. About 10 percent. They make about 10
    percent more in the private sector.
        So we have to fill that 10 percent through other ways--by
    training, by giving them a great work environment, by giving
    them a sense that they are in the right place at the right
    time.
        Senator Shelby. Well, that is very important.
        Secretary Gutierrez. And we pay them for performance, a 10
    percent bonus. We would like to see that go up to about 17----
        Senator Shelby. For good people?
        Secretary Gutierrez. That is right, for the people who are
    performing.
        Senator Mikulski. Six and a half, are you satisfied with
    that, or would you hope that they would stay longer? And don't
    you need a career service to be able to mentor----
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. That is right.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. These talented, young,
    bright people? Or mid-career people that are changing? There
    might have been somebody who is a whiz in electrical
    engineering, maybe one of our leading defense contractors gets
    their law degree and wants to move over and do something like
    this?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I agree. The 6\1/2\ years is higher
    than I would have expected. I would like to see more. And I
    think it is a good----
        Senator Shelby. Six and a half years is average, right?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, that is the average tenure.
        Senator Shelby. So some stay a long time.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Some stay longer. Some leave,
    unfortunately, sooner. But we would like to see more.
        Continuity is always a good thing, and things are changing
    so quickly. Yes, we have gone from 300,000 patents several
    years ago to about 412,000 patent applications.
        Senator Mikulski. That is a lot of ideas.
        Secretary Gutierrez. So people are innovating. There is
    more innovation. The applications are getting more complex. So
    it requires better skill sets to just understand the
    technology.
        Senator Mikulski. So what can we do to retain now? We have
    got these 1,000 people. And of that 1,000, we would want, you
    know, as you would say, staying longer for the public
    investment we are about to make in their training.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Right.
        Senator Mikulski. What do you see as the key retention
    tools, and are there ways that we could be helpful to you?
        Secretary Gutierrez. I think we have to continue to make it
    a great working environment, where they feel like they are
    learning. If they want to go on to get their law degree, we
    will help them do that financially.
        They are constantly getting seminars to upgrade their
    skills, whether it be people management if they are engineers,
    getting legal seminars if they are lawyers. Getting engineering
    seminars, marketing seminars that they really become experts at
    what they do.
        And I would like to do everything possible from the
    standpoint of the working environment. And if we need to, to
    come back and look at the bonuses.
        We have a 10 percent performance bonus. To keep up with the
    private sector, we may have to take that up higher. And I would
    like just a little bit more time to go back and see where the
    discussions are in order to talk about it with the union and
    then come back to you on that.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, this issue of adequacy of personnel
    and recruitment and retention is, I believe, a real high
    priority. Our colleagues in the Judiciary Committee create them
    all, but your idea of the working environment, I would like to
    just bring to your attention, one, the GAO report that was
    commissioned last June for Congressman Sensenbrenner and
    Congressman Wolf, our counterpart----
        Secretary Gutierrez. Right.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. On progress made in hiring,
    the challenges to return. And one of their number one issues
    that they raise, Mr. Secretary, is communication. And they
    state that there seems to be a culture of poor to uneven
    communication between management and the examiners. And they
    cite that as really affecting morale, productivity, and
    retention.
        We bring this report to your attention, and we think it is
    a very good guidepost for us to follow. And when I read it, I
    saw that, yes, money, recruitment, and so on is there. And then
    the employee organizations also had their newsletter, and
    replete through the newsletter is the need for more
    communication between management and the examiners.
        So I am going to bring these to your attention and know
    that this is a lot of hard work going into it. The other side
    of the Capitol is also interested in this, and I think it
    really focuses on the human capital, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. Very much so.
        Senator Mikulski. And my questions in the future and, even
    more importantly, this year will be how are we doing on this
    report and implementing it, and whether you think maybe the
    report was off the mark, nevertheless?
        Because as I travel my State and talk to those Nobel Prize
    winners, not only in this and other places, they say that one
    of the most important tools to an innovation-friendly
    government, in addition to the pipeline issue of talented
    people, is the Patent Office. Everybody talks about the Patent
    Office. So we let it at that.
        My last question in this round--the chairman wants to go
    another--is NIST. Isn't that a spectacular agency? That is
    where those three Nobel Prize winners are. But I am concerned
    that as we cut ATP and shrink the manufacturing extension
    partnership and so on, that is why I said are we robbing Peter
    to pay Paul here?
        Secretary Gutierrez. If I may just step back a little,
    Senator, on this?

      ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM AND MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP

        Senator Mikulski. Because we eliminate the ATP----
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. And we shrink the manufacturing
    extension, the legacy of our colleague, Senator Hollings. So--
    --
        Secretary Gutierrez. The President mentioned this in the
    State of the Union that NIST is one of the three agencies that
    is getting an increase in funding because NIST does basic
    research. We have an iPod today, thanks to what NIST did many
    years ago. We have many of our security systems on automobiles
    came out of research that NIST has done.
        So what they do is basic research for technologies that
    will be applied across many industries. And we think that is
    the role of the Federal Government. Long-term basic research,
    10, 15 years down the road, the types of projects that private
    sector typically does not have the patience for or the money,
    the competitive environment. They typically do product
    development, a lot shorter period of time.
        Senator Mikulski. They value-add to our basic research.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Exactly. So one-third of the country's
    R&D is Federal Government. Two-thirds is private sector. That
    one-third, we would like to keep it on basic research and let
    the private sector use what we produce to develop products.
        ATP was almost like a venture capital fund. It was trying
    to pick winning companies, and we felt that the role of the
    public sector wasn't necessarily picking winners or losers, but
    providing technologies.
        MEP, we are keeping at a smaller rate because that also
    tends to be product development, operational. It does demand
    for us to pick who gets the money and who doesn't. But we have
    a network in place that we don't want to let go of because it
    can still be used.
        But to the extent that we can, we would like to stay on
    basic research, things that only we can do. We now have 1,800
    guest scientists and engineers at NIST, who are there trying to
    pick up any experiences, any learning to take back to be able
    to use.
        And as we look around the world, there isn't another
    country--we asked the European Union the other day, how do you
    do it? Do you have your NIST? Do you have a private sector
    linkage? They don't.
        I think we have an advantage in the linkage between our
    basic research agencies, such as NIST, Department of Energy,
    the National Science Foundation (NSF), our private sector
    companies, and our universities. And we are seeing more and
    more of that partnership taking place.
        That is why we have shifted money to basic research from
    what we would call picking winners and losers and----
        Senator Mikulski. What about the manufacturing extension
    partnership?
        Secretary Gutierrez. The $46 million that we put in the
    budget is to keep the network in place. That is about one-third
    of the funding because State governments and private sector
    usually put in another third and one-third is from fees.
        But the important thing is the network will be there, and
    the private sector can access the network. The funding will not
    necessarily come from the Federal Government as much as it did
    before, but it will still be there. The network will still be
    there, and the funding, to some extent, will be there.
        But most of our money is going into basic research that
    will give us a country-wide competitive advantage against the
    rest of the world. Nanotechnology, quantum research,
    biometrics--the types of things that the private sector just
    doesn't have the time or the patience or the competitive
    environment to be able to do.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                            OCEAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
        I have a few more questions. In what way does the 2007
    budget request provide sufficient funding to address NOAA's
    ocean-related activities and responsibilities with respect to
    the Joint Ocean Commission's report?
        Secretary Gutierrez. No, that is great. Thank you.
        Out of NOAA's $3.7 billion request we allocated about 50
    percent to oceans and fisheries. We are working on many of the
    Ocean Policy Commission's recommendations. We have resubmitted
    for reauthorization the Organic Act for NOAA, the Magnuson-
    Stevens Act Reauthorization, and the Marine Mammal Protection
    Act Reauthorization.
        We are now hoping to work with Congress to get
    authorization for offshore aquaculture, which is also very
    important----
        Senator Shelby. That is a whole lot of promise there.
        Secretary Gutierrez. We actually are a net importer of
    fish.
        Senator Shelby. I know.
        Senator Mikulski. And growing.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Some of the fish we import is farmed
    fish. So we think we should be doing a lot more.
        Senator Mikulski. And some of it is a little----
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, well. So it is an area of
    opportunity for us. So we believe that we have the right
    priorities and the big projects that we need to continue funded
    in the area of oceans, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. And we have got the coast and the bays,
    too.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, what progress are you making
    in addressing some of the recommendations put forward by the
    Joint Ocean Commission, like the report card's low marks for
    international leadership, research, science, and education? I
    know you weren't there all this time.
        Secretary Gutierrez. We just had our Asia-Pacific economic
    cooperation (APEC) forum's marine resource conservation working
    group meeting, which includes other agencies, but NOAA is a big
    part of it. We are leading the whole effort toward tsunami
    detection with the rest of the world. It goes beyond oceans.
        So I believe that we and our people are constantly taking a
    leadership role in coordination meetings and seminars. The rest
    of the world looks to us for oceans leadership, technology,
    knowledge. Of the 50 recommendations within the
    administration's ocean action plan where NOAA is the lead or a
    partner, we have implemented 37 to date. So we are very focused
    on it.

                            DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT

        Senator Shelby. The 2007 budget request includes $18
    million for the renovation and modernization of the Herbert C.
    Hoover Building, headquarters to the Department of Commerce.
        The subcommittee notes the funding was requested in 2006,
    but not appropriated. What would the level of funding here
    provide for you, and how many years of follow-on funding would
    be needed to complete the renovation?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. And this is the last one, Mr.
    Chairman, of the Federal Triangle Historic buildings that has
    not been renovated.
        Senator Shelby. Well, they have got to be renovated.
        Secretary Gutierrez. The plan actually takes us out to
    2017. So we are spreading it out so that we don't have the
    burden of a big cost in 1 year.
        Senator Shelby. It is still a lot of money, though.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, it is about $700 million total,
    of which about $200 million will be picked up by Commerce.
        Senator Shelby. It would cost a lot of money--we wouldn't
    want you to move. But if you built a new building somewhere, it
    would cost a lot of money, too.
        Secretary Gutierrez. That is absolutely right. And it is--
    --
        Senator Shelby. Plus, you would lose the history.
        Secretary Gutierrez. That is absolutely right. So we have
    $18 million, which gets us going, and we have it spread out to
    2017.

                 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

        Senator Shelby. The President announced the American
    competitive initiative as a new program that would continue to
    build the Nation's science and technology base. Senator
    Mikulski has already talked about this.
        This will be done through investments in federally funded
    research and investments to ensure the country has a
    technologically skilled workforce. We have got to do it on our
    own.
        To accomplish this, several agencies were tasked with
    leading this initiative. One of those falls under you, the
    Department of Commerce--the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology.
        What is your basic role with regard to the American
    competitiveness initiative? And how much of your budget and
    time is dedicated to this? We think it is important.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I agree. And
    this is one area where we have actually tasked every department
    inside of Commerce to play a role. I think we all play a role
    in helping our country become more competitive.
        Directly, we have the $104 million that we have added to
    NIST for projects, and those are, as I mentioned before,
    nanotechnology, quantum research, biometrics. Things that the
    private sector can take and apply across many industries.
        We are also sort of out of our lane. We are working with
    the private sector to motivate them to get volunteer teachers
    into K through 12. Part of the ACI----
        Senator Shelby. How do we do that? How do you do that?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Well, we go out and talk to companies.
    We were with Intel the other day, in an auditorium of maybe 500
    engineers. We said please go out and be part of the ACI. We
    want----
        Senator Shelby. They could be tremendous role models, can't
    they?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. Because students are not really
    sure where a math or a science career will take them.
        Senator Mikulski. They don't know.
        Senator Shelby. They don't know.
        Senator Mikulski. They don't know what is going on.
        Secretary Gutierrez. So this would be an opportunity to do
    that--working with Congress to make the R&D tax credit
    permanent. We have renewed that, I think, a dozen times over
    the last 10 or 12 years. We believe the private sector needs
    more predictability.
        Senator Shelby. So they can plan.
        Secretary Gutierrez. So that they know if they are starting
    a 5-year project, they will have a tax credit in 5 years. So--
    --
        Senator Shelby. But we have to do that, don't we, Mr.
    Secretary, to compete in the world of tomorrow that we see on
    the horizon?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely.
        Senator Shelby. In China and India and everywhere else?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely.
        Senator Shelby. If we don't, we are going to lag behind.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely. We are competing today.
    Our economy is doing very well in the face of intense
    competition. But it is 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 20
    years from now----
        Senator Shelby. We have got to worry about.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely.

                      ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

        Senator Shelby. In 2007, the budget request for EDA
    salaries and expenses is only $9,000 more than 2006.
        The subcommittee recently approved a reprogramming request
    of $700,000 that we were told was necessary to provide
    sufficient salaries and expenses for the balance of 2006, which
    means the 2007 request is now $691,000 below the 2006 number.
        Given this reprogramming of funds, how can the funding
    level requested for 2007 be sufficient? I know that we are
    appropriators, and you think, well, gosh, why are we asking you
    to ask for more money? But we think you need to have the
    requisite money to do your job here. And can you do that?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, of course, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Shelby. In other words, what funding level is
    necessary to maintain the current EDA operations in 2007? Can
    you do it like that? And why and how?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. With the current
    budget, we can keep our office network in place.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Our salaries and expenses, as a
    percent of the total budget, is about 9 percent, which we think
    is right up there. We wouldn't like to see it go higher because
    then we have got more money tied up in expenses than we would
    like to have. So we think we have the right balance, and we
    think we can make it work.

                            DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT

        Senator Shelby. Going back to the Herbert C. Hoover
    Building, the Commerce Building. You are seeking $5.9 million
    for blast mitigation windows, which you certainly need. Is that
    the total funding level? Or will there be additional funds in
    this area, too?
        Secretary Gutierrez. That is actually additional for the
    windows.
        Senator Shelby. In other words, how many years is that? We
    have been told there is a request of a $5.9 million increase
    for blast mitigation windows.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, yes.
        Senator Shelby. Is that the total level of funding, or will
    there be additional?
        Secretary Gutierrez. It is for blast mitigation windows for
    one-third of the building.
        Senator Shelby. Okay. So that is one-third, and there will
    be additional funding?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And this came out
    of the ``Window Blast Hazard Mitigation Study'' for the Herbert
    C. Hoover Building issued by the General Services
    Administration in February 2003.

                              BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

        Senator Shelby. Oh, yes. I know you need it. You don't want
    to put your people at risk.
        The Bureau of the Census. The budget request for the 2010
    census is starting to grow, of course, in anticipation of the
    2010 census, which is just a few years away. The increases are
    quite significant while, at the same time, the census is
    proposing to reduce or to eliminate work that it has done
    previously.
        What efforts are being made, Mr. Secretary, to ensure that
    the 2010 census is as cost effective and accurate as possible
    while maintaining other capabilities that the bureau provides?
    Because they do a lot of other ancillary things.
        Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely. And this is an area, Mr.
    Chairman, where I believe we have made quite a bit of progress
    for the 2010 census, and I brought a little exhibit. This is
    something we used to use in our sales force in the
    supermarkets. I didn't have anything to do with it. It was
    already in place here. But----
        Senator Shelby. It worked, didn't it?
        Secretary Gutierrez. It works. So, instead of carrying a
    pad and having to jot down, they will have these small
    computers and hand-helds. And they will be putting the
    information, as they get it, into this hand-held computer,
    which will be consolidated and tabulated in a central location.
        So we are miles ahead from where we were, say, 10 years ago
    for our census, and we have already started now to train
    people, to get people in place. We are now doing the American
    community survey on a monthly basis, which is a long----
        Senator Mikulski. Guess who just got her survey
    questionnaire.
        Secretary Gutierrez. That is right.
        Senator Mikulski. I got mine.
        Secretary Gutierrez. And that allows us to make the 10-year
    questionnaire shorter, easier, quicker. So we get more accurate
    information. That will be extremely important.
        So we are getting geared up, and I believe that the folks
    at Census have done a great job, and this is a major innovation
    that will just put us ahead in terms of----
        Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski, do you have any other
    questions?

                   PUBLIC SAFETY INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS

        Senator Mikulski. First of all, the chairman's questions on
    economic development and the census paralleled my own. And also
    his remarks on competitiveness.
        I think where there is a true opportunity for partnership
    between the executive and legislative branch on a bipartisan
    basis is in this area to make us more innovative. Because our
    goal is to be able to create what we hope will be the economic
    infrastructure, if you will, for there to be jobs in this
    country. And that is kind of where we are.
        My question, though, that didn't come up goes with another
    national security issue. And that goes with interoperability of
    communications with our first responders. And for we in the
    capital region this is a very intense need and, as you know, is
    a national need. And after 5 years, almost 4\1/2\ now since 9/
    11, we are still not interoperable.
        The National Telecommunications Information Administration
    (NTIA), we understand, is about to give out a lot of money for
    grants. They will award with interoperability grants. The money
    will come from spectrum auction. But we are concerned that the
    standards haven't been developed.
        There was supposed to be this voluntary effort between the
    telecommunications industry, association, something called
    ``Project 25'' to develop this. But as of this January, little
    progress has been made. And when NIST tests the equipment that
    is coming down the pike, it doesn't seem to meet the standards.
        So here is my question. What are we doing really to develop
    interoperable standards? So no matter if you are a local
    volunteer fire department, funding yourself with fish fries, or
    you are a big government like New York and New Jersey, or we in
    the capital region can talk to each other.
        What has been developed in standards? And what are we going
    to do with this billion dollars? I am afraid that this could be
    another techno-boondoggle where people go out and buy gear that
    can't communicate. And we are already concerned in the capital
    region that there are significant gaps here.
        Senator Shelby. We want it to work. You know that.
        Senator Mikulski. So we want to know what will the money
    buy? Who is going to be eligible? And are the standards ready?
    And if they are not ready, shouldn't we make sure that the
    standard is in place before we start giving out the money?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. We have the $1 billion, and we
    are actually doing a test in Washington, DC. This is the first
    time we have done a Federal/non-Federal test in the D.C. area
    to see what we can make interoperable, how much we can push
    this.
        And based on that test, which we need to push hard, we will
    come up with the framework, the standards that we can provide
    to business, get businesses' input and get to work on the
    national program. So we would roll out our D.C. test and it is
    just very fortunate that we are able to do it in the District.
        Senator Mikulski. When are you going to do that?
        Secretary Gutierrez. We are doing it as we speak. We are
    doing a test now. This is obviously interagency. It is
    Commerce. It is the Department of Homeland Security. It is
    Department of Justice. We can provide you that for the record.
        Senator Shelby. That would be good.
        [The information follows:]

        Public Safety Interoperable Communications Standards and Testing

        A report on this topic will be transmitted by letter from
    Secretary Gutierrez.

        Secretary Gutierrez. And a longer document on what is
    involved in the test.

              PUBLIC SAFETY INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SCENARIOS

        Senator Mikulski. But is the test to establish the
    standards?
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. The test will give us guidelines
    for the development of standards that we will develop in
    conjunction with the private sector.
        We believe the private sector needs some direction from us,
    and they need a little bit of help. And this test will give us
    the knowledge we need to tell the private sector how we should
    move forward because the private sector hasn't been as
    aggressive as we would like them to be.
        Senator Mikulski. Have you started to give the grants out
    yet?
        Secretary Gutierrez. No.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I would encourage you, let us not
    give out the money.
        Secretary Gutierrez. We haven't.
        Senator Mikulski. Because my observation, at least in the
    capital region, again, is there are a million salesmen out
    there with a lot of gizmos. Some are quite good. Some are
    questionable. And they go to everything from county governments
    to small towns in the counties, and they say, ``Buy this. Buy
    this. It will be okay.''
        And you know, we believe in competition, so not a single
    product. Again, not winners and losers, but that it all be
    interoperable, depending on what you buy. And that for national
    security reasons, in other words, homeland security reasons,
    that each gizmo, the more gadgets it has on it, the more
    expensive.
        But that there be a core element that whatever you buy for
    first responders and local government, that it be a core
    element that enables us to transmit voice and data so they know
    what to do.
        Secretary Gutierrez. I think the test will enable us to be
    more certain about what to buy and what not to buy.
        Senator Mikulski. Are you personally----
        Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Is this thing operated out of your
    office?
        Secretary Gutierrez. It is being operated out of John
    Kneuer's office, NTIA. But I am very close to this and----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Secretary, I know you have a
    lot on your plate, and I know you are traveling the world in
    the many issues we have talked about, protecting intellectual
    property, doing very important things for the good of our
    economic security. But this is a big one.
        Secretary Gutierrez. I would agree with that.
        Senator Mikulski. It is 4\1/2\ years since 9/11, and you
    would think that, number one, we can accelerate putting it in
    place. But working with NTIA, if you could personally keep an
    eye on it, so that it doesn't get bogged down. But at the same
    time, we really do achieve this goal. I think it is one of the
    most important things that you could accomplish, if I might be
    so bold.
        Secretary Gutierrez. I will stay very close to it. And if I
    may, I will send you a summary for the record of the test.
        Senator Shelby. That would be good.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes. Well, you know the importance of
    communication.
        Senator Shelby. That is right. Got to have it.
        Senator Mikulski. You know all about it, what you guys went
    through with Katrina. It could be a predatory attack, or it
    could be a natural disaster.
        Senator Shelby. We certainly need interoperability, don't
    we, Senator?
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, we certainly do.
        That concludes my questions.
        Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, we thank you for your
    appearance today.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        We are going to keep the record open because we have some
    other Senators that couldn't be here who would like to submit
    some questions for the record, and we will hope that when we
    get them to you that you could respond to them no later than
    June 16, as we are working on the fiscal year 2007
    appropriations.
        [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 Richard C. Shelby

        FISCAL YEAR 2006 SUPPLEMENTAL--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
                                 ADMINISTRATION

        Question. What financial mechanisms did the Department of Commerce
    use to create this almost three month delay in allocating December
    supplemental funds to the appropriate NOAA folks on the Gulf Coast?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce employed the standard financial
    and procedural mechanisms to approve, apportion and distribute the
    funds provided by Congress in Public Law 109-148. This enactment took
    just over six weeks, from the date of the signed appropriation to final
    distribution (please see timeline below).
        Question. Have all of the December supplemental funds been
    distributed? If not, why not?
        Answer. Yes. The funding was distributed to NOAA Line Offices on
    February 15, 2006. NOAA began conducting activities using those funds
    immediately.
        Question. How will the Department handle the distribution of
    additional supplemental funds?
        Answer. NOAA has formed an internal working team to expedite the
    distribution of funds. The Team has developed procedures to track the
    expenditures and ensure all internal control processes are set up to
    handle any additional funding.
        Question. Please provide the Committee with a timeline of events
    for getting supplemental funds to the intended recipients.
        Answer. The final transfer of funding to the intended recipient
    depends on the individual items listed in the supplemental. NOAA is
    working hard to award all contracts and transfer funding as soon as
    possible. The timeline for the enactment of funds from the December
    supplemental is as follows:
      --Public Law 109-148 signed--December 30, 2005
      --Apportionment Submitted to Department of Commerce--January 21, 2006
      --Apportionment Submitted to OMB--February 1, 2006
      --OMB Approval of Apportionment--February 9, 2006
      --Signed Apportionment received in NOAA--February 10, 2006
      --Final transfer to NOAA Line Offices--February 15, 2006

                      ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

        Question. How would this restructuring of accounts be more
    beneficial to our communities that rely on these grants for economic
    improvement?
        Answer. Under the RDA, EDA will simplify its application process
    for communities while maintaining its current selection criteria and
    traditional balance between rural and urban projects. The restructuring
    of accounts into the RDA will provide additional benefits to
    communities because it will:
      --Allow grantees to engage simultaneously in multiple activities in
            support of a common initiative with just one EDA grant (e.g.,
            infrastructure and technical assistance).
      --Provide EDA additional flexibility to respond to sudden and severe
            economic dislocations (e.g., a significant plant closure,
            natural disaster covered by the Stafford Act, or a military
            base closure), especially when those economic dislocations
            occur near the end of the fiscal year.
      --Mirror the flexibility of EDA's popular and proven Economic
            Adjustment account.
      --Eliminate redundant application and reporting requirements for
            grantees.
      --Increase EDA's efficiency by providing a single, flexible program
            account and avoid the accounting and management challenge of
            managing four separate ``buckets'' of funding across the six
            EDA regions.
        Question. Should this Committee agree to the change in accounts as
    proposed in the budget request, what assurances can you provide that
    this restructuring won't leave gaps in assistance?
        Answer. EDA is a discretionary program for which there will always
    be a greater demand than supply when it comes to funding. It is
    important to note that if the RDA were enacted, it would have no impact
    on EDA's investment selection criteria, balance between rural and urban
    investments, or focus on economic distress. Additionally, the RDA would
    not affect the general level of funding per project.
        Additionally, the RDA would better ensure that small jurisdictions
    and rural areas have a ``seat at the table'' within the larger regional
    economic development framework. The RDA would increase the focus on
    regional approaches, allowing rural areas to better build on shared
    strengths and link up with regional economic hubs. This focus would in
    turn enhance the economic prospects of rural and distressed areas as
    they attempt to integrate into the larger economic region and
    participate in the growing national economy.
        Please see also the attached document, ``Economic Development
    Administration--Regional Development Account''.
        Question. Given this recent reprogramming of funds, how can the
    funding level requested for fiscal year 2007 be sufficient to continue
    current operations without a reorganization or restructuring, when it
    is less than what we have been told is necessary for fiscal year 2006?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2007, EDA will defer or cancel planned
    projects, including automation and training initiatives, defer staff
    hires until later in the year or to the following year, recruit interns
    in lieu of higher-graded staff, identify every available resource and
    potential operational efficiency, and, if absolutely necessary, reduce
    staff in order to maintain a six regional office footprint and operate
    within the parameters of the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
    request.
        Question. What funding level is necessary to maintain current EDA
    operations in fiscal year 2007?
        Answer. EDA continues to support the President's budget request for
    fiscal year 2007. The Salaries and Expenses request is $29.7 million.
    The request level would necessitate programmatic and organizational
    changes. To maintain the current regional office structure and level of
    service provided without changes may require additional resources.

                   UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

        Question. Can you give us a status update on the U.S. Patent and
    Trademark Office's intellectual property education, outreach, and
    enforcement efforts?
        Answer. The USPTO is diligently working to help curb intellectual
    property theft and strengthen intellectual property (IP) protection and
    enforcement in every corner of the globe. As the largest IP office in
    the world, the USPTO is leading efforts to develop and strengthen
    domestic and international intellectual property protection.
        Under the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) of 1999 (Public
    Law 106-113), the USPTO is directed to advise the President, through
    the Secretary of Commerce, and all federal agencies on national and
    international intellectual property policy issues, including
    intellectual property protection in other nations. The USPTO is also
    authorized by the AIPA to provide guidance, conduct programs and
    studies, and otherwise interact with foreign intellectual property
    offices and international intergovernmental organizations on matters
    involving the protection of intellectual property.
        Through its Offices of International Relations, Enforcement, and
    Congressional Relations, the USPTO: (1) helps negotiate and works with
    Congress to implement international intellectual property treaties and
    develop domestic intellectual property related legislation; (2)
    provides technical assistance to foreign governments that are looking
    to develop or improve their intellectual property laws and systems; (3)
    provides capacity-building training programs to foreign intellectual
    property officials on intellectual property enforcement; (4) advises
    the Department of State and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on
    drafting and reviewing intellectual property sections in bilateral and
    multilateral investment treaties and trade agreements; (5) advises the
    USTR and the Department of State on intellectual property issues in the
    World Trade Organization (WTO); (6) works with USTR, the Department of
    State, and American industry on the annual review of intellectual
    property protection and enforcement under the Special 301 provisions of
    the Trade Act of 1974; and (7) consults with the Department of Justice
    and other federal law enforcement entities who are responsible for
    intellectual property enforcement.
        The Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) Initiative.--The
    USPTO is actively involved in the Administration's STOP! initiative,
    the most comprehensive U.S. Government-wide initiative created to
    combat trade in pirated and counterfeit goods. The initiative is a
    collaboration of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Homeland
    Security, and the Office of the USTR. The goal of the STOP! program is
    to prevent international piracy and counterfeiting and protect U.S.
    businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, overseas.
    The STOP! initiative has brought together all the major players at the
    highest levels--the federal government, private sector, and trade
    partners--and this increased level of coordination has produced some of
    the initiatives described below and real results in our worldwide
    efforts to promote and protect IP.
        Help Hotline.--As part of STOP!, the USPTO manages a hotline (1-
    866-999-HALT) that helps small- and medium-sized businesses leverage
    the resources of the U.S. Government to protect their intellectual
    property rights in the United States and abroad. Callers receive
    information from IP attorneys at the USPTO with regional expertise on
    how to secure patents, trademarks and copyrights, and on the
    enforcement of these rights.
        Stopfakes.gov.--The USPTO has established a link on its website to
    www.stopfakes.gov which provides in-depth detail of the STOP!
    initiative. One key feature of the website is the country specific
    ``Toolkits'' that have been created by our embassies overseas to assist
    small- and medium-sized businesses with intellectual property rights
    issues in China, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Russia, with additional
    toolkits to be posted soon. STOP! also seeks to increase global
    awareness of the risks and consequences of intellectual property crimes
    through a section of its website, www.stopfakes.com/smallbusiness, that
    is specifically designed and operated by the USPTO to answer common
    questions of small businesses so they can better identify and address
    their intellectual property protection needs.
        No-trade-in-fakes.--The no-trade-in-fakes program is being
    developed in cooperation with the private sector. This is a voluntary,
    industry driven set of guidelines and a corporate compliance program
    that participating companies will use to ensure their supply chains and
    retail networks are free of counterfeit or pirated goods. In addition,
    Customs and Border Protection (CBP) maintains a trademark recordation
    system for marks registered at the USPTO to assist the CBP in its
    efforts to prevent the importation of goods that infringe registered
    marks. The USPTO has begun mailing notices to new trademark registrants
    directing them to the services that CBP offers, and has established a
    website link on the USPTO homepage which contains the CBP form for
    recordation.
        Public Awareness Campaign.--While counterfeiting and piracy pose a
    serious threat to all American businesses, small businesses are
    particularly at risk since they often lack the knowledge and expertise
    to effectively combat them. Because small businesses typically do not
    have personnel or maintain large operations in other countries, theft
    of their intellectual property overseas can go undetected. As part of
    the STOP! initiative, the USPTO has launched an intensive national
    public awareness campaign to help educate small businesses on
    protecting their intellectual property both here and abroad.
        The USPTO began a conference series targeting small- and medium-
    sized businesses where participants learn what intellectual property
    rights are, why they are important, and how to protect and enforce
    these rights. Several workshops have been conducted throughout the
    country and the USPTO will continue to hold small-business outreach
    seminars to give American businesses face-to-face contact with
    intellectual property experts. This effort is expected to reach
    hundreds of American entrepreneurs in fiscal year 2006.
        The USPTO has also participated in a China road show in several
    U.S. cities for companies ranging from small businesses contemplating
    entering the China market to large corporations with established
    presence in China. Topics have included a review of recent laws and
    regulations promulgated by the Chinese government that affect
    protection and enforcement of intellectual property, what the U.S.
    Government is doing to improve intellectual property protection and
    enforcement in China, how to best protect business assets to avoid
    intellectual property problems, how to recognize product infringement,
    and steps to take if infringement occurs.
        Posting of IP Experts.--In partnership with the Department of
    Commerce's U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service and the Department of
    State, the USPTO is working to post additional IP experts in selected,
    high-profile countries where U.S. IP challenges are greatest. These
    countries include China, Brazil, India, Thailand, Russia and Egypt. The
    experts will advocate U.S. IP policy and interests, conduct training on
    IP rights matters, assist U.S. businesses and otherwise support the
    Embassy or Consulate action plan on IP rights.
        Global Intellectual Property Academy.--In the fall of 2005, USPTO
    created the Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA), which
    consolidates and greatly expands USPTO's curriculum of training and
    capacity building programs on intellectual property rights protection
    and enforcement. Through the GIPA, USPTO will bring foreign government
    officials including judges, prosecutors, police, Customs officers,
    patent, trademark and copyright officials and policy makers to the
    United States to learn, discuss and strategize about global IPR
    protection and enforcement. In fiscal year 2006, the USPTO expects this
    effort to reach several hundred foreign IPR officials. GIPA programs
    cover the gamut of patent, trademark, copyright and IPR enforcement
    issues facing the global economy, and are offered by USPTO acting in
    close cooperation with other U.S. federal government agencies.
        Training, Workshop and Seminar Events.--Various completed and
    planned training, workshops, seminars and other IP-related events are
    ongoing.

      NATIONAL POLAR-ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SYSTEM
                                    (NPOESS)

        Question. In your opening statement, you say that your Department's
    goal will be to ``ensure the best possible approach for meeting the
    Nation's civilian and military meteorological needs and protecting the
    taxpayer.'' What exactly are the options being considered within NOAA
    in response to the increased cost and schedule delays for NPOESS?
        Answer. In addition to the program of record, a range of options
    were considered in the Nunn-McCurdy certification process. The options
    (over 40 were considered) are best characterized as: reducing the
    number of satellites on orbit; changing the capabilities of the
    instruments on the satellite; and delaying launch dates. After five
    months of careful and extensive deliberations, the Tri-Agency group
    participating in the Nunn-McCurdy certification process chose an option
    that reduces the number of orbits from three to two; continues
    cooperation with the European Organisation for the Exploitation of
    Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) for the mid-morning orbit;
    minimizes any potential gaps in coverage; and reduces requirements for
    the Conical-scanning Microwave Imager/Sounder (CMIS) resulting in a
    recompete of a less complex system. The cost to procure several
    secondary sensors is not included in the certified program; however,
    the program will plan for and fund the integration of these sensors on
    the spacecraft. Further, any additional funding gained through contract
    renegotiation or in unutilized management reserve would be used to
    procure these secondary sensors.
        Question. Would NOAA be better off going it alone on the NPOESS
    program, rather than continuing the partnership with the U.S. Air Force
    and NASA? What would be the cost for NOAA to take on a satellite
    program of this magnitude on its own?
        Answer. As a precaution during the Nunn-McCurdy certification
    process, NOAA (with the assistance of NASA) looked at the ways to
    maintain continuity of polar satellite data other than the converged
    NPOESS program. Any scenario where NOAA would go it alone would be
    costly and yield less capability than the partnership program. The
    restructured program maintains the Tri-Agency partnership of the
    original program. NOAA continues to support the Tri-Agency program and
    benefits by the 50:50 funding partnership between the Air Force and
    NOAA.
        Question. How are we addressing potential gaps in satellite
    coverage given the delays that have already been experienced, and the
    possibility of even more delays due to the Nunn-McCurdy process?
        Answer. The number one priority in all of the Nunn-McCurdy
    certification analysis and deliberations was to avoid a gap in
    operational data delivery. The restructured program provides high
    confidence that no gap will exist. A 90 percent confidence level
    schedule for avoiding an operational data gap has been laid out for the
    restructured program. Before the launch of the first NPOESS, NOAA seeks
    to delay the launch of its last polar satellite, NOAA N Prime; rely on
    the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP); and through a partnership with
    EUMETSAT, will receive data from METOP. An updated NPOESS satellite
    schedule is attached.

                             U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN

        Question. Why is the gap so consistently great between the
    administration's annual requests to support our oceans with that of the
    true needs of our ocean community?
        Answer. NOAA has a diverse mission ranging from managing fisheries
    to predicting the severe weather. The Administration's requests provide
    a balanced set of priorities to sustain core mission services and
    address our highest priority program needs. However, even with a
    restrained fiscal environment, the fiscal year 2007 President's budget
    includes over $184.9 million in increases for ocean and coastal needs.
        NOAA will continue to work within the Administration and with
    Congress to ensure the ocean community's highest needs are addressed.
        Question. In what way does the fiscal year 2007 budget request
    provide sufficient funding to address NOAA's responsibilities in
    relation to the Joint Ocean Commission's Reports, or does the current
    request follow the same trend as 2005 and 2006 as identified by the
    recent report?
        Answer. Both the fiscal year 2007 President's budget and NOAA's
    activities support the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan, which
    responded to the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
    Policy. NOAA has requested $1.7 billion in ocean and coastal related
    programs and activities in the fiscal year 2007 President's budget
    request in support of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan (OAP); this is an
    increase of $184.9 million over the fiscal year 2007 base. The OAP
    reflects the Administration's focus on achieving meaningful results--
    making our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes cleaner, healthier, and more
    productive. The Plan itself is a budget-neutral document, and does not
    commit any new investments to fulfilling its objectives.
        Question. What progress has NOAA made in addressing the
    recommendations put forward by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
    specifically the Report Card's low marks for ``International
    Leadership'' and ``Research, Science and Education?''
        Answer. As you know, the Administration responded to the
    Commission's report with the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. The OAP reflects
    the Administration's focus on achieving meaningful results--making our
    oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes cleaner, healthier, and more
    productive. It recognizes the challenges in developing management
    strategies that ensure continued conservation of coastal and marine
    habitats and living resources while at the same time ensuring that the
    American public enjoys and benefits from those same resources.
        Not all of our work towards implementing the OAP is budgetary in
    nature. A key achievement has been to address the Ocean Commission's
    call to improve coordination of Federal agencies with ocean-related
    missions through the creation of the interagency Committee on Ocean
    Policy and its subsidiary groups. NOAA is lead or co-lead, for roughly
    half the assigned items from the President's plan, and has made
    significant strides on several OAP actions:
      --The NOAA Organic Act establishing NOAA within the Department of
            Commerce was transmitted to Congress in April 2005.
      --Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
            reauthorization and legislation to establish a national
            offshore aquaculture program was introduced.
      --An Administration bill for the reauthorization of the Marine Mammal
            Protection Act was submitted in June 2005.
      --NOAA is playing a key role in the Gulf of Mexico Alliance and the
            planning for the formation of a Northeast Regional Oceans
            Council.
      --NOAA Fleet: NOAA received $34 million in fiscal year 2005 to build
            the third Fisheries Survey Vessel, which is expected to be
            delivered in late 2007. NOAA also exercised an option for about
            $30 million to build the fourth planned vessel under an
            existing contract. Construction will begin in 2006 with
            delivery planned during the second half of 2008.
        Many of the remaining action items--including improving
    International Leadership and Research, Science and Education--are long-
    term projects which are more about changing the way the world manages
    our ocean resources:
      --Ocean Education.--The Ocean Hall exhibition--developed in concert
            with NOAA--has opened at the Smithsonian, and is slated to be
            open for 30 years, with a web portal that provides virtual
            access to the museum's marine collections.
      --Regional Partnership in the Gulf of Mexico.--The Gulf Governors'
            Action Plan has been developed by the five Gulf States as part
            of the Gulf of Mexico Partnership. The Action Plan was unveiled
            on March 28, 2006, at the State of the Gulf Summit in Corpus
            Christi, Texas.
      --Partnership Creation.--State Department funding of $320,000 for a
            White Water to Blue Water Initiative small grants program will
            allow ongoing partnerships to continue and new partnerships to
            be developed among international and multi-sectoral partners
            which will promote integrated watershed and marine ecosystem-
            based management.
      --Link the Global Marine Assessment (GMA) and Global Earth
            Observation System of Systems.--Through international
            cooperation, the GEOSS will collect and disperse data
            information from terrestrial, atmospheric, climate, and ocean
            observations. The GMA, under development since the World Summit
            on Sustainable Development, will seek to establish a regular,
            comprehensive process of reporting and assessment of the state
            of the global marine environment.

                             CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

        Question. What can Congress do to fully fund the needs of the
    agency, including those activities that have been eliminated or under-
    funded by the administration, in a manner that would not cause the
    administration to view those activities as Congressional ``add-ons?''
        Answer. The first priority is to fully fund the fiscal year 2007
    President's budget request. The request level of $3,684 million
    contains modest investments in core programs and ocean-related
    activities. The President's budget is focused on meeting National needs
    for NOAA services. In many cases, the Congressional ``earmarks'' and
    ``add-ons'' address a single purpose in a defined geographic area.
    While some have merit and support NOAA's mission, the fiscal year 2007
    request focused on the highest priority programs to meet National
    needs.

                            DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT

        Question. Within the Departmental Management Salaries and Expenses
    account, there is a $3.6 million increase for E-Government Initiatives.
    Is this funding level for the E-Government Initiatives of the
    Department of Commerce only? Are any of these funds a ``tax'' to be
    paid to the Office of Management and Budget?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce has included a funding request
    for e-government initiatives and lines of business (LoB) for fiscal
    year 2007. The breakdown is as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Agency                    Initiative/LoB                       Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPA E-Rulemaking                                          $855,000
    DOC/ITA International Trade Process Streamlining               740,000
        SBA Business Gateway                                       329,000
        HHS Grants.gov                                             521,000
        GSA Integrated Acquisition                                 174,000
        GSA E-Authentication                                       749,000
        GSA Financial Management LoB                                83,000
        OPM Human Resources LoB                                    130,000
        HHS Grants Management LoB                                   60,000
                                                              --------------
                  Total Commerce                                 3,641,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        These funds represent the total Commerce funding contribution to
    the managing partner agencies, which develop the initiatives and lines
    of business. Funding amounts are based on initiative and line of
    business costs and were jointly determined by the managing partner
    agency and the agencies making use of the services provided by the
    initiative and lines of business. The funds are used by the managing
    partner agencies to support operations and implementation of the
    initiatives and lines of business. As a user of services provided by
    these initiatives and lines of business, Commerce benefits through
    economies of scale, avoidance of duplication of effort, and improved
    services to its citizen constituents.
        These funds will be sent through memoranda of understanding to the
    managing partner agencies. The Office of Management and Budget does not
    receive any of the Commerce funds.
        Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $18 million
    for the renovation and modernization of the Herbert C. Hoover Building,
    headquarters for the Department of Commerce. The Committee notes that
    funding was requested in fiscal year 2006, but not appropriated. What
    would this level of funding provide?
        Answer. This funding level would allow DOC to fund its share of
    costs related to the first phase of construction (primarily build out
    and furnishing of a consolidated data center and internal swing space);
    fund the fiscal year 2007 portion of the DOC share of costs for the GSA
    Lease Prospectus approved by Congress (moving one-third of the HCHB
    employees to leased swing space, providing unoccupied areas for
    renovation of one-third of the HCHB at a time); and to fund a Project
    Management Office (PMO) that will manage DOC responsibilities
    throughout the life of the renovation. The fiscal year 2007 funding
    request consists of three major components listed below.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Build-out and furnish the courtyard 6 space.............      $5,900,000
    Lease space costs.......................................      10,400,000
    Contract support for PMO................................       1,700,000
                                                             ---------------
          TOTAL.............................................      18,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. How many years of follow-on funding would be needed to
    complete the renovation of the Herbert C. Hoover Building?
        Answer. The renovation project is expected to continue through
    2017.
        Question. Within the Departmental Management Salaries and Expenses
    account, there is a $5.9 million increase for blast mitigation windows
    for the Herbert C. Hoover Building. Is this the total funding level
    necessary, or will there be an additional request in fiscal year 2008?
    How many years of funding and at what level may we expect to see in
    this account?
        Answer. Approximately one-third of the facility will be protected
    with the start-up funding requested in fiscal year 2007. Additional
    funding requirements and timing of installation of additional windows
    will need to be determined in the context of the overall Hoover
    Building renovation.
        Question. Why are blast mitigation windows necessary for the
    Department, when other D.C. offices--even the U.S. Capitol--use more
    cost effective alternatives?
        Answer. Blast mitigation windows are required to protect the lives
    of our employees and other occupants. It is the most cost-effective
    protection for this unique facility. All other Federal buildings in the
    Federal Triangle area have upgraded windows.
        The HCHB requires this level of countermeasure to mitigate the risk
    to our employees. Vulnerability factors include:
      --Location immediately adjacent to two intersection HAZMAT routes
            (14th Street and Constitution Avenue) and nearby rail line that
            transports HAZMAT cargo.
      --No available standoff, dedicated police officers or permanent/
            temporary street closures (available at U.S. Capitol).
      --Proximity to known terrorism targets.
        Independent studies on the HCHB by GSA and the Federal Protective
    Service (now DHS) recognized the vulnerability to hazardous window
    failure and documented the requirement for blast windows to provide
    cost-effective security.
      --Federal Protective Service (now DHS): Security Survey/Risk
            Assessment Report, 2001. ``Window protection is inadequate.''
      --GSA: Window Blast Hazard Mitigation Study, 2003. The HCHB ``is
            vulnerable to hazardous window failure . . . windows,
            therefore, require an upgrade.''
      --GSA: Modification of HCHB HVAC to Obtain Positive Building
            Pressurization and Air Filtration, 2003. ``Existing windows are
            in `poor condition' and need to be replaced to improve the
            pressurization that will mitigate chemical, biological, and
            radiological contaminants.''

                      ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

        Question. You have stated that EDA can operate within the
    parameters of the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request and
    maintain a six office regional footprint. What impact, if any, will
    there be, on service delivery, operations and human resource levels by
    maintaining six offices with this level of resources for this number of
    offices?
        Answer. EDA is committed to honoring congressional intent by
    maintaining a six-office regional footprint while at the same time
    supporting the President's budget request. EDA will do this by
    dedicating available resources to essential activities such as proposal
    review and approval, grant award, grant administration and required
    reporting, achieving efficiencies and process improvements throughout
    its operations. EDA will ensure adequate funding of these essential
    services through reductions to non-essential and lower priority
    activities. This could include reductions to one-on-one customer
    assistance before and during the application process, process
    automation, training, post-award customer support and oversight. As a
    last resort, EDA may be required to consider staff reductions.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Shelby. For the information of Senators and others,
    this subcommittee's next hearing is scheduled for June 7 in the
    Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 192 at 10 a.m. on overview
    of the 2006 hurrance season.
        Until then, the subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 3:09 p.m., Wednesday, May 3, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2007

                                  ----------

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [The following testimonies were received by the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies for inclusion in the record. The submitted materials
    relate to the fiscal year 2007 budget request for programs
    within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of Marine Laboratories

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
    National Association of Marine Laboratories I am pleased to submit this
    statement in strong support of the President's American Competitiveness
    Initiative, as well as the research and education programs under the
    subcommittee's jurisdiction that are vitally important for a vibrant
    oceans, coastal, and Great Lakes research and education enterprise. My
    name is Tony Michaels and I am the director of the Wrigley Institute
    for Environmental Studies at the University of Southern California. I
    am submitting this statement as the President of National Association
    of Marine Laboratories (NAML).
        NAML is a nonprofit organization of over 120 member institutions
    employing more than 10,000 scientists, engineers, and professionals and
    representing ocean, coastal and Great Lakes laboratories stretching
    from Maine to the Gulf of Mexico to the west coast, from Guam to
    Bermuda and from Alaska to Puerto Rico. NAML labs support the conduct
    of high quality ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research and education
    in the natural and social sciences and the effective use of that
    science for decision-making on the important issues that face our
    country. Through national and regional networks, NAML labs--
      --Promote and support basic and applied research of the highest
            quality from the unique perspective of coastal laboratories;
      --Assist local, regional and State entities with information related
            to the use and conservation of marine and coastal resources
            using ecosystem-based management approaches;
      --Recognize, encourage and support the unique and significant role
            that coastal laboratories play in workforce development,
            enhancing science/ocean literacy, and in conducting education,
            outreach, and public service programs for K-gray audiences; and
      --Facilitate the exchange of information and relevant expertise
            between NAML member institutions, government agencies, and the
            private sector.

                      AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE

        NAML strongly supports the President's fiscal year 2007 American
    Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) for research and education along with
    the accompanying Presidential budget request which includes a doubling
    of the Federal commitment to basic research programs in the physical
    sciences over the next 10 years. NAML expressly supports the
    President's fiscal year 2007 request of $6.02 billion for the NSF.
        While not officially part of the President's ACI, NAML also urges
    the subcommittee to recognize and support the vital research programs
    of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and calls
    on the subcommittee to fund NOAA at a level of $4.5 billion which would
    enable NOAA to carry out its multiple missions on behalf of the
    American people.

                    OCEAN, COASTAL AND GREAT LAKES RESEARCH

        NAML strongly supports enhanced support for cutting edge ocean,
    coastal, and Great Lakes research in the natural and social sciences,
    education, outreach, and related infrastructure. The marine sciences
    have much to offer the Nation as it seeks to strengthen its ability to
    innovate and compete in today's global economy. They are inherently
    interdisciplinary, push the envelope in terms of technology
    development, test the boundaries of our data collection and analysis
    systems, and offer an effective training ground for future scientists
    and engineers. As the Nation seeks to augment its investment in the
    physical sciences to increase its international competitiveness, NAML
    calls on policy makers to recognize the integrated nature of the marine
    sciences and to support an enhanced investment in these as well as
    other science and engineering disciplines as part of any long term
    economic competitiveness policy.
        NAML supports increased federal funding for the National Science
    Foundation (NSF) consistent with the President's budget for fiscal year
    2007. Basic research and the transfer and use of the knowledge
    developed through research are vital for the long term economic
    competitiveness and national security of this Nation. It is
    increasingly important for the Nation to maintain--and enhance--its
    scientific edge in a global community with emerging new capacities for
    scientific research. NSF provides vital support for basic research and
    education which enhances public understanding of the Nation's oceans,
    coastal areas, and the Great Lakes. NSF also provides important support
    for basic laboratory facilities, instrumentation, support systems,
    computing and related cyberinfrastructure, and ship access. The final
    report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy makes several
    recommendations on the need to develop and enhance ocean, coastal and
    Great Lakes research infrastructure. That infrastructure includes
    research vessels, ocean observing systems, and the shore-based
    instrumentation and equipment needed to collect and analyze the data
    and observations made by research vessels and the observing systems.
    For that reason, NAML strongly supports the NSF proposal to initiate
    support for the development of the Ocean Observatories Initiative in
    the fiscal year 2007 budget request. NAML also urges the Congress to
    provide $5 million for the expansion of the NSF's Field Stations and
    Marine Laboratories program. This modest program provides researchers
    with access to state of the art instrumentation for research and
    education and necessary cyberinfrastructure and data management systems
    that complement the Ocean Observatories Initiative.
        NOAA is one of the premier science agencies in the Federal
    Government, providing decision makers with important data, products and
    services that promote and enhance the Nation's economy, security,
    environment, and quality of life. It was NOAA--and its underlying
    science enterprise--that enabled the delivery of accurate and timely
    information regarding the impending landfall of Hurricane Katrina in
    2005, a forecast that saved tens of thousands of lives.
        The $4.5 billion recommended for NOAA would fully fund the
    President's fiscal year 2007 budget request, restore funding for core
    programs, and address all the areas of concern and priority that have
    traditionally been supported by Congress. It would allow enhancements
    in the development of an integrated ocean and atmospheric observing
    system; increased research and education activities and expanded ocean
    conservation and management programs; and provide critical improvements
    in infrastructure (satellites, ships, high performance computers,
    facilities), and data management.
        In August 2004, a congressionally requested study of NOAA's
    research programs, entitled, Review of the Organization and Management
    of Research in NOAA concluded that extramural research is critical to
    accomplishing NOAA's mission. The access to such enhanced research
    capacities provides NOAA with world class expertise not found in NOAA
    laboratories; connectivity with planning and conduct of global science;
    means to leverage external funding sources; facilitation of multi-
    institution cooperation; access to vast and unique research facilities;
    and access to graduate and undergraduate students. Academic scientists
    also benefit from working with NOAA, in part, by learning to make their
    research more directly relevant to management and policy. It is an
    important two-way interaction and exchange of information and value.
        NAML strongly supports a robust NOAA extramural research activity
    and calls on the subcommittee to support the National Sea Grant
    program, the National Undersea Research program, the Ocean Exploration
    Initiative, as well as research related to aquaculture, invasive
    species, harmful algal blooms and the various joint and cooperative
    institutes at levels envisioned in last year's Senate version of the
    Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. These partnership programs
    are not only consistent with the findings of the August 2004 review of
    NOAA research, but are also consistent with the NOAA strategic plan and
    enable NOAA to carry out its mission at the State and local level.

             OCEAN, COASTAL AND GREAT LAKES EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

        A strong national ocean policy can only be sustained through the
    development of high-quality coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes education
    programs that support learning at all age levels and by all
    disciplines. Through such efforts, NAML can highlight the relevance and
    utility of coastal, ocean and Great Lakes resources and demonstrate and
    increase the value of incorporating science-based decisions in a public
    policy process designed to protect and enhance these resources. For
    that reason, NAML strongly supports the NSF Centers for Ocean Science
    Education Excellence program (COSEE), NSF education and human resources
    generally, and NOAA's Office of Education. Such programs provide a rich
    environment within which partnerships flourish. A greater understanding
    of the oceans and coastal ecosystems will instill a sense of
    stewardship for these important environments. These programs also yield
    a more diverse workforce that includes a significant participation by
    underrepresented groups. Preparing these cultural bridges would allow
    us to capitalize upon diverse national strengths, ensuring the flow of
    intellectual talent into ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes-related
    fields.

                   OCEAN COMMISSION AND INTERAGENCY RESPONSE

        NAML strongly supports implementation of the recommendations from
    the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the initial efforts of the
    administration's Interagency Committee on Ocean Policy to develop a
    response to the commission's recommendations. The commission's analysis
    of policies governing oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes has resulted in a
    collection of bold and broad-reaching recommendations for reform.
    Implementation of these recommendations by the Federal Government will
    enable the United States to maintain and strengthen its role as a world
    leader in protecting and sustaining the planet's oceans, coasts, and
    Great Lakes. NAML is particularly supportive of the commission's
    recommendation to re-align NOAA's functions to support ecosystem-based
    management approaches. In addition, we fully endorse the commission's
    recommendations to double the federal investment in ocean, coastal, and
    Great Lakes research as well as its recommendation to promote a strong
    federal investment in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes education,
    outreach, and stewardship. The commission's recommendations are
    important first steps in addressing the Nation's ocean, coastal, and
    Great Lakes needs.
        NAML is supportive of the initial steps taken by the administration
    in response to the commission's report--including the creation of
    Committee on Ocean Policy established in December 2004 by Executive
    Order. NAML is committed to working with the interagency Joint
    Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology and to commenting on the
    forthcoming Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy.

          INTEGRATED OCEAN, COASTAL AND GREAT LAKES OBSERVING SYSTEMS

        Integrated observations offer critical information on coastal
    processes necessary for addressing issues, such as the health of humans
    and marine life, weather and climate nowcasts and forecasts, homeland
    security, and resource management. Coastal and marine laboratories have
    been addressing this need. However, funding for existing subsystems is
    difficult to sustain, and significant additional funding is required to
    implement the national integrated system. Although efforts have been
    made in the past to coordinate federal agencies involved in ocean and
    coastal research and national and international programs regarding
    coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes observing systems, further investment
    and strengthened cooperation at all levels is still needed to ensure
    that these systems are sustained and that they incorporate the long-
    term monitoring efforts of the Nation's coastal and marine
    laboratories. NAML enthusiastically supports the development of a
    sustained integrated ocean observing system to be managed by NOAA.

                                   CONCLUSION

        NAML recognizes the extraordinary fiscal constraints and difficult
    choices the subcommittee must make. Nevertheless, the research and
    education programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction are vital
    investments in the future of this Nation and deserve the maximum
    support possible. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these
    recommendations.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
                              Experimental Biology

        The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
    (FASEB) is a coalition of 22 independent scientific societies who
    together represent more than 84,000 biomedical research scientists. The
    mission of FASEB is to enhance the ability of biomedical and life
    scientists to improve, through their research, the health, well-being
    and productivity of all people. As your committee begins deliberations
    on appropriations for agencies under its jurisdiction, FASEB would like
    to offer its views on funding for the National Science Foundation
    (NSF). FASEB recommends an appropriation of $6.4 billion for the
    National Science Foundation in fiscal year 2007. This appropriation
    should be the start of a long-term, steadily increasing national
    investment in the agency, which was the goal of the NSF Doubling Act of
    2002.
        For more than 50 years, NSF has served as our Nation's premier
    sponsor of fundamental research and science education. NSF invests in
    talent, ideas, and tools that cross all boundaries of scientific
    inquiry to produce new discoveries and technologies. These innovations
    save lives, enhance our economic productivity, protect our country, and
    increase our knowledge and understanding of the world.
        As other countries make research and development (R&D) spending a
    top priority, U.S. investment in basic research achieves heightened
    importance for maintaining America's global competitiveness. According
    to the recent National Academies' report, Rising Above The Gathering
    Storm: Energizing and Employing America For A Brighter Future, the U.S.
    risks falling behind other nations in its number of highly trained
    scientists and engineers. In China, 57 percent of undergraduates
    receive their degrees in science and engineering, compared to just 33
    percent in the United States.\1\ A large fraction of the U.S. students
    lack the fundamental knowledge necessary to succeed in these fields.
    Less than one-third of U.S. 4th grade and 8th grade students performed
    at or above a level of ``proficient'' in mathematics; proficiency was
    considered the ability to exhibit competence with challenging subject
    matter.\2\ In 2001, the Hart-Rudman Commission on American National
    Security--a bipartisan panel set up to address the national security
    challenges of the new century--stated, ``second only to a weapon of
    mass destruction detonating in an American city, we can think of
    nothing more dangerous than a failure to manage properly science,
    technology, and education for the common good over the next quarter
    century.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Data are from National Science Board. 2006 Science and
    Engineering Indicators (NSB 06-02). Arlington, VA: National Science
    Foundation, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c2/c2s4.htm. accessed
    March 8, 2006.
        \2\ National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in
    International Mathematics and Science Study, 2003. http://nces.edu.gov/
    timss accessed November 16, 2005.
        \3\ U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century.
    Recommendations of Hart-Rudman National Security Report: R&D. FYI: The
    AIP Bulletin of Science Policy News. FYI # 22: February 28, 2001.
    www.aip.org/fyi/2001/022.html. accessed November 16, 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NSF receives less than 5 percent of the federal R&D budget but
    takes a leading role in promoting progress in science and technology.
    Each year, NSF awards grants to more than 200,000 scientists, teachers,
    and student researchers for cutting-edge projects in science,
    engineering, and mathematics at thousands of educational institutions
    across the country. NSF educational programs develop the talent needed
    to maintain our science and technology (S&T) leadership.
        Through its core programs, NSF subsidizes the highest quality,
    fundamental research in all major S&T fields. This broad approach makes
    the agency unique among federal sponsors of research, enabling NSF to
    play a critical role in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration,
    stimulating the flow of ideas across scientific boundaries. The ability
    of scientists to share insights and perspectives across disciplines has
    produced impressive breakthroughs and solutions for perplexing
    problems. For example, NSF-funded research at the intersection of
    material science and medicine has developed a modified form of collagen
    that could be used to block the formation of scar tissue, control the
    growth of tiny blood vessels in tissues destined for transplant, and
    even lead to better infection-fighting bandages.
        Research funded by the National Science Foundation is providing
    knowledge and information on a host of America's most vexing problems.
    With breakthroughs in public safety and natural disaster mitigation,
    alternative energy sources, and medicine, NSF support is leading the
    way toward new discoveries that have significant economic and societal
    benefits. Recent advances by NSF-funded scientists include:
        The recent natural disasters are a stark reminder that much is
    needed in the way of understanding how these unique phenomena happen
    and what can be done to anticipate and respond to such occurrences.
    Research funded by NSF is exploring ways to reduce the impacts of
    catastrophic events.
      --Epidemic containment.--An NSF-supported computer network
            contributed to the containment of the SARS outbreak last year
            by connecting quarantined doctors in Taiwan to a world-wide
            network of medical researchers. This network has a potential
            application in the event of a pandemic flu outbreak.
      --New Orleans levee work.--NSF-funded engineers discovered that the
            flooding of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina was caused
            not by water flowing over the top of the levees, but was the
            result of faulty soil composition supporting the levee walls.
      --Hurricane and fire forecasting.--Computer models, created via NSF
            funding, have been used to predict the path and intensity of
            both hurricanes and fires, providing valuable information to
            reduce the loss of lives and property.
      --Unmanned aircraft search and rescue.--Unmanned aircraft, developed
            through NSF support, were used to search for survivors
            immediately following Hurricane Katrina.
        As our population grows and our dependence on oil and natural gas
    increases, research into alternative fuels will help conserve energy,
    reduce the need for petroleum, and provide environmentally sustainable
    solutions to our energy needs. NSF research is working towards making
    alternative fuel technology a reality.
      --Ocean-powered buoys.--NSF has supported development of
            electromagnetic buoys that efficiently collect the power of
            ocean waves.
      --Extended-life batteries.--Researchers have developed a porous
            silicone chip that can be used in low-energy batteries to power
            remote sensors for decades.
      --Hydrogen leak sensor.--With the current emphasis on hydrogen fuel
            cells as an energy source, these miniature sensors will be
            crucial to prevent leaks of this combustible gas.
        NSF is ideally positioned to sponsor new research efforts that
    combine the best researchers from biology, chemistry, computer science,
    economics, engineering, environmental sciences, geology, mathematics,
    and physics to help alleviate human suffering and increase the health
    of all Americans.
      --New antibiotics.--By investigating exotic plant species in Central
            America, investigators have identified what could be the next
            generation of antibiotics, helping to slow the growing presence
            of antibiotic-resistant infections.
      --Heart valve testing.--As a way to test the effectiveness of
            replacement heart valves, researchers supported by NSF have
            determined that curdled milk best mimics the characteristics of
            blood as it passes through the valve.
      --Freeze-tolerant tissue.--NSF awards are being used to explore the
            unique properties of animals such as frogs and fish, which
            survive freezing temperatures, in an effort to preserve tissues
            for transplantation over extended periods of time.
        Nanotechnology is an innovation in which objects are designed and
    built at the level of individual atoms or molecules. This new field is
    revolutionizing everything from computers to health care and NSF is
    leading the charge.
      --Nanopowders.--Chemically manufactured nanopowders have been
            designed to absorb toxic chemicals, including nerve gas and
            acid spills, with rapid action to prevent hazardous situations.
      --Bio-Nanotube.--Small chemical sensors have the potential to rapidly
            monitor the bodily functions of patients, such as blood sugar
            levels in diabetics or hormone levels after drug treatment,
            without invasive procedures. They can also be used to deliver
            drugs or genes to specific cellular targets.
      --Nanowires.--Miniature-scale wires are able to traverse the blood
            vessels of the brain to monitor and stimulate specific brain
            regions, with potential use in Parkinson's and trauma patients.
        One of the most important roles that NSF plays in support of the
    Nation's S&T infrastructure is its major contribution to science
    education. NSF helps create the next generation of scientists and
    engineers through its active support of primary and secondary school
    science curriculum development and graduate and postdoctoral student
    training in all scientific disciplines. NSF funding is necessary to
    ensure an adequately prepared workforce for addressing the challenges
    of the 21st century. Through NSF, our Nation supports each stage in the
    science education pipeline to encourage and retain the best and
    brightest talents in S&T.
      --Science mentoring for young women.--Researchers have determined
            that pairing high school girls interested in science with
            elementary school girls encourages both groups to pursue a
            science education.
      --Engaging young scientists.--Through NSF-funded training grants in
            science and math, researchers in North Carolina have developed
            new activity-based curriculums to encourage young students to
            pursue science and math careers.
        NSF supports nearly 50 percent of the non-medical basic research at
    U.S. colleges and universities. It funds research in new frontiers of
    scientific inquiry and contributes to creating a highly skilled,
    competitive science and engineering workforce. In addition, NSF
    programs have been cited by the Office of Management and Budget and the
    Government Accountability Office for their creativity, efficiency and
    innovativeness. Despite this record of accomplishment, NSF funding has
    lagged, resulting in a steady reduction in the percentage of quality
    applications that receive funding, a failure to increase the size of
    NSF awards to support the increased costs of research, and the loss of
    training support for the next generation of scientists and engineers.
    Congress recognized this agency's critical importance when it
    authorized the doubling of the NSF's budget by 2007.\4\ To date,
    however, Congress and the administration have failed to fulfill the
    vision of this legislation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ National Science Foundation Act of 2002. P.L. No. 107-368.
    December 19, 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If we are going to continue leading the world in innovation and
    prepare for the future, NSF is crucial to this goal. As NSF Director
    Dr. Arden Bement, Jr., has said, ``America's sustained economic
    prosperity is based on technological innovation made possible, in large
    part, by fundamental science and engineering research. Innovation and
    technology are the engines of the American economy, and advances in
    science and engineering provide the fuel.'' \5\ Without a greater
    commitment to NSF, our country faces the grave possibility of losing
    its global dominance in science and technology.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Dr. Arden Bement Jr. Testimony before the United States Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD and Independent Agencies.
    February 17, 2005, available online at: http://
    appropriations.senate.gov/hearmarkups/record.cfm?id=232167, accessed on
    November 1, 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        President Bush recognized the importance of research funded by the
    National Science Foundation when he unveiled his American
    Competitiveness Initiative last month. The President has said
    ``Groundbreaking ideas generated by innovative minds have paid enormous
    dividends--improving the lives and livelihoods of generations of
    Americans. With more research in both the public and private sectors,
    we will improve our quality of life--and ensure that America will lead
    the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.'' We urge
    you appropriate $6.4 billion for the National Science Foundation in
    fiscal year 2007.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Sea Grant Association

               SEA GRANT FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Jonathan Kramer,
    President of the Sea Grant Association and Director of the Maryland Sea
    Grant program. The Sea Grant Association (SGA) is a non-profit
    organization dedicated to furthering the Sea Grant program concept. The
    SGA's regular members are the academic institutions that participate in
    the National Sea Grant College program. SGA provides the mechanism for
    these institutions to coordinate their activities, to set program
    priorities at both the regional and national level, and to provide a
    unified voice for these institutions on issues of importance to the
    oceans and coasts. The SGA advocates for greater understanding, use,
    and conservation of marine, coastal and Great Lakes resources.
        The SGA joins with many other NOAA stakeholders to urge the
    subcommittee to recognize and support the vital research and outreach
    programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    SGA requests the subcommittee to fund NOAA at a level of $4.5 billion
    in fiscal year 2007 which would enable the agency to carry out its
    mission: To understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment
    and conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our
    Nation's economic, social, and environmental needs.
        As part of the overall fiscal year 2007 NOAA appropriation, the SGA
    requests the subcommittee to appropriate $72 million for the National
    Sea Grant College program. This amount is well within the $100.5
    million level authorized in Public Law 107-299, National Sea Grant
    College Program Act Amendments of 2002 for fiscal year 2007. Further,
    this recommended amount is the same as the amount provided in last
    year's Senate passed Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill.
    Appropriating this request would reverse the significant reduction
    taken by the program in fiscal year 2006 and more importantly, would
    allow the Sea Grant program to provide the research support,
    information, education, and outreach needed to assist NOAA in carrying
    out its mission throughout the United States.

                 SEA GRANT--SCIENCE SERVING THE NATION'S COASTS

        Sea Grant is an investment in America's economic future. Attempts
    to balance our booming coastal economy with its associated impacts on
    the coastal and marine environment have raised the stakes for effective
    government action. America's coastal and ocean resources encompass an
    immense area with more than 95,000 miles of coastline and more than 3.4
    million square miles of ocean within the U.S. territorial sea. Over
    half the Nation's 280 million people live in coastal counties that
    comprise less than one-fifth of the total land area of the United
    States. The economy of these coastal counties is critical to the
    economic well being of the entire Nation, providing a wide array of
    goods and services that account for at least 50 percent of the gross
    national product of the United States. By 2010, U.S. foreign trade in
    goods is expected to double to $5 trillion, with ocean-going cargo
    increasing by 30 percent. Coastal tourism and recreation account for 85
    percent of all U.S. tourism revenues. The oceans, in one way or
    another, account for one out of every six jobs. Tax revenues in coastal
    areas are among the fastest growing revenue sources for State and local
    governments. In fact, the collective economic impact of the coastal
    economy far exceeds U.S. agriculture, and yet federal investments in
    Sea Grant colleges and universities are much smaller than investments
    in the Land Grant college and university system funded by the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture for agriculture and land-based natural
    resource activities, the program on which Sea Grant was modeled.
        Research supported by Sea Grant is based on competition, undergoes
    rigorous peer-review, and is geared to address the many marine and
    coastal challenges and opportunities that face our citizens. The
    federal investment in Sea Grant enables a nationally coordinated
    network embedded in the best research universities to apply
    unparalleled intellectual capital to address these problems and
    opportunities. Cost-effectiveness is enhanced by access to university
    management infrastructure.
        Sea Grant serves the Nation in many ways. Sea Grant's unmatched
    access to local constituencies through its extension and outreach
    programs ensures that federal investment is targeted at relevant issues
    for the benefit of NOAA and other Federal agencies, State and local
    governments, coastal environmental managers, local fishermen, other
    marine resource users, and the general public. This contact also
    provides an important conduit for recommendations back to Sea Grant and
    NOAA for needed research and improved policies and services. Sea
    Grant's non-regulatory and science-based focus has established the
    program as an honest broker among a wide range of constituencies. In
    addition, marine education programs supported by federal funds reach
    from kindergarten to marine-related business people to elder hostels.
    The matched federal investment also fills the enormous demand for
    expertise to tackle rapid growth, change, and pressure on coastal
    resources.
        Sea Grant is a national program addressing national needs. It is a
    partnership of and depends on partnerships among government, academia,
    business, industry, scientists, and private citizens to help Americans
    understand and wisely use our precious coastal waters and Great Lakes
    for enjoyment and long-term economic growth. This network unites 30
    State Sea Grant programs, over 300 universities, and millions of
    people. Sea Grant is an agent for scientific discovery, technology
    transfer, economic growth, resource conservation, and public education.
    Study after study has shown that Sea Grant returns to the taxpayers
    many times its annual budget in goods and services. It is government as
    our citizens want it--visible, tangible, relevant, efficient, and
    effective.

                  SEA GRANT--INITIATIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

        When adequately funded, Sea Grant can serve as the gateway to
    relevant and reliable scientific information used to address local,
    regional and Statewide resource management issues. Funding Sea Grant at
    the requested level will enable it to strategically invest in research
    and outreach programs targeted at important practical problems facing
    the Nation and address those problems with science-based solutions. Two
    initiatives for fiscal year 2007 demonstrate this objective.
        Building Resilient Coastal Communities.--Coastal areas of the
    United States comprise only 10 percent of our Nation's land mass, yet
    they are home to more than 54 percent of Americans. As witnessed by the
    aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, coastal communities
    and the natural resources and infrastructure on which they depend are
    at increasing risk from hurricanes, tsunamis, coastal storms, shoreline
    change, and sea level rise. Sea Grant research and outreach provide
    coastal communities with the best available science-based information
    for sustainable community decision-making, coupled with the knowledge,
    experience and tools needed to bring diverse coastal interests
    together. The knowledge, programs and approaches developed by Sea Grant
    in one State or region can be applied broadly throughout the national
    network. The Sea Grant network will expand its efforts to improve
    coastal community leadership and planning capacities to jointly address
    economic, environmental and social issues. Our aim is to encourage and
    equip coastal communities to utilize long-term, integrated approaches
    to developing sustainable communities. This initiative would engage the
    research, education and outreach capabilities of Sea Grant's
    universities and partners to enhance mitigation, preparedness,
    planning, education, response, and recovery in coastal communities
    throughout the Nation.
        Ensuring Safe and Sustainable Seafood for Americans.--The U.S.
    seafood industry faces many challenges and opportunities as it enters
    the 21st century. These include an increasingly competitive global
    marketplace, complex trade policies, stricter safety regulations,
    rising energy costs, food security concerns and an increasingly limited
    seafood supply. Change also brings new opportunities to expand markets,
    form strategic alliances and encourage innovations to lower production
    costs, create new products, add value to existing ones, increase safety
    and reduce waste. In this new seafood era, science and education are
    cornerstones for maintaining the vitality of the Nation's $27 billion
    seafood industry ($55 billion including consumer expenditures) and its
    250,000-member workforce. To remain competitive, the industry must
    control the costs of catching, transporting, processing, storing, and
    distributing seafood. The U.S. seafood industry recognizes the benefits
    of innovation, but it is comprised of mostly small and medium-sized,
    independent enterprises that simply cannot afford research and
    development programs. Through its unique capabilities in research and
    technology transfer, the national Sea Grant network is poised to help
    the industry increase quality and safety, add value, lower costs and
    expand seafood supplies and markets.

                      SEA GRANT--SELECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Aquaculture.--Sea Grant research and extension results have created
    the growth and development of fish farming in the United States. As a
    result, the growing of hybrid striped bass in ponds has expanded in
    just 10 years from a small demonstration project to an industry that
    produces 10 million pounds of fish valued at $25 million annually. Sea
    Grant also developed a sterile oyster that can be grown year-round and
    that now comprises one-third of the $86 million U.S. oyster market.
        Coastal Hazards.--Based on Sea Grant recommendations, in 1986 the
    State of North Carolina implemented revisions in the State's hurricane
    resistant building code which increased the required minimum depth of
    foundation pilings for erosion prone coastal buildings. In 1996,
    Hurricane Fran was the first test of those standards. As a result, on
    Topsail Island, 200 of the 205 newer oceanfront houses built to the
    ``Sea Grant'' standards survived the hurricane with minimal foundation
    damage. In comparison, over 500 older oceanfront houses were destroyed
    in the same area.
        Coastal Communities and Economies.--Much of the 32-mile river front
    along the Detroit River is bulkheaded and in disrepair thus requiring
    major revitalization investment. ``Soft'' engineering offered
    developers cost, maintenance and environmental advantages over
    traditional hard structures and promoting these advantages was
    necessary to meet river front renewal goals. Sea Grant has been
    extensively involved in this effort and chairs the Steering Committee
    for the Greater Detroit American Rivers Heritage initiative. As a
    result, Sea Grant sponsored conferences and workshops and published
    best management practice manuals which led General Motors to utilize
    less expensive ``soft'' engineering techniques in the development of
    its multi-million dollar, 32 mile long urban river promenade in the
    heart of Detroit, thus providing substantial savings to the project
    while simultaneously helping the environment.
        Fisheries.--Sea Grant research has shown that visually modifying
    salmon gillnets and adjusting fishing schedules can reduce
    entanglements of seabirds. As a result, these findings, coupled with an
    observer program coordinated by Sea Grant, prevented the closure of the
    Puget Sound sockeye salmon fishery, saving hundreds of jobs and
    millions of dollars in the region's economy.
        Ocean/Coastal Technology and Marine Biotechnology.--Sea Grant
    organized the first systematic research effort in the United States to
    develop new drugs from marine organisms. As a result, Sea Grant
    researchers have discovered and described more than 1,000 compounds
    that may be vitally important as new anticancer, anti-inflammatory, and
    antibiotic agents.
        Seafood Science and Safety.--To aid the seafood industry in meeting
    educational and training needs called for by new FDA regulations, Sea
    Grant spearheaded the formation of the ``Seafood HACCP Alliance,'' an
    intergovernmental agency partnership with industry and academia. As a
    result, the Alliance's programs reached over 5,000 U.S. processing
    plants, and 6,000 importers and international suppliers with training
    on new seafood handling and processing techniques. In addition, it has
    been estimated that the program has prevented 20,000 to 60,000 seafood-
    related illnesses a year, thereby saving as much as $115 million
    annually.
        The SGA recognizes the subcommittee is facing an extremely
    constrained funding environment and must make difficult choices among
    many competing priorities. We urge you to consider Sea Grant has an
    investment in the future health and well being of our coastal
    communities and to support the program in line with this request.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present these views.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal Year Funds
              Actual Start Date                 Received            Amount           Match                Award No.                   Grantor                      Project Sub-Subtype
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    01/01/03............................  2003................        $706,474        $282,308  NA03OAR4170020...............  ....................  Ballast Water Demonstration
    01/01/03............................  2004................         344,006  ..............  NA96RG0501...................  ....................  CERP
    02/01/03............................  2003................          38,000  ..............  NA03OAR4170022...............  NOAA................  Knauss
    02/01/03............................  2003................          38,000  ..............  NA03OAR4170024...............  NOAA................  Knauss
    02/01/03............................  2003................       2,621,762       1,469,954  NA16RG2207...................  NOAA................  OMNIBUS
    06/01/03............................  2003................          31,667           6,333  NA17RG1375...................  NOAA................  NMFS FELLOWSHIP
                                                               --------------------------------
        Total...........................  ....................       3,779,909  ..............  .............................  ....................  ...............................................
                                                               ================================
    10/01/03............................  2004................          70,774  ..............  NSF-Seagrant-1...............  USM/NSF.............  Vertically Integrated Partnership K-12
    02/01/04............................  2005................          38,000  ..............  NA04OAR4170008...............  NOAA................  Knauss
    02/01/04............................  2005................          38,000  ..............  NA04OAR4170009...............  NOAA................  Knauss
    02/01/04............................  2004................          38,000  ..............  NA04OAR4170010...............  NOAA................  Knauss
    02/01/04............................  2004................       2,616,108       1,439,890  NA16RG2207...................  NOAA................  OMNIBUS
    05/01/04............................  2003................          94,130          31,748  NA03NMF4570228...............  NOAA................  Chesapeake Research Fellowship
    09/01/04............................  2005................         378,300  ..............  NA04OAR4170152...............  NOAA................  Ballast Water Demonstration
                                                               --------------------------------
        Total...........................  ....................       3,273,312  ..............  .............................  ....................  ...............................................
                                                               ================================
    10/01/04............................  2005................          74,313  ..............  NSF-Seagrant-1...............  USM/NSF.............  Vertically Integrated Partnership K-12
    02/01/05............................  2005................          40,000          20,000  NA05OAR4171035...............  NOAA................  Knauss
    02/01/05............................  2006................       1,412,265         892,902  NA05OAR4171042...............  NOAA................  OMNIBUS
    03/25/05............................  2003................          10,000  ..............  NA16RG2207...................  NOAA................  OMNIBUS
    05/01/05............................  2005................         108,000          28,252  NA03NMF4570228...............  NOAA................  Chesapeake Research Fellowship
    06/01/05............................  2006................          15,678           7,839  NA05OAR4171042...............  NOAA................  Fisheries
    06/01/05............................  2006................         107,472          56,468  NA05OAR4171071...............  NOAA................  AISR
    06/01/05............................  2006................         146,247          73,123  NA05OAR4171107...............  NOAA................  AISR
                                                               --------------------------------
        Total...........................  ....................       1,929,653  ..............  .............................  ....................  ...............................................
                                                               ================================
    02/01/06............................  2006................       1,407,800         942,098  NA05OAR4171042...............  NOAA................  OMNIBUS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology

        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
    the following testimony on the fiscal year 2007 appropriation for the
    National Science Foundation (NSF). The ASM is the largest single life
    science organization with more than 43,000 members. The ASM mission is
    to enhance the science of microbiology, to gain a better understanding
    of life processes, and to promote the application of this knowledge for
    improved health and for economic and environmental well-being.
        The NSF plays a critical role in ensuring the health of the
    Nation's research and education system, the principal source of new
    ideas and human resources in science and engineering. The NSF is the
    funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported
    basic research conducted by U.S. colleges and universities. The NSF's
    broad support to U.S. academic institutions provides not only a key
    source of funds for basic discoveries across disciplinary fields, but
    also prepares students for the science and engineering workforce. The
    NSF is the primary federal agency charged with promoting science and
    engineering education at all levels and in all settings, from pre-
    kindergarten through career development. This educational effort helps
    to ensure that the United States has world-class scientists,
    mathematicians, and engineers.
        The ASM strongly supports the administration's request of $6.02
    billion in fiscal year 2007 for the NSF, an increase of 7.9 percent
    over fiscal year 2006. The NSF is one of the three key agencies in the
    President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which plans to
    double investment over a 10-year period in key federal agencies that
    support basic research programs emphasizing physical sciences and
    engineering. The NSF funding request of $6.02 billion is expected to
    support about 500 more research grants in 2007 and an estimated 6,400
    additional scientists, students, and postdoctoral fellows.
        The ASM would like to provide the following comments and
    recommendations on specific programs of interest and concern within the
    NSF budget.

                        BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES DIRECTORATE

        The NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) provides critical
    support for a broad array of biological sciences, particularly in areas
    such as environmental biology and plant sciences. BIO provides 66
    percent of all federal support for non-medical biological research at
    academic institutions. Research programs range from the study of the
    structure and dynamics of biological molecules, such as proteins and
    nucleic acids, through cells, organs, and intact organisms to studies
    of populations and ecosystems. It encompasses processes that are
    internal to particular organisms as well as those that are external,
    and includes temporal frameworks ranging from immediate measurements
    through life spans of mere minutes for some microorganisms to the full
    scope of evolutionary time.
        Basic research in the biosciences is key to understanding the
    living world from molecules to organisms to ecosystems, providing
    discoveries applicable to meeting health, environmental, agricultural,
    and energy needs. The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the BIO
    directorate is $607.9 million, an increase of $31.6 million, or 5.4
    percent, over the fiscal year 2006 level. This increase will allow BIO
    to award about 95 more research grants in fiscal year 2007 with an
    estimated funding rate of approximately 18 percent.

       BIO MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOSCIENCES: MICROBIAL BIOLOGY RESEARCH

        The Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB) Division within the
    Biological Sciences Directorate of the NSF includes research activities
    in microbiology that were transferred to the Emerging Frontiers
    subactivity for a new emphasis in Microbial Biology in fiscal year
    2006. The Microbial Observatories/Microbial Interactions and Processes
    program (MO/MIP) has been returned to MCB for fiscal year 2007. The ASM
    has received unsolicited comments about the transfer of the MO/MIP and
    its budgetary consequences from more than 100 individuals representing
    more than 40 institutions. The ASM would like to express its strong
    support for the MO/MIP program, and recommends Congress fund the
    program at $10 million, to allow for important research initiatives.
        The MO/MIP was recently housed in Emerging Frontiers in recognition
    of the need for a distinct emphasis on microbial biology research that
    cannot be supported adequately in other programs. Transfer of the MO/
    MIP from Emerging Frontiers to the Division of Molecular and Cellular
    Biosciences (MCB) raises questions about the NSF's intentions regarding
    the future of this program.
        The ASM is concerned about the MO/MIP, since the pace of astounding
    discoveries in microbial biology has been increasing through
    applications of genomics and metagenomics. The MO/MIP program has been
    exemplary in achieving its goals. It supports research, training and
    outreach that are helping to define the future of microbiology and
    interdisciplinary efforts involving microbes. The MO/MIP is thriving
    and deserves expanded support and long-term commitments from NSF. Such
    commitments should be reflected in the 7.9 percent increase in the
    NSF's budget request to Congress, which includes a 5.4 percent increase
    for the Biological Sciences Directorate.

                        BIO EMERGING FRONTIERS PROGRAMS

        The budget request for the Emerging Frontiers (EF) subactivity for
    fiscal year 2007 is for $99.16 million, an increase of about 23 percent
    over fiscal year 2006. This increase is partly the result of the
    transfer of support for all BIO centers for centralization at the EF,
    including the two current centers, and two new centers expected to
    start in fiscal year 2007. With the proposed transfer of the MO/MIP
    program to the MCB, just two microbial related programs are left within
    the EF, the Microbial Genome Sequencing Program and Ecology of
    Infectious Diseases.
        The Microbial Genome Sequencing program is to be conducted jointly
    with a competitive grants program in the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture, while the Ecology of Infectious Diseases is an interagency
    partnership with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to support the
    development of predictive models and discovery of principles for
    relationships between environmental factors and transmission of
    infectious agents. Potential benefits include the development of
    disease transmission models, understanding the unintended health
    effects of environmental change, and improved prediction of disease
    outbreaks, including the emergence or reemergence of disease agents.
    Examples of environmental factors include habitat transformation,
    biological invasion, biodiversity loss, and contamination. The ASM is
    concerned that these programs are being transferred out of an EF
    priority area and have level funding proposed for fiscal year 2007.

                     BIO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY

        The Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) priorities for fiscal
    year 2007 are represented by four clusters focused on studies to
    accelerate the rate of discovery of new species, address the
    genealogical relationships of plants, animals, fungi, and microbes;
    illuminate the spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions;
    discover the principles or rules by which species are assembled into
    functional communities and change through time; and determine the flux
    of energy and materials through ecosystems. The core research within
    the DEB will increase by $6.32 million due to the transfer of
    responsibility for funding the National Center for Ecological Analysis
    and Synthesis to Emerging Frontiers.
        The DEB also supports the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER)
    program, a network of 26 comprehensive research sites located in areas
    that broadly represent the global range of natural, agricultural, and
    urban ecosystems. Support for the LTER program is requested to increase
    by $1.12 million in fiscal year 2007, for a total of $19.6 million.
        The ASM supports the fiscal year 2007 budget request for the DEB of
    $109.6 million, an increase of 2.7 percent over fiscal year 2006.

                     BIO NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

        The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) encompasses the
    systematic organization, manipulation, and control of matter at the
    atomic, molecular, and supramolecular levels. With the capacity to
    manipulate matter at the nanometer scale (one-billionth of a meter),
    science, engineering, and technology are realizing revolutionary
    advances in areas, such as, individualized pharmaceuticals, new drug
    delivery systems, more resilient materials and fabrics, catalysts for
    industry, and computer chips. The NSF has been a pioneer among federal
    agencies in fostering the development of nanoscale science. The ASM
    supports the administration's fiscal year 2007 request of $52.55
    million for the NNI within BIO, a 7.2 percent increase over fiscal year
    2006.

                    NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY NETWORK

        The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the National Ecological
    Observatory Network (NEON) throughout NSF is $24 million, an increase
    of $18 million over fiscal year 2006. NEON has the potential to
    transform ecological research. The NEON program calls for developing a
    continental-scale research instrument consisting of geographically
    distributed infrastructure that will be networked via state-of-the-art
    communications to obtain a predictive understanding of the Nation's
    environment. A very large number of scientists, students, resource
    managers, and decision makers could make use of NEON data, both
    directly and indirectly, through the network capabilities and the
    internet. The ASM supports the administration's fiscal year 2007
    request of $24 million for NEON.
        The $24 million includes: $6 million within the Biological
    Infrastructure division of BIO to continue implementation planning; $6
    million within the Emerging Frontiers division for sensor array
    research and development; and $12 million within the Major Research
    Equipment and Facilities Construction (MRE&FC) account at the NSF to
    assemble and evaluate the NEON fundamental technology unit (BioMesoNet,
    sensor micronets, and enabling cyberinfrastructure) that will be
    deployed.

                            GEOSCIENCES DIRECTORATE

        The fiscal year 2007 request proposes restructuring the Geosciences
    Directorate (GEO) to include a new subactivity, Innovative and
    Collaborative Education and Research (ICER), which will support
    multidisciplinary research and education activities that were
    previously done through the Atmospheric Sciences (ATM), Earth Sciences
    (EAR), and Ocean Sciences (OCE). The new ICER subactivity priorities
    include Ecology of Infectious Diseases, in partnership with the BIO
    directorate and the NIH. Additionally, the EAR and the OCE support
    other important microbiological research related to the Earth's diverse
    ecological systems and climate change. The ASM urges Congress to
    support the administrations' request of $744.9 million for GEO in
    fiscal year 2007, a 6 percent increase over fiscal year 2006.

                            ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE

        The fiscal year 2007 request proposes restructuring the Engineering
    Directorate. The ASM has traditionally supported research conducted
    through the Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES) division.
    The proposed restructuring would combine the BES division with the
    Chemical and Transport Systems (CTS) division to become the Chemical,
    Bioengineering, Environmental and Transport Systems (CBET) division. In
    fiscal year 2006, BES was funded at $52 million and CTS at $70.8
    million, for a total of $122.8 million. The fiscal year 2007 request
    proposes increasing funding for CBET to $124.44.
        The CBET will play a vital role in supporting research, innovation,
    and education in the rapidly evolving fields of bioengineering and
    environmental engineering. Including research on microbial fuel cells,
    liquid biofuels, and biohydrogen, as well as exploratory research in
    nanobiotechnology. The ASM recommends Congress support the increased
    funding for the CBET to foster technological innovations that will
    advance the global competitiveness of our industries and the health of
    our environment.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The NSF plays a key role in supporting basic science in the United
    States. Knowledge gained from the NSF studies directly benefits
    industry and contributes to the economy and U.S. international
    competitiveness. There is a growing synergy among the biological,
    physical and social sciences, and U.S. investment in science and
    technology should support all science.
        The NSF is in a singular position among all the federal research
    and development agencies to support fundamental research in a wide
    range of important areas, including microbiology and molecular biology.
    The ASM urges Congress to support the administration's request of $6.02
    billion for the NSF in fiscal year 2007. The ASM believes the NSF
    should continue to emphasize fundamental, investigator-initiated
    research, research training, and science education as its highest
    priorities.
        The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
    and would be pleased to assist the subcommittee as it considers its
    appropriation for the NSF for fiscal year 2007.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States

        Mr. Chairman: My name is Royce Engstrom. I am a Provost and Vice
    President for Academic Affairs at the University of South Dakota and a
    member of the South Dakota EPSCoR Statewide Committee, the governing
    body that oversees EPSCoR activities in South Dakota. I submit this
    testimony on behalf of the 25 States,\1\ the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
    the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico that participate in the federal EPSCoR
    program and the Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States. I have the honor of
    serving as the chair of the Board of the Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA
    States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas,
    Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
    Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South
    Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As most of you know, the Experimental Program to Stimulate
    Competitive Research (EPSCoR) was established at the National Science
    Foundation (NSF) in 1979 to assist those States that historically had
    not fully participated in the federal research and development (R&D)
    enterprise. Historically, these States were less competitive than
    others throughout the Nation for a variety of reasons--some tended to
    be rural and geographically isolated; others tended to be among the
    States with large numbers of students who were under-represented
    minorities or disadvantaged economically; and some were States that
    traditionally invested more heavily in an agriculture and natural
    resource research base than technological endeavors. For these reasons,
    EPSCoR States did not benefit from the large federal institutional
    development investments made to universities and colleges as part of a
    national effort to broaden and strengthen the U.S. public university
    system and its R&D capability. Consequently, today, all the
    institutions in these States--half of the States--receive less than 10
    percent of all NSF and all federal R&D funding. Otherwise, we are
    ignoring a large reservoir of talent and expertise that are necessary
    for our country to remain competitive in the world.
        Helping these 25 States grow to be more competitive has become more
    important in recent years in order to overcome the concentration of
    federal R&D funding in a few States and institutions, and to create a
    broader research community throughout the Nation. Today, all States
    should be full participants in federal R&D efforts and federal R&D
    support should be available to qualified students and researchers
    wherever they are.
        The EPSCoR program started at NSF with five States. It grew to its
    current number of 25 States and two territories as more States, the
    Congress, and the research field came to realize the need to raise the
    science and technology (S&T) research capabilities to new levels, and
    as new States realized the value of a program that emphasized research
    infrastructure and capacity building.
        The EPSCoR program remained a very small program for the first half
    of its life. Its budget, federal-wide, was only $8 million in 1990 for
    all the States. It has only been since the mid-1990's that we have seen
    real increases in funding and the extension of the program to agencies
    outside of the NSF. For those of us in the EPSCoR States, these have
    been welcome advances but we also understand that they have been
    extremely modest in comparison to the overall increases in total
    federal R&D funding and to increases currently being contemplated for
    NSF and DOE's Office of Science. We also know that, as in other States,
    much of the recent increase has been focused on the life sciences, as
    opposed to the physical sciences and engineering. This is true, despite
    the fact that many EPSCoR institutions have strong engineering
    programs. During the 1990's, EPSCoR grew rapidly, expanding from 5
    States to 25 States and 2 territories as Congress recognized that
    EPSCoR funding was successfully building S&T research infrastructure in
    higher education institutions in a fashion that contributed to the
    wealth creation process in the initial group of EPSCoR jurisdictions.
    Congress also expanded the program into six new agencies; the
    Departments of: Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the National Institutes
    of Health (NIH), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). These seven
    Federal departments and agencies now have EPSCoR-like programs that
    focus on building academic research infrastructure that will ultimately
    contribute to the economies of EPSCoR jurisdictions in the 21st century
    in similar ways to how agriculture, mining, and forestry contributed to
    the economies in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
        Let me provide an example of how the federal agencies are able to
    accomplish the mission of building research infrastructure and
    improving the competitiveness of our university researchers. At the
    National Science Foundation, the ``center piece'' of the EPSCoR effort
    is the Research Infrastructure Improvement (RII) awards. The awards
    establish a Federal-State partnership, which is most clearly seen in
    the composition of the State Steering Committees, or EPSCoR State
    committees. Typically, senior university officials, representatives of
    State government (both legislative and executive branches), and local
    business officials come together and develop a S&T plan for their State
    that focuses on a few selected areas where researchers can become
    competitive for funding in federal, non-profit, or industrial
    competitions. The focus areas are selected because of inherent
    scientific quality, able faculty, and because of the likelihood of
    potential benefit to the States' citizenry. As a result, EPSCoR States
    have entered into high-tech computing, bio-medical research, and
    nanotechnology. The State EPSCoR ``team'' then submits a RII proposal
    to NSF for funding support in these areas.
        The RII's are not an end unto themselves. Every researcher who is
    supported under the NSF RII's is expected to apply to one of the
    regular S&T programs at NSF or one of the other federal R&D funding
    agencies before the RII award is completed. The track record of these
    researchers over time has been remarkable. Recently, NSF released
    statistics showing that since 1998 (which was the first year that NSF
    issued RII awards) EPSCoR States accounted for 9 of the 10 U.S. States
    with the greatest increase in science and engineering funding. This
    success has occurred in areas where EPSCoR institutions had not
    previously been competitive. For example, for the first time, EPSCoR
    institutions have used RII funding as a base to successfully compete
    for large-scale awards like the Engineering Research Centers and
    Materials Research Science and Engineering, Integrative Graduate
    Education and Research Traineeship Program.
        At NIH and other agencies with EPSCoR-like programs, EPSCoR
    researchers are building on research infrastructure grants to compete
    for funding that not only advances academic science and technology, but
    serves the mission of these agencies in the areas of defense,
    environment, health, and agriculture. EPSCoR researchers are becoming
    increasingly adept at spinning off academic research into small
    companies. EPSCoR States are becoming more competitive for Small
    Business Innovative Research (SBIR) awards. SBIR awards have great
    potential to produce not just companies but high paying jobs for our
    States' youth.
        Many EPSCoR institutions are now actively engaged in issues related
    to homeland security. For example, some of our institutions are
    carrying out research that improves the safety of food products as they
    move from the field to grocery store. Other institutions are engaged in
    defense issues that relate to improving communication for troops in the
    field during combat. Still others are addressing issues related to
    transportation. All of these examples are intended to demonstrate that
    the initial federal investment in building the research capabilities of
    our universities through EPSCoR and EPSCoR-like programs has had a
    profound impact beyond our campuses.
        I will now provide some specific cases, which emphasize the
    importance of this program to South Dakota and other EPSCoR States. The
    South Dakota EPSCoR REACH Committee manages the development and
    implementation of Statewide science, engineering and mathematics
    research, education, and related programs. It enhances the research and
    intellectual capacity of South Dakota universities and colleges by
    building and coordinating strategic investments in human capital and
    physical infrastructures necessary for South Dakota to develop the
    capacity to make the State more competitive in research and economic
    development, nationally and internationally.
        South Dakota has benefited tremendously from the EPSCoR program.
    For example, using EPSCoR as a catalyst, we have developed four major
    research centers that form the core of Governor Mike Rounds ``2010
    Initiative.'' The centers are in the areas of nanotechnology, light-
    activated materials, biomedical signal transduction, and vaccinology.
    The progress made by investigators in these areas, supported in
    significant ways by EPSCoR, has resulted in an additional $20 million
    investment on the part of the State. In addition, in the last 2 years,
    we have initiated seven new Ph.D. programs to help educate future
    scientists for South Dakota. The clear recognition of the connection
    between research and economic development has been made in South
    Dakota, and the sustained support by EPSCoR has been absolutely key to
    that connection.
        EPSCoR-funded science and technology dividends to South Dakota
    reflect an understanding that investments in infrastructure are needed
    for South Dakota to compete in a knowledge-based economy. Without State
    support, South Dakota EPSCoR would not be able to participate in most
    federal EPSCoR initiatives. Several of the federal programs have
    required a ``State match''.
        The South Dakota EPSCoR program has many unique features to enhance
    cooperation between our universities. In addition to supporting
    individual research projects, the program funds faculty and student
    exchange programs, provides interdisciplinary planning grants for
    cooperative scientific ventures among our universities; and offers
    undergraduate summer research fellowships.
        We are delighted to stress that EPSCoR has had a positive influence
    on State economic development well beyond what was initially conceived
    for the program. As a focal point for technological and scientific
    improvement across the State, EPSCoR identified areas of priority for
    funding and helped to draft South Dakota's strategic plan for
    scientific and technological development. In addition to the growth in
    basic research, we have seen a substantial increase in SBIR activity,
    to the point that the State has established two new offices: a system-
    wide Vice President for Research, and a State Commercialization
    Director, whose job it is to help transfer ideas from the universities
    to the private sector.
        Within each States' EPSCoR program, efforts continue to identify:
    (1) high potential research areas in which to concentrate limited State
    resources and (2) barriers that must be removed to attain nationally
    competitive science and engineering research and education programs. A
    critical need for EPSCoR States is to overcome a lack of critical mass
    (i.e. too few faculty in a given area of research) by collaborating
    inside the State and with outside partners.
        NSF EPSCoR is helping us ensure, through its Research
    Infrastructure Improvement (RII) awards and co-funding, that our States
    have an opportunity to develop these new fields. This is vitally
    important to the economy of each of our States and especially to our
    young people who live therein. Despite increased mobility, the vast
    majority of students still attend college within 100 miles of home.
    EPSCoR helps to guarantee that students and residents of all States
    have the access to high-quality education, front-line research, and the
    quality of life and jobs that comes with an active and competitive R&D
    base.
        Again, the cornerstone of the NSF EPSCoR program are the Research
    Infrastructure Improvement awards (RIIs). These awards focus on South
    Dakota's competitive academic science and technology base. The RIIs
    strengthen South Dakota's ability to compete favorably for mainstream
    program funds at the NSF, other agencies and for private sector
    dollars.
        Consequently, we urge the subcommittee to continue support for
    EPSCoR by appropriating $125 million in fiscal year 2007 funding for
    the NSF EPSCoR core program in the NSF Education and Human Resources
    Directorate. This funding will: (1) allow the NSF EPSCoR program to
    implement its expanded core RII program to continue building our
    infrastructure and expertise in areas of scientific importance to the
    States and Nation; and (2) increase co-funding and assistance to our
    States so that the number of scientists and engineers in the EPSCoR
    States and universities that receive competitive federal R&D support
    continues to grow.
        For the NASA EPSCoR program, we are requesting $15 million. There
    are currently two components to the NASA EPSCoR program: core grants
    and research cluster awards. A core-funding award is made to each
    eligible State to develop a program, secure collaborations with NASA
    centers and programs and cover related administrative expenses. The
    remaining funds have been granted to the eligible States to support
    specific, competitively selected research clusters. The intent is for
    these clusters to develop an infrastructure in key NASA related
    research areas within the State, which will then be competitive for
    other NASA funding. NASA is currently planning its next round of awards
    and will be allowing all 27 NSF ESPCoR jurisdictions (as opposed to 23
    currently eligible NASA EPSCoR States) to submit. We know that NASA had
    more meritorious proposals than it could fund during the last
    competition and we believe that there are even more qualified proposals
    to be submitted pursuant to the next solicitation, even without the
    addition of new States.
        On behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States, please know that
    the relatively modest NSF investment in EPSCoR plays a unique role in
    developing a truly nationwide science and technology capability. A
    strong EPSCoR is a sound investment for our Nation's future.

     DISCLOSURE OF AMOUNT AND SOURCE OF FEDERAL GRANTS (FISCAL YEAR 2003,
       FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND FISCAL YEAR 2005) OF DR. ROYCE C. ENGSTROM,
                           UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA

        Dr. Engstrom has participated in the following federally-funded
    projects during the fiscal years 2003-2005:
        REU Site: Excavation and Reconstruction of a Northern Plains Bison
    Kill Site, National Science Foundation, 2002-2005, $155,778. This
    project was an interdisciplinary undergraduate research project
    focusing on anthropology. (Co-Principal Investigator)
        Statewide Partnership to Support Technology Innovation and
    Entrepreneurship in South Dakota, National Science Foundation, 2002-
    2005, $598,247. (Co-Principal Investigator)
        EPSCoR Centers Development Initiative (CDI), National Science
    Foundation, 2001-2004, $1,713,836. This project was aimed at providing
    technical assistance to EPSCoR States in their efforts at building
    nationally competitive research centers.
        South Dakota EPSCoR Rushmore Initiative for Excellence in Research,
    National Science Foundation EPSCoR, 2001-2004, $2,293,628 (USD
    portion). This project was the Research Infrastructure Initiative for
    South Dakota's EPSCoR program. (Co-Project Director)
        REU Site: Tracing the Lewis and Clark Expedition, National Science
    Foundation, 2001-2004, $173,605. This was an interdisciplinary
    undergraduate research program at the University of South Dakota. (Co-
    Principal Investigator)
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the National Space Grant Alliance

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
    you for allowing me to provide testimony on behalf of the National
    Space Grant Alliance (NSGA) as you consider funding priorities relevant
    to the fiscal year 2007 Commerce, Justice and Science Related Agencies
    appropriations bill. I am Mary Sandy, Virginia Space Grant Director.
        Today, I speak to you in support of NASA's National Space Grant
    College and Fellowship Program (Space Grant). In an effort to bring
    national coherence to our efforts, the Space Grant Directors formed the
    National Space Grant Alliance (NSGA). NSGA is a non-profit national
    organization that is working to: (a) galvanize support and enthusiasm
    for aerospace research and education; (b) ensure that Space Grant has
    an appropriate level of financial and programmatic support; and (c)
    align Space Grant's education, research, and workforce development
    activities with NASA's mission to ``inspire the next generation of
    explorers--as only NASA can.'' Comprised of 52 Space Grant consortia
    including 867 affiliates--located in every State of the country, the
    District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico--the NSGA
    requests that you approve the President's fiscal year 2007 request of
    $28.76 million for Space Grant with the following language: The
    committee has included the budget request of $28,760,000 for the
    National Space Grant College and Fellowship program. The amount
    provided will fund 35 States at $615,250 each and 17 States at
    $425,000. We believe that funding the Space Grant program at $28.76
    million and including the requested language will allow the Space Grant
    program to move forward and will encourage the rapid allocation of
    funds to the individual Space Grant consortia so that they can
    efficiently plan and implement their State programs.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Congress established the National Space Grant College and
    Fellowship program under Title II of the NASA Authorization Act of
    1988. Through a national network of colleges, universities, and
    affiliates, Space Grant supports and enhances science and engineering
    education, research and outreach programs through three major
    components: (1) Education and Workforce Development; (2) Public
    Understanding and Participation in NASA-related Science and Technology
    Programs; and (3) Research Enhancement Programs.
      --Education and Workforce Development.--Space Grant programs
            substantially contribute to creating a diverse, scientifically
            literate and prepared workforce. Its programs encourage and
            help prepare students to enter science, mathematics and
            engineering careers, by offering ``hands-on'' learning with
            aerospace technology. Space Grant has been particularly
            successful in recruiting and training students from
            underrepresented groups and women.
      --Public Understanding and Participation in Aerospace-Related Science
            and Technology Programs.--Space Grant consortia provide a wide
            array of public outreach programs that reach citizens of all
            ages: Space Grant supports more than 400 public outreach
            programs reaching over 3 million people each year.
      --Research Enhancement Programs.--The development of a strong
            research base and infrastructure is critical to securing U.S.
            world leadership in science and technology. In addition to
            improving the quality of education, Space Grant is dedicated to
            strengthening research capability, and integrating this
            research with education and human resource development.

                    SPACE GRANT AND ITS VALUE TO THE NATION

        The 52 university-based Space Grant consortia:
      --Support over 1,915 undergraduate and 632 graduate students in
            practical education and research experiences in aerospace
            science and engineering, and related fields. In fiscal year
            2003, we awarded $9.5 million in scholarships and fellowships
            to students--22 percent of whom are minority, and 44 percent
            are women.
      --Infuse NASA space exploration and technology goals, knowledge, and
            materials into the education experiences of over 1.3 million K-
            12 students and teachers.
      --Reach over 3.5 million people annually through public outreach and
            awareness campaigns emphasizing the importance of aerospace
            science, the excitement of space exploration and discovery and
            its contribution to the Nation's scientific knowledge base and
            our economy.
        To give you a better picture of Space Grant, I'd like to tell you a
    little about the Virginia Space Grant Consortium, where I am the
    director, and cite a few of our accomplishments.

                        VIRGINIA SPACE GRANT CONSORTIUM

        The Virginia Space Grant Consortium (VSGC) is a coalition of five
    Virginia colleges and universities, two NASA centers, State education
    agencies, Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology, and other
    institutions and informal science centers, representing diverse
    aerospace education and research interests. The Consortium acts as an
    umbrella organization, coordinating and developing quality aerospace-
    related, high technology, educational applications and research efforts
    throughout the Commonwealth as well as regionally and nationally for
    some efforts. We are committed to promoting and achieving excellence in
    education and research in science, mathematics, technology and
    engineering at all levels in Virginia. The Consortium also seeks to
    encourage student and faculty diversity in these fields and to foster
    scientifically and technologically literate citizens. The Consortium
    received its Space Grant designation in 1989. It is a mature
    organization that is well established in the State with strong programs
    in all of the Space Grant program areas.
        The VSGC is a highly leveraged program. In recent years, each Space
    Grant dollar has been leveraged by about $6 in cash and in-kind
    contributions from other sources. Programs and interactions with NASA
    centers have grown to include all NASA centers. State networks have
    vastly expanded.
        In the program's recent 5-year evaluation period, VSGC Higher
    Education programs impacted 1,494 individuals, primarily undergraduate
    students, but graduate students and faculty as well. Implementation of
    two industry internship programs involved 52 undergraduate students and
    more than 36 industries and garnered strong State and industry funding.
    The VSGC-managed NASA Undergraduate Student Research program placed 622
    students in summer or fall internships at all NASA centers, Los Alamos
    National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Lab.
        In the Research and Technology Applications arena, VSGC has
    generated sufficient funding to develop and maintain a full-time
    Research Programs Manager. Research missions, applications and
    infrastructure programs have grown exponentially from $28,871 in 1998
    to $429,766 in 2002. The additional funding secured from grants and
    contracts for new projects with members and partners permitted a total
    of 41 programs involving 3,359 participants in this time frame.
    Participation of NASA Langley Research Center and NASA's Goddard/
    Wallops Flight Facility Consortium members has opened doors to new
    collaborative ventures that are mutually beneficial. The VSGC is one of
    14 Space Grant programs which have developed a partnership with
    Cooperative Extension and established a geospatial extension
    specialist. The Virginia Space Grant Geospatial Extension program is
    serving as a hub for terrific synergy among Cooperative Extension,
    universities, community colleges, Sea Grant, State natural resource
    agencies and other partners. Virginia Tech, VSGC, Cooperative Extension
    and Virginia Access-Mid-Atlantic Geographic Information Consortium, a
    NASA-Stennis funded partnership, are contributing resources to extend
    the reach of this program in ways that are already making a difference
    in the Commonwealth for Extension Agent training, workforce development
    programs with community colleges, networking and sharing of
    information, data tools, and other resources.
        Pre-college programs engaging over 75,000 educators over the past 7
    years. All are carefully aligned with State standards of learning in
    math, science and technology. The Virginia Department of Education is a
    VSGC member and key partner that has helped us to reach out to all
    Virginia school divisions with our professional development programs,
    including OVERspace, our professional development program for teachers
    in how to use GPS and GIS as teaching and learning tools, and our Space
    Science workshops and materials dissemination for teachers of learning
    disabled as well as blind and low vision students. We are particularly
    pleased with the six-series Journey Into Cyberspace distance-learning
    program for middle school career exploration produced in partnership
    with Old Dominion University and NASA. Nearly 3,000 students nationwide
    participated in six grade-related challenges in the 2005 competition in
    the NASA Student Involvement program which we co-managed on behalf of
    the National Space Grant Foundation prior to NASA's ending the program
    and which engages every state Space Grant program.
        Public and informal educational programming, often undertaken with
    museum members, included StarDate sponsorships at six Virginia radio
    stations throughout the Commonwealth, co-sponsorship of a Native
    American Sky Legends planetarium program for national distribution, and
    a range of museum programming. Over the latest 5-year evaluation
    period, 47 programs in this arena reached 373,829 participants.
        Impact/Results: The VSGC's extensive networks into member
    institutions at all levels, as well as extended State, Federal,
    industry and non-profit networks, are crucial to the Consortium's
    success. The Consortium's openness to collaborative partnerships
    together with its willingness to serve as the facilitating element and
    often to provide the administrative component has helped to engineer
    projects for success. The flexibility offered by our organizational and
    fiscal structure helps us to create and take advantage of opportunities
    that arise. Success in securing grants, contracts and other external
    funding, together with strong leveraging of financial, human and
    material resources is also an element in the successful accomplishment
    of our goals.

            FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUEST FOR SPACE GRANT--$28.76 MILLION

        Clearly, we are very busy in our Space Grant consortia and very
    proud of what we are able to do but we know that there is much more
    that we can do that is very important to science education in this
    country and to maintaining the pipeline of highly qualified scientists
    and engineers for our high technology industries to ensure U.S. global
    competitiveness.
        How $28.76 million will be utilized:
      --Strengthen the national network structure by raising the level of
            annual funding at 35 States to $615,250 and 17 States to
            $425,000.
      --Maintain existing network of S&Es--located in 50 States, Puerto
            Rico and the Virgin Islands and comprised of 800 universities,
            colleges, and private industries.
      --Continue and strengthen the undergraduate and graduate STEM
            education programs for talented American youth to pursue
            careers in NASA related disciplines by:
      --Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines through a
            progression of educational opportunities for students,
            teachers, and faculty.
      --Build the NASA and aerospace industry workforce in order to meet
            NASA's strategic goals.
      --Build strategic partnerships and linkages between STEM formal and
            informal education providers.
        Results of increased funding in fiscal year 2006:
      --Dramatic increase and linkage of undergraduate and graduate
            students to NASA research and exploration initiatives at NASA
            field centers.
      --Increased research experiences for undergraduates by maintaining
            and expanding the Student Satellite Initiative and young
            faculty research development.
      --Sustained K-12 programs and links to new Code N Initiatives by
            providing training workshops and after-school programs to
            assist faculty and teachers and to attract and motivate
            students into relevant career tracks.
        Taken together, these activities help to promote workforce
    development and help support NASA and Congress' goal to address the
    national ``brain drain'' in the aerospace science and engineering
    workforce. NASA, through its National Space Grant consortia/network and
    affiliate programs, can effectively encourage and improve the
    possibility for students to pursue careers in aerospace science and
    technology fields.

                                    SUMMARY

        In summary, Space Grant has achieved what most other science
    agencies have not.
      --Created a national network that fosters strong partnerships among
            university faculty, colleges of education, K-12 and business
            communities in the States.
      --Mobilized and immersed Science and Technology faculty in education
            initiatives.
      --Highly utilized and highly leveraged NASA resources to inspire and
            motivate the next generation of explorers.
        Space Grant is delivering a remarkable number of high quality
    educational experiences for a very small NASA investment. Space Grant
    is a sound investment in America's future and should be expanded.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee, Assemblymember, 33rd
                        District, California Legislature

        Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $1.5 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation Program for Piedras Blancas in California.
        Nestled among lush rolling hills shadowed by ancient volcanic
    peaks, San Luis Obispo County offers residents and visitors a welcome
    respite from crowded urban areas. The northwestern part of the county
    is often referred to as the ``Southern Gateway to Big Sur,'' and it is
    here that the famous Hearst Ranch is located adjacent to Los Padres
    National Forest. Covering 128 square miles, including 18 miles of
    coastline, the ranch was originally known as Rancho Piedra Blanca,
    named for an offshore white rock outcropping. In 1865, Senator George
    Hearst purchased the property, and in 1919 his son, William Randolph
    Hearst, started construction of Hearst Castle. The ranch offers
    outstanding scenic vistas, including 19 beaches, and contains numerous
    creeks flowing into the Pacific Ocean. It is home to a wide variety of
    wildlife--including eagles, hawks, deer, coyote and steelhead trout--
    and plant life including grasslands, chaparral, oak woodlands and
    California poppies.
        The Hearst Ranch Conservation Project, completed in early 2005,
    protects the entire historic ranch through voluntary conservation
    agreements and included the donation of 1,500 acres of land on the west
    side of Highway 1 to the State of California. Although this
    conservation agreement protects the scenic and rural character of this
    18-mile stretch of coast, there remains one privately held parcel along
    the coast west of Highway 1, known as Piedras Blancas.
        Located 1 mile north of the Piedras Blancas Lighthouse, this 20-
    acre parcel is available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007. Formerly
    the site of a 14-unit motel, coffee shop, gas station, and private
    residence, the property will be restored in large part to its natural
    state and made ready for State park acquisition. Funds from the Coastal
    and Estuarine Land Conservation program (CELCP) will be used to
    purchase 18 acres of the land for the coastal resources, and funding
    will be secured from other sources to potentially develop an
    interpretive center and low-cost accommodations, such as a hostel or
    campground, on the remaining 2 acres.
        Public acquisition of the Piedras Blancas parcel offers a unique
    opportunity to enhance the Hearst Ranch Conservation Project by
    providing: (1) a permanent safe place for visitors to pull off the
    highway, park in the existing lot and access the coastal bluffs and
    beaches of the Hearst Coast; (2) the possibility of developing visitor
    serving facilities such as an interpretive center for the Hearst Coast
    and elephant seal, cafe, public restrooms and low-cost overnight
    accommodations due to its rare recreational zoning; and (3) these
    urgently needed public access and visitor serving benefits in an area
    of high demand due to its location just 7 miles north of the popular
    Hearst Castle, which receives over 1 million visitors per year.
    Additionally, the site offers the potential to develop guided hiking
    tours to the nearby Piedras Blancas Lighthouse and elephant seal
    rookery, as well as a second staging area for vehicular tours to the
    lighthouse.
        The southern beach of the property is also home to dozens of
    elephant seals during the winter each year. The steep bluffs
    overlooking the beach offer a safe viewing area for visitors watching
    the elephant seals. Arroyo del Corral Creek drains into the ocean at
    this beach attracting birds and other wildlife to the freshwater
    resources.
        While the shoreline along Hearst Ranch is mostly under State
    protection, much of it is still inaccessible. It may take as long as 5
    years by State Parks to implement a public access plan for these
    coastal areas. In the meantime, Piedras Blancas will be a critically
    needed safe access point for the public to access trails along the
    bluffs and down to the beaches. Safe and easy public access and the
    potential for visitor facilities make Piedras Blancas a key acquisition
    for the California Department of Parks and Recreation. This project is
    the missing half-mile of coast for the California Coastal Trail on a
    13-mile stretch of land that was recently made public as part of the
    Hearst Project. Piedras Blancas will provide a welcome respite to the
    hikers and bicyclists on the California Coastal Trail as well as to
    visitors who come by car on Highway 1.
        Without permanent public protection, there is high risk that the
    property could be sold and developed privately as an exclusive resort
    given its hotel zoning, making the bluffs and beaches off-limits to the
    public and forever leaving a missing link in the Coastal Trail. The
    northern portion of the property is under natural heavy erosion
    pressure accelerated by piecemeal shoreline armoring of Highway 1 just
    north of the property. There is the further risk that a future buyer
    would seek to build a seawall on site to protect structures from
    erosion. A seawall would negatively impact the property's coastal
    habitat in a designated area of the Monterey Bay National Marine
    Sanctuary.
        In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $500,000 towards this
    conservation effort. A fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $1.5 million
    from the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program is the final
    funding needed for the California Department of Parks and Recreation to
    acquire and conserve this unique and vital property on the Pacific
    Coast. The California Coastal Conservancy has already pledged matching
    funds and ranked Piedras Blancas as the top CELCP priority in the
    State.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration of the
    appropriations request for this critical project in my district.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences

        The American Institute of Biological Sciences encourages Congress
    to support the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request of $6.02
    billion for the National Science Foundation.
        The administration's request reflects the recognition of the
    important role that fundamental, peer-reviewed scientific research
    plays in driving innovation, creating new economic opportunities, and
    addressing important societal challenges. The National Science
    Foundation Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) is particularly
    important to basic biological research, the fields of study concerned
    with understanding how the natural world works. These research
    disciplines include botany, zoology, microbiology, ecology, basic
    molecular and cellular biology, systematics and taxonomy. Indeed,
    according to National Science Foundation data, more than 65 percent of
    fundamental biological research is funded by the foundation.
    Additionally, the National Science Foundation provides essential
    support for the development of research infrastructure (for example,
    natural science collections, cyber-infrastructure, field and marine
    stations, and the National Ecological Observatory Network) that is
    required to advance our understanding of biological and ecological
    systems.
        We strongly support the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
    request, which would provide the BIO directorate with roughly $607.8
    million (a 5.4 percent increase). This funding would support important
    new research efforts in the areas of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences
    ($111.2 million), Integrative Organismal Biology ($100.7 million),
    Environmental Biology ($109.6 million), Biological Infrastructure
    ($85.9 million), and Plant Genome Research ($101.2 million). The budget
    also reflects the need for synthesizing biological information from
    different fields. Thus, $99.2 million is allocated for the cross
    discipline Emerging Frontiers program area.
        The President's request includes $24 million in funding for the
    National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). Of the requested
    funding for NEON, $12 million would come from the Major Research
    Equipment and Facilities Construction account and $12 million would
    come from the BIO directorate. NEON will be the first national
    ecological measurement and observation system designed both to answer
    regional to continental scale scientific questions and to have the
    interdisciplinary participation necessary to achieve credible
    ecological forecasting and prediction. NEON is expected to transform
    the way we conduct science by enabling the integration of research and
    education from natural to human systems, and from genomes to the
    biosphere. Social scientists and educators have worked with ecologists
    and physical scientists to plan and design NEON. These research
    communities will all be able to participate in research only possible
    because of the construction of NEON.
        The National Science Foundation plays an important role in science
    education, in both formal and informal environments. Whether through
    programs such as Research Experience for Undergraduates, GK-12
    fellowships, or fellowships for graduate students and post-doctoral
    researchers, the National Science Foundation provides the resources
    needed to educate, recruit, and retain our next generation of
    scientists. National Science Foundation programs provide the support
    that makes it possible for practicing research scientists and college
    faculty to mentor and train budding researchers. National Science
    Foundation science education initiatives are unique and stimulate
    innovation in teaching and learning about science. The lessons learned
    and models developed through this research inform Department of
    Education and local school system programs.
        Informal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs
    supported by the Education and Human Resources Directorate also warrant
    increased funding. Economic growth in the 21st century demands a
    scientifically aware and technically skilled workforce. Moreover, we
    live in a time when people are increasingly called upon to make
    informed decisions about technology and public policy grounded in
    science. To make informed decisions, citizens must continue to learn
    about science throughout their lives. Informal science education
    programs, whether through a local natural history museum, marine
    laboratory or other venue, play a central role in educating the public
    about science. We encourage you to do all you can to support National
    Science Foundation formal and informal science education initiatives.
        Thank you for your past efforts on behalf of the National Science
    Foundation and for your thoughtful consideration of this request. If
    you require additional information, please contact Robert Gropp at 202-
    628-1500.
                                     ______

                          Prepared Statement of Oceana

        Dear Chairman Shelby, ranking member Mikulski, and other
    subcommittee members: On behalf of the more than 250,000 supporters of
    Oceana, an international, non-profit conservation organization devoted
    to protecting ocean waters and wildlife, I submit the following
    testimony on the fiscal year 2007 budget for the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce.
    Oceana urges the subcommittee to provide $4.5 billion for NOAA in the
    fiscal year 2007 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill. More specifically, we urge the subcommittee to
    fund the following critical ocean research and conservation programs at
    these recommended levels:
      --$52.0 million for fishery observer programs;
      --$5.0 million for the reducing bycatch initiative;
      --$12.3 million for the national undersea research program (NURP);
      --$82.0 million for marine mammal research and management;
      --$20.0 million for sea turtle research and management; and
      --$8.0 million for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
            activities in fishery management.
        NOAA is the Federal agency with primary responsibility for managing
    our Nation's coasts and oceans. It has a critical role in promoting
    sustainable coastal communities and a healthy economy. An investment of
    $4.5 billion averages out to $15 per person annually--a bargain for the
    fishery management, coral reef protection, undersea research, weather
    forecasting, nautical mapping, coastal zone management, and ocean
    education NOAA provides to the Nation.
        We are greatly concerned about the impact of the administration's
    request for a $227 million cut (-5.8 percent) to NOAA below existing
    funding levels. The National Marine Fisheries Service is targeted for
    an $18 million cut (-2.6 percent) and the National Ocean Service is
    targeted for a $99 million cut (-20.1 percent). These steep reductions
    do not match the recommendations of the Presidentially-appointed United
    States Commission on Ocean Policy's 2004 final report or the
    independent Pew Oceans Commission's 2003 report. The commissions
    emphasized the importance of taking immediate action to conserve ocean
    and coastal waters, wildlife, and habitats and called for substantial
    increases in our Nation's investments for ocean research, conservation,
    and management. We hope you will follow the commissions' advice and
    strengthen our Nation's commitment to sustainable oceans and coasts. As
    a significant first step, we urge you to increase funding for the
    important NOAA programs and activities described below.
        Fishery Observer Programs--$52.0 million.--Oceana recommends that
    the fiscal year 2007 budget provide $52.0 million for more effective
    national and regional observer programs. The information gathered by
    observers helps track how many fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, sea
    birds, and other ocean wildlife are caught directly and as bycatch,
    thereby improving management of our fish populations. According to
    NMFS, observers are currently deployed to collect fishery dependent
    data in less than 40 of the Nation's 300 fisheries. Existing coverage
    levels for many of the fisheries with observers are inadequate. In its
    final report, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy concluded that
    ``accurate, reliable science is critical to the successful management
    of fisheries'' and endorsed the use of observers as key to bycatch
    reduction efforts.
        In recent weeks, the National Marine Fisheries Service announced
    crippling cuts to the Northeast Fishery Observer program. The number of
    observers will be reduced from 120 to 25. The number of observer ``days
    at sea'' will be slashed from 10,000 in 2005 to approximately 5,000 in
    2006. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez proposed an emergency rule
    on March 3 to further restrict New England's groundfish fishery due to
    last year's stock assessments showing several overfished groundfish
    populations are continuing to decline. It is obvious more science is
    needed to monitor New England's fisheries and help spur recovery of
    fisheries and coastal communities; therefore more observers are
    required, not less.
        Specifically, Oceana recommends $9.0 million for the national
    observer program; $20.0 million for the Northeast observer program;
    $7.5 million for the Atlantic Coast observer program; $5.0 million to
    establish a Gulf of Mexico/South Atlantic reef fish observer program
    and monitor the shark fisheries. We recommend funding other regional
    fishery observer programs at the administration's request.
        Bycatch Reduction--$5.0 million.--One of the primary issues
    threatening the future of our fisheries is the catch and subsequent
    death or injury of unwanted fish and ocean life. Prominent fishery
    scientists recently completed a thorough examination of fish data and
    concluded that more than 1 million metric tons of fish and invertebrate
    bycatch are caught by U.S. commercial fishermen; this bycatch is 28
    percent of the total catch. In past years, Congress has provided
    additional resources to help address bycatch by researching technical
    solutions, improving outreach, and promoting international improvements
    in fishing practices. We strongly encourage the subcommittee fund this
    initiative at $5.0 million to accelerate bycatch reduction efforts.
        National Undersea Research Program--$12.3 million.--NOAA's Undersea
    Research program serves the Nation by providing marine scientists with
    the tools, such as submersibles, remotely operated or autonomous
    underwater vehicles, mixed gas diving gear, underwater laboratories and
    observatories, to conduct important research that can help other ocean
    managers and users. The program helps locate and map areas of deep sea
    corals that are important for many fish and wildlife populations.
    Funding in fiscal year 2006 was cut more than 40 percent, halting
    important marine research. We support the fiscal year 2005 enacted
    level in help restore the program's vital work.
        Marine Mammal Protection--$82.0 million.--Oceana recommends
    sustaining the level of funding provided to support marine mammal
    research and management activities in the fiscal year 2005 budget
    ($82.0 million). These funds will help the National Marine Fisheries
    Service more fully assess and adopt measures to recover depleted and
    strategic marine mammal species, such as Northern right whales,
    bottlenose dolphins, pilot whales, and common dolphins. It will also
    help the agency improve the knowledge of marine mammal populations;
    currently, the status of more than 200 protected and at-risk marine
    species is unknown. Activities that will be supported by these funds
    include funding top priority studies identified by the take reduction
    teams; designing and implementing take reduction plans for certain
    depleted marine mammal populations; conducting research on population
    trends; working on recovery plans; and conducting critical research on
    marine mammal health and responding to marine mammal die-offs.
        Sea Turtle Conservation--$20.0 million.--Oceana urges the
    subcommittee to sustain work currently underway on sea turtle research
    and conservation by providing $20.0 million to NMFS programs dedicated
    to protecting sea turtles. All sea turtles found in U.S. waters are
    officially protected as endangered or threatened. Additional funding
    will enhance research, recovery, and protection activities for
    imperiled sea turtle species, including the agency's Atlantic sea
    turtle bycatch reduction strategy that will examine needed gear
    modifications for the conservation and recovery of sea turtles.
        National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementation--$8.0
    million.--Oceana supports the administration's request of $8.0 million
    to enhance NMFS work in satisfying NEPA requirements. These funds will
    support NEPA specialists within the agency and in the eight regional
    fishery management councils and will help build the analytical
    capability needed to move toward ecosystem-based approaches to
    management.
        I request that this testimony be submitted for the official record.
    Also, I wish to be considered for any hearing of outside witnesses the
    committee may call. Thank you for your consideration of these
    recommendations.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Animal Protection Institute; Blue Ocean
    Institute; Endangered Species Coalition; Environmental Defense; Friends
        of the Earth; HEART (Help Endangered Animals--Ridley Turtles);
      HerpDigest; The Humane Society of the U.S.; International Fund for
      Animal Welfare; International Wildlife Coalition; Inwater Research
      Group, Inc.; The Leatherback Trust; Local Ocean Trust/Watamu Turtle
       Watch; Marine Conservation Biology Institute; Marine Conservation
    Society; Marine Research Foundation; National Environmental Trust; The
    National Marine Life Center; Natural Resources Defense Council; Oceana;
     Osa Sea Turtle Conservation Project; The Pegasus Foundation; PRETOMA;
       Pro Peninsula; Proyecto Tortugas Marinas; Seaflow; Sea Sense; Sea
     Turtles at Risk; Sea Turtle Restoration Project--Texas; Sierra Club;
       South Carolina Aquarium; Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society;
      WIDECAST: Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network; The Wild
         Animal Rescue Foundation of Thailand; and Wildlife Rescue and
                        Conservation Association (ARCAS)

        On behalf of the millions of supporters we represent, we urge you
    to provide $4.5 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) in the fiscal year 2007 Science, State, Justice
    and Commerce appropriations bill. Specifically, we encourage the
    subcommittee to provide $52.0 million for Fishery Observer programs;
    $30.0 million for Fish Stock Assessments; $82.0 million for Marine
    Mammal Research and Protection; $20.0 million for Sea Turtle
    Conservation: $60.0 million for the National Marine Sanctuary Program;
    $46.2 million for Coral Conservation; $3.3 million for the Marine
    Protected Area Center; and $12.3 million for the National Undersea
    Research Program. We ask that this letter be included in the official
    committee record for the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill.
        NOAA is the Federal agency with primary responsibility for managing
    our Nation's coasts and oceans. It has a critical role in promoting
    sustainable coastal communities and a healthy economy. An investment of
    $4.5 billion averages out to $15 per person annually--a bargain for the
    fishery management, coral reef protection, undersea research, weather
    forecasting, nautical mapping, coastal zone management, and ocean
    education NOAA provides to the Nation.
        In recent years, the presidentially-appointed U.S. Commission on
    Ocean Policy and the independent Pew Oceans Commission identified major
    challenges to ensure a future with healthy and abundant oceans. Both
    commissions called for significant and immediate increased investments
    in ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research, management, and
    conservation in order to ensure these vital ecosystems recover and can
    fully contribute to our Nation's economy and well-being. Now, it is
    time for Congress to demonstrate its commitment to NOAA programs and
    provide sufficient funding to fully confront the challenges ahead.
        Last month, a number of national groups produced a report, Green
    Budget: Fiscal Year 2007 National Funding Priorities for the
    Environment. The full report, which included several NOAA programs in
    addition to the ones highlighted in this letter, can be found at
    www.saveourenvironment.org. We call upon your leadership to increase
    funding for these following priority research and conservation
    activities and programs at the recommended levels.

                       NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

        Fishery Research--Fishery Observer Program--$52.0 million. Fish
    Stock Assessments--$30.0 million.--The information gathered by
    observers helps track how many fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, sea
    birds and other ocean wildlife are caught directly and as bycatch,
    thereby providing data to improve management of our fish populations.
    In its final report, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy concluded that
    ``accurate, reliable science is critical to successful management of
    fisheries'' and endorsed the use of observers as key to bycatch
    reduction efforts. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service,
    observers are currently deployed to collect fishery data in
    approximately 40 of the Nation's 300 fisheries.
        In addition to the need for more data about what is caught, fishery
    managers would benefit from more complete information about the fish
    populations they oversee. Almost two-thirds of the Nation's fish
    populations lack basic information to determine their status; there are
    56 ``major'' stocks where the information about their status is
    classified as ``unknown.'' Additional resources would allow the
    National Marine Fisheries Service to hire additional biologists to
    produce annual stock assessments, fund necessary charter days at sea to
    collect data, and significantly reduce the number of fish stocks with
    unknown status.
        Protected Species Research and Conservation--Marine Mammal Research
    and Protection--$82.0 million. Sea Turtle Conservation--$20.0
    million.--The National Marine Fisheries Service needs resources to more
    fully assess and adopt measures to recover depleted marine mammal
    species, such as North Atlantic right whales (whose population is
    estimated to be less than 300), bottlenose dolphins, pilot whales, and
    common dolphins. In addition, the status of more than 200 protected and
    at-risk marine species is unknown. Increased funds will help NOAA
    complete top priority studies identified by the take reduction teams;
    consult with other agencies and ocean users on activities that may
    affect endangered marine mammals; design and implement take reduction
    plans for certain depleted marine mammal populations; conduct research
    on population trends; and respond to marine mammal die offs.
        All sea turtles in U.S. waters are officially listed as endangered
    or threatened species by the Endangered Species Act. Increased
    investments will help fund sea turtle research, recovery, and
    protection activities for imperiled sea turtles, including NMFS'
    Atlantic sea turtle bycatch reduction strategy that examines needed
    fishing gear modifications for enhanced conservation.

                             NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE

        National Marine Sanctuary Program--$60.0 million.--The National
    Marine Sanctuary program manages 13 sanctuaries that encompass more
    than 18,000 square miles of our Nation's most diverse marine
    ecosystems. A 14th sanctuary for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands is
    now in the process of designation. The program helps protects resources
    such as the coral reefs and mangrove forests off the Florida Keys, the
    tide pools and kelp forests along the Olympic Coast, and habitat for
    endangered humpback and northern right whales. The proposed
    Northwestern Hawaiian Islands sanctuary, expected to be designated in
    2007, will require new financial commitments. Meanwhile, Congress has
    indicated its desire to see better resource inventories and management
    of existing sanctuaries before it will approve any further
    designations. This requirement can only be solved by enhanced
    appropriations.
        Coral Conservation--$46.2 million ($31.2 million for tropical
    corals and $15.0 million for deep sea corals).--Tropical reefs are
    often called the rainforests of the ocean because of the amount of rich
    biodiversity that these living reefs provide. Sensitive to human and
    environmental factors, these slow-growing reef systems need to be
    conserved for the health of our oceans. Corals reef systems are also
    found on the deep sea floor. These corals provide shelter for marine
    animals, protection from predators, nurseries for young fish, feeding
    areas, and spawning areas. Tropical and cold-water corals are subject
    to many threats, including damaging fishing practices, land-based
    pollution, and vessel strikes. Additional resources to improve coral
    management are needed to halt further coral destruction.
        Marine Protected Area Center--$3.3 million.--The National Marine
    Protected Area Center was created to develop the framework for a
    national system of marine protected areas (MPAs), support cooperative
    efforts, and provide technical and scientific support to improve MPA
    stewardship and effectiveness. Cuts in previous budgets have
    significantly reduced the center's work. This spring, the national MPA
    System Framework document should be published. Increased investments
    are needed to ensure that regional coordinators in Massachusetts and
    California and additional scientific and outreach staff are retained to
    continue the substantial collaborative work necessary to properly shape
    a proposed national system of MPAs.

                                    RESEARCH

        National Undersea Research Program--$12.3 million.--NOAA's Undersea
    Research program serves the Nation by providing marine scientists with
    the tools, such as submersibles, remotely operated or autonomous
    underwater vehicles, mixed gas diving gear, underwater laboratories and
    observatories, to conduct important research that can help other ocean
    managers and users. Funding in fiscal year 2006 was cut more than 40
    percent, halting important marine research. We support the fiscal year
    2005 enacted level in order to ensure that vital undersea research
    continues.
        Finally, we urge you to reject adding anti-environmental riders in
    this and other bills. If you have any questions, please contact Ted
    Morton, Oceana's Federal Policy Director at 202-833-3900. Thank you for
    considering our views.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
                                    Research

        On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    (UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
    research and related education, training and support activities, I
    submit this written testimony for the record of the Senate Committee on
    Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science. UCAR is
    a 69-university member consortium that manages and operates the
    National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and additional programs
    that support and extend the country's scientific research and education
    capabilities. UCAR is supported principally by the National Science
    Foundation (NSF) and by other Federal agencies including the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        The atmospheric sciences community strongly supports the
    President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), an investment
    that we believe will pay great dividends for this country if it is
    sustained as planned over the next 10 years. In the President's budget
    request for fiscal year 2007, NSF is one of the critical agencies in
    line for ACI increases intended to double the physical sciences
    research budget by 2016. This is a necessary first step in any
    initiative that seeks to strengthen this Nation's economic
    competitiveness. However, the strength of the country's R&D investment
    is a result of multiple agencies playing multiple, complementary and
    interlocking roles. We believe that the science missions of NASA and
    NOAA, in addition to NSF, are critical to the health and well-being of
    this country. We look forward to the ACI developing rapidly to shore up
    and strengthen the physical sciences supported by all three of the
    major science mission agencies within your jurisdiction.
    National Science Foundation (NSF)
        NSF plays a unique role among all Federal agencies. In achieving
    its goal to develop new knowledge to meet societal needs and improve
    quality of life, NSF strengthens the ability of the country to create
    new ideas; develop new technologies; create a diverse, knowledgeable
    workforce; and set new standards that challenge any boundaries of
    invention and intellect. These are all key components of our capacity
    to compete globally in the 21st Century and are fundamental drivers of
    wealth-producing growth and job creation. The NSF budget request states
    that the ACI investment in NSF--a commitment to double the NSF research
    budget over 10 years--is being made ``in order to sustain a robust,
    competitive, and productive America.'' The UCAR community takes great
    pride in this national priority and supports to the fullest extent
    possible the ACI focus on NSF. I urge the committee to support the
    President's overall request of $6.02 billion for the National Science
    Foundation and, within NSF, the request of $4.66 billion for Research
    and Related Activities (R&RA), the heart of NSF's scientific
    enterprise. In addition, I urge the committee to support the
    administration's goal of doubling the research budget of NSF over the
    course of a decade, finally realizing the promise of the National
    Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002.
        Geosciences Directorate (GEO).--Within R&RA, GEO is the principal
    source of federal funding for university-based basic research in the
    geosciences, providing about 68 percent of the total federal support in
    these areas. The fiscal year 2007 increase for GEO includes aggressive
    investment in cyberinfrastructure, without which discoveries in the
    geosciences simply will not be able to advance at a competitive rate;
    and additional investment in the interagency Climate Change Science
    program in activities focused on understanding past climate
    variability, the advancement of knowledge about the carbon and nitrogen
    cycles, and the continued development of computational models of Earth
    system processes. I urge the committee to support the President's
    request of $744.85 million for the Geosciences Directorate and, within
    GEO, to provide the President's request of $226.85 million for the
    Atmospheric Sciences Division which provides resources for the
    atmospheric sciences community that are critical to the physical safety
    of our citizens, our economic health, and global issues of national
    security relevance such as severe weather, climate change, the security
    of our communications infrastructure, and the environmental health of
    the planet.
        Office of Cyberinfrastructure.--Given the requirements of modern
    research, leading-edge progress that results in societal benefits
    cannot be realized without the acquisition, development and operation
    of state-of-the-art cyberinfrastructure services including ever-
    improving supercomputers, high-capacity mass-storage systems, and an
    ever-expanding suite of software tools. NSF promises to accomplish much
    in this area with the creation of the Office of Cyberinsfrastructure. I
    urge the committee to support the President's fiscal year 2007 request
    of $182.42 million for the Office of Cyberinfrastructure which includes
    $50.0 million for the all-important achievement of petascale
    performance for application to important science and engineering
    problems.
        Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate.--Key to the
    success of the administration's ACI efforts is the improvement of math
    and science education in this country. It is therefore disappointing to
    see the EHR funding request for fiscal year 2007 decline in certain
    areas and not keep pace with inflation overall. We believe that the
    strengthening of science education, so critical to the Nation's future,
    must be intimately connected with the best scientific practices and
    results being produced via the NSF scientific directorates. While we
    realize that the EHR request strengthens collaborations that aid in
    addressing workforce needs, we hope that other areas of the budget do
    not indicate a shrinking NSF influence in the classroom. Of some
    encouragement is the recognition in the request of the value of digital
    libraries to teachers and students. Within the Division of
    Undergraduate Education (DUE), the National Science Digital Library
    (NSDL) receives a small increase. The value of this program continues
    to rise as its capacity to bring first-rate education tools into the
    classroom is broadened and enhanced. I urge the committee to provide as
    healthy an increase as possible for the Education and Human Resources
    Directorate so that it may play its rightful, critical role in
    achieving ACI goals.
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
        NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) plays a unique and central
    role in our Nation's ability to attract students into science and
    engineering fields, and to understand the universe, our own planet's
    environmental complexities and its relationship to the Sun, and major
    factors contributing to climate change. Despite this essential role,
    NASA's fiscal year 2007 Federal budget request would curtail long-term
    growth in the science portfolio, defer or eliminate many of the
    Nation's most successful and promising missions, and fund only a
    relatively small number of scientific missions (albeit promising ones)
    in the next 5 to 10 years. While the manned program is incredibly
    important, it cannot come at the complete expense of this critical
    investment.
        Within SMD, NASA plays a unique and central role in the study of
    the complexities of the Earth system and the equally complex
    relationship of the Sun to Earth through the Earth-Sun System. NASA's
    investment in Earth Science Research and Analysis (R&A) and the
    missions and tools associated with this research makes possible the
    study of Earth from space providing data that simply are not available
    from any other Federal agencies. These observations, used in research
    and in the construction of computer models to predict weather, climate,
    and natural hazards, provide a critical basis from which our
    understanding of our planet evolves and on which informed policy
    decisions, both long term and emergency response, can be made. Given
    the tremendous importance of this underlying activity, the R&A analysis
    programs should continue to receive robust funding levels at least
    commensurate with fiscal year 2006 levels.
        In addition to investments in Earth-Sun System, NASA must preserve
    the essential PI-led programs that serve as a primary conduit through
    which the Nation's best scientists can engage NASA in cutting-edge
    problems. NASA should support the Explorer, Discovery, and New Frontier
    programs and fully commit to missions unless there are technical or
    cost related issues. When NASA promotes premature termination of those
    missions for non-technical or cost reasons, it is in danger of sending
    the message to the community that it is an unreliable partner and that
    this is not a field that future scientists and engineers should pursue.
    Moreover, balanced, highly skilled teams of talent are lost, as are
    discoveries on the immediate horizon.
        While the exploration initiative and International Space Station
    are of great human interest and of scientific value, we are far from
    unlocking all the mysteries of our own planet. NASA programs that are
    in progress and others that are yet to be implemented will enable us to
    protect space vehicles, astronauts, and satellites from the devastating
    radiation of solar storms; mitigate some of the property damage and
    prevent some of the deaths caused by severe weather; and help us to
    mitigate, understand, and cope with the inevitable effects of natural
    and human-induced climate change. These programs are critical to the
    health of our economy, to the health of the Earth, and to our national
    security. As the administration's new vision for U.S. space exploration
    unfolds, I urge the committee to protect the vibrant NASA science
    accounts and missions, current and planned, that make possible the
    study of our own planet and the environment that sustains life on
    Earth.
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
        NOAA's importance to the Nation was made glaringly evident to the
    world as Hurricane Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast last fall.
    Without the R&D and operations behind the accurate forecasts and
    warnings that moved tens of thousands of people out of the region, the
    number of deaths caused directly by the storm would have been
    catastrophic. This is just one example of the manner in which NOAA
    data, research, and services contribute to the Nation's security,
    economy, environment, and quality of life, yet NOAA hurricane forecast
    R&D is also just one example of areas severely under funded in the
    request for fiscal year 2007. NOAA provides a critical link for this
    Nation between research results, research applications, technology
    development, and operations, yet NOAA's overall budget request is 5.8
    percent below the fiscal year 2006 Enacted Budget. For NOAA to address
    all areas of concern and priority that have been identified by
    Congress, and to restore core funding that has decreased in recent
    years, I urge the committee to fund NOAA at $4.5 billion for fiscal
    year 2007 and to do so while maintaining vital, enhanced support for
    other portion's of the subcommittee's research and development
    portfolio.
        National Weather Service (NWS).--The fiscal year 2007 NWS request
    eases some of the extremely difficult pay raise pressures that were
    squeezing NWS operations to the breaking point. In recent years, NWS
    has assumed responsibility for several programs such as the Space
    Environment Center (SEC), the U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP),
    and the Wind Profilers. None has fared particularly well. SEC, the
    Nation's official source of space weather alerts and solar radiation
    warnings, was cut in fiscal year 2006 from just over $7 million to less
    than $4 million. USWRP has not been able to adequately keep up with our
    international obligation to fund THORPEX, and has not yet implemented
    planned national activities for this international research program
    designed to accelerate improvements in the accuracy of 1-to-14 day
    weather forecasts with deliverables such as improving disaster
    mitigation/response and increasing economic efficiency. The staff of
    the NOAA Profiler Network, 35 Doppler Radar sites that provide vital
    vertical wind profile data, has been cut back to the point that
    reliability and urgently required upgrades are severely compromised.
    The fiscal year 2007 NWS request will allow these and other critical
    programs such as AWIPS and Local Warnings and Forecasts to barely meet
    minimum requirements. I urge the committee to do everything possible to
    fund the President's entire request of $881.86 million for the National
    Weather Service, a line office that provides the most critical of
    activities for policy makers, stakeholders, and citizens.
        Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).--OAR conducts
    research and technology development that are the underpinnings for NOAA
    operations. If the requested amount is appropriated, OAR would receive
    a small increase to its base funding for fiscal year 2007, some of
    which will keep the Nation on track with its contribution to the
    international commitment of completing the ocean climate observing
    system by 2010. This is a high priority component within this country's
    obligation to the construction of the international Global Earth
    Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). In addition, the increase will
    support drought impact research through the National Integrated Drought
    Information System (NIDIS) and develop new data sets that will enhance
    operational climate prediction. Also within OAR, the Hurricane Research
    Division (HRD) works to improve the Nation's hurricane forecasts for
    both path and intensity. This is an activity the importance of which is
    obvious, post-Katrina, yet HRD funding, modest to begin with, is cut by
    over $1.0 million in the fiscal year 2007 request. I urge the committee
    to support the foundational research, technology development, and
    international commitments represented by the fiscal year 2007 request
    of $348.6 million for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
    and to shore up funding for obviously critical research areas such as
    hurricane forecasts.
        National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service
    (NESDIS).-- NESDIS is responsible for managing all aspects of the
    remotely gathered environmental data that form the basis for
    environmental research meeting the needs of policy makers and users.
    The fiscal year 2007 request provides a badly needed increase to cover
    basic operations and to provide additional funding for data archiving,
    and access and assessment activities at the NOAA National Data Centers
    which serve over 50,000 users annually. I urge the committee to support
    the President's fiscal year 2007 request of $1,033.8 million for
    NESDIS.
        On behalf of the UCAR community, I want to thank the committee for
    your stewardship of the Nation's scientific enterprise and your
    understanding that the future strength of the Nation depends on the
    investments we make in science and technology today.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Town of Brunswick, Maine

        On behalf on the Town of Brunswick, I appreciate the opportunity to
    present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $1.45 million
    from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program for the
    Maquoit Bay project in southern Maine.
        Located in coastal Cumberland County, Brunswick is the sixth
    largest community in the State and the largest in the mid-coast region.
    The popularity of our downtown, the presence of Bowdoin College, and
    excellent public educational and recreational opportunities all
    contribute to the attractiveness of Brunswick. Over the past 15 years
    our town has experienced rapid residential growth resulting in the
    construction of approximately 1,200 new homes. This growth underscores
    the need to conserve key, ecologically significant, properties while
    the opportunity still exists. Successful completion of the Maquoit Bay
    project will forever preserve our community's traditional ties to Casco
    Bay by maintaining public access and forever reminding our citizens of
    their place in the watershed.
        While the Casco Bay watershed represents only 3 percent of Maine's
    total landmass, it holds nearly 25 percent of the State's population.
    The bay supports many industries such as shipping, commercial fishing,
    and shellfishing, as well as tourism and other recreational activities
    all of which are critical to the economic vitality of Maine. The Casco
    Bay Plan, developed to prevent further degradation of the bay and
    restore its health, focuses on five key issues of importance to the
    health of the bay: stormwater management, clam flats and swimming
    areas, habitat protection, toxic pollution, and stewardship.
        Maquoit Bay, which is at the northwestern end of Casco Bay, is a
    shallow 5-square-mile embayment and includes the best commercial
    clamming flats in southern Maine. The Town of Brunswick, in which the
    entire bay is located, has adopted a Coastal Protection District zoning
    ordinance to limit development within the Maquoit watershed in an
    attempt to slow deterioration of the bay. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service has identified the northern end of Maquoit Bay as the most
    important habitat area in Casco Bay for all species studied, including
    the eider, brant, Canada goose, eelgrass, common loon, horseshoe crab,
    and the black duck.
        Available for immediate protection is the 170-acre Maquoit Bay
    property, which constitutes fully one-quarter of the northern end of
    the bay and is one of the last undeveloped sites on Brunswick's entire
    coastline. Very little of the town's 66 miles of coastline is open to
    public access, and the town has made improving water access one of its
    top priorities. This property has almost a mile of salt water frontage
    on the bay and if protected will nearly double the town's current
    public access to the water.
        The property available for conservation this year comprises a
    substantial portion of a larger 222-acre forest block, identified as a
    priority for conservation by the Rural Brunswick Smart Growth Plan.
    There are also three freshwater streams on the tract and a unique rocky
    promontory that provides spectacular views of Casco Bay and its islands
    and great swimming access to the warm shallow bay. With nearly a mile
    of trails for walking and cross-country skiing, and canoe and kayak
    access to Maquoit Bay and Casco Bay, this property has great
    recreational value to the townspeople as well as other Maine residents
    and visitors seeking access to coastal waters.
        Conservation of this relatively large unfragmented forested habitat
    on Maquoit Bay will help achieve the goals of the larger Casco Bay
    protection effort, enhance existing conserved properties up the
    watershed, and assist Brunswick in providing additional public access
    to the waterfront for its residents and many visitors.
        The landowners are offering the property for conservation but only
    for a very limited time. In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated
    $550,000 towards this project, which is strongly supported by the
    Brunswick Town Council and has been endorsed by the Maine Coastal
    Program, a division of the State Planning Office. An appropriation of
    $1.45 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
    Program (CELCP) in fiscal year 2007 is needed to complete this critical
    coastal protection effort in the Casco Bay watershed. These federal
    funds will be matched by a State grant, land value donation and the
    value of other conserved lands within the Maquoit Bay watershed.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony and for your consideration of this important request.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the St. Simons Land Trust

        Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation Program for a conservation easement on Little St. Simons
    Island in Brunswick, Georgia.
        The St. Simons Land Trust is a non-profit organization dedicated to
    protecting St. Simons natural and scenic character so that residents,
    visitors, and generations to come can share and enjoy this precious
    jewel of nature. The trust has worked to protect lands since its
    formation in 2000 by working with caring landowners, county government,
    and our dedicated membership of over 2,000 families.
        The 100 miles of Georgia coastline from Savannah to St. Marys is a
    diverse ecosystem of estuaries, salt marshes, wetlands, barrier
    islands, and beaches. The Georgia coast is also home to a number of
    historic forts and sites from colonial, antebellum, and Civil War
    periods. In recognition of the ecological and historical significance
    of the State's coast, Congress, Georgia, and private organizations have
    created a number of parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, historic sites,
    and reserves that conserve these special coastal resources.
        Of the dozen or so larger barrier islands along the Georgia coast,
    Little St. Simons Island is one of the last that remains substantially
    undeveloped and unprotected. This year there is an opportunity to
    acquire a conservation easement on the entirety of Little St. Simons
    Island in Glynn County. The island consists of 12,500 acres of land
    along 7 miles of Atlantic Ocean beachfront. Of the total acreage,
    approximately 2,500 acres are high ground; the rest is tidal salt
    marsh. Little St. Simons Island is about 10 miles northeast of the town
    of Brunswick.
        Little St. Simons Island contains a variety of pristine ecosystems
    that provide habitat for migratory birds unique to the Atlantic
    coastline. Little St. Simons Island and parts of three other islands in
    the area were designated the Altamaha River Delta Reserve under the
    Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, an international
    voluntary conservation system. This barrier island was also recognized
    by the American Bird Conservancy as one of the top 500 important bird
    areas in the United States. The marshlands provide habitat for
    waterfowl, migratory birds, and American alligators. The island is also
    a habitat for several endangered and threatened species, including the
    loggerhead sea turtle, the piping plover, and the wood stork.
        Little St. Simons Island contains significant historical and
    cultural resources. Of the several historic structures still remaining
    on the island, one of the most important is an eighteenth-century house
    built by Samuel Augspourger, a surveyor and engineer to General James
    Oglethorpe, the founder of the Georgia colony. Augspourger also
    supervised the design and construction of Fort Frederica on St. Simons
    Island, which has been preserved as a national monument since 1936.
    Little St. Simons is thought to have potentially rich archaeological
    and cultural resources relating to Native Americans and European
    settlers.
        Under the proposed conservation easement, the island will remain
    privately owned. The easement will be held by the City of Brunswick and
    will be monitored by the St. Simons Land Trust. Public access to the
    island will be available through overnight and day-trip guest programs,
    with ecological study programs for university scholars and naturalists.
    The owners intend to establish an education and research foundation to
    be endowed by a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the easement.
    In addition to researchers, school groups will be able to visit the
    island on a limited basis.
        Unless the island is permanently protected, Little St. Simons
    Islands' pristine natural resources will be at risk, as the island is
    currently zoned for development. As nearby communities and developed
    barrier islands grow, the conservation of Little St. Simons Island will
    not only preserve open space and beachfront, but will also reduce the
    potential damage and costs from storms and hurricanes.
        The community in Brunswick and St. Simons Island supports the
    conservation easement. The state of Georgia has submitted this project
    to NOAA as its top CELCP priority for fiscal year 2007. The $3 million
    appropriation from the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program
    will be matched by $27.75 million in other public and privately raised
    funds.
        Acquisition of this conservation easement is critical to protecting
    thousands of acres of marshlands and one of the last stretches of
    undeveloped and unspoiled beachfront on Georgia's Atlantic coastline.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of the $3 million CELCP appropriation for Little
    St. Simons Island, and for your consideration of the request.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Protectors of Pine Oak Woods

        Protectors of Pine Oak Woods, a conservation organization
    representing 2,300 environmentally conscious Staten Islanders,
    appreciates this opportunity to testify in support of appropriating $3
    million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program for
    the preservation of Long Pond/Butler Woods in New York.
        The southern coast of Staten Island, facing the open waters of the
    Atlantic Ocean and Sandy Hook in New Jersey southeast over the Raritan
    Bay, is an important natural and recreational resource for the
    residents of the metropolitan New York City Area. To conserve this
    shoreland, hundreds of acres have been protected as Federal, State, and
    local government parks such as Gateway National Recreational Area in
    New York and New Jersey, Mount Loretto Unique Area, Wolfe's Pond Park,
    and Conference House Park. These parks lie on the northern shore of
    Raritan Bay, a significant estuary between New York and New Jersey.
        New York/New Jersey's Raritan Bay, with Staten Island to the north
    and Middlesex and Monmouth counties to the south, is the largest
    component of the Hudson River-Raritan Estuary system. It is part of the
    New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary program, one of 28 federally
    recognized estuaries of national importance. Raritan Bay was
    historically one of the richest fisheries in the Nation prior to over-
    fishing and a reduction of water quality due to silt and other
    pollution which have impacted fish stocks in recent decades. The
    harbor, where commerce, industry, and nature confront one another, has,
    considering its overlying urban/industrial matrix, large amounts of
    upland and wetland open space and an unexpectedly high degree of
    biological diversity. The wetlands, marshes, flats, and costal and
    riparian corridors in both New York and New Jersey serve as prime
    habitats for fish, terrapin, amphibians, and shorebirds, while
    migratory birds use these same areas for habitat and stopovers to
    replenish the energies needed to continue their journeys. In this part
    of Raritan Bay land conservation has been used as a primary tool for
    wildlife protection and to improve water control and quality; it is the
    site of extensive habitat and storm water management Bluebelts
    established by The New York City Department of Environmental
    Protection.
        Two parcels totaling 80 acres near the Princes Bay section of
    Staten Island are available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007. These
    are collectively referred to as Long Pond/Butler Woods. The largest
    parcel, known as the North Mount Loretto Woods, comprises 75 acres of
    forest and wetlands lying between Hylan Boulevard and the Pleasant
    Plains Station of the Staten Island Railway. This property contains
    wetlands that provide flood protection, stormwater control, wildlife
    habitat, and open space for residents. More than half of the property
    contains wetlands within the Mill Creek watershed and provides
    watershed protection. The smaller parcel, known as the Camp St. Edward
    property, is a 5-acre triangular property on the shore of Raritan Bay.
    Currently undeveloped, it extends south of Hylan Boulevard along 800
    feet of shoreland, and is adjacent to the only natural red clay bluffs
    in the New York City area.
        Both of these properties have been identified as high priority
    conservation projects in the New York State Open Space Conservation
    Plan of 2005, a plan which includes the New York-New Jersey Harbor
    Estuary program and the State plans for the Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation program. Together the properties offer opportunities to
    conserve important recreation and open space for residents and other
    users. Enhancing their value are several existing conserved properties
    that surround the parcels, including the Mill Creek Bluebelt site
    immediately to the north of the North Mount Loretto Woods parcel; Long
    Pond Park Natural Area which contains forest, swamp, and freshwater
    ponds; Lemon Creek on the bay itself; Bloesser's Pond; Arden Heights
    Woods; and the Mount Loretto Unique area, an adjacent 145-acre tract of
    grasslands and bluff fronting the bay that was conserved in 1998.
        In order to conserve the Long Pond/Butler Woods parcels, an
    appropriation of $3 million from the Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation program is needed in fiscal year 2007. A federal
    contribution would be matched by $11.5 million in non-federal funds,
    very nearly a one-to-four ratio. Once conserved, the properties would
    be managed by the New York State Department of Environmental
    Conservation. Both properties are highly vulnerable for development
    given their location in the metropolitan area, and other parcels in the
    immediate area are have been purchased and developed for residential
    use within the past year. Conservation of these two properties will
    ensure the protection of important coastal wetlands and the
    availability of open space, recreational opportunity, and public access
    to the shore of Raritan Bay. Therefore protectors of Pine Oak Woods
    urges the inclusion of funding for this project in the fiscal year 2007
    Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill. We thank the
    subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony, and for
    consideration of this important request.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association

        The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
    service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
    and other State and locally owned utilities in 49 of the 50 States (all
    but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver electricity
    to one of every seven electric consumers (approximately 43 million
    people), serving some of the Nation's largest cities. However, the vast
    majority of APPA's members serve communities with populations of 10,000
    people or less.
        The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the
    Federal Trade Commission (FTC) play critical roles in monitoring and
    enforcing antitrust laws affecting the electric utility industry. With
    the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) included
    in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the electric utility industry is
    experiencing an increase in mergers that, if approved, could result in
    increased market power in certain regions. This development coupled
    with the volatility and uncertainty continuing to occur in wholesale
    electricity markets, make the oversight provided by DOJ and the FTC
    more critical than ever.
        APPA supports adequate funding for staffing antitrust enforcement
    and oversight at the FTC and DOJ. Specifically, we support the
    administration's request of $223 million for fiscal year 2007 for the
    FTC. We are heartened that the downward trend in funding for the DOJ's
    Antitrust Division over several years has been reversed, and are
    pleased with the administration's request of $147.7 million for fiscal
    year 2007.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
    our fiscal year 2007 funding priorities within the Commerce, Justice
    and Science subcommittee's jurisdiction.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the California State Coastal Conservancy

                                    SUMMARY

        The following testimony is in support of the California State
    Coastal Conservancy's fiscal year 2007 Science, Justice, Commerce, and
    Related Agencies appropriations request. The Conservancy respectfully
    requests needed funding for the following critical projects: $5.5
    million for the acquisition of Piedras Blancas, the Santa Clara River
    Parkway and the Jenner Headlands under the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation Program.

                             CONSERVANCY BACKGROUND

        The California Coastal Conservancy, established in 1976, is a State
    agency that uses entrepreneurial techniques to purchase, protect,
    restore, and enhance coastal resources, and to provide access to the
    shore. We work in partnership with local governments, other public
    agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners.
        To date, the Conservancy has undertaken more than 950 projects
    along the 1,100 mile California coastline and around San Francisco Bay.
    Through such projects, the Conservancy protects and improves coastal
    wetlands, streams, and watersheds; works with local communities to
    revitalize urban waterfronts; assists local communities in solving
    complex land-use problems and protects agricultural lands and supports
    coastal agriculture to list a few of our activities.
        Since its establishment in 1976, the Coastal Conservancy has helped
    build more than 300 access ways and trails, thus opening more than 80
    miles of coastal and bay lands for public use; assisted in the
    completion of over 100 urban waterfront projects; joined in partnership
    endeavors with more than 100 local land trusts and other nonprofit
    groups, making local community involvement an integral part of the
    Coastal Conservancy's work and completed projects in every coastal
    county and all nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. In addition, we
    currently have over 300 active projects that are benefiting the
    citizens of California.
    Fiscal Year 2007 Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Projects
        The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program is the only
    federal program directly supporting public land acquisitions necessary
    to implement the State's federally-mandated Coastal Management program.
    California has coastal land acquisition needs for public recreation and
    habitat conservation much greater than available State and local funds,
    and the public strongly supports preservation of coastal resource
    lands. The CELCP is strongly supported by nonprofit conservation
    organizations and by the Coastal States Organization.
        In fiscal year 2007, we are seeking $1,500,000 for the acquisition
    of the Piedras Blancas property. The Piedras Blancas project will
    purchase 18 acres of coastal property in San Luis Obispo County. It is
    nestled within the Hearst Ranch, which covers 128 square miles and
    includes 18 miles of coastline. In early 2005, the State of California
    protected 82,000 acres of the Hearst Ranch through a conservation
    easement and fee title acquisition. This conservation endeavor
    transferred fee title of 13 miles of rugged, undeveloped coastline to
    California State Parks. The Piedras Blancas property is the last
    remaining privately held parcel west of Highway 1 within the 18-mile
    stretch of Hearst Ranch. This project will allow the California
    Department of Parks and Recreation to complete acquisition of this
    missing half mile of coast and will offer immediate safe public access
    to the coastal bluffs, trails, and beaches that exist on the property.
        We also respectfully request $1,000,000 in funding for the
    acquisition of land to complete the Santa Clara River Estuary Project.
    The project will protect disappearing riparian and wetland habitats
    through acquisitions of fee title and/or conservation easement in and
    around the river's estuary. This project complements a 5-year ongoing
    effort by the California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) and The Nature
    Conservancy (TNC) to create the Santa Clara River Parkway by acquiring
    and protecting properties along the river. To date, the Coastal
    Conservancy and The Nature Conservancy have acquired 14 riverside
    properties totaling more than 2,300 acres. The project will also expand
    McGrath Beach State Park and the Santa Clara River Estuary Natural
    Preserve.
        The $1 million requested from the Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation Program (CELCP) will be matched by the McGrath State Beach
    Trustee Council (Trustee Council), the SCC, and TNC. The Trustee
    Council will contribute up to $500,000 from a $1,315,000 State trust
    account resulting from mitigation of the 1993 Berry Petroleum Company
    oil spill in the vicinity of McGrath Lake. The trustees are the
    California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), California Department of
    Parks and Recreation (State Parks), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USFWS). SCC will contribute at least $500,000 toward land protection
    in the project area. Needs in excess of the projected $2 million will
    be met by SCC and The Nature Conservancy.
        This project is part of a larger ecological conservation project
    that includes the entire Santa Clara River, its estuary, and beach and
    marsh habitat along the Ventura County coastline. A number of local,
    State, and federal agencies as well as non-profit organizations and
    local citizens' groups are cooperating to make this work successful.
        Finally, we respectfully request the inclusion of $3,000,000 in
    funding for the acquisition of the Jenner Headlands. Acquisition of the
    Jenner Headlands represents the most significant opportunity along the
    Sonoma Coast to protect an important area with unique and diverse
    conservation, recreation, ecological and aesthetic values. This 5,630-
    acre property is threatened by conversion to rural residential
    development, placing its extraordinary resources in peril. This
    acquisition is a critical link in completing a 30-mile long
    conservation corridor from Bodega Head to Fort Ross.
        Much of the property is designated as Significant Natural Area by
    the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and contains
    numerous and diverse habitat types, including riparian corridors
    suitable for Coho rearing. Jenner Gulch, Russian Gulch, Austin Creek
    and Sheephouse Creek, whose watersheds are within this property, are
    anadromous fish streams, the latter being one of three locations of
    CDFG's Coho salmon re-introduction program. Jenner Gulch is also the
    water source for the 170 residents of Jenner. The complex mosaic of
    habitats that exist in this site provides a vast, contiguous region for
    resident and nonresident fish and wildlife species. In addition to the
    abundant common animal species, identified species of special concern
    located on the property include northern spotted owl, red tree vole,
    bank swallow, steelhead, and Coho salmon.
        This property also offers exceptional new recreational
    opportunities as well as opportunities to improve existing access to
    the shore. As part of Sonoma Coast State Beach, California Department
    of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) owns the land adjacent to Jenner
    Headlands and west of Highway 1 from Russian Gulch almost to Jenner.
    Access to this narrow coastal terrace with bluffs surrounding unnamed
    coves is limited. Many of the trails are hazardous and the existing use
    is eroding the bluffs. The acquisition of Jenner Headlands will provide
    a safer and more scenic coastal trail route along the approximate 2.5
    miles between Russian Gulch and Jenner.
        The property owners are currently processing certificates of
    compliance, which, when approved, will allow them to fragment the
    property into 44 separate parcels without any further local subdivision
    approval requirements. The intense demand for home sites on the
    California coast practically guarantees that this property will be
    developed unless it is acquired for the benefit of the public.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Association of Small Business Development
                                    Centers

        The Association of Small Business Development Centers (ASBDC) urges
    the subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies to
    provide an appropriation of $110 million for the Small Business
    Administration's Small Business Development Center (SBDC) grant program
    in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill. A fiscal year 2007 Federal
    funding level of $110 million for the nationwide SBDC network will
    restore Federal funding lost to most State and regional SBDC networks
    across the Nation as a result of inflation in recent years.
        A Federal funding level of $110 million for the nationwide SBDC
    network is the level of funding provided for in the bi-partisan Snowe-
    Kerry-Vitter-Landrieu-Talent amendment that passed the Senate on
    September 15, 2005, by a vote of 96-0, during consideration of the
    fiscal year 2006 S-S-J-C appropriations bill. This is also the funding
    level provided for in the bi-partisan Snowe-Kerry-Vitter-Coleman-Nelson
    (of Florida)-Landrieu-Lieberman-Levin amendment to the fiscal year 2007
    Budget Resolution adopted by the Senate on March 16 of this year; and
    it is the funding level requested by every member of the Senate
    Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship in a letter to the
    chairman and ranking member of the C-J-S Appropriations subcommittee on
    April 7.
        The table below shows how much each State and regional SBDC network
    has lost in the value of its annual Federal SBDC funding in recent
    years as a result of inflation. Without an increase in Federal funding
    for the nationwide SBDC network, Federal SBDC funding for the average
    Statess SBDC network will be approximately $250,000 (19 percent) less
    in fiscal year 2007 than it was in the year of the last Federal funding
    increase, in inflation-adjusted dollars. For many State and regional
    SBDC networks, the loss of Federal funding due to inflation will be
    even more severe. For example, SBDC networks in small-population
    States, which have not had an increase in their Federal SBDC funding
    since 1998, will receive approximately 25 percent less Federal funding
    in fiscal year 2007 than in fiscal year 1998, after adjusting for
    inflation. And now the proposed SBA Budget calls for cutting Federal
    funding for the nationwide SBDC network even further--by $743,00 (from
    $87,863,000 in fiscal year 2006 to $87,120,000 in fiscal year 2007).
        The immediate result of declining real Federal funding for the
    Nation's SBDC network has been a decline in the number of hours that
    SBDC business counselors can spend with small businesses and aspiring
    entrepreneurs. Between 2003 and 2005 (the most recent year for which
    statistics are available), the number of hours that SBDC business
    counselors could spend with small businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs
    declined by 224,844 (from 1,566,243 in fiscal year 2003 to 1,341,399 in
    fiscal year 2005). The tragedy is that, as fewer small business owners
    and aspiring entrepreneurs have access to SBDC business counselors, and
    as SBDC business counselors spend less time with their small business
    clients, the impact of the SBDCs will be diminished. Fewer businesses
    will be created and saved, and fewer jobs will be created and saved.
        The nationwide SBDC network has a proven record of helping
    America's small businesses grow and create jobs. In 2004, for example,
    nationwide SBDC in-depth clients (those who received five or more hours
    of business counseling) created 74,253 new full time jobs; saved an
    additional 80,907 jobs; generated $6.1 billion in new sales; and saved
    an additional $5.8 billion in sales.
        In addition, the Federal SBDC appropriation of $88 million in
    fiscal year 2004 resulted in SBDC in-depth clients generating an
    estimated $233,674,930 in new Federal revenue as a result of increased
    economic activity--a return of $2.66 in new Federal tax revenues for
    every Federal dollar spent on the SBDC program. Simply put, Federal
    SBDC funding actually generates more revenues than it costs the
    taxpayer. And every dollar appropriated by the Federal government for
    the SBDC national program--to assist small businesses to survive, grow
    and create jobs--leverages at least one additional, non-Federal dollar
    in small business assistance. That is so because, to secure a Federal
    dollar, SBDCs must raise a non-Federal matching dollar.
        If we are to generate jobs for our Nation's young people coming out
    of colleges and universities and high schools, we must stimulate job
    growth. The cost per job created by SBDC in-depth counseling clients,
    including Federal dollars and non-Federal dollars, is $2,439 per job.
    Few federal jobs programs can approximate that cost-per-job created.
    Most State economic development agencies consider $10,000 per job to be
    a successful program.
        It makes no sense to cut funding for a program that teaches small
    business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs to become more competitive,
    effectively manage their small businesses, start new businesses,
    increase sales and create new jobs--especially when the SBDCs help
    generate more Federal revenue through economic growth than it costs the
    federal taxpayer to fund the SBDCs. As the United States Chamber of
    Commerce states, in its letter to the Appropriations Committee
    expressing the Chamber's support for an appropriation of $110 million
    for the SBDC grant program, ``It is vital to have a well-funded SBDC
    infrastructure in place to provide a cost-effective way to help these
    small business owners develop the skills they need to manage cash flow,
    restore markets, bolster revenue streams and increase sales--while
    creating new jobs and additional State and federal revenues.''
        Based on survey data analyzed by Professor James Chrisman of
    Mississippi State University, the ASBDC estimates that, with an
    appropriation of $110 million the nationwide SBDC network could help
    in-depth SBDC clients to:
      --Create 92,752 new jobs;
      --Save an additional 101,064 jobs;
      --Make $7.6 billion in new sales;
      --Save an additional $7.2 billion in sales;
      --Obtain $3.2 billion in financing to grow their businesses; and
      --Generate $291,891,163 in additional Federal revenues as a result of
            economic growth.
        Again, a federal funding level of $110 million for the nationwide
    SBDC network in fiscal year 2007 will restore federal funding lost to
    most State and regional SBDC networks across the Nation as a result of
    inflation in recent years. The ASBDC urges the subcommittee to provide
    this much needed funding and help ensure that America's small
    businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs, and the SBDCs that serve them,
    have the resources they need.
        Below is a spreadsheet showing how much each State and regional
    SBDC network has lost in the value of its Federal SBDC funding in
    recent years as a result of inflation.

                                          HOW INFLATION HAS ERODED SBDC FUNDING
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Federal                       Percent of
                                                                          Funding         Federal         Federal
                                       Year of Last       Federal     Dollars During   Dollars Lost    Dollars Lost
                                       Federal SBDC   Funding During   Year of Last    to Inflation    to Inflation
                 State                   Funding       Year of Last    Increase (in    (between Year   (between Year
                                         Increase        Increase       inflation-        of Last         of Last
                                                                         adjusted,     Increase and    Increase and
                                                                           2007)           2007)           2007)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama........................  2001...........      $1,276,425      $1,488,822        $212,397              17
    Alaska.........................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    America Samoa..................  2001...........         200,000         233,280          33,280              17
    Arizona........................  2002...........       1,433,189       1,626,096         192,907              13
    Arkansas.......................  2000...........         784,618         946,328         161,710              21
    California.....................  2004...........       9,461,506      10,329,126         867,620               9
    Colorado.......................  2002...........       1,201,512       1,363,236         161,724              13
    Connecticut....................  2000...........       1,045,447       1,260,914         215,467              21
    Delaware.......................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    District of Columbia...........  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    Florida........................  2002...........       4,464,511       5,065,434         600,923              13
    Georgia........................  2002...........       2,286,800       2,594,603         307,803              13
    Guam...........................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    Hawaii.........................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    Idaho..........................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    Illinois.......................  2001...........       3,602,452       4,201,900         599,448              17
    Indiana........................  2001...........       1,747,976       2,038,839         290,863              17
    Iowa...........................  2000...........         903,302       1,089,473         186,171              21
    Kansas.........................  2000...........         819,243         988,089         168,846              21
    Kentucky.......................  2001...........       1,162,071       1,355,440         193,369              17
    Louisiana......................  2001...........       1,331,402       1,552,947         221,545              17
    Maine..........................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    Maryland.......................  2001...........       1,507,645       1,758,517         250,872              17
    Massachusetts..................  2001...........       1,894,060       2,209,232         315,172              17
    Michigan.......................  2001...........       2,930,782       3,418,464         487,682              17
    Minnesota......................  2001...........       1,378,212       1,607,546         229,334              17
    Mississippi....................  2000...........         847,168       1,021,769         174,601              21
    Missouri.......................  2001...........       1,614,145       1,882,739         268,594              17
    Montana........................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    Nebraska.......................  2000...........         567,629         684,617         116,988              21
    Nevada.........................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    New Hampshire..................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    New Jersey.....................  2001...........       2,434,412       2,839,498         405,086              17
    New Mexico.....................  2000...........         550,034         663,396         113,362              21
    New York.......................  2001...........       5,668,984       6,612,303         943,319              17
    North Carolina.................  2002...........       2,248,492       2,551,139         302,647              13
    North Dakota...................  1999...........         500,000         616,300         116,300              23
    Ohio...........................  2001...........       3,420,240       3,989,368         569,128              17
    Oklahoma.......................  2000...........       1,006,907       1,214,431         207,524              21
    Oregon.........................  2002...........         955,732       1,084,374         128,642              13
    Pennsylvania...................  2001...........       3,746,336       4,369,726         623,390              17
    Puerto Rico....................  2002...........       1,063,895       1,207,095         143,200              13
    Rhode Island...................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    South Carolina.................  2002...........       1,120,714       1,271,562         150,848              13
    South Dakota...................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    Tennessee......................  2002...........       1,589,242       1,803,154         213,912              13
    Texas..........................  2001-02........       5,898,568       6,711,872         813,304              14
    Utah...........................  2002...........         623,812         707,777          83,965              13
    Vermont........................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    Virgin Islands.................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    Virginia.......................  2002...........       1,977,309       2,243,455         266,146              13
    Washington.....................  2003...........       1,656,015       1,849,438         193,423              12
    West Virginia..................  2000...........         628,228         757,706         129,478              21
    Wisconsin......................  2001...........       1,541,574       1,798,092         256,518              17
    Wyoming........................  1998...........         500,000         626,150         126,150              25
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Physiological Society

        The American Physiological Society (APS) thanks the Subcommittee
    for its sustained financial support of scientific research at the
    National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration (NASA). Scientific research plays an important
    role in technological innovation and economic development and therefore
    is vitally important to the future of our Nation. The APS applauds the
    proposed budget increase for NSF, and recommends implementation of the
    plan to provide the agency with $6.02 billion in fiscal year 2007 and
    double its budget in the coming years. In contrast, while the proposed
    overall budget increase for NASA is 3.2 percent, the Human Systems
    Research and Technology (HSR&T) theme would be cut by 56 percent. The
    APS recommends the restoration of funds to basic life sciences and
    countermeasures research at NASA to ensure the safety of humans both on
    the International Space Station and in any future space endeavors.
        The APS is a professional society dedicated to fostering research
    and education as well as the dissemination of scientific knowledge
    concerning how the organs and systems of the body work. The Society was
    founded in 1887 and now has more than 11,000 members who do research
    and teach at public and private research institutions across the
    country, including colleges, universities, medical and veterinary
    schools.
        The APS recognizes both the enormous financial challenges facing
    our Nation and the significant opportunities for scientific progress.
    In this testimony, the APS offers its recommendations for fiscal year
    2007 funding for the NSF and NASA.

                                      NSF

        The basic science initiatives funded by the NSF are driven by the
    most fundamental principles of scientific inquiry. Although at times
    NSF-funded research may seem to be exploring questions that lack
    immediate practical application, we have learned again and again that
    the relevance of the knowledge gained becomes apparent over time. The
    NSF provides support for approximately 20 percent of federally funded
    basic science and is the major source of support for non-medical
    biology research, including integrative, comparative, and evolutionary
    biology, as well as interdisciplinary biological research. The majority
    of the funding NSF provides is awarded through competitive, merit-based
    peer review, which ensures that the best possible projects are
    supported. NSF has an excellent record of accomplishment in terms of
    funding research endeavors that have produced results with far-reaching
    potential.
        One example of innovative NSF-funded research that crosses
    scientific disciplines is the effort by scientists in the Department of
    Mathematics at Duke University to develop mathematical models of kidney
    function. The kidney rids the body of waste and regulates fluid volume
    and balance. By developing mathematically based computer models of
    kidney function at the cellular level, researchers hope to gain a
    better understanding of this complex organ and the causes of kidney
    disease.\1\ This type of cutting-edge, interdisciplinary research
    program is essential for the progress of science, which is becoming
    increasingly interdisciplinary as new technologies emerge.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ A.T. Layton, H.E. Layton, Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 289,
    F1346-66 (Dec, 2005).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In another example of NSF-funded research, scientists studying
    land-dwelling wood frogs at Miami University in Ohio have made some
    important discoveries about how they survive harsh winter weather.
    According to their studies, the frogs alter the amount of sugar and
    other molecules in their bodies in response to cold temperatures,
    ultimately allowing them to freeze solid in the winter and then thaw
    again in spring.\2\ Because frogs share many biological similarities
    with humans and other mammals, the researchers hope that studying the
    precise series of physiological events in the frog will allow them to
    achieve better and longer-term preservation of human organs for
    transplantation. If human organs could be stored for longer periods,
    more organs might be available for transplantation and better
    immunological matches could be achieved. This has the potential to
    result in longer and healthier lives for transplant patients. In
    addition, because the frogs undergo cardiac arrest when they freeze, a
    better understanding of their natural cold tolerance may also shed
    light on medical problems in humans resulting from hypothermia and
    oxygen deprivation.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ J.P. Costanzo, R.E. Lee, Jr., J Exp Biol 208, 4079-89 (Nov,
    2005).
        \3\ J. P. Costanzo, R.E. Lee, Jr., A.L. DeVries, T. Wang, J.R.
    Layne, Jr., Faseb J 9, 351-8 (Mar, 1995).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to such innovative research, NSF also supports
    outstanding science and math education programs, which was one of the
    themes in the President's State of the Union address. NSF programs
    enhance education at every level from elementary school through
    graduate school and therefore should have merited funding increases for
    fiscal year 2007. Nevertheless, education programs at the NSF have
    suffered from recent budget cuts, and fiscal year 2007 budget proposal
    similarly fails to give them the priority they deserve. The President's
    budget recommends shifting funding for some NSF educational programs to
    the Department of Education. We believe that the NSF is uniquely
    qualified to foster excellence in science and math education and urge
    that funding for these programs remain at the NSF.
        The APS urges Congress to support the important work being carried
    out at NSF by funding the agency at its requested level of $6.02
    billion. In addition, the APS recommends restoration of funding for
    education programs at NSF.

                                      NASA

        The Human Systems Research and Technology (HSR&T) Theme within NASA
    was created to focus on the health and safety of humans involved in
    space exploration. During prolonged space flight, the physiological
    changes that occur due to microgravity, increased exposure to
    radiation, confined living quarters, and alterations in eating and
    sleeping patterns can lead to health problems and reduced ability to
    perform tasks. Given NASA's current focus on manned space exploration,
    it is critical that resources be devoted now to research into the
    health effects of prolonged space flight. NASA is the only agency whose
    mission includes addressing the biomedical challenges of manned space
    exploration. Moreover, this research has already produced findings with
    potential application to medical problems that occur in other
    connections. A few examples of outstanding NASA funded science are
    described below.
        A common problem associated with prolonged exposure to reduced
    gravity is muscle atrophy, including in the muscles of the legs. In an
    environment with normal gravity, muscle mass is maintained because
    walking provides both exercise and nerve stimulation in the leg
    muscles. The kind of muscle atrophy observed in humans following
    spaceflight can be simulated in laboratory rats, which has permitted
    researchers opportunities to study ways to counteract its negative
    effects. Last year several NASA-funded researchers published a study
    using showing that by artificially stimulating the bottom of the foot
    using an inflatable boot they could markedly reduce the atrophy that
    would otherwise occur in the leg muscles.\4\ If these results can be
    confirmed in humans, this type of countermeasure may be useful not only
    in conditions of reduced gravity, but also in patients who are bed-
    ridden for prolonged periods.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ A. Kyparos, D.L. Feeback, C.S. Layne, D.A. Martinez, M.S.
    Clarke, J Appl Physiol 99, 739-46 (Aug, 2005).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Muscles that have atrophied also show resistance to insulin, a
    molecule that affects how sugar is absorbed by the body's tissues.
    NASA-funded researchers at the University of North Carolina, Chapel
    Hill, used the same kind of animal model to study insulin resistance in
    conditions that simulate microgravity. They were able to identify
    events that occur at the molecular level that lead to insulin
    resistance, as well as ways the body compensates to allow the muscles
    to utilize sugar in a way that does not require insulin.\5\ These
    studies may have significant implications for keeping astronauts
    healthy during and after spaceflight. At the same time, they may
    contribute to our understanding of biological pathways that are
    important in diabetes, which is a growing health problem in the United
    States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ T.L. Hilder et al., J Appl Physiol 99, 2181-8 (Dec, 2005).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The APS is concerned about the proposed 56 percent decrease in the
    allocation for fiscal year 2007, which is inconsistent with NASA's
    increased focus on manned space exploration. The APS joins the
    Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) in
    urging both a restoration of the cut and an increase in support for
    peer-reviewed research into the health risks of long-term space flight
    and development of appropriate countermeasures.
        Investment in the basic sciences is critical to our Nation's
    technological and economic future. The APS strongly supports federal
    funding for biological and biomedical research at the NSF and NASA, as
    it does for funding at the National Institutes of Health, another
    agency whose budget is in need of congressional attention to counter
    the real decline in its ability to fund medical research. The APS urges
    you to make every effort to provide these agencies with increased
    funding for fiscal year 2007.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of ASME Aerospace Division's Task Force

                INTRODUCTION TO ASME AND THE AEROSPACE DIVISION

        ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide engineering society serving a
    membership of 120,000. It conducts one of the world's largest technical
    publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical conferences and 200
    professional development courses each year, and sets many industrial
    and manufacturing standards. The work of the society is performed by
    its member-elected board of governors through five councils, 44 boards,
    and hundreds of committees operating in 13 regions throughout the
    world.
        The ASME Aerospace Division has approximately 15,000 members from
    industry, academia and government. ASME members are involved in all
    aspects of aeronautical and aerospace engineering at all levels of
    responsibility. They have a long-standing interest and expertise in the
    Nation's federally funded aerospace research and development activities
    at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and NASA's
    efforts to create a pipeline of young engineers interested in aerospace
    and aeronautics. In this statement, the ASME Aerospace Division's Task
    Force (herein referred to as ``the Task Force'') will address programs
    that are critical to the long-term health of the Nation's aerospace
    enterprise and its global economic competitiveness.
               overview of nasa's fiscal year 2007 budget request
        The Task Force applauds the administration for its firm commitment
    to space exploration. Space exploration is one of the United States'
    greatest achievements and maintaining this mission is critical to U.S.
    leadership in space. However, at a time when America faces
    unprecedented challenges to its economic leadership, NASA must continue
    to play a lead role in funding engineering-related research,
    particularly for aeronautics programs.
        While we are pleased with the administration's support for the
    space program and NASA's efforts to revitalize its mission, we remain
    concerned about proposed reductions in funding for the aeronautics
    research and technology (R&T) programs contained within NASA's
    Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. This is the portion of the
    NASA budget that has an immediate and practical benefit to the Nation,
    and yet the administration proposes to reduce those programs by $160
    million to $724 million in fiscal year 2007, reducing the budget by
    almost half over the past decade.
        Strong investment in fundamental engineering research in
    aeronautics will ensure that the United States will retain its long-
    term leadership in this field. Therefore, the Task Force recommends
    that the aeronautics portion of the NASA budget be increased to $2
    billion over the next 8 years, with a long-term target of attaining a
    level of 10 percent of the total NASA budget. Achieving this target
    would re-establish aeronautics funding, as a percentage of the NASA
    budget, at its pre-1990 level and put U.S. R&D funding at levels
    commensurate with its competitors abroad.

                      AERONAUTICS RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

        Several interrelated critical challenges confront the U.S.
    aeronautics enterprise--a sharp decrease in the number of new
    commercial and military aircraft programs, a decline in the quality of
    the research infrastructure, and erosion in the technologically
    literate workforce needed to ensure pre-eminence in an increasingly
    competitive marketplace. Low investment by NASA in aeronautics research
    contributes to all these problems.
        Infrastructure.--There is a need to refocus on the infrastructure
    required to develop a new generation of advanced flight vehicles. In an
    era of budget cuts and fewer defense contracts, the Nation has embarked
    on a path where key wind tunnel and other ground test facilities are
    being retired. Our Task Force recommends a team of experts from
    industry, government and academia be chartered to identify the
    infrastructure requirements for a robust national aeronautical R&D
    program aimed at developing a new generation of advanced aeronautical
    vehicles. R&D adequate to sustain or build this infrastructure should
    be identified. The Nation should guard against a loss of technical
    expertise in the critical field of wind tunnel testing, a very real
    possibility in the current climate of attrition.
        Workforce.--Aeronautics faces the same pressures being felt by the
    space industries: fewer research dollars over time has resulted in
    fewer companies with skilled workers capable of designing and building
    complex aeronautical systems. An investment in aeronautics is a matter
    of strategic importance, as it creates highly skilled manufacturing
    jobs and helps create a foundation for a strong national defense.
        Aerospace companies have an aging workforce, with an estimated 26-
    27 percent reaching retirement age by 2008. Aerospace suffers from a
    lack of available young workers with advanced technology degrees who
    can step in to replace retiring, experienced workers. The aerospace
    industry looks to NASA to create a demand for long-term R&D to
    encourage students to go to graduate school and on to companies who are
    doing aeronautical research. There is a clear correlation between
    research dollars and the number of graduate students in a particular
    field--the students follow the money. Therefore, as the funding for
    aeronautics has decreased by more than half over the last decade, so
    have the number of graduate student decreased.
        Aeronautical Technologies Critical to U.S. Leadership.--Contrary to
    perception, aeronautics is not a mature industry. Exciting new
    opportunities exist for major advances in many areas of aeronautical
    technology, including automated flight vehicles, ``fail-safe''
    avionics, new platforms/configurations, efficient propulsion, ``quiet''
    aircraft, enhanced safety, and ``zero'' emissions aircraft. The Task
    Force identified numerous technologies that are critical to the long-
    term health of the Nation's civil and military aviation and aeronautics
    technology enterprise including:
      --Quieter, more environmentally friendly aircraft engines are not
            only possible, but highly desirable over the near- and longer-
            term. More distant, but intriguing, are the possibilities for
            engines using alternative fuels, including hydrogen. A vigorous
            pursuit of these technologies is likely to pay rich dividends
            to the United States air transportation system, the national
            economy, and in our efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
      --Flight demonstrations (jointly funded by DOD and NASA) should be
            sustained at an annual budget level sufficient to determine the
            integrated performance of promising and dramatic new emerging
            technology opportunities.
      --Research into avionics systems and their applications should be
            aggressively pursued because their use is pervasive and is
            often critical to the success of advanced aircraft
            developments.
      --Research and development into Uninhabited Air Vehicles (UAVs)
            should be given sustained support addressing issues of
            reliability, maintainability and cost, so that the full
            potential of these promising aircraft can be realized.
      --Research on new and more effective prediction methodologies are
            sorely needed to meet the challenge of addressing the increased
            complexity of design decisions. Computational Fluid Dynamics
            (CFD) methods, for example, have evolved to the point of
            achieving good correlation with test results, but are so
            computer-time intensive as to be currently impractical for the
            multiplicity of calculations needed for design of optimum
            configurations.
      --Methodologies that facilitate the development of cost-effective,
            extraordinarily reliable software and systems for safety
            critical operations should receive the strongest possible
            support.
      --Materials development and design to transition high trust
            propulsion technology to aerospace systems to boost trust-to-
            weight ratio of propulsion systems. This will require
            development of hybrid materials systems, durable coatings, and
            microvascular active thermal management.
      --Composite-Structures research is a critical enabling technology for
            advanced aeronautical development, and should be vigorously
            supported. New advances in manufacturing techniques for large-
            scale composite structures are required to promote the
            development of a new generation of aeronautical vehicles.
            Nanotechnology research is also needed to develop high strength
            and environmentally durable materials that perform well in
            hostile atmospheric and space environments.
      --Significant new aerodynamics research is required in support of
            innovative and promising applications ranging from micro UAVs,
            to Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) regional transports to
            Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) launch vehicles and hypersonic
            missiles.
      --Essential simulation, ground, and flight-testing capabilities must
            be preserved and new, more productive capabilities should be
            developed--including physical infrastructure and personnel--so
            that new generations of advanced aircraft can be designed
            safely to be competitive in the world market.
      --There is a continuing need for R&D into flight mechanics and
            control for new, innovative configurations including un-piloted
            aircraft. Research to minimize if not entirely eliminate the
            impact of pilot and operator errors on flight safety should be
            a primary focus.
        We urge you to read our more detailed report on ``Persistent and
    Critical Issues in the Nation's Aviation and Aeronautics Enterprise,''
    prioritizing technologies critical to the long-term health of the
    Nation's civil and military aviation and aeronautics technology
    enterprise which is located on our website at http://www.asme.org/gric/
    ps/2003/ASMEPolicyPaper.pdf.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In conclusion, we applaud the proposed fiscal year 2007 NASA budget
    for its efforts to revitalize U.S. space exploration. There is a strong
    rationale, however, for Congress to consider real increases in the NASA
    Aeronautics budget. The President has challenged us to make the
    investments in the physical sciences necessary to maintain our high
    standard of living and unprecedented economic prowess. Aeronautics is a
    vital industry that produces tangible economic and security benefits
    for the Nation. As other nations seek to expand their efforts in
    aeronautics and space exploration, Congress should also consider funds
    for NASA R&D measures that will help the U.S. economy remain
    competitive and innovative.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Aquarium, Baltimore, Maryland

        Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to submit testimony in support of federal appropriations
    for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        As a stakeholder and partner of NOAA, the National Aquarium in
    Baltimore strongly encourages you to provide the agency with an
    appropriation of $4.5 billion in fiscal year 2007. NOAA's protection of
    our oceans and coastal communities is crucial to the U.S. economy.
    Coastal communities, our national fisheries, and the services provided
    by shorelines and wetlands depend on the science and management offered
    by NOAA.
        Funding from NOAA supports many of the conservation and education
    activities conducted by the National Aquarium in Baltimore, its
    affiliates, and other nonprofit and educational organizations on the
    Chesapeake Bay. In partnership with NOAA, the National Aquarium in
    Baltimore has helped citizens and communities restore tidal wetlands on
    Chesapeake Bay's Barren Island, Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge,
    Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge, and Fort McHenry in Baltimore.
    This partnership leverages support from other Federal and State
    agencies and private foundations, enabling community-based restoration
    activities that publicly demonstrate habitat enhancement and beneficial
    use of dredged material for restoring tidal wetlands. NOAA investments
    have leveraged more than $1.6 million over the past 5 years for
    restoration of Chesapeake Bay tidal wetlands.
        NOAA helps support the conservation of marine life through the
    Aquarium's Marine Animal Rescue Program (MARP), which rescues and
    rehabilitates seals, sea turtles, dolphins and porpoises, and even the
    occasional whale, that become stranded on Atlantic Coast shorelines.
    Many animals are released back into the wild after rehabilitation.
    Those that cannot be released are cared for, studied, and placed in
    educational facilities throughout the United States. MARP could not
    conduct rescue and rehabilitation without help from NOAA's Prescott
    Marine Mammal Assistance Grants. NOAA-funded conservation education
    messages presented by MARP reach tens of thousands of visitors to Ocean
    City, Baltimore, and the surrounding region. NOAA investments have
    leveraged more than $500,000 for MARP activities over the past 5 years.
        The Bay Wide Education and Training (BWET) grants from NOAA support
    the National Aquarium in Baltimore's school-based Wetland Nursery
    Program for middle and high school students in Maryland and Washington,
    DC. This program builds demonstration wetland plant nurseries at urban
    schools. Students grow wetland grasses and monitor water quality,
    growth, and other scientific parameters. A new component of the program
    integrates native fish aquaculture into the wetland nursery system. At
    the end of the growing season, students plant grasses and release fish
    in restored tidal wetlands on Chesapeake Bay. Additional teacher
    training programs enable local educators to utilize curricular
    materials on the Chesapeake Bay watershed in their classrooms
    throughout the school year. NOAA investments have leveraged more than
    $300,000 for these and other environmental education programs at the
    Aquarium over the past 5 years.
        NOAA is also significantly supporting the restoration of the
    historic National Aquarium in Washington, DC, which is located in the
    basement of the Commerce Building. The DC aquarium is an affiliate of
    the National Aquarium in Baltimore. The two aquariums share resources,
    providing top quality animal care, exhibit expertise, and materials.
    Recent funding from NOAA has allowed the DC aquarium to upgrade water
    quality and life support systems; improve worker safety and visitor
    access; and refurbish exhibits. A NOAA-supported educational assessment
    is under way and will help enhance conservation education activities
    for schoolchildren in Washington, DC and the surrounding region.
    Visitors to the DC aquarium come from around the world and learn about
    our National Marine Sanctuaries through educational displays and the
    new exhibits. In just 2 years, NOAA investments have leveraged more
    than $100,000 in in-kind support for the National Aquarium in
    Washington, DC.
        The National Aquariums in Baltimore and Washington, DC are
    appreciative of NOAA support over past years. We encourage the
    subcommittee to continue significant funding for NOAA in future years,
    as we work together to protect our oceans, shorelines, fisheries,
    coastal communities and their economies.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the United States Tennis Association Tennis and
                              Education Foundation

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
    Foundation of the United States Tennis Association (USTA), we extend
    our sincere appreciation to the committee for the past consideration
    and support extended to our national youth development initiative,
    ``Aces for Kids''--community based, nonprofit after-school and out-of-
    school programs that encourage healthy lifestyles, tennis, and life
    skills in a safe, nurturing environment for at-risk children between
    the ages of 5-18, particularly those in lower income communities. The
    specific problems addressed by this grant are: school truancy and
    performance, gang activity, underage drinking and drug abuse. A U.S.
    Department of Justice report, Juvenile Justice Bulletin, concluded that
    after-school recreation programs are a promising approach to preventing
    delinquency and crime.
        ``America's Promise'' and the ``No Child Left Behind'' Act state
    that nearly 8 in 10 middle/high school youth who participate in
    supportive after-school programs are high achieving students. Children
    who regularly attend high-quality after-school programs have:
      --Better grades and conduct in school,
      --More academic and personal growth opportunities,
      --Better peer relations and emotional adjustment,
      --A stronger sense of responsibility to themselves and the community,
            and
      --Lower incidences of drug-use, violence and teen pregnancy.
        Research cites that the problems to be addressed by ``Aces for
    Kids'' are consistent across the country. Specifically that: (1) the
    majority of children have both parents or their only parent/caregiver
    in the workforce; (2) the majority of children under the age of 16 are
    left alone at home each week; (3) many children, especially those from
    low-income households, lose ground in reading skills if they are not
    engaged in organized learning over the summer months; (4) school-age
    children who are unsupervised during out-of-school hours are more
    likely to receive poor grades and drop out of school than those who are
    involved in supervised, constructive activities; and, (5) most juvenile
    crime takes place between the hours of 2 p.m. and 8 p.m., and that
    children are also at much greater risk of being the victims of crime
    during these hours.
        The USTA/USTA Tennis & Education Foundation recognized the
    importance of ``Aces for Kids'' prior to receiving government support
    and began funding programs that followed the ``Aces'' model in 2004.
    These organizations include: Arthur Ashe Youth Tennis & Education,
    Community Education & Tennis Association, and National Kidney
    Foundation-Delaware Valley, all located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
    Abundant Waters, City Parks Foundation, New York Junior Tennis League,
    and Harlem Junior Tennis Program, all located in New York City; Boys &
    Girls Clubs of San Francisco, San Francisco, California; East Palo Alto
    Tennis & Tutoring, Stanford, California; Youth Tennis Advantage,
    Oakland, California; Net Results Junior Tennis, Denver, Colorado;
    Recreation Wish List Committee and Joy of Sports, both in Washington,
    DC; Love to Serve and Tennis Opportunity Program, both in Chicago;
    Baltimore Tennis Patrons, Baltimore, Maryland; Tenacity, Inc., Boston,
    Massachusetts; Fort Snelling Tennis & Education and Inner City Tennis,
    both in Minneapolis, Minnesota; First Serve-New Mexico, Santa Fe, New
    Mexico; NJTL of Charleston, Charlestown, South Carolina; Coldstream
    Junior Tennis Academy, Columbia, South Carolina; Public Tennis, Inc.,
    Hilton Head, South Carolina; Wilson Tennis Foundation-NJTL, Wilson,
    South Carolina; and several dozen other programs across the country.
        In October, 2005 (due date of January 13, 2006), the USTA/USTA
    Tennis & Education Foundation issued a first-round of requests for
    proposals. In Round I of ``Aces for Kids,'' 10 programs were selected
    in a competitive application and review process based upon criteria
    that rely on meeting the physical, social and emotional needs of
    children:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Funded
       Aces for Kids program/location       Purpose of grant        amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Apple Ridge Farm, Roanoke, Virginia  To sponsor 50               $15,000
                                          underserved students
                                          from low income
                                          families who are
                                          living in government
                                          housing at their 9-
                                          week Summer Academic
                                          Camp.
    MACH Academy, Aiken, South Carolina  To increase outreach        $15,000
     and Martinez, Georgia.               efforts to provide
                                          academic, nutrition,
                                          technology, and
                                          tennis/fitness
                                          activities 2 days per
                                          week after school, 4
                                          hours per day, and 5
                                          days per week--4
                                          hours per day during
                                          a 2 week summer camp
                                          session and target
                                          children ages 5-18
                                          from families that
                                          have limited parental
                                          involvement and are
                                          of a transient nature.
    Middlesex County Grandparents        For ``Success Pathways      $25,000
     Raising Grandchildren Coalition,     Summer Camp-Tennis
     Rahway, New Jersey.                  Program'' which is
                                          designed to assist
                                          disabled and
                                          extremely low to low-
                                          income working
                                          grandparents and
                                          kinship caregivers in
                                          resolving their
                                          dilemma of finding
                                          affordable and
                                          nurturing summer
                                          child care.
    National Junior Tennis League of     For the start-up of         $25,000
     Trenton, Pennington, New Jersey.     the ``Mobile
                                          Information
                                          Technology
                                          Educational Support
                                          Program,'' which will
                                          enhance and expand
                                          the academic, tennis,
                                          and nutritional
                                          education components
                                          by adding a traveling
                                          computer literacy
                                          program that will
                                          reach 1,000 children
                                          by Summer, 2006.
    Prince George's Tennis & Education   To continue the work        $25,000
     Foundation, Upper Marlboro,          and achievements of
     Maryland.                            its five core
                                          programs which target
                                          approximately 400+ at-
                                          risk youth: Junior
                                          Outreach, College
                                          Preparation &
                                          Personal Development,
                                          Out of School, and
                                          Tennis Camp.
    Rodney Street Tennis Association,    To implement two Aces       $13,750
     Wilmington, Delaware.                for Kids components:
                                          nutrition and
                                          citizenship. A part-
                                          time nutritionist
                                          will be hired to
                                          improve the nutrition
                                          of at-risk minority
                                          youth during a 10-
                                          week summer tennis
                                          program. The
                                          citizenship component
                                          will support student
                                          trips to their
                                          representatives at
                                          the city, Sate and
                                          Federal Government
                                          levels.
    Southern Alabama Tennis              To improve the lives        $11,400
     Association, Mobile, Alabama.        of the youth in
                                          Mobile and Baldwin
                                          Counties. Tutoring is
                                          already done on a
                                          small scale with many
                                          staff members
                                          volunteering, and
                                          this grant will allow
                                          the program to reach
                                          25 children, 2 days
                                          per week.
    Sportsmen's Tennis Club,             General support for         $25,000
     Dorchester, Massachusetts.           their programs which
                                          serve approximately
                                          300 disadvantaged
                                          children from low-
                                          income, working
                                          families.
    Washington Tennis & Education        For their Arthur Ashe       $25,000
     Foundation, Washington, DC.          Children's Program
                                          and WTEF Academy.
                                          Combined the programs
                                          serve over 500
                                          students, ages 8-18,
                                          with tennis, academic
                                          and life-skills
                                          instruction. The
                                          programs are
                                          intensive, operating
                                          2-to-3 hours a day, 4
                                          days each week,
                                          nearly year-round for
                                          a total of
                                          approximately 6,500
                                          hours of programming
                                          each year.
    Youth & Tennis, Inc., Jamaica, New   To help them increase       $25,000
     York.                                the number of
                                          students in the
                                          program by 10 percent
                                          in addition to
                                          expanding their
                                          academic and social
                                          support services.
                                          They currently serve
                                          1,000 children.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The USTA/USTA Tennis & Education Foundation is grateful for your
    support and is confident that our ``Aces for Kids'' model is a positive
    step in preventing crime and delinquency and encouraging healthy
    lifestyles and academic achievement for underserved children. In fiscal
    year 2007, we hope the subcommittee will support our request for $1.5
    million in funding, so that we can continue to be successful in our
    efforts.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Universities
                       and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC)

        On behalf of the National Association of State Universities and
    Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), thank you for the opportunity to provide
    recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 budgets for the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautic
    and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Science Foundation
    (NSF). We thank you for the support you have continually demonstrated
    for these agencies over the past several years, and know that the
    Senate recognizes the unique roles that NOAA, NASA and NSF each play in
    a number of high-priority U.S. and international initiatives. All three
    agencies also support research at our member institutions that provides
    critical information to policymakers and communities across the
    country. That is why we strongly recommend $4.5 billion for NOAA;
    restoration of the President's proposed cuts to NASA's Earth Science
    R&A Account; and the President's budget request for NSF.
    NOAA
        In order to maintain our country's homeland security, scientific
    leadership, and economic competitive edge we must have a diverse
    portfolio of federally supported science research and programs.
    Consequently, we are concerned about the significant cuts made to NOAA
    in fiscal year 2006. The science-based work of NOAA protects and
    impacts every American citizen, everyday. NOAA is the third largest
    source of funds for academic marine research in the Federal Government.
        In 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) report ``An
    Ocean Blueprint'' recommended an integrated national ocean policy be
    developed, incorporating ecosystem-based management and end-to-end
    watershed monitoring. USCOP also recommended doubling the federal ocean
    research budget and a significant enhancement and expansion of NOAA's
    coastal, oceanic and atmospheric real-time observing network that will
    lead to better forecasts of weather events, climate conditions and
    impending natural hazards. Yet, even following a year with the most
    devastating ocean and climate-based natural disaster in recent memory,
    Hurricane Katrina, and in which the importance of science to American's
    competitiveness was noted in a number of reports such as the National
    Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' NOAA is still
    significantly under-funded. As a member of the Friends of NOAA
    Coalition, NASULGC strongly recommends $4.5 billion for NOAA in fiscal
    year 2007.
        We thank the Senate for appropriating this same amount last year,
    and believe it is a reasonable recommendation when one considers that
    the coastal watershed counties contribute $4.5 trillion to the U.S.
    economy--half of the Nation's Gross Domestic Product--and over 60
    million jobs. For that relatively small amount, each American receives
    weather forecasting, hurricane tracking, tornado warnings, tsunami
    warnings, navigational information, land and building boundary
    specifications, fisheries management, hazard mitigation, scientific
    research, and local community assistance. On behalf of all of us, NOAA
    oversees the Nation's environmental observing networks and satellites,
    and provides science-based management of many valuable marine
    resources. The bottom line is that NOAA affects and provides important
    services to all Americans, so it is time for Congress to demonstrate
    its commitment to the NOAA programs that are vital to our economy and
    to the health and well being.
        As members of the oceanic and atmospheric academic community we
    further recommend that a portion of the additional funding, that $4.5
    billion would provide, be used to support the following programs and
    activities:
      --$471 million for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), a $100
            million increase over fiscal year 2006 enacted levels, and the
            same amount approved by the Senate in fiscal year 2006. The
            basic research conducted through the OAR line office and its
            partnerships with universities helps us understand climate
            variability, provide better protection for coastal resources,
            contributes to our Nation's commerce, and supports our
            transportation systems. OAR supports such important programs as
            the National Sea Grant College Program, Ocean Exploration, the
            National Undersea Research Program, the U.S. Weather Research
            Program, and Climate Operations. Despite this, the President's
            budget request for OAR represents a $65.8 million decrease
            since fiscal year 2005. Within the OAR line office, NASULGC
            specifically recommends:
      --$72 million for the National Sea Grant College Program, $17.3
            million increase over fiscal year 2006 enacted levels, and the
            same amount approved by the Senate in fiscal year 2006. Last
            year, Sea Grant was surprisingly cut by $7.1 million, or 11
            percent, from fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. The fiscal year
            2006 enacted level of $54.7 million was also significantly
            below the President's request, the House passed level, and the
            Senate passed level for the same year. While our fiscal year
            2007 request represents a modest increase, it restores the
            significant reductions taken in fiscal year 2006 and is still
            $28 million below the authorization for the Sea Grant program.
            Sea Grant is the flagship program between NOAA and the academic
            community that supports the work of 31 colleges located in
            coastal and Great Lakes States and serves as the core of a
            national network of more than 300 participating institutions
            involving more than 3,000 scientists, engineers, educators,
            students, and outreach experts.
      --$29.5 million in fiscal year 2007 for the extramural portions of
            both the NOS Ocean and Coastal Research program and the Oceans
            and Human Health Initiative (OHHI). Within the National Ocean
            Service (NOS), NASULGC supports restoration of last year's
            drastic cuts in competitive extramural research, bringing
            funding back to the more sustainable and effective level
            provided in fiscal year 2005. In addition, we support the
            appropriation of sufficient funds for full NOAA participation
            in collaborative NOS science programs, particularly OHHI. NOS
            support for extramural research conducted in cooperation with
            NOAA scientists is leading to improved knowledge and forecasts
            to address complex problems such as harmful algal blooms,
            hypoxia, coastal stressors and ecosystem-based management of
            fisheries. We ask that a minimum of $20.5 million be provided
            in fiscal year 2007 to provide support for academic
            participation in such efforts. In addition, OHHI offers real
            promise for understanding the role of the oceans in human
            health. The initiative was funded at $18 million in fiscal year
            2005 of which $9 million was made available to academic
            partners, and we ask that this support be restored.
        As recipients of many of NOAA's extramural research grants, we
    would also appreciate bill language that asks NOAA to provide greater
    transparency in their budget justification of available funding for
    extramural research purposes. Extramural research is available
    throughout various programs within OAR and NOS, but the current system
    makes it difficult to track where the money is going.
    NASA
        Another area of great concern is the future prospect for Earth
    science activities at NASA, which now falls under the agency's Science
    Mission Directorate. We feel that Earth science activities are being
    cut because of space exploration missions. While we appreciate the
    President's ambitious space exploration agenda, we agree with Science
    Committee Chairman Boehlert's statement that ``There simply is no
    planet more important to human beings than our own, and we're
    remarkably ignorant about it. NASA's Earth science mission is
    essential.'' NASA's traditional robust research and development funding
    has been very important for our member universities and NASULGC
    supports a balance between NASA's science and the human space programs
    at NASA.
        NASA's investments in the Earth sciences fund university research
    that has resulted in valuable advances in weather forecasting, improved
    climate projections, and understanding of Earth ecosystems. Without the
    tools provided by NASA, oceanographers and the Nation would have a much
    less complete picture of the planet's oceans and coasts.
        There are suggestions that NASA's Earth Science R&A funding will be
    cut by almost 20 percent this year, and estimated to cut $350-$400
    million over the next 5 years. The Research and Analysis program at
    NASA is the primary mechanism for funding to the academic community.
    Through its support for young scientists and graduate students, the R&A
    program supports innovation in Earth science and technology using
    NASA's satellite missions. New sensor concepts, new data processing
    algorithms, and new approaches to global-scale Earth science are the
    legacy of the research funded by the R&A program. It is essential that
    NASA maintain a balance between R&A funding and its space missions in
    order to derive maximum benefit from today's missions as well as to
    support the innovation needed to drive the missions of tomorrow.
    NASULGC is opposed to proposed cuts to the NASA Earth Science R&A
    Program.
    NSF
        The Nation's state universities and land-grant colleges that we
    represent welcome, and are excited by, the renewed national focus on
    scientific research and education as illustrated in the President's
    proposed American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). We are extremely
    pleased with his proposal to double funding in the physical sciences at
    NSF over the next 10 years. NASULGC supports the President's NSF fiscal
    year 2007 budget request of $6 billion, and specifically his proposed
    increases in the Geoscience Directorate.
        Thank you for taking time to review our recommendations. We look
    forward to continue working with you towards promoting and sustaining
    the important NOAA, NASA, and NSF programs that enable the United
    States to maintain a leadership position in marine and climate science.
    About NASULGC
        NASULGC is the Nation's oldest higher education association.
    Currently the association has over 200 member institutions--including
    the historically black land-grant institutions--located in all 50
    States. 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.
    About the Board on Oceans and Atmosphere
        The Board on Oceans and Atmosphere's primary responsibility is to
    develop a federal relations program to advance research and education
    in the marine and atmospheric sciences. The board currently has
    approximately 200 regionally distributed members, including some of the
    Nation's most eminent research scientists, chief executive officers of
    universities, marine and atmospheric scientists, academic deans, and
    directors of Sea Grant programs.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Surfrider Foundation

        On behalf of the Surfrider Foundation, I appreciate the opportunity
    to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $3 million
    from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program for the San
    Miguel project in Puerto Rico.
        The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit environmental organization
    dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world's oceans, waves
    and beaches for all people, through conservation, activism, research
    and education. The Surfrider Foundation, is a grassroots organization
    with 64 chapters and over 50,000 members. We have a local chapter in
    Rincon, Puerto Rico and have been actively involved in coastal and
    ocean protection in Puerto Rico for over a decade, including the
    preservation of the NEC.
        The Northeastern Ecological Corridor (NEC), comprising
    approximately 3,200 acres, is one of the Caribbean's last, great,
    unprotected areas. Located on the eastern corner of the main island of
    Puerto Rico within the municipalities of Luquillo and Fajardo, the NEC
    contains an extraordinary array of tropical habitats seldom found in
    other parts of the world. In addition to coral communities, mangroves,
    and pre-Columbian forests, all the different varieties of coastal
    wetlands found throughout Puerto Rico are represented within the NEC.
    The wetlands in this area are essential to the existence of a seasonal
    bioluminescent lagoon known as Laguna Aguas Prietas, an extremely rare
    biological phenomenon. The NEC is also home to several world-class
    surfing areas that represent some of the best surfing in the Carribean.
        The NEC's location within the foothills of the El Yunque Caribbean
    National Rain Forest adds to its great natural value and uniqueness.
    Originally set aside in 1876 by the Spanish Crown, the forest
    represents one of the oldest reserves in the Western Hemisphere and is
    the only tropical forest in the United States national forest system.
    The forest contains rare wildlife and is home to over 50 species of
    birds, including the Puerto Rican parrot--one of the ten most
    endangered species of birds in the world. The ecological diversity
    observed within these two related sites, varying from a coastal dry
    forest to a rain forest, lies within a corridor just 13 miles in
    length. Such diversity can only be enhanced by the conservation of NEC
    lands.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 1,277-acre San
    Miguel property, consisting of three parcels within the NEC. These
    parcels contain extensive wetland areas contiguous to the Pitahaya,
    Juan Martin and Sabana rivers, and harbor an array of unique upland and
    wetland ecosystems. The project site includes some of the last
    remaining virgin forests on the island, as well as one of the last
    remaining unspoiled dune systems and a significant coral community
    immediately off shore. The property falls within the range of over 40
    rare species of flora and fauna, including 16 federally threatened or
    endangered listed species, such as the hawksbill sea turtle, Virgin
    Island boa, Puerto Rican boa, brown pelican, Puerto Rican plain pigeon,
    West Indian manatee, and Cobana negra (a flowering plant). The area is
    best known, however, as one of the most important nesting grounds for
    leatherback sea turtles in the Unites States and the Caribbean. The
    project site also contains a variety of archeological resources, such
    as historical tools and structures.
        At the present time, several multinational lodging corporations
    have proposed various mega luxury tourist-residential resorts within
    the NEC. One of the largest proposed developments would be built on the
    San Miguel tracts at the boundary of the municipalities of Luquillo and
    Fajardo. The San Miguel Resort would include 1,025 residential units, a
    250-room resort/casino, a 175-unit hotel/casino, and two golf courses.
    The development would involve the filling of wetlands, channelization
    of rivers, and clearance of coastal vegetation, thus destroying the
    natural integrity of the NEC. If the San Miguel resort were to be
    constructed as planned, it would further deplete the limited water
    supplies needed by local communities, resulting in a deficit of over
    4,000,000 gallons of water per day, a deficit which accounts for the
    water requirements of nearly 25,000 people. There is widespread concern
    as well about other negative impacts the development would have on this
    sensitive area, including destruction of wetlands and the degradation
    of key endangered species habitats.
        Given the ongoing controversy over development of the property,
    including years of lawsuits, strong public opposition, and permitting
    difficulties, the owners have decided to make the land available for
    conservation. Federal agencies, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
    private parties have come together in an effort to preserve this
    remarkable coastal property. Public ownership will preserve the coastal
    resources, protect the rivers and wetlands, buffer El Yunque National
    Forest, and provide public beach access and recreational opportunities.
        Approximately $25 million will eventually be needed to complete the
    San Miguel acquisition. If this effort should fail, some form of
    development would likely occur on this highly sensitive property. A
    fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal and
    Estuarine Land Conservation program is needed to further the protection
    of the San Miguel tracts. These funds will be matched by $2.27 million
    in settlement funds from the Barge Berman Oil Spill (specifically for
    land acquisition), up to $5.7 million of other oil spill settlement
    funds (for restoration categories), $3 million committed by the
    Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico, and additional funds being raised by
    a local land trust and other interested private parties. I urge you to
    include this project in the fiscal year 2007 Commerce, Justice, and
    Science appropriations bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony and for your consideration of this important request.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission

        Mr. Chairman, my name is Roland Rousseau and I serve as an
    alternate commissioner on the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) and the
    chair of the Budget Committee for the U.S. Section of the Commission.
    The Pacific Salmon Treaty (Treaty) between the United States and Canada
    was entered into in 1985. A subsequent agreement was concluded in June
    of 1999 (1999 Agreement) that established new abundance-based fishing
    regimes under the treaty and made other improvements in the treaty's
    structure. During fiscal year 2007, the PSC will begin discussions on
    treaty provisions that conclude at the end of 2008. The U.S. Section
    recommends:
      --Funding the Pacific Salmon Treaty Line Item of the National Marine
            Fisheries Service at $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, restoring
            $1,000,000 previously provided by Congress. This funding
            provides the technical support for the States of Alaska,
            Washington, Oregon and Idaho and the National Marine Fisheries
            Service to implement the salmon stock assessment and fishery
            management programs required to implement the treaty fishing
            regimes. Included within the total amount of $8,000,000 is
            $400,000 to continue a joint Transboundary River Enhancement
            program required by the treaty.
      --Funding the Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Salmon Agreement account
            at $1,844,000, level funding from that was provided by Congress
            for fiscal year 2006. This funding continues to be necessary to
            acquire the technical information to implement abundance based
            Chinook salmon management provided for under the 1999
            Agreement.
        The base treaty implementation projects include a wide range of
    stock assessment, fishery monitoring, and technical support activities
    for all five species of Pacific salmon in the fisheries and rivers from
    Southeast Alaska to those of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The States
    of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and the National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS), are charged with carrying out a major portion
    of the salmon fishery stock assessment and harvest management actions
    required under the treaty. Federal funding for these activities is
    provided through NMFS on an annual basis. The agency projects carried
    out under PSC funding are directed toward acquiring, analyzing, and
    sharing the information required to implement the salmon conservation
    and sharing principles of the treaty. A wide range of programs for
    salmon stock size assessments, escapement enumeration, stock
    distribution, and catch and effort information from fisheries, are
    represented. The information from many of these programs is used
    directly to establish fishing seasons and harvest levels. Congress
    increased this funding by $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2005 to a total of
    $8,000,000 to provide for programs needed to implement the new
    abundance based fishing regimes established under the 1999 Agreement.
    The 1999 Agreement updated provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty
    including fishing arrangements and abundance based management
    approaches for Chinook, southern Coho, Northern Boundary and
    Transboundary River fisheries. The $400,000 that has been provided
    since 1988 for a joint Transboundary River enhancement program with
    Canada is included in this amount.
        In 1996, the United States adopted an abundance-based approach to
    managing Chinook salmon fisheries in Southeast Alaska. Under this
    approach, Chinook harvest levels are based on annual estimates of
    Chinook abundance. This system replaced fixed harvest ceilings agreed
    to in 1985, which did not respond to annual fluctuations in Chinook
    salmon populations. Under the 1999 Agreement, this abundance based
    management approach was expanded to all Chinook fisheries subject to
    the treaty. Beginning in 1998, Congress provided $1,844,000 to allow
    for the collection of necessary stock assessment and fishery management
    information to implement the new approach. Through a rigorous
    competitive technical review process, the States of Alaska, Washington,
    Oregon, and Idaho, and the 24 treaty tribes are using the funding to
    implement abundance-based Chinook salmon management coast-wide under
    the new agreement. The U.S. Section recommends level funding of
    $1,844,000 for fiscal year 2007 to support the implementation of
    abundance-based Chinook salmon management.
        The United States and Canada agreed to a joint salmon enhancement
    program on the Transboundary Rivers flowing between Canada and
    Southeast Alaska in 1988. Since 1989, Congress has provided $400,000
    annually for this effort through the National Marine Fisheries Service
    International Fisheries Commission line item under the Conservation and
    Management Operations activity. Canada provides an equal amount of
    funding and support for this bilateral program. This funding is
    included in the $8,000,000 the U.S. Section is recommending for the
    fiscal year 2007 Pacific Salmon Treaty line item.
        This concludes the statement of the U.S. Section of the PSC
    submitted for consideration by your committee. We wish to thank the
    committee for the support that it has given us in the past.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Washington State Department of Ecology

        On behalf of the Washington State Department of Ecology, I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $2 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation program for the Turner's Bay project in Washington State.
        The mission of the Washington State Department of Ecology is to
    protect, preserve, and enhance Washington's environment, and promote
    wise management of our air, land, and water for the benefit of current
    and future generations. The Washington State Department of Ecology
    manages a wide variety of programs, including the Coastal and Estuarine
    Land Conservation program.
        Made up of a series of underwater valleys and ridges, Washington's
    Puget Sound is an estuary where salt water from the ocean mixes with
    fresh water from the many rivers and streams of the surrounding land.
    The 2,500-mile of shoreline is a mosaic of beaches, bluffs, deltas,
    mudflats, and wetlands. While much of the sound is healthy, recent
    growth and development in the region are stressing its ecosystem. Water
    pollution and sediments laden with toxic pollutants threaten the water
    quality of Puget Sound, which has seen sharp declines in populations of
    salmon, orcas, marine birds and rockfish. Nearly 85 percent of the
    basin's annual surface water runoff comes from 10 rivers, one of which
    is the Skagit River. The Skagit River delta is a biologically rich and
    complex area characterized by tidal marshes and flats, shrub/scrub
    wetlands, and prolific agricultural areas. The delta's river system
    sustains viable runs of all five species of Pacific salmon. In all, the
    delta provides habitat for more than 300 species of fish and wildlife,
    including eight federally endangered or threatened species.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 456-acre
    Turner's Bay project, which lies within the Skagit delta. This property
    includes approximately 38 acres of tidelands and estuarine wetlands, 27
    acres of tidal influenced shorelands (including a 4.2-acre spit) and an
    adjacent 391 acres of mixed deciduous/conifer forested uplands and
    wetlands, all located at the northern boundary of the Swinomish
    Reservation. Small forested wetlands border the southern end of the
    subject property. The length of shoreline to be acquired, including the
    spit, is approximately 7,180 feet.
        Turner's Bay provides critical habitat for waterfowl, blue herons,
    juvenile salmon, shellfish and other aquatic life. Bald eagles are
    commonly seen foraging in the bay. The property contains the largest
    stretch of undeveloped estuarine habitat on the reservation and one of
    the largest of such areas remaining in the Skagit Bay system.
        The Skagit delta is a popular recreation area for kayakers,
    shellfish harvesters, beachcombers, and birdwatchers. The public access
    provided by the Turner's Bay project would increase the availability of
    coast-dependent and nature-based recreation. The spit and undeveloped
    shoreline along the bay provide a unique natural environment--sandy
    shores, prolific tidelands, and rich wetlands--for the public to
    explore and enjoy. Turner's Bay is located along the Cascadia Marine
    Trail, a water trail that stretches from Olympia in south Puget Sound
    to Canada. The Cascadia Trail is a well-traveled route of many boaters
    exploring Puget Sound or heading farther north to the San Juan Islands.
        The project area is also located just south of Highway 20, a State-
    designated scenic byway that runs the length of Whidbey Island to the
    west and provides a scenic east-west route across the Skagit Valley.
    The Washington State Department of Ecology manages the nearby 11,000-
    acre Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve which is funded by
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The area
    surrounding Turner's Bay and the greater Skagit Valley is under
    increasing development pressure as population in the Puget Sound basin
    continues to grow and spread from urban centers. Undeveloped,
    undisturbed waterfront property is an increasingly threatened commodity
    in Puget Sound, as retirees and owners of vacation homes discover the
    beauty of the Puget Sound shoreline. Acquisition of this parcel is a
    unique opportunity to preserve an enclave of pleasing and natural views
    amid a growing sea of suburban development.
        Turner's Bay is of significant cultural importance to the Swinomish
    Tribe. Three archaeological sites have been identified along the
    shoreline in previous surveys. More significantly, Turner's Bay is a
    traditional subsistence shellfish harvest area for tribal members. The
    harvest and consumption of shellfish from tribal homelands is also an
    important cultural practice of tribal members and is central to
    Swinomish cultural identity. For this reason, the tribe would like to
    work with the State to acquire these tidelands, shorelands, and
    forested uplands that shelter and protect the quality of Turner's Bay.
    The tribe wishes to ensure appropriate stewardship of the abundant
    resources in the subject area. Additionally, some historians consider
    the spit in Turner's Bay to be a possible landing site of Captain
    George Vancouver's Puget Sound exploration party, as it fits the
    description and approximate location of one of their reported survey
    sites as they explored the area.
        A fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $2 million from the Coastal and
    Estuarine Land Conservation program will ensure the protection of this
    ecologically and culturally significant site on Turner's Bay, and I
    respectfully request that you to include this project in the Fiscal
    Year 2007 Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony and for your consideration of this important request.
                                     ______

     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 2007 funding request of $150,000
    from the Department of Commerce/NOAA account for CCOS. These funds are
    necessary for the State of California to address the very significant
    challenges it faces to comply with new national ambient air quality
    standards for ozone and fine particulate matter. The study design
    incorporates recent technical recommendations from the National Academy
    of Sciences (NAS) on how to most effectively comply with Federal Clean
    Air Act requirements.
        First, we want to thank you for your past assistance in obtaining
    federal funding for the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) and
    California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study
    (CRPAQS). Your support of these studies has been instrumental in
    improving the scientific understanding of the nature and cause of ozone
    and particulate matter air pollution in Central California and the
    Nation. Information gained from these two studies is forming the basis
    for the 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze State
    Implementation Plans (SIPs) that are due in 2007 (ozone) and 2008
    (particulate matter/haze). As with California's previous SIPs, the
    2007-2008 SIPs will need to be updated and refined due to the
    scientific complexity of our air pollution problem. Our request this
    year would fund the completion of CCOS to address important questions
    that won't be answered with results from previously funded research
    projects.
        To date, our understanding of air pollution and the technical basis
    for SIPs has largely been founded on pollutant-specific studies, like
    CCOS. These studies are conducted over a single season or single year
    and have relied on modeling and analysis of selected days with high
    concentrations. Future SIPs will be more complex than they were in the
    past. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is now recommending a
    weight-of-evidence approach that will involve utilizing more broad-
    based, integrated methods, such as data analysis in combination with
    seasonal and annual photochemical modeling, to assess compliance with
    Federal Clean Air Act requirements. This will involve the analysis of a
    larger number of days and possibly an entire season. In addition,
    because ozone and particulate matter are formed from some of the same
    emissions precursors, there is a need to address both pollutants in
    combination, which CCOS will do.
        Consistent with the new NAS recommendations, the CCOS study
    includes corroborative analyses with the extensive data provided by
    past studies, advances the state-of-science in air quality modeling,
    and addresses the integration of ozone and particulate pollution
    studies. In addition, the study will incorporate further refinements to
    emission inventories, address the development of observation-based
    analyses with sound theoretical bases, and includes the following four
    general components:
      --Performing SIP modeling analyses, 2005-2011
      --Conducting weight-of-evidence data analyses, 2006-2008
      --Making emission inventory improvements, 2006-2010
      --Performing seasonal and annual modeling, 2008-2011
        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
    Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
    environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
    provide a solid foundation for CCOS.
        For fiscal year 2007, our coalition is seeking funding of $150,000
    from the Department of Commerce/NOAA account in support of CCOS.
    California has a very complex terrain that includes mountain ranges,
    flat valleys, and long coastal regions. Some meteorological models are
    known to have difficulty in simulating high-resolution airflow over
    such complex terrain. NOAA has a vast amount of experience in applying
    meteorology models in several different areas of the country and their
    scientific know-how is a valuable asset to CCOS. This request will be
    used to continue NOAA's involvement in developing meteorological
    simulations for Central California, specifically longer-term
    simulations of seasonal and annual meteorology. The long-term record of
    meteorological data in the CCOS database can be used to improve NOAA's
    meteorological forecasting abilities and in the evaluation of U.S.
    western boundary conditions for weather forecasting models.
        As you know, NOAA is at the scientific forefront of the development
    of meteorological models including the Weather Research and Forecasting
    (WRF) model that is viewed as a replacement for the Mesoscale
    Meteorology Model, Version 5 (MM5). Thus, NOAA's involvement would
    facilitate the use of CCOS measurements in the development and
    refinement of WRF. In addition, NOAA has conducted prior research in
    the CCOS region on atmospheric airflows, sea breeze circulation
    patterns, nocturnal jets and eddies, airflow bifurcation, convergence
    and divergence zones, up-slope and down-slope flows, and up-valley and
    down-valley airflow. Thus, CCOS provides the opportunity to draw from
    or extend this research for a longer, multi-year time period. This
    research provides fundamental data needed to understand airflow over
    complex terrain, and has national applicability.
        Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute

        To the chairman and members of the subcommittee: The American
    Geological Institute (AGI) supports fundamental Earth science research
    sustained by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Institute
    of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration (NASA). This frontier research has fueled economic
    growth, mitigated losses and sustained our quality of life. The
    subcommittee's leadership in expanding the federal investment in basic
    research is even more critical as our Nation competes with rapidly
    developing countries, such as China and India, for energy, mineral, air
    and water resources. Our Nation needs skilled geoscientists to help
    explore, assess and develop Earth's resources in a strategic,
    sustainable and environmentally-sound manner and to help understand,
    assess and reduce our risks to natural hazards. AGI supports full
    funding as authorized for NSF's EarthScope project and Research and
    Related Activities; full funding for NOAA's and NASA's Earth observing
    campaigns; and authorized support for NIST's and NSF's responsibilities
    in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP).
        The President's American Competitiveness Initiative calls for a
    doubling of physical science research funding in key federal agencies,
    while Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative calls for significant increases
    in energy research support. Both initiatives also include much needed
    support for education in the physical sciences and some specific
    incentives for education in the energy resources sector. Such
    initiatives are strongly supported by AGI.
        AGI is a nonprofit federation of 44 geoscientific and professional
    societies representing more than 100,000 geologists, geophysicists, and
    other Earth scientists. Founded in 1948, AGI provides information
    services to geoscientists, serves as a voice for shared interests in
    our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience
    education, and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role
    the geosciences play in society's use of resources and interaction with
    the environment.
        NSF.--We applaud the President's request for an 8 percent increase
    in the overall budget for NSF and a 6 percent increase for the
    Geosciences Directorate. We hope that the subcommittee shares this
    commitment and can continue to strengthen our physical science research
    and education foundation through annual budget increases. Congress
    wisely authorized increased funding for NSF in Public Law 107-368, such
    that the total NSF budget would increase to $9.84 billion in fiscal
    year 2007, however, NSF only received about $5.6 billion in fiscal year
    2006 and remains well short of this effective science policy objective.
    Although NSF remains under funded, Congress and the administration are
    proposing annual increases to NSF's budget over the next 7 to 10 years.
        AGI believes that such a forward-looking investment in tight fiscal
    times will pay important dividends in future development and innovation
    that drives economic growth, especially in critical areas of
    sustainable and economic natural resources and reduced risks from
    natural hazards.
        NSF Geosciences Directorate.--The Geosciences Directorate is the
    principal source of federal support for academic Earth scientists and
    their students who are seeking to understand the processes that
    ultimately sustain and transform life on this planet. The President's
    budget proposal requests an increase of 6 percent ($42 million) for a
    total budget of about $745 million, which AGI strongly supports. We
    would encourage increases in funding to allow NSF to strengthen core
    research by increasing the number and duration of grants. Now is the
    time to boost Earth science research and education to fill the draining
    pipeline of skilled geoscientists and geo-engineers working in the
    energy industry; the construction industry, particularly on levees and
    dams; the environmental industry; the academic community, particularly
    on understanding natural hazards and the sustainability of our natural
    resources; the primary federal Earth science agencies, such as the
    United States Geological Survey; and in all areas of education.
        NSF Major Research Equipment Account.--AGI urges the subcommittee
    to support the Major Research Equipment, Facilities and Construction
    budget request of $27.4 million for EarthScope. We also support funding
    of $42.88 million to complete construction of the Scientific Ocean
    Drilling Vessel, $13.5 million to begin construction of the Ocean
    Observatories Initiative (OOI) and $56 million to begin construction of
    the Alaska Region Research Vessel.
        EarthScope--begun thanks to the previous subcommittee's support in
    fiscal year 2003--will systematically survey the structure of Earth's
    crust beneath North America, imaging faults at depth, hidden faults and
    other structures that range from hazardous to economically-valuable.
    The fiscal year 2007 request includes continued support for deployment
    of three components: a dense array of digital seismometers across the
    country; a 4-km deep borehole through the San Andreas Fault, housing a
    variety of instruments that can continuously monitor the conditions
    within the fault zone; and a network of state-of-the-art Global
    Positioning System (GPS) stations and sensitive strain meters to
    measure the deformation of the constantly shifting boundary between the
    Pacific and North American tectonic plates in an area susceptible to
    large earthquakes and tsunamis.
        EarthScope has very broad support from the Earth science community
    and received a very favorable review from the National Research
    Council's 2001 report entitled ``Review of EarthScope Integrated
    Science''. All data from this project will be available in real time to
    scientists, students and the public, providing a tremendous opportunity
    for research and learning about Earth. Involving the public in Earth
    science research will increase appreciation of how such research can
    lead to improvements in understanding the environment, utilizing
    natural resources and mitigating natural hazards. EarthScope can also
    provide a mechanism to integrate a broad array of Earth science
    research data in a unified system to promote cross-disciplinary
    research and avoid duplication of effort.
        NSF Support for Earth Science Education.--Congress can improve the
    Nation's scientific literacy by supporting the full integration of
    Earth science information into mainstream science education at the K-12
    and college levels. AGI strongly supports a new grant program in the
    Geosciences Directorate called GEO-TEACH, which will support projects
    to improve the quality of geosciences instruction, primarily at middle
    to high school levels. We also support the Math and Science Partnership
    (MSP) program, a competitive peer-reviewed grant program that funds
    only the highest quality proposals at NSF. The NSF's MSP program
    focuses on modeling, testing and identification of high-quality math
    and science activities whereas the Department of Education MSP program
    does not. The NSF and Department of Education MSP programs are
    complementary and are both necessary to continue to reach the common
    goal of providing world-class science and mathematics education to
    elementary and secondary school students. AGI opposes the transfer of
    the MSP from NSF to the Department of Education.
        Improving geoscience education to levels of recognition similar to
    other scientific disciplines is important because:
      --Geoscience offers students subject matter that has direct
            application to their lives and the world around them, including
            energy, minerals, water and environmental stewardship.
      --Geoscience exposes students to a diverse range of interrelated
            scientific disciplines. It is an excellent vehicle for
            integrating the theories and methods of chemistry, physics,
            biology, and mathematics.
      --Geoscience awareness is a key element in reducing the impact of
            natural hazards on citizens--hazards that include earthquakes,
            volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. For
            example, lives were saved in the tragic Indian Ocean tsunami by
            a 12-year-old girl who understood the warning signs of an
            approaching tsunami and warned others to seek higher ground
            after completing an Earth science class.
      --Geoscience provides the foundation for tomorrow's leaders in
            research, education, utilization and policy making for Earth's
            resources and our Nation's strategic, economic, sustainable and
            environmentally-sound natural resources development.
        NOAA.--AGI applauds the President's request for increased funding
    for the National Weather Service and the National Environmental
    Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDI) within NOAA. The
    National Weather Service budget includes support for weather data
    buoys, strengthening the U.S. tsunami warning program, support of the
    Air Quality Forecasting Program, support for the Space Environment
    Center, support for the U.S. Weather Research Program, and continued
    implementation of the Advanced Hydrological Prediction Services. AGI
    also supports the proposed increased funding for NESDI for the
    development of the geostationary operational environmental satellite
    (GOES-R) and the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental
    Satellite System (NPOESS). Both satellite systems will maintain a
    global view of the planet to continuously watch for atmospheric
    triggers of severe weather conditions such as tornadoes, flash floods,
    hailstorms, and hurricanes. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Research and the Office of National Ocean Service have large proposed
    budget cuts to their overall budgets that would decimate vital programs
    related to the health and sustainability of the ocean, protecting
    coastlines and atmospheric research. AGI asks that these large
    reductions be minimized through congressional consideration of oceanic
    and coastal priorities in this post-Katrina fiscal year.
        NIST.--For fiscal year 2007, the President's request calls for $2
    million for earthquakes, wind hazards, wildfires at the urban interface
    and complex systems-multihazards analysis at NIST. About 70 percent of
    these funds will be directed toward the National Earthquake Hazards
    Reduction Program (NEHRP) and wind hazards. AGI strongly supports
    funding for NEHRP within NIST. NIST is the lead agency for NEHRP
    (authorized to receive $6 to $13 million over 5 years), but has never
    received any funding in the past. AGI strongly supports NEHRP funds for
    NIST and we further support the proposed increases in funding for core
    laboratory functions at NIST to ensure that NEHRP funds are protected.
        NASA.--AGI supports the vital Earth observing programs within NASA.
    Currently the topography of Mars has been measured at a more
    comprehensive and higher resolution than Earth's surface. While AGI is
    excited about space exploration and the President's Vision for
    Exploration, we firmly believe that NASA's Earth observing program is
    effective and vital to solving global to regional puzzles about Earth
    systems, such as how much and at what rate is the climate changing. The
    Earth-Sun System within the Science Mission Directorate funds the
    agency's Earth science programs. AGI strongly supports the requested
    increase in funding for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, which will
    ensure support for the launch of a new Landsat satellite and the
    transfer of the data to the United States Geological Survey.
    Unfortunately other vital Earth science programs will be cut and
    missions will be delayed because of proposed budget reductions within
    the Earth-Sun System. AGI hopes these small reductions can be restored
    to ensure NASA's unique Earth observations.
        I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony to the
    subcommittee and would be pleased to answer any questions or to provide
    additional information for the record. I can be reached at 703-379-2480
    ext. 228 (voice), 703-379-7563 (fax), rowan@agiweb.org, or 4220 King
    Street, Alexandria VA 22302-1502.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity for the American
    Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) to present this testimony in support
    of the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the National
    Science Foundation. We urge the committee to support the President's
    American Competitiveness Initiative and its request for an increase of
    $439 million for the National Science Foundation. The proposed budget
    for NSF represents a 7.9 percent increase to $6 billion. The
    President's proposed increase for the Biological Sciences Directorate
    is $31 million, or 5.4 percent.
        This level of funding will enable NSF to continue to play its key
    role in establishing a leadership position for the United States in
    science and technology. U.S. leadership in a wide range of science
    disciplines is needed to compete and survive in the increasingly
    challenging global market.
        The ACI will double investment in research over 10 years sponsored
    by the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy Office of
    Science and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
        The ACI provides increased investment in research needed for
    continued growth of the Nation's economy. The Nation's ability to
    generate job-creating industries, remain competitive in the global
    market and improve the quality of life of consumers would be enhanced
    through committee approval of The President's fiscal year 2007 budget
    request implementing ACI.
        Shifts are occurring in the world with regard to ability to attract
    science talent and in relation to government and private investment in
    research. Indicators such as number of scientists entering the
    workforce and increased success in publishing research findings in
    peer-reviewed science journals show that the United States may
    encounter increased difficulties in competing with what are now
    considered developing nations.
        China, India, South Korea and other developing nations are
    following national policies that are increasing their capacity and
    strength in science and technology.
        China is an excellent example for further consideration of what
    world neighbors/global competitors are doing in science and science-
    related industries. A huge workforce of qualified and inexpensive
    talent in science, combined with a market of 1.3 billion consumers is
    making China particularly attractive to multinational companies.
        Four years ago, there were 200 foreign-invested research and
    development centers in China. Today there are some 750. As the Wall
    Street Journal reported March 13, 2006, Procter & Gamble Co. opened a
    research arm in China in 1988 with just two dozen employees. Back in
    1988, P&G employees in China mainly studied Chinese consumer laundry
    habits and oral hygiene. Today, P&G runs five R&D facilities in China
    with approximately 300 researchers. They work ``on everything from
    Crest toothpaste to Oil of Olay face cream.'' New formulations of Tide
    laundry detergent developed in the China-based facilities now sell in
    markets beyond China, including other parts of Asia, Eastern Europe and
    Latin America.
        ``We are developing capabilities in China that we can use
    globally,'' P&G Technology Director in Beijing Dick Carpenter
    explained.
        In addition to a huge talent pool, including about 1 million
    university graduates each year in science or engineering, China is
    offering its students in the United States and other nations incentives
    to return once they graduate. These incentives include generous
    research grants and chances to run their own R&D projects. Science
    graduates returning to China can secure enough backing to build up
    their own lab and even extend their research in one direction for about
    10 years, the Wall Street Journal article noted.
        In the United States, that same science graduate would face
    extraordinary competition to win a federally sponsored research grant
    award. In some areas of study in the United States, the chances of a
    scientist succeeding with a competitive grant application is no better
    than one in ten. Failure to win research grant awards translates into
    an abbreviated science career in academic research.
        China's central government plans to increase spending on science
    and technology by nearly 20 percent this year. ``China has entered a
    stage in its history where it must increase its reliance on scientific
    and technological advances and innovation to drive social and economic
    development,'' commented Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
        The United States continues to rely heavily on science students
    from China and other nations to remain in the United States after
    graduation to build their careers and new job-creating technologies.
    However, more graduates are expected to return home to China and other
    countries where opportunities in science careers are now perceived to
    be brighter. With the United States already conceding far lower labor,
    land and building costs to global competitors such as China and other
    nations, how long will our Nation be able to compete if we also concede
    preeminence in science and technology?
        If science and technology research and development follow textile,
    steel, U.S. company-based auto production, and other manufacturing
    industries moving beyond our borders, the United States, already
    laboring under record trade deficits, will be weaker on a relative
    scale to the new ``producer nations.''
        More record trade deficits and higher interest rates for our
    increasingly debtor Nation could be expected to result--significantly
    driving up the costs to the federal budget for debt service. It is
    possible that the cost of the total federal science budget in future
    years would be just a fraction of the cost of the increase in federal
    debt service if the United States loses science and technology
    preeminence.
        NSF is the leading supporter of university-based research in many
    key areas, including plant science. Contributions by universities
    conducting NSF-supported research to the local economy also contribute
    to a stronger national economy. With the higher labor, housing,
    transportation, commercial and industrial property and related costs
    found in the United States compared to a number of world nation
    competitors, federal investment in science and education through
    support of NSF is desperately needed to help keep the Nation's
    businesses capable of competing.
        NSF support for basic plant research contributes to the local
    economies nationwide, including rural areas, while helping to secure
    the food supply of all Americans. As the first step of every food
    chain, plants and research on plants plays an essential role in meeting
    the nutritional needs of people here and abroad. The NSF Directorate
    for Biological Sciences sponsors examination of basic research
    questions on plants and other organisms. A number of plant research
    discoveries were cited by NSF among its most significant advances in
    science over the first 50 years of the agency's existence.
        NSF supports world leading plant genomic research as part of the
    Plant Genome Research Program. The National Plant Genome Initiative
    Progress Report was published January 2005 by the National Science and
    Technology Council Committee on Science Interagency Working Group on
    Plant Genomes. The report noted, ``Plant genome research holds enormous
    promise for solving global problems in agriculture, health, energy and
    environmental protection. Much still remains to realize this potential
    and the U.S. scientific community is clearly working toward that
    goal.''
        The report cited the importance of research on economically
    important crops and on the model plant, Arabidopsis thaliana--a plant
    with a small and simple genome. Knowledge gained from the Arabidopsis
    genome facilitates understanding of other economically important plants
    through use of comparative genomics. The Arabidopsis 2010 Project
    within NSF will provide scientists with knowledge of the function of
    each gene in Arabidopsis. This will lead to similar discoveries in
    crops grown by America's farmers. This knowledge will help scientists
    to develop superior crops that are domestic sources of food, fuel,
    industrial chemicals, fiber and pharmaceutical products. These advances
    will significantly benefit America's farmers and consumers.
        Again, we urge you to support The President's American
    Competitiveness Initiative, including the NSF Budget Request for 2007.
        ASPB is a non-profit society representing nearly 6,000 scientists
    conducting research primarily at universities. ASPB's membership also
    includes scientists in federal service and in private commerce. We
    publish the two most widely cited journals in plant science, The Plant
    Cell and Plant Physiology. Please let us know if we could provide any
    additional information.
        Thank you for your continued strong support of science research and
    education.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
                                   Commission

        Agency involved: Department of Justice.
        Program involved: COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program (TRGP).
    Summary of GLIFWC's Fiscal Year 2007 Testimony
        GLIFWC requests that Congress: (1) specifically authorize
    eligibility for tribes' special law enforcement agencies, including
    fish and wildlife departments and game wardens, to participate in the
    COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program,\1\ and (2) support the
    administration's proposal to fund this program at $31,650,000 in fiscal
    year 2007, an increase of $16,650,000 above last year's congressional
    appropriation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Unlike previous years and without notice or explanation, the
    Fiscal Year 2006 Application Guide for the TRGP provides: Special law
    enforcement agencies such as fish and wildlife departments, game
    wardens, park and recreation departments, and environmental protection
    agencies are not eligible to apply under this program at this time.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disclosure of DOJ Grants Contracted
        GLIFWC 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, GLIFWC contracted:
      --$108,034 in fiscal year 2004 for the purpose of purchasing patrol
            vehicles (three patrol trucks, an ATV and a snowmobile),
            digital cameras, and providing instructor development and basic
            recruit training; and
      --$98,444 in fiscal year 2005 for the purpose of purchasing thermal
            imaging and digital cameras, continuing instructor
            certification and providing basic recruit re-certification
            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 (P.L. 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 22 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 US/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 United States 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.
    These partnerships evolved from the inter-governmental cooperation
    required to combat the violence experienced during the early
    implementation of treaty rights in Wisconsin. As time passed, GLIFWC's
    professional officers continued to provide a bridge between local law
    enforcement and many rural Indian communities. GLIFWC remains at this
    forefront, using DOJ funding to develop inter-jurisdictional legal
    training attended by GLIFWC officers, tribal police and conservation
    officers, tribal judges, tribal and county prosecutors, and State and
    federal agency law enforcement staff. DOJ funding has also enabled
    GLIFWC to certify its officers as medical emergency first responders
    trained in the use of defibrillators, and to train them 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. These networks include
    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 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 6 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 video cameras to
    increase officer safety.
        Emergency Response Equipment and Training.--Each GLIFWC officer has
    completed and maintains certification as a first responder and in the
    use of life saving portable defibrillators. Since 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 maintains
    certification in ice rescue techniques and was 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 a number of
    vehicles that were purchased over a decade ago, including 10 ATV's and
    16 patrol boats and the GPS navigation system on its 31 foot Lake
    Superior patrol boat. These vehicles are used for field patrol,
    cooperative law enforcement activities, and emergency response in the
    1837 and 1842 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 Equip Three Additional Officers.--Funding has been
    contracted to provide three 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 re-affirmed the
    existence of the Chippewa's treaty-guaranteed usufructuary rights in
    Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band, 526 U.S. 172 (1999). As tribes have re-
    affirmed rights to harvest resources in the 1837 ceded territory of
    Minnesota, workloads have increased. But for GLIFWC's COPS grants, 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: (1)
    national homeland security concerns, (2) State and local governmental
    fiscal shortfalls, (3) staffing shortages experienced by local police,
    fire, and ambulance departments due to the call up of National Guard
    and military reserve units, and (4) the need to cooperatively combat
    the spread of methamphetamine production in rural areas patrolled by
    GLIFWC conservation officers.
        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) and provide sheriffs
            departments valuable assistance with natural disasters (e.g.
            floods in Ashland County and a tornado in Siren, Wisconsin).
      --Search and rescue for lost hunters, fishermen, hikers, children,
            and the 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, Bayfield, Burnett, Sawyer, and Vilas Counties in
            Wisconsin).
      --Use of a thermal imaging camera (purchased through the COPS
            program) to track an individual fleeing the scene of an
            accident (Sawyer County, Wisconsin).
      --Organize and participate in search and rescues of ice fishermen on
            Lake Superior (Ashland and Bayfield Counties in Wisconsin),
            Lake Superior boats (Baraga County in Michigan and with the
            U.S. Coast Guard in other parts of western Lake Superior), and
            kayakers (Bayfield County in Wisconsin).
        GLIFWC is proposing to utilize DOJ TRGP funding for training and
    equipment to: (1) recognize, secure and respond appropriately to
    potential methamphetamine production sites, (2) identify addicts while
    on patrol, and (3) improve community awareness through hunter safety
    classes. Simply put, supporting GLIFWC's officers 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 in the States of Wisconsin,
    Minnesota, and Michigan. The COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program
    provides essential funding for equipment and training to support
    GLIFWC's cooperative conservation, law enforcement, and emergency
    response activities. We ask Congress to support increased funding for
    this program.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Florida State University

        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, Florida State University
    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 $182 million this past year in
    research awards.
        Florida State University attracts students from 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 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 summarize our primary interests today.
        In 2004, Congress funded a project for Florida to share its
    exemplary juvenile justice education program model with other States in
    order to assist them in their respective implementation of No Child
    Left Behind (NCLB). In fiscal year 2005, Phase I, the project's staff
    initiated a series of activities to establish collaborative working
    partnerships with each State. The activities included: conducting a
    national survey of each State's juvenile justice education practices;
    holding a national meeting involving key constituents from each State
    to review the project's purposes, discussing the national survey
    findings; reviewing the NCLB requirements and Florida's program
    components and practices; and agreeing upon a grouping of States with
    similar systems and NCLB challenges. From this agreed upon grouping of
    States, preliminary plans for each State's implementation of the NCLB
    requirements for juvenile justice education systems were drafted for
    follow-up review by each State.
        In fiscal year 2007, Phase II, the project will extend this effort
    by holding a series of meetings with different State groups to review,
    discuss and reach consensus upon each State's final plan for
    implementation of the NCLB requirements. The final implementation plans
    will be informed by the implementation experiences and impediments that
    Florida confronted and overcame. Additionally, the thoughts, concerns
    and potential solutions that the key State constituents provide will be
    incorporated into each State's implementation plan to ensure consensus
    between individual States and the project staff. Following these
    meetings and the development of each State's final NCLB juvenile
    justice education implementation plan, the project staff will make
    periodic follow-up State visits to assess their implementation efforts
    and effectively deal with any encountered problems by providing
    training and technical assistance. Further, the project staff, in
    collaboration with key State constituents, will develop and implement a
    national evaluation design to report each State's NCLB implementation
    progress and student learning outcomes. A quarterly report will be sent
    to each State, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department
    of Education describing the project's activities and progress, and
    individual State outcomes. Additionally, the project will design a
    national longitudinal study on how improved quality in juvenile justice
    education impacts the incidence of delinquency nationwide. The study
    will provide data on the role of NCLB implementation in successfully
    reducing delinquency in individual States as well as across the Nation.
        Mr. Chairman, we believe this research is vitally important to our
    country and would appreciate your support.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers

        The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to offer
    this testimony on the proposed budgets for the National Science
    Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Standards and
    Technology (NIST) for fiscal year 2007. The President's American
    Competitive Initiative (ACI) with its focus on research and development
    at NIST and NSF will pay dividends for the country in many areas. ASCE
    is encouraged by and supports ACI and with it, the administration's
    request for $6.02 billion request for NSF and $581.3 million for NIST.
        ASCE believes that technological innovation has been the engine
    that drove the Nation's economy expansion of the last 50 years. ASCE
    firmly believes that by maintaining strong continuing and steadily
    increasing support for the research and education we will continue to
    enjoy the rewards of economic expansion. If we do not continue to
    invest in research and technology, we will loose our position in an
    ever more integrated and competitive world. The basic research funded
    by NSF, in engineering and all other areas of science, is the
    foundation of that investment in the future. Global competition
    increasingly requires the United States to make the necessary
    investments in science and engineering research and education.
        ASCE, founded in 1852, is the country's oldest national civil
    engineering organization representing 139,000 civil engineers in
    private practice, government, industry and academia dedicated to the
    advancement of the science and profession of civil engineering. ASCE is
    a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational and professional society.

                       NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)

        ASCE supports the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request
    of $6.02 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF).
        Math and Science Partnerships.--We encourage you to continue the
    federal commitment to math and science education by maintaining the
    peer-reviewed Math and Science Partnerships (MSP's) at the NSF and
    supporting robust funding for both the U.S. Department of Education
    (ED) and the NSF Math and Science Partnership programs. We urge you to
    oppose the administration's budget proposal that would phase-out the
    NSF MSP program in favor of the new federal grant administered by the
    Secretary of Education that would, in effect, limit individual States
    discretion to target much-needed funds for local science and
    mathematics education reforms.
        National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.--For the past 25
    years NEHRP has provided the resources and leadership that have led to
    significant advances in understanding the risk earthquakes pose and the
    best ways to counter them. Under NEHRP, there has been a constant
    source of funding for seismic monitoring, mapping, research, testing,
    code development, mitigation and emergency preparedness. A recent study
    and report by the Multihazard Mitigation Council entitled ``Natural
    Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future
    Savings from Mitigation Activities,'' has concluded the money spent on
    reducing the risk of natural hazards is a sound investment. On average,
    a dollar spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation provides the Nation about
    $4 in future benefits. The type of research to be conducted under this
    program has the potential to greatly increase the benefit.
        The NSF strives to advance fundamental knowledge in earthquake
    engineering, Earth science processes, and societal preparedness and
    response to earthquakes. Additionally, the George E. Brown, Jr. Network
    for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), operated by NSF, will
    expand knowledge through new methods for experimental and computational
    simulation.
        ASCE requests that Congress direct NSF to acknowledge the $40.3
    million funding level for NEHRP responsibilities at NSF and to urge NSF
    to fulfill that obligation. We further support the administration
    request of $21.27 million for the operation of the Network for
    Earthquake Engineering Simulation at NSF and ask that Congress urge NSF
    to maximize the potential of Network Earthquake Engineering Simulation
    (NEES) through research grants.

                 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

        ASCE supports the President's requested budget for NIST of $581.3
    million for fiscal year 2007 and would strongly urge Congress to fully
    appropriate the request as presented. ASCE is concerned that money
    requested for NIST's core laboratory and standards activities may moved
    to fund other programs, as has happened in the past.
        Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS).--These are
    NIST's core programs that provide the measurements and standards on
    which the Nation's industry stands and grows. The NIST laboratories
    provide industry and the science and engineering community with the
    measurement capabilities, standards, evaluated reference data, and test
    methods that provide a common language needed at every stage of
    technical activity. U.S. scientists rely on NIST's evaluated data
    services and measurement expertise for a host of basic and applied
    research activities.
        ASCE supports the administration's request of $467 million to fund
    the core programs at NIST. If fully appropriated, the funding would
    permit NIST to carryout its core responsibilities and greatly enhance
    U.S. competitiveness.
        Building and Fire Research Laboratory.--ASCE believes that the
    services provided by the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL)
    are invaluable to the building industry. BFRL works to improve the
    productivity of U.S. construction industries and serves as the premier
    fire research laboratory in the United States. It develops technologies
    to predict measure and test the performance of construction materials,
    components and practices. BFRL is the Nation's central laboratory for
    providing the tools (i.e. research and measurements) needed to rebuild
    the Nation's infrastructure.
        Laboratory activities include: fire science and fire safety
    engineering; building materials; computer-integrated construction
    practices; structural, mechanical and environmental engineering; and
    building economics. The laboratory conducts investigations at the scene
    of major fires and structural failures due to earthquake, hurricanes or
    other causes. The knowledge gained from these investigations guides
    research and is applied to recommendations for design and construction
    practices to reduce future hazards.
        Construction is one of the Nation's largest industries, comparable
    in size to the health care and agricultural industries. Like those
    vital areas of the Nation's economy, the construction industry needs
    research and development to enhance international competitiveness and
    increase public health and safety. Funding for construction related
    research, from all sources, is a fraction of that available to the
    healthcare and agricultural industries. Due to the fragmented nature of
    the construction industry, the private sector does not have the
    resources to conduct the needed research and development on its own.
        National Construction Safety Team Act.--Public Law 107-231 created
    the National Construction Safety Team at NIST with the mandate to
    investigate major building failures within the United States. The
    investigations are to establish the technical causes of building
    failures and evaluate the technical aspects of emergency response. The
    goal is to recommend improvements to the way in which buildings are
    designed, constructed, maintained and used. ASCE supported this act;
    however ASCE believes that NIST must be provided with the necessary
    resources. The National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Advisory
    Committee, established by the act, recently released it first annual
    report to Congress which included a number of recommendations including
    the creation of a NCST office and funding.
        ASCE supports these recommendations and urges Congress to
    appropriate an additional $2 million in fiscal year 2006 to create a
    NCST office within the Building and Fire Research Laboratory at NIST.
        National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP).--The 2004
    reauthorization of NEHRP has given the National Institute of Standards
    and Technology (NIST) new responsibility as the lead agency for NEHRP
    and an expanded role in problem-focused research and development in
    earthquake engineering. However, in order for NIST to fully carry out
    its responsibilities, the NEHRP Coalition supports the full funding
    levels contained in the reauthorization for fiscal year 2007 of $12.1
    million for NEHRP responsibilities at NIST.
        In addition to its leadership role, NIST is now specifically tasked
    to carry out problem-focused research and development in earthquake
    engineering aimed at improving building codes and standards for both
    new and existing construction and advancing seismic practices for
    structures and lifelines.
        ASCE applauds NIST's commitment to NEHRP by making money available
    and moving ahead with its responsibilities as the NEHPR lead agency in
    fiscal year 2006. The President's commitment for fiscal year 2007 by
    adding $2 million for structural safety in hurricanes, fires and
    earthquake in fiscal year 2007 will enable NIST to increase and expand
    its efforts.
        The NEHRP supports the President's request for $2 million for
    structural safety at NIST. In order for NIST to fully realize the
    potential benefits of NEHRP, the NEHRP Coalition urges Congress to
    build on the proposal of the administration by appropriating the full
    funding levels contained in the reauthorization for fiscal year 2007 of
    $12.1 million for NEHRP responsibilities at NIST.

          NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION PROGRAM AT NIST AND NSF

        In October 2004 the President signed Public Law 108-360 authorizing
    the creation of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. As
    recent events on the Nation's Gulf coast have so vividly illustrated,
    the Nation remains highly vulnerable to major windstorms. We have not
    yet fully calculated the full the damage inflected by Hurricanes
    Katrina, Rita and Wilma, but it will well exceed $150 billion.
        This vulnerability was recognized by Congress in 2004 when it
    created the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. However, while
    the program has been authorized for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal
    year 2008, there has been no appropriation of funds or specific budget
    request.
        ASCE urges full funding for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction
    Program. For fiscal year 2007 the law authorizes $25 million in
    spending, spread between federal four agencies. The Coalition urges the
    Congress to support full funding levels. Specifically, for the agencies
    under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, the law authorizes:
      --$9.4 million for the National Science Foundation (NSF);
      --$4 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology
            (NIST); and
      --$2.2 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
            Administration (NOAA).
        Once again, thank you for the opportunity for ASCE to express its
    views. If you need more information, contact Martin Hight, ASCE Senior
    Manager of Government Relations at (202) 326-5125 or by e-mail at
    mhight@asce.org.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Gaviota Coast Conservancy

        Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $1 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation Program for Gaviota State Park.
        Gaviota State Park is located 125 miles north of Los Angeles, on a
    remote section of Santa Barbara County's Gaviota Coast, a 76 mile
    stretch of California's coastline straddling two distinct bioregions in
    the transition between Southern and Central California. The Gaviota
    Coast is situated between the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
    and the Los Padres National Forest where there is a wide variety of
    biological, recreational and agricultural resources.
        As the largest portion (50 percent) of Southern California's
    remaining undeveloped coastline, the Gaviota Coast is a high priority
    area for conservation. According to the Nature Conservancy, coastal
    Southern California has the highest density of imperiled species of
    anywhere in the United States. As part of the only coastal
    Mediterranean biome in America, the Gaviota Coast is the last, best,
    safe-harbor for the numerous imperiled species displaced by human
    settlement further south. Expansion of Gaviota State Park offers an
    excellent opportunity for the conservation of several habitat types.
        The Santa Ynez Mountains crowd in close to the coastline at
    Gaviota, producing a complex topography. Rocky, narrow beaches with
    sandy coves are backed by high sea cliffs. Coastal marine terraces,
    incised by stream carved canyons, lie below chaparral covered mountain
    slopes. This produces a diverse assemblage of habitat types in close
    proximity to one another. Perhaps most important are the many riparian
    corridors joining the mountains to the sea, which harbor the highest
    degree of biodiversity. Gaviota Creek watershed, one of the two largest
    watersheds on the south-facing Gaviota Coast, flows through Gaviota
    State Park. In addition there is a variety of shrub-land, and woodland
    habitat, with scattered vernal pool communities, estuaries, and native
    grasslands.
        With this array of habitat, and a linkage to vast interior
    wildlands, the Gaviota Coast is home to a full assemblage of wildlife,
    both terrestrial and marine. Marine animals found along the coast
    include dolphin, a variety of whales, northern elephant seals, and
    numerous bird species. Terrestrial wildlife includes mountain lions,
    mule deer, badgers, black bears and golden eagles, to name a few.
    Resident endangered species include the southern sea otter, southern
    steelhead trout, the tide-water goby, brown pelican, and an occasional
    California condor.
        Immediately adjacent to Highway 101, this property is zoned for
    commercial use. Commercial land uses in these coastal foothills are
    incompatible with county and State efforts to prevent inappropriate
    development and protect critical natural, scenic, and recreational
    resources. Acquiring lands adjacent to the park will protect its
    streams from the degradation that would result from development-related
    pollution.
        Because of its location among other protected properties and
    agricultural lands, this project is part of a larger effort to piece
    together up to 10,000 contiguous acres of protected coastal wildlands
    and open space from the mountains to the sea, including the Los Padres
    National Forest and lands owned and managed by the local land trust for
    Santa Barbara County. The subject property is the linchpin for this
    larger assemblage, as it is the only property with commercial zoning on
    a 35-mile stretch of the Gaviota Coast. The total cost of the project
    is $2.5 million, with State and local sources providing the matching
    funds.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007, the Gaviota State
    Park Addition project is a 43-acre site adjoining Gaviota State Park.
    The park serves 86,000 visitors annually and the addition of the
    subject property would enable California State Parks to expand the
    existing trail system, and provide new trailhead facilities. For all
    the reasons stated above, the expansion of Gaviota State Park is a top
    priority for State Parks and for Santa Barbara County.
        An appropriation of $1 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine
    Land Conservation Program for fiscal year 2007 is needed to acquire and
    protect this 43-acre property. If added to Gaviota State Park, it will
    expand recreational opportunities, provide much needed visitor
    facilities, protect scenic viewshed and conserve important wildlife
    habitat.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present this
    testimony and for your consideration of the request for an
    appropriation of $1 million for Gaviota State Park.
                                     ______

            Letter From the Simi Batra of the Trust for Public Land

                                                        April 27, 2006.
    The Honorable Richard Shelby, Chairman,
    Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee, Committee on
            Appropriations, S-146A Capitol, Washington, DC 20510.
    The Honorable Barbara Mikulski, Ranking Member,
    Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee, Committee on
            Appropriations, 144 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
            DC 20510.
        Dear Chairman Shelby/Ranking Member Mikulski: On behalf of the
    organizations listed below, we would like to thank you for your long-
    standing support of coastal zone management and coastal land
    conservation. We are writing today in support of the Coastal and
    Estuarine Land Conservation Program. This subcommittee created CELCP in
    fiscal year 2002 in order to ``protect those coastal and estuarine
    areas with significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical
    or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion from their
    natural or recreational states to other uses.'' Thus far, this program
    has invested over $177 million towards 119 conservation projects in 25
    of the Nation's 35 coastal States. All federal funding has been
    leveraged by at least an equal amount by State, local and private
    funds. We hope to continue this Federal-State partnership and encourage
    you to fund CELCP at $60 million for fiscal year 2007.
        Our Nation's coastal zone is under significant pressures from
    unplanned development. In fact, it is estimated that by 2025, nearly 75
    percent of the Nation's population will live within 50 miles of the
    coast, in addition to millions more who enjoy America's storied
    coastlines. From Maine to Washington State, beaches and waterfronts
    have always been the destination of choice for Americans. Billions of
    dollars of the Nation's GDP are generated by coast-based economic
    activities, inexorably linking our coastal zone with the economic
    health of the Nation.
        As a result of this economic boom, rapid, unplanned development has
    marred the once-pristine viewsheds and substantially reduced public
    access to the coast. The resulting increase in impervious surfaces has
    correspondingly increased non-point source pollution and seriously
    degraded coastal and estuarine waters. The loss of coastal wetlands has
    drastically impaired estuaries, some of the most productive habitat on
    earth. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has also stressed the
    importance of land conservation as part of its broader recommendations
    to Congress and the Nation.
        From our work at the local level, we know from first-hand
    experience that this program will significantly leverage ongoing
    community-based conservation, and will provide a much needed boost to
    local efforts. Given the importance of healthy, productive and
    accessible coastal areas, a federal commitment to State and local
    coastal protection is a sound investment.
        We urge you to fund the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
    Program at $60 million in fiscal year 2007. We look forward to working
    with you as this program continues to grow, and stand ready to assist
    you.
                Sincerely,
                                       Alan Front,
                      Senior Vice President, The Trust for Public Land.
                                       Katherine ``Kacky'' Andrews,
                       Executive Director, Coastal States Organization.
                                       David Hoskins,
    Vice President of Government Affairs and General Counsel, The Ocean
                                                           Conservancy.
                                       Gary J. Taylor,
           Legislative Director, International Association of Fish and
                                                     Wildlife Agencies.
                                       Angela Corridore,
               Executive Director, National Estuarine Research Reserve
                                                           Association.
                                       Russ Shay,
                        Director of Public Policy, Land Trust Alliance.
                                       Jimmie Powell,
              Director of Government Relations, The Nature Conservancy.
                                       Rich Innes,
          Executive Director, Association of National Estuary Programs.
                                        Lawrence A. Selzer,
                                      President, The Conservation Fund.
                                        Gordon C. Robertson,
                     Vice President, American Sportfishing Association.
                                       Mark Wolf-Armstrong,
                        President and CEO, Restore America's Estuaries.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

        Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee, on behalf
    of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), I want to
    thank you for the opportunity to present our views on the fiscal year
    2007 budget for NOAA Fisheries. We encourage this subcommittee to note
    the on-going collaborative effort ordered by the federal judge within
    the region concerning the biological opinion on the Federal Columbia
    River Power System and to also please note the administration's call
    for hatchery reform efforts. CRITFC supports funding the following
    programs as part of a coordinated, comprehensive effort to restore the
    shared salmon resource of the Columbia and Snake River Basins to
    healthy sustainable populations:
      --$200,000 to support the States and tribes in dispersing sea lions
            from areas where severe salmon depredation is occurring on the
            Columbia River;
      --$36 million for the Columbia River (Mitchell Act) hatchery program
            in order to implement reforms called for in the ``Conservation
            of Columbia Basin Fish'' (Federal Caucus ``All H'' Paper) and
            the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion, of
            which $9 million (or 25 percent of the actual enacted amount)
            directed to the tribes for new or expanded supplementation
            programs;
      --No additional funding for the implementation of mass-marking
            programs of hatchery fish at federally funded hatcheries for
            the purpose of implementing a selective fisheries program;
      --$20.6 million for Columbia River facilities screening and passage
            program;
      --$110 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund to
            support on-the-ground salmon restoration activities, of which
            $5 million should be provided to the intertribal commission of
            the Columbia River treaty tribes in the form of a direct grant;
      --$9,844,000 for the Pacific Salmon Treaty program, of which
            $8,000,000 is or the implementation of the 1999 Agreement and
            previous base programs, and $1,844,000 is for the Chinook
            Salmon Agreement.
        Background.--In 1977, the Columbia River Treaty Tribes (Nez Perce,
    Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama Tribes) formed the Commission to
    provide coordination and technical assistance to the member tribes.
        In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four
    tribes to ensure the mutual peace and security of our peoples. In the
    treaties the U.S. promised to protect and honor the rights and
    resources the tribes reserved to themselves. Our rights and our
    religious beliefs are tied to the salmon whose populations have
    dramatically declined to levels that are even causing alarm to non-
    Indian commercial fishing-dependent communities. We must vigorously
    pursue the necessary recovery and restoration actions consistent with
    the Endangered Species Act and federal trust obligations.
        CRITFC's principles for fisheries protection and restoration are
    outlined in a restoration plan titled Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (Spirit
    of the Salmon) that can be viewed at www.critfc.org. The plan's
    objectives are to halt the decline of salmon, lamprey and sturgeon
    populations and rebuild salmon runs to levels that support tribal
    ceremonial, subsistence and commercial harvests. The plan emphasizes
    strategies and principles that relies on natural production and healthy
    river systems and utilizes a collaborative conservation approach that
    the White House has encouraged parties to use to address natural
    resource issues. The tribes can point to several successes in
    watershed-based restoration of salmon working with State, Federal and
    private entities.
        Endangered Species Act (ESA)--Pacific Salmon Recovery.--NOAA
    Fisheries is making an ambitious effort to complete salmon recovery
    plans in the Pacific Northwest. Not all of the measures outlined in the
    recovery plans will be funded by the Bonneville Power Administration
    (BPA) which means that additional funding is needed to meet statutory
    and trust obligations to the salmon resource and tribes. For example,
    in coordination with Federal, State and tribal managers, NOAA Fisheries
    has developed necessary monitoring and evaluation programs to measure
    salmon recovery efforts, but funding for these critical efforts are in
    doubt due to the expected fish and wildlife funding levels set by BPA
    for fiscal year 2007-09.
        Sea Lions.--For the second consecutive year sea lion depredation is
    occurring below Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River during a
    drastically low adult spring Chinook salmon return. The States and
    tribes have collaborated to disperse sea lions below Bonneville Dam.
    Sea lion control efforts are subject to a lengthy process in the Marine
    Mammals Protection Act (MMPA). Therefore, $200,000 is requested to
    support State and tribal efforts to disperse problem animals until a
    long term solution is developed under the MMPA.
        Columbia River (Mitchell Act) Hatchery Program.--Restoring Pacific
    salmon and providing for sustainable fisheries requires using the
    Columbia River (Mitchell Act) hatchery program to supplement naturally
    spawning stocks and populations. To accomplish this goal, $36 million
    is requested for the tribal and State co-managers to jointly reform the
    Mitchell Act hatchery program. Of this amount, $9 million, or 25
    percent of enacted funding, will be made available to the tribes for
    supplementation projects.
        Since 1982, CRITFC has called for hatchery reform to meet recovery
    needs and meet mitigation obligations. We welcome the administration's
    objective calling for transforming hatchery systems to aid in salmon
    recovery (Chairman James Connaughton, Council on Environmental Quality,
    Salmon 2100 Conference, January 25, 2006, Portland, Oregon). The tribes
    are leaders in designing and managing supplementation hatchery
    facilities at Yakama, Umatilla and Nez Perce. We believe similar
    practices need to be implemented throughout the basin to reform current
    hatchery production efforts. The tribe's facilities are biologically
    credible and can be used to supplement rather than supplant natural
    spawning salmon populations.
        Mitchell Act hatchery production should be used to assist the
    rebuilding of naturally spawning salmon, the stocks which have
    constrained both Indian and non-Indian fisheries on the West Coast.
    With the adoption of abundance based management for all ocean fisheries
    under the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1999, an aggressive
    effort needs to be undertaken to reform hatchery production to be
    consistent with that new management approach and to aid in the de-
    listing of several salmon populations listed under the ESA. The tribes
    can provide leadership for this necessary reform, while still
    mitigating for the damage caused to the salmon resource by the Federal
    Columbia River Power System.
        Mass marking and Selective Fisheries.--No additional Federal
    funding should be provided for the mass marking of hatchery-reared fish
    and the implementation of selective fisheries unless and until the
    tribes and States have agreed upon such programs. The true total
    financial, management, and technical costs of pursuing an aggressive
    mass marking and selective fisheries program have never been
    identified. In addition, there is no technical basis yet in place to
    ensure that this program does not undermine the ability of the U.S. and
    Canada to monitor and evaluate harvest management actions recently
    adopted under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
        Columbia River Facilities.--To carry out activities identified as
    necessary in the Federal Caucus All-H Paper and the BiOp, $20.6 million
    is requested for the Columbia River facilities screens and fish passage
    programs.
        Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program (PCSRF)/Watershed
    Restoration.--Beginning in 1996, additional funding has been sought by
    the State of Alaska, the Pacific Northwest States, and the treaty
    tribes to serve critical unmet needs for the conservation and
    restoration of salmon stocks shared in these tribal, State, and
    international fisheries (See Record of Discussion, May 20, 1996). The
    PCSRF program provides a significant role in accomplishing the goals of
    this shared effort. For fiscal year 2007, we recommend restoring the
    funding to the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $110 million. Of
    this amount, $5 million should be directed to the intertribal
    commission of the Columbia River treaty tribes to support ongoing
    efforts.
        CRITFC acknowledges the economic hardships of western salmon-
    dependent communities caused by the current low salmon returns. While
    financial disaster relief meets a short-term economic need for these
    communities, we encourage this committee to not redirect any PCSRF
    funds to offset immediate economic hardship. Long-term economic
    benefits can be achieved by making PCSRF investments on the ground to
    rebuild sustainable, harvestable salmon populations into the future.
        The State and tribal co-managers have responded to concerns raised
    by Congress regarding accountability and performance standards to
    evaluate and monitor the success of this coastwide program. In an
    effort coordinated and facilitated by NOAA Fisheries, the co-managers
    have developed an extensive matrix of performance standards to address
    these concerns. We will continue to ensure that tribally sponsored
    watershed projects are based on the best science, are competently
    implemented and adequately monitored, and address the limiting factors
    affecting salmon restoration. This will include the use of monitoring
    protocols to systematically track current and future projects basin-
    wide. Projects undertaken by the tribes last year are consistent with
    Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit and the programmatic areas identified by
    Congress.
        Pacific Salmon Treaty Program.--CRITFC supports the U.S. section
    recommendation of $9,844,000 for the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Of this
    amount, $8,000,000 is for the Pacific Salmon Treaty base program with
    Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and NOAA to share as described in
    the U.S. section of the Pacific Salmon Commission's Budget
    Justification for fiscal year 2007. In addition, we support $1,884,000
    as first provided in 1997 to implement the abundance based management
    approach (adopted by the U.S. section in 1996) of the Chinook Salmon
    Agreement to carry out necessary research and management activities.
    The overall total amount includes restoration of $2 million for the
    Pacific Salmon Treaty program for the States to implement the
    provisions and management and technical changes adopted by the United
    States and Canada in 1999, particularly to implement the abundance
    based approach for coho management. These funds are subjected annually
    to a strict technical review process.
        In summary, Mr. Chairman, the CRITFC and its four member tribes
    have developed the capacity and infrastructure to be models of
    leadership and stewardship in rebuilding the fisheries in the Columbia
    Basin. Our collective efforts protect our treaty reserved fishing
    rights and we also partner with the non-Indian community to provide
    healthy, harvestable salmon populations for all citizens to enjoy. This
    is a time when increased effort and participation are demanded of all
    of us and we ask for your continued support of our efforts. We will be
    pleased to provide any additional information that this subcommittee
    may require.
                                     ______

          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 joint
    mission of science and public education. It is renowned for its
    exhibitions and collections of more than 32 million natural specimens
    and cultural artifacts. With approximately 4 million annual visitors--
    approximately half of them children--it is one of the largest, fastest
    growing, and most diverse museums in the country. Museum scientists
    conduct groundbreaking research in fields ranging from all branches of
    zoology, comparative genomics, and informatics to earth sciences,
    biodiversity conservation, and astrophysics. 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.
    The American Museum--NASA Partnership
        In December 1997, NASA and AMNH embarked on a unique partnership,
    founded on a joint commitment to cutting-edge research and to
    integrating that research into educational vehicles that will improve
    science literacy and inspire the next generation. Over this time, we
    have worked with the agency to develop innovative technologies and
    resources that provide an unparalleled platform for interpreting,
    displaying, and distributing NASA content to audiences nationwide.
    Since 2004 the Museum has been incorporated by NASA into its longer-
    term science education and public outreach base, with the Museum and
    NASA now in an unprecedented position to leverage our shared
    investments, maximize our accomplishments, and harness our unique
    resources, capacity, and platform to help NASA achieve its goals.
      --The Museum has built a set of singular national resources that
            bring cutting-edge science and integrated NASA content to total
            audiences of more than 10 million in New York City, across the
            country, and around the world. In the New York area alone, the
            Museum reaches nearly four million annual visitors, including
            more than 450,000 children in school groups and more than 5,000
            teachers, with millions visiting online.
      --We have launched a successful program to disseminate project
            resources to informal learning venues nationally and
            internationally, with science bulletins already on view in 26
            locations and space shows at 14, with more being added.
      --We have created science bulletins--technologically innovative,
            immersive multimedia science encounters, presenting space,
            Earth, and life science news and discoveries in visually
            stunning feature documentaries, data visualizations, and weekly
            updates.
      --The Museum has made numerous technological breakthroughs--it has
            established leadership in science visualization and high
            resolution renderings of massive data sets; it has converted
            its space shows to digital format, making the AMNH the only
            full planetarium dome content provider that crosses all major
            platforms; it has pioneered a unique online distribution
            network that each week streams new science content in HD MPEG2
            encodes to partners across North America.
      --AMNH routinely hosts major events celebrating NASA's mission
            highlights and milestones. Recent events have included public
            interaction with AMNH scientists and NASA astronauts during the
            Mars MER, Cassini-Huygens, and Return to Flight launches and
            landings.
      --The Museum's educational mission is fueled by and reflects cutting-
            edge science, including the work of our scientists in
            collaboration with NASA centers and researchers.
        Building on this remarkable foundation, the Museum seeks to
    continue its institutional collaboration with NASA in fiscal year 2007
    so as to contribute its unique science, education, and exhibition
    capacity, its expertise in innovative and emerging technologies, and
    its national reach to helping the agency meet its goals. The Museum
    proposes activities over a 1-year period to include: R&D on new
    techniques for visualizing massive space and earth science data sets,
    creating visualization tools for presenting NASA missions and other
    dynamic science stories, and for advancing innovative solutions to
    technical challenges in presenting digital planetarium shows; and
    developing current NASA science education resources and continuing to
    scale up their national distribution for presentation in public spaces
    and for classroom use.
        Throughout the course of its NASA partnership, the Museum has very
    successfully leveraged the NASA investment with funds from other
    government and private sources, and it will continue, with renewed
    partnership funding, to support the project with funds from nonfederal
    as well as federal sources.
        Recognizing its potential to support NASA in its goals to pioneer
    the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics
    research; to develop a balanced overall program of science,
    exploration, and aeronautics; and to establish new and innovative
    programs to enhance understanding of our Earth, other planets,
    asteroids, and comets in our solar system, as well as the search for
    life around other stars, the Museum looks forward to continuing its
    institutionalized collaboration with NASA and to contributing its
    unique science, education, and technological capacity to helping the
    agency to meet these goals.
                                     ______

          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 4 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.
        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. The 2005 symposium, New Currents in Conserving
    Freshwater Ecosystems will highlight initiatives from around the world
    that inform our ability to understand and protect the biota, processes,
    and habitats of aquatic ecosystems. The 2006 symposium, Conserving
    Birds in Human-Dominated Landscapes, will focus on unique challenges to
    and key opportunities for invigorating bird diversity in the areas most
    heavily impacted by human activities.
        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.
    Common Goals of NOAA and AMNH
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
    committed to understanding and predicting changes in the Earth's
    environment and to conserving and managing coastal and marine resources
    to meet the Nation's economic, social, and environmental needs. NOAA's
    education plan outlines a broad vision for reaching various audiences
    to build awareness and knowledge of issues related to the world's
    atmosphere, climate, oceans, and coastal ecosystems. Addressing the
    needs of teachers, students, and policy makers as well as the general
    public, the agency's goals include enhancing environmental literacy and
    knowledge, application of NOAA science, and development of a capable
    and diverse workforce for environmental science. The American Museum of
    Natural History, one of the Nation's premier research and public
    education institutions, shares NOAA's commitment to these environmental
    goals and to the scientific research and public education that support
    them.
        Since its founding in 1869, the American Museum has pursued its
    mission of scientific investigation and public education. Its
    exhibitions and collections serve as a field guide to the entire planet
    and present a panorama of the world's cultures. Museum collections of
    some 32 million specimens and cultural artifacts provide an
    irreplaceable record of life. More than 200 museum scientists conduct
    groundbreaking research in fields as diverse as systematic and
    conservation biology and astrophysics, Earth and biodiversity sciences.
    The work of scientific staff fuels exhibitions and educational
    programming that reach annually an onsite audience of nearly 4 million
    visitors--nearly half of them children.
    Marine Sciences Initiative
        In fiscal year 2004, as a result of congressional leadership, the
    Museum entered into a partnership with NOAA that launched a multi-year
    marine education and research initiative. Support for this initiative,
    which encompasses a broad range of education, outreach, training, and
    research activities closely aligned with NOAA goals and purposes, was
    continued in fiscal year 2005 and further leveraged by museum
    scientists who successfully secured competitive NOAA funding. Building
    upon this successful foundation, and in concert with the strategic
    priorities of NOAA and the Museum, we seek in fiscal year 2007 to join
    with NOAA in aquatic research and education activities that promote
    ocean literacy. Activities will include: ecosystem based research,
    training, and research tools development concerning oceans and aquatic
    environments; special programs on New York waterways for New York City
    schoolchildren; professional development for teachers; and public
    education that will build understanding of the importance of healthy
    oceans and atmosphere.
        The Museum seeks in fiscal year 2007 to partner with NOAA to build
    this marine sciences education and outreach initiative. Support will be
    used, over a 1-year period, for marine research projects, the remote
    sensing/GIS laboratory, and public education and outreach. Together
    with NOAA, and leveraging its participatory share with funds from
    nonfederal as well as other federal sources, the Museum will be
    positioned to advance the environmental education, outreach, and
    research so pivotal to the health of our Nation and our planet.
        Recognizing its potential to support NOAA in its goals to
    understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment; conserve and
    manage coastal and marine resources; and to protect, restore, and
    manage the use of coastal and ocean resources to meet our Nation's
    economic, social, and environmental needs, the Museum looks forward to
    advancing a partnership with the agency in an education, outreach, and
    research initiative to promote public understanding and stewardship of
    marine environments.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of American Rivers

        American Rivers, on behalf of more than 500 national, regional and
    local organizations representing more than 5 million constituents
    concerned with river conservation,\1\ urges the Committee to provide
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with an overall
    appropriation of $4.5 billion in the Commerce, Justice, Science
    Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. Within that amount
    $252,000,000 should be allocated for the following priority programs in
    fiscal year 2007. I request that this testimony be included in the
    official record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ These groups and individuals have endorsed the Citizen's Agenda
    for Rivers which includes the ``River Budget'' for fiscal year 2007, a
    report of national funding priorities for local river conservation. For
    more information on the Citizen's Agenda for Rivers go to
    www.healthyrivers.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      PACIFIC COASTAL SALMON RECOVERY FUND

        Pacific salmon are a national treasure with enormous economic,
    cultural, and environmental significance in the States of Washington,
    Oregon, California, Idaho, and Alaska. A century ago, salmon were an
    anchor of the region's economy. Unfortunately, past and present
    mismanagement of our rivers, lands, and salmon fisheries have caused
    populations of salmon to decline dramatically over the past century,
    and 26 runs of Pacific salmon and steelhead are now listed under the
    Endangered Species Act.
        One important program aimed at restoring imperiled runs of chinook,
    coho, sockeye, and chum salmon, as well as steelhead trout, is the
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, funded through the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For the past several years,
    this program has provided much-needed assistance to State, local, and
    tribal governments in Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska and Idaho
    for salmon recovery projects.
        By increasing funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
    in fiscal year 2007, Congress can help restore this economically,
    culturally, and ecologically valuable resource and help the Northwest
    States and local communities to adopt and embrace the measures needed
    to restore Pacific salmon and steelhead. Restoring salmon will also
    allow the United States to satisfy treaty obligations with Northwest
    Indian tribes and Canada.
        American Rivers appreciates the Committee's past support for this
    program and urges the funding be increased to $200 million in fiscal
    year 2007.

       FISHERIES HABITAT RESTORATION CENTER (COMMUNITY-BASE RESTORATION
                                    PROGRAM)

        Estuaries and coastal wetlands serve many essential functions for
    communities across the Nation. Coastal industries supply 28 million
    jobs and generate billions of dollars annually. Eighty to 90 percent of
    all recreational fish catch and 75 percent of all commercial harvest
    depends upon healthy coastal and estuarine habitats. More than half of
    the coastal wetlands in the lower 48 States have been lost, and almost
    40 percent of estuarine habitat is impaired.
        The Fisheries Habitat Restoration Center and the Community-based
    Restoration Program, reaches out to local constituencies to accomplish
    on-the-ground, community-based projects to restore estuaries and
    coastal habitats. Partnerships and local involvement are fundamental to
    the success of this program. Partners typically match federal dollars
    1:1 and leverage those dollars up to 10 times more through State and
    local participation. To date, the program has funded more than 900
    projects in 25 States, promoting fishery habitat restoration in coastal
    areas with a grassroots, bottom-up approach.
        American Rivers urges the Committee to provide the Fisheries
    Habitat Restoration Program with $24 million in fiscal year 2007 to
    help more communities restore and protect and restore the health of
    their estuaries and coastal habitats.

                    THE PENOBSCOT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT

        The Penobscot River Restoration Project is an unprecedented
    approach to river restoration that will reconfigure hydropower
    facilities and maintain energy production while opening up more than
    500 miles of habitat to 10 native species of anadromous fish, improve
    water quality, boost wildlife and create new opportunities in
    communities along New England's second largest river. The two lowermost
    Penobscot dams, Veazie and Great Works, will be removed and a state-of-
    the-art fish bypass will be installed at Howland Dam. This restoration
    project will reestablish the river's historic connection to the ocean,
    and help feed fisheries and wildlife in the river and the Gulf of
    Maine. The project's reconfiguration of dams will have a wide range of
    benefits to fish and wildlife populations, water quality and
    communities along the river. The restoration of the Penobscot River is
    the best last chance for the dwindling Atlantic Salmon populations in
    the country.
        American Rivers urges the Committee to provide $15 million to the
    Penobscot River Restoration Project in fiscal year 2007 to assist in
    the purchase of the three dams on the Penobscot River.

                             OPEN RIVERS INITIATIVE

        Our Nation's rivers are plugged with millions of dams, most still
    functional and benefiting society. Many others are either dilapidated
    having outlived their 50 year life expectancy or are no longer
    providing the benefits for which they were built. These dams are
    unnecessarily degrading the riverine ecosystem and holding up economic
    development. The Open Rivers Initiative (ORI), a new Presidential
    initiative announced by the Secretary of Commerce in 2005, will provide
    grants to communities and local dam owners to remove their dams that no
    longer make sense. These restoration projects provide significant
    environmental improvements and offer noteworthy economic and societal
    benefits. They create new opportunities for recreational fishing, river
    rafting, and kayaking; provide cost savings by eliminating the need for
    dam repairs; and remove safety and liability risks associated with
    outdated structures.
        American Rivers urges the Committee to provide $10 million to the
    Open Rivers Initiative in fiscal year 2007.

                             HYDROPOWER RELICENSING

        The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would greatly benefit
    from additional funding to address the growing number of hydropower
    dams that need renewal of their operating licenses from the Federal
    Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Under the Federal Power Act, the
    NMFS has a responsibility to set license conditions for hydropower dams
    that protect and conserve anadromous (sea-run) fisheries such as
    Pacific and Atlantic salmon, steelhead and sea-run cutthroat trout, and
    shad. FERC approved licenses are nearing expiration at hundreds of dams
    around the country, and workloads are increasing for NMFS and other
    resource agencies. Increasing NMFS's limited hydropower relicensing
    budget is essential to ensure a more efficient licensing process and
    that NMFS can carry out its responsibilities to protect and restore our
    Nation's anadromous fisheries.
        American Rivers urges the Committee to provide the National Marine
    Fisheries Service with $3 million to specifically fund the agencies
    work on hydropower relicensing in fiscal year 2007.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Claflin University, Orangeburg, South Carolina

        Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the
    opportunity to submit testimony to the hearing record regarding the
    forensic science laboratory at Claflin University in Orangeburg, South
    Carolina. Claflin University is the oldest historically black college
    or university in the State of South Carolina and has a solid reputation
    for producing science students who are an asset to the Nation's
    scientific workforce.
        In the past fiscal year, as I am sure you are aware, funds with
    which to initiate the establishment of a certified forensics laboratory
    at Claflin University were included in the conference report on the
    Science, State Justice and Commerce Appropriations bill. We wish to
    thank the subcommittee for its support and report on the use to which
    we have put the provided funds. In collaboration with local law
    enforcement agencies, we have used those funds to identify and secure a
    site for the DNA forensic portion of the laboratory, initiated
    renovations to the site as needed, and completed the purchase of some
    of the needed equipment. We are also finalizing the recruitment of the
    initial supervising scientist for the facility. In addition, we have
    developed an initial course in forensics that we will beta test this
    summer with students in our biotechnology degree program.
        The purpose of the forensics laboratory is to allow Claflin
    University to create research and service capacity in DNA, drug and
    ballistics forensic technologies for the Orangeburg community, the
    First Judicial District and other agencies in South Carolina and the
    Nation. A Memorandum of Understanding has been developed with the
    Orangeburg Department of Public Safety, and others are being finalized
    with the Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department and other law
    enforcement agencies within the First Judicial District. The faculty
    within the forensics laboratory will offer courses to students from
    Orangeburg Calhoun Technical College, undergraduates and graduate
    biotechnology students from Claflin and will offer short-course
    continuing education courses approved by the State's Law Enforcement
    Training Academy to local and State law enforcement officials. The
    resulting benefits will include but are not limited to:
      --Reduction in the case evidence backlog;
      --workforce training (for both forensic scientists and law
            enforcement personnel);
      --crime rate reduction through timely processing of evidence;
      --increased research capacity in DNA forensics technique development;
            and
      --increased capacity to process back-logged samples for the
            Department of Justice and the Department of Defense.
        Claflin University will staff a forensics laboratory that will be
    certified for DNA fingerprinting. The laboratory will also provide
    staff and equipment for drug analysis. In addition, the institution
    will collaborate with the Orangeburg Department of Public Safety to
    apply to the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN)
    program at the Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms and Explosives to become a participant in that network in
    order to provide ballistics analysis capacity for the forensics
    laboratory.
        All law enforcement agencies within the First Judicial Circuit
    could greatly benefit in having a regional forensic laboratory with
    these capabilities. This would also reduce the number of cases
    submitted to SLED and other specialized laboratories alleviating some
    of the current backlog seen in these labs and speed time to trial for
    alleged offenders.
        I would also like to point out that this year Claflin University,
    in partnership with Orangeburg Calhoun Technical College received a
    grant from the Department of Labor to establish a joint program in
    biotechnology with a forensics emphasis. This would allow a student to
    earn an associates degree, a bachelor's degree or a master's degree in
    biotechnology, with a forensics specialization, or to stop at any point
    of their choosing in that training continuum. We are certain that the
    collaboration with the local law enforcement agencies to operate a
    forensics laboratory will be a valuable additional asset for our
    overall programmatic goals and will increase the number of qualified
    individuals entering the workforce with expertise in forensic analyses.
        In fiscal year 2007 we are again requesting support of $2.2 million
    to complete the work that we have begun in establishing the forensics
    laboratory. These funds will be used to hire additional personnel for
    the laboratory; purchase the remaining major laboratory
    instrumentation; acquire and restructure space for the ballistics
    facility; purchase consumables and reagents for analytical processes;
    and offer the forensics short course to local law enforcement
    personnel.
        Mr. Chairman, we are sure that the forensics laboratory that we are
    establishing will provide for infrastructure for crime reduction in our
    State as well as allowing us to produce forensic scientists for the
    State and Nation. We hope that the subcommittee will provide the $2.2
    million necessary to continue the progress toward full establishment of
    this vital service asset. Your support will reduce crime, save lives,
    and strengthen the Nation's scientific workforce.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation

        On behalf on the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation Program for the San Miguel Project in the Commonwealth of
    Puerto Rico.
        NWF is the U.S. largest member-supported conservation education and
    advocacy group. It unites people from all walks of life to protect
    nature, wildlife, and the world we all share. NWF's mission is to
    educate, inspire and assist individuals and organizations of diverse
    cultures to conserve wildlife and other natural resources and to
    protect the Earth's environment in order to achieve a peaceful,
    equitable and sustainable future.
        The Northeastern Ecological Corridor (NEC) comprising approximately
    3,200 acres, is one of the Caribbean's last, great, unprotected areas.
    Located on the eastern corner of the main island of Puerto Rico within
    the municipalities of Luquillo and Fajardo, the NEC contains an
    extraordinary array of tropical habitats seldom found in other parts of
    the world. In addition to coral communities, mangroves, and pre-
    Columbian forests, all the different varieties of coastal wetlands
    found throughout Puerto Rico are represented within the NEC. The
    wetlands in this area are essential to the existence of a seasonal
    bioluminiscent lagoon known as Laguna Aguas Prietas, an extremely rare
    biological phenomenon.
        The NEC's location within the foothills of the El Yunque Caribbean
    National Forest adds to its great natural value and uniqueness.
    Originally set aside in 1876 by the Spanish Crown, this United Nations
    Biosphere Reserve is one of the oldest forest protected areas in the
    Western Hemisphere, and is the only tropical rain forest in the United
    States national forest system. The forest contains rare wildlife and is
    home to over 50 species of birds, including the Puerto Rican parrot--
    one of the ten most endangered species of birds in the world. The
    ecological diversity observed within the NEC and the Caribbean National
    Rain Forest, varying from a coastal dry forest to a rain forest, lies
    within a corridor just 13 miles in length. Such an occurrence, in an
    amazing limited area, is extremely rare in any location around the
    world and, can only be enhanced or protected by the conservation of the
    NEC.
        In recognition of the NEC's extraordinary natural value, the NWF
    has supported its protection since 1999. During NWF's annual meeting
    held on March 2006 at New Orleans, a resolution presented by two of our
    affiliates, the Puerto Rican Ornithological Society and the Virgin
    Islands Conservation Society, was approved, supporting the protection
    of coastal and wetland habitats of concern such as those found on the
    Corridor. Furthermore, NWF endorsed the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
    House of Representatives Bill 2105, designating the NEC as a nature
    reserve, as well as its sustainable development based on ecotourism and
    nature tourism activities.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 1,277-acre San
    Miguel property, consisting of three parcels within the NEC. These
    parcels contain extensive wetland areas contiguous to the Pitahaya,
    Juan Martin and Sabana rivers, and harbor an array of unique upland and
    wetland ecosystems. The project site includes some of the last
    remaining unspoiled dune systems and a significant coral community
    immediately off shore. Its bird fauna is remarkable and according to
    the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources
    (DNER), it has the one of the highest diversity of birds of any natural
    protected area in the north region of the Island. The property falls
    within the range of over 40 rare species of flora and fauna, some even
    unique to Puerto Rico, including 16 federally threatened or endangered
    listed species, such as the hawksbill sea turtle, Virgin Island boa,
    Puerto Rican boa, brown pelican, Puerto Rican plain pigeon, West Indian
    manatee, and Cobana negra (a flowering tree). The area is best known,
    however, as one of the most important nesting grounds for leatherback
    sea turtles in the Unites States and the Caribbean. Over 420
    leatherback sea turtle nests were recorded during the 2005 nesting
    season. Due to its ecological value, the NEC has been identified by the
    DNER, the USDA Forest Service's International Institute of Tropical
    Forestry and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as a critical wildlife
    area of primary importance in Puerto Rico. The NEC also contains a
    variety of archeological resources, such as historical tools and
    structures.
        At the present time, several multinational lodging corporations
    have proposed various mega luxury residential-tourist resorts within
    the NEC. One of the largest proposed developments would be built on the
    San Miguel tracts at the boundary of the municipalities of Luquillo and
    Fajardo. The San Miguel Resort would include 1,025 residential units, a
    250-room hotel/casino, 175 timeshare units, and two golf courses. The
    development would involve the filling of wetlands, channelization of
    rivers, and clearance of coastal vegetation, thus destroying the
    natural integrity of the NEC. If the San Miguel resort were to be
    constructed as planned, it would further deplete the limited water
    supplies needed by local communities, resulting in a deficit of over
    4,000,000 gallons of water per day, a deficit which accounts for the
    water requirements of nearly 25,000 people. There is widespread concern
    as well about other negative impacts the development would have on this
    sensitive area, including limited public access to beaches and other
    coastal resources, and unnecessary exposure of life and property on
    lands affected by floods and other natural hazards present at the NEC.
        Given the ongoing controversy over development of the property,
    including years of lawsuits, strong public opposition, and permitting
    difficulties, the owners have decided to make the land available for
    conservation. Federal agencies, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
    private parties have come together in an effort to preserve this
    remarkable coastal property. Public ownership will preserve the coastal
    resources, protect the rivers and wetlands, buffer El Yunque Caribbean
    National Forest, and provide public beach access and recreational
    opportunities.
        Approximately $25 million will eventually be needed to complete the
    San Miguel acquisition. If this effort should fail, some form of
    development would likely occur on this highly sensitive property. The
    construction of the proposed resort would undermine past and current
    conservation efforts in an area that has been widely recognized by the
    Federal and Commonwealth agencies, and private conservation
    organizations for its unique expression of biological diversity.
        A fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal
    and Estuarine Land Conservation Program is needed to further the
    protection of the San Miguel tracts. These funds will be matched by
    $2.27 million in settlement funds from the Barge Berman Oil Spill
    (specifically for land acquisition), up to $5.7 million of other oil
    spill settlement funds (for restoration categories), $3 million
    committed by the Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico, and additional
    funds being raised by a local land trust and other interested private
    parties. I urge you to include this project in the fiscal year 2007
    Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony and for your consideration of this important request.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer the
    recommendations of The Nature Conservancy on the fiscal year 2007
    budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit organization
    dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
    to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
    the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
    need to survive. Our on-the-ground and in-the-water conservation work
    is carried out in all 50 States and in 27 foreign countries and is
    supported by approximately 1 million individual members. We have helped
    conserve nearly 15 million acres of land in the United States and
    Canada and more than 102 million acres with local partner organizations
    globally.
        The conservancy owns and manages approximately 1,400 preserves
    throughout the United States--the largest private system of nature
    sanctuaries in the world. We recognize, however, that our mission
    cannot be achieved by core protected areas alone. Therefore, our
    projects increasingly seek to accommodate compatible human uses to
    address sustained human well-being.
        The conservancy works to identify priorities for coastal and marine
    conservation through marine ecoregional plans. We identify present and
    likely future threats to marine biological diversity before attempting
    to identify appropriate strategies for conservation. At more than 100
    marine sites around the world, the Nature Conservancy has used a
    variety of strategies for marine conservation including habitat
    restoration of important nursery and spawning areas, removal of
    invasive species, coastal land acquisition, private conservation of
    submerged lands, elimination of destructive practices, establishment of
    protected areas, management of extractive marine resources activities,
    and reduction of nutrient and toxic inputs to coastal systems. No
    single strategy works everywhere and at every site, multiple
    conservation approaches are needed. The selection of appropriate
    approaches depends on the biological, socioeconomic, and political
    circumstances at each site.
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is an
    important partner to the conservancy in many aspects of our
    conservation work:
      --We rely upon NOAA's data, research, and monitoring of coastal and
            marine systems, and have several shared priorities on which we
            collaborate. For example, NOAA's Coastal Services Center
            maintains a strong customer-service, partnership-oriented
            approach to providing needed information and technical
            assistance to States, local governments, other federal
            agencies, and the private sector to inform decision-making.
      --We rely on NOAA's programs that support site-based conservation--
            those that fund conservation and restoration activities, and
            those that provide for management of coastal and marine
            systems. NOAA's ability to meet its requirements under various
            resource management statutes could be significantly improved by
            enhancing the agency's ability to fund on-the-ground
            conservation needs. Programs such as Coastal and Estuarine Land
            Conservation, Community-based Restoration, Open Rivers
            Initiative are excellent examples of NOAA taking a practical,
            community-oriented approach to conservation and management of
            coastal and marine resources. These programs should be
            expanded.
      --NOAA's contributions to State and local implementation and
            educational programs help to ensure that the human capacity
            exists to address environmental management issues at the
            necessary scale. We are concerned that NOAA's support for human
            capacity to implement programs within the agency and at the
            State and local levels is often the first to go in tight budget
            environments. The committee should provide funding for staff
            capacity to provide technical assistance, efficiently manage
            grants and programs, and help to measure effectiveness. For
            example, funding for Cooperation with the States in NMFS Office
            of Protected Resources is an opportunity to better engage
            States in addressing the needs of federally-listed species. A
            similar program in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been
            very successful in helping to solve problems and improve the
            status of declining species.
        Additionally, we are concerned that funding for oceans in general
    and NOAA specifically is declining. The conservancy urges the committee
    to provide appropriations for NOAA at or approaching $4.5 billion. This
    funding level for NOAA would allow enhancements in the development of
    an integrated ocean and atmospheric observing system; increased
    research and education activities, expanded ocean conservation and
    management programs; and provide critical improvements in
    infrastructure (satellites, ships, high performance computers,
    facilities), and data management. Such an increase would represent
    significant progress toward addressing recommendations contained in the
    reports of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
    Commission.
        Finally, we would like to work with the committee on guidance to
    NOAA regarding implementation of a number of key programs.
        Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP).--The
    Nature Conservancy supports funding CELCP at $60 million for fiscal
    year 2007 and looks forward to working with the committee to guide
    selection of high priority projects. We appreciate the committee's
    inclusion of report language in the fiscal year 2006 conference report
    directing NOAA to develop a list of eligible CELCP projects for fiscal
    year 2007. We look forward to delivery of that list, and hope that it
    will be useful to the committee as you make decisions regarding this
    important program.
        We hope that the committee will once again include this language in
    your report for fiscal year 2008 project selection. The project review
    process for fiscal year 2007 has been illuminating in showing what is
    working and what is less successful. Our review of this process draws
    attention to three additional issues.
      --First, we have found that, while some States engaged in a truly
            outstanding collaborative and public process to select
            projects, others took a more narrow approach to outreach. One
            of the key elements of success of the Forest Legacy program is
            the emphasis the Forest Services places on public and partner
            involvement. NOAA should be directed to provide similar
            involvement.
      --Second, a $3 million project cap was included in the guidance for
            the call for proposals. We are concerned that this cap may be
            either unnecessarily constraining or may lead to inflated
            project proposals. States should be encouraged to request what
            is needed to complete a given project within an appropriate
            timeframe, and should work with NOAA and the Congress to ensure
            funding is available within budget constraints.
      --Finally, we are increasingly concerned about the lack of dedicated
            staff capacity for CELCP at NOAA. Current practice is to assess
            a percentage of the project appropriation to cover NOAA staff
            costs. However, our practice is to request funding only for
            direct project costs, and we are very concerned about the
            impact such a tax is going to have on the ground. NOAA needs a
            dedicated line of funding to support program administration and
            management, and should be prohibited from assessing a
            percentage of project allocations to cover administrative
            costs.
        NOAA Habitat Restoration.--The Nature Conservancy requests
    increased funding for habitat conservation and restoration to support
    fisheries management objectives, protected species recovery, and other
    coastal and marine management requirements. NOAA needs to invest more
    in constructive, on-the-ground and in-the-water habitat conservation.
    Habitat losses have a substantial impact on the health and productivity
    of marine ecosystems, yet NOAA's ability to work closely with
    communities around the country to stem or reverse these losses is
    limited. We are encouraged by the creation of the new Open Rivers
    Initiative and continued investment in the successful Community-based
    Restoration Program, but these great programs fall far short of what is
    needed to address the threats. The conservancy and NOAA are now
    struggling to find financing for a number of projects that we started
    with grants from the Community-based Program.
        The conservancy recommends $20 million for Community-based
    Restoration, $7.2 million more than the President's budget, and more in
    line with the House and Senate recommendations going into the fiscal
    year 2006 conference. We request $10 million for the new Open Rivers
    Initiative, $4 million more than the President's budget. We urge you to
    ensure that this new program is additive to NOAA's habitat restoration
    capacity, and doesn't reduce funding available for existing programs.
        Coral Reef Conservation Program and Coral Reef Watch.--The
    conservancy has developed a strong partnership with NOAA's Coral Reef
    program, and we are delighted with their enthusiastic desire to work
    together on improving resilience of coral reefs, developing approaches
    for sustainable financing for coral conservation activities at the
    local level, and other creative approaches to reducing threats to
    corals.
        However, we are concerned with the decision made the fiscal year
    2006 conference to cut funding for NESDIS coral monitoring in fiscal
    year 2006. The President requested $737,000 for this modest but
    effective program known as ``Coral Reef Watch.'' In 2005, not only did
    NESDIS scientists in this program predict a major coral bleaching event
    in the Caribbean, but these scientists were able to reach out to NMFS,
    NOS and partners in the region to use the attention generated by the
    event to help local managers take action to help reefs recover from the
    devastating effects of bleaching.
        Finally, we urge you to include an additional $1.5 million for
    ``Local Action Strategies,'' a unique partnership between NOAA and
    States and territories to address threats to coral reefs at the local
    level.
        Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund.--The Pacific Coast Salmon
    Recovery Fund (PCSRF) has funded hundreds of successful on the ground
    salmon conservation efforts, and we are pleased that NOAA and the
    States receiving these funds have greatly improved tracking the process
    of restoration and management under this important program.
        This program is a critical complement to federal salmon recovery
    and management efforts. It enables the State to initiate restoration of
    salmon habitat and manage fisheries in areas beyond the reach of the
    Federal Government, e.g. on private lands. The PCSRF enables the States
    to leverage significant amounts of State funding to address the needs
    of private landowners in complying with the Endangered Species Act,
    maintaining the economic viability of these lands, while greatly
    contributing to economic recovery. In Alaska, where the vast majority
    of salmon populations and habitats are healthy, these funds help
    maintain the economic viability of the salmon industry, Alaska's
    largest employer, by providing and maintaining fisheries that don't
    conflict with protection of ESA listed stocks that spend part of their
    life history in the Gulf of Alaska.
        We are concerned about the decline in funding for the program, from
    $89 million in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 to $67 million in
    fiscal year 2006, and $66 million in the President's fiscal year 2007
    request. The conservancy strongly supports $90 million for this
    program. We are also concerned how the funds are allocated across the
    five States involved in the program. We feel that the conservation
    activities oriented towards recovery and protection of salmon should be
    the primary purpose of this program, and therefore urge the committee
    to consider including report language in this year's appropriation that
    more explicitly links expenditures of PCSRF funds to recovery actions
    identified in federal and State salmon recovery and management plans,
    where applicable.
        Thank you for this opportunity to share with the committee the
    conservancy's priorities in NOAA's fiscal year 2007 budget. We would be
    pleased to provide the committee with additional information on any of
    the conservancy's activities described here or elsewhere. You may
    contact Erika Feller at 703-841-5374, if you have questions on which we
    might be of assistance.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Liga Conciencia Ambiental del Este, Inc.

        On behalf of the (LIGA) ``Liga Conciencia Ambiental del Este'', I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation Program for the San Miguel project in Puerto Rico.
        The LIGA is a non-profit organization of citizens which volunteer
    at schools, participate in local conservation efforts and aim to
    preserve and protect the Northeast Ecological Corridor (NEC) from the
    reckless impactful surge of construction already quite evident. This
    exotic coastline area between Fajardo and Luquillo in Puerto Rico is
    unbelievably unique and pristine with an array of habitats seldom found
    in other parts of the world. It is home to about 40 rare or
    ``critically endangered'' species. Please note that the NEC coastal
    area is considered the third most important endangered Leatherback
    Turtle nesting are in the U.S. jurisdiction. The Fish and Wildlife
    Supervisor James Oland has stated that ``this beach area is the only
    pristine habitat extensive enough to allow for its (Leatherback Turtle)
    future recovery in Puerto Rico''. Beautiful corals still exist and
    various Pre-Columbine Forest types. Various wetlands remain here,
    essential to the existence of the biodiversity present, like for
    example a rare biological phenomenon of not one but two ``thriving
    bioluminescent lagoons''. There may also exist Taino and historical
    archeological finds yet to be correctly researched. The ``accumulative
    effects'' of the proposed Dos Mares and San Miguel Resorts ``mega
    constructions'' would ultimately negatively effect further the water
    shortage problems of this area, due to the more than 3,000 residential
    and touristic units, casinos and gold courses etc., resulting in a
    deficit of over 4 million gallons of water per day.
        Of further need is the concern to have public access to our
    beaches, and a proper buffer zone for our ``El Yunque National Forest''
    which should extend from the top of the mountain down to the coast.
    This forest contains the only U.S. tropic wilderness area and is also
    the only tropical forest in the United States. We of the LIGA are
    totally against high intensive (5 star) development and truly wish that
    with your help, a natural reserve with the alternative of real
    ecotoursitic recreational opportunities, could be made available in the
    future.
        We have in our hands the chance to save and prepare for future
    generations, a treasure of rare land, ocean and animal species; not
    only for our local citizens and children but also to share with the
    rest of the world. We urge you to please include this project in the
    fiscal year 2007 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill. We
    thank you for your attention and remain hopeful that you will truly
    consider this proposal-which could only serve to benefit mankind.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Nisqually Indian Tribe

        Mr. Chairman, my name is Dorian Sanchez and I am the chairman of
    the Nisqually Indian Tribe. On behalf of the tribe, I would like to
    submit the following written testimony on the fiscal year 2007 budget
    for the Office of Justice Programs.
        The Nisqually Reservation is located in Washington State. We
    currently employ nine land patrol law enforcement officers to patrol
    5,000 acres of reservation and near reservation lands. In addition,
    Nisqually Tribe Police has extensive marine water enforcement duties
    and employs two water patrol officers to patrol over 100 square miles
    of Puget Sound for both the treaty salmon fishery and treaty shellfish
    harvesting. Tribal law enforcement also provides hunting enforcement
    for over 50,000 acres of land in the tribe's usual and accustomed area
    within the Nisqually River watershed.
        We also employ ten detention officers at our 45-bed detention
    facility, which was built with Department of Justice funding in 2002.
    Like many other tribes, we are struggling to cope with escalating
    methamphetamine use and associated increases in gang activity and
    property crime related to drug dealing and manufacturing. The
    methamphetamine crisis has received significant attention recently in
    Congress and in the media, but what is often overlooked is the
    disproportionately devastating impact that meth has had on Indian
    communities across the country. Tribes' resources are stretched beyond
    capacity in order to address this problem.

                               JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

        The administration proposed to consolidate several programs,
    including law enforcement and juvenile justice programs, under the
    Justice Assistance account. Overall funding for these programs would be
    significantly reduced under this proposal, and many programs that
    specifically serve tribes would be cut entirely. The tribe opposes any
    effort by the administration to reorganize the funding structure in
    order to mask program cuts, and we request that the administration
    restore funding to the following programs:
      --Incarceration on tribal lands ($15 million);
      --Tribal courts initiative ($8 million); and
      --Indian country grant program ($5 million).

                        JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

        The tribe also requests that the subcommittee restore full funding
    for title V local juvenile delinquency prevention programs and, in
    particular, that the $10 million earmark for the Tribal Youth Program
    (TYP) be restored. For fiscal year 2007, the administration has
    requested only $32 million for delinquency prevention programs--this is
    half of the fiscal year 2006 enacted amount. In past years, $10 million
    of this funding has been earmarked for tribal juvenile delinquency
    prevention programs under the TYP line item, but in the fiscal year
    2007 budget proposal, no funding is specifically designated for tribal
    youth programs.
        In most tribal communities, juvenile delinquency early intervention
    programs are funded by TYP grants. The Nisqually Indian Tribe received
    TYP funding in 2000 to support the Nisqually Indian Juvenile Justice
    Improvement Project, and these funds were used to hire and train a
    youth counselor for the youth court and to develop detention
    alternatives, such as diversion, community peer review, traditional
    dispute resolution, drug courts and mentoring programs. The tribe
    received funding again in 2003 for the tribe's At-Risk Native Youth
    Intervention project, a program to provide targeted outreach,
    assessment, support and mental health services to children who are at
    risk for academic failure or are already involved in the juvenile
    justice system. If funds are not earmarked for tribal programs,
    competition will intensify for this already-limited source of funding,
    and programs like these may not be funded in the future.
        In addition, the tribe supports restoration of the Juvenile
    Accountability Block Grant program. The administration has again
    proposed to eliminate this important program entirely, calling it
    ``unfocused.'' On the contrary, as Congress has recognized in restoring
    this program for the past 3 years, it provides essential funding for
    substance abuse and mental health services and graduated sanctions
    programs. Of particular importance in Indian country is the Tribal
    Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grant program, a separate JABG
    allocation for Indian tribes to provide delinquency prevention
    services. Successful delinquency prevention programs require
    coordination of multiple systems (substance abuse, mental health, child
    welfare, courts, detention, community-based alternatives to detention,
    etc.). For this wraparound approach to work, all these programs must
    receive funding, and tribes must have the flexibility to allocate
    resources among them as needed. JABG grants are an important source of
    this flexible core funding; if these grants are eliminated, tribal
    juvenile justice systems will be severely crippled.

                                  TRIBAL COPS

        The tribe supports the administration's proposed $16 million
    increase to the tribal COPS program. We are concerned, however, that
    this increase is being used to justify cuts to all the other tribal
    programs discussed above. It is important that the subcommittee
    understand that funding for justice programs in Indian country still
    falls far short of meeting the severe need for law enforcement and
    tribal justice resources--a need that will be even greater this year in
    light of significant cuts to Indian programs--including the Tribal
    Courts program--proposed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribes depend
    on law enforcement and tribal justice funding and this year--at the
    height of the meth crisis--this funding should be increased, not simply
    redistributed or reduced overall.
        If we can provide any additional information, please do not
    hesitate to contact our counsel, Mary J. Pavel or Addie C. Rolnick at
    Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, 1425 K Street NW,
    Ste. 600, Washington, DC 20005; 202-682-0240 (tel); 202-682-0249 (fax);
    mpavel@sonosky.com; arolnick@sonosky.com.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Skokomish Tribal Nation

        Good morning. My name is Gordon James. I am the chairman of the
    Skokomish Tribe of Washington State. On behalf of the tribe, I would
    like to submit the following written testimony on the fiscal year 2007
    budget for the Office of Justice programs. The tribe respectfully
    requests that the subcommittee support the administration's proposed
    increase to the Tribal COPS program and reject the administration's
    proposed cuts to other tribal justice programs.
        The Skokomish Department of Public Safety has been granted the
    responsibility and authority to enforce laws and regulations as set
    forth by the Skokomish Tribal Council. Enforcement of tribal laws and
    regulations will enhance and strengthen the development of the tribe's
    human resources, encourage the development of the reservation, and
    support community values and goals for the achievement of self-
    determination as a nation. The tribe provides the only marine law
    enforcement and rescue services in a 35-mile radius of the southern
    Hood Canal. In addition, the department works closely with non-tribal
    law enforcement agencies and with neighboring tribes to combat the
    scourge of drug trafficking in this rural area.
        As the committee is undoubtedly aware, drug abuse is rampant on
    many Indian reservations, and the recent increase in methamphetamine
    use has had an especially damaging effect on Indian country. The
    Skokomish Reservation saw significant population growth in the 1980s
    and early 1990s, and along with this growth came an alarming increase
    in the extent and severity of drug use and abuse. Our community is
    coping with the far-reaching effects of methamphetamine abuse, placing
    a far greater burden on our law enforcement, health and child welfare
    services, as well on our court system.
        According to data from the tribe's Alcohol Service program, more
    than half of our young adults are affected by drug dependency. We have
    also seen an increase in drug-related crimes, such as armed assaults,
    drug manufacturing and drug dealing. Of the 1,800 calls that tribal
    police have responded to in the last 6 months, more than one-third have
    been drug-related, and many of these calls involved non-Indians.
    Because non-Indians often view reservations as places where they can
    manufacture and sell drugs free from State authority, we have also seen
    an increase in clandestine methamphetamine labs on the reservation.
    Tribal officers play a key role in detecting and busting these labs,
    and it is clear that if the tribe is forced to close its department or
    scale back its law enforcement and justice resources, our rural
    community will indeed become a haven for meth and other drugs.
        The Skokomish Department of Public Safety places strong emphasis on
    Community Oriented Policing for Skokomish tribal members, residents and
    visitors of the Skokomish Indian Reservation. The department consists
    of both patrol and fish and wildlife enforcement divisions, which help
    the department obtain its goals of proactively suppressing criminal
    activity, preventing crime, and protecting the Skokomish Tribe's
    interests, lands, and properties. The two departments were consolidated
    in 2003 to allow for more effective patrol services within the
    reservation. In the last 10 years, the Department of Public Safety
    (DPS) has grown from 1 untrained officer to a force of 13 Washington
    State/BIA-certified officers. There are currently 11 full time officers
    (3 of which are assigned primarily to Fish and Wildlife Enforcement)
    and 2 provisional officers (1 of which is also assigned to Fish and
    Wildlife duties). The department also utilizes the services of 6
    reserve police officers. We also employ a full time civilian that acts
    as court clerk and administrative assistant. All Skokomish Public
    Safety officers are cross-trained to perform patrol duties and fish and
    wildlife enforcement.
        The Patrol Division operates 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. It
    supports the mission of the department by preserving the peace,
    conducting investigations of crimes, providing patrols on tribal lands
    and properties, answering calls for assistance, detecting criminal
    activities, identifying potential disturbances, enforcing traffic
    regulations on reservation lands, investigating and responding to
    accidents, arresting criminal offenders, and providing emergency
    services.
        The Fish and Wildlife Enforcement division works to protect tribal
    treaty fishing, hunting and shellfish rights. Skokomish fish and
    wildlife officers are fully commissioned tribal police officers. They
    enforce fish, wildlife and environmental laws, patrol fishing sites,
    inspect nets, check tribal identification, regulate hunting and fishing
    licenses, monitor fishing, hunting and shellfish locations, and
    investigate violations of Skokomish fish and wildlife, criminal, and
    traffic codes.
        The tribe supports the administration's proposed $16 million
    increase to the tribal COPS program. The COPS program provides a
    flexile source of funding for tribal law enforcement programs like the
    Skokomish Department of Public Safety and many tribes depend on these
    grants.
        However, this increase should not be balanced with cuts elsewhere
    in the budget for tribal programs. Increased funding for the COPS
    program is sorely needed in Indian country, but tribes should not be
    forced to sacrifice funding for tribal courts, juvenile delinquency
    prevention and other justice programs in order to secure adequate law
    enforcement funds. The entire range of law enforcement and justice
    programs (prevention, early intervention, law enforcement, prosecution,
    detention) in Indian country has always been drastically underfunded,
    and the need for this funding has only intensified with the rampant
    methamphetamine production and use on reservations. We ask the
    committee to recognize this need and reject the administration's
    proposed elimination or reduction for the following tribal programs:
      --Incarceration on tribal lands ($15 million);
      --Tribal courts initiative ($8 million);
      --Indian country grant program ($5 million); and
      --Tribal Youth Program, title V local juvenile delinquency prevention
            ($10 million).
        We cannot overstate the importance of this funding to Indian
    country.
        If we can provide any additional information, please do not
    hesitate to contact our counsel, Mary J. Pavel or Addie C. Rolnick at
    Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, 1425 K Street NW,
    Ste. 600, Washington, D.C. 20005; 202-682-0240 (tel); 202-682-0249
    (fax); mpavel@sonosky.com; arolnick@sonosky.com.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico

        The Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico (CTPR) presents this
    testimony in support of an appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's
    Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program for the San Miguel
    Project in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
        CTPR was created in January 23, 1970 by the government of the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Department of Interior as a
    private, nonprofit organization devoted to the protection and
    conservation of the natural resources of the Island of Puerto Rico. Its
    sole beneficiary is the people of Puerto Rico. The trust is
    administered by three trustees jointly designated by the Governor of
    Puerto Rico and the U.S. Secretary of Interior.
        As the foremost non-governmental conservation entity in the island,
    CTPR currently protects more than 17,000 acres of land on 20 nature
    areas across the island, provides interpretive programs to over 106,000
    visitors per year in its three sites open to the public, promotes
    citizen participation in conservation and reforestation activities
    through its education programs, and produces about 65,000 native trees
    a year in its four tree nurseries. The trust has a staff of 95
    employees who work in property management, visitor interpretive
    services, land acquisitions, donations, and conservation easements,
    public education, fundraising, and administration.
        One of the trust's principal mandates is to acquire--through
    purchase, donations, easements, or other mechanisms--land that is vital
    to Puerto Rico's natural and cultural heritage; and to maintain and
    care for the land already under its protection. In selecting properties
    for acquisition, the trust seeks land of extraordinary natural,
    aesthetic, and historic value.
        Since the mid-1980s, the Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico has been
    active in land acquisition, management, and conservation efforts of the
    lands adjacent and within the Northeastern Ecological Corridor (NEC).
        The NEC, comprising approximately 3,200 acres, is one of the
    Caribbean's last, great, unprotected areas. Located on the eastern
    corner of the main island of Puerto Rico within the municipalities of
    Luquillo and Fajardo, the NEC contains an extraordinary diversity of
    tropical habitats seldom found in other parts of the world. In addition
    to coral communities, mangroves, and pre-Columbian forests, all the
    different varieties of coastal wetlands found throughout Puerto Rico
    are represented within the NEC. The wetlands in this area are essential
    to the existence of a seasonal bioluminiscent lagoon known as Laguna
    Aguas Prietas, an extremely rare biological phenomenon.
        The NEC also acts as a natural bridge where all of Puerto Rico's
    six ecological life zones are connected: from a coastal dry forest in
    Las Cabezas de San Juan Nature Reserve to a lower montane rain forest
    in El Yunque Caribbean National Forest. In one end of the Corridor is
    Las Cabezas de San Juan Nature Reserve, a 539 acres coastal protected
    area owned and managed by the trust, considered one of Puerto Rico's
    most important natural areas. This reserve contains a prize-winning
    restoration of an 1882 neoclassic lighthouse (El Faro) built by the
    Spaniards that is open to the public since April 1991. Of the island's
    14 lighthouses, El Faro's is the second oldest and is recorded on the
    Federal Register of Historic Places. A nature center located in the
    lighthouse provides close-up educational views of the reserve's animals
    and plants, and a rooftop observation deck offers spectacular vistas of
    El Yunque, the NEC, St. Thomas and islands as distant as Tortola. Home
    to 96 bird species, the reserve is popularly known for its coastal
    lagoon (Laguna Grande), one of three major bioluminescent water bodies
    in Puerto Rico exhibiting this unique biological phenomenon all
    throughout the year. This nature reserve receives more than 50,000
    visitors annually.
        In the other end of the Corridor is El Yunque Caribbean National
    Forest. Designated as a United Nations Biosphere Reserve, El Yunque is
    composed of more than 25,000 acres of land. This forest was originally
    set aside in 1876 by the Spanish Crown and is one of the oldest
    protected areas in the Western Hemisphere. It is also the only tropical
    rain forest within the United States national forest system. The forest
    contains rare wildlife and is home to over 50 species of birds,
    including the Puerto Rican parrot--one of the ten most endangered
    species of birds in the world. Considered Puerto Rico's most popular
    nature attraction, El Yunque receives more than 800,000 visitors per
    year.
        This incredible ecological diversity, found at a distance of less
    than 13 miles in length, adds to the NEC's great natural value and
    uniqueness. Such an occurrence, in an amazing limited area, is
    extremely rare in any location around the world. This is why the
    Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico has actively engaged in the
    protection and conservation of the NEC and its surrounding areas. In
    1986, CTPR acquired the lands that currently compose Las Cabezas de San
    Juan Nature Reserve. In 1992, the trust, in collaboration with the
    Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER),
    proposed the designation of the NEC as an extension of Las Cabezas de
    San Juan Nature Reserve under the name of Segmento El Convento. Since
    then, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has
    requested that the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management program,
    administered by the DNER, develop a strategy and a schedule for the
    official designation and establishment of the NEC as a nature reserve.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 1,277-acre San
    Miguel property, consisting of three parcels within the NEC. These
    parcels contain extensive wetland areas contiguous to the Pitahaya,
    Juan Martin and Sabana rivers, and harbor an array of unique upland and
    wetland ecosystems. The project site includes some of the last
    remaining unspoiled dune systems and a significant coral community
    immediately off shore. Its bird fauna is remarkable and according to
    the DNER, it has one of the highest diversity of birds of any natural
    protected area in the north region of the island. The property falls
    within the range of over 40 rare species of flora and fauna, some even
    unique to Puerto Rico, including 16 federally threatened or endangered
    listed species, such as the Hawksbill sea turtle, Virgin Island boa,
    Puerto Rican boa, brown pelican, Puerto Rican plain pigeon, West Indian
    manatee, and Cobana negra (a flowering tree). The area is best known,
    however, as one of the most important nesting grounds for Leatherback
    sea turtles in the Unites States and the Caribbean. Over 420
    Leatherback sea turtle nests were recorded during the 2005 nesting
    season. Due to its ecological value, the NEC has been identified by the
    DNER, the USDA Forest Service's International Institute of Tropical
    Forestry and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as a critical wildlife
    area of primary importance in Puerto Rico. The NEC also contains a
    variety of archeological resources, such as historical tools and
    structures.
        At the present time, several multinational lodging corporations
    have proposed various mega luxury residential-tourist resorts within
    the NEC. Given the ongoing controversy over development of the
    property, the owners are considering to make the land available for
    conservation if funding is secured. Federal agencies, the Commonwealth
    of Puerto Rico, and private parties have come together in an effort to
    preserve this remarkable coastal property. Public ownership will
    preserve the coastal resources, protect the rivers and wetlands, buffer
    El Yunque Caribbean National Forest, and provide public beach access
    and recreational opportunities.
        Approximately $25 million will eventually be needed to complete the
    San Miguel acquisition. If this effort should fail, some form of
    development would likely occur on this highly environmentally sensitive
    property. The construction of the proposed resort would undermine past
    and current conservation efforts in an area that has been widely
    recognized by the Federal and Commonwealth agencies, and private
    conservation organizations, such as the Conservation Trust of Puerto
    Rico, for its unique expression of biological diversity.
        A fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal
    and Estuarine Land Conservation program is needed to further the
    protection of the San Miguel tracts. These funds will be matched by
    $2.27 million in settlement funds from the Barge Berman oil spill
    (specifically for land acquisition), up to $5.7 million of other oil
    spill settlement funds (for restoration categories) and additional
    funds are being raised by other interested private parties. The
    Conservation Trust will collaborate and provide additional matching
    funds to secure this transaction. I urge you to include this project in
    the fiscal year 2007 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations
    bill.
        With a limited land mass and a growing population, Puerto Rico must
    act quickly to counter the encroachment of urban areas into unique
    wildlife habitats, such as the ones found in the Northeastern
    Ecological Corridor. Maintaining the health and viability of native
    habitats and biodiversity is essential to our ecological, economic,
    cultural and social sustainability. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
    opportunity to present this testimony and for your consideration to
    this important request in favor of one of Puerto Rico's most threatened
    coastal ecosystems.
                                     ______

         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, Science, and
    Related Agencies to once again reject the proposed rescission of the
    Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) fund as part of the Department of Justice
    appropriations legislation. In addition, we urge subcommittee members
    not to allow the creation of additional earmarks from the VOCA fund,
    and to set the cap on distributions from the fund at $685 million for
    fiscal year 2007.
        The National Center for Victims of Crime, the leading national
    resource and advocacy organization for victims of crime, knows the
    considerable and urgent funding needs of those who serve crime victims.
    Since our founding in 1985, we have worked with public and nonprofit
    agencies throughout the country, providing information, support, and
    technical assistance to thousands of victims, victim service providers,
    allied professionals, and advocates. Our toll-free information and
    referral helpline alerts us to the needs of crime victims nationwide.
    Through our training institute and our daily interactions with our
    members and the nearly 10,000 crime victim service providers in our
    referral network, we stay informed of their work and know the impact of
    federal-level funding decisions on their ability to meet the needs of
    victims. In short, we hear from victims and service providers every day
    about the impact and importance of the VOCA fund.

                          UNDERSTANDING THE VOCA FUND

        Congress created the VOCA fund over 20 years ago to ensure on-
    going, dedicated federal support for State and local crime victim
    programs. The fund receives no taxpayer dollars: it is comprised solely
    of criminal fines and penalties imposed on federal offenders. Most of
    the funds are distributed each year by formula grants to the States to
    fund: (a) crime victim compensation programs, which pay many of crime
    victims' out-of-pocket expenses that directly result from the crime;
    and (b) crime victim assistance programs. VOCA assistance funding
    supports more than 4,400 State and local victim programs, including
    rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, victim assistants in
    law enforcement and prosecutor offices, and other direct services for
    victims of crime.
        VOCA funds support services such as:
      --The Prescott House Child Advocacy Center in Birmingham, Alabama;
      --an advocate for elder victims of domestic violence at the Women's
            Community in Wausau, Wisconsin;
      --the Pro Bono Counseling Project, serving crime victims in
            Baltimore, Maryland;
      --Our House, a program for homicide survivors in Greenville,
            Mississippi;
      --the Upper Ohio Valley Sexual Assault Help Center in Wheeling, West
            Virginia;
      --the State MADD office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and
      --the victim/witness unit of the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office in
            Winchester, Virginia.
        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; support groups; and more. VOCA money 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 help in seeking restitution.
        Along with funding programs that serve victims, VOCA dollars
    support crime victim compensation, which steps in when victims have no
    insurance, no workman's compensation, and no other assistance to meet
    out-of-pocket expenses related to the crime. The Crime Victim
    Compensation program pays medical bills, counseling costs, crime scene
    cleanup, burial costs, and similar expenses. The VOCA fund reimburses
    States for 60 percent of their compensation costs.
        VOCA assistance grant money is crucial to enable both criminal
    justice system-based and community programs to serve victims of crime.
    Programs report that they have already made significant cuts due to
    recent reductions in State and private funding. They have already taken
    such steps as closing satellite offices, reducing services for family
    members of victims, cutting staff positions, and eliminating staff
    training. The VOCA subgrants have been their remaining stable source of
    funding.

                   WHY THE VOCA FUND CURRENTLY HAS A BALANCE

        In 1999, Congress acted to ensure the stability of VOCA funding.
    For many years, all money collected in a given year was disbursed in
    the following year. However, the nature of the funding stream--all
    criminal fines on federal offenders--caused the level of available
    funding to vary significantly. In some years, large fines against
    corporate offenders caused a surge in deposits. In 1999, Congress chose
    to reserve a portion of the deposits from such years to offset lower
    collections in leaner years. That year, Congress placed a cap on the
    amount of funding disbursed from the fund. The appropriations
    conference report noted that ``the conferees have taken this action
    (delaying annual fund obligations) to protect against wide fluctuations
    in receipts into the fund, and to ensure that a stable level of funding
    will remain available for these programs in future years'' (fiscal year
    2000; Conf. Rpt. 106-479).

                         REJECT THE PROPOSED RESCISSION

        The administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 would
    rescind the balance of the VOCA fund at the end of fiscal year 2007.
    This rescission, which would include any amounts remaining after the
    fiscal year 2007 appropriation and all moneys collected in fiscal year
    2007, would produce a zero balance in the VOCA fund at the start of
    fiscal year 2008. If enacted, this proposal would cause havoc in the
    victim assistance and compensation arenas, and risk permanently
    destabilizing the web of support for victims of crime that has been
    built during the past 20 years. Congress rejected such a proposal last
    year, and we urge you to do the same for fiscal year 2007.

                  IMPACT OF RESCISSION ON VICTIM COMPENSATION

        Crime victim compensation programs must know where they stand
    financially at the outset of the year to make payments predictably and
    on time. When preparing their budgets, State compensation programs
    assume they will receive reimbursements for 60 percent of their
    qualifying payouts to victims, as the Victims of Crime Act provides.
    However, if the VOCA fund has a zero balance at the beginning of fiscal
    year 2008, State compensation programs cannot be sure that they will
    receive that entire reimbursement. It could be an entire year before a
    compensation program knows, for example, whether it can pay a
    physician's bill for an assault victim's emergency surgery. During that
    year, the assault victim may have to endure repeated harassment from
    bill collectors while waiting for a decision on his compensation claim.
    A delay in payment and uncertainty in the amount of the VOCA grants to
    compensation programs is a bureaucratic headache to administrators, but
    an injustice to victims of crime awaiting payments.

                    IMPACT OF RESCISSION ON VICTIM SERVICES

        The rescission would undermine the ability of many victim
    assistance agencies to keep their doors open. VOCA assistance dollars
    provide ongoing support to existing programs that help victims through
    the criminal justice process and provide them needed counseling and
    support to recover from the offense. Even as they struggle to diversify
    and expand their funding sources, victim assistance agencies must still
    rely on their VOCA grants to remain open.
        A rape crisis center that loses its VOCA funding, even for several
    months, is likely to lose staff and discontinue services--which hurts
    both victims and the program's longterm viability. When a victim seeks
    the center's help to cope with a traumatic sexual assault, it's no good
    telling her to come back in 6 months when a counselor may be available.
    When the rape crisis center has to end its outreach and services for
    Spanish-speaking victims, it's no good trying to pick up the pieces a
    year later when some funding is restored. The damage has been done, and
    the center's work to build relationships and a reputation with that
    community has been set back years.
        Similarly, if a criminal justice agency loses the funding for its
    victim assistance staff, the loss disrupts the office's efforts to
    maximize the victim's effective participation in the criminal justice
    process. It also undermines the ability of the criminal justice system
    to comply with crime victims' rights laws.
        Moreover, the State granting agencies that direct VOCA funds to
    providers must know at the outset of each year the total amount of VOCA
    victim assistance dollars they will have to disburse before they begin
    making grants. Such information is integral to their ability to
    responsibly and effectively manage such a formula grant.

     FISCAL YEAR 2007 VOCA FUNDING SHOULD BE SET AT $685 MILLION, WITH NO
                              ADDITIONAL EARMARKS

        Finally, even though our first priority is the rejection of the
    proposed VOCA fund rescission, we also urge you to set the cap on the
    VOCA fund at $685 million for fiscal year 2007 and block additional
    earmarks from the VOCA fund, even for projects that serve crime
    victims. Increasing the cap to $685 million would allow victim services
    to meet growing needs. In Virginia, advocates anticipate a 10 percent
    reduction in victim/witness staff due to the rising costs of benefits.
    They also anticipate a 10 percent decrease in funding for sexual
    assault services. In Wisconsin, advocates report a growing number of
    victims of financial abuse and identity theft, as well as increases in
    violent offenses. Advocates elsewhere speak of the need to expand
    services to elderly victims, to immigrant victims, and to teen victims
    of crime. Additional funding could support services for those victims.
        At the same time, Congress must be vigilant against the creation of
    earmarks out of the VOCA fund. Congress designed the VOCA fund to
    support formula grants that allow each State to fund victim services on
    the basis of the needs and strategic plans of that State. Additional
    earmarks on money from the general VOCA fund would thwart Congress'
    intentions in designing the fund.
        Congress' creation of the VOCA fund in 1984 fundamentally changed
    the way our Nation responds to victims of crime. In establishing the
    fund, Congress acted to provide ongoing support for services and
    compensation programs that help victims rebuild their lives. Congress
    reaffirmed its commitment to victims last year, when it rejected the
    administration's proposal to rescind the VOCA fund. We urge you to
    reject that proposal again this year, preserving the VOCA fund for the
    purposes for which it was created, to appropriate $685 million from the
    fund for fiscal year 2007, and to resist any pressure to further
    earmark the fund.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Sierra Club, Puerto Rico

        On behalf on Sierra Club of Puerto Rico and the national Sierra
    Club, I thank the committee for its time and consideration. The
    following testimony is in support of an appropriation of $3 million
    from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program for the San
    Miguel project in Puerto Rico.
        The Sierra Club was founded in 1892 to explore, enjoy and protect
    the environment. Our 800,000 members continue more than 100 years later
    in this effort. The Puerto Rico chapter is the newest of the Club's 64,
    and was formalized a little over a year ago after 4 years of work,
    largely on the goal of protecting the Northeast Ecological Corridor. I
    refer you to the attached formal resolution passed by the Sierra Club's
    national board of directors upon the official formation of the chapter
    here in Puerto Rico in February of 2005.
        I will also refer you to the testimony of our fellow environmental
    organizations for a more detailed review of the environmental values of
    the Northeast Ecological Corridor which are numerous: it's 40 rare, at
    risk, endangered and endemic species; the endangered Leatherback turtle
    which nests in the Corridor, one of the three most important nesting
    sites for the turtles in all of U.S. jurisdiction; the Pterocarpus,
    mangrove and pre-Columbian forests, and much more.
        I instead will focus on environmental trends in Puerto Rico and the
    vision our coalition is proposing for the Northeast Ecological Corridor
    and the northeast region of Puerto Rico.
        With 3.9 million people in only 3,500 square miles, Puerto Rico has
    a higher population density than Japan. The island is also among the
    most road-covered places in the world and boasts 2.4 million cars on
    streets and highways which often leave residents trapped in endless
    traffic jams. After decades of rapid development, Puerto Rico is 14
    percent urban, compared with 2.6 percent of the mainland landmass.
    While developed areas are growing three to four times faster than the
    population, urban density is decreasing, leaving huge numbers of
    abandoned buildings. The result is sprawl development which is
    threatening to destroy the very essence of Puerto Rico, commonly known
    as ``la Isla del Encanto'' or the Island of Enchantment''. Three-
    fourths of the islands' construction projects are granted zoning
    exemptions.
        Concerned about both the degradation of the quality of life of
    local residents and the diminishing of the island's unique tourism
    potential, an array of organizations formed what is now known as the
    Coalition for the Northeast Ecological Corridor. It is comprised of 20
    local, island-wide, national and international organizations as well as
    over 1000 individuals dedicated to the permanent protection of the
    Corridor.
        We hope to see the Corridor protected as a Nature Reserve but with
    a plethora of eco-tourist amenities including: kayaking, mountain
    biking, camping, access for fishermen, etc. But at the heart of this
    proposal is in the economic development of the two towns adjacent to
    the Corridor, Luquillo and Fajardo. Our hope is that tourists visiting
    the Corridor will have to enter the Reserve through the two towns and
    that the services tourists use will be based in these towns. We hope to
    see development of equipment rental stores, small hotels, restaurants,
    etc.
        The Corridor serves as a natural link between other regional eco-
    tourism destinations. El Yunque National Forest, for example, is only a
    15 minute drive from the Northeast Ecological Corridor, is the second
    most visited place in Puerto Rico. But the thousands of the tourists
    that visit the forest have little reason to stay in the region. For
    this reason the coalition is proposing the designation of an Eco-
    Tourism region which would be called La Porta de la Naturaleza,
    modeling after the island's western tourism destination, La Porta del
    Sol.
        We are proposing a sort of package. Tourists would leave San Juan
    traveling east. They would spend a day biking and tasting typical Afro-
    Puerto Rican food at widely known kiosks in Pinones, Puerto Rico's
    largest mangrove forest. They would spend several days exploring El
    Yunque's trails, waterfalls and hidden swimming holes, staying in one
    of many country inns in the area, before heading to the Northeast
    Ecological Corridor. After several days there the typical tourist would
    take off for one of Puerto Rico's smaller islands, Vieques or Culebra.
        We imagine this eco-tourism region taking life for non-Puerto
    Ricans during the winter months and internal tourists during the summer
    months, preserving some of the encanto for the enjoyment of residents
    and non-residents alike. The northeastern region already has 6,000
    luxury hotel units built, in construction, or in planning in addition
    to 14 golf courses. The Northeast Ecological Corridor is too special to
    sacrifice for more of the same.
        It is with this hope to protect the Northeast Ecological Corridor,
    one of Puerto Rico's only remaining undeveloped coastal areas of
    considerable size that we respectfully request your support of the
    proposed appropriation.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Sierra Club's 800,000
    members, for the opportunity to present this testimony and for your
    consideration of this important request.

                                   RESOLUTION
    DESIGNATION OF PUERTO RICO'S NORTHEAST ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR AS A NATURE
                                    RESERVE

        Whereas, the Sierra Club is America's oldest, largest and most
    influential grassroots environmental organization, with over 700,000
    members.
        Whereas, the Sierra Club, through all lawful means, seeks to
    explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of Earth; practice and
    promote the responsible use of Earth's ecosystems and resources; and
    educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the
    natural and human environment.
        Whereas, the Northeastern Ecological Corridor (``NEC''), comprising
    approximately 3,200 acres on the eastern corner of the main island of
    Puerto Rico, is one of the Caribbean's last great-unprotected areas,
    containing an extraordinary array of tropical habitats seldom found in
    other parts of the world.
        Whereas, all of the coastal wetlands found in Puerto Rico, such as
    coral communities, mangroves, pre-Columbian forest, and a
    bioluminescent lagoon, are represented within the NEC.
        Whereas, the diversity of habitats within the NEC have made this
    area home of the federally endangered Puerto Rican (``PR'') Plain
    Pigeon, the Snowy Plover, the Brown Pelican, the Puerto Rican Boa, the
    Hawksbill Sea Turtle and the West Indian Manatee, among other 40
    critical species (rare, endemic, threatened and endangered), some even
    designated as critically endangered by the World Conservation Union
    (IUCN).
        Whereas, the NEC is considered one of the most important nesting
    grounds for Leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in areas
    under U.S. jurisdiction.
        Whereas, the NEC's conservation and location within the foothills
    of the Caribbean National Forest (El Yunque Rain Forest), a United
    Nations Biosphere Reserve and only tropical rain forest managed by the
    U.S. Forest Service, helps guarantee this area great natural value and
    uniqueness.
        Whereas, the NEC is currently threatened by the construction of
    over 1,900 residential and tourist units, two 18-holes golf courses and
    a 9-holes golf course, as well as related facilities from the
    development of the San Miguel Resort and the Dos Mares Resort, to be
    managed by Four Seasons Resorts & Hotels and Marriott International,
    respectively.
        Whereas, the construction of the San Miguel-Four Seasons Resort and
    the Dos Mares-J.W. Marriott Resort would include the filling of
    wetlands, canalization of rivers and the clearance of coastal
    vegetation, significantly impacting the species and other living
    resources that inhabit on the NEC.
        Whereas, the San Miguel-Four Seasons Resort and the Dos Mares-J.W.
    Marriott Resort would further deplete the limited water supplies needed
    by local communities, affecting the quality of life of thousands of
    U.S. citizens in the eastern region of Puerto Rico; in addition to
    severely limiting citizen's access to public beaches and lands within
    the NEC.
        Whereas, the development of the San Miguel-Four Seasons Resort and
    the Dos Mares-J.W. Marriott Resort would be contrary to the goals and
    objectives of the U.S. Clean Water Act, the U.S. Endangered Species
    Act, the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act and the U.S. Coastal Barriers
    and Improvement Act, including several Commonwealth's statutes.
        Whereas, the destruction of the NEC's ecology and natural
    integrity, and the elimination of its common enjoyment for the sole
    benefit of private interests would be contrary to any principles of
    environmental justice and sustainable development.
        Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Sierra Club's Board of
    Directors endorses the Sierra Club's new Puerto Rico Chapter in its
    efforts to achieve the designation of the NEC as a nature reserve, an
    action proposed since 1978 and supported by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
    Service, the University of Puerto Rico--Rio Piedras Campus' Department
    of Biology, the Catholic Church's Dioceses of Caguas, the Governor of
    Puerto Rico, Sila M. Calderon's Environmental Council, local community
    and environmental groups and national conservation organizations.
        Be it further resolved that the Sierra Club's Board of Directors
    requests that Four Seasons Resorts & Hotels and Marriott International
    withdraw any further interest in developing the San Miguel Resort and
    Dos Mares Resort on the NEC, respectively.
        Be it further resolved that the Sierra Club Board of Directors
    Chapter requests that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico designate the NEC
    as a nature reserve, as proposed by the Puerto Rican Department of
    Natural & Environmental Resources in 1992.
        Unanimously passed on Saturday, February 19th, 2005.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Council for Science and the
                                  Environment

                                    SUMMARY

        The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) urges
    Congress to appropriate at least $6.02 billion for the National Science
    Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2007, an increase of $439 million or
    7.9 percent relative to fiscal year 2006. NCSE supports this increase
    in order to put NSF on the doubling track that is proposed in the
    President's American Competitiveness Initiative as well as a series of
    recent bills and reports. NCSE encourages Congress to support a faster
    rate of growth in order to implement previous recommendations of the
    National Science Board regarding the importance of expanding NSF's
    environmental research and education portfolio.
        The United States leads the world in scientific discovery and
    innovation, but we should not take this leadership for granted. The
    long-term prosperity of the Nation, our quality of life, as well as our
    national and homeland security require a strong and steady commitment
    of federal resources to science and technology. Environmental R&D is a
    critical component of the overall federal investment in research and
    development. Federal investments in environmental R&D must keep pace
    with the growing need to improve the scientific basis for environmental
    decisionmaking.
        As a result of the recent reorganization of the Senate
    Appropriations Committee, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
    Science and Related Agencies now has broader jurisdiction over
    environmental research and education. NCSE commends the subcommittee
    for its past bipartisan leadership in support of science to improve
    environmental decisionmaking. The subcommittee has an historic
    opportunity to address pressing national challenges by appropriating
    strong and growing funding for environmental research and education at
    NSF, NOAA, and other science agencies under the subcommittee's expanded
    jurisdiction.
        The National Council for Science and the Environment is dedicated
    to improving the scientific basis for environmental decisionmaking. We
    are supported by over 500 organizations, including universities,
    scientific societies, government associations, businesses and chambers
    of commerce, and environmental and other civic organizations. NCSE
    promotes science and its essential role in decisionmaking but does not
    take positions on environmental issues themselves.

                               NSF BUDGET REQUEST

        The President's budget request would increase funding for the
    National Science Foundation by $439 million or 7.9 percent to $6.02
    billion in fiscal year 2007. Even if Congress approves the President's
    request to increase the NSF budget by 7.9 percent in fiscal year 2007,
    the NSF budget would still be slightly below the fiscal year 2004
    funding level in real dollars (after accounting for inflation).
    However, NSF funding for R&D (excluding education, training, and
    overhead costs) would reach a record level in real dollars after
    falling in fiscal year 2005 and 2006.
        The 7.7 percent increase proposed for NSF's Research and Related
    Activities account would benefit all scientific disciplines. NCSE urges
    Congress to encourage NSF to provide substantial increases in funding
    for all fields of science supported by the agency.
        NSF's priority area in Biocomplexity in the Environment is being
    phased out, and fiscal year 2007 is the final year of this highly
    successful initiative. NSF will continue to support interdisciplinary
    studies of this type within the structure of its regular programs.
    After fiscal year 2007, this research portfolio will be referred to as
    Complexity in Environmental Systems. In fiscal year 2007, funding for
    Biocomplexity in the Environment will decline to $42.6 million, a cut
    of $40.8 million or 48.9 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. Three
    primary areas that will be supported in fiscal year 2007 are Carbon and
    Water in Earth Systems; Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems;
    and Materials Use: Science, Engineering and Society. It is anticipated
    that these three areas will continue as independent programs in the
    future after the Biocomplexity in the Environment priority area ends in
    fiscal year 2007, and NCSE encourages Congress to support this plan.
        NSF's Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MFEFC)
    account contains several projects that will advance the environmental
    sciences. The fiscal year 2007 budget request contains $12.0 million in
    the MREFC account for initial implementation of the National Ecological
    Observatory Network (NEON) and an additional $11.9 million in other
    accounts for NEON concept and development activities. The budget
    request for NSF's Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
    account also contains $27.4 million for EarthScope, $42.9 million for
    the Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel, and $9.1 million for the South
    Pole Station Modernization project. Two new starts in the MREFC account
    are the Alaska Region Research Vessel ($56.0 million) and the Ocean
    Observatories Initiative ($13.5 million), both of which help fulfill
    the administration's 2004 U.S. Ocean Action Plan, developed in response
    to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. These projects have the
    potential to generate scientific breakthroughs and transform the
    environmental sciences. NCSE urges Congress to provide full funding for
    all of these initiatives.
        Optimism about current proposals to double the NSF budget in 10
    years is tempered by the failure of a recent attempt to double the NSF
    budget in 5 years. The National Science Authorization Act of 2002,
    which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush,
    called for a doubling of the NSF budget from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal
    year 2007. The annual appropriations bills have fallen far short of the
    doubling path specified in the NSF Authorization Act. The fiscal year
    2007 budget request for NSF is nearly $4 billion below the level
    authorized in the last doubling initiative. However, the current
    doubling initiative has been given a high priority in the President's
    budget request. NCSE urges Congress to appropriate the funds necessary
    to achieve this goal.

         EXPANDING NSF'S ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION PORTFOLIO

        The National Science Foundation plays a crucial role in supporting
    environmental R&D. Environmental research often requires knowledge and
    discoveries that reach across disciplinary and institutional
    boundaries. NSF recognizes this and encourages multidisciplinary
    environmental activities across the entire agency, as well as with
    other federal agencies. NSF has established a ``virtual directorate''
    for Environmental Research and Education (ERE). Through this virtual
    directorate, NSF coordinates the environmental research and education
    activities supported by all the directorates and programs.
        Although the National Science Board said environmental research and
    education should be one of NSF's ``highest priorities'' (see below),
    the growth of the ERE budget has lagged behind the growth of the
    overall NSF budget in recent years. Given that the National Science
    Board has identified environmental research and education as one of the
    agency's highest priorities, funding for the ERE portfolio should grow
    at least as rapidly as the total NSF budget. In order to achieve the
    $1.6 billion funding level recommended by the National Science Board,
    NCSE supports rapid growth in NSF's Environmental Research and
    Education portfolio over the next several years.

     NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

        The National Council for Science and the Environment encourages
    Congress to support full and effective implementation of the 2000
    National Science Board (NSB) report, Environmental Science and
    Engineering for the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science
    Foundation, within the context of doubling the NSF budget.
        The National Science Board report sets out an ambitious set of
    recommendations that could dramatically improve the scientific basis
    for environmental decisionmaking. The first keystone recommendation is
    as follows:
      --Environmental research, education, and scientific assessment should
            be one of NSF's highest priorities. The current environmental
            portfolio represents an expenditure of approximately $600
            million per year. In view of the overwhelming importance of,
            and exciting opportunities for, progress in the environmental
            arena, and because existing resources are fully and
            appropriately utilized, new funding will be required. We
            recommend that support for environmental research, education,
            and scientific assessment at NSF be increased by an additional
            $1 billion, phased in over the next 5 years, to reach an annual
            expenditure of approximately $1.6 billion.
        The report says that the National Science Board expects NSF to
    develop budget requests that are consistent with this recommendation.
    At first, growth in the Environmental Research and Education budget
    reflected its priority status: from fiscal year 1999 to 2001, the ERE
    account grew more rapidly than the overall NSF budget. However, the ERE
    growth rate has trailed the total NSF growth rate since that time. From
    fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005, the ERE budget grew by
    approximately 13 percent while the total NSF budget grew by 20 percent.
    The lagging growth of the Environmental Research and Education budget
    relative to the total NSF budget in recent years raises serious
    concerns about its status as one of NSF's ``highest priorities.''
        The National Science Board envisioned a 167 percent increase in
    funding for the ERE portfolio, from approximately $600 million to $1.6
    billion, within the context of a doubling of the total NSF budget over
    5 years. The doubling did not materialized over the past 5 years, but
    we urge Congress to support implementation of the NSB recommendation as
    the NSF begins a new doubling initiative. If the Environmental Research
    and Education portfolio is one of NSF's highest priorities, then the
    growth rate of the ERE budget should not lag behind the growth rate of
    the total NSF budget.
        The National Science Foundation has taken many steps to implement
    the recommendations of the NSB. Full implementation of the NSB report
    will require strong support from Congress and a significant increase in
    funding for NSF's portfolio of environmental science, engineering and
    education.
                                     ______

         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 to fully fund the Sexual Assault
    Services Program (SASP) as part of the Department of Justice
    appropriations legislation. The SASP, created by the Violence Against
    Women Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005) and authorized at $50 million, will
    provide crucial funding for our Nation's rape crisis centers and other
    organizations serving victims of sexual assault, which are currently
    seriously underfunded and understaffed. This shortage of funds has left
    many victims of sexual violence--women and men, girls and boys--with no
    place to turn for help. Funding the SASP will ensure that all victims
    will receive the counseling and support they need to recover from the
    trauma of sexual violence.
        The incidence of sexual assault in America remains unconscionably
    high. Every two-and-a-half minutes a person is sexually assaulted in
    our country.\1\ Sexual violence is a crime that affects people of all
    backgrounds and ages--children and adults, males and females.
    Approximately 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men in America have experienced
    an attempted or completed rape as a child or adult.\2\ Nearly 5 percent
    of college women are sexually assaulted during any given calendar
    year.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Criminal Victimization in
    the United States, 2004: Statistical Tables. Table 1. Washington, DC:
    Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
        \2\ National Violence Against Women Survey, ``Prevalence,
    Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women,'' November 1998.
        \3\ Fisher et al. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College
    Women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice/Bureau of Justice
    Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sexual assault exacts a heavy cost on individuals, families, and
    communities. Victims of sexual violence experience higher rates of
    depression, anxiety disorders, mental illness, addiction, eating
    disorders, and self-esteem problems than non-victims. Sexual assault
    victims are also at increased risk for committing suicide or abusing
    substances. The emotional well-being of the victims' friends and family
    are also negatively impacted.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Seymour, Anne, Kilpatrick, Dean, & Edmunds, Christine. (1992).
    Rape In America: A Report to the Nation. Arlington, VA: National Center
    for Victims of Crime.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Workplaces and communities are also affected when victims suffer.
    Sexual assault victims face loss of economic productivity through
    unemployment, underemployment, and absence from work. According to the
    Centers for Disease Control, 21 percent of victims who have been raped
    by an intimate partner report losing time from work as a result of
    their victimization.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2003). Costs
    of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States.
    Atlanta, Georgia. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The National Center, the leading national resource and advocacy
    organization for victims of crime, understands well the state of
    services for victims of sexual violence. Our helpline staff speaks to
    sexual assault victims every day, and works to connect them to local
    services. We also hear from rape crisis centers and State sexual
    assault coalitions across the country who have told us that they are
    desperately struggling to meet the needs of victims. Many of our
    members are also system-based service providers, such as victim-witness
    coordinators in prosecutors' offices and police departments. These
    agencies rely on rape crisis center staff to support victims through
    the medical and criminal justice system. They, too, can testify to the
    impact the shortage of funds has on the ability of rape crisis centers
    to provide services for every victim that needs them.

                       THE SERVICES AVAILABLE FOR VICTIMS

        Approximately 1,315 rape crisis centers across the country help
    victims of rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and incest rebuild their
    lives by providing a range of vital services to victims. These centers:
      --operate 24-hour hotlines;
      --provide 24-hour accompaniment to law enforcement departments,
            hospitals, and legal proceedings;
      --offer short- and long-term individual therapy and support groups
            for victims and their families;
      --perform legal advocacy; and
      --assist victims with obtaining compensation and restitution.
        Rape crisis centers serve all victims of sexual violence, including
    women who have been raped, child sexual assault and incest survivors,
    adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, male victims, persons with
    disabilities, and victims who experience abuse in later life. They also
    provide necessary aid to family members and others affected by sexual
    violence.
        Rape crisis centers often play a vital role in a victim's recovery
    after the crime. Studies have found that services such as those
    provided by rape crisis centers can shorten the amount of time a person
    exhibits symptoms of rape-related posttraumatic stress disorder.\6\
    Victims who have the support of an advocate in the emergency room post-
    assault are more likely to file a police report and less likely to be
    treated negatively by law enforcement. Victims also reported less
    distress after contact with the legal system when they had worked with
    a victim advocate.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Zorza, J. Ed. (1997). Study finds rape crisis programs do work.
    Sexual Assault Report, 1 (2), 17, 30-31.
        \7\ Campbell, R.C. (2006). Rape Survivor's Experience with the
    Legal and Medical Systems. Violence Against Women. Vol. 12, No. 1, 31-
    45.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES

        While sexual assault programs have made tremendous progress toward
    assuring that victims of sexual assault receive the services they need,
    a 2004 survey of the field conducted by the National Center and our
    colleagues revealed significant gaps in the national response to
    victims of sexual assault. Our survey found overwhelmingly that sexual
    assault programs are desperately short of funds to meet the needs of
    rape victims. Rape crisis centers are suffering in many States where
    governments facing tight budgets have been forced to cut support to
    local rape crisis centers. A lack of federal support compounds the
    problem.
        Victim service professionals we interviewed told us about waiting
    lists for counseling in Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
    Wisconsin, and other States. At one Utah rape crisis center, victims
    can be on a waiting list for long-term counseling for 10-12 weeks. One
    program in Louisiana told us that the waiting period for counseling for
    a ``level one'' victim--a recent rape victim who is suicidal--is 5
    working days.
        In some places, victims are being placed in group counseling to
    provide them with some form of support while they are waiting for
    individual counseling. Rape crisis centers report that they have cut
    the frequency of counseling sessions with victims and hours of hotline
    operations, two of the most crucial services rape crisis centers
    provide.
        Rape crisis centers are struggling to meet the needs of child
    victims and their families. An Ohio rape crisis center reported that
    they provide an advocate to work with families of child victims of
    sexual violence at the local Child Advocacy Center (CAC). Currently,
    the rape crisis center can only afford to share her with the CAC 20
    hours a week. This means that 10 to 15 families a week will not get any
    time with the victim advocate. While some needs may be met by the
    medical and investigative staff, these families are not able to get
    counseling or advocacy from a person dedicated to their emotional and
    mental well-being. The rape crisis center director states that the CAC
    is ``begging us for more time but the money is just not there.''
        Sexual assault service providers in rural areas across the country
    are also struggling to serve multiple counties with very little staff.
    Many States report that rural areas often have no services at all. For
    example, West Virginia has 9 rape crisis centers that have to cover all
    55 counties in the State. Texas has 254 counties: 50 of those counties
    have no rape crisis services at all. Victims must travel long distances
    to meet with a counselor or get other assistance. In many places,
    victims simply cannot make the trip, so they suffer alone. Programs in
    rural areas need increased funding to help bring victims to programs,
    send advocates to victims, develop satellite offices in rural areas, or
    make other innovations to improve access to services.
        Rape crisis centers also reported that while their communities
    include many underserved populations--including racial and ethnic
    minorities and victims with disabilities--they have no funds to extend
    their outreach or develop specialized services. In many places, service
    providers stated that although there are large ethnic and racial
    populations within their communities, few victims from those
    populations are accessing services. More funding is required to help
    programs meet such needs for targeted services.
    funding the sexual assault service program in fiscal year 2007 must be

                            A CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY

        The SASP was enacted as part of VAWA 2005, the reauthorization of
    the Violence Against Women Act, signed into law on January 6, 2005.
    SASP created a much-needed funding stream for direct services for
    sexual assault victims. The act will provide funding for States,
    territories, and tribes to support their efforts to provide services to
    adult and minor sexual assault victims and their family and household
    members. The funds can be used for general intervention, counseling,
    and advocacy, including accompaniment though medical, criminal justice,
    and social support systems; support services; and related assistance.
        State, territorial, and tribal sexual assault coalitions are also
    eligible for SASP funding under a specific set-aside. State coalitions
    provide critical support for rape crisis centers, allowing rape crisis
    centers to focus on providing direct services to victims. Coalitions
    develop statewide policies and procedures for all their member rape
    crisis centers. Coalition staff develop and disseminate public
    awareness and prevention materials for statewide distribution. SASP
    funds can also be used by coalitions to provide training to various
    organizations, including governments, law enforcement, courts,
    nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and professionals
    working in legal services, social services, and health care.
        SASP would also address the gap in services to racial and ethnic
    minorities. Through a funding set-aside, SASP would ensure that
    culturally-specific community-based organizations are able to craft
    services for victims that are relevant to their cultural needs.
    Partnerships with existing organizations will allow for the most
    effective use of funds.
        When Congress authorized SASP, it made a commitment to ensure that
    supportive counseling and services would be available for victims of
    sexual assault across the country. By enacting SASP, Congress
    acknowledged that sexual assault crisis centers and other organizations
    cannot meet the needs of sexual assault victims without additional
    resources. The National Center strongly urges the subcommittee to fully
    fund the SASP so our Nation's rape crisis centers can help all victims
    rebuild their lives after sexual assault.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Sustainable Development Initiative

        On behalf on Sustainable Development Initiative (IDS, by its
    Spanish acronym) I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony
    in support of an appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal and
    Estuarine Land Conservation program for the San Miguel Project in the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
        IDS is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the
    sustainable development of Puerto Rico's natural resources, especially
    those within public lands. Our organization is composed of
    professionals who work as engineers, economists, biologists, lawyers
    and planners for government agencies and private institutions. IDS
    members provide assistance to community groups through volunteer
    consulting services.
        Over the past 7 years, IDS has focused its work on the conservation
    and sustainable development of the Northeastern Ecological Corridor
    (NEC).
        The NEC, comprising approximately 3,200 acres, is one of the
    Caribbean's last, great, unprotected areas. Located on the eastern
    corner of the main island of Puerto Rico within the municipalities of
    Luquillo and Fajardo, the NEC contains an extraordinary array of
    tropical habitats seldom found in other parts of the world. In addition
    to coral communities, mangroves, and pre-Columbian forests, all the
    different varieties of coastal wetlands found throughout Puerto Rico
    are represented within the NEC. The wetlands in this area are essential
    to the existence of a seasonal bioluminiscent lagoon known as Laguna
    Aguas Prietas, an extremely rare biological phenomenon.
        The NEC's location within the foothills of the El Yunque Caribbean
    National Forest adds to its great natural value and uniqueness.
    Originally set aside in 1876 by the Spanish Crown, this United Nations
    Biosphere Reserve is one of the oldest forest protected areas in the
    Western Hemisphere, and is the only tropical rain forest in the United
    States national forest system. The forest contains rare wildlife and is
    home to over 50 species of birds, including the Puerto Rican parrot--
    one of the 10 most endangered species of birds in the world. The
    ecological diversity observed within the NEC and the Caribbean National
    Rain Forest, varying from a coastal dry forest to a rain forest, lies
    within a corridor just 13 miles in length. Such an occurrence, in an
    amazing limited area, is extremely rare in any location around the
    world and can only be enhanced or protected by the conservation of the
    NEC.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 1,277-acre San
    Miguel property, consisting of three parcels within the NEC. These
    parcels contain extensive wetland areas contiguous to the Pitahaya,
    Juan Martin and Sabana rivers, and harbor an array of unique upland and
    wetland ecosystems. The project site includes some of the last
    remaining unspoiled dune systems and a significant coral community
    immediately off shore. Its bird fauna is remarkable and according to
    the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources
    (DNER), it has the one of the highest diversity of birds of any natural
    protected area in the north region of the island. The property falls
    within the range of over 40 rare species of flora and fauna, some even
    unique to Puerto Rico, including 16 federally threatened or endangered
    listed species, such as the Hawksbill sea turtle, Virgin Island boa,
    Puerto Rican boa, brown pelican, Puerto Rican plain pigeon, West Indian
    manatee, and Cobana Negra (a flowering tree). The area is best known,
    however, as one of the most important nesting grounds for Leatherback
    sea turtles in the Unites States and the Caribbean. Over 420
    Leatherback sea turtle nests were recorded during the 2005 nesting
    season. Due to its ecological value, the NEC has been identified by the
    DNER, the USDA Forest Service's International Institute of Tropical
    Forestry and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as a critical wildlife
    area of primary importance in Puerto Rico. The NEC also contains a
    variety of archeological resources, such as historical tools and
    structures.
        At the present time, several multinational lodging corporations
    have proposed various mega luxury residential-tourist resorts within
    the NEC. One of the largest proposed developments would be built on the
    San Miguel tracts at the boundary of the municipalities of Luquillo and
    Fajardo. The San Miguel Resort would include 1,025 residential units, a
    250-room hotel/casino, 175 timeshare units, and two golf courses. The
    development would involve the filling of wetlands, channelization of
    rivers, and clearance of coastal vegetation, thus destroying the
    natural integrity of the NEC. If the San Miguel resort were to be
    constructed as planned, it would further deplete the limited water
    supplies needed by local communities, resulting in a deficit of over
    4,000,000 gallons of water per day, a deficit which accounts for the
    water requirements of nearly 25,000 people. There is widespread concern
    as well about other negative impacts the development would have on this
    sensitive area, including limited public access to beaches and other
    coastal resources, and unnecessary exposure of life and property on
    lands affected by floods and other natural hazards present at the NEC.
        Given the ongoing controversy over development of the property,
    including years of lawsuits, strong public opposition, and permitting
    difficulties, the owners have decided to make the land available for
    conservation. Federal agencies, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
    private parties have come together in an effort to preserve this
    remarkable coastal property. Public ownership will preserve the coastal
    resources, protect the rivers and wetlands, buffer El Yunque Caribbean
    National Forest, and provide public beach access and recreational
    opportunities.
        Approximately $25 million will eventually be needed to complete the
    San Miguel acquisition. If this effort should fail, some form of
    development would likely occur on this highly sensitive property. The
    construction of the proposed resort would undermine past and current
    conservation efforts in an area that has been widely recognized by the
    Federal and Commonwealth agencies, and private conservation
    organizations for its unique expression of biological diversity.
        A fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal
    and Estuarine Land Conservation Program is needed to further the
    protection of the San Miguel tracts. These funds will be matched by
    $2.27 million in settlement funds from the Barge Berman Oil Spill
    (specifically for land acquisition), up to $5.7 million of other oil
    spill settlement funds (for restoration categories), $3 million
    committed by the Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico, and additional
    funds being raised by a local land trust and other interested private
    parties. I urge you to include this project in the fiscal year 2007
    Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony and for your consideration of this important request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the
    opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal year 2007 funding
    request for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Included in this
    testimony is a summary of our history and fiscal year 2005
    accomplishments, as well as the new and innovative programs we hope to
    accomplish with the funding provided by this committee.
        Congress established the foundation 22 years ago, and since that
    time the foundation's vision for more healthy and abundant populations
    of fish, wildlife and plants has flourished through the creation of
    numerous valuable partnerships. The breadth of our partnerships is
    highlighted through our active agreements with 14 federal agencies, as
    well as various corporations, foundations and individual grantees.
    Through these unique arrangements, we are able to leverage federal
    funds, bring agencies and industry together and produce tangible,
    measurable results. Our history of collaboration has given way to
    programs and initiatives such as the Coral Reef Conservation Fund, the
    Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Fund, the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants
    Program and the Shell Marine Habitat Initiative. With the support of
    the committee in fiscal year 2007, we can continue to uphold our
    mission of enriching fish, wildlife and the habitat on which they
    depend.
        In 1999, Congress expanded the foundation's mandate to expressly
    include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
    its mission. For nearly a decade, NOAA and the foundation have jointly
    supported projects in marine conservation through public-private
    partnerships. The foundation respectfully requests that this Committee
    fund these efforts at $4 million through the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration.
        This request lies well within the authorized levels and will allow
    the foundation to better meet the demand for new or expanded strategic
    conservation programs. The appropriations provided by the committee are
    also used by the foundation to attract additional funding for
    conservation projects through mitigation, settlements and direct gifts.
        Since our inception in 1984 through fiscal year 2005, the
    foundation has supported over 8,190 grants and leveraged over $339
    million in federal funds for more than $1 billion in on-the-ground
    conservation. This has resulted in more than 18 million acres of
    restored and managed wildlife habitat; new hope for countless species
    under stress; new models of private land stewardship; and stronger
    education programs in schools and local communities.
        In fiscal year 2005, we were appropriated $1.7 million (less
    rescissions) for our general NOAA programs which we were able to
    leverage with NOAA interest dollars and over $7.8 million in additional
    foundation and partner dollars for a total of $9.8 million in marine
    conservation. We achieved this leveraging of the federal dollar by
    cultivating partnerships. In fiscal year 2005, the foundation partnered
    funds entrusted by this committee with seven other foundations and
    several private sector corporations including Shell Oil, Southern
    Company, Bass Pro Co., BP Oil Co. and ConocoPhillips. In a similar
    manner, the foundation was able to leverage the $1 million in funds
    (less rescissions) targeted by this Committee to Tampa Bay habitat
    restoration through the Pinellas County Environmental Fund by bringing
    an additional $1.8 million in funds for an overall fiscal year 2005
    conservation value of $3 million.
        Through the fiscal year 2006 Omnibus Bill, we will receive between
    $0.7 million--$1.7 million of our historical $2.5 million mark for our
    NOAA partnership and $1 million of our historical $1.5 million
    allocation for the Pinellas County Environmental Fund. Our mark in the
    NOAA Fisheries line for our overall partnership is still being
    negotiated. This will be the foundation's second year of drastically
    reduced funding which is having large impacts on the programs we are
    able to support.
        Although we have not yet received our fiscal year 2006 funds, we
    have already received over $4 million in proposals requests through two
    of the seven competing programs for these dollars. The potential 50
    percent reduction in funding, will all but zero out funding for our
    NOAA General Matching Grants Program, one of NOAA's largest leveraging
    vehicles and broadest brush for general marine and coastal conservation
    projects with the foundation. The fiscal year 2006 budget cuts will
    also result in dramatic cuts to our National Whale Conservation Fund
    and the International Sea Turtle Conservation Fund, both programs which
    are making significant impacts to endangered species recovery.
        In these times of tightened budgets, we have focused our limited
    dollars on four of the historical seven Special Grant Programs: the
    Coral Reef Conservation Fund, the Long Island Sound Futures Fund, the
    Delaware Estuary Grants Program and the Great Lakes Watershed
    Restoration Program. Many of these programs were created at the request
    of NOAA to help focus more funds and attention to key priorities within
    the agency. The fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 cuts will
    obviously impact these programs in the number of projects they can
    support, and may have additional impacts if NOAA is the main or only
    partner. For example, the pilot year of the Great Lakes Watershed
    Restoration Program was so successful that the other agency partners
    are looking to increase their funding levels; NOAA will not have the
    ability to increase their contribution and will therefore reduce their
    role at the table. An even bigger concern may be in the need to have
    federal monies to leverage the private funds that NOAA has asked us to
    raise, to grow these special programs. Our fiscal year 2007
    appropriations request will put us back on track to continue leveraging
    scarce federal resources and allow us to achieve increased conservation
    benefits.
        If fully funded in fiscal year 2007, there are a number of new
    opportunities to continue NOAA's mission in the areas of estuarine and
    coastal habitat, coral reef conservation and marine species management
    and recovery:
        Restoring Estuarine and Coastal Habitats.--The steady rate of
    coastal development and damaging up-stream activities are causing our
    estuarine and coastal habitats to be lost at an alarming rate. The
    foundation has had tremendous success in countering these problems by
    partnering NOAA funds with other agencies, like the Environmental
    Protection Agency, to address these issues from a whole watershed
    perspective. This is demonstrated in our Chesapeake Bay, Long Island
    Sound and Delaware Estuary grants programs and has proven so successful
    that in fiscal year 2005, we expanded our coastal habitat portfolio
    with a new program in the Great Lakes. After an extremely successful
    pilot year, NOAA is interested in continuing to grow this initiative
    with the other agencies involved, especially since it reaches an
    underserved portion of their mission. A new program is also being
    researched for the San Francisco Bay Estuary that should be ready to
    launch in the coming year, if funds are available. New programs are
    also uniting around the Upper Mississippi River Basin. This creates an
    opportunity to partner existing programs like the Foundation's North
    Gulf Coast Initiative targeting the shores of Mississippi, Alabama,
    Louisiana and Texas and the Shell Marine Habitat Program along broad-
    sweeping watershed goals, if funds are provided to expand the marine
    focus in the overall watershed.
        Protecting Coral Reefs.--The foundation was successful in fiscal
    year 2005 at bringing in new partners in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Harold K.L.
    Castle Foundation. We continue to set our sights high, and are building
    in new evaluation protocols for individual projects and outlining an
    evaluation of the overall program. The foundation is also actively
    working with other funders in coral conservation to collaborate on
    funding priorities to address hot spots and key threats. With increased
    funding in fiscal year 2007, the foundation would like to expand
    current partnerships between NOAA and the NRCS to reduce nutrient run-
    off and sedimentation to coastal reefs and the U.S. FWS to improve the
    management and effectiveness of existing marine protected areas. Funds
    are also needed to enhance the foundation's partnership with the White
    Water to Blue Water Initiative--Anchors Away!--to establish mooring
    buoy systems for reducing damage to reefs from anchors.
        Threatened and Endangered Species Solutions.--Our Special Grant
    Programs that target endangered species conservation have been the
    hardest hit by recent budget cuts. With our fiscal year 2007 request
    the foundation would be able to restore funding to these vital programs
    in species management, like our work in the southern States to restore
    sea turtle nesting habitat and our work in New England, Washington and
    Alaska to research declining right whale, orca and beluga whale
    populations.
        The foundation continues to cultivate partnerships in the private
    sector to try and offset some of these cuts in our species programs.
    One of the partnerships that we will be investigating in fiscal year
    2006 is a new program with global energy industries to study the
    impacts of marine noise, particularly in relation to marine mammals.
    The requested funding levels will allow NOAA, the management agency for
    this issue, to sit at the table as a funder and provide them with a
    greater role in determining what research should be funded.
        Evaluation.--The foundation has become a leader in evaluation and
    adaptive management amongst its peers. The foundation's goal is to
    build the capacity of both itself and its partners to undertake more
    effective evaluation, to assist in both measuring performance and to
    adapt methods and funding strategies for more impactful conservation.
    To address these goals, the foundation is implementing several
    evaluation strategies simultaneously. First, the foundation has
    instituted new protocols within its application process to provide the
    measurable indicators needed to evaluate the impacts of our programs.
    Second, the foundation has convened discussions amongst our agencies
    partners to identify and coordinate potential opportunities for
    collaboration within evaluation. One of the initial results of these
    meetings has been an interest in piloting new evaluation indicators, to
    better articulate the federal investment for GPRA and PART
    requirements.
        Third, the foundation has commissioned several third-party
    evaluations targeting widely-used conservation activities like culvert
    removal to full program evaluations to learn where we have been
    successful and where past methods have not provided the desired impact.
    As an example, in fiscal year 2006, the Foundation's Chesapeake Bay
    Small Watershed Grants Program will be evaluated for the first 5 years
    of grant-making. The evaluation will include 355 projects associated
    with about $10.6 million in federal funds. The federal legislation
    accompanying this program included 10-year goals, and this evaluation
    presents an opportunity to assess the mid-way mark in helping the
    foundation and its partners better focus their resources over the next
    5 years. To capture these evaluations and lessons learned, the
    foundation is taking a fourth key step by developing a new searchable
    project website where users will be able to query information and learn
    more about funded projects, including how to adapt projects for higher
    rates of success.
        Accountability and Grantsmanship.--The foundation constantly
    strives to improve the grant making process while maintaining a healthy
    level of oversight. To improve ease of use for potential applicants,
    foundation applications are now completed and reviewed electronically.
    In early fiscal year 2006, to further improve efficiency, the
    foundation released a revised application, grant contract template and
    reporting form. Even with these efficiencies, the foundation still
    requires strict financial reporting by grantees and has once again
    received an unqualified audit in fiscal year 2005.
        In addition to the evaluation requirements described earlier, all
    potential grants are subject to a peer review process. This involves
    five external reviews representing State agencies, federal agencies,
    affected industry, environmental non-profits and academics. Before
    being recommended to the foundation's board of directors, grants are
    also reviewed internally by staff, including our conservation
    scientists. The internal review process examines the project's
    conservation need, technical merit, the support of the local community,
    the variety of partners and the amount of proposed non-federal cost
    share. The foundation also provides a 30-day notification to the
    members of Congress for the congressional district and State in which a
    grant will be funded, prior to making a funding decision.
        Basic Facts About the Foundation.--The foundation is governed by a
    25-member board of directors, appointed by the Secretary of the
    Interior and in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. At the
    direction of Congress, the board operates on a nonpartisan basis.
    Directors do not receive any financial compensation for service on the
    board; in fact, all of our directors make financial contributions to
    the foundation. It is a diverse board, representing the corporate,
    philanthropic and conservation communities; all with a tenacious
    commitment to fish and wildlife conservation. I took over the
    chairmanship in January, after serving on the board for 10 years. It is
    an honor to lead such a prestigious board.
        The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation continues to be one of,
    if not the most, cost-effective conservation programs funded in part by
    the Federal Government. None of our federally appropriated funds are
    used for lobbying, litigation or the foundation's administrative
    expenses. By implementing real-world solutions with the private sector
    while avoiding regulatory or advocacy activity, our approach is more
    consistent with this Congress' philosophy than ever before. We are
    confident that the money you appropriate to the foundation will
    continue to make a difference.

       NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION'S FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2006
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Agency Funding Source                   Funding Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Natural Resources Conservation Service..................           2.970
    Fish and Wildlife Service...............................           7.656
        Washington Salmon...................................           1.971
        Atlantic Salmon.....................................           0.985
    Bureau of Land Management...............................           2.955
    Forest Service..........................................           2.637
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.........           1.400
        Pinellas County Environmental Fund..................           0.937
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Save Barnegat Bay

        On behalf on Save Barnegat Bay, I appreciate the opportunity to
    present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $1 million
    from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program for the
    Potter Creek project in New Jersey.
        Save Barnegat Bay is a not-for-profit environmental group working
    to conserve undeveloped natural land and clean water throughout the
    Barnegat Bay watershed. We were founded in 1971 as a local chapter of
    the Izaak Walton League of America, a leading national environmental
    organization.
        Barnegat Bay is a shallow, lagoon-type estuary, characteristic of
    the back bay system of a barrier island coastline. The 550-square mile
    Barnegat Bay watershed is located along the central New Jersey
    coastline and encompasses nearly all of Ocean County and a small
    portion of Monmouth County. The watershed supports more than 450,000
    residents year-round, and many hundred thousands more during the summer
    tourist season. The Barnegat Bay estuary covers over 42 miles of
    shoreline from the Point Pleasant Canal to Little Egg Harbor Inlet, and
    supports a thriving tourist industry. The bay's fisheries represent an
    invaluable recreational and commercial resource to the region. Although
    long recognized for its great aesthetic, economic, and recreational
    value, this back bay system is now threatened by an array of human
    activities that could damage its ecological integrity. More than 70
    percent of the area along Barnegat Bay's estuarine shoreline has been
    developed or altered, leaving less than 30 percent of the area in its
    natural state. At the request of the State, Barnegat Bay was recognized
    as an estuary of national significance threatened by pollution,
    development, and overuse. It was accepted into the Environmental
    Protection Agency's National Estuary Program in July 1995, one of 28
    such sites nationwide.
        Ocean County has been the State's fastest growing county since
    1950. While run-off and discharge from power boats contribute to the
    degradation of Barnegat Bay, the primary threat to the water quality is
    upland development and associated nonpoint source pollution. Local
    agencies, civic groups, and nonprofit organizations have long been
    committed to the protection of the Barnegat Bay watershed. In 1995, The
    Trust for Public Land published a comprehensive study identifying high-
    priority conservation and public access sites in the Barnegat Bay. This
    study, called the Century Plan, has become the ``greenprint'' for the
    protection of the watershed for all those committed to a healthy bay
    ecosystem. Funding from Federal, State, local, and private sources has
    supported the protection of critical acreage within the Barnegat Bay
    watershed, but despite these funding commitments, many of these sites
    still remain unprotected.
        Available for acquisition in the Barnegat Bay watershed in fiscal
    year 2007 is the 100-acre Potters Creek property located in Berkeley
    Township. Comprised largely of forested wetland and marshland, the
    tract also possesses 30 acres of developable uplands.
        These woodlands contain various species of pine and oak, American
    holly, and mountain laurel, while the wetlands are comprised of
    spartina, glasswort, perennial salt marsh aster, and sea pink. These
    wetlands are believed to support upwards of 82 species of birds, half
    of which are thought to breed on or near the Potters Creek tract. Some
    of these species include red-shouldered hawk, northern harrier, and
    peregrine falcon, all State-listed endangered species. The marbled
    salamander and four-toed salamander, both State species of special
    concern, are believed to inhabit the property as well. A total of $5
    million is needed to protect this property. In fiscal year 2006,
    Congress directed $500,000 in Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
    Program funds towards this purchase. Berkeley Township has already
    committed $1.5 million towards its portion of the purchase.
        An appropriation of $1 million in fiscal year 2007 from NOAA's
    CELCP program directed to Ocean County will complete the federal
    commitment to this conservation purchase. The total non-federal match
    will amount to $3.5 million. Acquisition of this parcel will preserve
    open space in a rapidly developing area, further the protection efforts
    of the Barnegat Bay watershed, and provide an important buffer to
    already conserved lands. I urge you to include this project in the
    fiscal year 2007 Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony and for your consideration of this important request.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Break the Cycle

        The Violence Against Women Act 2005 (Public Law 109-162), recently
    unanimously reauthorized by the U.S. Congress, provides funding for
    proven effective programs and creates new programs to fill gaps in the
    original legislation. Because the President's budget was completed
    before VAWA 2005 was passed and signed into law on January 5, 2006, all
    of the new programs and many of the reauthorized programs which were
    given an increase in funding are not fully funded in the President's
    budget.
        Break the Cycle is a national non-profit with a mission to engage,
    educate, and empower youth to build lives and communities free from
    domestic and dating violence. Founded in 1996 in Los Angeles,
    California, Break the Cycle has worked to raise awareness among youth
    and youth service providers about domestic and dating violence. Break
    the Cycle provides law-based preventative education and free legal
    services to youth ages 12 to 24. Break the Cycle opened its Washington,
    DC office in 2004, and has worked with both youth and policy makers to
    ensure that youth have the necessary resources available to develop
    healthy relationships and build communities free from violence. Break
    the Cycle is the only organization of its kind in the country.
        Break the Cycle respectfully requests full funding for all VAWA
    2005 programs in the fiscal year 2007 budget. Additionally, because of
    the mission of our organization; to engage, educate and empower youth
    to end domestic and dating violence, we are especially concerned with
    the programs directly affecting youth and will address the vital need
    to fully fund these programs in this testimony.

                     YOUTH AND DOMESTIC AND DATING VIOLENCE

        ``At the age of 13, I began dating my first boyfriend. It was a
    time in my life when I was plagued by all the typical insecurities of
    entering adolescence, being acutely self-conscious and wanting simply
    to feel connected to the world . . . It was the closeness of our
    relationship that allowed me to overlook the times when he would punch
    me and push me around, the threats to commit suicide if I ever left
    him, the emotional strain that I felt being with him . . . As more and
    more time passes, I am learning again to trust myself, to trust others,
    and to take care of myself. It is at these points in life when I
    recognize the need for more young girls to be able to have the type of
    support that I feel I received too late in life . . . girls need to be
    taught to trust, to be able to confront their abuse, to be able to
    learn to live without it.'' Break the Cycle supporter.
        The youth of this country are facing a grave situation that is
    largely ignored by the people who are responsible for helping them grow
    into healthy adults. Sexual and dating violence occur among youth at
    rates disproportionate to the rest of the Nation; teens and young
    women, aged 16 to 24, experience the highest rate of intimate partner
    violence, almost three times the average for women as a whole.\1\
    Additionally, the age at which a female is at greatest risk for rape or
    sexual assault is 14,\2\ and in one study, one quarter of teen girls
    who have been in a romantic relationship admitted that they had been
    pressured to perform oral sex or engage in intercourse when they did
    not want to.\3\ Yet, domestic violence resources are usually focused on
    adult women or young children who are victims of abuse.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, ``Intimate
    Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-1999.'' NCJ 187635: October
    2001, 3.
        \2\ Snyder, H.N. (2000). Sexual assault of young children as
    reported to law enforcement. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
    Justice Statistics (NCJ 182990). Washington, DC.: U.S. Government
    Printing Office.
        \3\ Liz Claiborne Inc. Omnibuzz Topline Findings: Teen Relationship
    Abuse Research. February 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For youth, who face a unique set of circumstances when dealing with
    abuse, these resources do not meet their needs. They are in a stage of
    their lives where they are just learning to navigate the adult world,
    developing positive and healthy relationships is essential to their
    success as adults. Victims of teen dating violence are more likely to:
    use alcohol, tobacco, and cocaine; drive after drinking; engage in
    unhealthy weight control behaviors; commit sexually risky behaviors
    including first intercourse before age 15, multiple partnering, and
    lack of condom use; become pregnant; and commit suicide.\4\
    Additionally, youth that witness domestic or dating violence also have
    higher probabilities of truancy, poor school performance, and trouble
    concentrating.\5\ These behaviors limit youths' ability to become
    healthy adults. Young people must be educated and empowered to end the
    violence in their lives. VAWA 2005 can help stop this cycle of violence
    where it starts. Congress has taken the first step in recognizing and
    correcting this problem by unanimously passing VAWA 2005, and including
    vital new programs for youth. It is critical, for the healthy
    development of young people, that full funding be provided for all
    programs unanimously passed by Congress. By educating youth and
    empowering them to live lives free from violence, we not only improve
    their current situation, but teach them how to live healthy adult
    lives. The cost of these programs is a small price to pay for the
    safety of our youth, and in the long term will cut down on the huge
    costs of domestic violence that plagues the nation.\6\ It is time to
    teach young people to confront their abuse, and to learn the skills
    that will help them create a future without it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Jay Silverman, et. al., Dating Violence Against Adolescent
    Girls and Associated Substance Use, Unhealthy Weight Control, Sexual
    Risk Behavior, Pregnancy, and Suicidality, 286 JAMA, 2001.
        \5\ Lee, Catherine. Witness of Domestic Violence: The Vulnerable
    and the Voiceless. http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/children/
    downlow/domvio.shtml.
        \6\ Intimate partner violence costs the Nation $5.8 billion
    annually, including $4.1 billion in direct health care expenses.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury
    Prevention and Control, ``Cost of Intimate Partner Violence Against
    Women in the United States.'' (2003).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  THE PROGRAMS

    Services to Advocate for and Respond to Youth (42 USC 14043c; 119 STAT.
            3004)
        STARY will provide much needed funding to stop the cycle of
    violence where it is most likely to occur, with youth ages 16 to 24.\7\
    Youth face unique challenges when dealing with domestic and dating
    violence and often do not have access to services to help them.
    Adolescence is a trying time, often filled with the insecurity and
    frustration of learning to navigate the adult world, while not quite
    being an adult. Youth are often untrusting of authority, uninformed on
    the law, dependent on others for their financial well being, without
    transportation, and ignorant of the services available to them. Special
    services and service providers with the skills to deal with these
    unique challenges are vital to early intervention with youth dating and
    domestic violence. Because most domestic violence services are targeted
    at adults, youth are often left without important services and end up
    falling through the cracks, leaving them to carry these same patterns
    of violence into adult relationships. These grants focus specifically
    on services and service providers who can address the needs of youth,
    filling a gap in current services, and helping youth to build lives
    free from abuse.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, ``Intimate
    Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-1999.'' October 2001.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        STARY is a new program which we urge Congress to fully fund at it's
    authorized level of $15 million in fiscal year 2007.
    Access to Justice for Youth (42 USC 14043c-1; 119 STAT. 3005)
        The violence perpetrated by youth against youth is a serious
    problem. However, the legal system in many States does not allow youth
    victims the same access to justice and safety as it does adults. Youth
    often slip through the cracks of the justice system because neither
    adult nor juvenile courts know how to deal with youth perpetrators and
    victims of domestic and dating violence. This problem must be
    addressed. Currently, there is only one juvenile domestic violence
    court in the country. Access to Justice for Youth would provide
    demonstration grants to allow courts, domestic violence and sexual
    assault service providers, youth organizations, and law enforcement
    agencies to work together to create a model system which addresses the
    needs of youth. Both perpetrators and victims must be treated by the
    law in a way that allows for safety, dignity, and justice. This funding
    will give communities the opportunity to work together to create a
    system that truly meets their needs and provides victims and
    perpetrators the justice and protection they deserve.
        Access to Justice for Youth is a new program which we urge Congress
    to fully fund at the authorized level of $5 million for fiscal year
    2007.
    Supporting Teens Through Education and Protection (STEP Act; 42 USC
            14043c-3; 119 STAT. 3010)
        Schools have always been envisioned as a safe haven where youth
    learn and grow into productive citizens. However, violence in schools
    has shattered this idea, and left many young people afraid of the very
    place they are sent to grow and mature. Four thousand incidents of rape
    and sexual assault were reported in public schools across the country
    in a single year.\8\ This number only includes the number reported, and
    not the countless cases of rape and sexual assault that go unreported.
    Additionally, when youth are faced with abusive relationships, most (73
    percent) say they would talk about it with a friend.\9\ Unfortunately,
    the friends in whom they would confide are often uninformed about the
    rights of youth in abusive relationships, and thus unable to help a
    friend in need. Young people cannot be expected to mature into
    productive citizens with this type of violence occurring in the place
    where they are to be nurtured and taught about healthy adulthood.
    Schools need effective polices and procedures to address this problem
    when it occurs among their students and school staff must be taught the
    warning signs of and resources available for students dealing with
    domestic and dating violence. The STEP Act allocates funds to educate
    faculty, develop effective school policies about domestic and dating
    violence, and provide resources to teach students about the issue and
    provide appropriate referrals. Fully funding this program will allow
    schools to work in collaboration with sexual assault and domestic
    violence providers, police, courts, and other organizations to ensure
    that schools are the safe and healthy environments necessary to help
    youth become healthy adults.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ U.S. Department of Education, 1997 (The Department of Education
    no longer reports rapes and sexual assaults in schools as a separate
    category, but rather includes them with other violent crimes.)
        \9\ Liz Claiborne Inc. Omnibuzz Topline Findings: Teen Relationship
    Abuse Research. February 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The STEP Act is a new program which we urge Congress to fully fund
    at the authorized level of $5 million for fiscal year 2007.
    Grants to Reduce Violent Crimes on Campus (42 USC 14045b; 119 STAT.
            3013)
        One quarter of female college students are sexually assaulted
    during their college careers,\10\ and 70 percent of sexual assaults
    reported by college-aged girls are date rapes.\11\ This pervasive
    violence must stop, and fully funding Grants to Reduce Violent Crimes
    on Campus is one way that Congress can help to stop it. Often away from
    home for the first time and adjusting to new freedoms, college students
    face unique challenges, especially when it comes to dealing with
    domestic and sexual violence. Providing this program with full funding
    allows for prevention, services and training essential to end this type
    of violence. In the federal fiscal year 2005, 146 applications were
    submitted to the Office on Violence Against Women, requesting $32
    million for campus programs. The need is great, and Congress can help
    by providing the full $12 million authorized by VAWA 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Robin Warshaw, I Never Called it Rape: The Ms. Report on
    Recognizing, Righting, and Surviving Date and Acquaintance Rape, New
    York: Harper Perennial, 1994.
        \11\ B. Levy, Dating Violence, (Seattle: Seal Press, 1991), 9.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The President's budget requests $9 million for Campus Grants. We
    urge Congress to fully fund Campus Grants at the authorized level of
    $12 million in fiscal year 2007.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Sexual assault and domestic violence are problems that pervade our
    society. The effects of these problems are far reaching, and especially
    detrimental to young people navigating the transition from childhood to
    healthy adulthood. Young people must be taught that domestic violence
    and sexual assault are unacceptable. Services must be tailored to their
    needs and they must be educated about the resources available to them.
    They must be empowered to stop the violence that affects them so
    profoundly. They deserve the building blocks to create healthy
    relationships in the future.
        Today's teen and young adult victims and perpetrators of domestic
    violence and sexual assault will be those we deal with the in the adult
    criminal, civil and family justice systems, healthcare system and
    social services systems tomorrow. We have the opportunity today to
    invest in our youth to protect them from this violence now and save
    countless federal dollars later.
        Across the Nation, young people are taking a stand against domestic
    violence and sexual assault. However, the funds to allow for education
    and services are lacking. Congress has unanimously recognized the
    importance of this issue by passing VAWA 2005. Now it is time for
    Congress to act. By fully funding VAWA 2005, and especially STARY, STEP
    Act, Access to Justice for Youth, and Grants to Reduce Violent Crimes
    against Women on Campus, Congress can do its part to combat the
    pervasiveness of domestic and sexual violence. By fully funding these
    programs, Congress will allow young people the resources necessary to
    mature into healthy and productive citizens. It is time to protect
    young people from abuse, and to teach them to build prosperous,
    healthy, violence-free futures.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance

        The Natural Science Collections Alliance (NSC Alliance) encourages
    Congress to support the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request of
    $6.02 billion for the National Science Foundation.
        The administration's budget request reflects the recognition of the
    important role that fundamental, peer-reviewed scientific research
    plays in driving innovation, creating new economic opportunities, and
    addressing important societal challenges.
        The National Science Foundation plays an important role in science
    education, in both formal and informal environments, such as natural
    history museums, botanical gardens and other science centers. Moreover,
    through programs such as Research Experience for Undergraduates, GK-12
    fellowships, or fellowships for graduate students and post-doctoral
    researchers, the National Science Foundation provides the resources
    needed to educate, recruit, and retain our next generation of
    scientists. National Science Foundation programs provide the support
    that makes it possible for practicing research scientists and college
    faculty to mentor and train budding researchers. National Science
    Foundation science education initiatives are unique and stimulate
    innovation in teaching and learning about science. The lessons learned
    and models developed through this research inform Department of
    Education and local school system programs.
        Informal science and technology programs supported by the Education
    and Human Resources Directorate warrant increased funding. Economic
    growth in the 21st century demands a scientifically aware and
    technically skilled workforce.
        The National Science Foundation Biological Sciences Directorate
    (BIO) is particularly important to basic biological research, the
    fields of study concerned with understanding how the natural world
    works. These research disciplines include botany, zoology,
    microbiology, ecology, basic molecular and cellular biology,
    systematics and taxonomy. Indeed, according to National Science
    Foundation data, more than 65 percent of fundamental biological
    research is funded by the foundation. Additionally, the National
    Science Foundation provides essential support for the development of
    research infrastructure (for example, natural science collections,
    cyber-infrastructure, field and marine stations, and the National
    Ecological Observatory Network) that is required to advance our
    understanding of biological and ecological systems.
        The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request would provide the
    BIO directorate with roughly $607.8 million (a 5.4 percent increase).
    This funding would support important new research efforts in the areas
    of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences ($111.2 million), Integrative
    Organismal Biology ($100.7 million), Environmental Biology ($109.6
    million), Biological Infrastructure ($85.9 million), and Plant Genome
    Research ($101.2 million). The budget also reflects the need for
    synthesizing biological information from different fields. Thus, $99.2
    million is allocated for the cross discipline Emerging Frontiers
    program area.
        The President's request includes $24 million in funding for the
    National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). Of the requested
    funding for NEON, $12 million would come from the Major Research
    Equipment and Facilities Construction account and $12 million would
    come from the BIO directorate. NEON will be the first national
    ecological measurement and observation system designed both to answer
    regional to continental scale scientific questions and to have the
    interdisciplinary participation necessary to achieve credible
    ecological forecasting and prediction. NEON is expected to transform
    the way we conduct science by enabling the integration of research and
    education from natural to human systems, and from genomes to the
    biosphere. Social scientists and educators have worked with ecologists
    and physical scientists to plan and design NEON. These research
    communities will all be able to participate in research only possible
    because of the construction of NEON.
        Thank you for your past efforts on behalf of the National Science
    Foundation and for your thoughtful consideration of this request. If
    you require additional information, please contact Robert Gropp at 202-
    628-1500.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of James City County, Virginia

        Dear Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $1.2 million from the Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation program in fiscal year 2007 for acquisition of two
    properties at Jamestown totaling 198 acres.
        Since English colonists disembarked from their ship on May 14,
    1607, naming the river and town for the reigning monarch, James I, the
    Virginia peninsula has become one of the most historic regions in the
    United States. It has played a role in many eras of American history
    including colonial, Revolutionary, and Civil War periods. Today
    Jamestown is protected by a variety of public and private organizations
    including the National Park Service, The Association for the
    Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, and James City County.
        In one year's time, America will celebrate the quadricentennial of
    the landing at Jamestown. A number of events, commemorations,
    improvements, and enhancements are planned in order to make this
    celebration a one-of-a-kind event that visitors will not forget.
        In order to preserve the site around Jamestown for future events
    and visitors and protect the important natural and coastal resources
    that mark the shores of the wide James River, it is critical to protect
    lands adjacent to the historic sites from development and inconsistent
    conversion. There is a limited opportunity to acquire two properties
    adjacent to protected lands at Jamestown, the 112-acre Jamestown
    Campsites and the 85.5-acre Jamestown Marina.
        There are numerous historical and ecological resources on both
    properties. The campsites property includes 4,600 feet of James River
    frontage, and the site was part of the Revolutionary War battle of
    Green Spring. It is also a piece of the Capitol City Bike Trail linking
    Williamsburg to Richmond. The marina includes over 3,000 feet of
    shoreline on Powhatan Creek, contains 65 acres of high quality tidal
    wetlands, and is adjacent to the Colonial Parkway.
        In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $2 million for this
    project. An additional appropriation of $1.2 million in fiscal year
    2007 will be used to acquire these properties in time for the Jamestown
    2007 celebration next year. Federal funding will be matched by over $9
    million from James City County, the Commonwealth of Virginia and
    private sources.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration of this request and
    for the opportunity to present this testimony.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the ASME Technical Communities' National Science
                             Foundation Task Force

        The ASME Technical Communities' National Science Foundation (NSF)
    Task Force is pleased to provide comments on the NSF fiscal year 2007
    budget request, and supports this year's proposed funding level of
    $6.02 billion for the National Science Foundation.
        Founded in 1880 as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
    ASME is a worldwide engineering society of over 120,000 members focused
    on technical, educational and research issues. It conducts one of the
    world's largest technical publishing operations, holds approximately 30
    technical conferences and 200 professional development courses each
    year, and sets many industry and manufacturing standards.

                  NSF FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW

        The National Science Foundation plays the critical leadership role
    in directing the Nation's non-defense related scientific and
    engineering research and education. Now more than ever, the Nation's
    future in the global economy relies on the quality of the new ideas,
    the competitive strength of the science and engineering workforce, and
    the innovative use of new knowledge generated through the research and
    education enterprise. As such, ASME shares NSF's broad-based, cross-
    cutting vision for basic engineering and scientific research and
    education, and strongly endorses NSF and its efforts to promote the
    crucial fundamental research that engenders new knowledge to meet vital
    national needs and to improve the quality of life for all Americans.
        The total fiscal year 2007 NSF budget request is $6.02 billion
    representing a $439 million or 7.9 percent increase over the current
    fiscal year 2006 estimate, making the outlook for the NSF budget appear
    more positive than it has in the last few years. NSF had received a 3.0
    percent ($171 million) cut in fiscal year 2005, so that despite a small
    increase in fiscal year 2006, i.e. 1.8 percent ($100 million), the
    current estimate for fiscal year 2006 is actually 1.25 percent below
    the fiscal year 2004 budget. The fiscal year 2007 increase benefits
    from the administration's recent American Competitiveness Initiative
    (ACI), which calls for a 10-year budget-doubling effort for NSF.
        Within this request, the research directorates will receive
    increases between 5.4 percent and 8.2 percent, after several years of
    ``flat'' funding. Funding for the Engineering Directorate (ENG) would
    increase by 8.2 percent over the current year estimate to $628.55
    million, $108.88 million of which is requested for the NSF Small
    Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
    Transfer (STTR) programs that ENG administers.
        For fiscal year 2007, ENG will complete a comprehensive
    reorganization intended to reflect the multidisciplinary nature of
    engineering and the complex integration of the sub-disciplines
    comprising ENG. The new disciplinary-area divisions are: Chemical,
    Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET), $124.4
    million, Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI), $152.2
    million, and Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems (ECCS), $80.9
    million. The new crosscutting-area divisions are: Industrial Innovation
    and Partnerships (IIP), $120.1 million, Engineering Education and
    Centers (EEC), $126.0 million, and Emerging Frontiers in Research and
    Innovation (EFRI), $25.0 million. This last division is being created
    to provide mechanisms to rapidly respond to breakthrough innovations at
    the interface between divisions and directorates. The other five
    divisions will compete with each other to receive EFRI funds.
        A portion of the ENG budget (allocated from the divisions) will
    continue to support research and education efforts related to broad,
    foundation-wide and interagency priority areas. Networking and
    Information Technology R&D ($11.2 million), Human and Social Dynamics
    ($2 million), and Climate Change Science program ($1 million) are
    budgeted at the same levels as the fiscal year 2006 estimate.
    Biocomplexity in the Environment ($4 million) and Mathematical Sciences
    ($1.46 million) are significantly reduced, i.e. by -32.7 percent and -
    49.3 percent, respectively, under fiscal year 2006, continuing their
    phase-downs and transferring into core programs. On the other hand,
    National Nanotechnology Initiative ($137 million) and
    Cyberinfrastructure ($54 million) investments from ENG increase by 7.2
    percent and 3.8 percent, respectively. Additionally, ENG will lead a
    new $20 million NSF-wide, interagency effort to support research on
    sensors, focusing on prediction and detection of explosive materials
    and related threats. This $20 million effort represents 42 percent of
    the proposed 8.2 percent increase for ENG, and is divided evenly
    between the four ENG divisions of CBET, CMMI, ECCS, and EEC.

                        THE ASME NSF TASK FORCE POSITION

    Affirmation and Endorsement
        The ASME NSF Task Force continues its strong endorsement of NSF's
    leadership role in guiding the Nation's basic research and development
    activities. NSF has an outstanding record of supporting a broad
    spectrum of research of the highest quality, from ``curiosity-driven''
    science to focused initiatives. This achievement has been made possible
    only through strict adherence to the independent peer review process
    for merit-based awards. ASME recognizes the importance and timeliness
    of NSF's priority areas that address major national needs for the 21st
    century.
        The fiscal year 2007 budget request and its 7.9 percent increase
    over the appropriation enacted last year represent an encouraging step
    forward in the country's commitment to NSF's vital role in fostering
    the fundamental research that delivers the ideas, knowledge, and
    innovation to sustain a robust, competitive, and productive Nation.
    Over three-quarters of the total $439 million increase for NSF is in
    the Research and Related Activities Account, which increases by $334.5
    million (7.7 percent) to a total of $4.67 billion. This investment
    involves both established and emerging areas that are the wellspring
    for discoveries that lead to products, process, and services that
    improve health, wealth, living conditions, environmental quality, and
    national security.
        In this request, NSF continues to emphasize programs aimed at
    tapping the potential of those underrepresented in the science and
    engineering workforce--especially minorities, women, and persons with
    disabilities. Support for these programs will total over $640 million.
    Broadening participation in NSF activities also applies to
    institutions, which ensures that the U.S. reflects a strong capability
    in science and engineering across all its regions. The fiscal year 2007
    request will fund the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
    Research (EPSCoR) at $100 million.
        In general, the Task Force also supports and commends activities
    within ENG. NSF's vision of advancing the frontier--by generating
    ideas, marking out creative paths, and solving fundamental research
    questions--is epitomized within ENG. It is important to emphasize that
    it is through such fundamental science and engineering investment by
    which next generation technologies are spawned. Examples of successes
    emerging from ENG include the development of a new method to precisely
    carve arrays of tiny holes only 10 nanometers wide into sheets of gold
    by applying electric current through a thin film of oil molecules. The
    process may yield miniscule molecular detection devices, semiconducting
    connectors, molecular sieves for protein sorting, and nanojets for fuel
    or drug delivery. ENG has also funded pioneering work to develop a
    device that enables previously blind individuals to perceive light and
    patterns. A retinal implant uses an external camera and image-
    processing unit to send signals through the optic nerve to the brain.
    ENG's university-based research itself has developed buoys that can
    harness the motion of the ocean to produce electricity. Each buoy could
    potentially produce 250kW of power, and the technology can be scaled up
    or down to suit a variety of energy needs.
        NSF leads the U.S. nanotechnology research effort, and ENG is the
    focal point within NSF for this critical national research endeavor.
    ASME has strongly supported the National Nanotechnology Initiative
    (NNI) since its inception as an NSF priority area in fiscal year 2000.
    By advancing fundamental research and catalyzing synergistic science
    and engineering research and education in emerging areas of nanoscale
    science and technology, we push the frontiers of knowledge and
    innovation, fueling our national economic enterprise. Within the total
    investment for NNI, ENG will fund approximately 30 new awards on
    Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams (NIRT) or NIRT-like projects
    ($65 million across NSF).
        Finally, ASME continues to endorse NSF's bolstering of K-12
    education. In partnership with the Department of Education, NSF will
    invest $104 million to strengthen K-12 science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics education. Additionally, funding for
    Graduate Teaching Fellowships in K-12 Education will increase by nearly
    10 percent to $56 million. By pairing graduate students and K-12
    teachers in the classroom, effective partnerships between institutions
    of higher education and local school districts are established.
    Questions and Concerns
        Continuing with central themes raised in previous years, ASME's key
    questions and concerns arising from the fiscal year 2007 budget request
    center on matters of balance. In particular, ASME is concerned with:
      --gross funding imbalance in the federal R&D portfolio,
      --inadequate funding levels for existing grants, and
      --insufficient funding for core disciplinary research in the ENG
            portfolio.
        Despite the encouraging increase for NSF in fiscal year 2007 as the
    first installment of the new ACI NSF 10-year budget-doubling effort,
    the present overall budget request of $6.02 billion is still far below
    the $9.8 billion originally authorized for 2007 as part of the National
    Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (H.R. 4664). NSF is the
    only federal agency with a mandate to strengthen the health and
    vitality of U.S. science and engineering and support fundamental
    research and education in all scientific and engineering disciplines.
    Although NSF investments account for only 4 percent of total federal
    funding for R&D, NSF provides 22 percent of federal support to academic
    institutions for basic research, which is crucial in non-medical fields
    and disciplines. Moreover, while NSF does not directly support medical
    research, its investments directly benefit the medical sciences and
    related industries, providing the needed advances in diagnosis,
    regenerative medicine, drug delivery, and the design and manufacturing
    of pharmaceuticals. Given NSF's essential contribution to the immediate
    and future welfare, growth, and vitality of our Nation, the ASME NSF
    Task Force believes strongly that NSF is still severely under funded.
        NSF has had considerable success to date in stretching its funds.
    NSF is one of three agencies that have been recognized as models of
    excellence in Grants Management. However, this efficiency comes at the
    expense of quality research. The funding success rate for NSF has
    dropped dramatically, from 30 percent in the late 1990s to an estimated
    20 percent for fiscal year 2006 agency wide. This funding success rate
    is estimated to be 21 percent for fiscal year 2007--a very modest
    increase. The number of outstanding, meritorious proposals far exceeds
    the available funding for new programs. Nevertheless, even maintaining
    current grant size and duration is not enough. An extended period of
    constant grant sizes has eroded buying power and the ability to
    adequately support professional development. The projected average
    annualized award size for research grants for NSF fiscal year 2007 is
    $148,300, for a project duration of 3 years. Moreover, ENG has the
    lowest estimated funding success rate for research grants of the
    directorates at 14 percent for fiscal year 2006. ENG has the second
    lowest average annualized award size and project duration for research
    grants of the directorates at $118,000 for a project duration of 2.9
    years, as compared to the overall NSF average of $143,000 for a project
    duration of 3 years, for estimated fiscal year 2006.
        In the current budget, ENG receives the largest percent increase of
    the Directorates at 8.2 percent (corresponding to the second largest
    total amount increase at $47.6 million). However, funding available for
    core programs comes into question. As noted earlier, the new Sensor
    initiative constitutes 42 percent of the increase for ENG. In fact,
    investments in the priority areas and the IIP division, which houses
    the SBIR/STTR program, constitute 54 percent of the budget request for
    ENG. The limited funding for unsolicited fundamental research proposals
    is of great concern, considering that new priority areas and even new
    disciplines are engendered from such sources. The Task Force does not
    advocate for the redistribution of monies from priority areas into core
    areas, but rather significant increases for ``unfenced'' funds in order
    to develop creative and novel ideas that feed the comprehensive
    fundamental Science, Engineering, and Technology knowledge base, which
    has been a cornerstone of this Nation's greatness.

                                    CLOSURE

        ASME supports the administration's request of $6.02 billion for
    fiscal year 2007, and enthusiastically applauds the National Science
    Foundation's leadership in articulating the Nation's basic research and
    development vision. Because NSF is the only federal agency that
    supports all fields of science and engineering research, ASME still
    feels that NSF is severely underfunded. A substantial and steady
    increase in NSF's budget, by increasing both the number and size of its
    awards, especially in core disciplinary research and education, will
    enable NSF to better position itself to fulfill its leadership
    responsibility in directing the Nation's research and development
    activities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NSF fiscal
    year 2007 budget request.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fort Hall Business
                                    Council

        As chairman of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
    Reservation, I am pleased to submit written testimony to the
    subcommittee regarding President Bush's fiscal year 2007 budget for the
    Department of Justice and its Office of Tribal Justice. The tribes
    recognize the considerable financial burden which the war in Iraq and
    Hurricane Katrina relief effort has placed on the Federal Government.
    We are disheartened and concerned, however, to witness the resulting
    negative impact those funding priorities have caused to programs
    enacted for the benefit of federally recognized Indian tribes,
    especially funding for construction of correctional facilities, police
    departments, and Tribal courts.
        Our physical structures for housing these essential governmental
    programs and personnel are unsafe, inadequate and are not up to code
    requirements. They require replacement. With more than one-half million
    acres of land to patrol and safeguard, we must operate our public
    safety programs wisely. Congress has documented the deplorable
    conditions of detention facilities in Indian country. We ask that you
    act and assist us and other Indian tribes to finance the construction
    of vital infrastructure for our reservations.
        Congress can shore up the Federal Government's on-going trust
    responsibility by restoring and increasing proposed cuts to successful
    programs of the Department of Justice, including the Correctional
    Facilities on Tribal Lands Program, the Tribal Court Assistance Program
    (TCAP), the Tribal Resources Grant Program, and the Tribal Youth
    Program. Proposed reorganization of Justice Programs mask program cuts
    to these and other important Justice Department grant programs.
        As Regina Schofield, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice
    Programs, has stated, the needs of Indian Tribal governments to combat
    crime and violence in Indian country continue to be great. The Justice
    Department's Office of Justice programs offer a variety of grants to
    Indian tribes to assist us in our efforts to curb criminal activities,
    assist victims of crime, and deter future criminals by educating our
    younger members. But without the physical structures to house our law
    enforcement personnel, corrections officers and detainees, and Tribal
    Court personnel in, or the funds required to carry out much-needed
    programs to assist our adult and juvenile detainees, our capabilities
    are unnecessarily constrained.
        As always, we are appreciative of the work of this subcommittee for
    your many efforts to improve the quality of life for American Indians.
    We count on the subcommittee to counter overbroad and harmful budget
    cuts to programs of the Department of Justice which contribute to the
    safety of American Indians, who are often the victims of crime.
        We request that this subcommittee significantly increase funding
    for Justice Department programs that assist Indian tribes construct
    police departments, detention facilities and Tribal Courts. Funding for
    the Office of Justice programs' Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands
    program has dropped off significantly in the last few years. In 2006,
    we understand that the program will fund new construction for only one
    structure in Indian country, with the balance of the program's funding
    (less than $2.0 million) going to assist only existing correctional
    facilities located in Indian country bring their structures up to code.
    The administration has not included funds for this program in fiscal
    year 2007.
        The Fort Hall Business Council of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes has
    made infrastructure its priority funding request for the fiscal year
    2007 appropriations cycle. Building Phase II of the tribes' Justice
    Center is among the tribes' top priorities. The tribes' have committed
    $4.8 million toward construction of the 67,000 square foot Justice
    Center. Our Justice Center facility has been designed by Lombard Conrad
    Architects of Boise, Idaho. It will house the tribes' police
    department, Tribal Courts, and a 100-bed detention center which will
    have space for 20 juvenile detainees, with ``sight and sound''
    separation. The Tribes require $6.2 million in Federal grants and loans
    to finance the second phase of the project, construction of the
    detention center and the shell for the police department and Tribal
    Courts.
        For too many years, a crisis has persisted regarding the lack of
    basic infrastructure in Indian country. In good economic times and bad,
    Indian country lacks adequate roads, safe drinking water, sewers, gas
    and electric lines, as well as law enforcement officers, Tribal Court
    personnel, and detention facilities to house our members and generally
    protect the health and safety of our members, non-Indian reservation
    residents, and the visiting public. As Tribal governments have grown
    stronger and more stable over the years, we have witnessed a decrease
    in federal appropriations just when our needs are greatest and tribal
    capabilities are at their highest.
        Just as the administration and Congress recognize that stable and
    peaceful governments and nations can only take root when a population's
    basic human needs are met, the Congress must do the same for Indian
    country here in the United States.
        We ask the Congress--which has the power of the purse and which,
    together with the Executive Branch, holds a position of trustee as to
    the Indian nations and Indian people--to restore budget cuts to already
    under-funded tribal programs of the Department of Justice. The
    administration's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget does not eliminate
    government excess. It cuts vital sources of revenue which the Federal
    Government pays directly to Tribal governments to improve our
    infrastructure.
        Pursuant to the landmark Indian Self-Determination Act, the
    Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have stepped into the shoes of the Secretary of
    the Interior to assume her duties and obligations to the tribes and our
    members. We have contracted law enforcement, Tribal Courts, and
    detention facility operations. The Fort Hall Police Department is
    comprised of 34 employees with six divisions (administration, patrol,
    detention, communications/dispatch, criminal investigations and gang
    investigations). In recent years our tribal police have been helped by
    grants from the Department of Justice's COPS program. While we are
    encouraged by the administration's proposed $16 million increase to the
    Tribal COPS program, the administration has cut other important Office
    of Justice programs which benefit Indian country. If we do not receive
    adequate funding, we will lose well-trained and qualified personnel.
    The remaining officers will work in unsuitable conditions.
        Our existing structures hamper our ability to promote law and order
    on the Fort Hall Reservation and curtail violence from spreading off
    the Reservation. In 2005, the tribes entered into Memoranda of
    Understanding with city and county governments to facilitate the
    investigation and response to illegal drug activities in their
    respective jurisdictions. The tribes are pleased to see Congress taking
    affirmative measures to curb violence against Indian women. We want to
    do our part to curtail violence in southeastern Idaho. Our physical
    plant limitations make it more difficult for us to be strong partners
    with local law enforcement agencies at a time of growing gang and drug
    (methamphetamine) violence.
        The Tribal Court system handles roughly 4,000 civil and criminal
    cases each year, in addition to 1,500 juvenile cases. With just a
    single working courtroom, the tribes face a severe backlog of cases.
    The courts must delay or dismiss cases that should be tried. The Tribal
    Police Department needs more space for evidence storage. Detectives and
    investigators share common workspace, there is no space for
    interviewing witnesses or informants, and the Patrol Division lacks
    space to write up reports. With a new structure, our law enforcement
    capabilities will increase tremendously.
        The corrections facility space was not designed as a jail and is
    not up to code requirements. Just this month a detainee escaped because
    of the crumbling detention facility. There is no space for medical
    treatment or education of our tribal detainees. We would like to offer
    these detainees programs for continuing education (GED) as well as
    spiritual and culturally-appropriate programs so that they may
    integrate into society with improved skills. There are no visitor
    facilities. The layout makes it difficult to prevent visual contact
    between male and female detainees. There is no ``sight and sound''
    separation of juvenile detainees. Thousands of dollars are expended
    each year by the tribes to house juvenile detainees in other
    jurisdiction's detention centers, removing them from family and
    community and thus increasing the risk that they will become repeat
    offenders.
        We also are required to provide health services to American Indian
    detainees from other jurisdictions who avail themselves of the Indian
    Health Service clinic located at Fort Hall. The clinic does not receive
    reimbursement for the provision of health services to these
    individuals. If we had a state-of-the-art Tribal Justice Center, with a
    100-bed detention center, we could house these American Indian
    detainees and provide them with the services they require and receive
    adequate compensation from other jurisdictions.
        The Fort Hall Business Council decided in 2006 to divide
    construction of the fully designed Justice Center into phased
    construction to spread out the estimated $17.9 million construction
    costs. The tribes are also exploring the feasibility of accessing
    private, low-interest loans to build the Justice Center.
        The 100-bed detention center will have 80 adult beds and 20
    juvenile beds. Excess space will be leased out to accommodate
    surrounding jurisdictions' American Indian adult and juvenile
    detainees. Leasing available bed space will provide the tribes with
    additional revenues to fund the operation and maintenance costs, as
    well as the salaries of the Justice Center detention program, thus
    lowering the annual operating cost of maintaining a state-of-the-art
    facility. BIA Office of Law Enforcement Services officials have also
    stated that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons needs detention space which
    comply with Federal standards for its American Indian detainees.
        The tribes subsidized their Indian Self-Determination Act Law
    Enforcement and Tribal Courts contracts with the BIA in 2004 in the
    amount of $1.6 million. The tribes subsidized Indian Health Service
    operations with a $3.9 million annual health insurance program for
    Tribal employees, permitting the IHS to bill third-party health
    insurers to fund their operations, as well as providing tribal revenues
    to shore up health programs vital to the reservation community. These
    funds could have been used for construction of our Justice Center. The
    tribes require Federal assistance to build the Justice Center so that
    its criminal justice programs may operate at their full potential.
        The budgets of the Justice Department's Correctional Facilities on
    Indian Lands program, and similar programs funding construction of
    infrastructure in Indian country must be increased in fiscal year 2007
    if we are to access the capital required to complete Phase II. State
    and local government officials support our Justice Center.
        The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes' Police Department, corrections
    officers, and Tribal Court personnel keep us safe. They protect our
    families and communities. They save lives. In the wake of 9/11,
    Americans truly appreciated the sacrifice of the Nation's first
    responders; they put their lives on the line every day. Congress has
    recognized how important it is to build infrastructure on Indian
    reservations--law enforcement, Tribal courts, schools, health centers,
    roads, water and sewer systems, and utilities--if tribal communities
    are to attract and retain business, promote economic development, and
    maintain law and order in predominantly rural Indian communities.
    Reservations boundaries are porous and are becoming more so every day.
        Thank you for affording the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes the opportunity
    to make known our comments regarding the President's budget proposal
    for the Justice Department and our needs for fiscal year 2007.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians

        Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Dillon, Sr., Puyallup Tribal
    Chairman. We thank the committee for past support of many tribal issues
    and in your interest today. We share our concerns and request
    assistance in reaching objectives of significance to the Congress, the
    Tribe, and to 32,000+ Indians (constituents) in our Urban Service Area.
        U.S. Department of Justice--Office of Tribal Justice--The Puyallup
    Tribe has analyzed the President's fiscal year 2007 budget and submit
    the following detailed written testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on
    the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies. In
    the fiscal year 2006 budget process, the Puyallup Tribe supported
    actions of Congress to restore the base level funding for various law
    enforcement and public safety programs. We look forward to working with
    the 109th Congress to insure that funding levels for programs necessary
    for the Puyallup Tribe to carry-out our sovereign responsibility of
    self-determination and self-governance for the benefit of Puyallup
    Tribal members and the members from approximately 435 federally
    recognized tribes who utilize our services are included in the fiscal
    year 2007 budget. The following provides a brief review of the Puyallup
    Tribe's priorities and special appropriation requests for fiscal year
    2007;
        Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement.--The Puyallup Reservation is
    located in the urbanized Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of
    Washington. The 18,061 acre reservation and related urban service area
    contains 17,000+ Native Americans from over 435 tribes and Alaskan
    villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division currently has 26
    commissioned officers to cover 40 square miles of reservation in
    addition to the usual and accustomed areas. The officers are charged
    with the service and protection of the Puyallup Reservation 7 days a
    week, 24 hours a day. We currently operate with limited equipment,
    patrol vehicles requiring constant repair and insufficient staff
    levels. With the continuing increase in population, increase in gang
    related activities on the Puyallup Reservation and the impact of the
    increase in manufacturing of meth amphetamines in the region, the
    services of the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division are exceeding
    maximum levels.
        A major area of concern is the status of the Tribes Regional
    Detention Facility. Due to damages from the February 2001 Nisqually
    earthquake, we have had to relocate to modular/temporary facilities. As
    a regional detention facility, the relocation to the modular facility
    not only impacts the tribe's ability to house detainee's but also the
    approximately 173 native inmates that were incarcerated at the Puyallup
    Incarceration facility during the period of 2001-2002. Relocation to
    the modular facility has also impacted the tribes ability to house
    juvenile detainees. With no juvenile facilities, Native American youth
    are sent to non-native facilities The President's budget request
    provides zero funding for the construction of tribal detention
    facilities in fiscal year 2007. Indian country will be negatively
    impacted by the proposed elimination of funding for tribal detention
    facilities. The total estimated backlog is approximately $400 million.
    In fiscal year 2006, $5 million was provided to construct tribal
    detention facilities. We respectfully request congressional support:
      --Fund the Department of Justice--Detention Facilities Construction
            program for fiscal year 2007 at a minimum of $30 million for
            new construction.
      --Support from the subcommittee on the tribes request for funding to
            design and construct an Adult & Juvenile Detention Facility on
            the Puyallup Reservation, in the amount of $6.5 million.
        Tribal Court System.--The Tribal Court system is an independent
    branch of the Puyallup Tribal Government having jurisdiction over
    17,000+ Indians within our service area. Jurisdiction extends
    throughout our 18,061 acre reservation and our U&A Grounds for Hunting
    and Fishing. Partial court funding is provided via a Public Law 93-638
    Contract; the funding level has varied little during the past 5 years
    covering only costs of supplies, expenses and partial funding of the
    Court Administrator's salary. Compensation costs for the Judge,
    Prosecutor, Public Defender, Children's Court Counselor and Clerical
    are at best, intermittent. Current levels of federal support are
    grossly inadequate thereby effectively denying access to equal justice.
        Operations of a Tribal Court system with jurisdiction over the
    3,200+ tribal members and the 17,000+ Indians is extremely costly.
    Sufficient funding is needed for the salaries of the Court
    Administrator, Judge, Prosecutor, Public Defender, Children's Court
    Counselor and Clerical. Our needs to provide juvenile services and
    multi disciplinary investigations of child abuse and domestic violence
    abuse is critical. The Tribal Court System lacks the basic resources
    most court systems take for granted, such as; the Federal Digest, the
    Federal Rules decisions, Washington State Reporters and access to the
    Lexus Data Base. A frame work is in place for an adequate court system,
    however we lack sufficient finding due to competing demands/priorities
    we cannot provide funding to other departments--some of which attempt
    timely intervention strategies to lessen court involvement. We have
    provided supplementary support to the court system for the past 8
    years. With the projected increase demand on the court system services,
    it is anticipated that this shortfall will increase over the next 5
    years. We seek congressional support and endorsement in:
      --Request subcommittee support to fund the Office of Tribal Justice--
            Tribal Court System at no less than $8 million for fiscal year
            2007.
        Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).--The President's
    budget request proposes to fund the COPS for Indian Country at $31
    million for fiscal year 2007. This represents an overall reduction in
    funding of 33 percent from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. This
    takes into consideration the administration proposal to eliminate the
    Tribal Court Assistance, Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse, and Tribal
    Youth programs, and have those programs funded instead through the COPS
    program. As stated in the in U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
    letter to Committee on the Budget, this action could ``subject these
    important programs to the COPS program's 3-year non-reoccurring funding
    scheme.'' This program provides an essential service to the public
    safety and welfare in Indian County and assist tribal efforts to
    increase the number of law enforcement officers. Today, there are 1.3
    law enforcement officers per 1,000 citizens in Indian county, compared
    to 2.9 law enforcement officers per 1,000 citizens in non-Indian
    communities.
        The demand on law enforcement services will increase as Tribal
    governments continue to enhance civil and criminal justice
    administration and as Tribal governments play an integral role in
    securing America's borders, citizens and physical infrastructure. This
    demand is further impacted by the existing and growing ``gang problem''
    within the boundaries of the Puyallup Reservation. These gangs are
    different than other reservations due to our urban setting (Puget Sound
    region of the State of Washington), five other city boundaries next to
    our exterior boundaries, six separate local jurisdictions and
    Interstate 5 traversing through the reservation. In an effort to combat
    these gang activities, the Puyallup Tribal council created a Gang Task
    Force from the Tribal Police Department, representatives from various
    tribal services divisions and community members. The Gang Task Force
    developed a gang policy that includes a four prong approach to gang
    related activities. They are: enforcement; intelligence; education; and
    physical-mental health. These programs are currently being implemented
    or being designed for use with supplies and staff being provided by the
    tribe. What is needed to move forward is funding in each pronged
    approach. Enforcement with additional officers, continued training,
    equipment and adequate detention facilities for adults and juveniles.
    Intelligence with equipment, computer software programs and staffing.
    Education with computer software programs, equipment and staffing.
    Physical-mental assistance with funding, equipment and staffing for
    support of family services and Tribal Health Authority. We seek
    congressional support and endorsement:
      --Request subcommittee support to fund the Office of Tribal Justice--
            COPS at $31 million for fiscal year 2007.
      --Request subcommittee support in funding the Indian alcohol and
            Substance Abuse Demonstration program at no less than $5
            million for fiscal year 2007.
      --Request subcommittee support in funding the Tribal Youth Program at
            no less than $10 million for fiscal year 2007.
      --Request subcommittee support in funding the ``Meth Hot Spots''
            program to fund cleanup of meth labs at no less than $40
            million for fiscal year 2007 and request that the subcommittee
            issue directive language to the Department of Justice to
            include this amount in their fiscal year 2008 budget.
      --Request subcommittee support in funding programs authorized under
            the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), restore funding for
            these programs at $387 million for fiscal year 2007 and request
            the subcommittee to issue directive language to the Department
            of Justice to include this amount in their fiscal year 2008
            budget.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the City of Webster, Texas

        Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $1.54 million from the Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation Program for the Clear Creek Park project in Webster,
    Texas.
        Five miles south of NASA's mission control center at the Johnson
    Space Center, Clear Creek meanders by the City of Webster in Harris
    County. Flowing eastward from its source near Missouri City, Clear
    Creek is a tributary of the Galveston Bay estuary. As the creek nears
    the shores of Galveston Bay, a rich coastal ecosystem develops
    featuring coastal prairie, marshes, wetlands, migratory bird habitat,
    and riparian forests. Several parks along the corridor in both Harris
    and Galveston counties provide residents and visitors with
    opportunities for recreation, outdoor education, and other open space
    activities.
        Webster lies at the lower end of the Clear Creek watershed and is
    home to diverse communities of ecologically important coastal habitats
    and systems. Riparian forests of willow oaks, water oaks, and cedar
    elms provide habitat for amphibians, owls, hawks, neotropical migrant
    birds, and the reddish egret, a State listed threatened bird species.
    Along the creek banks are several areas of coastal prairie. As less
    than 1 percent of North American grassland prairie remains, it is
    critical to protect and restore remaining native prairie lands. Near
    Clear Lake and the entrance to Galveston Bay, marshes, wetlands, and
    embayments support fish, waterfowl, and migrant birds. The bay was
    recognized in 1988 as an estuary of national importance in the National
    Estuary Program, and it is one of 28 such monitored estuaries in the
    Nation. The comprehensive management plan of the Galveston Bay Estuary
    program identified wetlands habitat loss and degradation as a priority
    problem in the estuarine system.
        The Clear Creek corridor offers the potential for significant
    recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. Several parks
    operated by local governments extend along the creek, including Harris
    County's Challenger Seven Memorial Park, Galveston County's Walker Hall
    Park, and League City's Erikson Tract and Clear Creek Nature Park. In
    order to enlarge and further link this important corridor of parks and
    reserves, the City of Webster has proposed the acquisition of
    approximately 270 acres along the northern banks of the creek for a new
    Clear Creek Park.
        Within the planned park area, the City of Webster envisions
    building a trail along Clear Creek for hiking and biking. The trail
    will also feature access to launch sites on the creek for canoeing and
    kayaking, small piers for fishing, observation points and decks for
    bird watching, and picnic areas for families. The multiple
    opportunities along the trail are expected to accommodate and
    contribute to outdoors and environmental education. The opening of a
    trail would also advance the Galveston Bay Estuary Program's goal of
    increasing public access to Galveston Bay and its tributaries.
        Identified for acquisition with fiscal year 2007 funds are
    approximately 175 acres within the proposed Clear Creek Park
    boundaries, nearly 65 percent of the total planned park acreage. Once
    acquired, the City of Webster will own and maintain the property as a
    public park and conservation area. Purchase of this property is
    critical to the protection of habitat and recreational open space along
    Clear Creek, one of the few remaining unchannelized stream and river
    corridors in the Houston metropolitan area. Development is currently
    the largest threat to habitat in the Galveston Bay estuary, and some
    parcels within the park area have already been sold. If additional
    tracts in the proposed Clear Creek Park area are developed, the creek's
    floodway would be degraded by loss of wetlands and increase in runoff
    pollutants.
        The total value of this property is $3.08 million. In order to
    complete its purchase, an appropriation of $1.54 million from the
    Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program is needed in fiscal
    year 2007. Clear Creek Park will protect critical coastal land and
    provide multiple recreational possibilities to residents of Webster and
    other nearby communities.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of the appropriation for Clear Creek Park and for
    your consideration of the request.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Santa Barbara County, California

        Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $1 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation program for Gaviota State Park.
        Located in western Santa Barbara County between Coal Oil Point and
    Point Sal, approximately 100 miles north of Los Angeles, the Gaviota
    Coast lies between the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and
    the Los Padres National Forest. Offering a wide variety of natural,
    recreational and agricultural resources, it is a high priority area for
    conservation and is southern California's largest remaining stretch of
    pristine coastline. This remarkable 80-mile landscape represents only
    15 percent of the Southern California coast, but it contains about 50
    percent of its remaining undeveloped land.
        With the constant threat of urban sprawl and development, many
    Californians have taken an active part in preserving Gaviota's
    agricultural heritage and natural resources. The area is one of only
    five places in the world with a Mediterranean climate and associated
    vegetation, and it has a history of agricultural use. The topography of
    the area varies from rocky and narrow beaches to chaparral covered
    mountain slopes. There is also a variety of grassland, shrubland, and
    woodland habitat, with scattered vernal pool communities, estuaries,
    and native grasslands.
        With a vast array of habitat, the Gaviota Coast is home to many
    species of marine and terrestrial wildlife. Marine animals found along
    the coast include dolphin, gray whale, the endangered Guadalupe fur
    seal, and steelhead trout. Terrestrial wildlife includes mountain lion,
    mule deer, golden eagle, and endangered species such as the California
    condor, brown pelican, and marbled murrelet.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007, the Gaviota State
    Park Addition project is a 43-acre site adjacent to Gaviota State Park.
    This popular park unit serves 86,000 visitors annually and the addition
    of the subject property would enable California State Parks to expand
    the existing trail system, develop new trailheads, provide trailhead
    serving facilities for the park's many visitors and develop much-needed
    campgrounds. The expansion of Gaviota State Park is a top priority for
    State Parks and for Santa Barbara County.
        Immediately adjacent to Highway 101, this 43-acre property is zoned
    for commercial use. Commercial land uses in these coastal foothills are
    incompatible with county and State efforts to prevent inappropriate
    development and protect critical natural, scenic, and recreational
    resources. Acquiring lands adjacent to the park will protect these
    streams from the degradation that would occur from development-related
    pollution.
        Because of its location among other protected properties and
    agricultural lands, this project is part of a larger effort to piece
    together up to 10,000 contiguous acres of protected coastal wildlands
    and open space from the mountains to the sea, including the Los Padres
    National Forest and lands owned and managed by the local Land Trust for
    Santa Barbara County. The subject property is the linchpin for this
    larger assemblage, as it is the only property with commercial zoning on
    a 35-mile stretch of the Gaviota Coast. The total cost of the project
    is $2.5 million, with State and local sources providing the matching
    funds.
        An fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $1 million from NOAA's Coastal
    and Estuarine Land Conservation program is needed to acquire and
    protect this 43-acre property. If added to Gaviota State Park, it will
    expand recreational opportunities, provide much needed visitor
    facilities, protect scenic viewshed and conserve important wildlife
    habitat.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present this
    testimony and for your consideration of the request for an
    appropriation of $1 million for Gaviota State Park.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    American Geological Institute, Prepared Statement of the.........   282
    American Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   253
    American Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statements of the.297, 298
    American Physiological Society, Prepared Statement of the........   268
    American Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the.....   263
    American Rivers, Prepared Statement of...........................   299
    American Society for Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the.....   243
    American Society of Civil Engineers, Prepared Statement of the...   290
    American Society of Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the..   284
    Animal Protection Institute, Prepared Statement of the...........   256
    ASME Aerospace Division's Task Force, Prepared Statement of......   270
    ASME Technical Communities' National Science Foundation Task
      Force, Prepared Statement of the...............................   330
    Association of Small Business Development Centers, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   266

    Blakeslee, Assemblyman Sam, Assemblymember, 33rd District,
      California Legislature, Prepared Statement of..................   252
    Blue Ocean Institute, Prepared Statement of the..................   256
    Break the Cycle, Prepared Statement of...........................   325
    Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
      Question Submitted by..........................................   112

    California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
      (CCOS) Coalition, Prepared Statement of the....................   281
    California State Coastal Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the..   264
    City of Webster, Texas, Prepared Statement of the................   337
    Claflin University, Orangeburg, South Carolina, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   301
    Clark, John F., Director, United States Marshals Service,
      Department of Justice..........................................    73
        Prepared Statement of........................................    75
    Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States, Prepared Statement of the.......   245
    Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   294
    Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico, Prepared Statement of the.....   309

    Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico,
      Questions Submitted by.........................................    96
    Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota,
      Questions Submitted by.......................................110, 192

    Endangered Species Coalition, Prepared Statement of the..........   256
    Environmental Defense, Prepared Statement of.....................   256

    Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   236
    Florida State University, Prepared Statement of..................   289
    Friends of the Earth, Prepared Statement of......................   256

    Gaviota Coast Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.............   292
    Gonzales, Hon. Alberto R., Attorney General, Office of the
      Attorney General, Department of Justice........................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................    11
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    95
        Summary Statement of.........................................     9
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   286
    Griffin, Hon. Michael D., Administrator, National Aeronautics and
      Space Administration...........................................   117
        Opening Remarks of...........................................   120
         Prepared Statement of.......................................   124
    Gutierrez, Hon. Carlos, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of Commerce.........................................   197
        Prepared Statement of........................................   201
        Summary Statement of.........................................   199

    Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   194
        Statement of.................................................     7
    HEART (Help Endangered Animals--Ridley Turtles), Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   256
    HerpDigest, Prepared Statement of................................   256
    Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    98

    International Fund for Animal Welfare, Prepared Statement of the.   256
    International Wildlife Coalition, Prepared Statement of the......   256
    Inwater Research Group, Inc., Prepared Statement of the..........   256

    James City County, Virginia, Prepared Statement of...............   329

    Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin, Questions
      Submitted by.................................................107, 113

    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
        Prepared Statement of........................................     5
        Questions Submitted by......................................99, 114
        Statement of.................................................     5
    Liga Conciencia Ambiental del Este, Inc., Prepared Statement of..   306
    Local Ocean Trust/Watamu Turtle Watch, Prepared Statement of the.   256

    Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Prepared Statement of the.   256
    Marine Conservation Society, Prepared Statement of the...........   256
    Marine Research Foundation, Prepared Statement of the............   256
    Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
        Opening Remarks..............................................   119
        Statements of................................................3, 198
    Mueller, Robert, III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
      Department of Justice..........................................    36
        Prepared Statement of........................................    39
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   113
    Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Statement of     7

    National Aquarium, Baltimore, Maryland, Prepared Statement of the   272
    National Association of Marine Laboratories, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   233
    National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
      Colleges (NASULGC), Prepared Statement of the..................   275
    National Center for Victims of Crime , Prepared Statements of t311, 317
    National Council for Science and the Environment, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   315
    National Environmental Trust, Prepared Statement of the..........   256
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the.   321
    National Space Grant Alliance, Prepared Statement of the.........   249
    National Wildlife Federation, Prepared Statement of the..........   302
    Natural Resources Defense Council, Prepared Statement of the.....   256
    Natural Science Collections Alliance, Prepared Statement of the..   328
    Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the....................   303
    Nisqually Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the................   306

    Oceana, Prepared Statements of.................................254, 256
    Osa Sea Turtle Conservation Project, Prepared Statement of the...   256

    Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared Statement of the.............   278
    PRETOMA, Prepared Statement of...................................   256
    Pro Peninsula, Prepared Statement of.............................   256
    Protectors of Pine Oak Woods, Prepared Statement of the..........   262
    Proyecto Tortugas Marinas, Prepared Statement of.................   256
    Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Prepared Statement of the.............   335

    Santa Barbara County, California, Prepared Statement of..........   338
    Save Barnegat Bay, Prepared Statement of.........................   324
    Sea Grant Association, Prepared Statement of the.................   238
    Sea Sense, Prepared Statement of.................................   256
    Sea Turtle Restoration Project--Texas, Prepared Statement of the.   256
    Sea Turtles at Risk, Prepared Statement of.......................   256
    Seaflow, Prepared Statement of...................................   256
    Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama:
        Opening Statements of........................................1, 197
        Questions Submitted by.................................95, 150, 224
    Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fort Hall Business Council, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   333
    Sierra Club, Prepared Statement of the...........................   256
    Sierra Club, Puerto Rico, Prepared Statement of the..............   313
    Simi Batra of the Trust for Public Land, Letter From the.........   293
    Skokomish Tribal Nation, Prepared Statement of the...............   308
    South Carolina Aquarium, Prepared Statement of the...............   256
    St. Simons Land Trust, Prepared Statement of the.................   261
    Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Statement of.....     5
    Surfrider Foundation, Prepared Statement of the..................   277
    Sustainable Development Initiative, Prepared Statement of the....   320

    Tandy, Karen, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration,
      Department of Justice..........................................    45
        Prepared Statement of........................................    47
    The Humane Society of the U.S., Prepared Statement of............   256
    The Leatherback Trust, Prepared Statement of.....................   256
    The National Marine Life Center, Prepared Statement of the.......   256
    The Pegasus Foundation, Prepared Statement of....................   256
    The Wild Animal Rescue Foundation of Thailand, Prepared Statement
      of.............................................................   256
    Town of Brunswick, Maine, Prepared Statement of the..............   260
    Truscott, Carl J., Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
      and Explosives, Department of Justice..........................    61
        Prepared Statement of........................................    63

    United States Tennis Association Tennis and Education Foundation,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   273
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
      Statement of
      the............................................................   257

    Washington State Department of Ecology, Prepared Statement of the   279
    Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Prepared Statement of the   256
    WIDECAST: Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................   256
    Wildlife Rescue and Conservation Association (ARCAS), Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   256

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                            Office of the Secretary

                                                                       Page

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   223
    Advanced Technology Program and Manufacturing Extension
      Partnership....................................................   216
    Bureau of the Census.............................................   220
    Congressional Earmarks...........................................   229
    Departmental Management...................................218, 220, 229
    Economic Development Administration..................206, 219, 224, 230
        Focus on Regional Development................................   207
        Regional Development Account.................................   206
    Fiscal Year 2006 Supplemental--National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administration.................................................   224
    Hurricane Supplemental Funds.....................................   205
    Intellectual Property, Education, Outreach and Enforcement.......   207
    National Institute of Standards and Technology...................   218
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration..................   210
    National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
      System (NPOESS)..............................................209, 227
    National Weather Service.........................................   211
    Ocean-related activities.........................................   217
    Patent Examiners:
        Hiring.......................................................   212
        Qualifications and Retention.................................   213
    Public Safety Interoperable Communications.......................   221
        Scenarios....................................................   222
        Standards and Testing........................................   222
    Timeline of Events for Getting Supplemental Funds to the Intended
      Recipients.....................................................   205
    U.S. Ocean Action Plan...........................................   228
    United States Patent and Trademark Office........................   225

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

              Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

    Alabama Church Fires Investigation...............................    62
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms:
        And Iraq.....................................................    62
        Budget Request...............................................    61
        User Fee Proposal............................................    79
    Anti-Gang Efforts................................................    65
    Arson............................................................    68
    Criminal Diversion of Alcohol and Tobacco........................    69
    Explosives.......................................................    66
    Firearms.........................................................    64
    Fiscal Year 2007 President's Budget Request......................    64
    Industry Operations: ATF's Dual Role.............................    69
    Intelligence/Technology..........................................    70
    International....................................................    72
    Iraq.............................................................    64
    Management.......................................................    73
    National Tracing Center..........................................    66
    Partnerships.....................................................    72
    Response to Hurricane Katrina....................................    63
    Southwest Border Initiative......................................    65
    Special Programs.................................................    71
    Violent Crime Impact Teams.......................................62, 65

                        Drug Enforcement Administration

    ChoicePoint......................................................    93
    Cocaine Trafficking..............................................    85
    Drug Enforcement Administration:
        Intelligence Role............................................    46
        Involvement in the Intelligence Community....................    78
    Drug:
        Enforcement Agency Anti-Terrorism............................    83
        Flow Prevention Strategy.....................................    46
        Threats to the United States.................................    53
        Trade Funding and Terrorism..................................    81
    Financial Investigations.........................................    58
    Fiscal Year:
        2005 Accomplishments.........................................    47
        2007 Budget Request..........................................    50
    Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia--ejercito de Pueblo--
      FARC...........................................................    90
    Gangs............................................................    59
    Global Drug Trade................................................    45
    Independent Verification and Validation of Sentinel's
      Implementation.................................................    93
    Indictments and Extraditions From Colombia.......................    89
    Methamphetamine..................................................    45
    Opportunities Ahead..............................................    52
    Price of Cocaine in Washington, DC...............................    86
    Purchase of Software Package From ChoicePoint....................    94
    State and Local Assistance.......................................    60

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    95
    ChoicePoint......................................................   114
    Criminal Programs................................................    44
    Cyber............................................................    43
    FBI Analysts.....................................................   113
    Human Resources..................................................    41
    Improving Physical Infrastructure................................    39
    Information Technology...........................................    40
    Legal Attache Program............................................    43
    National Security Branch.........................................    36
        CT/CI/DI.....................................................    42
    National Security Division.......................................    82
    NGI and IAFIS/IDENT Interoperability.............................    40
    Seniors Investment Fraud.........................................   114
    Sentinel.....................................................36, 38, 77
         Cost........................................................    92
    2007 Budget Request..............................................    39
    Virtual Case File:
        Cost.........................................................    91
        Project......................................................    38
        Sentinel.....................................................   115

                         Office of the Attorney General

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    95
    Antitrust Modernization Commission...............................   110
    Bulletproof Vests Partnership Grant Program......................   106
    Byrne Grants.....................................................    31
        Program......................................................    27
    Childsafe Initiative.............................................    10
    ChoicePoint......................................................    24
    Civil Rights.....................................................    15
    Civil Rights Division............................................    10
    Community Oriented Policing Services.............................    32
    Competition and International Trade..............................    99
    Counterterrorism Investigations..................................     9
    Crime Victims Fund...............................................    25
    Crimes Against Children and Obscenity............................    15
    Cuts to:
        Byrne JAG Program............................................    29
        State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance...................   104
    Drug:
        Cartels......................................................    33
        Enforcement and Border Security..............................    14
    Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) Program....   111
    Eliminating the Byrne Grant Program in the Face of a Meth
      Epidemic.......................................................   107
    Enforcing Federal Law in the Courts..............................    16
    Federal Prison...................................................    20
    Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request..................................     1
    Human Trafficking................................................    10
    Intergovernmental Agreements.....................................    98
    Judicial System Support and Incarceration........................    16
    Judiciary Needs on International Borders.........................    96
    Justice For All Act..............................................   101
    Juvenile Justice Funding.........................................   108
    Management and Information Technology Improvements...............    17
    Mental Health Court Needs........................................    97
    National Motor Vehicle Title Information System..................    95
    National Security Division.......................................    21
    Northern Border..................................................    34
    Northwest Border Security........................................    35
    NSA's Domestic Surveillance Program and Its Possible Undermining
      Affect on Counterterrorism Efforts.............................   112
    Office of Intelligence Policy and Review.........................   107
    Office of the Inspector General COPS Methamphetamine Initiative
      Audit..........................................................   101
    Preventing and Combating Terrorism...............................    12
    Project Safe Neighborhoods.......................................    13
    Public and Corporate Corruption..................................    16
    Sex Offender Database............................................   111
    Sexual Predators.................................................    19
    State and Local Programs.........................................18, 31
    State, Local, and Tribal Assistance..............................    17
    Tunney Act Review................................................   110
    Victims of Crime Act Crime Victims Fund..........................   105
    Violence Against Women Act.......................................    30
        Funding Within the Department of Justice.....................    30
    Whirlpool-Maytag Merger..........................................   109

                         United States Marshals Service

    Audited Financial Statements.....................................74, 77
    Children's Safety Act............................................    76
    Fiscal Year:
        2005 Accomplishments.........................................    75
        2007 Budget Request..........................................    76
    Fugitive Regional Task Forces....................................    74
    Information Technology...........................................74, 76
    Judicial Security............................................74, 76, 79
    Local Law Enforcement............................................    83
    Offsets..........................................................    77
    Summary of Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request.......................    74
    United States Marshals Service Accomplishments...................    73

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    ADA Violations.................................................121, 187
        Preventive Steps...........................................132, 133
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   150
    Aeronautics Research......................................123, 129, 148
    Aging and Damaged Facilities.....................................   140
    American Competitive Initiative..................................   149
    Balancing the Budget.............................................   123
    Banking Funds for Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV).................   191
    Corrective Action Plan Fiscal Year 2005 Financial Audit--February
      15,
      2006...........................................................   150
    Crew Vehicle Development.........................................   147
    Cross-Agency Support Programs....................................   130
    Cuts in Science..................................................   143
    DC-8.............................................................   193
    Emergency Supplemental Funds.....................................   124
    Financial Management.............................................   150
    Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS)...............   193
    Human Space Flight...............................................   124
    Impact of Earmarks on NASA's Mission.............................   131
    Implementing the Vision..........................................   125
    Integrated Enterprise Management Program.......................133, 134
    Internal Weaknesses in Internal Controls.........................   132
    International Partners...........................................   146
    International Space Station......................................   145
    Lunar Robotic Orbiter (LRO)......................................   191
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
        Centers......................................................   188
        Financial Management.......................................121, 131
        Next Steps...................................................   132
        Science Budget...............................................   137
        Unobligated Balance Growth...................................   190
        Workforce Strategy...........................................   130
    National Priorities..............................................   122
    Procurement......................................................   189
    Propulsion Research..............................................   137
    Robotic Lunar Exploration Program (RLEP).........................   134
    Science Reductions at the Marshall Space Flight Center...........   138
    Scientific Discovery.............................................   128
    Space Shuttle....................................................   144
        Flight Rate Schedule.........................................   139
    Unobligated Balances.............................................   121
    Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium (UMAC)........................   192
    Vision for Space Exploration.....................................   135
    Window Observational Research Facility (WORF)....................   192
    Workforce Transitioning..........................................   139

                                       -