[Senate Hearing 109-300]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-300
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2862
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE, THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE,
JUSTICE, AND COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Commerce
Department of Justice
Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and Technology
Policy
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
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
99-851 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
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
Katherine Hennessey
Jill Shapiro Long
Jessica Roberts
Allen Cutler
Nancy Perkins
Paul Carliner (Minority)
Gabrielle Batkin (Minority)
Alexa Sewell (Minority)
Administrative Support
Kate Fitzpatrick (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Page
Executive Office of the President: Office of Science and
Technology
Policy......................................................... 1
National Science Foundation...................................... 15
National Science Board....................................... 25
Thursday, May 12, 2005
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................... 41
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Department of Justice:
Office of the Attorney General............................... 101
Federal Bureau of Investigation.............................. 129
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary.................. 175
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 215
[Note.--Before the Committee organized its subcommittees for the 109th
Congress, the following hearing was held under the Subcommittee on
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent
Agencies.]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:01 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher S. Bond (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Bond, Stevens, and Mikulski.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Science and Technology Policy
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN H. MARBURGER, III, DIRECTOR, AND
SCIENCE ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT
opening statement of senator christopher s. bond
Senator Bond. Good morning. The Senate Appropriations
Committee's Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies'
hearing on the 2006 budget request for NSF and OSTP will come
to order.
My apologies for the confusion today. We are starting early
because, as most of you know, this is a day when Secretary Rice
will be testifying on the urgent supplemental at 10 o'clock. My
colleague, Senator Mikulski, is in traffic and will be here
about 9:15. She has asked that I proceed, and I apologize
because we were held up for a half an hour by a traffic
accident, so that is why the scramble.
This is a very important hearing that we wanted to begin. I
welcome Dr. John Marburger from OSTP, Dr. Arden Bement from the
National Science Foundation, and Dr. Warren Washington from the
National Science Board.
Congratulations, Dr. Bement, for being confirmed last year
as NSF's Director. I look forward to working with all three of
you and hearing your testimony today.
Before I proceed with the business at hand, I recognize
there are several questions surrounding the future structure of
our committee. While this is an important issue and my staff
and I have had to spend far too much time on it, I strongly
believe that we cannot hold up work of the Senate and the
taxpayers by waiting for this issue to be resolved. We intend
to resolve it appropriately. We have to move forward. That is
why we are here today.
While our colleagues across the Capitol say they want to
avoid another omnibus, the hasty and ill-advised action they
took last week will do just the opposite, forcing an omnibus,
unless we can arrive at an accommodation. That is very
unfortunate. As this particular panel knows, when we go into an
omnibus, funds are cut out of the basic research that we need
so badly. That is what happened last year.
I have been, as Senator Mikulski has been, and will
continue to be a very strong supporter of NSF and a robust NSF
budget. My support for the work at NSF has not and will not
diminish.
I think this is a very important hearing today because it
gives us an opportunity to talk about the critical role NSF
plays in the economic, scientific, and intellectual growth of
this Nation. Our country's future depends upon our ability to
lead the world in science and technology, especially in the
global marketplace. NSF is a primary tool in meeting the global
challenges of the 21st century, pushing the boundaries of
scientific research and technology. NSF's work should give us a
better insight into the world around us. This work will build
our economy, provide jobs, speed innovation, and improve the
quality of life for all our people.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not adequately
supported NSF in the physical sciences. I strongly believe that
the funding disparity between life sciences and the physical
sciences has grown too large. And I have had numerous
physicians, medical researchers, scientists tell us that we are
holding back work in developments in the life sciences because
we are not funding the basic NSF sciences that support them.
The funding imbalance directly jeopardizes our ability to lead
the world in scientific innovation. As I said, the NIH work is
jeopardized because by undermining the physical sciences, we
are undermining the underpinning for medical technological
advances.
Inadequate funding for NSF also hurts our economy and the
creation of jobs. In recent years, there has been an outcry
about outsourcing jobs to other countries. The best remedy for
this issue is not protectionism but investing in education and
skills of our future work force. This means better science and
math education and technological skills, such as computer
literacy. This is a major part of NSF's mission.
I met earlier this week with leaders of our Nation's major
computer companies, and they were absolutely stunned by the
lack of commitment and investment in this research. They point
out that it takes 25 years for this basic research to translate
into jobs and to practical applications, and by not funding it
now, we are short-changing our Nation several years down the
road.
Sadly, the budget request for NSF does not provide it with
adequate resources to meet its mission. While Dr. Marburger and
our friends at OMB will state that the NSF budget is one of the
few increases in the Federal budget, I am not happy. Dr.
Marburger chided me for the slim funding for NSF last year, and
Jack, do you remember what I said? I said I cannot do it if OMB
undercuts us. And guess what? OMB has undercut us once again.
It is especially disappointing because Senator Mikulski and I
and my other colleagues have made great efforts to get on a
path to double funding for NSF. We have fallen off that path
drastically, but we are not going to give up.
This should be one of the highest priorities not just for
this subcommittee but for the full committee, for the Congress
and for the Nation. It means a greater effort by the research
and high-tech sector in advocating and selling the virtues of
NSF to the general public. Please, ladies and gentlemen, come
out of your laboratories, come out of your think tanks, and let
people know how important this funding is.
Now, I know there are significant shortfalls throughout the
Federal budget, and our own committee, the VA-HUD subcommittee,
such as it is or was or may be, has underfunding for VA medical
care, community development block grants, and in EPA Clean
Water. It is obviously going to be a major challenge to find
the funds for NSF in 2006. But, Senator Mikulski and I are
committed to NSF and we are going to work with the
administration to increase the NSF budget as we move forward.
Given this constrained funding environment, it is even more
critical that the National Science Board develop a long-term
vision for NSF. In other words, Dr. Washington, we need a
strategy that outlines what our priorities are, how we can get
the biggest bang for our bucks through programs and activities
supported by NSF. This does not mean looking into NSF to alter
its grant size and duration. This means articulating a vision
for the future of science and technology, including what are
the new, bold, cutting-edge areas of research. We need a plan,
a business plan, if you would, on how NSF will lead the
research community in meeting these new, bold challenges. The
Board has a tremendous talent pool available and we need you
and the Board to tell us what are the activities that we must
pursue for the future.
One of the specific areas that the Board should examine is
the future of our Nation's math and science education. In its
budget request, the administration has made some disturbing
cuts to NSF's education portfolio, especially those programs
serving K through 12 education. Every major assessment of math
and science has shown how far our country's students have
fallen behind the rest of the world in math and science
proficiency. I understand that up to fourth grade, boys and
girls are doing well, but by the time they get to the eighth
grade, our students are out-performed by 8 countries in science
and by 14 countries in math, including Latvia and Malaysia.
Now, what are we thinking about? We have to address this
problem before it is too late.
Our scientific education and research system must also
ensure that no one is left behind. I am pleased that the budget
request emphasizes the importance of broadening the
participation of programs to under-represented groups such as
minorities, women, and people with disabilities. Nevertheless,
while OMB did not continue its routine practice of the past in
cutting these types of programs, flat funding is not an
overwhelming response.
Moreover, flat funding programs that support under-
represented groups is hurting our ability to address a growing
national crisis where there is a shortage of new homegrown
scientists and engineers. We are not attracting enough young
students, especially minorities, into these disciplines.
In the past, we used to bring in students from foreign
countries. We would educate them here and they would stay here
and provide great resources for our country, and their
intellectual capability was one of the assets that we could
rely on. Now many of these students are going home because they
can do the work in their home countries. We cannot continue to
rely on foreign students coming and staying in the United
States to fill the gap by retiring engineers and the
scientists. We need to develop our students to fulfill those
roles.
In addition, I have a strong interest in nanotechnology.
The budget provides $344 million for this important program.
There is a tremendous amount of excitement about nanotechnology
because of its far-reaching benefits from computers to
manufacturing processes, to agriculture, to medicine.
And as everyone knows, I am also a very big supporter of
plant biotechnology because it has generated exciting
possibilities for improving human health and nutrition.
Impressive research is being done with plant genomics that can
eventually be a powerful tool for addressing hunger in
developing countries like those in Africa and Southeast Asia. I
am very pleased by the recent progress on sequencing the maize
genome, led by researchers at the Danforth Plant Science Center
and the collaboration between the University of Missouri-
Columbia and Nepal on oilseeds from soybeans. I thank our good
friend, Dr. Mary Clutter, for her work on these efforts and
look forward to hearing more about it from her.
In addition to my concerns about funding, I have to address
one particular area of concern. Specifically I remain concerned
about the Foundation's continuing deficiencies in managing and
overseeing its large research facility projects. I will not go
into detail about the Inspector General's statement, which is
made a matter for the record, but it indicates that NSF's
progress in addressing large facility management problems has
been slow. Dr. Bement, I understand you have taken these issues
more seriously than your predecessor, but I need your firm
commitment that you will immediately implement the IG and
National Academy of Sciences' recommendations to correct these
problems. I also believe the Board should oversee these more
closely.
Lastly, the Board and Foundation must finalize the
priority-setting process guidelines for large research
facilities. I do not want to hear any more excuses. This is not
rocket science. It is just good management.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses
today, and I will call on my colleague and partner, Senator
Mikulski, when she arrives.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Now, because of the tightened time schedule, I would ask--
Dr. Marburger gets 7\1/2\ minutes and Dr. Bement and Dr.
Washington get 5. While you get ready, I will now turn it over
to my colleague, Senator Mikulski. I have told them how the cow
eats the cabbage, and you can continue from here.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Christopher S. Bond
The subcommittee will come to order. This morning, the VA-HUD and
Independent Agencies Subcommittee will conduct its first hearing of the
year and we begin with the fiscal year 2006 budgets for the National
Science Foundation, the National Science Board, and the Office of
Science and Technology Policy. I welcome back Dr. John Marburger from
OSTP, Dr. Arden Bement from NSF, and Dr. Warren Washington from the
National Science Board to our subcommittee. I congratulate Dr. Bement
for being confirmed last year as NSF's new Director. I look forward to
working with all three of you and hearing your testimony today.
Before I proceed with the business at hand, I recognize that there
are a lot of questions surrounding the future structure of our
committee. While this is an important issue, I strongly believe that we
cannot hold up the work of the Senate and the taxpayers by waiting for
this issue to be resolved. We must move forward. That is why we are
here today. While our colleagues across the Capitol say they want to
avoid another Omnibus, the hasty and ill-advised action they took this
week will do just the opposite, forcing an Omnibus. That is
unfortunate.
As many of you know, I have been, and will continue to be a strong
supporter of NSF and a robust budget for NSF as well. My support for
the work done at NSF has not, and will not diminish.
This is a very important hearing because it gives me the
opportunity to talk about the critical role NSF plays in the economic,
scientific and intellectual growth of this Nation. Our country's future
resides in our ability to lead the world in science and technology,
especially in the global marketplace. NSF is one of our primary tools
in meeting the global challenges of the 21st Century by pushing the
boundaries of scientific research and technology. NSF's work will give
us a better insight into the world around us. This work will grow our
economy and speed innovation, improving the quality of life for all
people.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not adequately supported
NSF and the physical sciences. I strongly believe that the funding
disparity between the life sciences and the physical sciences has grown
too large. This funding imbalance is alarming because it directly
jeopardizes our Nation's ability to lead the world in scientific
innovation. Further, we are jeopardizing the work of the National
Institutes of Health because we are undermining the physical sciences,
which provide the underpinning for medical technological advances.
Inadequate funding for NSF also hurts our economy and the creation
of good jobs. In recent years, there has been an outcry of outsourcing
jobs to other countries. The best remedy to this issue is not
protectionism but investing in the education and skills of our future
workforce. This means better math and science education and
technological skills, such as computer literacy. This is also a major
part of NSF's mission.
Sadly, the budget request for NSF does not provide it with the
adequate resources to meet its mission. While Dr. Marburger and our
friends at OMB will state that NSF's budget is one of the few increases
in the Federal budget, it does not give me any solace. This is
especially disappointing given the efforts of myself, Senator Mikulski,
and many of my other colleagues to double the funding of NSF. We have
fallen off the path for doubling NSF's budget, but we must not give up.
This must remain one of our highest priorities, not of the
subcommittee, but also the Nation. This must mean a greater effort by
the research and high-tech sector in advocating and ``selling'' the
virtues of NSF to the general public.
I recognize that there are significant funding shortfalls
throughout the Federal budget, including some notable accounts within
the VA-HUD jurisdiction such as VA medical care, HUD CDBG, and EPA
Clean Water SRF. It is obviously going to be a major challenge to find
additional funds for NSF for fiscal year 2006. Nevertheless, I am
committed to NSF and I want to work with the administration to increase
NSF's budget as we move forward.
Given the constrained funding environment, it is even more critical
that the National Science Board develop a long-term vision for NSF. In
other words, we need a strategy that outlines how we can get the
biggest bang for our buck through programs and activities supported by
NSF. This does not mean how NSF will alter its grant size and duration.
This means articulating a vision for the future of science and
technology, including the next bold cutting-edge areas of research. We
also need a plan on how NSF will lead the research community in meeting
these new bold challenges. The Board is ideally suited for this
responsibility and I believe strongly that it is a core activity of the
Board's mission.
One of the specific areas that the Board should examine is the
future of our Nation's math and science education. In this budget
request, the administration has frankly made some disturbing cuts to
NSF's education portfolio, especially to those programs serving K-12
education. Every major assessment of math and science has shown how far
our country's students have fallen behind the rest of the world in math
and science proficiency. In one recent study, our 8th grade students
were outperformed by eight countries in science and by 14 countries in
math including Latvia and Malaysia. That is simply unacceptable. We
must obviously address this problem before it is too late.
Our scientific education and research system must also ensure that
no one is left behind. I am pleased that NSF's budget recognizes the
importance of broadening the participation of its programs to under-
represented groups such as minorities, women, and people with
disabilities. Nevertheless, while OMB did not continue its routine
practice of the past in cutting these types of programs, flat-funding
them in this budget request is still disappointing.
Moreover, flat-funding programs that support under-represented
groups is hurting our ability to address a growing national crisis
where there is a shortage of new homegrown scientists and engineers. We
are not attracting enough young students, especially minorities, into
these disciplines. We cannot continue to rely on using foreign students
to stay in the United States and fill the gap created by retiring
engineers and scientists.
In addition to the education programs, I have a strong interest in
nanotechnology. The budget request provides NSF with $344 million for
this important program. There is a tremendous amount of excitement
about nanotechnology because of its far-reaching benefits from
computers to manufacturing processes to agriculture to medicine.
As everyone knows, I am a big supporter of plant biotechnology
because it has generated exciting possibilities for improving human
health and nutrition. The impressive research being done with plant
genomics can eventually be a very powerful tool of addressing hunger in
many developing countries such as those in Africa and Southeast Asia. I
am pleased by the recent progress on sequencing the maize genome led by
researchers at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center and the
collaboration between the University of Missouri-Columbia and Nepal on
oilseeds from soybeans. I thank Dr. Clutter for her work on these
efforts and look forward to hearing more about it from her.
In addition to my concerns about funding, I address one particular
area of concern. Specifically, I remain troubled by the Foundation's
continuing deficiencies in managing and overseeing its large research
facility projects. Without going into detail, the Inspector General's
statement for the record indicates that NSF's progress in addressing
its large facility management problems has been slow. I understand that
you, Dr. Bement, have taken these issues more seriously than your
predecessor but I need your firm commitment that you will immediately
implement the IG and National Academy of Sciences' recommendations to
correct these problems. I also believe that the Board should get more
heavily involved in this matter. Lastly, the Board and the Foundation
must finalize the priority-setting process guidelines for large
research facilities. I do not want to hear any more excuses. This is
not rocket science.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of all the witnesses today
and I now turn to my colleague and ranking member, Senator Mikulski,
for her statement.
Senator Mikulski. Good morning, everybody. Senator Bond, it
is the vagaries of traffic coming in from Baltimore.
Why do we not go to our witnesses and then when I go to my
questions, I will give my opening statement. It gives me a
chance to kind of regroup.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN H. MARBURGER, III
Senator Bond. Dr. Marburger.
Dr. Marburger. Thank you, Chairman Bond and Ranking Member
Mikulski, members of the subcommittee. I am happy to appear
before you once again to discuss the President's R&D budget for
the fiscal year 2006 and I would like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for your strong words of support for basic research
and for research at NSF. We agree completely about the
importance of science done by this agency. It is central to the
scientific enterprise and a major funder of research in
universities.
As you know, despite the exceptional pressures on this
budget, it does propose an increase in Federal R&D funds. The
budget does maintain a strong focus on winning the war against
terrorism while moderating the growth in overall spending, and
this focus is reflected in the proposed R&D investments. The
administration has made difficult choices and maintains
strength in priority areas such as nanotechnology, information
technology, and so forth. Furthermore, while overall non-
security discretionary spending is reduced by 1 percent, non-
security R&D is not correspondingly diminished. The fiscal year
2006 proposal preserves the substantial increases made with
your support during the first term of this administration, and
my written testimony summarizes the extraordinary growth of R&D
funding during the past 4 years.
BUDGET REQUEST
This budget requests $132.3 billion for Federal R&D, an
increase of $733 million over the current year's 2005 R&D
budget, which is a record. The budget allocates 13.6 percent of
the total discretionary outlays to R&D which is the highest
level in 37 years. Non-defense R&D accounts for 5.6 percent of
the total discretionary outlays, an amount significantly
greater than the 5 percent average over the last three decades.
So in my oral testimony, I am going to focus first on the
OSTP budget, which is appropriated by this subcommittee, and
then mention just very brief highlights on agency budgets
within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. And then Dr.
Bement and Dr. Washington have much more detail about the
budget of the National Science Foundation.
So first, OSTP. As you know, OSTP has primary
responsibility in the White House for prioritizing and
recommending Federal R&D, as well as for coordinating
interagency research initiatives. The fiscal year 2006 request
for my office is $5,564,000, which represents a net decrease of
about 12 percent below the 2005 enacted level. The major
contributing factor for this reduction is that more than
$650,000 previously required to cover our costs of after-hour
utilities and space rental is now requested by the Office of
Administration within the Executive Office of the President's
budget as part of its effort to administer centrally common
enterprise services. So this explains a major shift in how the
budget is put together.
The 2006 estimate reflects our continuing commitment to
operate more efficiently and cost effectively without
compromising the essential elements of a high-caliber science
and technology agency, which is to say high-quality personnel.
We continue to reduce funding in many object classes, non-
personnel classes, such as equipment and transportation of
things rather than people, to meet our operating priorities.
And we will continue to provide high quality support to the
President and information to Congress, as well as to fulfill
significant national homeland security and emergency
preparedness responsibilities.
I will be glad to answer more questions about the OSTP
budget, if there are any, but let me briefly summarize just in
one bullet each, the budgets for the three agencies of this
committee.
First, as you noted, NSF's budget would increase by 2.4
percent to $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2006. This is, as you
noted, an extremely important centerpiece for the Nation's
science budget.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
The request for NASA is $16.46 billion which is also a 2.4
percent increase from 2005, which does reflect a strong
commitment by the administration to the missions of this
agency. This budget request also makes some hard decisions, Mr.
Chairman, trading off some projects with high technical risks
to maintain others with high scientific value.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In EPA, the science and technology request is $792 million,
which is a 2 percent increase over the previous year enacted,
even before removing $70 million in earmarks.
We have a number of interagency initiatives which my office
has responsibility for coordinating. With President Bush's 2006
budget request of $2.2 billion for the Network and Information
Technology R&D initiative, the investment in this area over 5
years will total more than $10.4 billion.
The National Nanotechnology initiative, which you expressed
interest in and have supported strongly, President Bush's 2006
budget provides over $1 billion for this multi-agency program,
bringing the total investment under this program to $4.7
billion.
We continue to support climate change, approximately $1.9
billion, and with this request the administration will have
invested more than $9 billion over 5 five years to improve our
understanding of the global climate system.
The hydrogen fuel initiative has a budget request of $260
million, which is an increase of 16 percent from 2005 enacted.
This initiative remains on track to meet President Bush's 5-
year $1.2 billion commitment to hydrogen research and
development announced in his State of the Union address in
2003.
And in homeland security, the Science and Technology
Directorate funding is to increase from $1.1 billion to $1.4
billion. The R&D there is focused on countering chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, and other catastrophic
threats.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, America's
science and technology capabilities are the envy of the world.
I believe the President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposal
maintains and selectively strengthens these capabilities in
areas that are important to the Nation's national, homeland,
and economic security. And I would be pleased to answer
questions about these or other aspects of the budget. Thank
you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. John H. Marburger, III
Chairman Bond, Ranking Minority Member Mikulski, and members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you once again to discuss
the President's research and development (R&D) budget. As I have said
many times before, I greatly appreciate the effective working
relationship between our office and your committee, which I believe has
resulted in good outcomes for the Nation's science and technology
enterprise.
The budget this year is subject to considerable pressure, as you
know, and the President is committed to cutting the budget deficit in
half by 2009. These factors make this year's budget proposal the
tightest in nearly two decades.
Despite these pressures, Federal R&D funds will increase in the
President's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget. The budget maintains a strong
focus on winning the war against terrorism, while moderating the growth
in overall spending, and this focus is reflected in the proposed R&D
investments. The administration has also maintained high levels of
support for priority areas such as nanotechnology, information
technology, the hydrogen initiative, and space exploration.
Furthermore, while overall ``non-security'' discretionary spending is
reduced by 1 percent, ``non-security'' R&D is not correspondingly
diminished. The fiscal year 2006 proposal preserves the substantial
increases made--with your support--during the first term of this
administration. This treatment of R&D is consistent with the
President's commitment to science and technology and the vital role
they play in meeting the Nation's goals for national and economic
security and the quality of life.
Comparing R&D investments in this administration with investments
in other top national priorities demonstrates this commitment: from
fiscal year 2001 to this fiscal year 2006 proposal, Federal spending on
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) activities will have increased 83
percent; Department of Education programs are up 40 percent; and
Department of Defense spending is up 37 percent. At the same time total
Federal investment in R&D will have increased 45 percent. The
percentage increase in R&D has been second only to the increase in the
Department of Homeland Security during President Bush's first 5 budget
years.
This historic increase in R&D has not been confined to a single
agency or field of science. It does include a significant investment in
defense R&D, whose value to the Nation's technical enterprise extends
well beyond the defense establishment. Defense R&D funds significant
university and private sector research, supports a large number of
scientists, engineers and technical experts, and is instrumental in
training and recruiting the next generation of technical talent for the
Nation. Non-defense R&D, however, has also benefited from similar large
increases during the past 5 years.
I am emphasizing these historical data to provide a context for
this year's request. Within a pattern of overall budget constraint,
funds are provided that we believe are appropriate to maintain and
refine the large program increases of previous years. Within the
pattern of detailed agency budgets, priorities have been established
and choices made that preserve the Nation's investment in the
critically important assets of science and technology.
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2006 R&D BUDGET
The President's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget requests $132.3 billion in
Federal Research and Development funds, an increase of $733 million
over this year's (2005) record R&D budget. The Budget allocates 13.6
percent of total discretionary outlays to R&D--the highest level in 37
years. Non-defense R&D accounts for 5.6 percent of total discretionary
outlays, an amount significantly greater than the 5.0 percent average
over the past three decades.
While non-defense discretionary program budget authority is reduced
by 0.26 percent in this proposal, non-defense R&D funds are increased
by 0.74 percent. The category of Basic Research is maintained near its
historically high level at $26.6 billion in fiscal year 2006, slightly
down from $26.9 billion in fiscal year 2005.
The fiscal year 2006 request for the ``Federal Science and
Technology'' (FS&T) budget, (a focus more on basic research, as
recommended by the National Academy of Sciences to) is $61 billion, or
a 1 percent reduction from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. However,
this reduction is entirely attributable to the removal of earmarks,
most notably in the Department of Defense (over $1 billion) and the
Department of Agriculture (approximately $340 million). The President's
Fiscal Year 2006 Budget request does not continue fiscal year 2005
earmarks beyond fiscal year 2005, instead increasing programs of
priority to research agencies. Earmarks are not consistent with using
funds most efficiently to target agency missions or to support the best
research. The administration strongly supports awarding research funds
based on merit review through a competitive process, and we are
prepared to work with Congress to achieve consistency in Legislative
and Executive priorities to fund the best scientific research possible.
Not all programs can or should receive equal priority, and this
budget reflects priority choices consistent with recommendations from
numerous expert sources. In particular, this budget is informed by
recommendations from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST), and reflects an extensive process of consultation
among the Federal agencies, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
As in previous years this R&D budget highlights collaborations
among multiple Federal agencies working together on broad themes. I
will describe some individual agency highlights, followed by the five
multi-agency R&D priorities highlighted in the President's Fiscal Year
2006 Budget: Networking and Information Technology R&D; National
Nanotechnology Initiative; Climate Change R&D; Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative; and Homeland Security R&D.
AGENCY BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
The Office of Science and Technology Policy, which I lead, has
primary responsibility in the White House for prioritizing and
recommending Federal R&D, as well as for coordinating interagency
research initiatives. The fiscal year 2006 request for OSTP is
$5,564,000, which represents a net decrease of $764,000, or 12.1
percent, below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The major
contributing factor for this reduction is that $653,000, previously
required to cover OSTP's cost of after-hour utilities and space rental,
is now requested by the Office of Administration, within the Executive
Office of the President, as part of its effort to centrally administer
common enterprise services.
The estimate for fiscal year 2006 reflects OSTP's continuing
commitment to operate more efficiently and cost-effectively without
compromising the essential element of a top-caliber science and
technology agency--high quality personnel. OSTP continues to reduce
funding in many object classes, such as equipment and transportation of
things, to meet operating priorities. OSTP will continue to provide
high quality support to the President and information to Congress, as
well as to fulfill significant national and homeland security and
emergency preparedness responsibilities.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Funds are requested to increase the budget for NSF by 2.4 percent
to $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2006, 26 percent above 2001's $4.4
billion level. Similar investments in the past have yielded important
scientific discoveries, which boost economic growth and enhance
Americans' quality of life.
NSF leads two administration priority research areas that promise
to strengthen the Nation's economy: the National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) and the Networking and Information Technology R&D
program (NITRD). NSF-funded nanotechnology research, proposed at $344
million in fiscal year 2006, a 1.6 percent increase over 2005 and 129
percent since 2001, has advanced our understanding of materials at the
molecular level and has provided insights into how innovative
mechanisms and tools can be built atom by atom. This emerging field
holds promise for a broad range of developing technologies, including
higher-performance materials, more efficient manufacturing processes,
higher-capacity computer storage, and microscopic biomedical
instruments and mechanisms. NSF's investments in NITRD, funded at $803
million in 2006, a 1 percent increase over 2005 and 26 percent since
2001, support all major areas of basic information technology (IT)
research. NSF also incorporates IT advances into its scientific and
engineering applications, supports using computing and networking
infrastructure for research, and contributes to IT-related education
for scientists, engineers, and the IT workforce.
Growing concerns about the vulnerability of computers, networks and
information systems have prompted increased NSF investments in cyber
security research, education and training. The Fiscal Year 2006 Budget
provides $94 million for these activities.
Every research discipline in the agency is increased between 1 to
3.5 percent, allowing the grant funding rate to be restored to 21
percent (from 20 percent in 2005). Funding is provided for the five
Major Research Equipment (MRE) projects already approved (Atacama Large
Millimeter Array, EarthScope, the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, the
Rare Symmetry Violating Processes (RSVP) installation, the National
Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), and the Scientific Ocean
Drilling Vessel).
In order to most effectively and efficiently support the Nation's
polar research activities in Antarctica, funding for three polar
icebreakers is being transferred from the U.S. Coast Guard to NSF ($48
million). In the future, this will permit NSF to define the options for
refurbishment or replacement of two of the ships, as well as
operational options for the third (Arctic) icebreaker.
The Fiscal Year 2006 Budget will continue NSF's efforts to prepare
U.S. students for the science and engineering workforce, with funds for
4,600 graduate research fellowships and traineeships. NSF provides
annual stipends in these programs of $30,000, which is significantly
higher than the average stipend of $18,000 in 2001.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
During the year since the President outlined a bold vision for
sustained and affordable human and robotic exploration of space, NASA
has restructured its organization and reprioritized its programs. The
current human spaceflight programs, Shuttle and International Space
Station, are focusing research and technology development on enabling
the vision, while requirements are being established for the next
generation of space transportation. An exciting array of space science
missions are being planned that will enhance our understanding of the
solar system, including interactions between the Earth and the space
environment, and building observatories that will peer further into the
cosmos to understand the origin of the universe, its structure,
evolution and destiny.
The President's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget request for NASA is $16.456
billion, a 2.4 percent increase from 2005, reflecting a strong
commitment by the administration to pursue the exploration vision. The
Fiscal Year 2006 Budget request also makes some hard decisions,
canceling some projects with high technical risk and others whose cost
estimates would have led to the certain cancellation and delay of
several other important programs. The budget request maintains NASA's
focus on exploration and science while strengthening the long-term
foundation for continued success.
The budget requests about $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2006 for new
vehicles and technologies to enable sustained human and advanced
robotic exploration far from Earth. NASA has identified the major
requirements for a Crew Exploration Vehicle that will carry astronauts
to the Moon. NASA plans to perform risk reduction tests in 2008 and
stage its first crewed flight by 2014. NASA will also continue pursuing
nuclear technologies for space applications, optical communications for
high data rate connectivity to space probes, radiation shielding, and
other advanced technologies to support the exploration vision. In
addition, NASA is pursuing innovative means to engage private industry
including offering space prizes to spur innovation.
The budget requests approximately $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2006
to continue advancing our scientific understanding of the Sun, Earth,
and planets and to inform decisions regarding appropriate human
exploration missions. NASA will also build on its legacy of
revolutionizing astronomy by continuing current operations of space
telescopes such as Hubble, Chandra, and Spitzer while planning for the
next generation of spacecraft that will enhance our ability to find
planets around other stars, peer deep into the history of the universe,
and improve our understanding of its structure.
The Fiscal Year 2006 Budget continues to fund critical investments
in Earth science satellites, technologies, and research. NASA will
continue to play a major part in the interagency Climate Change Science
Research Program, and contribute to the international initiative on the
Global Earth Observing System of Systems.
The budget requests approximately $6.4 billion in fiscal year 2006
for operating the Space Shuttle and continuing assembly and operations
of the International Space Station. NASA is examining configurations
that meet the needs of both the new space exploration vision and our
international partners using as few Shuttle flights as possible to
enable Shuttle retirement by 2010, following completion of its role in
ISS assembly. In concert with the new vision, NASA will refocus U.S.
Space Station research on activities that prepare human explorers to
travel beyond low Earth orbit, such as developing countermeasures
against space radiation and understanding long-term physiological
effects of reduced gravity.
As the United States implements the Vision for U.S. Space
Exploration, the administration recognizes the value of effective
cooperation with Russia to further our space exploration goals. At the
same time, we have to appropriately reflect U.S. nonproliferation
policy and objectives in our relationship with Russia. The
administration is thus interested in seeking a balanced approach that
continues to protect our nonproliferation goals while advancing
potential U.S. cooperation with Russia on the Vision for U.S. Space
Exploration. Such a balanced approach must include the Iran
Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (INA), which currently complicates
cooperation with Russia on the International Space Station (ISS), and
will also have an adverse impact on cooperation with Russia on our
future space exploration efforts related to human space flight. To that
end, the administration looks forward to working with Congress to
ensure that the Vision for U.S. Space Exploration is able to succeed
while remaining fully consistent with broader U.S. national security
and nonproliferation goals.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The fiscal year 2006 request for science and technology funding at
EPA is $792 million, a 2 percent increase over fiscal year 2005, even
before removing $70 million in earmarks. This investment supports core
Agency programs and strengthens the application of science to EPA
regulatory actions and other programs.
The administration is directing $20 million of S&T funding to a new
pilot program within EPA that the program offices (e.g., Water, Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Air) would then use to fund
applied research in the Office of Research and Development (ORD). This
is intended to improve the use of ORD (to avoid duplicative program
efforts), coordination between the program offices and ORD, and
responsiveness and accountability. This program contributes to the
overall increase in S&T funding.
Seventy-nine million dollars in new funding will support homeland
security projects and research at EPA related to water security
monitoring and surveillance, post-incident building and environmental
decontamination, and Environmental Laboratory Preparedness and
Response.
The Fiscal Year 2006 Budget requests approximately $65 million for
the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program, which includes a
decrease in exploratory research grants. Given the overall tightness of
EPA's budget (-6 percent from 2005 enacted), and the need to fund core
programmatic needs, STAR grants, which cannot focus on EPA program
needs, were reduced.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
The Fiscal Year 2006 Budget requests that over three quarters of a
billion dollars ($786 million) be directly appropriated to VA for
medical and prosthetic R&D, an 11 percent increase since fiscal year
2001. Another $866 million is anticipated to be provided from other
government agencies and private entities to support VA-conducted
research, bringing total VA R&D program resources to $1.7 billion, 3
percent more than fiscal year 2005.
The proposed VA R&D budget provides for a comprehensive intramural
research program to acquire veteran-specific medical knowledge and
create targeted innovations that address the special health care needs
of the Nation's veterans. This includes biomedical disease research,
disability rehabilitation R&D, development of best practices for more
effective and efficient health care delivery, clinical pharmacological
and surgical studies in veterans, and indirect costs. The research is
focused on trauma-related illness, sensory loss, military occupational
effects, environmental exposures, mental illness, substance abuse,
chronic disease and aging.
PRIORITY INITIATIVES
The 2006 budget highlights priority interagency initiatives
described briefly below. These initiatives are coordinated through the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) for which my office has
responsibility for day-to-day operations. The Council prepares research
and development strategies that cross agency boundaries to form a
consolidated and coordinated investment package.
Networking and Information Technology R&D.--With President Bush's
Fiscal Year 2006 Budget request of $2.2 billion for the Networking and
Information Technology R&D (NITRD) program, the investment in this area
over 5 years will total more than $10.4 billion. Research in networking
and information technologies underpins advances in virtually every
other area of science and technology and provides new capacity for
economic productivity. Through active coordination, NITRD agencies
mutually leverage resources to make broader advances in networking and
information technology than any single agency could attain.
--NSF continues to provide the largest share of Federal NITRD
funding, reflecting the Foundation's broad mission as well as
its leadership role in coordinating NITRD activities. The
fiscal year 2006 request for NSF is $803 million, an $8 million
increase from the 2005 estimate.
--High-end computing continues to be a major focus within the NITRD
program. In fiscal year 2004, the interagency High End
Computing Revitalization Task Force (HECRTF) produced the
Federal Plan for High-End Computing, which describes a roadmap
for progress in core technologies for high-end computing,
mechanisms for improving access to high-end computing
resources, and strategies for improving Federal procurement and
coordination of high-end systems. The Fiscal Year 2006 Budget
reflects the continuation of NITRD activities that are
consistent with recommendations described in the Federal Plan,
such as investments in new high-end systems by NASA and DOE's
Office of Science.
--NASA continues to emphasize high-end computing within its NITRD
portfolio through the recently-completed acquisition of the
Project Columbia supercomputer, a portion of which NASA plans
to make available to other Federal users. Following completion
of the acquisition of Columbia, NASA's expenditure in high-end
computing is normalizing at a lower level.
--The Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Science has also
committed to operate their new Leadership Class Computing
facility at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory as a national
user facility. DOE's fiscal year 2006 request of $25 million
for the Leadership facility brings that Federal investment to
$100 million.
National Nanotechnology Initiative.--President Bush's Fiscal Year
2006 Budget provides over $1 billion for the multi-agency National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), bringing the total NNI investment
under this administration to $4.7 billion. This sustained investment
will advance our understanding of the unique phenomena and processes
that occur at the nanometer scale and expedite the responsible use of
this knowledge to achieve advances in medicine, manufacturing, high-
performance materials, information technology, and energy and
environmental technologies.
--The largest investments continue to be made by NSF where the fiscal
year 2006 NSF request is $344 million, an increase of $6
million over the 2005 estimate.
--DOE contribution to the initiative ramps up dramatically with
commencement of operations in four of its five new major
Nanoscale Science Research Centers located across the country.
The Centers will provide research equipment and infrastructure
that will be broadly available to researchers from across the
scientific research community. Construction completion keeps
total DOE NNI spending flat in fiscal year 2006, but a portion
of construction roll-off funds are made available for
operational support.
--The fiscal year 2006 request of $147 million by the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) includes programs at the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) emphasizing nanotechnology-
based biomedical advances occurring at the intersection of
biology and the physical sciences, such as the National Cancer
Institute's Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer, and at the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
that address implications and applications of nanotechnology
for health and safety in the workplace.
--With the addition of NIOSH, 11 Federal agencies currently fund
nanotechnology research and development under the NNI, and
another 11 participate in coordination. Agencies that have
joined the NNI as participants over the past year include the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Consumer Product
Safety Commission, indicating the increasing importance of
commercialization activities.
Climate Change Research and Development.--The Fiscal Year 2006
Budget continues strong support for the Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) and the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP).
--The CCSP budget continues to support the goals outlined in the CCSP
Strategic Plan, which was released in July 2003. Beginning in
fiscal year 2006, CCSP will formally track the expected
actions, deliverables, and milestones for each of its programs
in order to assess overall performance.
--The Fiscal Year 2006 Budget proposes approximately $1.9 billion to
fund CCSP, virtually the same as 2005 despite reductions in
NASA (-$102 million) due to re-prioritization of programs. With
this request, the administration will have invested more than
$9 billion over 5 years to improve our understanding of the
global climate system.
--The Fiscal Year 2006 Budget provides approximately $2.9 billion for
the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), which
supports research, development, deployment, and voluntary
programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions via renewable
energy, fossil energy and nuclear energy, efficiency
improvements, and carbon sequestration.
--In 2005, the CCTP will publish a draft Strategic Plan and solicit
comments from the scientific community and the public. The CCTP
will also identify within its portfolio a subset of National
Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI) priority
activities.
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.--The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (HFI) seeks
to develop new science and technology to support a major shift toward
the use of hydrogen as an energy medium, particularly for
transportation. The Fiscal Year 2006 Budget for HFI is $260 million,
$35 million (16 percent) greater than the fiscal year 2005 level. The
Initiative remains on track to meet President Bush's 5-year, $1.2
billion commitment to hydrogen research and development announced in
his 2003 State of the Union address. Some highlights include:
--$20 million, an $11 million (122 percent) increase over fiscal year
2005, will fund the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative. This
initiative will conduct the R&D on enabling technologies,
demonstrate nuclear-based hydrogen production technologies, and
study potential hydrogen production schemes to support the
President's vision for a future Hydrogen economy.
--$33 million for fundamental research within DOE's Office of
Science. This research seeks to overcome key technical hurdles
in hydrogen production, storage, and conversion, by seeking
revolutionary breakthroughs in areas such as non-precious-metal
catalysts, high-temperature membrane materials, multifunctional
nanoscale structures, biological and photoelectrochemical
hydrogen production, and precision manufacturing processes.
--Congressional earmarking is slowing progress on HFI, however, and
may jeopardize the ability of the administration to achieve its
goal of a 2015 decision by industry to commercialize fuel cell
vehicles and infrastructure. In 2005, DOE's Hydrogen Technology
Program, a key component of HFI, received 17 earmarks totaling
$37 million, about 40 percent of the program's funding.
Homeland Security.--Technology continues to help secure our Nation
against terrorism. Research and development over the past 3 years in
detectors against weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat agents,
medical countermeasures to improve public health preparedness and to
protect our Nation's food and livestock, and advances in protecting the
First Responders are moving from laboratory to operational use. The
President's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget continues an aggressive investment
in research, development, and the research infrastructure so as to
further enhance our Nation's security. Priority research areas include:
--$227 million to fund the creation of a Domestic Nuclear Defense
Office (DNDO) in DHS, whose responsibility will be to develop a
comprehensive system to detect and mitigate any attempt to
import or transport a nuclear explosive device, fissile
material or radiological material intended for illicit use
within the United States.
--$1.8 billion to the HHS to fund research and development of
countermeasures against biological, chemical and radiological
threat agents.
--$596 million is allocated for the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
HHS and DHS to improve food and agriculture defense. This
includes funding for research on exotic and emerging diseases
of plants and animals and to prevent and detect food
contamination, expanding and improving laboratory facilities,
and enhancing disease monitoring, surveillance and vaccine
storage.
--$94 million will fund new and ongoing research at EPA related to
their role in water security and post-incident decontamination.
Systems for monitoring and surveillance of terrorist threat
agents in drinking water will be piloted in several U.S.
cities. Decontamination capabilities will be strengthened by
testing new cleaning methods, systems and antimicrobial
products for buildings and outdoor areas and by conducting risk
assessment work to support decontamination/revision of cleanup
guidance goals.
MANAGING THE FEDERAL RESEARCH BUDGET
Consistent with the President's Management Agenda, the
administration is improving the effectiveness of the Federal
Government's investments in R&D by applying transparent investment
criteria in analyses that inform recommendations for program funding
and management. R&D performance assessment must be done carefully to
avoid negatively impacting scientific productivity. Research often
leads scientists and engineers down unpredictable pathways with
unpredictable results. This characteristic of research requires special
consideration when measuring an R&D program's performance against its
initial goals.
Elements of good R&D program management include establishing
priorities with expected results, specifying criteria that programs or
projects must meet to be started or continued, setting clear milestones
for gauging progress, and identifying metrics for assessing results.
The R&D Investment Criteria accommodate the very wide range of R&D
activities, from basic research to development and demonstration
programs, by addressing three fundamental aspects of R&D:
--Relevance.--Programs must be able to articulate why they are
important, relevant, and appropriate for Federal investment;
--Quality.--Programs must justify how funds will be allocated to
ensure quality; and
--Performance.--Programs must be able to monitor and document how
well the investments are performing.
R&D projects and programs relevant to industry are expected to meet
criteria to determine the appropriateness of the public investment,
enable comparisons of proposed and demonstrated benefits, and provide
meaningful decision points for completing or transitioning the activity
to the private sector.
OSTP and OMB are continuing to assess the strengths and weaknesses
of R&D programs across the Federal Government in order to identify and
apply good R&D management practices throughout the government.
CONCLUSION
Making choices is difficult even when budgets are generous. But
tight budgets have the virtue of focusing on priorities and
strengthening program management. This year's R&D budget proposal
maintains levels of funding that allow America to maintain its
leadership position in science and move ahead in selected priority
areas. It is responsible in its treatment of security-related science
and technology, and it rewards good planning and management.
America currently spends one and a half times as much on Federally
funded research and development as Europe does, and three times as much
as Japan, the next highest investor in R&D. Our scientists collectively
have the best laboratories in the world, the most extensive
infrastructure supporting research, the greatest opportunities to
pursue novel lines of investigation, and the most freedom to turn their
discoveries into profitable ventures if they are inclined to do so.
We lead not only in science, but also in translating science to
economically significant products that enhance the quality of life for
all people.
This budget will sustain this leadership and maintain science and
technology capabilities that are the envy of the world. I would be
pleased to respond to questions.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Dr. Marburger. Let me
point out, in the interest of full disclosure, the 2.4 percent
increase actually--part of it, $48 million, is attributed to
transferring from the National Science Foundation funds to fund
the icebreaking costs for operations in Antarctica. This has
been in the budget, so the true increase for NSF is $84
million, or only a 1.5 percent increase, and it is still
significantly below the high-water mark for this budget in
2004. It is $47 million short of where we were 2 years ago.
Thank you very much, Dr. Marburger.
Dr. Bement.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR
Dr. Bement. Thank you, Chairman Bond, Ranking Member
Mikulski. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to
discuss NSF's fiscal year 2006 budget request and to express my
personal appreciation for the strong support you and your
colleagues have shown for NSF over the years.
BUDGET REQUEST
NSF's fiscal year 2006 budget request reflects the
administration's support for our mission. In light of the tight
fiscal climate, we have fared relatively well. For the coming
fiscal year, NSF requests $5.6 billion, an increase of $132
million, or 2.4 percent over last year's appropriation levels.
The total funding for NSF research and related activities
account in this request increases by $113 million, nearly 3
percent, to $4.33 billion. As you pointed out, of this amount,
$48 million is transferred to NSF from the Coast Guard for
operation and maintenance expenses related to icebreaking in
the Antarctic. We are working with the Coast Guard to explore
options for funding icebreaker services in support of science
within available NSF resources.
Maintaining strong and robust research programs in support
of individual investigators and small groups of researchers is
at the core of NSF's mission. In many scientific disciplines,
NSF is a major source for Federal funding to academic
institutions. One goal in this year's request is to strengthen
our research support across all areas in our portfolio.
Research, however, is only part of the NSF equation. Our
mission includes education as well. In our request, we will
maintain a total investment of almost $400 million for programs
with a proven track record in broadening the participation of
under-represented groups in the science and engineering arena.
The Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation, the
Centers for Research Excellence in Science and Technology, and
the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, the STEM Talent Extension
Program, and EPSCoR, just to name a few, are protected from
reductions in this request.
Overall, the Education and Human Resources Directorate at
NSF will be funded at $737 million, down 12.4 percent from last
year. Although we have found it necessary to make cuts in these
programs, we are also finding ways to leverage other resources
in support of education. We will, for example, continue to
encourage the types of partnerships between researchers and
students in our R&RA portfolio that provides hands-on learning
experiences.
We are committed to ensuring that future generations gain
the skills, knowledge, and insight that comes from working at
the frontier of discovery. We will also maintain our strong
working relationship with the Department of Education to
implement best practices in their initiatives supporting math
and science education.
RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT
While there are no new starts in our major research
equipment and facilities construction account, NSF is
increasing funding in this account by $76 million, for a total
of $250 million, to continue to fund ongoing projects.
NSF directly supports roughly 200,000 scientists,
educators, and students and processes over 40,000 proposals a
year. Balancing the needs of a growing, increasingly complex
portfolio with new requirements for security, e-business
practices, accountability, and award oversight presents an
ongoing challenge. In order to meet these management goals, NSF
will increase funding for activities that advance
organizational excellence by $46 million to a total of $336
million. This increase will allow for the recruitment of 23
additional full-time employees, enhancement of and security of
our e-government systems and continuing the implementation of
the business analysis recommendations that we have been working
on during the past 3 years.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Mr. Chairman, I have only touched upon the variety and
richness of the NSF portfolio. NSF research and education
efforts contribute greatly to the Nation's innovation-driven
economy and help keep America at the forefront of science and
engineering. NSF-supported researchers produce leading-edge
discoveries that serve society and spark the public's curiosity
and interest. Extraordinary discoveries coming from dozens of
NSF programs are enriching the entire science and engineering
enterprise and making education fun, exciting, and achievement-
oriented.
Thank you and I will be glad to answer any of your
questions.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Dr. Bement.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Chairman Bond, Ranking Member Mikulski, and members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss NSF's Fiscal Year
2006 Budget Request. It is a pleasure to appear before you today. For
over 50 years, NSF has been charged with being a strong steward of the
scientific discovery and innovation that has been crucial to increasing
America's economic strength, global competitiveness, national security,
and overall quality of life.
For many years, the United States economy has depended heavily on
investments in research and development--and with good reason.
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.
Investments in science and technology--both public and private--
have driven economic growth and improved the quality of life in America
for the last 200 years. They have generated new knowledge and new
industries, created new jobs, ensured economic and national security,
reduced pollution and increased energy efficiency, provided better and
safer transportation, improved medical care, and increased living
standards for the American people. Innovation and technology have
become the engines of the American economy, and advances in science and
engineering provide the fuel.
Investments in research and development are among the highest-
payback investments a Nation can make. Over the past 50 years
technological innovation has been responsible for as much as half of
the Nation's growth in productivity.
Sustaining this innovation requires an understanding of the factors
that contribute to it. The Council on Competitiveness, a consortium of
industry, university, and labor leaders, has developed quantitative
measures of national competitiveness: the number of R&D personnel in
the available workforce; total R&D investment; the percentage of R&D
funded by private industry; the percentage of R&D performed by the
university sector; spending on higher education; the strength of
intellectual property protection, openness to international
competition; and per capita gross domestic product. A similar set of
indicators has been developed by the World Bank Group, and voluminous
data have been compiled by NSF. The important point underscored by
these indicators is that, for America to remain a prosperous and secure
country, it must maintain its technological leadership in the world.
Perhaps the Council on Competitiveness' 2004 National Innovation
Initiative report captured it best by simply stating, ``Innovation has
always been the way people solved the great challenges facing
society.''
Often times, the connection between an area of research, or even a
particular scientific discovery, and an innovation may be far from
obvious. Fundamental research in physics, mathematics and high-flux
magnets supported by NSF led to the development of today's Magnetic
Resonance Imaging (MRI) technology. Today, MRIs are used widely to
detect cancer and internal tissue damage. Fundamental research on
extremophiles, or microorganisms living in extreme environments, led to
the polymerase chain reaction, a procedure paramount to modern
biotechnology, as well as one that allows us to use DNA for forensic
evidence. Continuing progress in basic science and engineering research
promises more discoveries as well as further improvements in living
standards and economic performance.
And still, science and engineering is becoming an ever-larger
portion of our Nation's productivity. In the early 1950's, Jacob
Bronowski wrote, ``The world today is powered by science.'' I would
take this premise one step farther, ``No science; no economic growth.''
Our current level of scientific and technological productivity is what
keeps us ahead of our global competitors as the playing field continues
to become more level.
NSF has helped advance America's basic science and engineering
enterprise for over 50 years. Despite its small size, NSF has an
extraordinary impact on scientific and engineering knowledge and
capacity. While NSF represents only 4 percent of the total Federal
budget for research and development, it accounts for 50 percent of non-
life science basic research at academic institutions. In fact, NSF is
the only Federal agency that supports all fields of science and
engineering research and the educational programs that sustain them
across generations. NSF's programs reach over 2,000 institutions across
the Nation, and they involve roughly 200,000 researchers, teachers, and
students.
NSF specifically targets its investments in fundamental research at
the frontiers of science and engineering. Here, advances push the
boundaries of innovation, progress and productivity.
Compared to other commodities, knowledge generated from basic
science investments is unique, long lasting and leverages on itself.
Knowledge can be shared, stored and distributed easily, and it does not
diminish by use. Incremental advances in knowledge are synergistic over
time. NSF is proud to have built the foundation for this knowledge base
through decades of peer-reviewed, merit-based research.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST
The Foundation's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request reflects the
administration's confidence in our continuing with this mission. In
light of the tight fiscal climate, NSF fared relatively well. For the
coming fiscal year, NSF requests $5.6 billion, an increase of $132
million, or 2.4 percent, over last year's appropriated levels.
At a time when many agencies are looking at budget cuts, an
increase in our budget underscores the administration's support of
NSF's science and engineering programs, and reflects the agency's
excellent management and program results.
With the wealth of benefits that investments in science and
engineering bring to the Nation, perhaps none is more powerful than the
capability to respond quickly and effectively to challenges of all
kinds. NSF's programs reach over 2,000 institutions across the Nation,
and they involve researchers, teachers, and students in all fields of
science and engineering and at all levels of education. They also keep
us abreast of scientific advances throughout the world. This breadth of
activity in and of itself creates a vital national resource, as it
provides the Nation with a constantly invigorated base of knowledge,
talent, and technology. For example, in areas ranging from terrorism
threats to natural disasters, NSF's ongoing support of research in
areas such as advanced information technologies, sensors, and
earthquake engineering ensures a broad base of expertise and equipment
that allows the science and engineering community to respond quickly in
times of need and in partnership with scientists and engineers from
other countries.
Four funding priorities centering this year's request are designed
to address current national challenges and strengthen NSF's core
research investments. They include: (1) Strengthening core disciplinary
research; (2) Providing broadly accessible cyberinfrastructure and
world-class research facilities; (3) Broadening participation in the
science and engineering workforce; and (4) Sustaining organizational
excellence in NSF management practices.
This year's investments will strengthen the core disciplines that
empower every step of the process from discovery at the frontier to the
development of products, processes, and technologies that fuel the
economy. At the same time, NSF's investments will enable increasing
connections and cross-fertilization among disciplines.
NSF's focus on a clear set of priorities will help the Nation meet
new challenges and take advantage of promising opportunities, while at
the same time spurring the growth and prosperity needed to secure the
Nation's long-term fiscal balance. The fiscal year 2006 budget will
emphasize investments that address established interagency research
priorities, meet critical needs identified by the science and
engineering community, and advance the fundamental knowledge that
strengthens the Nation's base of innovation and progress. NSF will
respond to these challenges by supporting the best people, ideas, and
tools in the science and engineering enterprise, and by employing the
best practices in organizational excellence.
RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES ACCOUNT
For fiscal year 2006, total funding for NSF's Research and Related
Activities account increases by $113 million--nearly 3 percent--to
$4.33 billion. This increase largely reflects NSF efforts to strengthen
fundamental research in the core scientific disciplines as well as
promote emerging areas of research. The fiscal year 2006 portfolio
balances research in established disciplines with research in emerging
areas of opportunity and cross-disciplinary projects. The most fertile
opportunities sometimes lie in novel approaches or a collaborative mix
of disciplines.
Maintaining a strong and robust core is critical during such a
budget climate as certain segments of the academic community rely
heavily on NSF funding. In many scientific disciplines, NSF is a major
source of Federal funding to academic institutions, including
mathematics (77 percent), computer sciences (86 percent), the social
sciences (49 percent), the environmental sciences (50 percent),
engineering (45 percent) and the physical sciences (39 percent).
Research, however, is only part of the NSF equation. Training the
Nation's next generation of scientists and engineers is another key
component of NSF's mission, and critical for maintaining economic
prosperity and global competitiveness. Here, we are finding ways to
leverage our resources. For example, as we strengthen our core
disciplinary research programs, we will continue to encourage the types
of partnerships between researchers and students that provide hands-on
experience while ensuring that future generations gain the skills,
knowledge and insight that come from working at the frontier of
discovery.
PROVIDING BROADLY ACCESSIBLE CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE AND WORLD-CLASS
RESEARCH FACILITIES
Twenty-first century researchers and the students who will bring
new skills into the workforce rely on cutting edge tools. In fiscal
year 2006, NSF is placing a high priority on investments in
cyberinfrastructure and in unique, widely shared research equipment and
facilities.
An infrastructure of power grids, telephone systems, roads, bridges
and rail lines buttressed this Nation's industrial economy and allowed
it to prosper. However, cyberinfrastructure--a networked system of
distributed computer information and communication technology--is the
lynchpin of today's knowledge based economy. In fiscal year 2006, NSF
cyberinfrastructure investments total $509 million, an increase of $36
million (7.6 percent) over the fiscal year 2005 level.
Modeling, simulation, visualization, data storage and communication
are rapidly transforming all areas of research and education. NSF
investments in cyberinfrastructure support a wide mix of projects and
encourage participation from broad segments of the research community
that rely on such technology as they tackle increasingly complex
scientific questions. Thanks to cyberinfrastructure and information
systems, today's scientific tool kit includes distributed systems of
hardware, software, databases and expertise that can be accessed in
person or remotely. In fact, programs such as Teragrid, a multi-year
effort to create the world's largest distributed infrastructure for
open scientific research, are specifically designed to transcend
geographic boundaries and accelerate virtual collaborations.
NSF is also increasing funding for the Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction by $76 million or 44 percent, in fiscal year
2006 for a total of $250 million. There are no new starts, but we will
continue to fund ongoing projects. Work will proceed on five major
facilities that will serve a spectrum of the science and engineering
community. These include world-class astronomy, physics, and
geosciences observatories identified as the highest priorities for
advancing science and engineering.
--The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), in Chile, is a model of
international collaboration. It will be the world's largest,
most sensitive radio telescope.
--The EarthScope facility is a multi-purpose array of instruments and
observatories that will greatly expand the observational
capabilities of the Earth Sciences and permit us to advance our
understanding of the structure, evolution and dynamics of the
North American continent.
--Ice Cube, the world's first high-energy neutrino observatory will
be located under the ice at the South Pole.
--RSVP, the Rare Symmetry Violating Processes Project will enable
cutting edge physics experiments to study fundamental
properties of nature. Studies will probe questions ranging from
the origins of our physical world to the nature of dark matter.
--SODV, the Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel, is a state-of-the-art
ship that will be a cornerstone of a new international
scientific ocean drilling program. Ocean core sediment and rock
collected by the vessel will help investigators explore the
planet's geological history and probe changes in the earth's
oceans and climate.
Additionally, In fiscal year 2006, NSF will assume the
responsibility, from the U.S. Coast Guard, for funding the costs of
icebreakers that support scientific research in polar regions; $48
million was transferred for those purposes.
BROADENING PARTICIPATION
To feed our knowledge-based economy, the Nation needs to capitalize
on all of its available talent to produce a workforce of skilled
technologists, scientists and engineers. That means developing the
largely untapped potential of those underrepresented in the science and
engineering workforce--minorities, women and persons with disabilities.
It also means supporting science education and training in all regions
of the country--not just at large universities or in a handful of
States.
To achieve these goals, the Fiscal Year 2006 Request maintains a
total investment of almost $400 million. Funding will be targeted to
programs with a proven track record of progress in these areas.
Included in this is $8 million in additional support from the research
directorates that will supplement the Education and Human Resources
Account to help achieve our goal of broadening science and engineering
participation. Working closely with the directorates offers a dual
benefit of providing educational opportunities and hands-on research
experience to prepare students for the 21st century workforce.
NSF will invest $396.5 million in a range of programs with proven
track records. Several highly successful programs for broadening
participation--the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation,
the Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate, the Centers
for Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST), Robert Noyce
Scholarship program, STEM Talent Expansion Program and EPSCoR--just to
name a few, are secured in this request. Each of these serve as models
for integrating educational and research resources to improve
recruitment and retention in science and engineering to all sectors of
our diverse population.
SUSTAINING ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE IN NSF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
NSF directly supports over 210,000 scientists, educators and
students and processes over 40,000 proposals a year. Balancing the
needs of a growing, increasingly complex portfolio with new
requirements for e-business practices, security, accountability, and
award oversight presents a challenge. NSF sets high standards for its
business practices and strives to create an agile, innovative
organization through state-of-the-art business conduct and continual
review. In order to meet these management goals, NSF will be increasing
funding for activities that advance organizational excellence by $46
million, to a total of $336 million. In addition to critically needed
upgrades to our information technology infrastructure, this increase
will allow for the recruitment of 25 full-time employees--23 for NSF
and one each for the National Science Board and the Office of the
Inspector General--which will improve our ability to manage our
increasingly complex portfolio.
Expanding our e-government systems and the implementing of our
ongoing business analysis recommendations are high priorities for
fiscal year 2006.
Over the past 2 years, as part of the administration's Program
Assessment Rating Tool, NSF has worked with OMB to rate eight of our
investment categories. All of these areas have received the highest
rating of Effective. As such, NSF programs fall within the top 15
percent of 600 government programs evaluated to date.
CROSSCUTTING ACTIVITIES
Beyond our budget priorities lie dozens of programs and initiatives
that cut across NSF directorates and enrich the overall science and
research enterprise. NSF sets priorities based on a continual dialogue
and exchange of ideas with the research community, NSF management and
staff and the National Science Board. Programs are initiated based on
several criteria: intellectual merit, broader impacts of the research,
balance across disciplines and synergy with research in other agencies.
The Committee of Visitors process ensures a continuous evaluation of
our merit review process and feedback on how NSF programs are
performing. In fiscal year 2006, NSF will emphasize four crosscutting
areas.
Crosscutting Areas of Emerging Opportunity.--Over several years,
NSF has funded exceptionally promising interdisciplinary efforts aimed
at advancing our knowledge, addressing national needs, and probing the
grand challenges of science. The fiscal year 2006 request supports the
following priority areas: $84 million for Biocomplexity in the
Environment, $243 million for Nanoscale Science and Engineering, $89
million for the Mathematical Sciences Priority Area and $39 million for
Human and Social Dynamics.
International Collaborations.--Science and engineering research are
increasingly global endeavors. International partnerships are critical
to the United States in maintaining a competitive edge, capitalizing on
global opportunities, and addressing global problems. The Office of
International Science and Engineering's recent move to the director's
office, and the budget request reflects this important trend. The
fiscal year 2006 budget provides $35 million for NSF's Office of
International Science and Engineering.
The recent Indian Ocean Tsunami disaster represents the finest in
international cooperation--and clearly demonstrates an international
desire to develop scientific methods for natural disaster prediction
and ways to reduce losses when such catastrophic events do inevitably
occur. A network of more than 128 sensors--which NSF has a 20-year
investment in--recorded shock waves from the recent earthquake as they
traveled around the earth. This network is the primary international
source of data for earthquake location and tsunami warning and its data
forged the critical core of the early knowledge of this event. Within
days of the disaster NSF research teams deployed to the region to
gather critical data before it was lost to nature and reconstruction.
Their work will help scientists and engineers better understand the
warning signs of natural disasters, the design of safer coastal
structures, the development of early warning and response systems, and
effective steps for disaster recovery.
Interagency Initiatives.--NSF will continue to play a lead role in
interagency collaborations to address national needs and take advantage
of economic growth opportunities. In fiscal year 2006, NSF investments
in the National Nanotechnology Initiative increase by $6 million over
fiscal year 2005 levels to total $344 million. NSF participation in the
Networking Information Technology Research and Development initiative
will increase to $803 million--$8 million over the fiscal year 2005
level. The NSF contribution to the Climate Change Science Program
decreases slightly to $197 million.
Homeland Security Activities.--The Fiscal Year 2006 Request
includes a $2 million increase for government-wide efforts in homeland
security research and development. This $344 million investment will
strengthen NSF's commitment to cybersecurity by supporting innovations
to secure today's computer and networking systems, embed cybersecurity
into future systems and preparing tomorrow's workforce with state-of-
the-art security skills.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, I've only touched upon the variety and richness of
the NSF portfolio. NSF research and education efforts contribute
greatly to the Nation's innovation economy and help keep America at the
forefront of science and engineering. At the same time, NSF supported
researchers produce leading edge discoveries that serve society and
spark the public's curiosity and interest. Extraordinary discoveries
coming from dozens of NSF programs and initiatives are enriching the
entire science and engineering enterprise, and making education fun,
exciting and achievement-oriented. In fact, just this month, two of the
most widely-read and emailed stories from the national press were the
discoveries of NSF-supported researchers.
In one, scientists using new bio-bar-code technology created a
detection method for a protein implicated in Alzheimer's disease. It's
the first test designed for use in living patients and holds promise
for diagnosing Alzheimer's at an early stage. In the second
development, scientists generated an entirely new classification system
for the brains of birds based on recent studies showing that birds are
much closer in cognitive ability to mammals than previously thought.
The new scheme will affect thousands of scientists, and help merge
research efforts on both birds and mammals. These two examples, fresh
off the press, illustrate NSF's motto ``Where Discoveries Begin.''
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I hope that this brief
overview conveys to you the extent of NSF's commitment to advancing
science and technology in the national interest. I am very aware and
appreciative of the committee's long-standing bipartisan support for
NSF. I look forward to working with you in months ahead, and would be
happy to respond to any questions that you have.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Christine Boesz, Inspector General, National
Science Foundation
Chairman Bond, Senator Mikulski, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, I am Dr. Christine Boesz, Inspector General at the
National Science Foundation (NSF). I once again appreciate the
opportunity to present to you information as you consider NSF's fiscal
year 2006 budget request. NSF's work over the past 55 years has had an
extraordinary impact on scientific and engineering knowledge, laying
the groundwork for technological advances that have shaped our society
and fostered the progress needed to secure the Nation's future.
Throughout, NSF has maintained a high level of innovation and
dedication to American leadership in the discovery and development of
new technologies across the frontiers of science and engineering.
As you know, however, the nature of the scientific enterprise has
changed over the past few decades. Consequently, the challenges facing
NSF have changed. My office has and will continue to work closely with
NSF management to identify and address issues that are important to the
success of the National Science Board and NSF. I have now been the
Inspector General of NSF for 5 years and am pleased to have the
opportunity to work with both Dr. Washington and Dr. Bement, sharing in
their vision of a truly successful organization. For the past 4 years,
I have testified before this subcommittee on the issues that pose the
greatest challenges for NSF management. This year, I will provide an
update, from my perspective as Inspector General, on the progress being
made at NSF to address the most critical of these challenges.
AWARD ADMINISTRATION
In a given year, NSF spends roughly 90 percent of its appropriated
funds on awards for research and education activities. Awarding and
managing these grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts is NSF's
primary business activity. While NSF has a system for administering its
peer review and award disbursement responsibilities, it still lacks a
comprehensive, risk-based program for monitoring its grants and
cooperative agreements once the money has been awarded.
In response to a reportable condition identified in the Independent
Auditors Report for the past 4 years, the agency developed an Award
Monitoring and Business Assistance Program Guide that includes post-
award monitoring policies and procedures, a systematic risk assessment
process for classifying high-risk grantees, and various grantee
analysis techniques. NSF also developed an annual grantee-monitoring
plan, conducted site visits on selected high-risk grantees, and
provided grant-monitoring training for its reviewers. In addition,
during the past year, NSF realigned staff and resources to better
address this challenge and contracted with a consultant to
independently assess its post-award monitoring program.
While these efforts represent positive steps toward an effective
award-monitoring program, concerns remain about the limitations of the
risk model in identifying all high-risk awards and the adequacy of site
visit procedures and the necessary resources provided to the post-award
monitoring program. In addition, a recent audit by my office further
highlights the need for increased post-award monitoring. My auditors
found that a significant number of both annual and final project
reports required by the terms and conditions of NSF's grants and
cooperative agreements were either submitted late or not at all. This
was due in part because of a lack of emphasis placed on the importance
of these reports, and because NSF staff do not have the time to
adequately address this facet of award administration. In addition, my
auditors found that contrary to its policy, NSF has continued to fund
some principal investigators who have not yet submitted their final
project reports.
But I am encouraged by the results of NSF's consultant's
independent assessment of the post-award monitoring program, which
contained concerns similar to ours. The consultant's report identifies
many opportunities for improvement and recommendations for positive
change. Implementing a plan to address these opportunities for
improvement would address many of our concerns and would be a
significant step for NSF towards successfully meeting this challenge.
MANAGEMENT OF LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Throughout my 5-year tenure as Inspector General of NSF, we have
considered management of large facility and infrastructure projects to
be one of NSF's top management challenges.\1\ While this is certainly a
subset of award administration, I continue to feel strongly that large
facility management warrants independent attention. As you know, NSF
has been increasing its investment in large infrastructure projects
such as accelerators, telescopes, research vessels and aircraft,
supercomputers, digital libraries, and earthquake simulators. Many of
these projects are large in scale, require complex instrumentation, and
involve partnerships with other Federal agencies, international science
organizations, and foreign governments. Some, such as the construction
of the new South Pole Station, present additional challenges because
they are located in harsh and remote environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum from Christine C. Boesz, Inspector General, National
Science Foundation, to Warren Washington, Chairman, National Science
Board, and Arden Bement, Acting Director, National Science Foundation
(Oct. 15, 2004); Memorandum from Christine C. Boesz, Inspector General,
National Science Foundation, to Warren Washington, Chairman, National
Science Board, and Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science
Foundation (Oct. 17, 2003); Memorandum from Christine C. Boesz,
Inspector General, National Science Foundation, to Warren Washington,
Chairman, National Science Board, and Rita R. Colwell, Director,
National Science Foundation (Dec. 23, 2002); Memorandum from Christine
C. Boesz, Inspector General, National Science Foundation, to Eamon M.
Kelly, Chairman, National Science Board, and Rita R. Colwell, Director,
National Science Foundation (Jan. 30, 2002); Letter from Christine C.
Boesz, Inspector General, National Science Foundation, to Senator Fred
Thompson, Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs (Nov. 30,
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have testified in the past, the management of these awards is
inherently different from the bulk of awards that NSF makes. While
oversight of the construction and operations of these large facility
projects must always be sensitive to the scientific endeavor, it also
requires a different set of management skills for the NSF staff
involved. It requires expertise in the construction and oversight of
large facilities; close attention to tracking costs and meeting
deadlines; and effective coordination with scientists, engineers,
project managers, and financial analysts. Although NSF does not
directly operate these facilities, it is ultimately responsible and
accountable for their success. Consequently, it is vital that NSF,
through disciplined project management, exercise proper stewardship
over the public funds invested in these large projects.
In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, my office issued two audit reports
on large facilities with findings and recommendations aimed at
improving NSF's management of these projects.\2\ Primarily, our
recommendations were aimed at (1) increasing NSF's level of oversight
with particular attention to updating and developing policies and
procedures to assist NSF managers in project administration, and (2)
ensuring that accurate and complete information on the total costs of
major research equipment and facilities is available to decision
makers, including the National Science Board, which is responsible for
not only approving the funding for these large projects, but also
setting the relative priorities for their funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Office of Inspector General, National Science Foundation, Audit
of the Financial Management of the Gemini Project, Report No. 01-2001
(Dec. 15, 2000); Office of Inspector General, National Science
Foundation, Audit of Funding for Major Research Equipment and
Facilities, Report No. 02-2007 (May 1, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF continues to make gradual progress towards addressing the
reports' recommendations. The most significant progress was the hiring
of a new Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects. During the past
year, NSF has made further progress by providing this Deputy Director
with 1.5 FTE's, which allowed him to begin to develop the detailed
guidance needed by program officers to adequately manage their large
facility projects. Among numerous duties related to large facility
project management, the Deputy Director chairs a facilities panel that
has responsibility for approving management plans for projects, and he
receives periodic reports on active projects.
However, the Large Facility Projects Office continues to face a
number of obstacles to successfully implementing a viable large
facility management and oversight program. To enable this Office to
develop a more influential role, NSF's senior management must clearly
recognize and champion the Large Facility Projects Office's oversight
responsibility, and provide it with the independent authority and
resources to handle it. These resources need to include funding for
staff, contract support, travel, and other necessary resources. Without
this management framework, the role of NSF's Large Facility Projects
Office is likely to remain one that is primarily advisory and
collaborative, rather than one that has a formal charge to
substantively and positively influence project management decisions.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN CAPITAL
While the previous two management challenges are of an ongoing and
urgent nature, they may be symptomatic of a larger, more pressing need
for improved strategic management of NSF's human capital. In order to
fully address its award management challenges, NSF will need to devote
more resources and attention to making business and process
improvements, while at the same time, planning for its future workforce
needs. Although advances in technology have enhanced the workforce's
productivity, NSF's rapidly increasing workload has forced the agency
to become increasingly dependent on temporary staff and contractors to
handle the additional work. NSF's efforts in the past to justify an
increase in staff have been impeded by the lack of a comprehensive
workforce plan that identifies workforce gaps and outlines specific
actions for addressing them. Without such a plan, NSF cannot determine
whether it has the appropriate number of people or the types of
competencies necessary to accomplish its strategic goals.
NSF has recognized the seriousness of this challenge and, as I
testified last year, has now identified investment in human capital and
business processes, along with technologies and tools, as objectives
underlying its new Organizational Excellence strategic goal.\3\ NSF
also contracted in fiscal year 2002 for a comprehensive, $14.8 million,
3- to 4-year business analysis, which includes a component for a Human
Capital Management Plan. Preliminary assessments provided by the
contractor confirmed that NSF's workforce planning to date has been
limited and identify specific opportunities for NSF to improve in this
area. NSF's Human Capital Management Plan, which was delivered in
December 2003, links Human Capital activities to the NSF business plan
and to the Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework
provided by the Office of Personnel Management. While the current plan
provides a roadmap for identifying NSF's future workforce needs, the
needs themselves are still in the process of being defined. I continue
to believe NSF cannot afford to wait long to address its workforce
issues. If not adequately resolved, these issues will undermine NSF's
efforts to confront its other pressing management challenges and to
achieve its strategic goal of Organizational Excellence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Science Foundation, Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2003-
Fiscal Year 2008 (Sept. 30, 2003) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF's reliance on ``non-permanent'' personnel is another area of
concern. Forty-seven percent of NSF's 700 science and engineering staff
are either visiting personnel, temporary employees, or intermittent
employees. Visiting personnel make an important contribution to NSF's
mission by enabling the agency to refresh and supplement the knowledge
base of its permanent professional staff. But managers who serve at NSF
on a temporary basis frequently lack institutional knowledge and are
less likely or able to make long-term planning a priority. Moreover,
there are substantial administrative costs that NSF incurs in
recruiting, hiring, processing, and training personnel that rotate
every 1 to 4 years. In fiscal year 2004, my office conducted an audit
that identified the additional salary, fringe benefits, travel and
other costs of visiting or temporary personnel, and found three areas
where NSF could improve its administration of the programs.\4\ In
short, while visiting personnel are an important resource for NSF, the
agency must continually balance the benefits of their services against
the additional costs involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Office of Inspector General, National Science Foundation, Audit
of Costs Associated with Visiting Personnel, Report No. 04-2006 (July
23, 2004). Opportunities for improvement cited in the report include
consulting income documentation, IPA pay computations, and VSEE cost of
living adjustments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion I would like to comment briefly on my office's fiscal
year 2006 budget request of $11.5 million. Although this request
represents a $1.47 million (14.7 percent) increase over the Fiscal Year
2005 Current Plan, the increase is primarily to fund the annual audit
of NSF's financial statements, which previously has been provided
through NSF's appropriations. The contract for this audit will be re-
competed in 2005, and we anticipate that its cost in fiscal year 2006
will increase dramatically, consuming 75 percent or more of our total
requested increase.\5\ The bulk of the remaining increase will be
applied towards the expected pay increase for civilian personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Our survey of the current audit market shows that audit costs
in general are on the rise because of Sarbanes-Oxley and other
government requirements. While the audit cost $800,700 in fiscal year
2004 and is projected to be $855,800 in fiscal year 2005, the audit
under a new contract is expected to exceed $1.0 million in fiscal year
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My office will continue to focus its audit attention on NSF's most
pressing management challenges, some of which I have described for you
today. In addition, we will also maintain a focus on specific issues
that emerge concerning the management of NSF programs, procurement and
acquisition, information technology, human capital, awardee financial
accountability and compliance, and OMB Circular A-133 audits. We have
recently made a strong commitment to improving the quality of audits
conducted by our contract CPA firms, and the increase in time and
effort required to meet the higher standards is significantly raising
the costs of contracted audits.\6\ In recent years, these audits have
uncovered material issues concerning unallowable indirect costs,
unfunded cost-sharing commitments, and records maintained by large
school systems that were so inadequate they could not be audited. It is
likely that the continuing increase in costs may result in a reduction
in the number of contracted audits in fiscal year 2006. We will also
have to more gradually phase in our assessments of NSF actions
resulting from the agency's multiyear business analysis contract and
workforce plan, which are scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2005.
Finally, while we will be able to initiate an audit on international
collaborations, which are an integral part of NSF's portfolio, with
particular attention to the accountability and audit requirements of
international partners, major efforts in this area may also have to be
phased in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Most contract CPA audits currently range from $67,000 to
$160,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my written statement. I would be happy
to answer any additional questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have, or to elaborate on any of the issues that I have
addressed today.
National Science Board
STATEMENT OF DR. WARREN M. WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN
Senator Bond. Dr. Washington.
Dr. Washington. Mr. Chairman Bond, Senator Mikulski, and
Senator Stevens, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you. My testimony today is in my capacity as Chairman of the
National Science Board.
On behalf of the Board and the widespread community
involved in various aspects of education, as well as research,
I want to thank the Senate for the long-term commitment to the
investments in science, engineering, mathematics, technology,
and education.
The Board greatly appreciates the Senate's very prompt
action in confirming eight new members of the Board and the NSF
Director.
The Congress established the National Science Board in 1950
and gave it dual responsibilities: First, oversight of
activities and establishing policies for the National Science
Foundation and second, serving as an independent national
science body to render advice to the President and Congress on
policy issues related to science and engineering research and
education.
During our recent Board Retreat, which was only a week or
so ago, the Board re-affirmed their strong commitment to
fulfilling our obligations. The Board members, including the
NSF Director, discussed the important role of the Board in
establishing a new vision and setting priorities for the
Foundation.
The Board has reviewed and approved the NSF fiscal year
2006 budget request that was submitted to OMB in September
2004, and we generally support the President's budget request.
We are certain that members of this subcommittee fully
understand the unique and long-term value of NSF programs to
ensure the future economic health of our Nation, to maintain
U.S. preeminence in discovery and innovation, and to provide
valuable contributions to homeland security efforts.
The Board fully supports the fiscal year 2006 budget focus
on the four funding priorities that address current national
challenges, as well as making NSF's core portfolio of research
investment even stronger.
Should additional funds beyond the administration's request
be made available to NSF, the Board has these following
recommendations: to more strongly support the investment in
science and engineering education, to address the backlog of
Board-approved major research equipment and facilities
construction projects, and to address the additional financial
burden to the Foundation related to the transfer of financial
responsibility for icebreaker ships from the Coast Guard to the
NSF.
I would like to briefly highlight some of the Board's
accomplishments last year. Regarding the large research
facilities, we are in the process of developing and
implementing the setting of priorities for the MREFC projects,
and we have approved a draft of ``Setting Priorities for Large
Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science
Foundation'' report. And we are now seeking input from the
larger community about that report, and we expect full
implementation of the revised process by the fall.
The Board has examined the policies and the positions that
came out of the NAPA report--those have to do with the Sunshine
Act, the use of IPA's and other employees who rotate in and out
of the Foundation, the appointment process of the NSF Inspector
General, and the role of the Board in oversight and setting
policies for NSF.
During this year, the Board will begin a revision of our
strategic plan with a focus on vision and long-term goals for
NSF, while working with the NSF management to set clear, near-
term priorities for the Foundation that are linked to budget
realities.
At the request of Congress, we will also be carrying out an
examination of the NSF Merit Review System and report our
initial findings before the end of this fiscal year.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The Board is going to be examining long-lived data
collections, how to support transformative research more
effectively, and how to ensure an adequate and diverse S&E work
force for the future.
We will also be examining our investments in NSF centers
versus PI-type grants.
I thank you very much, and I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Dr. Washington.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Warren M. Washington
Chairman Bond, Senator Mikulski, and members of the committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you. I am Warren
Washington, Senior Scientist and Section Head of the Climate Change
Research Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. My
testimony today is in my capacity as the Chairman of the National
Science Board (the Board, NSB).
On behalf of the Board and the widespread and diverse research and
education communities that we all serve, I thank the Senate for its
long-term commitment to a broad portfolio of investments in science,
engineering, mathematics, and technology research and education.
The Congress established the National Science Board in 1950 and
gave it dual responsibilities:
--oversee the activities of, and establish the policies for, the
National Science Foundation (the Foundation, NSF); and
--serve as an independent national science policy body to render
advice to the President and the Congress on policy issues
related to science and engineering research and education.
The Board greatly appreciates the Senate's very prompt action in
confirming eight new NSB Members and the NSF Director before our
December 2004 meeting. This Senate action allowed the Board to move
forward with our new Members able to participate fully in addressing
the Board's demanding responsibilities.
I would like to provide some general comments regarding the NSF
fiscal year 2006 budget request, then update you on National Science
Board activities over the last year and some of our priorities for the
coming year.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 NSF BUDGET REQUEST
The National Science Board has reviewed and approved NSF's fiscal
year 2006 budget request that was submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) in September 2004, and we generally support the
President's budget request before you today. Given the overall cut to
non-defense domestic discretionary spending, the Board respects and
appreciates that the President's budget request recognizes the
importance of returning NSF to positive growth. We are cognizant of the
current Federal fiscal constraints that our Nation faces and that there
are many worthy competing interests for a limited resource. However, we
are also certain that the members of this Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee fully understand the unique and long-term value of NSF
programs in science and engineering research and education to ensuring
the future economic health of our Nation, maintaining U.S. preeminence
in discovery and innovation, and providing valuable contributions to
homeland security efforts.
The Board fully supports the fiscal year 2006 NSF budget focus on
the four funding priorities that address current national challenges as
well as strengthening the core portfolio's of NSF's research
investment. We also recognize that a budget request of $5.605 billion,
representing a 2.4 percent increase over NSF's fiscal year 2005 budget,
is a significant investment in NSF programs in a time of national
fiscal austerity. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the Board to note
that this request remains below the level of the 2004 NSF operating
budget.
Should this subcommittee determine that additional funds, beyond
the administration's request, can be made available to NSF in fiscal
year 2006, the National Science Board would recommend support for a
strong and growing role for the NSF in the Nation's investment in
science and engineering (S&E) education, addressing the backlog of
Board approved and prioritized Major Research Equipment and Facilities
Construction (MREFC) projects, and addressing the financial burden to
the Foundation related to the transfer of financial responsibility for
icebreaker ships from the Coast Guard to the NSF.
Adequate preparation of future participants in the U.S. workforce,
at all levels of education, will require increasing mathematics and
science understanding and skills if the United States is to sustain
global preeminence in S&T. The Board has underscored its concern about
the poor performance of U.S. citizens in essential knowledge and skill
areas in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
fields, in comparison with other high technology countries. It is
impossible to conclude that growth in our national capabilities can
occur without continual enhancement of the skills of our workforce. We
have relied too heavily on attracting international students and
professionals to meet our workforce needs, and, as a result, we need to
do a better job of preparing U.S. students for joining the S&E
workforce. Other nations are competing with the United States for the
best international students and most accomplished S&E professionals. We
must recognize the critical challenge our Nation now faces in
sustaining a U.S. science and technologies (S&T) workforce that will be
competitive over the long term in an increasingly global and
competitive S&T environment.
The Board fully supports the proposed fiscal year 2006 funding for
MREFC projects, and appreciates the significant increase in funding for
this budget category. Members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
are aware of the exciting opportunities at the frontiers of knowledge
that we are unable to pursue without the cutting edge facilities that
are funded under this account. While funding for ongoing MREFC projects
is the highest priority for the Board, the lack of implementing any new
projects in fiscal year 2006 will increase the concern of the science
community that the United States is losing its ability to sustain
cutting edge S&E research. Should additional funding for MREFC projects
be available, the Board recommends, in priority order, support for
Ocean Observatories and the Alaska Regional Research Vessel.
The third area for which the Board would recommend any additional
NSF funding be allocated is appropriate support for the costs that NSF
will incur with the transfer of financial responsibility for
icebreaking activities previously supported by U.S. Coast Guard. The
administration's fiscal year 2006 NSF budget request allocated $48
million. The Board is very concerned that the true costs to NSF for
these new responsibilities will be greatly more that $48 million and
will, therefore, drain resources from NSF research and related
activities. We understand that a new NSF-Coast Guard Joint Working
Group is discussing various options for dealing with this issue. In
addition, we also understand that the National Academies Polar Research
Board is studying this issue and expects to provide an interim report
in September 2005. When these two groups have completed their
discussions and assessments, we urge Congress to factor their
conclusions into any final budget decisions and provide adequate
funding to fully support this new NSF responsibility.
Again, the NSB supports the integrated portfolio of investments in
S&E research and education represented in the NSF fiscal year 2006
budget proposal. It thoughtfully blends support for the core
disciplines with encouragement for interdisciplinary initiatives,
brings together people from diverse and complementary backgrounds,
provides infrastructure for research and STEM education, and
strengthens the NSF's management of the enterprise.
Further, in this time of National emergency, this budget for NSF
continues to foster S&T that enhances our homeland security. NSF
activities in this area include Critical Infrastructure Protection,
Research to Combat Bioterrorism, Cybercorps/Scholarships for Service,
Counterterrorism, and Physical/Information Technology Security. Of
course, by enabling future discovery and innovation, NSF supports our
Nation's long-term prosperity and economy security.
OVERVIEW OF NSB ACTIVITIES DURING THE LAST YEAR
During the last calendar year, even while going through a
continuing evolution in terms of its operation, the Board has
accomplished a great deal in terms of our mission to provide oversight
and policy direction to the Foundation.
I would like to briefly highlight some of these accomplishments,
but will not attempt to discuss them all here.
In terms of providing oversight for the Foundation, the Board has:
--reviewed and endorsed the Office of Inspector General Semi-annual
Reports to Congress, and approved NSF management responses;
--approved the NSF fiscal year 2006 budget request for transmittal to
OMB;
--reviewed the Foundation's report on its merit review system;
--provided review and decisions on nine major awards or proposal
funding requests;
--developed and implemented a Board process for re-prioritization of
all Board approved, but not yet funded, MREFC projects; and
--provisionally approved the report ``Setting Priorities for Large
Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science
Foundation'' (NSB/CPP-04-20).
The Board and Foundation are implementing the principles of the
revised process described in this provisionally approved document for
the fiscal year 2006 budget. At the same time, the Board Office has
implemented an extensive outreach effort to invite comments from nearly
400 individuals and organizations that would be expected to have
particular interest in large facilities. We expect final revisions
based on this additional review and input, Board approval of all
revised procedures and policies, and full implementation of the revised
process over the next few months.
With respect to providing policy direction to the Foundation, the
Board has:
--approved a report on ``Broadening Participation in Science and
Engineering Faculty'' (NSB 04-41) that addresses the need to
increase the diversity of this component of the S&E workforce
to more nearly reflect the diversity of the student body it
serves, and
--approved elimination of agency requirements for cost sharing,
beginning this year (2005), while retaining the 1 percent
statutory cost-sharing requirement.
In terms of advice to the President and the Congress, the Board
has:
--published and distributed widely ``Science and Engineering
Indicators 2004'', the 16th volume of this statutory, biennial
series and initiated the ``Science and Engineering Indicator
2006'' report;
--published a policy statement accompanying Indicators 2004, ``An
Emerging and Critical Problem of the Science and Engineering
Labor Force'' (NSB 04-07), which draws attention to the
disturbing long-term trends in U.S. education and the
globalization of S&T that, if ignored, may result in a loss of
U.S. leadership in innovation and high technology;
--approved the draft report on ``Long Lived Data Collections:
Enabling Research and Education in the 21st Century'' (NSB/CPP-
04-21);
--reported to the Congress on Delegation of Authority in accordance
with Section 14 of the NSF Act of 2002;
--responded to four specific IPA-related questions that NSB's
Executive Officer received from House Appropriations
Subcommittee for VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies;
--published and disseminated ``Fulfilling the Promise: A Report to
Congress on the Budgetary and Programmatic Expansion of the
National Science Foundation'' (NSB-03-151);
--provided testimony to congressional hearings;
--interacted with Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and
OMB on NSF and S&E issues;
--provided briefings and presentations to the Congress and other
policy organizations concerning the Board's reports and
statements; and
--responded to specific questions and inquiries from Senators and
Representatives.
In an effort to facilitate more openness of Board meetings in
accord with the Sunshine Act, we expanded our practices for:
--providing public notice of all our meetings in press releases, the
Federal Register, and the NSB Web site;
--treating teleconferences of committees as open meetings;
--providing much more information to the public in a more timely
manner regarding meeting discussions and decisions; and
--encouraging public comment during the development of Board
publications.
Also, this past year the Board:
--examined our policies and positions relevant to the recommendations
of the National Academy of Public Administration report
concerning the Board's implementation of the Sunshine Act, the
use of Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) employees and
other rotators at NSF, the oversight of the NSF Inspector
General, and the role of the National Science Board in
oversight and setting policies for NSF;
--began implementing recommendations of the Office of Inspector
General to continue enhancing our procedures and policies
related to compliance with the Sunshine Act; and
--significantly increased and improved our direct outreach and
communication with OMB, OSTP, Congress, other Federal agencies,
various interest groups and the outside S&E research and
education community.
To that end, the Board Office is contracting to develop monitoring
and evaluation tools, to expand outreach, and measure the impacts of
NSB statements, resolutions and reports; and to redesign the NSB Web
site for greater accessibility and utility to the public.
One thematic area of significant accomplishment was transformative
or ``high risk'' research where the Board organized a Workshop on
``Identifying, Reviewing, and Funding Transformative Research'' and
established within the Committee on Programs and Plans a Task Force on
Transformative Research. Another thematic area of accomplishment this
year was long-lived data collections where the NSB established within
the Committee on Programs and Plans a Task Force on Long-Lived Data
Collections; and prepared a draft report, ``Long-Lived Date
Collections: Enabling Research and Education in the 21st Century''
(NSB/CPP-04-21).
The year 2004 also saw the Board's examination of NSF issues
related to broadening participation in S&E; as well as efforts toward
obtaining industry perspectives on workforce issues. The Board has also
continued its recognition of outstanding science, engineering and
science education accomplishments through the Vannevar Bush Award, Alan
T. Waterman Award, and Public Service Awards.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 NSB BUDGET
The administration's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request of $4.0
million for the NSB will be adequate to support Board operations and
activities during fiscal year 2006. The request seeks resources to
carry out the Board's statutory authority and to strengthen its
oversight responsibilities for the Foundation. We expect that the
Foundation will continue to provide accounting, logistical and other
necessary resources in support of the NSB and its missions, including
expert senior S&E staff serving as a cadre of executive secretaries to
Board committees and task forces.
At the urging of Congress, in fiscal year 2003 the Board began
examining options for augmenting its professional staffing levels. At
its May 2003 meeting, the Board decided to begin a process to assess
the feasibility of recruiting for positions that would broaden its
policy support, provide additional legal advice, and enhance the
Board's capabilities in advanced information technology. The Board
Office has continued to implement the staff enhancement plan, adding
four positions this fiscal year for support staff, including
information technology staff, science assistants, national awards
assistant, and filling the vacancy for an editor/writer. The Board
Office will be recruiting two senior professionals to provide policy
and legal support to the Board this year. The Board is very pleased
with the progress of the staff enhancement process.
The NSB Office staff provides the independent resources and
capabilities for coordinating and implementing S&E policy analyses and
development. It also provides operational support essential for the
Board to fulfill its mission. By statute, the Board is authorized five
professional positions and other clerical staff as necessary. In
consultation with the Congress, the Board has defined these
professional positions as NSB senior S&E policy staff, and the clerical
and technical positions as NSB staff that support Board operations and
related activities. The full impact of increasing the number of
professional positions closer to the statutory level is expected to
occur in fiscal year 2005, emphasizing a broadening of professional
skills to support the Board.
In addition to the NSB Office's essential and independent resources
and capabilities, external advisory and other services are especially
critical to support production of NSB reports, and supplement the NSB
staff's general research and administration services to the Board.
These external services provide the Board and its Office with the
flexibility to respond independently, accurately and quickly to
requests from Congress and the President, and to address issues raised
by the Board itself.
In fiscal year 2006, the Board will expand its ongoing examinations
of its role and responsibilities regarding the NSF's MREFC programs as
it finalizes the development and implementation of a new protocol for
the process by which major research equipment and facilities proposals
are developed, prioritized, and funded; NSF policies for Long-lived
Data Collections; NSF policies regarding the identification,
development and funding of transformative ``high risk'' research; and
policies to ensure an adequate and diverse S&E workforce for the
future.
The Board will continue to review and approve NSF's actions for
creating major NSF programs and funding large projects. Special
attention will be paid to impacts of budget constraints on the S&T
workforce, broadening participation in higher education, national S&T
infrastructure, and the size and duration of NSF grants.
Effective communications and interactions with our constituencies
contribute to the Board's work of identifying priority S&T policy
issues, and developing policy advice and recommendations to the
President and Congress. To this end, the Board will increase
communication and outreach with the university, industry and the
broader S&E research and education community, Congress, Federal S&T
agencies, and the public. These activities will support U.S. global
leadership in discovery and innovation based on a continually expanding
and evolving S&T enterprise in this country, and will insure a
principal role for NSF programs in providing a critical foundation for
S&E research and education.
With our new Board Members, new openness, and new modes of
operations, the Board has much to do in 2005. However the most daunting
challenge we face is making the tough choices and prioritizing NSF
programs and projects in the face of constrained Federal budgets and a
growing competition for those funds.
CLOSING REMARKS
This is a difficult time for Federal budgets for S&E research and
education and the institutions and individuals in the nonprofit and
public sectors that rely on Federal support. For over 50 years the
Federal Government has sustained a continual, visionary investment in
the U.S. research and education enterprise in the expectation that such
investment would redound to the benefit of all Americans. That Federal
effort has expanded the horizon of scientific discovery and engineering
achievements far and wide, leading to the realization of enormous
benefits to our Nation and, indeed, all of humanity.
In recognition of the Federal fiscal realities our Nation faces,
the National Science Board pledges that we will be a force for causing
the NSF to set priorities, to make hard programmatic budget decisions
and, as a result, to obtain the most benefits from the funds provided.
However, even in a time of budget constraints, as a Nation we cannot
ignore our growing dependence as a society on innovation for economic
prosperity and the ever-improving quality of life Americans have come
to expect. The Federal compact in research and education with the
nonprofit sectors is an essential pillar of our Nation's global
dominance in S&T.
We know what works--we have a very long history of success to draw
on. We know the expanding frontiers of knowledge offer enormous
opportunities for research and innovation. We also know that the
education of all our citizens in the fundamentals of math, science and
engineering must be addressed if the United States is to remain eminent
in S&T when we enter the 22nd century. As other nations ramp up their
investment in the infrastructure for S&E research and innovation, we
cannot be complacent. The Federal investment in the Nation's S&T is a
necessity for the Nation's future prosperity and security. The United
States must sustain its advantages through continued wise, adequate
Federal support for our S&E enterprise.
Senator Bond. I am now going to turn to Senator Mikulski
for her opening statement and questions. Then we will turn to
Senator Stevens, our President pro tem, for his comments and
questions. Senator Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much. Good morning to
everybody.
Senator Bond and Senator Stevens, we know that we have a
full appropriations hearing with Secretary Rice. So I am going
to ask unanimous consent that my opening statement go into the
record.
Senator Bond. Without objection.
Senator Mikulski. I want to make two points about it before
I go into questions.
First of all, to our panel here today and all in the
scientific community, I think we noted the passing of Dr.
Bromley, who was a Science Advisor to President Bush's father,
that this subcommittee worked so closely with. He was a great
person to work with and I would just like to acknowledge his
passing and hope we would all hold him in our heart and just to
also acknowledge when we can work together on a bipartisan
basis and nonpartisan--see, I think science should be
nonpartisan. You know, science belongs to America, not to a
particular party. So we just want to note that.
Coming back, though, as we look at the budget, I must say I
am deeply disturbed about it. Senator Bond has said that 2
percent is really 1 percent. Let us say it is 2 percent for the
sake of conversation. That would mean our mutual goal of
doubling the National Science Foundation budget, which is in
law, signed by President Bush, would take, at this current
funding, 36 years. Thirty-six years. That would take us to
2040.
Now, I think that America cannot wait. If we are going to
have an innovation economy, which you support, we need to be
able to have this, I believe, on a more robust path, focusing
on certainly the four goals that you have outlined. They are
exactly, I think, the national goals.
Really, it is two broad-based functions. No. 1, research.
Unlike NIH and some of the others and our great Federal labs,
academia will tell us, as you know, that it is the National
Science Foundation that funds the basic research that leads to
the basic breakthroughs that lead to the new ideas that lead to
the new technologies. So, that has to be our mission.
And then the other is education. Where is the next
generation of scientists and technology? We do not have a work
force shortage. We do not have a talent shortage. We have to
make sure we do not have an opportunity shortage when we look
at a variety of levels of education. I know Senator Bond will
be talking very much about the education budget.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Before I go to my questions, I just wanted to make those
points. Should we yield to Senator Stevens and then go to your
questions and come back?
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Welcome Dr. Marburger, Dr. Bement and Dr. Washington. I want to
thank Senator Bond for holding this hearing. I am glad we are moving
forward with our work.
The proposed budget for NSF is just 2.4 percent above last year for
a total of $5,605,000,000. This barely keeps pace with inflation. Most
disturbing is the cut to education programs. This budget actually cuts
education programs by 12 percent and research is increased by almost 3
percent which barely keeps pace with inflation. Yet, salaries and
expenses go up by 20.5 percent, and major equipment goes up by 44
percent. I do not doubt the value, need, or resources devoted to major
equipment but when every other part of the NSF budget is starved for
resources, a huge increase like that stands out.
Senator Bond and I are committed to doubling the NSF budget over 5
years. We have increased NSF's budget by an average of 10 percent over
the President's budget for the last several years. This administration
has broken its promise to NSF. In 2002, the President signed the NSF
Authorization into law. It authorized a doubling of the NSF budget
between 2002 and 2007. In 2006, NSF is authorized to be funded at
$8,500,000,000. Yet the President's 2006 budget funds NSF at
$5,605,000,000--34 percent below where it should be.
Not only does this budget fail to double the NSF budget in 5 years,
it actually cuts education programs by 12 percent. How can we raise
test scores if we are cutting the very programs that are designed to
raise test scores? A recent international study found that U.S. fourth
grade students in mathematics came in 12th place--just behind Hungary.
We are falling behind in innovation, job creation and education and
this budget does nothing to address any of these issues.
Teacher training programs are cut by 35 percent. K-12 education
programs are cut by 23 percent. How can we train the next generation of
teachers, and how can we prepare the 21st century workforce, when we
are cutting the very programs that address this problem?
Every major report on long term U.S. economic competitiveness has
cited the need for a large increase in research--basic research into
the physical sciences (physics, chemistry), and strategic research
(nano, bio and info tech). It used to be we won the Nobel Prizes and
other countries won market share. That was bad enough. Now, we are even
falling behind in our Nobel Prizes. After peaking in the 1990's, the
American share of Nobel Prizes is now falling for the first time in
over 40 years. America's share of patents is also falling while patents
granted to researchers in other countries is increasing. India, China,
Japan, Korea--these are the countries we are competing against.
Innovation is the key to economic growth and the Federal Government
must take the lead but this budget fails to make the investment we need
to innovate.
Community Colleges should be at the forefront of training a high
tech workforce. Yet, this budget cuts funding for community colleges.
We should be increasing funding for community colleges, not decreasing
it.
The Tech Talent program which was started by this subcommittee and
was designed to produce more math, science and engineering students,
was cut. Again, we see a pattern of cutting education programs that
address our most fundamental competitiveness and workforce development
needs.
If we are going to increase minority participation in the sciences,
then we have to start with our Historically Black Colleges and
Universities. In my own State of Maryland, I am proud to represent
Morgan State, Bowie State and the University of Maryland, Eastern
Shore.
Fortunately, graduate stipends, which I lead the fight to raise,
remain at the $30,000 level.
I am also pleased to see a proposal for an expanded Tsunami warning
system. We know that NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey are the lead
agencies but we look forward to hearing about NSF's role and other
agencies that are participating in this program.
Finally, I believe it is time to renew our commitment to oceans
research. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, chaired by Admiral
Watkins, has given us an outstanding set of recommendations to pursue.
Unfortunately, with a flat budget, cuts to education, workforce
development and no real increase in research, the promise of innovation
will be delayed. Other countries will continue to accelerate their
commitment to research and development. The jobs of tomorrow depend
upon the research of today. Unless we increase our commitment to
workforce training, education and research, we will fall behind the
rest of the world.
Senator Bond. That is a very generous idea. Senator
Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Mikulski. But that is the direction I am going to
be going in.
BARROW ARCTIC RESEARCH CENTER
Senator Stevens. I do want to move on to the other
committee and get prepared for that too.
I only have one question. I am particularly talking to Dr.
Bement. Alaska is the one place in the United States that
really has shown the early effects of global climate change. We
have plants growing further north. We have timber growing
further north. The permafrost is thinner. We have the offshore
ice that is thinner, if not gone. We have changes in some of
the ocean mammals. We have considerable inundation of coastal
villages, if not destruction of many.
In 2004, I asked Congress to provide $5.8 million to NSF to
reconstruct the Barrow Arctic Research Center. You have not
spent a dime of it. Why?
Dr. Bement. Well, I had the impression that was in NOAA's
budget. We have been working with Admiral Lautenbacher----
Senator Stevens. That was Science Foundation money that I
earmarked as chairman of the committee, $5.8 million. Not one
word from you since then.
I do not want to embarrass you. I would ask you to give us
a report because I think that is really a terrible situation
when this area is the worst hit in the United States, and we
cannot restore that center. The industry wants it. The State
wants it. The science community wants it. It is the central
location to try and study what is going on up there. You used
to have a center there and the Navy was part of it then. I
think you took it over after the Navy and then closed it down.
Dr. Bement. Well, Senator, let me report to you that we are
working on the Barrow Center. We have invested in the Barrow
Center. We have a plan. We have implemented every element of
the plan to date. I have met with NOAA executives, Admiral
Lautenbacher. We are trying to develop a joint plan to fully
fit out that center. That plan is currently in progress and we
will have a report to you as quickly as we can put it together.
Senator Stevens. Good. I thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Senators.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD LONG-TERM VISION
Let me ask two quick questions and I am going to turn it
back to Senator Mikulski for her questions. First, Dr.
Washington, as I stated in my opening remarks, I think the
Science Board has to develop a long-term vision, and I think
the Board is perfectly suited to do that. I agree with Dr.
Marburger's statement that tight budgets have the virtue of
focusing on priorities. So does a hanging in a fortnight.
But I hope we are not in that bad a condition, but
developing a clear strategy is critical so that we are focused
on limited funds.
May I have your commitment that you will have the Board
immediately begin working on this matter? And how soon can the
Board tackle it and when can you get it done?
Dr. Washington. At the retreat that we had just a couple
weeks ago, we did extensively talk about updating and coming up
with a new strategic plan. You have my assurance that I will
make this a high priority for next year.
Senator Bond. How about a date? When will we have it?
Dr. Washington. Hopefully we can have it by December. Now,
you know I have 24 members and----
Senator Bond. Well, tell the 24 members that Senator
Mikulski and I----
Senator Mikulski. And 48 opinions.
Senator Bond. You are scientists, not economists. We do not
have one on the one hand and on the other hand.
Dr. Washington. Yes.
Senator Bond. December, okay.
MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF LARGE FACILITIES
Next, Dr. Bement and then Dr. Washington. The IG's
statement for the record on the slow progress in addressing
management and oversight of large research facility projects
was disappointing. I think we understand you have a very good
Deputy Director in Mark Coles. But I get the sense that he is
not being utilized adequately as recommended.
And I have three problems we would like you to fix
immediately: No. 1, changing the roles and responsibilities of
the LFP office so that they are authoritative and independent
as originally intended, rather than advisory and collaborative.
No. 2, the LFP needs resources. I understand you have begun
addressing this and I applaud you but the current 1.5 FTE's are
not going to cut the mustard given the complexity of the
projects. I would suggest that even more resources be made
available, maybe 5.
No. 3, we ask that you ensure your systems can act quickly,
track the cost of these projects so there is accountability.
That is one thing that drives us nuts.
So I would like your commitment today that you will take
action on these recommendations and I would ask Dr. Washington
as part of the Board's oversight role to hold the Science
Foundation accountable for implementing it. Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. Senator, we take guidance from the Inspector
General quite seriously. On the other hand, there were some
things I believe the Inspector General did not take into
account.
First of all, I hold myself accountable for our large
facilities management and I take that responsibility very
seriously. I rely on Mark Coles to be my early warning system
to advise me on things going right and things going wrong. He
has my complete confidence and has full responsibility for
oversight.
But the Inspector General did not take into account that he
has access to 127 people in the budget and finance office to do
full cost accounting, which is currently being implemented.
Now, in addition to that, we have under contract--so he has
access to contract personnel--to automate that full cost
accounting system and make it an e-system and that will be
implemented yet this year.
On top of that, we do have plans to augment his capability
by additional staff, not only full-time equivalent Federal
personnel, but also additional contract personnel.
Now, his role is business oversight. In addition to that,
we have scientific oversight by all of our program officers
assigned to each of these projects, and he has the
responsibility to coordinate their activities and provide
oversight as well.
So in my evaluation, in all due respect to the Inspector
General, I think that we have made great progress. We have more
progress yet to make, but it is not a process that is broken.
Senator Bond. I commended you on the steps that you have
taken, but having access to 127 people is not the same as
having the few that work for him, and we would like to see that
business aspect totally handled. We want to see the science
coordinated. We want to make sure these projects and these
large facilities do function properly.
Dr. Washington, a comment on that?
Dr. Washington. Well, I concur with what Arden said.
Now, the thing is the Board has been trying to step up to
the oversight responsibilities with respect to the facilities
issues, and I think that the report that is going to come out
this fall, hopefully, will have all of the steps, both
internally to NSF, and as the Board steps in how we approve, as
well as monitor, these projects as they go through their life
cycle.
Senator Bond. We look forward to continuing that discussion
and having some response from the IG as well.
Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think our
colleagues should know that because of the Condoleezza Rice
hearing, this will be compressed.
My question goes to the impact of the R&D funding here.
When we look at the $5 billion in the NSF budget for basic
research, we are concerned that when we look at it, the
industry share has fallen down. They are under so much pressure
to meet bottom lines so the private sector that used to do
breakthroughs, the demise of flagship institutions or the
shrinkage like a Bell Lab with so many breakthroughs, so many
patents, so many things that then were important to our society
and led the way.
Now, what we are concerned about is either the flat or the
declining Federal investment in R&D while other nations like
China and India, the new turbo powers in the global economy,
are increasing their investment. Can you share with us what you
think the consequences are going to be to our country? And if
we stay at this point, while we are looking, as Senator Bond
has pressed for, a strategic plan--but it is a strategic plan
for not only NSF but for our country. Could you give us your
thoughts on that?
We know that your testimony has been vetted and all of
those other kinds of things, but it would seem to me that if we
had our druthers, we would have the NSF budget at at least 7.5
to 8 this year.
Dr. Marburger. With your permission, Senator, I would like
to take a crack at that too.
It is true that China, India, and other countries are
increasing their investment. They are trying to look like the
United States and they are trying to build a base of research
and technically trained people to improve their economies, and
we look forward to having new colleagues to help the entire
world economy.
But the United States maintains an extraordinary lead over
these countries. We have huge investments. We are spending
three times in Federal support of research and development that
Japan, the next largest investor in these areas, does. During
the past 5 years, there has been an enormous increase in the
R&D capacity of the United States. This budget is tight, but it
also maintains that strength and it does move ahead in selected
areas such as nanotechnology and information technology and in
other areas that are important to our leadership role.
So, yes, we do have to be careful and make sure that we
establish priorities that maintain our leadership. I believe
that we are far in the lead now and will continue to be so for
the foreseeable future. But this is a time when we have to make
priorities and hard decisions, and this budget reflects that.
Senator Mikulski. Dr. Washington, I know you are an old
hand at these types of questions and have devoted a lot of
thought. As we look at the allocation, presuming Senator Bond
and I will have the National Science Foundation account--you
know, we have been bonded for a long time.
And we do not want to have a barb in the appropriations
process.
FUNDING FOR BASIC RESEARCH
Senator Bond. Not bad for 10 o'clock.
Senator Mikulski. Not bad.
How would you allocate this? Would you then say we should
stay the course in funding basic research? You know my own
orientation to the multidisciplinary approaches on
breakthroughs like nano. How would you do this? But I am
concerned that if you stay flat-funded, you are really in
decline.
Dr. Washington. Yes. In fact, if I can just add to that. We
are seeing an enormous increase in proposals being sent to the
Foundation, and with limited resources, we are going to be
seeing the acceptance rate probably dropping, and that means
lost opportunities.
Senator Mikulski. Can you give us a quantifiable statement
on that? How many do you get and how many can you fund that you
would consider meritorious?
Dr. Washington. Yes. I think it was last year that there
was roughly $1 billion of excellent proposals that were not
able to be funded, and I expect it will be a larger number in
this coming year. I think that we are up to roughly 43,000
proposals being sent to the Foundation, and with limited
resources we just are not going to be able to fund all of
those.
If I could just add one more thing to your earlier comment.
I went to the White House at the signing of the authorization
bill, and I had great hopes that the NSF budget would be
increasing enormously, maybe by a factor of 2 over maybe 7 or 8
years. That hope is not there now. In other words, I think it
is going to be a lost opportunity for our Nation to not have a
greatly increased budget for NSF.
Senator Mikulski. Dr. Bement, did you want to say anything?
Dr. Bement. Well, I think my response would be that more
and more economists are determining that what is driving our
economy right now is not just savings, but investment in
research and development and education. That equation has been
picked up by almost every nation in the world, and so we are
locked in competition for future economic growth and also in
job creation. That is especially important to the United States
because we want to capture the high end of new discovery and
innovation. Even today, there has been a great ramping up of
the number of patents that are citing recent discoveries
through basic research.
So it is an area where we have to pay attention. We have to
take a longer view. And I am somewhat concerned that if you
look at the mix of what is being funded in the private sector
and the public sector, that too much of it is short-term. It is
not just short-term in the private sector, but more of it in
the public sector is becoming short-term.
K-12 MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
Senator Mikulski. Well, I am concerned not only about the
R&D issues but about education.
There are going to be wonderful Marylanders associated with
Hopkins that are going to receive White House medals on March
14, Dr. Giacconi, the founding father of the Space Telescope
Institute and the Hubble initiative, and Dr. Saul Snyder, the
head of neuroscience at Hopkins. They are both in their
seventies, and they both have been professional advisors to me,
as well as personal friends. If they were sitting here, in our
many conversations in their homes and in the cafes of
Baltimore, they would say we need not only money for research,
but we are in our seventies. We need to be able to fund those
people in their twenties, those young, upstart people that are
bursting to go, and then also these children, all this talent
that is out there bursting at the seams with people who want to
get into the honors programs in middle school, as well as in
high school.
Now, I am concerned about this 12 percent cut in education.
Would you tell us then how do you think you are going to
address it and the consequences of this 12 percent? Because
there are the Giacconis. There are the Snyders. One is someone
who emigrated to this country. Again, I do not think we have a
talent shortage. I never want us to have an opportunity
shortage.
Senator Bond. Senator Mikulski, if I may add on that. That
was going to be my next question. The math and science
partnership program continues to fund only the ongoing grants
NSF has already awarded. The program is supposed to be placed
in the Department of Education. We never thought it would. It
has not gotten proposed funding. Furthermore, the current
budget proposes to reduce the number of K through 12 teachers
involved with math and science education by 17,000, with
teacher and material development both being cut by over 30
percent.
I think we are going in the wrong direction. Dr. Marburger,
does the administration not think we have a problem with K
through 12 math and science education? Is it not important?
What is the rationale behind cutting the resources that the NSF
needs to make sure that we have math and science education at
the K through 12 level effectively addressed? I will send a
strong letter to follow.
Dr. Marburger. Senator, the administration agrees that it
is very important to have strength in teaching math and science
in the lower grades. It is not obvious that putting all the
money into some of these programs is the only way to go. We
support strengthening education through a variety of means,
through programs not only in NSF or not only in the Department
of Education, but in investments in educational programs,
educationally oriented programs in NASA, in the Department of
Energy, and other areas. Even the research grants that NSF
gives to the universities turn out to have an impact at
education at all levels.
We believe that a sort of across-the-board consciousness
raising about the importance of K through 12 education is
having an impact on those areas and the budget recommendations
in this proposal address a sort of across-the-board philosophy
that tries to put the money in the agencies that are
appropriate to this task.
Dr. Bement. Senator Mikulski, last year when I appeared
before you, I was relatively new in the Foundation.
BROADENING PARTICPATION
Senator Mikulski. Yes. You came to us from NIST, another
special agency.
Dr. Bement. And you asked me about ATE and ISE and I was
not very sharp on that, but I learned very quickly. I felt that
we did, as you pointed out, need to give higher priority to
broadening participation. We just have to address our total
population to bring people in the STEM work force.
So taking all those special programs that address
broadening participation, and if we take Math and Science
Partnership aside, I took the enacted budget and actually added
$10 million to those special programs. That adds up to about
$400 million all together.
But that is not the end of the story because we have now
engaged the directorates. We are taking a much more integrated
approach because the science directorates also have a
responsibility for education. If you take in their
contributions to broadening participation, actually the total
investment in the Foundation amounts to about $597 million.
Now, with regard to K to 12 education, even though the
results may appear to be disappointing from the budgetary point
of view, there is a success story there because the school
districts that we have funded have discovered what works. And
we have been working with the Department of Education to take
the lessons learned, the best practices of ``what works'' and
work with them in making ``what works'' work throughout all the
other school districts in the country. That is being done
through an interdepartment tiger team. We are going to continue
to work very closely with them. I have requested a meeting with
Secretary Spellings, and we will have a lot to talk about on
that score.
K-12 EDUCATION
Senator Mikulski. I just want to be clear about this. The
math and science initiatives in curriculum, teacher
development, and so on were to be research-driven. And when we
work on No Child Left Behind, we want research-based solutions,
not just whatever gimmicks that are being sold, et cetera.
Now, are you saying that now the results are coming in and
now you see this then disseminating to the 50 States, to the
180-some school districts----
Dr. Bement. No, Senator.
Senator Mikulski [continuing]. In terms of research
knowledge, symposiums, this type of thing?
Dr. Bement. The administration fully supports our research
activities in this area, and we intend to continue our mission
in doing research in this area.
Senator Mikulski. You said you have got lessons learned,
best practices. You want to meet with her.
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. What is the point of the meeting?
Dr. Bement. The point of that is that in our pilot programs
with the various districts that we support, we are learning
through our research what can be effective in improving science
and mathematics education. We will never have the resources or
personnel to propagate that throughout the entire Nation. We
have to rely on the Department of Education to carry out the
propagation role.
Senator Mikulski. Well, that is the point, to take the
lessons learned, the best practices, go to I think a very
dynamic Secretary of Education and experienced and seasoned in
the field to then propagate that.
Dr. Bement. We have that partnership.
Senator Mikulski. Well, actually I will look forward to
hearing about that because we do not want research mortuaries
where we just collect the data and it just gets banked
somewhere, you know, the way they freeze things for the future.
There are so many interesting things to be covered.
PLANT GENOME
Senator Bond. Senator Mikulski, we have all noted the
research mortuaries.
We have run out of time.
Dr. Mary Clutter is here. Dr. Clutter, will you stand up
please? Thank you very much. I was going to ask you to give a
report. Unfortunately, we have run out of time, but I want
everybody here to know how important the work is that is going
on in the plant genome area. We have 800 million children
worldwide that are hungry or malnourished. We know that
nutrition and food production are critical to the health and
economic opportunity for all countries, and there are a lot of
new industrial energy and pharmaceutical applications to new
food technologies that can serve to ensure our Nation's
producers and the world's population and we can benefit from
this with aggressive work. I would ask for the record you
update us on the genome project and your efforts to create
collaborative partnerships between U.S. and developing country
research institutions.
I would note for you, without asking for any endorsement
from the NSF, the fact that Senator Mikulski and I have
introduced a measure recommended by Dr. Danforth's blue ribbon
committee to establish a food and agricultural research arm to
do the basic research. We want to bring with that additional
funding because we know how strapped your Foundation funding
is. But the best minds in the scientific community have steered
us in this direction to say that we need basic research to
utilize the tremendous potential in this area. Senator Mikulski
and I and a number of others will be reintroducing that. We
would welcome your comments and suggestions on it and would
look forward to having a report that we will try to publicize.
I hope everybody who is here will read it. Certainly Senator
Mikulski and I will.
Senator Mikulski, any closing thoughts?
Senator Mikulski. No. I think we just want to thank you for
what you do. As you can see, we certainly have the will to be
supportive and we need to find a national wallet. So thank you.
Senator Bond. Thanks so much to our witnesses, to all those
who attended. We apologize. Due to other commitments, we have
to bring this hearing to a close, but we certainly hope to have
the opportunity to continue to work with you. Stay tuned and we
will find out whether we do.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 10:03 a.m., Thursday, February 17, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Hutchison, Cochran, and Mikulski.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, ADMINISTRATOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
This hearing of the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science and
Related Agencies Subcommittee is the first meeting of the
restructured committee. I want to welcome the new NASA
Administrator, Dr. Michael Griffin, who is joining us to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Dr. Griffin, in assuming your new post as the NASA
Administrator, I can only imagine how busy the past few weeks
have been for you. Now that you have had some time to
reacquaint yourself with NASA's activities, we look forward to
discussing your thoughts about how NASA is doing and hearing
your insights as to what they could be doing better.
I also anticipate that we will have an ongoing and open
dialogue about NASA's progress with return to flight and
achieving the President's Vision for Space Exploration. I am
very interested in discussing how we can preserve their
expertise within the activities and institutions that will be
necessary to take this ambitious journey.
More than 1 year ago, the President presented a Vision for
Space Exploration that calls for a return to the Moon and
eventually a manned mission to another planet. I am excited
myself by the opportunities that lie ahead with the exploration
vision at NASA.
However, there are fiscal realities that, like it or not,
may affect the vision. That is what we deal with on this
subcommittee, and I believe it is one of the difficulties that
you will face as the NASA Administrator: having to balance
NASA's limited resources with its programs and requirements.
I believe that we all appreciate the inherent risk involved
with many of the activities NASA undertakes. We also appreciate
that with risk comes the potential for failure. Inevitably,
failures increase the overall cost of the activity, and one of
the problems that I anticipate along the path to the Moon is
the potential for failures that could pose a significant
challenge to the forward momentum of the program and vision. Of
course, we all hope there will not be any failures, but I
believe we have to build in the possibility.
We have already experienced such a challenge with NASA's
return-to-flight requirements. Specifically, we have seen a
strain on science missions and aeronautics as NASA has
redirected funds to pay for return-to-flight cost overruns.
These fund shifts have caused programs and facility projects to
be deferred, created uncertainty regarding the fate of the
Hubble telescope and resulted in aeronautic spending being
flat.
Dr. Griffin, I believe you have the knowledge, the
background, and the ability to guide NASA. But I also believe
that you must begin your journey on a firm foundation. Getting
back to the Moon will take more than just plans for a rocket.
It will also take a sound financial structure and capable
management in order to balance all of the important activities
that NASA undertakes to make this exploration vision a reality.
I believe there are several looming issues that must be
addressed to maintain the forward momentum of NASA's
exploration goals. The first, as I alluded to before, is the
Shuttle fleet and how that impacts any future crew exploration
vehicle--CEV. NASA has been working diligently to complete the
necessary changes to the Shuttle that will provide additional
safety for our astronauts and the vehicle itself. However, the
Shuttle is targeted to be decommissioned by 2010. The next U.S.
manned space vehicle, the crew exploration vehicle, is not
currently scheduled for a manned flight until 2014. I am
concerned by such a gap in U.S. manned space flight and, more
importantly, I am concerned that the time schedule for the
current 25 or more Shuttle flights prior to the 2010 retirement
is quite optimistic. Any deviation in these schedules as they
relate to funding could cause this gap to widen even further
than is currently anticipated.
I understand that you have your own ideas, Dr. Griffin, as
to how the gap between the Shuttle retirement and the CEV could
be closed. I am interested in hearing how you believe this is a
possibility during a tight funding environment.
The second challenge, the completion of the International
Space Station, is directly linked to the first. The
construction of the station is dependent on the Shuttle for
critical supplies and parts that cannot be delivered by any
other vehicle. Our international partners have done an
admirable job filling in while the Shuttle is undergoing
repair, but there is an expectation that the Shuttle will
return as it is essential to complete the Space Station.
The United States has a commitment to our international
partners to complete the station. I believe we must maintain
that commitment, and I am interested in hearing your thoughts
about NASA's plans for completing the International Space
Station and, further, how that will impact our ability to work
cooperatively with other countries in the future on the vision
we have.
Finally, I believe NASA faces a significant challenge in
building the technical workforce necessary to carry us into the
future. NASA is one of the most publicly recognized agencies
within the Federal Government. We all know something about
NASA, whether it is the stunning pictures of the universe from
the Hubble space telescope photos from Mars, or even the
astronauts living on the Space Station. Such high visibility
and name recognition can be powerful tools in inspiring and
recruiting future scientists and engineers. But I believe the
success of NASA programs in science and exploration that
students see today is the inspiration necessary to attract the
young people of this Nation to these careers in the future.
I know you realize that the missions of tomorrow will not
be possible if there are no scientists and engineers being
developed today. This is a serious issue that must be addressed
in order to ensure that future exploration in space can occur.
I want to thank you again for being here today. It is my
hope that this will be the beginning, Dr. Griffin, of a
productive relationship between NASA and this newly constituted
subcommittee.
Senator Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
today is really the first hearing of the new Commerce, Justice,
Science Subcommittee, and I want to say how much I look forward
to working with you, Chairman Shelby. Though we are new
together in our assignment on this subcommittee, Senator Shelby
and I have a very long and collegial history together. We
served on the same committee in the House of Representatives,
on Energy and Commerce. We were on the Appropriations Committee
since our arrival in the Senate, and we have worked closely
with Senator Shelby when he has had other committee
responsibilities. And I must say, Senator Shelby, I have always
found you to be a good friend and a very collegial colleague,
and I look forward to that relationship.
Also, in your remarks and the priorities that you have laid
out in your opening statement, I want to assure all those are
also my priorities and that we can work on a bipartisan basis
in the interest of the United States of America and look
forward with you since we both have a parallel will to finding
the wallet.
I am excited about this new subcommittee, though I was
initially disappointed at the dissolution of the VA/HUD
Subcommittee. But what we see here, I think you and I have a
new opportunity for a true science subcommittee. I recall that
our colleague and former astronaut John Glenn said that we
should have done this a long time ago, that too much of our
science was stovepiped into too many different subcommittees.
But here now on this subcommittee we have something quite
unique. We are bringing together NASA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science
Foundation, the National Institutes of Standards, the Patent
Office, and the President's Science Advisor. So we would hope
that this would be the beginning of kind of a leveraged science
policy.
I am excited about this because I believe that science is
the key to innovation, and innovation is the key to our future.
If we are going to have a safer country, a stronger economy, we
need to be smarter, and that involves really leveraging our
research and technology development and a world-class
workforce. Our economy and our national security will depend
upon it.
I also think that we, because of this subcommittee, both
through NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, could present an incredible opportunity in
terms of far-reaching research and far-reaching exploration of
the stars, but in a way that we would focus efforts on Earth
science that would save lives, save livelihoods, and advance
our technological competitive edge.
So today I am looking forward to hearing from Dr. Griffin,
our new head at the helm of NASA. I personally want to thank
President Bush for appointing an actual rocket scientist to
head NASA. But I would also like to take this opportunity to
thank someone in the audience, Mr. Chairman--Mr. Fred Gregory,
who served as the Acting Director of NASA and provided a very
steady hand. And, sir, we would like to thank you and salute
you for the job you did during that time, but also in your
career at NASA. And I think it points out the wonderful civil
service we have at NASA, these wonderful men and women who give
their lives to scientific exploration, who work in the
Government sphere to advance our national priorities. So we
want to say thank you to you personally and to you representing
really what an outstanding civil service we have. So thanks
again.
We are looking forward, though, to hearing from Mr.
Griffin. As the chairman said, we have got to talk about the
Shuttle. We have got to make sure the Shuttle flies when it
should fly so that it can go to space and return our astronauts
safely. At the same time, I too am concerned about the fact
that we could be without a crew exploration vehicle for 4
years. We know that the Shuttle is aging technology. We know
that it will get us through a difficult time now. But I believe
that we owe it to the country, we owe it to our astronauts,
that we really look at what is a wide, prudent way to
accelerate this crew transportation system.
The United States of America should always have its own
access to space. The Space Station, too, we need to be able to
finish that, keep our commitment to our international partners,
and keep it as a premier research facility.
And, of course, then there is Hubble. Everyone knows my
position on Hubble, and I believe it has been the greatest
telescope invention since Galileo himself stood on that rooftop
in Florence. And as Dr. Griffin knows, I have stood on those
rooftops in Baltimore with the Space Telescope Institute and
our beloved Hubble.
But Hubble has resulted in enormous scientific
breakthroughs. We look forward to the next generation, but we
think if we can repair Hubble, give it new batteries and new
optics, it will take us far into the future at many different
levels.
But, of course, then we look at the NASA budget. I am
concerned about the Shuttle cost and our ability to pay for it,
the Space Station and our ability to maintain it, that aging
infrastructure that Senator Shelby has talked about, and our
new vision, the President's vision to go into space. But along
the way, I really hope that we do not neglect the other
dimension of the NASA responsibility, and that is aeronautics.
Twenty years ago, the United States had over 90 percent of
the market share for commercial airlines. Today we have 50
percent of that market, and the National Institute of
Aeronautics told us we must really continue to focus on our
aeronautics for our national security and our economic
security. And, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with
you, as always, on a balanced program: a reliable space
transportation system, always supporting the daring and the
outcome of human exploration, but also a special emphasis on
science both in terms of understanding our own planet, others
out there, and also new breakthroughs in aeronautics that will
help our country be safer and stronger.
So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you,
listening to Mr. Griffin, and again, Mr. Gregory, thank you
very much.
Senator Shelby. Senator Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome
again, Mr. Administrator. I certainly look forward to having
you at my subcommittee next week as well to talk about Space
Shuttle and beyond.
The proposed budget for NASA is certainly one that reflects
difficult choices, but given the overall reductions in
discretionary spending, I think it is generous and fair.
Undoubtedly, many areas of traditional NASA activity feel the
pressure from our new priority: preparing humans for missions
back to the Moon and on to Mars. This is a new direction. It is
a bold direction and one that I totally support. NASA should be
bold, and having the long-term vision is essential for NASA.
Where I have questions and concerns about NASA, they
revolve around longer-term impacts to our current investments
in human space flight capabilities. As you know, Mr.
Administrator, I am concerned about the possibility of a gap
between the planned retirement of the Shuttle and the
availability of the replacement crew return vehicle. I think a
5-year gap is unacceptable. I think it is not only a risk to
the important scientific research that we are doing, but it is
a security risk to our country. And I am pleased that you have
shared the same concerns, and I know both the chairman and the
ranking member here have also expressed those concerns.
I also am concerned about the investment that our Nation
and our international partners have made in the International
Space Station and wanting to assure that with the budget
priorities that we have, we keep the commitments to the
International Space Station and finishing the job of building
it out.
In addition, of course, I believe that the science is going
to be the most important thing that we do with humans in space,
and, therefore, we need to have the Space Station totally ready
with its buildout and with the scientific emphasis that is so
important for the missions to succeed.
So I am looking forward to working with you. I think what
you have done in delaying the return to flight is exactly the
right thing. Your concern for safety and your jumping right in
and going to the bottom, not just the top, to determine that we
were ready to go was exactly right. And as my friend and
colleague Senator Mikulski said, we want it to go badly but we
want it to go at the right time more. So thank you very much
for being here, and I look forward to being able to hear you
and then ask questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, your written statement will be
made part of the record in its entirety. Proceed as you wish.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Senators. It is also my pleasure to
be here. I thank you for the invitation to appear before your
subcommittee and begin the process of communication with you,
which I pledge will be thorough and ongoing throughout my
tenure.
In the spirit of Senator Mikulski's remarks, I would like
also to take a moment and thank Colonel Gregory for his service
between Administrator O'Keefe's departure and my arrival. Fred
is a personal friend of more than 15 years' standing, a person
who has risked his life on behalf of this country in Vietnam,
in military test flying, in weather flying, weather research
flying, and on the Space Shuttle. His services in linking the
tenures of Administrator O'Keefe and myself have been
invaluable, and he continues to be invaluable today, and I want
to take this opportunity to thank him publicly. So thank you,
Fred.
Chairman Shelby, ranking member Mikulski, Senator
Hutchison, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2006 budget
request for NASA and our strategic direction in carrying out
the Nation's civil aeronautics research, space and Earth
science, and space exploration activities.
A month ago today, I appeared before the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee as the President's
nominee to be the NASA Administrator. I want to thank the
Senate for your prompt consent to my nomination. It has been a
busy month, and the Agency is well underway toward implementing
the Vision for Space Exploration.
I have said before and will say again that, as a Nation, we
can clearly afford vigorous, well-executed programs in both
robotic and human space exploration, Earth science, and
aeronautics research. In presenting the vision last year, the
President put forth a commitment that our Nation will undertake
a journey of space exploration over the next several decades. I
am personally committed to carrying out that vision.
Every journey begins with a single step. The first step in
that journey is to return--not rush--the Space Shuttle to
flight. The next launch window for the first Space Shuttle
mission following the Columbia tragedy begins in mid-July.
Space Shuttle Discovery mission STS-114 will be commanded by
Eileen Collins. I might add ``Colonel'' Eileen Collins. Our top
priority in my tenure will be to make each successive flight
safer for the crew than we believed the last one to have been.
The second step in the vision is to complete the
construction of the International Space Station and to retire
the Space Shuttle by 2010. After two successful return-to-
flight Shuttle test flights, the Agency will complete its
assessment of the relative risks of a Space Shuttle mission to
service the Hubble space telescope to increase its capabilities
and to extend its operational life.
The next step in the Vision for Space Exploration is to
develop the crew exploration vehicle that will be capable of
ferrying the next generation of astronauts to the Space
Station, the Moon, and Mars. As you may know, I recently kicked
off an exploration systems architecture study team to examine
ways to accelerate the development of the crew exploration
vehicle in order to minimize any gaps in the United States'
capability for human space flight. As I think all of you know,
I completely share your concern about any gap between the
retirement of the Shuttle and initiation of flights of the
follow-on vehicle. I hope to share with you by mid-July NASA's
plan for how we can accelerate development of the CEV, as well
as that of the rocket needed to launch it. I also hope to share
with you NASA's plan for the space architecture that will allow
us to return to the Moon and eventually head onwards to Mars.
NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget also funds a variety of
satellite missions and scientific research in Earth science as
well as other planets in our solar system. It funds development
of even more advanced space telescopes to follow the Hubble,
such as the James Webb space telescope.
NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget for aeronautics research is
focused on achieving results, such as reducing noise emissions,
improving aircraft safety and security, and improving the
capacity and efficiency of the National Airspace System. NASA
is working closely with the FAA, the Defense Department, the
Department of Homeland Security, and others to achieve those
results.
While today's hearing concerns the upcoming fiscal year, I
also want to update the subcommittee concerning the difficult
choices that must be made in executing NASA's fiscal year 2005
budget and my guiding philosophy in dealing with those
challenges.
First, I want to thank this subcommittee and the Congress
for providing NASA with the additional flexibility to address
our challenges in this year's appropriation bill. It is my
pledge to keep you fully informed as to how this Agency spends
its allocated resources in accordance with the flexibility you
have given us.
In our fiscal year 2005 operating plan, which has been
provided to this subcommittee, NASA is fully funding a $762
million cost increase for Space Shuttle Return to Flight
consistent with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, over $400 million in congressionally
directed items, $291 million for Hubble servicing options, and
over $500 million in programmatic cost increases for various
programs, including the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, set to
launch in August, and the New Horizons mission to Pluto set for
launch in early January--and numerous others, I might add, not
just those two.
To find offsets needed to fund these items, we have made
some difficult choices. NASA cannot afford everything that is
on its plate today. We must set clear priorities to remain
within the budget NASA has been allocated.
In order to preserve the option of servicing the Hubble
space telescope and to provide for a safe deorbit, NASA must
defer work on even more advanced astronomy missions planned
after the Webb telescope. These projects, which are phenomenal
technical achievements, will be done, but at a slower pace
because we cannot afford to do everything at once.
We will also look at deferring some Mars missions in their
formative stages, currently in their formative stages, and
restructuring Project Prometheus space nuclear power efforts.
We must focus on nuclear technology efforts on our highest
priorities for near-term needs, and we will examine alternative
nuclear systems, including surface nuclear power, nuclear
thermal propulsion, and nuclear electric propulsion systems to
support human and robotic missions.
Turning to NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget request, I think
it is useful to emphasize that the proposal is balanced,
allowing us to address national priorities in aeronautics and
Earth science, while maintaining our focus on the vision for
space exploration introduced in NASA's fiscal year 2005 budget.
Budget highlights include a $5.5 billion request for the
Science Mission Directorate. This will support 55 missions in
orbit, 26 in development--including the Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter which will map the Moon's surface in great detail--and
34 projects in the design phase. NASA has a robust science
agenda.
Our $3.2 billion request for the Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate includes $753 million, a down payment
toward the crew exploration vehicle, so that we will have the
capability to launch humans into space as soon as possible
after the Shuttle's retirement.
One of the ways we may accelerate development of the CEV is
by down-selecting to a single contractor in early 2006 as
opposed to the previously planned 2008. Likewise, we may also
need to defer work in certain exploration-related technologies
that are not needed in the early years of implementing the
vision for exploration.
The funding request of $6.8 billion for the Space
Operations Mission Directorate includes $4.5 billion for the
Space Shuttle and $1.9 billion for the International Space
Station. NASA is currently examining alternative configurations
for the Space Station that meet the needs of the United States
and our international partners. We hope to provide the
subcommittee our results from this study of the station
configuration this summer.
NASA's request for the Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate is $852 million. NASA's technical expertise and its
facilities for aeronautics research must continue to become
more focused and results-oriented. NASA must set realistic
priorities for its aeronautics program within its limited
resources. As we move forward, a broader national dialogue on
aeronautics R&D goals may be appropriate as we enter the second
century of aviation. These discussions must include a range of
stakeholders and customers, including the Congress, Department
of Defense, commercial civil aviation, and, of course, NASA.
NASA's education initiatives need to establish clear goals,
metrics, and monitoring techniques in the coming months to
ensure that the funds the Congress provides will achieve the
greatest benefit.
I also intend to review how NASA can best harness the
unique capabilities of the workforce at its field centers to
achieve our Nation's objectives in aeronautics research, space
science, and exploration.
To conclude, let me stress my firm belief that as a Nation,
we can clearly afford vigorous and well-executed programs in
both robotic and human space exploration, Earth science, and
aeronautics research.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I plan to work closely with your subcommittee to help
achieve these ends.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before
you this morning.
[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 for the future as
represented in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for
NASA.
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced the Vision
for Space Exploration. The President's directive gave NASA clear
objectives as well as a new and historic focus. The fundamental goal of
this directive for the Nation's space exploration program is ``. . . to
advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a
robust space exploration program.'' In issuing this directive, the
President committed the Nation to a journey of exploring the solar
system and beyond, returning humans to the Moon, and sending robots and
ultimately humans to Mars and other destinations. He challenged us to
establish new and innovative programs to enhance our understanding of
the planets, to ask new questions, and to answer questions as old as
humankind. NASA embraced this directive and began a long-term
transformation to enable us to achieve this goal.
In June 2004, the President's Commission on Implementation of the
United States Space Exploration Policy, led by E.C. ``Pete'' Aldridge,
Jr. (the Aldridge Commission), reported its findings and
recommendations to the President. The Aldridge Commission emphasized
the crucial role that technological innovation, national and
international partnerships, and organizational transformation must play
if we are to implement the President's vision for an affordable and
sustainable space exploration program. NASA is committed to making the
necessary transformation to achieve the Vision for Space Exploration.
On December 21, 2004, the President signed a new national policy
directive that establishes guidelines and implementation actions for
United States space transportation programs and activities to ensure
the Nation's continued ability to access and use space for national and
homeland security, and civil, scientific, and commercial purposes. NASA
will play a significant role in implementing this directive, fostering
and enabling the development of space transportation capabilities for
human space exploration beyond low-Earth orbit with the Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV), consistent with the goals of the Vision for
Space Exploration.
The President demonstrated his commitment to the Vision for Space
Exploration by making it a priority in his fiscal year 2005 budget
request, and Congress responded positively by providing funding for
NASA at the level requested by the President. The President has
reaffirmed his commitment to the Vision by again making it a priority
in his fiscal year 2006 budget request in a very challenging budget
environment. The $16.46 billion requested for NASA reflects an increase
of 2.4 percent over fiscal year 2005.
While today's hearing concerns the President's fiscal year 2006
budget request for NASA, I must also use this opportunity to update the
Committee regarding the difficult choices that need to be made in
executing NASA's fiscal year 2005 budget, and my guiding philosophy in
dealing with these challenges.
First, and most importantly, I want to thank this Committee and the
Congress for providing NASA additional flexibility in the fiscal year
2005 appropriations bill to address the challenges facing the Agency.
It is my pledge to keep you fully informed of how this Agency spends
the funds you have provided us. A detailed fiscal year 2005 Operating
Plan update was recently provided to all of the Committees in Congress
which oversee NASA.
With this fiscal year 2005 Operating Plan update, NASA is fully
funding--within our fiscal year 2005 budget--the $762 million increase
for returning the Space Shuttle safely to flight, consistent with the
recommendations from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB),
over $400 million in Congressionally-directed items, $291 million for
Hubble servicing, and over $500 million in necessary programmatic cost
increases, notably to cover cost growth in several space science
missions, including the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, scheduled to be
launched this August, and the New Horizons mission to Pluto set to
launch in early January 2006.
Identifying offsets needed to fund these items has created some
difficult choices for the Agency. Given a choice, I generally favor
eliminating lower-priority programs rather than reducing all programs
in the face of budget difficulties, because this allows for the more
efficient execution of the programs which remain. Thus, we must set
clear priorities to remain within the budget which has been allocated.
Allow me to be as clear as possible on what the impact of these
costs means to other programs. The Agency has adopted a ``go-as-you-
can-pay'' approach toward space exploration. Several NASA missions and
activities will need to be deferred or accomplished in other ways in
order to ensure adequate funding for the priorities of the President
and the Congress in fiscal year 2005. NASA cannot do everything that
we, and our many stakeholders, would like to accomplish. Several
missions will have to be delayed, deferred, or cancelled in order to
pay for the missions where the priorities were set by the President and
Congress. We have tried to be sensitive to the priorities of the
affected research communities, and have listened carefully to their
input. For example, we seek to balance among planetary science, Earth
science, solar physics, and astronomy within the overall science
program by revisiting our Mars exploration program strategy and mission
sequence. Deferring the Mars Science Lab to 2011 is an option in this
reassessment.
In order to service the Hubble Space Telescope and provide for a
safe deorbit, NASA will need to defer work on even more advanced space
telescopes like the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) and Terrestrial
Planet Finder (TPF). The extent of this deferral and an appropriate
follow-on strategy for the Origins program is currently under review.
Space nuclear power and propulsion are absolutely essential for future
space exploration. However, we must focus our nuclear technology
efforts on our highest priorities for near-term needs. NASA will
examine alternative nuclear systems--including surface nuclear power,
nuclear thermal, and nuclear electric systems--to support human and
robotic missions. As a result, we are able to restructure Prometheus
Nuclear Systems and Technology, which, in the near-term, helps pay for
fiscal year 2005 unrequested Congressional items and Agency priorities.
As we complete future planning activities later this summer, we
will need to further examine resources to accelerate the CEV. Likewise,
NASA's research and technology efforts to support human space
exploration missions farther out into the future will need to be
curtailed, to focus on near-term needs of developing the CEV to be
available as soon as possible.
As someone who has managed many space and advanced technology
programs, I believe that NASA's one-of-a-kind spacecraft missions must
combine technical requirements and budget authority under clear lines
of management authority and accountability. When I arrived at NASA a
month ago, I found some programs (namely, the Hubble servicing mission,
Robotic Lunar Exploration, and ISS crew/cargo) with overlapping
responsibilities among Mission Directorates. We are simplifying the
management chain-of-command and, in the May update to the fiscal year
2005 Operating Plan, are transferring management responsibilities to
the appropriate line managers.
Likewise, when I arrived at NASA, the role of the CEV in supporting
the International Space Station (ISS) was not clear. While the recently
established Exploration Systems Architecture Study team will carefully
define the CEV's requirements, I have specifically directed that the
CEV will visit the ISS. As I testified during my confirmation hearing,
I believe that the CEV development must be accelerated in order to
minimize the gap between the Space Shuttle retirement and the first
operational flight of the CEV. To that end, NASA's Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate (ESMD) will be responsible for developing and
acquiring crew and cargo capabilities to support the ISS, and funds
have been transferred to that Directorate in the May update to NASA's
fiscal year 2005 Operating Plan.
NASA PRIORITIES
Over the past year, NASA has made great strides in implementing the
Vision for Space Exploration and meeting other national priorities:
--Shuttle Return to Flight.--We are making final preparations for the
Space Shuttle return-to-flight planned for mid-July.
--International Space Station.--The ISS began its fifth year of
continuous human presence on-orbit.
--Exploring our Solar System and the Universe.--The Mars rovers,
Spirit and Opportunity, have exceeded all expectations and made
unprecedented discoveries; the Cassini/Huygens mission is
providing stunning views of Saturn and Titan; the Genesis
mission, despite its hard landing, has returned primordial
samples from space; new missions have been launched to Mercury
and to comets; and amazing discoveries continue with Hubble,
Chandra, and Spitzer.
--Laying the Groundwork for the Future.--We awarded initial contracts
in preparation for a major milestone in 2008 with the mapping
of the Moon in unprecedented detail by the Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter (LRO).
--Engaging the Public.--We engaged the public and enhanced national
excitement for space exploration thanks to the President's
announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration. Indeed, in a
Gallup poll, seven out of ten Americans supported the
objectives of this Vision.
--Aeronautics.--We are continuing to execute a portfolio of focused,
results-oriented technology demonstrations of next-generation
aircraft along with aviation safety, security, and airspace
systems. NASA, with its industry partners, recently
demonstrated the feasibility of significantly reducing the
sonic boom from supersonic aircraft, and, last November, NASA's
hypersonic X-43A demonstrated that an air-breathing engine can
fly at nearly 10 times the speed of sound.
--Earth Science.--We have completed deployment of the Earth Observing
System and are supporting investments in the Global Change
Science and Technology Program and the next generation Earth
observing satellites for numerous applications, including
improved weather forecasts, earthquake prediction, resource
management, and other hazard warnings.
--Education.--We are continuing to educate the public and inspire the
next generation of explorers.
AFFORDABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
In his February 2nd State of the Union Address, the President
underscored the need to restrain spending in order to sustain our
economic prosperity. As part of this restraint, it is important that
total discretionary and non-security spending be held to levels
proposed in the fiscal year 2006 Budget. The budget savings and reforms
in the Budget are important components of achieving the President's
goal of cutting the budget deficit in half by 2009, and we urge the
Congress to support these reforms. The fiscal year 2006 Budget includes
more than 150 reductions, reforms, and terminations in non-defense
discretionary programs, of which 3 affect NASA programs. The Agency
wants to work with the Congress to achieve these savings.
To achieve the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA is proceeding, as
directed by the President, to plan and implement a sustainable and
affordable, integrated robotic and human exploration program,
structured with measurable milestones, and executed on the basis of
available resources, accumulated experience, and technology readiness.
Last year, we provided a long-range roadmap through 2020 to outline
this program:
--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
one.
--The crew transportation capability provided by the Shuttle will be
replaced by the new CEV and its associated launch system. The
CEV will be developed in the latter part of this decade and
deployed operationally as soon as possible after Shuttle
retirement. The CEV will conduct missions in Earth orbit,
including missions to the ISS, but its primary mission will be
to support exploration of the Moon and other destinations.
--A balanced program of robotic missions will continue to increase
our understanding of our home planet and will continue the
exploration of the solar system, traveling to the Moon and Mars
in anticipation of later human visits, as well as to other
destinations such as Mercury, Saturn, Pluto, asteroids, and
comets. Observatories will be deployed to search for Earth-like
planets and habitable environments around distant stars, and to
explore the universe to understand its origin, structure,
evolution, and destiny. Funding for these areas would
significantly increase over the coming years, with Science
investments growing from 33 percent to 38 percent of the
Agency's total budget.
--Human explorers will return to the Moon, possibly as early as
2015--with the CEV as the first core element of a new
exploration architecture. Major development of the other
elements in the exploration architecture will commence later
this decade and will accelerate upon the retirement of the
Space Shuttle. These exploration elements will include launch
vehicles, in-space transfer systems, lunar landers, and surface
habitation systems. Critical research and technology investment
decisions will be guided by the development requirements of
these elements.
These human and robotic explorers will enable our exploration and
scientific plans. A recent report released on February 3, 2005, by the
National Research Council, entitled Science in NASA's Vision for Space
Exploration, states, ``Exploration done properly is a form of science.
Both robotic spacecraft and human spaceflight should be used to fulfill
scientific roles in NASA's mission to explore.'' To that end, NASA has
initiated an Exploration Systems Architecture Study, to be completed in
mid-July, which will provide the analytical support for a number of key
near-term decisions for NASA, the White House, and Congress. We will
keep Congressional Committees informed as this study effort progresses.
This study effort has four products:
--Complete assessment of the top-level CEV requirements and plans to
enable the CEV to provide crew transport to the ISS and to
accelerate the development of the CEV and crew launch system to
reduce the gap between Shuttle retirement and initial CEV
flights to the ISS.
--Definition of top-level requirements and configurations for crew
and cargo launch systems to support the Lunar and Mars
exploration programs.
--Development of a reference Lunar exploration architecture concept
to support sustained human and robotic Lunar exploration
operations.
--Identification of key technologies required to enable and
significantly enhance these reference exploration systems, and
a re-prioritization of near-term and far-term technology
investments.
NASA is also currently examining alternative configurations for the
Space Station that meet the goals of the Vision and the needs of our
international partners, while requiring as few Shuttle flights as
possible to complete assembly.
NASA PRIORITIES IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for NASA reaffirms
the funding strategy outlined above. NASA's fiscal year 2006 request
endeavors to provide a balanced portfolio of programs to meet the needs
of our national priorities in aeronautics and civil space. It maintains
focus on key priorities, milestones, and schedules for the Vision
introduced in the fiscal year 2005 budget.
To support the Administration's goal of reducing the deficit,
NASA's budget was reduced $0.5 billion in fiscal year 2006 below the
level planned in the 2005 budget for fiscal year 2006. In addition,
returning the Shuttle safely to flight will cost $0.4 billion more in
fiscal year 2006 than previously estimated. To address these and other
items, we proposed a budget that provided $0.4 billion (11 percent)
less for Exploration Systems than previously planned for, $0.3 billion
(5 percent) less in Science, $0.1 billion (11 percent) less in
Aeronautics, and $0.2 billion (4 percent) more in Space Operations.
These changes were not easy, but in the end, we made the decisions to
protect the priorities outlined above.
SCIENCE
The fiscal year 2006 budget request of $5.5 billion for the Science
Mission Directorate will support 55 missions in orbit, 26 in
development, and 34 in design phase. By 2010, the Science budget will
increase by 23 percent over current levels.
The fiscal year 2006 budget includes $858 million for Mars and
Lunar robotic exploration. The Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity,
have far exceeded all goals with their unprecedented discoveries and
longevity. Last year, the rovers found definitive evidence of an
ancient body of water on the Red Planet, and they continue to gather
data more than a year after their successful landing. We recently
awarded contracts for six instruments to be flown on the 2008 LRO that
promises unprecedented mapping of the Moon's surface. The 2008 LRO will
be the first step in revolutionizing our understanding of the Moon, in
much the same way that our Mars missions have transformed our
understanding of Mars. As mentioned earlier, to simplify the management
chain-of-command among mission directorates, our fiscal year 2005
Operating Plan update transfers management responsibility for the Lunar
Exploration program, including LRO, to the ESMD. This will help to
maximize the exploration and science benefits of this important
program.
The budget also includes $218 million to maintain competitive
efforts for the Explorer Program, $56 million for the Beyond Einstein
program to study the universe, $234 million for studying the Sun in the
Living With a Star program, and $136 million for competitive
opportunities in the Earth System Science Pathfinder program. With our
international partners, we also continue to add to the constellation of
Earth-observing satellites that monitor our planet while extending our
reach and presence further into the solar system. NASA launched Aura to
look back at Earth and give us a better picture of our atmosphere and
changing climate, and the entire Earth Observing System continues to
return trillions of bytes of information about our dynamic Earth. In
the future, NASA plans to develop a ``sensor-web'' to provide timely,
on-demand data and analysis to users who can enable practical benefits
for scientific research, national policymaking, economic growth,
natural hazard mitigation, and the exploration of other planets in this
solar system and beyond.
NASA will continue to expand its exploration reach with an armada
of existing and new space observatories operating in many different
wavelengths and looking at different parts of our exotic universe. The
three ``Great Observatories''--Hubble, Spitzer, and Chandra--will
continue to bring wondrous images to our eyes and exciting new
scientific discoveries. Missions such as Kepler will provide a new
understanding and knowledge of the planets orbiting stars far from our
solar system, perhaps identifying new targets for voyages of
exploration by future generations of explorers.
This budget also includes $372 million to continue developing the
James Webb Space Telescope for a 2011 launch and provides $93 million
in development funds for the Hubble Space Telescope to extend its
scientific productivity. This investment in the Hubble, together with
the synergistic use of the other two Great Observatories, and combined
with the greatly increased capability of ground-based assets and the
emergent science of optical interferometry, will ensure many years of
new scientific discoveries.
NASA's decision in January 2004 not to service the Hubble was a
very difficult one, given the Hubble's record of spectacular successes.
That decision was made at a time when significant uncertainty remained
regarding the technical solutions and risks associated with return to
flight. After the two successful Space Shuttle flights needed to
achieve our return to flight objectives, NASA will have learned a great
deal more regarding the risks and operations of the vehicle than was
known when the previous decision was made. I am committed to
reassessing this earlier decision after return to flight, based on the
relative risks to the Space Shuttle as well as the costs and benefits
to our Nation's astronomy program. As a result, we are continuing our
efforts to preserve the option for a Shuttle servicing mission for
Hubble. Consistent with this ongoing activity, NASA's fiscal year 2005
Operating Plan update has fully funded the $291 million identified in
the Conference Report accompanying the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated
Appropriations bill and has consolidated the funding and management
responsibility within the Science Mission Directorate. NASA will use
the balance of the fiscal year 2005 funds to maintain options for HST
servicing and deorbit. NASA has also begun the analysis of how a de-
orbit module for the Hubble Space Telescope could be added to the
manifest of such a Space Shuttle servicing mission. I will make a
decision regarding a Shuttle servicing mission for Hubble following the
two successful Return to Flight missions. In the interim, the Agency
will keep all stakeholders apprised as this work progresses. NASA
remains committed to a world-class, affordable program of space-based
astronomy.
PREPARING FOR EXPLORATION
The fiscal year 2006 budget request of $3.2 billion for the ESMD
includes $753 million for continuing development of the CEV, the
vehicle that will serve as the core element for future exploration
beyond Earth orbit. The CEV promises safer travel for astronauts into
space, continuing U.S. human access to space as soon as possible after
retirement of the Shuttle.
Our earlier plans called for operational deployment of the CEV not
later than 2014. However, given the role of the CEV as a replacement
for the Shuttle in providing human access to space, we are now seeking
programmatic alternatives to allow development of the CEV to be
completed as soon as possible. Acceleration of the CEV program will be
accomplished by down-selecting to a single contractor sooner than
originally planned, and by deferring other elements of the Exploration
Systems Research and Technology plan not required for the CEV or for
the early phases of human return to the Moon.
The fiscal year 2006 budget request includes $919 million (a 27
percent increase) for Exploration Systems Research and Technology that
will enable designs for sustainable exploration, including $34 million
for a revamped technology transfer program and $34 million for the
Centennial Challenges prize program. The Agency continues to seek the
support of the Congress for authorization to enable larger prize
awards. This budget also includes $320 million for a restructured
Prometheus Nuclear Systems and Technology Theme for space-qualified
nuclear systems. The technology and capabilities being developed by the
Prometheus Nuclear Systems and Technology Theme are critical for
enabling the power and propulsion needs of the Vision for Space
Exploration. As part of the Agency's effort to define an Exploration
Systems Architecture, NASA will examine alternative nuclear systems,
including surface nuclear power, nuclear thermal, and nuclear electric
systems. NASA will restructure Project Prometheus for space-qualified
nuclear systems to support human and robotic missions with clear
priorities focused on near-term needs. We expect to make program
decisions to focus our nuclear technology efforts on our highest
priorities for near-term applications as part of the Exploration
Architecture study, to be completed this summer. In addition, the
fiscal year 2006 budget request provides $806 million for Human Systems
Research and Technology, which has been restructured so its programs
are now linked directly to exploration requirements for human missions
to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
NASA's fiscal year 2006 request for the Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate is $852 million, a significant portion of the
government's overall investment in aeronautics research. To make the
most of this investment, NASA's technical expertise and facilities for
aeronautics research are becoming more focused and results-oriented.
NASA's current aeronautics research is focused on enhancing the public
good. NASA is also working to maintain a strong basic aeronautics
research program and to establish a series of far-reaching objectives,
each of which, if enabled, could significantly transform civil
aeronautics. The results from the basic research, technology
development, and demonstrations achieved by NASA's Aeronautics efforts
will be transitioned for use by both Government and industry. The
President's fiscal year 2006 request increased the vital research of
the Aeronautics program in Aviation Safety and Security and in Airspace
Systems. These two priority programs are fully funded to ensure timely
results critical to meeting national goals. NASA works closely and
constructively with other Executive Branch agencies to enhance our
Nation's aeronautics capability. In this vein, NASA, along with the
Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, and
Transportation, is a principal member of the interagency Joint Planning
and Development Office (JPDO), which was chartered by the Century of
Aviation Revitalization Act to oversee research and technology efforts
for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. NASA is working
closely with industry consortia and other Government agencies to
develop advanced aircraft demonstrations, such as those that would
expand the capabilities of high-altitude, long-endurance, unmanned
aerial vehicles, which could have numerous commercial, scientific, and
homeland security applications.
At this time, NASA is also working with other U.S. Government
departments and agencies and industry to assess its facilities for
aeronautics research. NASA will need to consider the possibility of
closing some underutilized aeronautics facilities, while modernizing
some others to become state-of-the-art facilities.
As we move forward, a broader national dialog on aeronautics R&D
goals may be appropriate as we enter the second century of aviation.
These discussions should include a range of stakeholders and customers,
including the Congress. This process could lead to a national consensus
for aeronautics R&D goals.
EDUCATION
NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes $167 million for
the Office of Education to support programs that will keep the United
States strong in science, technology, engineering, and math education.
NASA will establish clear goals, metrics, and monitoring capabilities
for its education initiatives in the coming months to ensure that these
funds will achieve the greatest benefit.
MEETING OUR OBLIGATIONS
The fiscal year 2006 budget request of $6.8 billion for the Space
Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) reflects the first step in the
Vision for Space Exploration: returning the Space Shuttle safely to
flight and resuming flight operations. Going forward, all SOMD
expenditures will be consistent with the retirement of the Space
Shuttle by 2010, while maintaining operational safety of flight
throughout the program. The fiscal year 2006 budget includes $4.5
billion for the Space Shuttle program. The budget also provides $1.9
billion for the ISS. NASA currently is examining configurations for the
Space Station that meet the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration
and needs of our international partners, while requiring as few Shuttle
flights as possible to complete assembly.
A key element in the future of the ISS program is the purchase of
alternate cargo transportation services to supplement the Space
Shuttle, and the development of new crew transportation capabilities to
replace Shuttle when it retires. Because the ESMD has the mission to
develop and acquire such crew and cargo capabilities for the ISS and
beyond, I have transferred management responsibility for the activities
and budget of ISS Cargo/Crew Services to ESMD from SOMD, as stated in
the May update to NASA's fiscal year 2005 Operating Plan. The budget
request before the Congress provides $160 million for these services in
2006.
We are making final preparations to return the Space Shuttle safely
to flight in 2005. We have made more than 100 major maintenance
modifications and upgrades to Discovery and its supporting systems,
including new cabling and wiring that will support leading edge
sensors, a digital camera, and a boom extension for the Shuttle's
robotic arm that will enable us to inspect nearly all the outside areas
of the orbiter's Thermal Protection System during missions. Technicians
have installed the Forward Reaction Control System and the Reinforced
Carbon-Carbon Nose Cap, and 88 sensors are being installed on each
wing, of which 66 will measure acceleration and impact data, and 22
will take temperature data during Discovery's journey. Discovery and
its propulsion elements are now at the launch pad undergoing the final
tests and checks required prior to launch, currently scheduled to occur
not earlier than July 13, 2005.
As the United States implements the Vision for Space Exploration,
the Administration recognizes the value of effective cooperation with
Russia to further our mutual space exploration goals. At the same time,
we must appropriately reflect U.S. nonproliferation policy and
objectives in our relationship with Russia. The Administration is thus
seeking a balanced approach that continues to maintain strongly our
nonproliferation goals while advancing potential U.S. cooperation with
Russia on the Vision for Space Exploration. Such a balanced approach
must include the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (INA), which
currently constrains cooperation with Russia on the ISS, and threatens
to have an adverse impact on cooperation with Russia in our future
space exploration efforts related to human space flight. To that end,
the Administration will soon engage the Congress, and we look forward
to working with Congress to ensure that the Vision for Space
Exploration is successful, while remaining fully consistent with
broader U.S. national security and nonproliferation goals.
This year, we began our fifth year of continuous astronaut presence
on the ISS. Astronauts continue their international cooperation onboard
the Station through a variety of joint research activities.
TRANSFORMING NASA
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 Space Station. In its final report, the CAIB was very
forthright in its judgment that these goals are too limited to justify
the expense, difficulty, and danger inherent in human 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 proposed by the President is that program, and NASA has
embraced this new direction. 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 these 21st
Century goals. 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 by continuing to
assess our leadership practices.
--Embracing Competition.--NASA is embracing competition as a way to
elicit the best from NASA's Centers, industry, and academia.
The Agency is using competitive processes to encourage more
cost-effective, innovative solutions to the scientific and
technical challenges presented by the Vision. Over the past
year, competitive selections in exploration have demonstrated
increased collaboration between NASA's Centers and industry and
academia. The engine of competition is the primary force behind
the American economy, the greatest the world has ever known,
and we plan to make greater use of this engine than has been
the case at NASA in the past. NASA plans to pursue appropriate
partnerships with the entrepreneurial and commercial space
sector to the maximum practical extent.
--The Role of the Centers.--While competitive processes are crucial
to maintaining NASA at the ``cutting edge'' of science and
technology, we must acknowledge that the NASA Centers and other
Federal research and development laboratories exist, and have
existed for decades, precisely because industrial competition
does not serve to accomplish all of our national goals. In
order to accomplish the national goals set forth by the
President and Congress, NASA must set realistic priorities
within limited resources. NASA Centers will have an important
role in definition of the architecture and requirements for
exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, and for the systems
engineering and integration functions used in building the
systems of that architecture. We will continue to assess the
skill-mix that we require, the number of people we require,
their location, and how we are organizing ourselves to fulfill
our obligations to the President and Congress. To begin to
create some of the workforce flexibility necessary for the
future, NASA has offered voluntary separation incentives
(buyouts) to employees in positions identified with excess
competencies. To the extent that NASA's workforce needs
revitalization, NASA will propose legislative initiatives to
the Congress as part of the Agency's draft fiscal year 2006
Authorization Bill. Congress's enactment of the NASA Workforce
Flexibility Act of 2004 is helping the Agency toward that end,
and additional authorities will provide even more aid in
managing the Agency's workforce.
--Improved Decision-Making.--NASA recently transformed its
organizational reporting in order to provide more integrated
decision-making. NASA field Center Directors now report
directly to the Administrator, and I am drafting a position
description for a new Associate Administrator who will manage
the internal activities of the Agency. The Office of Education
reports directly to the Director of Strategic Communications,
who is also in charge of Public Affairs, External Relations,
and Legislative Affairs, in order to provide a more integrated
picture of what NASA is doing and can do for its stakeholders
and public. NASA's new Office of Program Analysis & Evaluation
has been created in order to provide analyses and assessments
for strategic planning and budgeting decisions, independent
cost estimates, evaluation of projects at major milestones, and
feedback from the Centers on their capabilities and work
climate. This is to ensure that the acquisition strategies, if
done as planned, are executable, have exit and entrance
criteria, contain clear approval milestones, and involve
independent reviews.
--Improving Financial Management.--For the past two years, NASA has
received a disclaimer of audit opinion on its annual financial
statements due largely to two issues--financial system
conversion, and accounting for property, plant and equipment,
and materials and supplies. In fiscal year 2003, NASA converted
the 10 separate NASA Center accounting systems and the
associated 120 subsidiary systems, along with over 12 years of
historical financial data, into a single integrated Agency-wide
core accounting system. Problems associated with this
conversion have been greater than expected and are taking
longer than expected to correct. I regard improvement of NASA's
financial management as one of my priorities.
--Capital Asset Management.--The management of NASA's capital assets,
valued at $37.6 billion (83 percent of NASA's assets on the
balance sheet), lacks the necessary internal controls and
systems to support the proper valuation for management analysis
as well as for audit purposes. Therefore, NASA is developing a
comprehensive plan that will reform the manner in which we are
accounting for and managing our assets.
THE NATION'S FUTURE IN EXPLORATION AND DISCOVERY
The aftermath of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia on
February 1, 2003, brought us to a watershed moment in the American
civil space program. Choices had to be made. The President has put
forth a choice, a strategic vision for the space program. That vision
has been enunciated with exceptional clarity, and has been subjected to
considerable public debate for over a year. While differences of
opinion exist, the President's proposal has attained broad strategic
acceptance. As a Nation, we can clearly afford well-executed vigorous
programs in robotic and human space exploration, Earth science, and
aeronautics research.
For America to continue to be preeminent among nations, it is
necessary for us to be the preeminent spacefaring nation. It is equally
true that great nations need allies and partners in this journey. That
is what the Vision for Space Exploration is about.
As President George W. Bush said, ``We choose to explore space
because doing so improves our lives and lifts our national spirit. So
let us continue the journey.''
[Budget authority, dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Cost
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Appropriation Account, By Mission Initial April May
Directorate, By Theme Operating Operating Operating Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Plan Fiscal Plan Fiscal Plan Fiscal 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year 2005 Year 2005 Year 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration........... $9,334.7 $9,335.0 $9,051.0 $9,661.0 $10,549.8 $11,214.6 $12,209.6 $12,796.1
=======================================================================================================
Science \1\................................. 5,527.2 5,527.0 5,554.0 5,476.3 5,960.3 6,503.4 6,853.0 6,797.6
Solar System Exploration................ 1,858.1 1,858.0 1,787.0 1,900.5 2,347.7 2,831.8 2,998.9 3,066.1
The Universe............................ 1,513.2 1,513.0 1,475.0 1,512.2 1,531.5 1,539.4 1,495.0 1,406.7
Earth-Sun System........................ 2,155.8 2,156.0 2,291.0 2,063.6 2,081.2 2,132.2 2,359.0 2,324.8
=======================================================================================================
Exploration Systems \2\................. 2,684.5 2,684.5 2,356.0 3,165.4 3,707.0 3,825.9 4,473.7 5,125.5
Constellation Systems................... 526.0 526.0 422.0 1,120.1 1,579.5 1,523.7 1,990.9 2,452.2
Exploration Systems Research and 722.8 722.8 766.0 919.2 907.3 989.2 1,050.3 1,078.5
Technology.............................
Prometheus Nuclear Systems and 431.7 431.7 270.3 319.6 423.5 500.6 614.0 779.0
Technology.............................
Human Systems Research and Technology... 1,003.9 1,003.9 897.7 806.5 796.7 812.4 818.5 815.8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeronautics Research: Aeronautics Technology 906.2 906.0 962.0 852.3 727.6 730.7 727.5 717.6
Education Programs: Education Programs...... 216.7 217.0 179.0 166.9 154.9 154.7 155.4 155.4
=======================================================================================================
Exploration Capabilities........................ 6,704.4 6,830.0 7,114.0 6,763.0 6,378.6 6,056.7 5,367.1 5,193.8
Space Operations............................ 6,704.4 6,830.0 7,114.0 6,763.0 6,378.6 6,056.7 5,367.1 5,193.8
International Space Station............. 1,676.3 1,676.0 1,676.0 1,856.7 1,835.3 1,790.9 2,152.3 2,375.5
Space Shuttle........................... 4,543.0 4,669.0 4,964.0 4,530.6 4,172.4 3,865.7 2,815.1 2,419.2
Space and Flight Support................ 485.1 485.0 474.0 375.6 370.9 400.0 399.7 399.1
=======================================================================================================
Inspector General............................... 31.3 31.0 31.0 32.4 33.5 34.6 35.2 37.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................... 16,070.4 16,196.0 16,196.0 16,456.3 16,962.0 17,305.9 17,611.9 18,027.1
Year to year increase........................... ........... ........... ........... 2.4 3.1 2.0 1.8 2.4
Emergency Hurricane Supplemental................ 126.0 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Science Mission Directorate reflects the combination of the former Space Science and Earth Science Enterprises.
\2\ Beginning in fiscal year 2006, Exploration Systems moves from Exploration Capabilities to Science, Aeronautics and Exploration. Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate reflects the combination of the former Biological & Physical Research and Exploration Systems Enterprises.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
SPACE SHUTTLE RETIREMENT
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Dr. Griffin.
The proposed budget for NASA has the Space Shuttle
scheduled for retirement in 2010. We have been talking about
that. And the next man-rated vehicle, the crew exploration
vehicle, CEV, is expected to be ready by 2014. The critical
funding for the CEV, I understand, is dependent on the
retirement of the Shuttle. It has been widely reported, Dr.
Griffin, that you are an advocate of closing this 4-year gap--I
mentioned it in my opening statement--in the U.S. launched
manned space flight.
Whenever I hear about the acceleration of such programs,
concerns arise, being an appropriator, about cost increases and
development setbacks. So how much do you anticipate
accelerating the CEV will increase the near-term costs of this
vehicle? And where will these funds come from?
Mr. Griffin. Sir, the widely circulated reports of my
dissatisfaction with the gap in manned space flight have the
virtue of being true.
Senator Shelby. I am glad. Thank you.
Mr. Griffin. I am dissatisfied with those, and we will be
working to close that gap.
I will say at the outset that I cannot say, at this moment,
what the near-term cost increases will be because that study
effort is ongoing as we speak. When I have some knowledge of
that, it will be communicated to this subcommittee and to the
Congress. But let me outline the broad plan for things we might
do to accomplish that.
First of all, I might add also, I believe it is true, when
one stretches a project out beyond its appropriate and natural
lifetime, that also causes cost increases.
Senator Shelby. It does.
Mr. Griffin. The 10-year period that we have been planning
on as our first plan to design and develop and procure the new
crew exploration vehicle is a lengthy period of time relative
to our prior history in manned spacecraft development, and I
believe reflects lack of the best possible planning as much as
it does any fiscal realities.
That said, what could we do to make a difference? The first
thing, as I have indicated, that we could do is we, NASA, have
announced in our early planning documents to carry two
contractors through 2008 before making a final down-select. I
believe that the design of the crew exploration vehicle should
be sufficiently straightforward, should be sufficiently within
our experience base, that it may not be necessary to carry two
contractors that long, that it may be more appropriate to down-
select earlier, as I said, in fiscal year 2006. That saves an
amount of money on the order of $1 billion or more, which can
be used in the near term to fully fund one vehicle.
Second, some of our early planning has focused on the
possibility of hardware demonstrations in mid-term development
for the crew exploration vehicle. Those may or may not be
necessary. We will be examining that, as we will be examining
the rest of these issues, but certainly such early
demonstrations will require money that might best be spent
bringing the vehicle to completion.
Third, as I have indicated, we have a substantial
technology development line in exploration systems. I have been
in charge, on behalf of the Defense Department in prior
experience, of even more substantial technology development
budgets, and I would say that, regarding my personal
preferences, nothing would give me more pleasure than to sow
the seeds widely in our NASA technology development. It has
been a long time since we have been able to afford to do that.
I would like to do it. But we must put development of new
technology in second place behind the development of existing
capability on the part of the United States to ferry astronauts
and limited amounts of cargo to and from the Space Station and
to get started down the path back to lunar return.
COST CONTROL AND TECHNICAL VIABILITY
Senator Shelby. Doctor, along those same lines, financial
responsibility, we have a great challenge, all of us here. What
steps is NASA taking to ensure that the contracts it enters
into are independently assessed for cost control and technical
viability?
Mr. Griffin. Sir, you raise a very important area. As I
know that everyone knows, whether directly or not, you are
referring to the fact that our audit posture is not a favorable
one. We received at the end of 2004 a red audit. We expect to
receive another one, I am told. We, NASA, need to frankly get
busy on our financial accounting and make sure it passes all
the tests.
We also need, in terms of the conduct of our programs, to
make sure that, when we sign contracts, they have clearly
specified goals, funding profiles are clearly made available,
and, in general, we know what we are doing.
I am in the process of establishing a new Office of
Program, Analysis, and Evaluation (PA&E), which will carry a
set of forward-looking and backward-looking responsibilities,
to wit: for backward-looking responsibilities, we will be
assessing programs as they carry forward and determining
whether they are meeting their cost schedule and performance
goals, and making recommendations as to what to do if they fail
with those.
We will also be looking at our track record for the
development of hardware in terms of cost and schedule, and we
will be factoring those estimates from the past into our
predictions for the future.
Looking forward, the new PA&E office will carry the
responsibility for strategic budgeting, making sure that we
have appropriately accounted for all the exigencies which we
can determine. And the new office will carry a directorate for
advanced planning, helping to remove some of the responsibility
for the advanced planning function from those mission
directorates, which must carry it out. I have referred to this
as eliminating the ``fox in the henhouse'' problem. I want my
mission directorates focused on executing the direction they
are given, rather than determining what that direction should
be.
I hope and believe that this new office will assume a major
responsibility for helping to get our programs on track.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Picking up, I would like to go right to the Hubble space
telescope. You know the history. Administrator O'Keefe was
going to cancel the Hubble. He did agree to seeking a second
opinion, and the National Academy of Science recommended that
we do it, and they recommended two possibilities: a robotic
mission to repair Hubble robotically--not repair but give it
its batteries and its new optics; and then the other was a
Shuttle mission for which there is some question about the
safety of the astronauts.
Now, where are you on the Hubble? And where do you see us
going? And in support of Hubble, what will it take from this
subcommittee to support you to do that?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, as I believe this subcommittee and,
indeed, most of the world paying attention to Hubble knows, I
have committed to re-examine the decision to do a Shuttle
Servicing Mission 4, SM-4, in support of Hubble refurbishment
and upgrades once we have accomplished our return-to-flight
objectives.
To recap the reasons behind that statement, I would say
that Administrator O'Keefe's decision made in the aftermath of
the loss of Columbia, and before we had our return-to-flight
planning fully fleshed out, was the reasonable one for the
time, but when we return the Shuttle to flight, it will be
essentially a new vehicle, and in some specific ways it will
require careful examination to assess its ability to support
SM-4, and that is what we will do. It is appropriate, I think,
then to reconsider that earlier decision in light of the fact
that we will be flying, you know, a very much improved vehicle
and to assess the relative risks of a Hubble mission.
The National Academy did suggest that the human servicing
mission was the proper path to go down, and in addition, there
was an independent committee established to assess the
feasibility of a robotic servicing mission. Before I was
nominated to head NASA, I was the head of that independent
commission. I think it is safe to say, although my tenure on
that committee was interrupted by President Bush's nomination
of me to serve as Administrator, I spent enough time with that
committee to know definitely that each and every person on that
committee, all of them very capable engineers and scientists,
believed that the robotic mission was infeasible to accomplish
within the time available before Hubble would degrade
irreversibly and within any reasonable amount of money that
could be appropriated to accomplish it.
I believe that is the best technical judgment that we will
get concerning the feasibility of robotic servicing of the
Hubble within the available time, and I think we should simply
get off that page.
Senator Mikulski. Without getting on to the page, first of
all, number one, we thank you for taking this so seriously and
giving it such a high level of professional attention. In your
testimony, both on page 3 and 6 about the Hubble, as I
understand it, you say servicing of the Hubble will depend on
the performance of the return to space on the Shuttle safely
and the return of the astronauts and that it would take two
missions to do that, to assess whether, according to the
testimony on page 3 and 6, whether the station was up to a
Hubble mission.
My question then: What would be the timeline where you
would see those two missions being accomplished? And in the
meantime, what should Goddard do? Does it just stand down and
we could lose everybody and everything? Or do you see things
moving forward in a simultaneous way? And what would be the
price tag on that if that is your administrative
recommendation?
Mr. Griffin. Yes, Senator. I will return to this in a
moment, but it is correct that we need the two Shuttle return-
to-flight missions in order to fully assess certain technical
issues that I will get to in a moment.
If we were to wait for the conclusion of those two missions
to begin work at Goddard on SM-4, we would, if I could use a
colloquial expression, get ourselves behind the eight ball on
doing that servicing. And so I----
Senator Mikulski. It would be too late.
Mr. Griffin. It would be too late.
Senator Mikulski. So when do you----
Mr. Griffin. So I have directed Goddard to begin work on
Shuttle Servicing Mission 4 under the assumption that we will
be successful with return to flight and in our technical
assessment of Shuttle capabilities. The first return-to-flight
mission should occur in July, the second one in September, and,
by that time, we will have accomplished the detailed test
objectives we need to accomplish in order to know that it will
be safe and effective to allow astronauts to service Hubble
from the Shuttle.
EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCES
Senator Mikulski. Well, we, of course, wish Godspeed to our
astronauts, and I know Senator Hutchison will be raising some
important Shuttle questions, I presume. Number one, that is
heartening. Number two, we look forward to talking about what
we need to put in the appropriations to keep the simultaneity
of these two endeavors going.
But if I could add just another thing--because we need to
address the Shuttle; we are Shuttle obsessed, as you can
imagine. Earth science and space science, do you see new--as
you know, there was another National Academy study that said we
were losing ground on the study of Earth science, that projects
were either descoped, delayed, detoured, derailed, et cetera.
And now with NOAA being in this subcommittee, do you see the
potential to continue or to focus on a true Earth science set
of projects that truly serve this Nation and even friends
around the world in terms of understanding our planet both in
terms of any number of aspects that have a great impact, from
atmospherics to ocean currents to ocean winds and a variety of
other things that truly impact the global environment and also
how to make those projections that save lives and save
livelihoods, kind of a NOAA, NASA, and perhaps NSF partnership?
Mr. Griffin. Yes, Senator, I absolutely look forward to
enhancing the NOAA, NASA, and NSF partnership in Earth science.
Several comments on your points.
First of all, we at NASA have heard the response of the
community to the changes we made or proposed and carried out in
our science program in fiscal year 2005. We had allocated, and
planned to allocate, in fiscal year 2006 a substantial
increment to funding Mars exploration, robotic Mars exploration
in the out-years. We have withdrawn from that and are
rebalancing our portfolio to again provide emphasis on Earth
science as an important part of our portfolio. So we have heard
the response of the science community, and we in turn are being
responsive. And you will see that as we go forward in our op
plan for 2005 and in 2006.
Senator Mikulski. Well, my time is up, and if we have a
second round, we will return to some other important issues.
Senator Shelby. We will have a second round.
Mr. Griffin. Okay.
Senator Shelby. Senator Hutchison.
BUDGET PRIORITIES
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Griffin, we have heard that some Members of the House
have urged moving funds from the International Space Station
budget for 2006 into the aeronautics line to offset the
proposed reductions in that area. That was the President's
budget, and clearly having the International Space Station and
the return to flight are the highest priorities. I wanted to
ask you if you can tell the subcommittee what impact any
reduction such as that in the International Space Station
funding would have. And will you oppose that?
Mr. Griffin. Senator Hutchison, I am the President's
appointee and I support the President's budget. The
administration's allocation of relative priorities between
human space flight, science, and aeronautics is clear, and I do
not propose any changes to those priorities.
Within those lines, we may choose to emphasize or de-
emphasize certain things, but I simply cannot support moving
money from completing the assembly of the International Space
Station to any other activity.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
The Space Shuttles were originally intended to be capable
of flying 100 missions. The Columbia had flown the most at 27.
When you were talking about the expense of making the Shuttles
go longer, I am sure that maintaining them does get more
expensive as they grow older. But is that still something that
would be more feasible since they were supposed to have been
able to have longer terms anyway as a way to lengthen--or
shorten the gap between the crew return vehicle coming on if,
in fact, you are not able to bring that in at an earlier stage?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, I cannot support that position.
Again, I am the President's appointee, and the administration
is committed to Shuttle retirement in 2010. The expense of
maintaining the Shuttle fleet year after year is so great that,
in order to move effectively ahead on the crew exploration
vehicle systems, we must retire the Shuttle. We must retire it
in an orderly fashion. We must fly every flight safely. But we
must get it behind us.
The Shuttle is inherently flawed. It does not have an
escape system for its crew, and we all know that since human
perfection is unattainable, sooner or later there will be
another Shuttle accident. I want to retire it before that
flight can occur.
I want to work with you and this subcommittee to understand
how we can accelerate the development of the crew exploration
vehicle so that there is the minimal possible gap in
transitioning from one system to another.
On a personal note, in my late 20s and early 30s, I was
working in the space program, as I have most of my life, when
we underwent a 6-year gap between the completion of the last
Apollo, the Apollo-Soyuz flight, and the first Shuttle flight.
That gap damaged our program. It damaged our unmanned program
as well. It was damaging to the United States. I don't want to
do it again, and I know you share that view. But the way to
prevent that is not to continue to rely upon the Shuttle, which
is an outdated system, but to move as expeditiously as we may
toward the new system. And that is what I am here to support.
Senator Hutchison. I accept that, and I think you have made
the case very well. Let me ask you this: If you are going to
put more emphasis on the crew return vehicle, there have been
other suggestions that you would take money out of the basic
research budget and the International Space Station. Is that
something that would be viable in your mind? And what impact
would it have on the long-term national science asset that we
have there if you take money from the research projects in the
Space Station for the crew return vehicle?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, the impact would be of delay, not of
deletion. Yes, if I need the money to close the gap in human
space flight between the end of the Shuttle program and the
beginning of its replacement, my recommendation would be to
take money from the research to be done on Space Station or
other exploration systems research and technology development,
simply because, as I said in my opening statement, we cannot do
everything on our plate and we have to have priorities and
first things first.
Now, the research of which you speak is very valuable, and
it must be done. But if it is delayed a very few years in order
to allow us to complete, in effect, a suitable transition
between systems, then I believe that that delay would be worth
it, and that would be where I would look for the money.
Senator Hutchison. Let me just ask my final question then.
If you did something like that, you do not mean that you would
stop all of the research on the Space Station at any point, do
you? Or would it be just some projects that could be put off?
Mr. Griffin. The phrase I have used is that when cutting
budgets, you need to use a meat axe rather than a scalpel--or a
scalpel rather than a meat axe, pardon me.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Mr. Griffin. Yes. It needs to be done carefully. We would
obviously not go in and stop, on a wholesale basis, everything
which is ongoing. Stopping projects in their middle is usually
not an effective way to save money. I would look generally
toward delaying projects which have not yet started.
The Space Station, once built, will be an excellent
platform for a number of different kinds of engineering,
physical science, and biological research. And we will do that.
It will be flying for many, many years. But if, in order to
produce the next vehicle, which will allow us to ferry
astronauts back and forth to the Space Station, I need to delay
some of that research, then that is what I will have to do.
Senator Hutchison. ``Some'' is the operable word.
Mr. Griffin. Yes.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Shelby. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Let me first congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on assuming
the responsibility of chairing this subcommittee with an
enlarged scope of jurisdiction.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. We look forward to working closely with
you to help ensure that we meet our goals and identify our
priorities in a thoughtful way. And I think starting the
process with a new Administrator of NASA is an exciting
opportunity for all of us. I want to congratulate you, Dr.
Griffin, for your selection as Administrator of this important
agency and say that we appreciate the fact that you are a
person of experience, a great deal of education in these
technical and scientific areas. I was just looking at the
number of Master's degrees that you have been awarded at
various universities, and it is really quite impressive, and I
hope you do not mind my referring to you as ``Dr. Griffin,''
because you did get a Ph.D. also, and that was in the
University of Maryland system, which I know Dr. Mikulski may
identify with, with some pleasure. This is a big job, and I
know you are well suited and totally well qualified for it. And
even though you have indicated that you support the budget
request because you are the President's nominee and you are in
this position to carry out these policies, we do notice that
the research funding has been reduced because, I guess, of the
increase in exploration initiative costs, over $675 million for
the Moon and Mars exploration initiative. So this decreases
other activities.
Have you looked at ways that you can balance that
competition inside the agency so that there is not any serious
harm done to interests for traditional activities that have
been carried out by NASA?
Mr. Griffin. Senator Cochran, the science budget in the
large at NASA has not been cut to serve the needs of
exploration, Moon and Mars. The science budget request for 2006
is $5.5 billion. We expect it to grow with inflation in the
out-years. We have not, and, unless under the most extreme
budget pressure, I would not, cut science in order to fund
manned space flight. I believe that NASA has several
substantially differing activities: human space flight,
science, and aeronautics.
The President's priorities among those differing activities
are expressed in his fiscal year 2006 budget, as are the
proportions among those numbers, and I would intend to respect
those proportions. If we need to solve problems in human space
flight, we will do it within the human space flight suite of
activities.
So I must respectfully suggest we have not cut the science
budget in order to do exploration. In fact, I would say that
the exploration budget has been reduced and exploration
activities have been delayed in order to accommodate Shuttle
return-to-flight costs.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN THE SPACE PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. In looking at the global situation in
terms of our relationships with other countries and cooperation
in the space program--Russia has been actively involved in the
manned program for a good many years--are there other nations
that are interested or active in becoming partners in space
exploration?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, I have not had the opportunity to
assess that yet. I will be, in fact, attending the Paris Air
Show next month, and there will be, as you know, other
international events at which my attendance will be expected,
and I will be there. And then there will be formally arranged
meetings, government-to-government meetings as well. And in the
course of the next few months, I hope to get a feel for which
nations wish to join us in this venture. I hope there are some.
I think one of the best things to come out of the Space
Station program is the international partnership that has been
developed, and the administration takes very seriously this
Nation's commitments to those partners. So I look forward to
it. I have not had an opportunity to assess it yet.
Senator Cochran. Well, we look forward to working more
closely with you as we go through this budget process, and we
intend to closely consult with you along the way to be sure
that we cooperate in supporting the administration's
initiatives in these areas. We appreciate your leadership.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming Dr.
Griffin to the hearing today. NASA's history is without
comparison. Continued human exploration will broaden our
understanding of the universe, and coupled with its dedicated
pursuit of scientific research, NASA will help secure our
nation's position at the cutting edge of technology well into
the future.
Dr. Griffin, I note that you are a man of action. While you
have been in your job for less than a month, you have already
made important decisions for the future of NASA, to include
awarding the Shared Services Center contract and accelerating
the development and launch of the shuttle replacement into
orbit.
Stennis Space Center in Mississippi has been known for its
engine testing work, and I am proud to acknowledge the recent
selection of Stennis as the location for the NASA Shared
Services Center. We welcome the center to Mississippi and look
forward to the contribution that the men and women of
Mississippi will make to help NASA be more efficient in
conducting its administrative activities.
I look forward to working with you in the future and to
hearing your testimony today.
NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEM
Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator, and I will offer you my
full cooperation as Administrator.
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, Project Prometheus has been a
priority for NASA over the past 2 years. This nuclear program
has the potential of providing great benefit to future NASA
missions and the exploration vision. However, the Jupiter Icy
Moons Orbiter mission has been determined to be too technically
difficult, and the same operating plan you have mentioned in
your written testimony also includes a reduction of $161
million to the Prometheus program to reflect the mission
deferment.
With the deferment of the Jupiter Icy Moons mission, NASA
is looking at alternative missions to demonstrate a nuclear
power system in space. Was the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter
mission too ambitious? If so, what are the possibilities that
NASA intends to explore? And how will this affect the funding
level from Prometheus in the 2006 budget?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, there were several questions there,
and if I miss one, you can remind me. Let me address the
issue----
Senator Shelby. I bet you won't miss one.
Mr. Griffin. I don't want to bet too much, but we will try.
The Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission was, in my opinion,
too ambitious to be attempted. Let me give a couple of
specifics.
The vehicle would have required at least two heavy-lift
launches to put into orbit where it would have been assembled
prior to its departure from Earth to go to Jupiter. That would
have been an extremely expensive undertaking, one which we have
not performed before.
The nuclear electric propulsion system being developed for
it does not presently exist, would not exist for some time, and
if successfully developed, would have required approximately
twice the world's annual production of xenon to be fueled to
carry out the mission. It was not a mission, in my judgment,
that was well formed.
The original purpose of the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter was
to execute a scientific mission to Europa, a moon of Jupiter
which is extremely interesting on a scientific basis. It
remains a very high priority, and you may look forward in the
next year or so, maybe even sooner, to a proposal for a Europa
mission as part of our science line. But we would, again, not
favor linking that to a nuclear propulsion system.
With that mission taken off the table as being something
just too big for our plate at this time, the question then
arises as to what shape and form we want the space nuclear
program to be. I will say categorically we cannot effectively
explore space without nuclear power and in the longer run
nuclear propulsion. But having taken JIMO off the plate,
Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, the proper ordering of priorities
now changes.
The first thing we will need is surface nuclear power for
our astronauts when they return to the Moon in a decade or so.
The next thing we will need will be nuclear thermal
propulsion----
Senator Shelby. How difficult will that be?
Mr. Griffin. Sorry, sir?
Senator Shelby. How difficult will that be?
Mr. Griffin. We need to execute some development programs
that we have not done in a while, but many nuclear reactors
have been flown in space--one by the United States, many by the
former Soviet Union. We have that technology. We merely have to
integrate it again.
Nuclear thermal propulsion will be the next step. A nuclear
upper stage is the most effective way to take humans to Mars.
The United States had prototype versions of such engines back
in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1972, when President
Nixon decided that the Nation would not be going to Mars under
his tenure as President, the NERVA, nuclear engine for rocket
vehicle applications, program was terminated. We have not had a
need for such a program in the last three decades. As we
journey forward to Mars, we will need it.
Finally, the last priority would be the nuclear electric
propulsion which was linked to JIMO, and that will be useful
for cargo missions to Mars, but well after we start sending
humans there.
MAINTAINING SKILLED WORKFORCE WITHIN SPACE SHUTTLE AND STATION
ACTIVITIES
Senator Shelby. Doctor, in another area, to what extent
will it be possible or even desirable to maintain employment of
skilled workers currently involved in Space Shuttle and station
activities as NASA transitions to a post-Shuttle era and
reduces its station-related programs?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, it will be absolutely crucial. As I
pointed out earlier in response to Senator Hutchison's
question, I, as a professional, lived through the gap in manned
space flight from 1975 to 1981, and I do not propose to repeat
it. One of the things that happened during that period was the
loss of skilled and experienced personnel in space flight of
all varieties, both manned and unmanned, to other pursuits.
When those people have gone to other occupations, our
experience is we do not get them back. So we must effect an
orderly transition from the shuttle to the new system.
I owe this Congress a plan for doing that, and I have said
on several occasions in several ways that the first step is
minimizing that gap.
FIELD CENTERS ROLE IN THE PROMETHEUS PROGRAM
Senator Shelby. What is your view, doctor, of the role of
the field centers in the Prometheus program? In other words, do
you believe that the program is doing a good job of utilizing
the full range of research and development capabilities that
exists within the field centers, and if not, what action do you
plan to take to employ the technical talent base within NASA?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, the question was applied by you to
Prometheus, but it goes beyond that. I have not had an
opportunity to look at the Prometheus program directly. As I
said, we will be restructuring it, not because it is not a
valuable program, it is incredibly valuable, but I want to
change the definition of what is produced first.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Mr. Griffin. Now, with regard to your broader question of
what are the value of the field centers, I have also in public
utterances been most specific on this point. The President's
Vision for Space Exploration is a multi-generation program. It
will require decades. The people who will be taking us to Mars
are in elementary and middle school today. Contractors and
businesses come and go. They succeed and they fail. The
Government ownership of the intellectual property that sustains
our space exploration journey will be with us always, as long
as there is a Government.
The core capability, the core intellectual property that
will sustain this journey, must reside within NASA as an
organization, and in particular within the NASA field centers.
I am committed to maintaining and to restoring capability where
we need to do it. I am committed to changing the skill mixes of
the centers as we transition from a Shuttle operations culture
to the development culture required for the new vehicle systems
we must bring about. But in the process of adjusting the
details of how the field centers accomplish their missions and
what they do, I am committed to retaining strong field center
capability.
HEAVY LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE
Senator Shelby. Doctor, what is the status of planning for
a heavy lift launch vehicle to send large quantities of mass to
low Earth orbit or directly to the Moon?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, that is a very interesting question.
I can plan the development of a heavy lift launch vehicle from
a clean sheet of paper, which would likely be too expensive for
this subcommittee or the full committee to provide me the
money, or I can utilize the heavy lift launch vehicle that I
presently own as the NASA Administrator, which is the Space
Shuttle. We talk about retiring the Space Shuttle. What is
really meant is that we need to retire the Space Shuttle
Orbiter. The Space Shuttle is a system of systems. It consists
of a number of very, very valuable, very expensive to develop
components, the Shuttle external tank, the Shuttle solid rocket
boosters, Shuttle main engines and other lesser things, as well
as the assembly and launch pad infrastructure at the Cape.
Every time that stack lifts off, it carries 120 or 20
metric tons into orbit. If I remove the orbiter and put on a
cargo module, I have a heavy lifter. To me, I have indicated on
several occasions, that seems the shortest path to a heavy
lifter. If money were free and being provided in unlimited
quantities, I would enjoy the challenge of developing a new
vehicle, but we all know it is not, so I believe that that is
the appropriate way forward.
LAUNCH VEHICLES
Senator Shelby. Where are we regarding the expendable
launch vehicle versus a Shuttle derived launch vehicle?
Mr. Griffin. Do you mean the evolved expendable launch
vehicle?
Senator Shelby. Yes, evolved.
Mr. Griffin. The evolved expendable launch vehicle
families, offered by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, are the
Nation's transportation fleet for payloads of 20 metric tons or
less, and I certainly would propose no NASA development of such
vehicles because we do not need more.
In terms of payload capability above about 20 metric tons,
the field is open, and again, from NASA's perspective to meet
my heavy lift needs, I would probably stick with what I have.
Again, we need to make these judgments on a cost basis and I am
in the process of assessing those costs, but it looks likely to
me that sticking with what I have is the way to go.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
STATION ASSEMBLY-SHUTTLE FLIGHTS
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to pick up a line of questioning both from Senator
Shelby and Senator Hutchison, and it goes to the Shuttle and
the completion of the station. How many flights will it take to
complete the station, how many Shuttle flights, and how long do
you anticipate that this is going to take?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, the current plan on the table at NASA
is a 28 flight sequence, of which 18 flights are assembly
flights, 5 flights are logistics flights, and 5 are utilization
flights. I have indicated, in response to the Senator's
question, that some of the research to be accomplished on the
utilization flights could be deferred until we have a new
system. With some time to plan, 2 or 3 years in the future, out
to 2008 or so, some of the logistics flights cargo could be
offloaded onto expendable vehicles, the Arian Transfer Vehicle,
the Japanese HTV or new commercial systems which we would
develop.
That leaves a core of 18 Shuttle assembly flights. Again,
with time to plan, even some of that hardware could be put up
by alternate means, but right now we are looking at a core of
about 18 assembly flights.
Senator Mikulski. Well, let me jump in here because first
of all, again, we are very concerned about the Shuttle, the
safety of our astronauts, but also those 15,000 people, both
contractors and civil servants who are employed.
Now, it is 2005. We are talking about retiring the Shuttle
in 2010. So that gives us essentially 4\1/2\ years to do 15
flights. Do you think it can be done? Well, actually, that is
not the question. I am really concerned that with the magnitude
that it will take to complete the station, and we know it must
be completed for both scientific reasons, and honoring our
commitment to international partners. We do not want to
jeopardize that relationship because we are going to need it,
we both need and want international partners for other things
that we hope to do in space. But my point is then, if you have,
let us just say 18 in 4\1/2\ years, that seems like a robust
schedule, given the fact that by the time we do the next two
flights, presuming everything goes the way we hope, that will
be--we are then into 2006. So that gives you 2006, 2007, 2008,
et cetera. How do you see all of this unfolding?
Mr. Griffin. Directly answering your question, it is an
extremely robust schedule. We are not sure we can accomplish
it. We are looking at alternative assembly sequences for the
Shuttle that we would use in case we are not able to get all 18
assembly flights accomplished with the Shuttle. I will provide
a set of options for this Congress by midsummer.
Senator Mikulski. I think what we are looking at then is
the impact on the workforce, and also presuming then that they
are working nonstop to do this, we would be concerned about
then its impact on safety, just even general fatigue, of both
people and the Shuttle itself. We have three orbiters and one
has to go, one has to be ready to go, and one is taking a
breather. That is kind of a liberal arts graduate's description
of this.
But then, of course, what would be the cost to do this?
Will it accelerate, et cetera? I think you might not be able to
do this today. We know you support the President's budget, but
we would like to also know the consequences of this because we
are then talking about five or six flights a year, and we have
not even ever met that--have we ever met that type schedule?
Mr. Griffin. I believe we have, but it was very difficult,
and it was in a different environment. With the care that we
are taking today we are not planning on a six flight per year
schedule. We would need roughly four flights a year to fly 20
flights in the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Senator Mikulski. And with one flight hopefully going to
Hubble.
Mr. Griffin. And one going to Hubble.
Senator Mikulski. Which would be an additional flight.
Mr. Griffin. Senator, your question is extremely on point.
There is no question, as I said before, it is an extremely
aggressive schedule and we must have fall-back options if we
are not able to meet it, because we do not want the program to
be schedule driven. We do not want safety to be compromised. We
will provide, by midsummer, a set of options that we can offer
to avail ourselves of if we are not able to carry out the
aggressive flight rate required to get all 18 assembly flights
completed by the time we are ready to retire.
Senator Mikulski. I think this subcommittee is looking
forward very much to working with you and with our authorizer,
Senator Hutchison, on this endeavor.
I had the good fortune to visit Texas with Senator
Hutchison to see the kinds of research that we are talking
about in the Shuttle, and also at Marshall, physical science,
life science, that could be stunning, and that for an
international partnership to have a completed Shuttle where we
are really working together on breakthrough ideas, I think
would go a long way to science, a long way to international
cooperation. I think the world would feel better about the
United States and its preeminence in space, particularly in the
civilian side. So we want to be able to do that.
I know that my time is up, and my next area would be of
course aeronautics.
Senator Shelby. Senator Hutchison.
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION COMPLETION
Senator Hutchison. I just want to follow along with what
Senator Mikulski was saying because it seems to me that you
have got two major priorities here. You were very firm about
wanting to retire the Shuttle on time, but also equally firm,
as is the President, on finishing the Space Station for all of
the reasons that Senator Mikulski said. If we cannot finish the
Space Station with what you have available--let me rephrase.
Are you prepared to say that finishing the Space Station is the
top priority?
Mr. Griffin. Well, the administration has said that we will
finish the Space Station. For the next 2 to 3 years,
unequivocally, we are dependent upon the Shuttle to go to the
Space Station and begin the process of completing that
assembly. If we look further out, there are alternative means
we could engage to get that hardware up there, and we of course
would look at that because we need options. In the longer term,
if time comes to retire the Shuttle and we are not finished,
then I have said for the record on several occasions, both
before and after becoming Administrator, that the United States
should complete the station, but we may again encounter some
delays in accomplishing that until we have the new system on
board.
I do want to complete it. I think it is worth a lot for the
United States to keep its word, to maintain our obligations to
the partnership and to go forward together, and we will try to
do that.
All we are discussing here are ways and means of
accomplishing it, not whether or not the President is committed
to completing the station, because with his speech of 1 year
ago and his budget in 2006, he clearly is committed to that
completion.
Senator Hutchison. As all of us have said, we are going to
work with you. We know that you have to have time to put
alternatives together, but just one more time to reemphasize,
in addition to keeping our word to the international community,
which is very, very important, it just seems if we are not
committed to the science that one of the key reasons that we
have NASA is diminished, and I do not want to ever have any
indication that the actual science that will be done at the
Space Station is in any way a lesser priority.
Mr. Griffin. Yes, Senator. I do not think it is a lesser
priority either, but again, if the funding to do science is
getting in the way of the funding to complete the station, I
would be presented with a Hobson's choice. I will work with you
and with the subcommittee to minimize the dislocations, but if
completion is the first priority, I must do what I must do.
Senator Hutchison. I understand, and we will work with you
in every way. I just hope we do not end up being the hospital
that is clean because there are not any patients.
I mean we really have to----
Mr. Griffin. Yes, Senator, I understand.
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Remember the mission.
Thank you.
Mr. Griffin. I understand.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator.
Dr. Griffin, as we move forward how many Shuttle flights do
you think will be needed to complete construction of the
International Space Station?
Mr. Griffin. Well, again, the final answer on that may
depend on the outcome of some of the studies we have ongoing
and which I have promised to you by midsummer, and I understand
that commitment. The current baseline is 18 assembly flights, 5
logistics flights, 5 utilization flights.
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
Senator Shelby. In regard to international partners, it no
longer seems that NASA plans to provide everything that it
promised or could in international agreements that govern the
International Space Station program. What discussions are
planned or underway with the other partners to rebalance what
each partner is required to do and what it gets in return? In
other words, where are we going there?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, as we stand today, we are committed
to orbiting the partner hardware and providing the partner
flights. Disasters can ensue, as we know. If there is any
planned change to that, I would come forward to this
subcommittee and discuss it first.
Senator Shelby. Have any agreements been made in this
regard at this time?
Mr. Griffin. Not at this time.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Senator Shelby. Okay. Financial management, we have to do
this because we are in appropriation business here. NASA
continues to face significant challenges in improving financial
management. I know you have not been at NASA long, but in the
past 2 years NASA's auditors were unable to issue an opinion on
NASA's financial statements because NASA could not provide the
auditors with sufficient evidence to support the statements.
While NASA implemented a new integrated financial management
system in 2003, NASA auditors found pervasive errors in 2004
financial statements generated from the new system. In October
of this past year, the NASA Inspector General reported that one
of the most serious management challenges facing NASA is, and I
quote, ``ensuring that the integrated financial management
system improves NASA's ability to allocate costs to
programs''--we have been talking about this--``efficiently
provides reliable information to management and supports
compliance with the Chief Financial Officer's Act.''
Also in January of this year, 2005, the Government
Accountability Office, in its High Risk Series Report stated,
and I quote, ``While it has taken recent actions to improve the
contract management function, NASA continues to face
considerable challenges in implementing financial management
systems and processes that would allow it to manage its
contracts effectively.''
My question, Dr. Griffin is, does NASA have a written
corrective action plan that addresses the scope of its problems
and the resources at the time that will be needed to fix these
problems pointed out by the Inspector General and GAO?
Mr. Griffin. Senator, we do not at this point. I take the
GAO's comments and our independent auditor's comments as
seriously as I know how to say. We understand, as an Agency,
that our financial accountability has been lacking. I will not
hedge. We have lacked that. I have, as we speak, a team of
people working on putting a plan together for how we will get
from where we are to where you require and where we want us to
be.
Senator Shelby. You are committed to doing whatever is
necessary?
Mr. Griffin. I am absolutely committed to providing the
resources necessary to get our financial management on track,
and I will share with you the plan to do that when we have it.
Senator Shelby. What obstacles have you encountered that
would have an impact on your financial management efforts? Are
you there yet?
Mr. Griffin. We are really not. I have not been able to see
obstacles so much as we simply have not stepped up to the plate
on it. The major aspects of the situation are driven, as you
know, by the fact that NASA has 10 field centers. They did not
even historically all come from the same agencies. Some came
from the Department of Defense (DOD), some were created out of
a whole cloth, some came from NACA. They evolved their own
financial management systems and they were never really linked
up. Part of our integrated financial management plan, as the
name implies, is to have, if you will, one NASA, one system,
and be able to account for all the money in a common framework.
Linking those 10 centers and headquarters together in a
transparent and straightforward way has proven to be more of a
challenge than anyone had thought. Clearly it has, because we
flunked the last couple of years. I am absolutely dedicated to
seeing to it that, as my tenure goes forward, we do not flunk,
that we pass with flying colors.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski, you have any more questions?
RETAINING AND ATTRACTING SKILLED WORKFORCE
Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
First of all, I want to associate myself with Senator
Shelby's questions about fiscal accountability, fiscal
responsibility and implementing the reforms in the GAO report.
I also want to thank you in this testimony here for your
candor about what you are facing. Actually, I think we are off
to a good start even if some of the things are giving us
heartburn, at least we feel that we are getting a candid
conversation and look forward to more.
I am going to raise an issue about workforce. You talked
about the astronauts that will be on the trip to Mars are now
in elementary school, and we also know that NASA has an aging
workforce in certain projects, so you need to retain, you need
to recruit, and there needs to be a development of our future
scientists and technologists.
Could you give us your view on two things, number one, the
workforce at NASA and our ability to retain the qualified
people that you need to complete the priorities that you
outline and we support; and number two, what do you see NASA's
role in really helping generate, cultivate, that next
generation of scientists and technologists?
Mr. Griffin. Well, Senator, this is a subject that, as I
believe you know, I am quite passionate about.
Senator Mikulski. I know you are.
Mr. Griffin. I sometimes say, who is it that you will find
who loves education more than I do? That said, two things.
First of all, we have $167 million in the NASA Education
Program and more in the mission directorates as we sit here
today. I believe that we need to focus that education program,
establish goals and metrics for it, and make it effective, but
it is a substantial amount of money.
In addition, I think it is time to recognize that NASA's
biggest, most important, most lasting contribution to education
for our future workforce is to do the kinds of things that
excite young kids enough to want to be part of the space
program and to get an education to do it. They can get almost
any kind of an education and we will have a place for them at
NASA. We are a very broad Agency. We need a lot of different
specialties, but an education is a requirement.
If we return to the Moon, if we set up a permanently manned
lunar base there, if we go to Mars, if we visit the nearest
asteroids, if we service the James Webb space telescope in
future years, if we look beyond the Moon and Mars, young kids
today and young kids of the future will want to be part of that
program, as I did when I was a small boy, and they will do what
is necessary with their education to get it.
It is in that sense that NASA best served the educational
community in my humble opinion.
Senator Mikulski. On a personal note, you grew up in
Maryland. You grew up in Aberdeen, close to a military base. It
is the home of Cal Ripken.
Mr. Griffin. Yes, Senator, I was born on a military base.
Senator Mikulski. That is exactly right, and you went to
our public schools. What was it that got you interested in--
what do you think--you have outlined those projects, but what
got you interested?
Mr. Griffin. This story is almost embarrassing to recount.
I have not told it in public for some years, but it is true
that--my mother was a teacher when I was a kid, and the first
book that I was ever given was a book on astronomy and space. I
have since commented that sometimes that based on what we know
today, everything in that book was wrong.
Senator Mikulski. Gee, and I started with ``The Three
Bears.''
Mr. Griffin. Well, we went down different tracks. I still
have that book actually, and I was 5. This was in 1954, and I
was absolutely fascinated by it, and from that time forward I
never considered for myself anything other than being a
scientist or engineer or mathematician and involving myself in
the space business. And I never did. So that was what motivated
me.
I have no doubt--I hear often from--they are not kids any
more--you know, men or women in their 30s whose early memories
are the Apollo landings on the Moon, stimulated them into
science, development of science and engineering. I hear from
other young men and women who have technical educations that
they were fascinated by Bob Ballard's discovery of the Titanic.
Any sort of exploration into the unknown, any sort of discovery
of the new and unknown excites our kids. And if you catch them
at that age, they are with you forever.
We all went through puberty. If you let kids get to middle
school and high school before having fastened onto that
interest, they are going to be interested in girls and
football, or guys and football, whatever it is, but it is less
likely to be science and engineering because science and
engineering are hard.
Senator Mikulski. They are hard. Well, first of all, I
could not agree with you more that it is, number one, people
interested in young people to expose it to them; number two,
that it is wonderful projects that get people excited and young
people knowing and hearing about them. And then also, I
believe, that with that $167 million in NASA's education
budget, that we really get perhaps more of a focus on where we
would like to do it. Should it be in those areas like what we
would call extra educational institutions like science centers
and others? Today is not the day of doing that, but we want
this year to be a success. But we want to be preeminent for the
decade. We want to be preeminent for the century in science and
exploration.
So we look forward to working with you, and we would hope
that all the work you do, you can start a treaty negotiation
with NOAA and we will look forward to hearing about that. And I
and the Hubble will be keeping an eye on you.
Mr. Griffin. Senator, I will make sure that you do not have
to keep a sharp eye. I will make sure that you know what we are
doing with Hubble and with NOAA.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Dr. Griffin, I want to thank you for appearing here today
before our subcommittee. I am sure you will be back many times.
We will all be carrying on a dialogue with you. You have a lot
of work cut out for you. I think you are up to the challenge.
You bring the experience. You are candid, which is something we
like, it is refreshing. We look forward to working with you. We
have some hurdles to jump over, and you will be our leader in
that regard.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Administration for response subsequent to
the hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
Question. The implementation plan for the Vision laid out in the
fiscal year 2005 budget request was prepared based on underlying
assumptions. How have these assumptions changed? What is the impact of
any changed assumptions on NASA's funding needs?
Answer. As communicated in its September 2005 Operating Plan
Update, NASA has concluded the Exploration Systems Architecture Study
(ESAS) to implement the Vision for Space Exploration. Based on ESAS
recommendations, NASA has laid out a detailed plan to support sustained
human and robotic lunar exploration operations. This plan features
accelerated development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and Crew
Launch Vehicle (CLV) systems for missions to the International Space
Station, Moon, and Mars, and identifies key technologies required to
enable this exploration architecture.
ESAS results are broadly consistent with the assumptions on which
the fiscal year 2005 budget request was based. However the specific
architecture defined by the ESAS study allows NASA to accelerate CEV
and CLV and to further focus and refine ESMD research and technology.
To stay within planned budget guidance for Exploration Systems
while accelerating CEV and these launch systems, it is necessary to
redirect existing funding for longer-term and lower-priority research
and technology (R&T) elements within the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate (ESMD), while focusing on those R&T activities that support
the acceleration of the CEV, launch systems, and high-priority, long-
lead items.
In the fiscal year 2006 budget amendment, $292 million was
identified as moving from R&T activities into Constellation for CEV and
CLV acceleration. Following the results of the ESAS, as described
above, an additional $493 million is identified from the R&T activities
for acceleration of CEV and CLV, as detailed below. This yields a total
shift from R&T to Constellation for acceleration in fiscal year 2006 of
$785 million, relative to original plans for fiscal year 2006.
Constellation Systems.--NASA plans to accelerate the timeline for
flight of the next human flight system by two years, from 2014 to a
goal of not later than 2012. The first flights will be to the
International Space Station (ISS), but the primary goal of the CEV is
to support exploration efforts, including enabling humans to return to
the Moon for weeklong stays as early as 2018, but no later than 2020.
Longer-duration human presence on the Moon is targeted for 2022. The
changes in the R&T programs will provide funds required to accelerate
the design, development, and fabrication of the elements and systems
needed to support a return to the Moon on the above timeline.
Human System Research and Technology.--NASA is focusing HSRT
funding on program elements that mature technologies needed to support
ISS access and lunar sortie missions, while reducing program elements
targeting longer-term or lower priority needs. As NASA concentrates the
use of the Shuttle on ISS assembly, ISS utilization will be deferred.
Exploration Systems Research and Technology.--NASA is realigning
projects to support the ESAS recommended architecture requirements.
This realignment has resulted in a focused and phased, requirements
driven, R&T program in which some projects are curtailed, some are
adjusted, and some are added. Ongoing projects are streamlined to
deliver Technology Readiness Level 6 capabilities when needed (system
preliminary design review) so as to enable the CEV, launch systems, and
lunar lander development schedules. Examples of technology projects
focused on the near-term include ablative thermal protection and
oxygen-methane propulsion for CEV. Additional work is phased in after
the first few years for lunar lander propulsion systems and nontoxic
power and reaction control for launch vehicles. Finally, funding for
technologies, such as in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) and those
applicable to lunar surface systems, are phased in only during the out
years. Discontinued, descoped or delayed technology projects include
nanomaterials, inflatable structures, large-scale solar power,
intelligent robotic systems, Mars mission specific technologies, and
electric propulsion.
Prometheus Research and Technology.--Program elements have been
deferred as a result of the ESAS architecture study. Surface nuclear
power systems to support potential long- duration stays on the Moon
will not be required until after 2018. Nuclear propulsion will not be
required until planning for Mars missions begins in earnest. The result
will be a total reformulation in the nuclear program, yielding $76
million in fiscal year 2006 to accelerate development of CEV and CLV.
NASA's funding of the DOE's Naval Reactors program, the JIMO mission,
and several technology research programs related to electric propulsion
will be curtailed.
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget request contains less than
half the percentage increase proposed by President Bush last year. [It
was projected to increase by 4.7 percent above fiscal year 2005, but
instead is 2.4 percent more when compared with what was appropriated in
the fiscal year 2005 regular appropriations bill, or only 1.6 percent
more if the $126 million provided by the emergency supplemental for
hurricane relief are included.] How would the lower-than expected
funding affect execution of the Vision?
Answer. NASA is pleased to have received a 2.4 percent increase in
the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request. This is about half the
increase that was planned in the fiscal year 2005 budget runout, with
the reduction representing NASA's contribution toward overall deficit
reduction efforts--a priority for the President.
In his State of the Union Address on February 2, 2005, the
President underscored the need to restrain spending in order to sustain
our economic prosperity. The fiscal year 2006 budget request includes
more than 150 reductions, reforms, and terminations in non-defense
discretionary programs, of which 3 affect NASA programs. Overall,
NASA's budget is up, growing 2.4 percent in fiscal year 2006 and is
projected to continue to climb thereafter at the approximate rate of
inflation. This is a significant increase, when compared with other
non-defense, non-homeland security funding, which is generally flat or
declining.
In comparison with last year's fiscal year 2005 budget projected
runout, the fiscal year 2006 budget is about $546 million less. This
reduction, contributing to overall deficit reduction, is spread among
NASA's Exploration, Science and Aeronautics Mission Directorates, while
enabling increased funds for Shuttle Return to Flight requirements.
None of the reductions in Science and Aeronautics Programs is directed
to Exploration Systems.
With proposed fiscal year 2006 funding levels, NASA is capable of
implementing the Vision for Space Exploration and other national
priorities. It should be noted that, as a result of the President's
fiscal year 2006 budget amendment and NASA's proposed adjustments in
the fiscal year 2005 Operating Plan September update, NASA has
identified realigned a total of $785 million within planned fiscal year
2006 Exploration Systems funds from Research and Technology efforts to
Constellation for acceleration of CEV and CLV relative to original
fiscal year 2006 plans.
Question. In your opinion, should NASA be a ``single-mission''
agency focused on implementing the President's Vision for Space
Exploration, or a multi-mission agency as it has been in the past? If
you intend to lead NASA as a multi-mission agency, to what extent is
the budget you are requesting for fiscal year 2006-2010 sufficient to
accomplish that objective?
Answer. NASA is and should remain a multi-mission agency. Over the
past year, NASA has made great strides in meeting national priorities
in its missions not directly connected to milestones in the President's
Vision for Space Exploration:
--Earth Science.--We have completed deployment of the Earth Observing
System and are supporting investments in the Global Change
Science and Technology Program and the next generation Earth
observing satellites for numerous applications, including
improved weather forecasts, earthquake prediction, resource
management, and other hazard warnings.
--Aeronautics.--We are re-establishing NASA's dedication to mastery
of core competencies in subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic
flight, along with aviation safety, and airspace systems. NASA,
with its industry partners, recently demonstrated the
feasibility of significantly reducing the sonic boom from
supersonic aircraft, and, last November, NASA's hypersonic X-
43A demonstrated that an air-breathing engine can fly at nearly
10 times the speed of sound.
--Exploring our Solar System and the Universe.--The Mars rovers,
Spirit and Opportunity, have exceeded all expectations and made
unprecedented discoveries that will help prepare for eventual
human exploration; the Cassini/Huygens mission is providing
stunning views of Saturn and Titan; the Genesis mission,
despite its hard landing, has returned primordial samples from
space; new missions have been launched to Mercury and to
comets; and amazing discoveries continue with Hubble, Chandra,
and Spitzer.
NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget request provides a balanced
portfolio of programs to meet the needs of our national priorities in
space and aeronautics.
--The fiscal year 2006 budget request of $5.5 billion for the Science
Mission Directorate will support 55 missions in orbit, 26 in
development and 34 in design phase. By 2010, the Science budget
will increase by 23 percent over current levels. NASA will
continue to expand its exploration reach with an armada of
existing and new space observatories operating in many
different wavelengths and looking at different parts of our
exotic universe. The three ``Great Observatories''--Hubble,
Spitzer, and Chandra--will continue to bring wondrous images to
our eyes and exciting new scientific discoveries. Missions such
as Kepler will provide a new understanding and knowledge of the
planets orbiting stars far from our solar system.
--NASA's fiscal year 2006 request for the Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate is $852 million, a significant portion of
the government's overall investment in aeronautics research. To
make the most of this investment, NASA's technical expertise
and facilities for aeronautics research are becoming more
focused and results-oriented. NASA's current aeronautics
research is focused on enhancing the public good. NASA is also
working to maintain a strong basic aeronautics research program
to ensure continued mastery of core competencies in subsonic,
supersonic, and hypersonic flight. The results from the basic
research, technology development, and demonstrations achieved
by NASA's Aeronautics efforts will be transitioned for use by
both Government and industry.
--The President's fiscal year 2006 budget amendment, submitted July
15, 2005, continues to reinforce a balanced, multi-mission
proposal, allowing NASA to address national priorities in Space
Science, Earth Science, and Aeronautics, while maintaining
focus on the Vision for Space Exploration outlined by the
President in January 2005. The multiyear budget plan is
sufficient to accomplish this balanced portfolio. It should be
noted that the President's fiscal year 2006 budget amendment
accomplished several objectives within the request level,
including initial steps to accelerate development of the Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV), while
preserving funding for Science and Aeronautics Programs. NASA's
fiscal year 2005 Operating Plan September update identifies
further reallocation within proposed fiscal year 2006 funding
levels for Exploration Systems to support these objectives. It
is important to note that NASA has not redirected funding from
Science and Aeronautics activities to support exploration
activities.
Question. How important is meeting the milestones set out in the
President's speech--2008 for a demonstration flight of the Crew
Exploration Vehicle, 2008 for the first Vision-related robotic lunar
probe, and 2015-2020 for a human return to the Moon? Is there
flexibility in the dates so that other NASA activities do not
necessarily have to be sacrificed in order to meet them? If there is
flexibility in meeting those dates, is there also flexibility in the
2010 date for retiring the shuttle?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget request, as
amended, provides resources to enable NASA to implement the milestones
established in the Vision for Space Exploration. These key milestones
include the Shuttle Return-to-Flight, 2008 Lunar Robotic Orbiter, and
accelerated development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and Crew
Launch Vehicle (CLV), to return Americans to the Moon before 2020. NASA
is not prepared to be flexible with respect to the major milestones
established for the agency by the President.
It is important to note that NASA has not redirected funding from
Science and Aeronautics activities to support exploration activities,
either in the fiscal year 2006 budget request as submitted in February
2005, or in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget amendment,
submitted to Congress on July 15, 2005. NASA has no plans to reduce
funding for other NASA activities to support exploration goals.
In accordance with the President's direction, NASA intends to fly
out the Shuttle program in an orderly, safe, and disciplined fashion,
with retirement not later than 2010.
Question. Please clarify what your plans are for personnel cutbacks
over the next year and a half. How many full time equivalents (FTEs)
does NASA employ today, and how many will have to leave the agency,
voluntarily or involuntarily, by the beginning of fiscal year 2007?
What is the breakdown of those personnel cuts by center and by
discipline?
Answer. NASA's fiscal year 2005 actual FTE (Full Time Equivalents)
including the NASA Inspector General's office, was 18,807. As of early
October 2005, the current rate is 18,630.
NASA is implementing the Vision for Space Exploration. In doing so,
we are implementing an orderly retirement of the Space Shuttle by 2010,
defining the architecture for space exploration, and accelerating the
development of the new exploration vehicles and associated launch and
support systems. We are continuing to work on the International Space
Station, fulfilling our commitments to our partner countries. We are
establishing an aeronautics program focused on technological advanced
in cutting-edge areas of research and development. In addition, we are
retaining a robust science portfolio.
These activities require a balanced workforce skill mix and
productive NASA Centers to complete the work over several years. We are
in the process of developing plans to reshape our workforce and capital
asset portfolio to ensure that we can meet our goals. In the short
term, however, we have an imbalance of skills at the Centers because we
have not yet fully matched up the new and revised work with the
existing workforce.
We have already taken several actions to reduce the uncovered
capacity at the Centers, including two early retirement/buyout programs
which resulted in approximately 650 employees retiring or resigning
from the Agency. In addition, job fairs were held at NASA Centers,
which resulted in 119 jobs offers and 95 placements. While these
actions have helped reduce the extent of the problem, a significant
imbalance still exists. As of early October 2005, the following
uncovered capacity existed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncovered
Center Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARC........................................................ 246
GRC........................................................ 268
LaRC....................................................... 181
MSFC....................................................... 226
------------
Total................................................ 921
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2005, the senior leadership at NASA initiated an
aggressive plan to reduce the uncovered capacity for fiscal year 2006
and fiscal year 2007, with the ultimate goal of avoiding or minimizing
the need for a Reduction in Force (RIF) in fiscal year 2007. Targets
numbers were established for each NASA Center to either identify
program work within their Center for their own uncovered personnel or
identify work packages from existing or newly-assigned programs that
other Centers can perform. The goal is to assign work equitably to
maintain a reasonable balance among 10 healthy NASA Centers. A team of
representatives from all NASA Centers and Mission Directorates are
working together to identify the competencies available at the Centers
and the work packages available for placement. Work packages will be
transferred as soon as possible, with a goal of completing the action
no later than June 2006. At that time, an assessment will be performed
to determine the remaining uncovered capacity and the likelihood of
NASA needing those competencies in the near future. For those
competencies that will not be needed, RIF proceedings will be
initiated, with a targeted implementation date in fiscal year 2007.
By identifying required skills and working collaboratively to match
those skills with funded work, NASA intends to retain the expertise
we'll need to achieve the Vision for Space Exploration.
Question. What is NASA's total estimated cost to develop and
implement IFMP?
Answer. Development and implementation of IFMP (now Integrated
Enterprise Management Program) will be completed in fiscal year 2008.
Investment through that time will be $662.6 million.
AERONAUTICS
Question. NASA's requested budget for aeronautics in fiscal year
2006 is $852 million, a reduction from $906 million this year. Further
reductions are projected for fiscal year 2007. According to the
program, this will mean the elimination of about 1,100 jobs at NASA
centers. Since coming on board as NASA Administrator, have you
reexamined these proposals? Do you anticipate modifying them at all?
How does NASA reconcile the National Institute of Aerospace's call
for increased funding with NASA's funding stream which can only be
interpreted as de-emphasizing aeronautics research and development? To
what extent is NASA using the NIA report in its planning for future
aeronautics research investment?
Answer. NASA is using the NIA report, along with the
Congressionally directed Joint Program and Development Office report on
the Next Generation Air Transportation System, the report of the
Congressionally-chartered Commission on the Future of the U.S.
Aerospace Industry, past reviews by the National Research Council, and
the newly formed Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics, to contribute to
identification of potential opportunities for additional research and
establishment of priorities for aeronautics programs and projects. NASA
agrees with the national needs and critical aviation technology sectors
called out in the NIA report. We are beginning to address the
technological needs listed in the NIA report by initiating a national
dialogue within the Executive Branch and the Congress about the future
of aeronautics research and the role of the Federal government in this
research arena. In addition, H.R. 2862, the fiscal year 2006 Science,
State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
calls upon the President to develop a comprehensive, national
aeronautics policy similar to the one we now have for space
exploration. In a Statement of Administration Policy regarding H.R.
2862, the Administration endorsed the Committee's call for the
development of a national aeronautics policy. While the NIA report
makes several significant and useful recommendations, the doubling of
the aeronautics budget will not be possible to achieve within projected
funding levels for NASA. Rather, NASA must ensure that our current
investments in aeronautics research and technology are prioritized and
effective.
The Agency is addressing its workforce and institutional issues
with two teams. The NASA Workforce Transition Review team is focusing
on identification of additional work the Agency needs done in the near
future that both contributes to the Agency's mission agenda and which
could be directly assigned to NASA Centers. The Systems Engineering and
Institutional Transitions Team (SEITT) is conducting a long-term study
focused on the institutional requirements needed to ensure the Agency's
goals are met with minimum cost, maximum reliability, and measurable
high performance. NASA is attempting to identify additional activities
from other Agency programs, such as Exploration Systems, to assign to
Agency Research Centers, but it remains unclear whether this will
totally resolve projected ``uncovered capacity'' within the Agency
workforce by the end of fiscal year 2006.
As NASA Administrator, I am working to the best of my abilities to
resolve these workforce issues, and I will continue to work with the
Congress to resolve them.
SCIENCE
Question. Funding constraints are forcing difficult choices in
NASA's Science programs. What process or processes, and criteria, do
you use to prioritize among your space and earth science programs that
are in planning or development? For example, the National Research
Council prepares decadal strategies that prioritize within particular
disciplines (planetary exploration, astrophysics, etc.), but what
mechanism and criteria does NASA use to prioritize across disciplines?
Similarly, how do you determine which existing probes--such as
Voyager--should be turned off because they are past their design
lifetimes, even though they continue to return useful data? What is the
status of your decision-making on whether or not to turn off Voyager?
Answer. NASA works to maintain a balanced portfolio of investment
over time among the several disciplines in the Earth and Space
Sciences. We start from the baseline of existing programs and most
recent strategic plans, and update them based on recent progress,
Presidential initiatives, and science community advice. As you point
out, the NRC decadal surveys are very useful in prioritizing within
major disciplines. In any given period, choices among programs in
different disciplines can be driven by recent scientific discovery,
technology readiness, or partnership opportunities that can leverage
NASA's investment. A chief factor is ``science value''--the anticipated
scientific return per dollar investment--though that is not always
readily estimable. Over the longer term, portfolio balance is
maintained as we listen to our stakeholders in the science community
and the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
Regarding extension or termination of existing probes and
satellites that have fulfilled their prime missions, NASA also relies
heavily on science value as determined by independent scientific peer
review. Those nearing or beyond their prime mission (the period of
operation proposed when selected) are subjected to a Senior Review
Process. In this process, mission science teams are required to submit
a proposal describing what science they propose to accomplish via
continued operation, and at what cost. An independent panel of external
scientists reviews, evaluates, and scores the proposals on their
merits. NASA uses this ranking in deciding which missions to operate
and for how long, given the funds available.
There are currently 12 operating missions funded within the Earth-
Sun System division of NASA's Science Mission Directorate that have
fulfilled their primary mission and are in the extended mission phase,
including Voyager 1 and 2. Additional funding is identified in the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget amendment to maintain continued
operation of the fleet of spacecraft conducting space and solar physics
missions pending decisions on scientific priorities to be made once
NASA receives input from both the Sun-Earth Connection and Earth System
Science Senior Review Panels. These Panels, composed of external and
independent senior researchers with relevant knowledge and experience,
meet periodically to review proposals for innovative research,
accomplished with existing space assets. NASA will permit the Sun-Earth
Connection missions to operate while the Senior Review process provides
for a new assessment of the future scientific value of these operating
missions. At the conclusion of the Panels' deliberations, NASA will use
their assessment and findings to develop Agency decisions regarding the
continued operation of these missions.
Question. The National Research Council recently issued an interim
report on NASA's Earth Science program, saying that it is ``at risk,''
citing reduced funding levels for Earth Science projects following the
announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration. What is your reaction
to that report?
Answer. While funding for Earth science declined in the fiscal year
2005 budget request, the Earth science budget was largely protected
from further reduction in the fiscal year 2006 request. The President's
fiscal year 2006 budget amendment reallocates funding within the
Science Mission Directorate to focus resources on near-term
requirements while deferring investments in longer-term activities.
Specifically, the Earth-Sun Theme is increased by $88.3 million to
fully fund a standalone Glory mission, provide additional funding for
extending the missions of currently operating satellites, and maintain
the launch schedule for the Solar Dynamics Observatory. To the extent
possible, we will address some concerns raised in their interim report
in the fiscal year 2007 budget process. We look forward to receiving
the NRC's decadal survey report for Earth science (expected around the
end of next year), which will help guide NASA's future investments in
Earth science and observation.
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget request and its projections
through 2010 assume a cut of about $1 billion to programs within the
new Science Mission Directorate compared with the fiscal year 2005
budget projections. How much of that $1 billion cut was taken from
programs previously under the former Office of Space Science versus
those in the former Office of Earth Science?
Answer. Given past budget reductions to former Office of Earth
Science programs, the Science Mission Directorate protected these
programs from further reductions in the fiscal year 2006 budget
request. As a result, the vast majority of reductions contained within
the fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Science Mission Directorate
came from planned growth in programs previously part of the Office of
Space Science. Of the reductions in the Earth-Sun System Theme, only
the Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) program and Glory reductions
affected programs from the former Earth Science Enterprise. It is
important to note that the reduction to ESSP was used to offset a
budget increase for the Hydros mission. The fiscal year 2006 budget
request has since been amended to increase funding for the Earth-Sun
System Theme by $88.3 million to fully fund a standalone Glory mission,
provide additional funding for extending the missions of currently
operating satellites, and maintain the launch schedule for the Solar
Dynamics Observatory. All reductions in the fiscal year 2006 budget
amendment in the Solar System Exploration and Universe division budgets
were taken from former Office of Space Science programs.
Question. What is the status of planning to send a probe to further
study Jupiter's moon Europa? NASA proposed a Europa mission in fiscal
year 2002, but replaced it a year later with the Jupiter Icy Moons
Orbiter (JIMO). Now JIMO has been indefinitely deferred. Does the
planetary science community still have a Europa mission at the top of
its list for the next large-class planetary mission? If so, when do you
expect to launch such a probe?
Answer. The 2003 National Research Council decadal survey report
entitled, ``New Frontiers in Solar System Exploration: An Integrated
Exploration Strategy,'' identified a Europa mission as the top priority
flagship-class mission (those missions costing $650 million or more).
NASA recognizes the priority the scientific community places on the
science returned from the Europa mission. Therefore, we are continuing
to examine the technological challenges and our mission options for
such a probe.
Question. You have stated that once the shuttle returns safely to
flight, you will reexamine the option of a shuttle mission to service
the Hubble space telescope. What has changed since your predecessor's
decision that safety considerations preclude using the shuttle to
service Hubble?
Answer. Based on analysis of the relative risks immediately
following the loss of Columbia, NASA decided not to proceed with a
Shuttle servicing mission. NASA's decision not to service the Hubble
was a very difficult one, given the Hubble's record of spectacular
successes. That decision was made at a time when significant
uncertainty remained, regarding the technical solutions and risks
associated with return to flight. After the two successful Space
shuttle flights needed to achieve our return to flight objectives, NASA
will have learned a great deal more regarding the risks and operations
of the vehicle than was known when the previous decision was made. The
Administrator has committed to reassess the earlier decision, after
return to flight, based on the relative risks to the Space Shuttle as
well as our efforts to preserve the option for a Shuttle servicing
mission for Hubble in advance of that decision. He has further
indicated that he will make a decision regarding a Shuttle servicing
mission for Hubble following the second successful Return to Flight
mission. In the interim, the Agency has funded the option for a Hubble
servicing mission in the fiscal year 2005 Operating Plan at $291
million. In addition, $30 million has been included in the President's
fiscal year 2006 budget amendment to continue to preserve the option
for a Hubble servicing mission, pending the second return to flight
mission of the Space Shuttle. NASA will keep the Committee informed of
our efforts and conclusions in this regard.
Question. Is the option of servicing Hubble robotically now
completely off the table? What is the last date at which a decision
could be made to service Hubble robotically? What have we learned from
the work that was done on this option?
Answer. Based on analysis of the relative risks immediately
following the loss of Columbia, NASA decided not to proceed with a
Shuttle servicing mission (the previously planned Servicing Mission 4,
or SM-4). That decision was made at a time when significant uncertainty
remained regarding the technical solutions and risks with Return to
Flight. In response to Congressional direction, NASA tasked the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine all reasonable options
for extending the lifetime of the HST. The NAS concluded that it was
``highly unlikely that NASA will be able to extend the science life of
[Hubble] through robotic servicing,'' and recommended that ``[a]
robotic mission approach should be pursued only to de-orbit Hubble.''
Consistent with the conclusions of the NAS study, NASA discontinued the
robotic servicing effort this past spring.
In the future, however, robotic concepts for an eventual de-orbit
mission for HST may be considered, and, in the meantime, much of the
work done for the robotic servicing concept is being used in developing
new capabilities needed for the Exploration Vision as well as other
advanced robotics concepts. The Agency believes that an aggressive use
of robotics in the Exploration Vision is required to execute many of
the elements of that program.
Question. If NASA proceeds with a Hubble servicing mission, and it
is successful, how much longer will Hubble operate? What will be the
annual operating costs for extending Hubble's lifetime? What impact
will these additional costs have on other NASA astronomy programs? At
the end of Hubble's extended lifetime, should we anticipate calls for
yet another extension?
Answer. The expected (design) life of the equipment planned for the
potential SM-4 is 5 years. That said the design of the HST and its
hardware is robust and redundant. The Agency has not done an extensive
analysis of the potential lifetime of the HST after servicing, but the
prime mechanism for the end of science is loss of the fine pointing
gyroscopes. With new batteries, gyros, and science instruments
installed on SM-4, and the improved operational concepts developed as
part of the ongoing life extension program, it is reasonable to expect
that the system as a whole will be producing quality science for up to
7 years after servicing.
The cost of operations of the HST after servicing depends on
several variables, including the amount of overlap with other programs
using the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and the outcome of
negotiations with the contracted management organization. It is
expected that it will cost less to operate the HST in the future if
there are no subsequent servicing missions.
Existing operational missions should not be impacted by additional
years of operations of the HST. At present, we have budgeted sufficient
funds to operate the telescope until the end of our present budget
cycle. The greatest impact to Space Science has been and continues to
be the additional costs driven by the delay in SM-4 due to the Shuttle
accident and NASA's goal to demonstrate two successful Shuttle Return
to Flight missions before proceeding with a Hubble servicing mission.
After SM-4, any future required servicing, if desired, to further
extend the life of HST, would be after the retirement of the Shuttle
fleet.
EXPLORATION
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget request indicates that NASA
plans to spend through fiscal year 2010 over $10 billion on the Earth
Orbit Capability (Spiral 1) program to develop, demonstrate and deploy
the capability to safely transport a crew to and from earth orbit, by
2014, in preparation for future missions to the moon. The five-year
forecast in your fiscal year 2006 request shows steep increases in
anticipated funding needs for the Spiral 1 program in fiscal years 2009
and 2010. What is a reasonable timeframe in which we could expect you
to share the total cost of the Spiral 1 program and future Spirals with
the Congress?
Answer. Exploration Systems is no longer using the term ``Spiral''
to categorize its development process. The initial capability developed
by the Constellation Program will be transportation of crew and
supplies to the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit.
As part of its Exploration Systems Architecture Study, the Agency
has completed preliminary cost estimates for the new Exploration
architecture. NASA has briefed Committee staff on these estimates and
the methodology followed to arrive at them.
Question. You said last year that the issue wasn't whether there
was enough money allocated to the Vision, but ``why we are expecting so
little for the money which has been allocated?'' How, specifically,
will you get more ``bang for the buck'' as you execute the Vision?
Answer. In order to provide the maximum return for the taxpayer's
investment, NASA must make priority decisions within the exploration
program by focusing on those activities that are best able to produce
significant results, and by ensuring that individual programs
complement each other.
In September, NASA promulgated an integrated exploration
architecture derived from the Vision for Space Exploration that
specifies the capabilities necessary for future exploration activities.
Based on that architecture, clear priorities have been established to
focus NASA efforts on those development activities designed to provide
the greatest return to the taxpayer. Teams have been established to
assess how to best utilize our resources and workforce to ensure that
we get the most ``bang for the buck.'' Funds have already been
redirected from projects that do not need immediate funding (such as
Project Prometheus) towards those that do (e.g., the CEV). Additional
cost savings and efficiencies will be realized through a careful,
focused transition between Shuttle infrastructure and new exploration
capabilities. These new capabilities will create new opportunities for
exploration, discovery and understanding.
Question. NASA has announced that it will accelerate its plans for
the Crew Exploration Vehicle. Given this maiden flight was not to have
occurred until 2014, where do you anticipate the associated funding
will come from and which NASA programs will be impacted as the result
of advancing the development of the CEV? What steps would you take to
ensure that accelerating the program would not lead to excessive cost
growth and/or technical risk?
Answer. The capability to accelerate the development of the CEV
will be driven by development schedules, test schedules, safety
considerations, and funding. These were areas of interest for the
Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS).
To stay within planned budget guidance for Exploration Systems
while accelerating CEV and these launch systems, it is necessary to
redirect existing funding for longer-term and lower-priority research
and technology (R&T) elements within the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate (ESMD), while focusing on those R&T activities that support
the acceleration of the CEV, launch systems, and high-priority, long-
lead items.
In the fiscal year 2006 budget amendment, $292 million was
identified as moving from R&T activities into Constellation for CEV and
CLV acceleration.
Constellation Systems.--NASA plans to accelerate the timeline for
flight of the next human flight system by two years, from 2014 to a
goal of not later than 2012. The first flights will be to the
International Space Station (ISS), but the primary goal of the CEV is
to support exploration efforts, including enabling humans to return to
the Moon for week-long stays as early as 2018, but no later than 2020.
Longer-duration human presence on the Moon is targeted for 2022. The
changes in the R&T programs will provide funds required to accelerate
the design, development, and fabrication of the elements and systems
needed to support a return to the Moon on the above timeline.
Human System Research and Technology.--NASA is focusing HSRT
funding on program elements that mature technologies needed to support
ISS access and lunar sortie missions, while reducing program elements
targeting longer-term or lower priority needs. As NASA concentrates the
use of the Shuttle on ISS assembly, ISS utilization will be deferred.
Exploration Systems Research and Technology.--NASA is realigning
projects to support the ESAS recommended architecture requirements.
This realignment has resulted in a focused and phased, requirements
driven, R&T program in which some projects are curtailed, some are
adjusted, and some are added. Ongoing projects are streamlined to
deliver Technology Readiness Level 6 capabilities when needed (system
preliminary design review) so as to enable the CEV, launch systems, and
lunar lander development schedules. Examples of technology projects
focused on the near-term include ablative thermal protection and
oxygen-methane propulsion for CEV. Additional work is phased in after
the first few years for lunar lander propulsion systems and non-toxic
power and reaction control for launch vehicles. Finally, funding for
technologies, such as in situ resource utilization (ISRU) and those
applicable to lunar surface systems, are phased in only during the out
years. Discontinued, descoped or delayed technology projects include
nanomaterials, inflatable structures, large-scale solar power,
intelligent robotic systems, Mars mission specific technologies, and
electric propulsion. Transitional action is being taken in fiscal year
2005 to discontinue plans for 80 tasks and activities, previously
planned at $206 million in fiscal year 2006, which do not directly
support ESAS architecture or schedule requirements. These actions will
yield $174 million in fiscal year 2006 that will be applied towards
accelerated development of CEV and CLV.
Prometheus Research and Technology.--Program elements have been
deferred as a result of the ESAS architecture study. Surface nuclear
power systems to support potential long-duration stays on the Moon will
not be required until after 2018. Nuclear propulsion will not be
required until planning for Mars missions begins in earnest. The result
will be a total reformulation in the nuclear program, yielding $76
million in fiscal year 2006 to accelerate development of CEV and CLV.
NASA's funding of the DOE's Naval Reactors program, the JIMO mission,
and several technology research programs related to electric propulsion
will be curtailed.
Further, in order to reduce cost and technical risks, ESMD and
Constellation Systems are currently investigating innovative approaches
to software development, early incorporation of operational expertise
into the program, a lean program and theme office, and a robust
oversight role for the theme and program.
Question. Generally speaking, do you anticipate that the decision
to merge the EELV programs will save money for the government, and
specifically for NASA? If so, how will it save money, and how much?
Answer. The Department of Defense is in the best position to
evaluate impacts to EELV due to changes in the program structure.
Nonetheless, NASA is an important customer for EELV and we are very
interested in potential efficiencies that could reduce our costs over
the long run.
We have been following the initiative to consolidate elements of
the individual EELV programs into common, integrated activities under
the proposed ``United Launch Alliance (ULA).'' We understand that this
initiative could drive economies of scale and allow us to reduce the
individual ``standing armies'' that contribute to fixed costs for each
of the EELV programs. This approach holds some potential for
significant cost savings and we look forward to benefiting from them if
and when they occur. However, we have not evaluated the ULA proposals
in enough detail to quantify any potential cost savings.
Question. Considering the large amount of information that we have
from the Apollo program, and the number of lunar probes being launched
by other countries, why does NASA plan to launch lunar probes of its
own prior to a human return to the Moon? Please explain what these
probes will be doing that is crucial to accomplishing the President's
goal. What is the status of planning for these lunar probes?
Answer. NASA intends to launch lunar probes--including orbiters and
lenders--in order to prepare for extended human presence on the Moon.
As a synergistic benefit, NASA also expects to contribute to the
advancement of scientific knowledge of the Moon, which in turn will
advance our understanding of our own planet's evolution.
As noted in the question, other countries are also launching probes
to the Moon. NASA expects to take full advantage of the knowledge
gained from those probes. However, there are more questions NASA must
answer to meet the lofty goals of the Vision for Space Exploration.
NASA probes will focus on filling gaps in knowledge needed to ensure
the safety of future human missions to the Moon. They will address
specific questions related to human exploration of the Moon, and
demonstrate key technologies required for future human missions. The
programs are designed to avoid unnecessary redundancy and take full
advantage of the results from other probes.
For example, NASA is planning a Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)
launch in 2008, which will provide a much higher fidelity map of a
larger portion of the lunar surface, especially the poles, than is
offered by any other probe. Such a map is critical for selecting future
sites for human landing. LRO instruments will also provide information
to help NASA protect our astronauts from the Moon's radiation
environment and to identify likely sources of water.
Shortly after the LRO mission, NASA plans to send a lander to the
Moon. This lander will help demonstrate precision navigation techniques
that will be important for positioning humans on the exact lunar
landing site of choice. It will conduct a more detailed survey of a
potential human landing site and confirm the existence and composition
of resources that can support an extended human presence. Eventually,
lenders may demonstrate capabilities needed for extended human
presence, such as the ability to convert lunar water into hydrogen and
oxygen for life support and propulsion.
In summary, NASA's lunar probes are intended to meet the needs of
the Vision for Space Exploration. Other probes complement planned NASA
lunar probes. We design our probes to provide additional knowledge
critical to ensuring future successful human missions to the lunar
surface.
SPACE OPERATIONS: THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION (ISS) AND THE SPACE
SHUTTLE
Question. What is your current cost estimate for returning the
space shuttle to flight status--for fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year
2006, specifically, and the total cost (fiscal year 2003-2009)?
Answer. NASA's estimate for Space Shuttle Return to Flight (RTF)
costs from fiscal year 2003 through the end of fiscal year 2006 is just
over $1.4 billion. Overall, Return to Flight costs are stabilizing as
technical solutions have reached maturity and implementation of
solutions nears completion. The estimates provided in the latest
Implementation Plan for Space Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond,
dated June 3, 2005 (attached), remain valid and have not substantially
changed since November 2004. Management tools are in use to monitor
progress and provide early warning of potential problems. However, the
potential exists for additional content that may be required in the
post-Return to Flight time frame depending on the ongoing work
addressing issues seen during STS-114 and the results of the Shuttle's
performance on the second Return to Flight mission, STS-121.
Current estimates for RTF costs are: Fiscal year 2003--$42 million;
fiscal year 2004--$496 million; fiscal year 2005--$602 million; and
fiscal year 2006--$288 million.
If there are any increases in Return to Flight costs, NASA is
committed to accommodating them within its total budget request.
Actual costs to date are tracking very closely with the November
2004 estimate provided to Congress. The total estimated cost for
returning the Shuttle to flight status through fiscal year 2009 is
approximately $1.98 billion. The outwear costs are associated with
added manpower for Systems Engineering. NASA's plan and our budget
reflect the end of RTF after the second RTF mission and subsequent
post-flight assessment actions. These milestones will take the Agency
through most of fiscal year 2006. RTF, from a budget perspective, will
end in fiscal year 2006, and will no longer be tracked as a separate
effort, beginning in fiscal year 2007.
Implementation Plan for Space Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond
return to flight cost summary
Proposed Program solutions for all return to flight (RTF) actions
are reviewed by the Space Shuttle Program Requirements Control Board
(PRCB) before receiving final NASA implementation approval. The PRCB
has responsibility to direct studies of identified problems, formulate
alternative solutions, select the best solution, and develop overall
cost estimates. The membership of the PRCB includes the Space Shuttle
Program Manager, Deputy Manager, all Project and Element Managers,
Safety and Mission Assurance personnel, and Management Integration and
Planning Office. This process applies to solutions to the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) recommendations as well as to the
Space Shuttle Program (SSP) corrective actions.
In the process of down-selecting to two or three ``best options,''
the projects and elements approve funding to conduct tests, perform
analysis, develop prototype hardware and flight techniques, and/or
obtain contractor technical expertise that is outside the scope of
existing contracts.
The Space Flight Leadership Council (SFLC) is regularly briefed on
the overall activities and progress associated with RTF and becomes
directly involved when the SSP is ready to recommend a comprehensive
solution to a CAIB recommendation or an SSP corrective action. The SFLC
receives a technical discussion of the solution as well as an
assessment of cost and schedule. With the concurrence of the SFLC, the
SSP then receives the authority to proceed. The membership of the SFLC
includes the Associate Administrator for the Office of Space
Operations, Associate Deputy Administrator for Technical Programs,
Deputy Associate Administrator for ISS [International Space Station]
and SSP, Associate Administrator for Safety and Mission Assurance,
Space Shuttle Program Manager, and the Office of Space Operations
Center Directors (at Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center,
Marshall Space Flight Center, and Stennis Space Center).
All recommended solutions are further reviewed, for both technical
merit and to determine whether the solution responds to the action, by
the Return to Flight Task Group (also known as the Stafford-Covey Task
Group).
Processes established by NASA to estimate and capture all costs
related to RTF have steadily improved the accuracy of Agency budget
forecasts. As the technical plan for RTF has matured, so the cost
estimates have matured. NASA incurred costs in fiscal year 2003, valued
at $42 million, to initiate RTF actions based on preliminary CAIB
recommendations. Since November 2003, additional corrective actions
have been initiated, in accordance with the process described above and
based on the final CAIB Report recommendations and internal SSP
actions.
During fiscal year 2004, RTF activities moved rapidly from planning
to execution, with several key option ``downselect'' decisions being
made by the end of the year. The July 2004 RTF cost estimate is
considered the first credible Agency projection because it was based on
a more mature technical plan. NASA estimated that RTF activities in
fiscal year 2004 would cost about $465 million. By the end of the year,
the actual costs totaled $496 million. The costs incurred included work
carried over from fiscal year 2003 as well as late-year changes in
fiscal year 2004 technical content.
The value of RTF activities for fiscal year 2005 is estimated at
$602 million, of which $413 million have been approved through the
PRCB. Of the remaining $189 million, $73 million represent the
estimated value of work review by the control board, but with
additional technical effort required before a directive is released,
and $116 million is the value of activities that are still in technical
definition. As NASA gains actual flight experience, the estimates for
fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will be adjusted and the changes
will be reported to Congress as soon as they are fully assessed.
Fiscal year 2006 is planned to be a transition year for the Shuttle
Program. RTF technical content that must be sustained for the Program's
remaining service life, along with the workforce required to continue
safe flight, will be absorbed into the Program's baseline. Therefore,
at the end of fiscal year 2006, RTF costs will no longer be budgeted or
reported separately.
Excluded from the cost estimates provided below are other RTF-
related funding requirements resulting from a complete evaluation of
Columbia accident impacts across the Program, such as replacement of
hardware (e.g., cargo integration, Orbiter pressure tanks). Several
solutions to improve NASA's culture and some of the Program's actions
detailed in ``Raising the Bar--Other Corrective Actions'' are
integrated into existing processes and do not always require additional
funding.
TABLE 1.--RETURN TO FLIGHT BUDGET ESTIMATES/IMPLEMENTATION PLAN MAP FOR NEW ESTIMATES INCLUDING THREATS \1\
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Recommendation Numbers Map to Implementation Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAIB #
2003 2004 2005 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SSP
3.2-1 3.3-1 3.3-2 3.3-3 3.3-4 3.3-5 3.4-1 3.4-2 3.4-3 3.8-1 4.2-1 4.2-2 4.2-3 6.2-1 6.4-1 7.5-1 7.5-2 7.5-3 9.1-1 9.2-1 Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( \2\ Total Initiated SSP RTF Activities 42 496 602 288 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
RE/RP Orbiter RCC Inspections and ...... 39 41 5 ..... X X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
Orbiter RCC-2 Shipsets Spares
RE/RP On-orbit TPS Inspection and 20 71 167 49 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X
EVA Tile Repair
Orbiter Workforce ...... ...... 38 46 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... X
RE/RP Orbiter TPS Hardening ...... 29 1 ...... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
Orbiter/GFE ...... 8 4 ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
RE Orbiter Contingency ...... 8 4 ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
RE/RP Orbiter Certification/ ...... 47 9 ...... ..... X ..... X X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X X
Verification
RE/RP External Tank Items (Camera, 10 93 88 14 X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
Bipod Ramp, etc.)
RE/RP SRB Items (Bolt Catcher, ETA 1 14 4 ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... X ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X
Ring Invest., Camera)
RE/RP Ground Camera Ascent Imagery 8 40 13 11 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... X X ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..............
Upgrade
KSC Ground Operations ...... 15 38 42 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X X ..... X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X
Workforce
RE/RP/AC Other (System Intgr. JBOSC 4 132 178 121 ..... X X X X ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X X X X ..... X
Sys. Full Cost, Additional
FTEs, etc.)
RE/RP Stafford-Covey Team ( \3\ \4\ 1 \5\ 4 ( \6\ ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X
) )
=============================================================================================================================================================================================
Other RTF Related: NASA ...... 45 77 79 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... X X X ..... ..............
Engineering and Safety Center
(NESC) \7\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE = Reestimated Item; RP = Rephased; AC = Added Content.
\1\ These estimates could change due to improved estimates, additional tasks, and added scope as we better understand the implementation of RTF recommendations.
\2\ This update includes added scope of work and improved estimates. RTF costs are stabilizing as technical solutions reach maturity. The Congress will be kept informed as we refine these requirements and associated cost
estimates.
\3\ NASA assumed an estimate of $94 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2003 of which $52 million of fiscal year 2003 planned work and associated cost were carried into fiscal year 2004.
\4\ The fiscal year 2004 RTF cost estimate of $496 million includes $423 million of activities that have been approved for implementation. The remaining $73 million of RTF activities are pending approval. As soon as these
additional activities are definitized, they will be shared with Congress.
\5\ The fiscal year 2005 RTF cost estimate of $602 million includes $413 million of activities that have been approved for implementation. Of the remaining $189 million potential, $73 million is in work and $116 million of
activities are in technical definition. As soon as these additional activities are definitized, they will be shared with Congress.
\6\ The fiscal year 2006 RTF cost estimate of $288 million includes $188 million of activities that have been approved for implementation. Of the remaining $100 million potential activities, $26 million is in work and $74
million of activities are in technical definition. As soon as these additional activities are definitized, they will be shared with Congress.
\7\ The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) is funded through NASA's Corporate G&A. The NESC at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, VA, provides comprehensive examination of all NASA programs and projects. The
Center thus provides a central location to coordinate and conduct robust engineering and safety assessment across the entire Agency.
Chart 1.--February 2005 RTC/CAIB Estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates Published in July 42 465 643 331
2004.......................
===========================================
Value of Control Board 42 423 413 188
Directives Issues..........
Estimates for Control Board ......... 73 73 26
Actions Work...............
Estimates for Activities ......... ......... 116 74
Still in Technical
Definition.................
-------------------------------------------
Total Board Actions/ 42 496 602 288
Pending Board Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2.--FEBRUARY 2005 RTF STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RTF Activities--Control 42 423 413 188
Board Directive............
RTF Activities--Been to ......... 73 73 26
Control Board/Awaiting.....
RTF Activities--In Review ......... ......... 116 74
Process....................
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL RTF............. 42 496 602 288
===========================================
RTF Activities--Control
Board Directive:
Orbiter RCC Inspections ......... 39 22 .........
& Orbiter RCC-2
Shipsets Spares........
On-Orbit TPS Inspection 20 71 151 20
& EVA Tile Repair......
Orbiter Workforce....... ......... ......... 33 41
Orbiter Hardening....... ......... 29 1 .........
Orbiter/GFE............. ......... 7 4 .........
Orbiter Contingency..... ......... 8 12 .........
Orbiter Certification/ ......... 47 ......... .........
Verification...........
External Tank Items 10 42 25 2
(Camera, Bipod Ramp,
etc.)..................
SRB Items (Bolt Catcher, 1 14 4 .........
Camera)................
Ground Camera Ascent 8 40 13 11
Imagery Upgrade........
KSC Ground Operations ......... 15 38 42
Workforce..............
Other (System Intgr., 4 110 107 71
JBOSC Sys., SSME Tech.
Assess, Ground Ops
Workforce).............
Stafford-Covey Team..... ......... 1 4 .........
-------------------------------------------
Total, RTF Activities-- 42 423 413 188
Control Board
Directive............
===========================================
RTF Activities--Been to
Control Board/Awaiting:
Orbiter RCC Inspections ......... ......... ......... .........
& Orbiter RCC-2
Shipsets Spares........
On-Orbit TPS Inspection ......... ......... 6 8
& EVA Tile Repair......
Orbiter Workforce....... ......... ......... 5 5
Orbiter Hardening....... ......... ......... ......... .........
Orbiter/GFE............. ......... ......... ......... .........
Orbiter Contingency..... ......... ......... 5 .........
Orbiter Certification/ ......... ......... ......... .........
Verification...........
External Tank Items ......... 51 50 9
(Camera, Bipod Ramp,
etc.)..................
SRB Items (Bolt Catcher, ......... ......... ......... .........
Camera)................
Ground Camera Ascent ......... ......... ......... .........
Imagery Upgrade........
KSC Ground Operations ......... ......... ......... .........
Workforce..............
Other (System Intgr., ......... 22 7 4
JBOSC Sys., SSME Tech.
Assess, Ground Ops
Workforce).............
-------------------------------------------
Total RTF ......... 73 73 26
Activities--Been to
Control Board/
Awaiting...........
===========================================
RTF Activities--In Review
Process:
Orbiter RCC Inspections ......... ......... 19 5
& Orbiter RCC-2
Shipsets Spares........
On-Orbit TPS Inspection ......... ......... 10 21
& EVA Tile Repair......
Orbiter Workforce....... ......... ......... ......... .........
Orbiter Hardening....... ......... ......... ......... .........
Orbiter/GFE............. ......... ......... ......... .........
Orbiter Contingency..... ......... ......... ......... .........
Orbiter Certification/ ......... ......... 9 .........
Verification...........
External Tank Items ......... ......... 14 3
(Camera, Bipod Ramp,
etc.)..................
SRB Items (Bolt Catcher, ......... ......... ......... .........
Camera)................
Ground Camera Ascent ......... ......... ......... .........
Imagery Upgrade........
KSC Ground Operations ......... ......... ......... .........
Workforce..............
Other (System Intgr., ......... ......... 64 46
JBOSC Sys., SSME Tech.
Assess, Ground Ops
Workforce).............
-------------------------------------------
Total RTF ......... ......... 116 74
Activities--In
Review Process.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. You have said that the United States will (1) terminate
the space shuttle by 2010, and (2) fulfill our commitments to the
partners in the International Space Station (ISS) program. How will
that be accomplished, considering that the partners were relying on the
availability of the shuttle during the operational phase of the ISS
program?
Answer. NASA is currently studying the options, including the
utilization of commercial or partner vehicles and acceleration of the
Crew Exploration Vehicle, to meet our obligations to our International
Partners and to meet our commitment to retire the Shuttle by 2010.
Question. Under what circumstances would you advocate waiver of the
Iran Nonproliferation Act?
Answer. Section 6 of the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-178) (INA) restricts U.S. Government payments, in cash or in
kind, to certain Russian entities for work related to human space
flight, including the International Space Station (ISS). Section 6
adversely impacts U.S. interests by limiting/eliminating U.S. human
access to space and pursuit of the President's Vision for Space
Exploration. Russia has said they will no longer provide critical ISS
crew rescue and logistics services and have publicly stated their
intention to interrupt Soyuz training for 2006 ISS U.S. astronauts
unless they are compensated. The United States is dependent on Russia
for Soyuz crew rescue with no other options until the new NASA Crew
Exploration Vehicle is available. By April 2006, INA restrictions will
prevent the United States from maintaining American crew members on the
ISS expect during Space Shuttle visits.
On July 12, 2005, the Administration proposed to Congress an
amendment to INA to advance U.S. Government interests by enabling
NASA's work and cooperation with the Russian Federal Space Agency to
proceed: (1) operationally on the ISS and meet U.S. commitments to
International Partners; and (2) programmatically in implementing the
Vision for Space Exploration in a manner that maintains the strong
commitment of the U.S. Government to nonproliferation. The
Administration's proposed amendment took into consideration
Congressional concerns voiced to date by proffering an amendment that
retained all nonproliferation elements of INA (Sections 1-5) and made a
minimal change to definition in Section 6 which, in effect, removed the
prohibition on payments to Russian entities related to most ISS and
human space flight activities.
The Senate passed S. 1713, the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act
of 2005, by unanimous consent on September 19, 2005. As passed, the
measure amends INA to a limited degree, allowing NASA to meet near-term
ISS operational and programmatic needs, but maintaining the
restrictions of the INA for any payments related to human space
exploration, and for ISS-related payments, beyond January 1, 2012.
Question. If NASA is unable to get relief from the Act, how do you
plan to provide crew rotation/rescue services?
Answer. Assured crew return is an important safety protection under
current ISS operational plans. Should the Soyuz vehicle be unavailable
at any time in the future, U.S. crews would only be maintained on the
ISS while the Space Shuttle or a potential future vehicle capable of
serving as a crew rescue vehicle (e.g., the CEV or a commercial crew
transfer vehicle) is docked.
Question. What are the potential costs to NASA if you are given the
authority to purchase crew rotation/rescue services from Russia?
Answer. Actual costs are subject to negotiations with Russia, but
NASA anticipates that the total amount of purchases of crew and cargo
services from Russia would fit within the total funds appropriated by
Congress for fiscal year 2005 and requested for fiscal year 2006 for
the ISS Cargo and Crew Services budget line. [Fiscal year 2005--$98
million; fiscal year 2006--$160 million; fiscal year 2007--$160
million; fiscal year 2008--$160 million; fiscal year 2009--$500
million; and fiscal year 2010--$890 million.] Costs for other services
would fit within the total ISS budget.
Question. What decision has been made about whether to continue
building the centrifuge? How much has Japan spent on it to date? If
NASA decides the centrifuge no longer is needed for ISS, are there
alternative uses for it? Will NASA have to reimburse Japan for its
costs if the program is canceled? What other termination costs would be
associated with a decision to cancel it?
Answer. Pursuant to the NASA-Government of Japan Memorandum of
Understanding for the International Space Station (ISS) and an
Agreement in Principle for JEM Launch Offset, Japan is developing the
U.S. Centrifuge for NASA to partially offset NASA's costs for launching
the Japanese Experiment Module, Kibo, to the ISS.
On September 27, 2005, NASA informed officials from the Japan
Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and the Japanese Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) that the
United States had withdrawn its requirements for development and launch
of the U.S. Centrifuge Accommodation Module based on a re-
prioritization of research requirements with greater focus on research
having a direct and near-term benefit to the exploration mission.
NASA has not incurred termination costs and we believe we do not
have an obligation to directly reimburse Japan for its costs. Under the
arrangements described above, however, NASA is committed to launch the
Japanese Experiment Module to the International Space Station in
exchange for Japan's provision of the Centrifuge, associated hardware
and H-IIA launch services.
Discussions are currently underway between NASA and Japanese
officials to discuss the implications of this NASA decision including
areas of continuing commitment by both parties.
While the Japanese Government has not provided NASA with the
detailed Japanese budget for development of the U.S. Centrifuge, the
following information is known:
--In April 2004, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)
informed NASA that they had contracted $425 million to date for
the Centrifuge. JAXA's estimate for total Centrifuge
development costs at that time was $692 million.
Question. When will the Administration submit its plan to Congress
for coping with the issues posed by the Iran Nonproliferation Act in
terms of assuring access to ISS by U.S. astronauts after 2006? What can
you tell us today about the strategy the Administration plans to take?
Answer. Section 6 of the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-178) (INA) restricts U.S. Government payments, in cash or in
kind, to certain Russian entities for work related to human space
flight, including the International Space Station (ISS). Section 6
adversely impacts U.S. interests by limiting/eliminating U.S. human
access to space and pursuit of the President's Vision for Space
Exploration. Russia has said they will no longer provide critical ISS
crew rescue and logistics services and have publicly stated their
intention to interrupt Soyuz training for 2006 ISS U.S. astronauts
unless they are compensated. The United States is dependent on Russia
for Soyuz crew rescue with no other options until the new NASA Crew
Exploration Vehicle is available. By April 2006, INA restrictions will
prevent the United States from maintaining American crew members on the
ISS expect during Space Shuttle visits.
On July 12, 2005, the Administration proposed to Congress an
amendment to INA to advance U.S. Government interests by enabling
NASA's work and cooperation with the Russian Federal Space Agency to
proceed: (1) operationally on the ISS and meet U.S. commitments to
International Partners; and (2) programmatically in implementing the
Vision for Space Exploration in a manner that maintains the strong
commitment of the U.S. Government to nonproliferation. The
Administration's proposed amendment took into consideration
Congressional concerns voiced to date by proffering an amendment that
retained all nonproliferation elements of INA (Sections 1-5) and made a
minimal change to definition in Section 6 which, in effect, removed the
prohibition on payments to Russian entities related to most ISS and
human space flight activities.
The Senate passed S. 1713, the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act
of 2005, by unanimous consent on September 19, 2005. As passed, the
measure amends INA to a limited degree, allowing NASA to meet near-term
ISS operational and programmatic needs, but maintaining the
restrictions of the INA for any payments related to human space
exploration, and for ISS-related payments, beyond January 1, 2012.
Question. How many Shuttle flights are needed to complete
construction of the ISS? What is your plan if that number of flights
cannot be accomplished by the end of 2010, when the Shuttle program is
supposed to be terminated?
Answer. The NASA Administrator commissioned an assessment known as
the Shuttle/Station Configuration Options Team (S/SCOT) study to
evaluate options for the assembly and utilization of the ISS, taking
into account the plan to retire the Space Shuttle by 2010 and honor
U.S. commitments to the Space Station International Partners. The
assessment also considered that Space Shuttle flight rate planning must
account for the limitations of the Shuttle that became apparent after
the loss of Columbia, namely that NASA's ability to successfully
conduct 28 Shuttle flights by 2010 was no longer technically feasible.
The results of the study now have been thoroughly reviewed by the
Space Operations Mission Directorate and other NASA offices and the
Administrator has approved a plan for discussion with the ISS
International Partners. The International Partners were informed of
NASA's proposed approach the week of September 26, 2005.
NASA is operating under four key parameters:
--Retiring the Shuttle by the end of fiscal year 2010;
--Developing an achievable and robust Shuttle flight manifest;
--Meeting our International Partner commitments; and
--Completing the Space Station with a sustainable configuration with
acceptable vehicle and crew risk.
Each of these parameters brings with it a number of unique
considerations and constraints, which were assessed using a series of
potential approaches. NASA management together with technical experts
from the ISS and Space Shuttle programs developed a plan to optimize
the capability of each program.
Key Elements of NASA's Proposed Plan for Space Station
NASA's proposed plan, subject to the normal budget and
appropriation process, as well as ongoing return-to-flight
considerations, is to fly the Shuttle in a disciplined, measured
fashion, targeting 19 Shuttle flights. The 19 flights include 18
flights to the ISS beginning with STS-121, plus a possible additional
flight to service the Hubble Space Telescope. The flights to the ISS
would provide the infrastructure for the International Partner modules
first, followed immediately by the Partner laboratories. Maintenance
and logistic flights for sustainability are at the end of the sequence.
The order and flight strategy is as important a consideration as the
specific number of flights.
The plan includes the launch of key NASA-provided infrastructure
elements and other capabilities to enable a potential 6 person crew and
meaningful utilization of the ISS. NASA has determined, however, that
its exploration research objectives no longer require the Centrifuge
Accommodation Module that is being developed for NASA by JAXA under a
barter arrangement.
The approach would also accommodate almost all of the International
Partner elements currently planned for launch to the ISS, with the
notable exceptions of the U.S. Centrifuge and the Russian Solar Power
Module. In both cases, NASA is prepared to immediately engage in
detailed bilateral discussions to establish a mutually beneficial
arrangement to accommodate the proposed change.
The first 13 flights, scheduled to occur over the three years after
the Shuttle returns to flight, would not vary significantly from the
reference assembly sequence endorsed at the Multilateral Coordination
Board and Heads of Agency meetings in Montreal last January.
Question. To what extent does imposing a date certain on ending the
shuttle program create schedule pressure similar to that which existed
prior to the Columbia accident (according to the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board)?
Answer. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board recognized that
schedules were a recognized, even unavoidable tool for managing large
and complex systems such as the Space Shuttle and International Space
Station programs. As such, the Columbia accident wasn't caused by
schedule pressure per se, but rather by a safety system that had lost
much of its independence and had grown too weak to act as an effective
check on safety issues in the face of normal schedule factors.
The Vision for Space Exploration outlines an ambitious series of
goals, including completing assembly of the International Space
Station, retiring of the Space Shuttle Orbiter fleet, and developing
the next-generation of crew and cargo vehicles that will support ISS
utilization and missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. These goals are
now supported by a strong, independent, and proactive safety
organization, one that has played a key role in returning the Space
Shuttle to flight as expeditiously and as safely as possible and that
will continue to ensure safe mission execution throughout the rest of
the Space Shuttle's operational lifetime.
Question. What are the current plans for the ISS once it has
reached the end of its useful life? What is the current plan for de-
orbiting, or decommissioning, the ISS?
Answer. There is no current specific plan for de-orbiting or
decommissioning the ISS. The budget plans announced in 2004 indicated
the completion of essential U.S. exploration research in 2016, and an
end of the funding for ISS operations. Some hardware elements of the
ISS reach their service life limitations in 2016. Prior to 2016, a
determination will be made on the costs of extending the Station's
service life and benefits of continuing U.S. ISS operations beyond
2016. Based on that determination, NASA will develop plans to address
the potential future involvement of NASA, the U.S. government,
International Partners, the private sector, and academic institutions
in ISS operations and utilization.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
Question. Dr. Griffin, in the President's new National Space
Transportation Policy, you are directed, in coordination with the
Secretary of Defense, to recommend an option to meet future heavy lift
requirements. This Committee, as well as that chaired by Senator
Stevens, is keenly interested in the costs of the preferred option.
--Have your studies progressed far enough to identify the potential
most cost effective solution?''
--Is the process of ``coordination'' with DOD working to your
satisfaction?
--What are the implications of the recent news about the Air Force's
intention to increase their space presence?
Answer. NASA has conducted a detailed assessment of our launch
vehicle requirements, including heavylift requirements and crew launch
requirements. We believe those studies have identified highly effective
solutions that include cost-effectiveness, schedule, minimization of
programmatic risk, mission reliability, and crew safety. Based on all
of these factors, NASA and the Department of Defense (DOD) have agreed
on a policy for use and development of national launch systems. The
attached letter, signed on August 5, 2005, by the NASA Administrator
and the DOD Executive Agent for Space, outlines that policy.
Specifically, NASA has chosen Shuttle-derived options for its future
crew and very heavy cargo lift requirements because of their proven
safety and superior cost and schedule availability. Specifically, the
Space Shuttle propulsion elements are reliable, human-rated, and best
able to fit the available architecture within the available timeframe.
Throughout the process, we have been actively engaged with the DOD,
including senior management and staff levels. We have been very
encouraged by the constructive dialogue and support at all levels, and
believe the process of coordination is working well.
We look forward to continuing our close working relationship with
the Air Force. While the Air Force and NASA each has unique and
independent roles and responsibilities, it is also true that we benefit
from each others investments, experience, and talents.
Question. Dr. Griffin, in your response to questions from my
colleagues in other sessions, you stated that it costs about $4.5
billion to own the Shuttle, whether it flies or not. Unlike the post-
Challenger return to flight efforts, your current continuing extensive
efforts are not being funded by a supplemental appropriation. You are
trying to execute four major tasks in the human space flight program:
return the Shuttle to flight, fly the Shuttle safely until 2010,
complete the assembly of the International Space Station, and have a
new CEV available in a timeframe consistent with Shuttle retirement.
How much money has been spent on return to flight?
Answer. NASA's estimate for Space Shuttle Return to Flight (RTF)
costs from fiscal year 2003 through the end of fiscal year 2006 is just
over $1.4 billion. Overall, Return to Flight costs are stabilizing as
technical solutions have reached maturity and implementation of
solutions nears completion. The estimates provided in the latest
Implementation Plan for Space Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond,
dated June 3, 2005 (attached), remain valid and have not substantially
changed since November 2004. Management tools are in use to monitor
progress and provide early warning of potential problems. However, the
potential exists for additional content that may be required in the
post-Return to Flight timeframe depending on the ongoing work
addressing issues seen during STS-114 and the results of the Shuttle's
performance on the second Return to Flight mission, STS-121.
Current estimates for RTF costs are: Fiscal year 2003--$42 million;
fiscal year 2004--$496 million; fiscal year 2005--$602 million; and
fiscal year 2006--$288 million.
If there are any increases in Return to Flight costs, NASA is
committed to accommodating them within its total budget request.
Actual costs to date are tracking very closely with the November
2004 estimate provided to Congress. The total estimated cost for
returning the Shuttle to flight status through fiscal year 2009 is
approximately $1.98 billion. The out-year costs are associated with
added manpower for Systems Engineering. NASA's plan and our budget
reflect the end of RTF after the second RTF mission and subsequent
post-flight assessment actions. These milestones will take the Agency
through most of fiscal year 2006. RTF, from a budget perspective, will
end in fiscal year 2006, and will no longer be tracked as a separate
effort, beginning in fiscal year 2007.
Question. What is your strategy for executing the other three
priorities while coping with the cost impact of return to flight?
Answer. NASA has completed the Exploration Systems Architecture
Study (ESAS), which outlines NASA's approach to implementing the Vision
for Space Exploration. The Vision calls for the Agency to return the
Space Shuttle to flight, complete the International Space Station,
return to the Moon, and move on the exploration of Mars and beyond.
Based on ESAS recommendations, NASA has now laid out a detailed plan to
support sustained human and robotic lunar exploration, operations,
accelerate the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle and launch
systems for missions to the International Space Station, Moon, and
Mars, and identify key technologies required to enable this exploration
architecture. This plan is a safe and sustainable approach that seeks
to affordably accelerate the pace of space exploration. An important
aspect of this plan is that it is a ``go-as-you-can-afford-to-pay''
approach,'' within planned budgets for Exploration Systems, through
redirection of funding for longer-term and lower-priority research and
technology (R&T) elements within the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate.
NASA has also completed the Shuttle/Station Configuration Options
Team (SSCOT) study to evaluate options for the assembly and utilization
of the International Space Station, taking into account the President's
decision to retire the Space Shuttle by 2010, while still honoring U.S.
commitments to the Space Station International Partners. Based in part
on this assessment, NASA has developed a plan, subject to the normal
budget and appropriations process, as well as ongoing return-to-flight
considerations, to move forward and begun discussions with our
international partners.
Question. In an ideal world, I suspect that your agency would be
relieved if some of the return-to-flight costs could be funded through
a supplemental appropriation so as not to detract from other
activities, many of which have been supported in the past by the
Congress. What would the supplemental requirements be were the
supplemental avenue open to NASA?
Answer. The President requested budgets for NASA that were
sufficient to return the Shuttle to flight without the need for a
supplemental appropriation, and NASA does not expect to need any future
supplemental to pay for residual return to flight costs. As stated in
response to Question 2(a), actual costs to date for RTF are tracking
very closely with the November 2004 estimate provided to Congress. If
there are any increases in RTF costs, NASA is committed to
accommodating them within its total budget request.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
Question. While the President's budget proposal would add resources
for its plans to finish construction of the International Space
Station, increase exploration of the solar system, and develop the
technologies needed for future Moon and Mars missions it would cut a
servicing mission critical for the survival of the Hubble Space
Telescope, as well as drastically decrease aeronautics research.
In addition, I have concerns about the NASA education programs and
their ability to work with community education efforts to inspire and
prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers.
It is my understanding that many experts in the field claim that
the Hubble Space Telescope is one of the most beneficial programs
currently being operated by NASA, as it has helped expand our
understanding of the universe in ways scientists never thought possible
just 15 years ago. Administrator Griffin, if you were to move forward
with a plan to end the Hubble program what research programs would take
its place to keep increasing our scientific understanding of distant
parts of the universe?
Answer. NASA has a number of missions capable of investigating
distant parts of our universe. Currently we operate three Great
Observatories: The Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-ray
Observatory, and the Spitzer Space Telescope. Each of these facilities
(all of which will be operational until 2009 and possibly beyond) is
used daily by the astronomical community to further our understanding
of the heavens. In addition to these operating programs, we have a
number of missions in development that will advance our understanding
of the distant universe. The Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope
(GLAST) will launch in 2008 and enable astronomers to study high-energy
phenomena with unprecedented precision. The Wide-area Infrared Survey
Explorer (WISE), scheduled for launch in 2009, will map the sky in
infrared bands of light providing astronomers with a new catalog of
objects (both near and distant) for additional study. The James Webb
Space Telescope (JWST) will follow these missions in the middle of the
next decade and will be the premier platform for observing the distant
universe. By virtue of its large collecting area and infrared coverage,
JWST will see the earliest galaxies to form in the universe. Finally,
NASA also supports a number of cosmic microwave background studies,
such as the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or the Balloon-borne
Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope, that permit astronomers to
study the remnants of the Big Bang, very first light ever emitted by
the universe. These missions were designed to provide unique views of
the universe beyond those obtainable from Hubble. Servicing Hubble
would provide additional time to sequence some of these missions, but
would not replace the need for this follow-on research.
Question. As you know NASA has been built around the dual missions
of space exploration and aviation research. Representing an aviation
rich state I am concerned that recent proposals by NASA demonstrate
that its commitment to aeronautics and aviation is waning. Aeronautics
experts from NASA have developed innovations throughout its history
including the X-15 ``rocket plane'' of the 1950s and 1960s, de-icing
systems, and the ``supercritical wing''--the rounded-bottom wing design
used today by virtually every commercial jetliner to increase speed,
improve range and save fuel. Administrator Griffin, I am curious as to
why it is that NASA has decided to move away from its critical mission
on aeronautics and aviation? And what you foresee is NASA's role, if
any, in helping to advance aviation technology in the future?
Answer. Dr. Lisa Porter was recently selected as Associate
Administrator to lead NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate.
In that role she has begun the process of reshaping NASA's Aeronautics
research program allowing the Agency to take responsibility for the
intellectual stewardship of the core competencies of Aeronautics for
the Nation. This will require us to reinvest in the Agency's in-house
expertise to ensure that we retain the world-class skills, knowledge,
and facilities needed to guarantee our Nation's ability to consistently
contribute world-class innovation to aeronautical challenges, both
civilian and military.
The reshaped aeronautics program will strengthen our partnerships
with the Department of Defense (DOD) and Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), capitalizing on each agency's unique capabilities
and resources to strengthen the Nation's leadership in aeronautics. Our
partnership with DOD will include close collaboration to establish an
integrated national strategy for management of the Nation's most vital
wind tunnels. We will forge new partnerships and continue to benefit
from partnerships built in the past with academia and industry. We will
seek long-term, intellectual partnerships with industry that will be
able to rely on us to invest in the ``seed corn'' that is the critical
ingredient in revolutionary technological advancement.
As a first step, NASA is reshaping the three major programs within
the Aeronautics Mission Directorate. The previous Vehicle Systems
Program is being renamed the Fundamental Aeronautics Program in order
to reflect properly its new focus on basic aeronautical sciences.
Within Fundamental Aeronautics, and consistent with direction we
received from the Congress, we will re-establish the Agency's
dedication to the mastery of core competencies in subsonic, supersonic,
and hypersonic flight. We will create projects that provide continual,
long-term investment in the fundamentals and that build upon that
investment to develop system-level, multidisciplinary capabilities that
will enable both the civilian and military communities to build
platforms that meet their specific needs. As part of our investment in
fundamental aeronautics, we are positioning the program to continue
important long-term research activity in fiscal year 2006 that
preserves the core competencies in rotorcraft and hypersonics, drawing
upon NASA's critical inhouse expertise. We are transforming the
Aviation Safety and Security Program into the Aviation Safety Program,
where we will focus research on safety areas that are appropriate to
NASA's unique capabilities. Projects in Aviation Safety will address
integrated vehicle health management, resilient aircraft control,
intelligent flight deck technologies, and aging aircraft. The Airspace
Systems Program is being realigned to directly address the air traffic
management needs of the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NGATS) as defined by the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO).
Leading scientists and engineers from the NASA field centers
participated in workshops in September and October to lay the
foundation for a technical plan to reshape the Aeronautics Research
program. As the year progresses, this technical plan will be guided by
the National Aeronautics Policy that is being developed by Office of
Science and Technology Policy and NASA in collaboration with other
agency partners. (Dr. Porter is co-chair of the National Science and
Technology Council's Aeronautics Science and Technology Subcommittee.)
In addition, the National Research Council is currently conducting a
decadal survey for aeronautics, which will also provide inputs to our
plan.
Question. On the issue of NASA's education programs I have several
questions. As you know the Office of Space Science once operated a
widely-respected program that focused on all of NASA's core missions.
Under Administrator O'Keefe there was a major shift to centralize the
education programs and focus efforts on space-exploration focused
schools and sending a teacher into space. Furthermore it is my
understanding that the NASA Explorer Schools have been focused on
manned space flight instead of broad scientific endeavors. Can you
explain why NASA made this shift in the focus on education and what the
thoughts and analysis behind eliminating and or altering the old
programs were? At a broader level, what is NASA doing within its
education program to develop lasting enthusiasm in science to truly
help create the scientists of the future?
Answer. Early in fiscal year 2003 NASA did indeed shift management
responsibility for some of its education programs by establishing its
Office of Education, separate from the Mission Directorates but to
address and coordinate within NASA and for NASA education endeavors
with other federal agencies. This shift did not eliminate or
significantly alter any education programs conducted by either the
Office of Space Science or the Office of Earth Science.
In August 2004, the Office of Space Science and Office of Earth
Science were merged to create the new Science Mission Directorate. The
education programs of these predecessor organizations have continued
and efforts are underway to exploit synergies to enhance the science
education program. These efforts will build on the strengths of the
current programs and focus on engaging learners of all ages in the NASA
mission of exploration and discovery. In fact, for the most recent
reporting year [2004] the space science programs reached over 400,000
direct participants in workshops, community and school visits, and
other interactive special events; 7 million Internet participants for
web casts, web chats, and other web events, and, a potential audience
of over 200 million for lectures, planetarium shows, museum
exhibitions, conference exhibits, radio, television, and other forms of
public media. Through the NASA Science Mission Directorate, NASA backed
science education can be found in all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Mission Directorates
continually assessing the educational opportunities and content
presented to ensure
The NASA Explorer Schools (NES) project, launched in 2003 and
managed by NASA Office of Education as one of four Pathfinder
Initiatives, is designed to engage all NASA Centers and the four
Mission Directorates, has six primary objectives:
--To increase student interest and participation in mathematics,
science, technology and geography;
--To increase student knowledge about careers in mathematics,
science, engineering and technology;
--To increase student ability to apply mathematics, science,
technology and geography concepts and skills in meaningful
ways;
--To increase the active participation and professional growth of
educators in science, mathematics, geography and technology
resulting in higher quality education for K-12 students;
--To increase the academic assistance for and technology use by
educators in schools with high populations of underserved
students; and
--To increase family involvement in children's learning.
The NES project is specifically designed to meet the individual
needs of each competitively selected school. Upon entering the project,
each school completes a needs assessment which NASA uses to create a
multifaceted approach to meeting school needs, and which reaches far
beyond the NES network to provide opportunities to highlight and
implement all Mission Directorate programs. Content material includes:
pre-algebraic concepts, inquiry-based math modules related to the
science, engineering and technology of space flight, digital image
processing and analysis (IPA) and geographic information systems (GIS),
integrate NASA earth and space content, updated NASA-content as we
learn more about the space environment, and providing symposia for
participating schools in topics ranging from spaceflight to robotics to
Mars exploration.
NES will also provide opportunities to all interested schools in
the United States. These challenges focus on science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics--subject areas needed for technical
careers at NASA. Areas to be addressed included: Space Flight
Opportunities; Imagine the Moon; Crew Exploration Vehicle Design; and
Multi-media Explorations. Furthermore, the NASA Aerospace Education
Services project utilizes all available NASA content and resources to
support not only the NASA Explorer Schools but schools from across the
country that express an interest in our assistance. Content and
resources come from across NASA.
NASA education continues to create and promote educational
materials and opportunities within all Mission Directorates--
Aeronautics Research, Science, Space Operations, and Exploration
Systems, as well as through its Office of Education.
Question. Furthermore, I am interested in how NASA can improve its
education mission to build long-term partners with community based
science and education efforts? Specifically, what ways are you looking
at to take NASA resources and imbed them within the efforts of
community based organizations in order to make NASA's education
programs sustainable and ensure that those efforts become institutional
and long-lasting?
Answer. NASA is continuing efforts to expand education in the
sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics through numerous
venues within the informal education community, to include museums,
science centers planetariums, youth and community groups among others.
These activities take place every day, conducted through the four
Mission Directorates, the ten NASA Centers, and the NASA Office of
Education.
In fact, one of the nationwide NASA Pathfinder Initiatives, the
NASA Explorer Institutes (NEI) project is specifically designed to
enhance the capabilities of the informal education community to inspire
the next generation of explorers by:
--Providing access to NASA staff, research, technology, information,
and/or facilities and by engaging the informal education
community in discussions about how to involve the public in
shaping and experiencing NASA-related missions;
--Identifying NASA-related instructional content, resources, and
information, in collaboration with the informal education
community that will enhance informal education program goals
and objectives;
--Providing NASA-related professional development opportunities for
members of the informal education community across the nation;
and
--Facilitating the formation of collaborative partnerships between
informal and formal education communities.
The project is in the second full year of its 3-year roll out. In
fiscal year 2004, activities involved organizations in 46 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Overseas
Military Program. Organizations represented science centers, museums,
planetariums, libraries, parks, aquariums, nature centers, youth
groups, community-based organizations, and state and federal agencies.
In fiscal year 2004, NASA conducted eleven focus groups across the
nation on a variety of topics, with each group focused on a different
set of strategies. But, each shared similar goals of improving the
public's understanding and appreciation of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines; establishing linkages
that promote new partnerships/relationships between providers of
informal and formal education; exciting youth, particularly those who
are underrepresented and underserved, about STEM disciplines; and
expanding STEM informal education programs and activities to
communities/locations that have been traditionally underserved by such
opportunities. Many of the focus groups resulted in previously
unconsidered collaborations, such as now-growing connections in Native
American communities with space scientists, and connections in nascent
or changing industries, such as data visualization and digital
productions. Participants of these focus groups represented over 200
institutions (museums, science centers, community groups, industry,
etc.), and they expressed support at NASA's willingness to listen and
openness to new ideas.
NASA Explorer Institutes also supported six pilot professional
developments workshops, connecting informal educators to NASA's unique
facilities and expertise. These workshops led to a number of successful
follow-up projects, including a number of regional collaborations by
workshop attendees. Based upon results of the workshops and focus
groups, the NASA recently released a new solicitation for NASA Centers
to host NASA Explorer Institutes later this year.
Through the NEI project NASA also leveraged partnerships with
several organizations to share NASA's discoveries and experiences: (1)
For the Nation's afterschool programs, the American Museum of Natural
History conducted an eighteen-month study and demonstration project
that included a scan of existing science programming in afterschool
environments, the development of prototype curriculum packets based on
NASA resources, pilot testing and staff training in three afterschool
programs in New York City, a review of science education research and
promising practice literature, and consultations with experts in
science education, afterschool, and curriculum development. (2) With
the National Park Service, NASA developed an agreement that resulted in
the design of professional development experiences for interpreters
that include NASA content to enhance the compelling stories of natural
and cultural resources of the parks.
Workshop participants adapted space science and earth sciences
resources for use in their parks, and developed new interpretive
material. (3) With the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA), NASA broadened
the knowledge of national master trainers to increase their
understanding of an integrated NASA Earth and Space Science Story.
These master trainers are now mentoring trainers across the nation,
competitively selected from GSUSA councils with significant populations
of ethnically, economically, and/or geographically underserved girls.
(4) Finally, several NASA Centers are collaborating to produce the
Workshop for Informal Education Specialists, a Return to Flight public
engagement event with over 80 informal education venues (museums,
science centers, planetariums) to prepare partners to help NASA
positively engage the public in experiencing the excitement of
exploration and human space flight.
Question. Finally, Mr. Administrator, as you know, the country
needs capability to deliver cargo to and recover it from the
International Space Station. NASA has indicated that it intends to
release a ``request for proposal'' (RFP) this year for the
International Space Station commercial cargo transportation services.
What is NASA's timetable for its release and response?
Answer. NASA has undertaken a number of steps to assess its future
requirements for crew and cargo transportation in support of the ISS
and future human exploration. A Request for Information (RFI), issued
in September 2004, solicited information regarding capabilities and
market interest from existing and emerging domestic commercial space
transportation providers. NASA also conducted an ISS Cargo Industry Day
earlier this year to exchange technical information with potential
commercial providers. Within the next month, NASA will issue a draft
solicitation requesting commercial service demonstrations for ISS crew
and cargo delivery and return. Where commercial providers have
demonstrated the ability to meet NASA needs and safety requirements,
commercial services will be purchased instead of using government
assets and operations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
UPPER MIDWEST AEROSPACE CONSORTIUM
Question. Last year, Congress earmarked a number of projects in the
fiscal year 2005 Omnibus bill including $2,000,000 to the University of
North Dakota in Grand Forks for the Northern Great Plains Space
Sciences and Technology Center under the Earth Science account. What is
the status of these funds?
Answer. NASA has completed review of the proposal from the
University of North Dakota for the Northern Great Plains Space Sciences
and Technology Center, and funding has been approved for release. Grant
award is expected within the next few weeks.
SPACE AND EARTH SCIENCE
Question. NASA conducts both Space and Earth Science. Earth Science
appears to be more weakly supported within the agency. What role do you
envision for Earth Science?
Answer. NASA maintains a vigorous program in Earth science that
makes important contributions to several interagency Administration
initiatives, including Climate Change Science, Earth Observations, and
Ocean Action, as well as NASA's Vision for Exploration. As an example,
NASA's contribution to the Administration's Climate Change Science
Program (CCSP) is far and away the largest of any Federal agency,
constituting some 60 percent of the total CCSP investment by the U.S.
government. NASA's support for Earth science has remained consistent,
and recent statements by Dr. Griffin emphasize NASA's commitment to a
robust portfolio across Earth and space science disciplines that will
continue NASA's historic support.
WINDOW OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH FACILITY (WORF)
Question. The University of North Dakota has been developing AgCam,
a sensor intended to operate on the International Space Station. With
the problems with the Shuttle, and getting equipment to the Space
Station, there is some question as to when AgCam will be able to go up.
AgCam was designed to go into the WORF (Window Observational Research
Facility). The WORF provides an enclosed environment at a comfortable
temperature and pressure, so that AgCam did not have to be built to the
specifications of devices in the vacuum of interplanetary space.
However, the WORF is not scheduled for a shuttle flight until May 2007
and may not be sent then.
Is the Window Observational Research Facility (WORF) scheduled for
a launch on the Space Shuttle? 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 a future flight opportunity does
become available on the Space Shuttle, the WORF facility will be
considered for delivery to the ISS. The University of North Dakota has
been apprised of the situation and is aware that NASA cannot commit to
the flight of WORF on the Space Shuttle.
Question. If the WORF cannot be launched to the ISS, could AgCam be
accommodated some other way?
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 the University 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.
Question. What are the plans for Earth observations from the
International Space Station?
Answer. While NASA is not pursuing new Earth sciences research on
the ISS because of the limited launch opportunities on the Space
Shuttle, we are continuing with two Earth observations programs already
on-orbit.
The Earth Knowledge Acquired by Middle Schools (EarthKAM) program
allows middle school students to command, via computer, a digital
camera mounted in a window of the ISS and integrate Earth images taken
by the camera with inquiry-based learning for 5th-8th grade students.
Photos are made available on the Web for viewing and study by
participating schools around the world. Educators use the pictures in
conjunction with curricula for projects involving Earth Science,
geography, physics, math, and technology. To date, over 80 schools with
more than 1,600 students from the United States, Japan, Germany, and
France have participated in the EarthKAM program.
The Crew Earth Observations (CEO) program continues, with the ISS
crew photographing various Earth sites on a daily basis. Hand-held
photography of the Earth from human spaceflight missions, spanning more
than 40 years, provides insights and documents changes on the Earth.
The ISS crew members are building on this time series of imagery, which
was started in 1961.
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION PROPOSAL
Question. Mr. Administrator, it is my understanding that in the
coming months NASA is expected to release a ``request for proposal''
(RFP) for International Space Station (ISS) commercial cargo
transportation services, which would provide the necessary means for
getting cargo to and from the ISS. In order for markets to have time to
plan, could you provide a general timeframe for the RFP's release and
the expected response time?
Answer. NASA has undertaken a number of steps to assess its future
requirements for crew and cargo transportation in support of the ISS
and future human exploration. A Request for Information (RFI), issued
in September 2004, solicited information regarding capabilities and
market interest from existing and emerging domestic commercial space
transportation providers. NASA also conducted an ISS Cargo Industry Day
earlier this year to exchange technical information with potential
commercial providers. Within the next month, NASA will issue a draft
solicitation requesting commercial service demonstrations for ISS crew
and cargo delivery and return. Where commercial providers have
demonstrated the ability to meet NASA needs and safety requirements,
commercial services will be purchased instead of using government
assets and operations.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will now stand in recess
until 10 o'clock, on Tuesday, May 24, when we will hear
testimony from the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, and the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert
Mueller, on the Department of Justice's budget for 2006.
The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., Wednesday, May 11, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday,
May 24.]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Stevens, Mikulski, Leahy, Kohl,
Murray, Harkin and Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
I want to welcome Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Robert
Mueller. Thank you both for appearing before the subcommittee
this morning. This is your first appearance before the newly
created Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies. Previously in my capacity as the chairman of the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence we had the opportunity
to work together, and I hope to continue that relationship with
you.
I look forward to hearing from each of you about your
vision of the Justice Department and the FBI respectively, and
the challenges each of you see in the coming fiscal year. In
particular I want to take this opportunity to thank the men and
women who work at the Justice Department and all they do to
keep America safe.
Based on my review of your budget request and the
constraints of the subcommittee, I believe it will take your
leadership to make the tough choices regarding the allocation
of resources given the budget constraints we are facing.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the Department of
Justice is $20.3 billion and represents an increase of 1
percent over the 2005 enacted funding level. While the budget
proposes increases for the FBI, the United States Attorneys,
the United States Marshals Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), this budget proposes
severe cuts to other important programs. In particular it
proposes to cut $1.4 billion to State and local law enforcement
programs. It rescinds $314 million in funds for the
construction of new prisons, and proposes $123 million in new
fees to fund base operations for critical law enforcement
activities. This budget also proposes to rescind $1.3 billion
held in trust for victims of crime to offset costs elsewhere.
With that proposed offset, the Justice Department's request is
actually $19.1 billion and represents a 5 percent decrease from
the 2005 level.
I find these cuts to be unacceptable and perhaps
irresponsible, particularly as they relate to the rescission of
important funds and the proposal of new fees.
I want to be supportive of this request, but these
reductions and the budget maneuvers concern me and will concern
others on the subcommittee. For example, the budget proposes to
increase a fee on the explosives industry to generate revenue
of $120 million in offsetting collections in 2006. I want to
point out that even if Congress passed this proposal today I am
told it would take the Department 2 years to even begin
collecting the fee. If that is true, I do not understand how
the Department of Justice proposes to use the receipts from
this fee to offset fiscal year 2006 law enforcement operations.
This $120 million hole is just one example of many contained in
this request. These shortfalls will force the committee to make
some extremely difficult choices.
Another offset that concerns me is the proposal to rescind
funding previously provided by this subcommittee for new prison
construction. Not only are we facing significant overcrowding
at Federal prison facilities, but you are projecting the
addition of approximately 8,000 new prisoners each year to
those already crowded facilities. The budget proposes to
rescind $314 million for funding already provided to build two
medium security facilities. Without construction and activation
of these two facilities, projected medium security crowding,
which is already 50 percent over capacity, will be 10 percent
higher by 2009.
As for increases, Mr. Attorney General, your budget request
proposes that $2.7 billion be spent on information technology,
also, I expect there to be some direct oversight by you of the
systems being developed by the Department and in its bureaus.
The fact that the Department's CIO has control of less than 10
percent of the information technology (IT) resources and the
employees who build, run and maintain these systems, explains
why there is no universal plan for systems development in the
Department. But given the current budgetary constraints there
are not sufficient resources to continue building these
stovepipe systems that fail to deliver the results promised to
the taxpayers and to the users.
I am especially interested in hearing what specific
oversight the Department is conducting with respect to the
FBI's Virtual Case File (VCF). I was extremely disappointed to
learn of VCF's failure and the significant loss of funds
associated with it. While I wholeheartedly support bringing the
FBI into the 21st century and realize the importance of
information technology to the FBI's mission, we cannot support
unlimited and unchecked resources, and will not tolerate broken
promises for results that are never realized or delivered. I
believe, given one failed attempt, it is imperative that you
proceed with caution to ensure that we do not make the same
mistakes twice. We expect results and will do everything we can
to ensure that there is congressional oversight for this
program. Someone must be accountable for the success or failure
of VCF and all of the Department's programs.
There are many other issues that we anticipate discussing
during this hearing, including the FBI's use of resources on
priority missions, the relationship of the FBI Director and the
new Director of National Intelligence, and the funding
implications of that relationship, and the critical human
resources issues the FBI is now confronting.
Attorney General Gonzales and Director Mueller, I look
forward to hearing your thoughts on the Justice Department's
budget request and will look forward to working with you on
other important issues facing this country.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
good morning to the subcommittee and to the Attorney General
and to Director Mueller.
This is our first hearing of the Senate Appropriations
newly constituted Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, and
as I said, I look forward to working with Senator Shelby. This
is a great subcommittee due to Senator Shelby's long experience
and involvement in this, and also because we both were on the
Intelligence Committee together. As Senator Shelby said, we
look forward to really working with you in both unclassified
and classified situations. And we have Senator Leahy, the
ranking member on Judiciary, which hopefully means we will be
able to combine sound policy with a good budget.
We also note that as of this morning the Justice Department
and the White House have sent forth a name for the U.S.
Attorney in the State of Maryland. We have met with him and we
feel confident that he will make a good one, and I assure you
that I will do all that I can to move his nomination
expeditiously.
As we look at what the Justice Department is facing, it is
one of the most critical agencies in our country. It must join
together to fight the global war against terrorism, and yet
protect us against other threats of organized crime, white-
collar crime and the rising gang violence. Its agencies are
some of the most important that serve our Nation. In addition
to the overall Justice framework, there is the FBI, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, ATF, and our Marshals Service,
often overlooked.
In serving in this subcommittee we look forward to working
with you to build a safer and stronger country. And like
Senator Shelby, I too am very concerned about this budget.
Particular concerns to me are the drastic cuts to local law
enforcement programs which have to be the hallmark of law
enforcement in our community, and law enforcement, when it is
coordinated, really serves the national interest.
Also, I am deeply concerned about the irresponsible $1.3
billion rescission in the Crime Victims Fund. My job is to make
sure the Department stands sentry on protecting America and our
country and to make sure that we are the safer and stronger
country.
In order for our law enforcement strategy to work, we need
to really focus on local law enforcement, and I have been
concerned about programmatic cuts in the community oriented
policing services (COPS), the Byrne program and others at the
local level.
I just would like to commend you, Mr. Attorney General, and
then also to thank Director Mueller. We had a terrible
situation here a few years ago with the sniper case, and it was
a phenomenal effort of coordination, and we could not have done
what we did without the FBI and Gary Bald and our ATF, who
worked closely with our county executive, Doug Duncan. But we
did not federalize it. We worked with the local law enforcement
people. We had a national effort without federalizing. The
Federal Government came in with its highest and best use of
resources, but because of all of the funding and work of local
law enforcement and the insistence that they coordinate, there
was a brotherhood of the Beltway, truly a brotherhood around
the Beltway. What they were able to do is to find the killers,
and now as you know, they are in our judicial system.
That to me is the model of local law enforcement,
particularly when a nation or a community is under threat. So I
am very committed to being able to make sure that local law
enforcement has what it needs and that we have this kind of
intense partnership.
The other issue that we see on the rise is the issue of
gang violence, and we hope to discuss this with you more,
particularly because this issue is not only in our region, but
it is a growing one.
In an ideal world we could have had a separate hearing just
on the FBI, but we need to move expeditiously in this
appropriations cycle so that we are part of the cycle, and I
want to thank Senator Shelby for the way he is organizing the
subcommittee. But for the FBI, we really look forward to our
continued relationship with the Director. We have worked with
him in the intelligence effort. But now as we look at the FBI,
we know we look at the request for increased funding for more
analysts, language training, all of these things which we
intensely support. We must go back though to the issues of
Trilogy and to make sure we are on track with that, and at the
same time as we work on making sure there is the technology to
work, we cannot let domestic issues fall by the wayside, and I
will be raising issues on an effort on health care fraud, the
bilking of our citizens.
So we will be talking about that as well as the gang issue
and the prisoner reentry program.
I am very interested, and I know Senator Shelby has raised
the issue of new prisons. We have a Federal prison in
Cumberland, Maryland and I compliment you on its staff. But
what happens when the prisoners come home, and do we have a way
that prevents recidivism and reintegrates them into the
community and into the family?
Mr. Gonzales, I know this is a keen issue with you, and
perhaps this is one of the areas where faith-based initiatives
really work best because of its community-based initiative to
welcome the prisoner, coordinate with parole or probation, and
at the same time make sure that when they reenter we move them
to a new way of life and we look forward to discussing this
with you.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. There is so much
to talk about, but we agree on a lot of the priorities. We just
need to agree now on the wallet.
Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you and
Senator Mikulski in welcoming Attorney General Gonzales and FBI
Director Mueller here, and I know they represent the hard-
working men and women of the Justice Department, the FBI,
people who work around the clock every single day of the week,
protect all Americans, and I would hope that all Americans are
grateful.
They are here to talk not only directly on policy but
indirectly on policy because they are going to talk about the
budget request for the Justice Department, a request which
recommends lessened priorities, substantial cuts in several
programs that are critical to State and local agencies. They
are in charge of fighting crime and preventing terrorism and
assisting victims.
I share the frustration of local and State law enforcement.
All of us, both Republicans and Democrats have heard from them,
and the first responder agencies because they see a budget
request that includes elimination and reduction of funding by
$1.5 billion. That is a 46.2 percent reduction in programs
crucial to their day-by-day efforts. As a Senator from a rural
State I've seen the partnerships we have made with our rural
law enforcement, and how our State police have been called upon
to carry out duties they had never done before, in cooperation
with the Federal agencies. So when the administration proposes
a 46.2 percent cut in what they have for law enforcement it is
a matter of concern.
The Department's top priorities continue to be the
prevention, investigation, and the prosecution of terrorist
activities against U.S. citizens and interests, as we see in
their request for $535 million in new investments for the FBI
including counterintelligence activities and Justice
information systems technology. But I think it is legitimate to
ask questions about how the FBI has handled some of these
resources. At our last hearing in February we examined the lack
of a Virtual Case File and the millions wasted on lessons
learned. I hope that the Director will have new information
today on the program successor, so-called SENTINEL, on the
status and cost and make sure that this is not money down the
drain like the last time.
There have been concerns that traditional duties to the
Justice Department have garnered too little attention and
support. They have to lead the Nation in deterring,
investigating, prosecuting gun, drug, civil rights violations,
incarcerating offenders, partnering with State, local and
community groups to prevent crimes, and of course leadership
and assistance in meeting the needs of crime victims. We have
seen an end to the downward trend in violent crimes with rates
leveling out instead of continuing to climb. The FBI has
reported an overall violent crime decline of 3 percent in 2003.
That is great news, but murders increased by 1.7 percent, and
that of course creates a concern especially as it reflects a
change and a downward slide.
The President says that he wants to ensure that our State
and local police receive the resources necessary to do the job.
Last week at the National Press Club the Attorney General
said--and I totally agree with what he said--``we rely on local
information, local partners to fight local crime, the beat cop,
the county sheriff, and the lifelong investigator. They
understand what is happening in the towns and cities and what
needs to be done to stop it.''
Attorney General Gonzales. I could not agree with you more.
But I worry when I see the drastic cuts in those programs.
Under the President's budget we are going to see an end to
grants for hiring on the beat and school resources officers. We
see under the President's budget severe reductions in equipment
and support staff grants to combat illegal drugs, particularly
methamphetamine production and distribution. We are going to
see drastic cuts of 50 percent to programs that support
activities to prevent juvenile delinquency and address juvenile
crime, something we were finally getting a handle on. The Boys
and Girls Clubs of America, for example, something that has
been proven to be a success, is going to see its budget cut by
30 percent.
And finally, and this I really cannot understand, in the
Crime Victims Fund, which has had enormous bipartisan support,
the President has proposed to take all the amounts remaining in
the fund, all of them, at the end of fiscal year 2006. That is
a cut of $1.2 billion. It is going to place crime victim
service programs in serious jeopardy. I think it sends a wrong
message to law enforcement officers and crime victims. They see
us spending billions of dollars for victims of crimes in Iraq,
but we are cutting out every single cent in this budget for
crime victims in America. I am not saying we should cut out the
money in Iraq. That is not the question, but if we can find it
in our hearts and our pocketbooks to help crime victims in
Iraq, why are we taking away all the money that was put in
there for crime victims in the United States. I do not think we
should be eliminating initiatives that we know to be effective.
Strengthening security, information sharing, and disaster
response programs to combat terrorism must not totally
overshadow the prevention of more traditional crimes. Frankly,
most people are far more worried about a burglar, a rapist, a
murderer or somebody who is stealing their identity, doing
these crimes, than they are about an airplane flying into their
homes or the buildings where they work. Of course we watch out
for the airplanes, but I think that the average person is far
more worried about the safety of their home and their business
and their person, and when they go shopping or with their
children going to school. And if they have been a victim of a
crime they are worried about being helped as a victim.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for having this hearing. I
think it is very important, and I congratulate you on your new
chairmanship.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. I have no opening statement. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Harkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
Mr. Attorney General, between 1993 and 2003, violent crime
in this country declined by more than 50 percent, from 49.1 to
22.3 incidents of violence per 1,000 persons. During this same
period of time the Federal Government provided an increased
level of assistance to local law enforcement agencies in the
form of grants. Three programs in particular, the Edward Byrne
Memorial grant, the local law enforcement block grant, and the
COPS program, have been critical in providing resources to pay
for more law enforcement officers and to fund more regional
cooperation.
However, between fiscal year 2003 and 2005 over $1 billion
in grant assistance to State and local law enforcement was cut
from the Department of Justice (DOJ) budget. This year you are
taking the final step and eliminating what remains of these
programs, and depriving law enforcement agencies across the
country of an additional $1.3 billion. This is quite a way to
say thank you to the men and women in law enforcement. It is
quite a way to handle programs that have contributed to this
amazing reduction in violent crime.
Just as an example of what these cuts mean, the Byrne
program, which is being eliminated, funds 4,316 cops and
prosecutors working on 764 drug enforcement task forces
nationally. Byrne funding led to 130,000 drug arrests in 32
States, the seizure of 136 tons of illegal drugs, the
confiscation of over 7,000 weapons and the seizure of 7,691
meth labs. Yet the administration's rationale for doing away
with the program is that it has not demonstrated results.
So, Mr. Attorney General, I would like very much for you to
visit Iowa, where like many other midwestern States we are in
the middle of a methamphetamine crisis. Our Byrne dollars, the
ones that may not exist next year, fund 74 task forces and pay
for an additional 84 law enforcement salaries. They fund task
forces responsible for the seizure of 63 percent of the meth
labs in my State of Iowa. They fund a women's prison treatment
program, where only 9 percent have gone back on meth after
their release. It is an award-winning dual diagnosis treatment
program.
These funds are, quite simply, critical to the fight
against meth. They are making a difference. When it comes to my
turn for questioning I would like to again question you further
about the taking away especially of the Byrne grant programs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and
thank you to both Attorney General Gonzales and FBI Director
Mueller for being here today, and I thank you and the ranking
member for holding this hearing.
I do not have an official opening statement. Let me just
say I echo the concerns about the cuts to the Byrne justice
assistance grants and to the COPS Program. I am very deeply
concerned about those cuts and the impacts, as well as the
proposal not only to cut HIDTA funding but to move it, and the
implications there. I am also very concerned that the
Department of Justice has not done enough to stop the spread of
methamphetamine and other synthetic drugs, and I will be asking
you about that during the questioning as well.
Mr. Chairman, most importantly to my State, as we have been
dealing with challenges along the northern border and being
much more aggressive, it has been good, but a lot of the costs
have been dumped on our local jurisdictions to be able to deal
with some of the drug smuggling and money laundering and other
crimes, that as a result of more intense border security, we
have been pushing these to the local jurisdictions to deal with
it. It is a tremendous cost to the communities on our northern
border. So I will be asking about that during the questioning.
Thank you for having this hearing.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, your written
testimony, your written statement will be made part of the
record, and so will yours, Director Mueller. You proceed as you
wish. Welcome to the subcommittee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES
Attorney General Gonzales. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Mikulski and members of the subcommittee. It is my
pleasure to appear before you with Director Mueller to present
the President's fiscal year 2006 budget of the Department of
Justice.
This budget reflects some tough decisions, but it is a
budget that I fully support. It reflects the President's charge
for every public servant, which is not to simply spend more
with the best of intentions, but to spend more wisely with an
eye toward results.
It builds on our number one priority by including over $500
million in new investments for preventing and combatting
terrorism. I would like to present a few highlights from the
budget that we believe will lead to a stronger Justice
Department, better homeland defense, a more effective
counterterrorism effort, and even smarter crime-fighting
initiatives.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERTERRORISM
PROGRAMS
First, the President's budget includes funding to
strengthen the FBI's intelligence and counterterrorism
programs, as has been mentioned, including additional resources
to hire 499 intelligence analysts and 288 new agents for the
counterterrorism program.
Our request also continues efforts to partner with State
and local governments to maximize resources targeted to
homeland security. It includes over $90 million in directed
investment grants for counterterrorism and counterintelligence
efforts.
DRUG FIGHTING STRATEGIES
Second, the President's budget request will lead to even
more effective drug fighting strategies. We request
enhancements of $245 million for drug enforcement efforts. For
the first time in a decade, drug use has decreased among 8th,
10th, and 12th graders. With extraordinary collaboration
between Federal law enforcement agencies, in the past 2 years
we have hurt international trafficking organizations
responsible for the U.S. drug supply.
We know from experience that law enforcement agencies must
pool their resources and expertise to target trafficking
networks effectively. The Department of Justice's drug
enforcement strategy refocuses the organized crime drug
enforcement task force (OCDETF) program to conduct coordinated
investigations of major drug supply and money laundering
organizations, targeting the entire infrastructure of these
enterprises. For this successful program, we are requesting
additional resources of $172 million and 517 positions.
Also included are enhancements of $72.9 million for the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). This money will mean 122
new positions, including 76 new agents for the DEA.
To assist State and local efforts in implementing drug
enforcement programs and strategies, the Department's fiscal
year 2006 request also includes $206.7 million in directed
investments, including a $19.3 million increase for residential
substance abuse treatment, an additional $30 million for drug
courts, a $19.4 million increase for Southwest border drug
prosecution, $20 million to continue methamphetamine lab
cleanup, and $5 million to continue the prescription drug
monitoring program.
FIGHT VIOLENT CRIMES
Third, the President's budget will continue to build on the
President's vision for policies that fight violent crime with
hard time. Violent crime and firearms trafficking continue to
be significant law enforcement problems throughout our Nation.
We are committed to reducing violence and getting gun criminals
off the streets through the Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN)
Initiative. The Department is requesting a total of $379
million for PSN in fiscal year 2006. PSN is a comprehensive
strategy that brings together Federal, State and local agencies
to reduce violent crime in our communities. Working with the
Department, each community tailors a program to target local
gun violence problems.
PROTECT WOMEN AND CHILDREN
Fourth, the President's budget builds on our successful
efforts to protect women and children and to build a more just
and safer society for all. Over the last year we have worked
aggressively with other law enforcement agencies to target and
prosecute a large variety of offenders posing grave threats to
children, including large international rings of organized and
predatory child molesters and commercial producers and sellers
of child sex abuse images. Through these efforts more than 150
child victims were rescued. The fiscal year 2006 budget
increases funding by $10.4 million for our efforts to fight
child pornography and obscenity.
COURT SECURITY AND DETENTION RESOURCES
Fifth, as a result of aggressive law enforcement policies
targeting terrorism, violent crime, immigration violations and
drug crimes, as well as increases in the number of FBI, DEA and
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, 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 2006
budget provides significant resources needed to improve
courtroom security and the detention and incarceration of those
accused or convicted of violent crimes. During fiscal year 2004
the Nation's Federal prison population rose 4.3 percent. That
is an increase of more than 7,300 inmates. At the same time the
Federal prison detention population rose 11.8 percent. Our
fiscal year 2006 budget requests $509.6 million in additional
resources for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals
Service, and the Office of the Detention Trustee to manage this
growth.
Finally, the President's budget includes many directed
investments and efficiencies to ensure that the Department
continues down the path of wise and effective financial
management so that we maximize every dollar that is provided to
us.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski, members of the
subcommittee, I am honored to testify here, and I look forward
to working with you in the days and months ahead for a budget
that will lead to a safer, more secure, and more just America.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions
you might have.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Alberto R. Gonzales
Good morning Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski and Members of the
Subcommittee: It is my pleasure to appear before you for the first time
to present the President's fiscal year 2006 budget for the Department
of Justice. I assumed this office knowing that the Department of
Justice (DOJ) is fully committed to protecting the lives and the
liberties of our citizens. As such, the budget proposal I bring before
you today requests resources to continue protecting Americans and
keeping our streets safe. For fiscal year 2006, the President's budget
requests $19.1 billion for the Department of Justice, including $535.2
million in new investments for preventing and combating terrorism,
including counterintelligence.
The budget I present to you is also mindful of our need to ensure
that programs achieve their intended result. We propose a number of
reforms and, where warranted, program reductions or eliminations. As a
result, the spending increases proposed in our budget are offset by
$1.88 billion in program savings and I look forward to working with you
to achieve these savings.
The Department's fiscal year 2006 budget requests $3.1 billion in
homeland security spending, including funding to strengthen the
Nation's counterterrorism investigative capabilities to identify, track
and prevent terrorist cells from operating in the United States and
enhance the Nation's counterintelligence analysis capabilities. This
request also provides necessary resources to continue our efforts to
deter, investigate and prosecute federal crimes, including gun, drug
and civil rights violations; incarcerate offenders; partner with state,
local, community and faith-based groups to prevent crime, including
crimes against children; and provide leadership and assistance in
meeting the needs of crime victims.
PREVENTING AND COMBATING TERRORISM, INCLUDING COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
Over the past three years, the Department has steadfastly allocated
resources to counterterrorism and has undergone a transformation in our
priorities, as well as our organization. Within DOJ, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation is in the process of standing up a comprehensive
Intelligence Program to prevent terrorist attacks, an effort that has
been accelerated by the passage of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The fiscal year 2006 budget includes
funding to strengthen the FBI's Intelligence and Counterterrorism
Programs, such as additional resources to hire an additional 499
Intelligence analysts and 288 agents for the Counterterrorism Program.
Tremendous strides in the war on terrorism were made under the
leadership of Attorney General John Ashcroft. In the past year alone,
the Department of Justice has arrested 379 individuals on
counterterrorism-related charges and prosecuted and obtained
convictions in 200 terrorism-related cases.
Under my leadership, we in the Department will continue to be
resolute in our quest to address terrorism and other threats to our
Nation with integrity and devotion to our highest ideals. I appreciate
the support shown by this Subcommittee and the Congress in providing
the necessary resources for the Department of Justice to be a champion
and build a culture dedicated to protecting the lives and liberties of
Americans. The budget that I present to you today reflects this support
and seeks to enhance the Department's ability to protect America.
Enhancing Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence Capabilities
Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
(FBI) counterterrorism workload has more than tripled, from 9,340 cases
pending and received in the field to over 33,000 in fiscal year 2004.
This budget request includes resources for the FBI to provide critical
counterterrorism investigation capabilities. This funding will allow
the FBI to strengthen its effort to identify, track, and prevent
terrorist cells from operating in the United States. Principal
increases would provide funding to: double the size of the Hostage
Response Team, hire 499 additional intelligence analysts, enhance the
foreign language translation program by $26 million, and expand the
Legal Attache program.
This budget also includes funding for two Presidential initiatives,
the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and the Terrorist Screening
Center (TSC). The NCTC, established in May 2003 as the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center, is a multi-agency effort that merges and analyzes
intelligence information to provide a comprehensive threat analysis to
the intelligence and law enforcement communities.
The Terrorist Screening Center, which was established by Homeland
Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-6 on September 16, 2003, and
became operational on December 1, 2003, consolidates terrorist watch
lists. Several initiatives require additional resources in this area,
including: continuing education of state and local law enforcement;
more stringent screening at U.S. borders; and screening passengers on
domestic and international flights without unduly delaying commerce or
travel. To meet these increased requirements, this budget includes an
additional 61 positions and $75 million for TSC, bringing total TSC
funding up to $104 million.
Additionally, successful counterterrorism requires the cohesive
intelligence, investigative, and prosecutorial efforts of many
government agencies, including the federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies participating in the Joint Terrorism Task Forces
(JTTF). A key to the success of the JTTF concept remains the melding of
personnel from various law enforcement agencies into a single focused
unit. Also, since the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Attorneys
and the Department's Criminal Division have utilized the full cadre of
anti-terrorism statutes to prosecute terrorist activities, including
disrupting terrorist financing. Our budget seeks an additional $13.2
million and 91 positions to enhance these efforts, including funds to
support the investigation of terrorism, primarily through the
application of warrants under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and
Department-wide continuity of operations investments.
Additional Enhancements to Counterterrorism/Counterintelligence
Infrastructure
A key element in our efforts to prevent future acts of terrorism is
our ability to effectively share information about terrorists, criminal
activity and threats to public safety within DOJ and with other
federal, tribal, state and local law enforcement partners. To support
this effort, this budget requests an additional $63.9 million and 5
positions for the Justice Information Sharing Technology (JIST)
Program. This program will ensure that investments in information
sharing technology are well planned and aligned with the Department's
overall information technology strategy and enterprise architecture.
JIST will also ensure that all DOJ components are able to operate in an
interoperable environment, particularly with respect to preventing
terrorist attacks on the United States.
This request also continues efforts to partner with state and local
governments to maximize resources targeted to homeland security
efforts. The fiscal year 2006 budget maintains this commitment and
includes $90.3 million in directed investment grants for
counterterrorism/counterintelligence efforts.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT
For the first time in a decade, drug use has decreased among 8th,
10th, and 12th graders. With extraordinary collaboration between
federal law enforcement agencies, in the past two years the Department
of Justice has crippled international trafficking organizations
responsible for the U.S. drug supply. In fiscal year 2004, the
Department dismantled 36 Consolidated Priority Organization Target
(CPOT)-linked drug trafficking organizations and severely disrupted an
additional 159 organizations
The fiscal year 2006 budget requests enhancements of $245.4 million
for drug enforcement efforts: $172.5 million is for the Organized Crime
Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Program, the cornerstone of the
Department's drug enforcement strategy, and $72.9 million is for the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Nation's sole law
enforcement entity dedicated exclusively to drug enforcement. The
request also includes an additional $32.6 million in new initiatives
for DEA's Diversion Control Fee Account and $206.7 million in directed
investments for the Office of Justice Programs.
Law enforcement agencies must pool their resources and expertise to
target trafficking networks effectively. The Department's Drug
Enforcement Strategy refocused the OCDETF Program to conduct
coordinated investigations of major drug supply and money laundering
organizations, targeting the entire infrastructure of these
enterprises. For this successful program, the Department requests
additional resources of $172.5 million and 517 positions. This
increased level of funding will address staffing imbalances that exist
within the U.S. Attorney workforce; increase FBI OCDETF drug resources
that focus on major trafficking organizations; implement Phase II of a
multi-year plan to increase the capacity of the U.S. Marshals Service
to apprehend OCDETF fugitives; and provide for ongoing operations and
maintenance of the OCDETF Fusion Center beyond fiscal year 2005.
This request also reflects the President's proposal to transfer the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program from the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to the Department of Justice, with
funding provided through OCDETF at a level of $100 million including 5
positions. A smaller refocused HIDTA program, will enable law
enforcement to target the drug trade in a manner that is strategic and
complementary of the OCDETF Program and preserves HIDTA's most
effective elements, such as intelligence sharing and fostering multi-
agency law enforcement coordination.
Our fiscal year 2006 budget requests $72.9 million and 122
positions, including 76 new agents, for the DEA. The investments
requested will provide permanent funding for DEA's Overseas Rightsizing
plan; expand DEA's presence in Afghanistan, Central Asia, and the
Middle East; enhance intelligence sharing to fully exploit, gather,
analyze and share intelligence information; and maintain and upgrade
DEA's intelligence capabilities. These resources will also strengthen
the investigation of drug trafficking and money laundering priority
target organizations through enhanced communications intercept
capabilities and investigative technologies.
For DEA's Diversion Control program, our fiscal year 2006 request
proposes an increase of $32.6 million and 97 positions to enhance
investigations and enforcement actions against the illegal sale, use,
or diversion of controlled substances. The request also proposes to
transfer funding associated with the Chemical Program from the Salaries
and Expenses account to the Diversion Control Fee Account to complete
the transfer effectuated in the fiscal year 2005 Appropriations Act.
Funding all Diversion Control Program activities from the Diversion
Control Fee Account will help streamline the program's financial
management activities.
The Department's fiscal year 2006 budget also includes $206.7
million in directed investments to assist state and local efforts in
implementing drug enforcement programs and strategies. Among these
directed investments are: a $19.3 million increase for residential
substance abuse treatment; an additional $30.0 million for drug courts;
a $19.4 million increase for southwest border drug prosecution; $20
million to continue methamphetamine lab cleanup; and $5 million to
continue the prescription drug monitoring program.
VIOLENT CRIME ENFORCEMENT
Violent crime and firearms trafficking continue to be significant
law enforcement problems throughout the Nation. The Administration is
committed to reducing violence and getting gun criminals off the
streets through the Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN) initiative. The
Administration is requesting $379 million for PSN in 2006. PSN is a
comprehensive strategy that brings together federal, state, and local
agencies to reduce violent crime in our communities. Working with the
Department, each community tailors the program to target local gun
violence problems. The Administration has also launched a companion
initiative, the Violent Crime Impact Teams (VCIT), led by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). VCIT, currently active
in 15 cities, expands to 25 cities in the fiscal year 2006 budget.
Multiple Justice components play key roles in the Department's
effort to reduce violent crime. The fiscal year 2006 request for PSN
includes $154.2 million in new investments, including $136.2 million in
additional funding for PSN initiatives such as Project ChildSafe, the
National Criminal History Improvement Program, and State and Local Gun
Crime Prosecution Assistance--all funded within the Office of Justice
Programs. Funding also is requested under the PSN umbrella for ATF, the
U.S. Attorneys, and the Criminal Division.
Since joining the Department in January 2003, ATF has become an
integral part of the Department's efforts to reduce the violent use of
firearms by criminals and gangs. Over 72 percent of ATF's resources
($666.0 million) are dedicated to firearms regulation and enforcement
efforts, including licensing and inspection of federal firearms
dealers, ballistics gun tracing, and criminal investigations of gun
related crimes in partnership with a variety of federal, state and
local law enforcement agencies. In addition, the United States
Attorneys Offices (USAO) across the country, continue to develop
strategies to make their communities safer. Critical to that goal is
the aggressive prosecution of violent crimes, particularly those
involving firearms. Another key component to helping to forge strong
and effective partnerships with state and local law enforcement, is the
Office of Justice Programs which provides grant funding that focuses on
youth gun violence deterrence, firearms safety, criminal records
improvements, and strategic planning.
LITIGATION
The Department's fiscal year 2006 request includes $31.6 million
and 227 positions in new investments for litigation to enforce federal
laws and represent the rights and interests of the American people, as
well as $1 million in Office of Justice Programs directed investments.
The Department serves as the Nation's chief litigator, representing the
United States in court and enforcing federal civil and criminal
statutes, including those protecting civil rights, safeguarding the
environment, preserving a competitive market structure, defending the
public against unwarranted claims, and preserving the integrity of the
Nation's bankruptcy system.
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes funding to
fortify the U.S. Attorneys' immigration and intellectual crime
prosecutions; the Criminal Division's ability to investigate and
prosecute child sex exploitation, trafficking, and obscenity; the Civil
Division's efforts to address immigration litigation; and the
Environment and Natural Resources Division's litigation needs
associated with tribal trust cases.
Key investments include: $1.9 million and 36 positions for
additional paralegals to narrow the gap between the private sector
industry average and that found in the U.S. Attorneys' Offices; $3.7
million and 46 positions to ensure there is sufficient U.S. Attorney
presence to meet the steadily increasing caseload generated by
increased Immigration and Customs Enforcement cases; $5 million and 58
positions in U.S. Attorney and Civil Division resources for Health Care
Fraud investigations and prosecutions; and $1 million and 11 positions
to expand the Computer Crime, High Tech and Intellectual Property
program.
Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2004, the Civil Division's
Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) workload tripled to
approximately 15,000 cases and will likely surpass 21,000 by fiscal
year 2006 due to the avalanche of appeals by aliens challenging
decisions to detain, deport, exclude, and remove them. By fiscal year
2006, the attorney workload is projected to reach 186 cases--a number
that is impossible for any attorney to handle effectively. Inadequate
resources to defend these cases could result in adverse judgments,
hindering the government's ability to pursue a consistent, unified
strategy for upholding immigration enforcement actions and,
consequently, undermining our national security. The fiscal year 2006
budget requests $5.8 million and 58 positions to protect our Nation by
excluding and deporting those aliens who pose a threat to national
security and aliens who otherwise lack entitlement as defined by the
Immigration and Naturalization Act. The request also includes enhanced
resources for the Civil Division's Spent Nuclear Fuel Litigation to
provide automated litigation support for the sixty-six cases filed by
nuclear utility companies against the Department of Energy.
The fiscal year 2006 budget also requests $7.4 million and 18
positions to defend the United States in lawsuits filed by Indian
Tribes for allegations regarding the management of Tribal assets by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. The United States' potential exposure in
these cases is more than $200 billion. Adequate resources are necessary
to limit exposure and establish proper precedent for the United States.
These cases differ from lawsuits brought against the United States by
individual Tribal members, like Cobell, due to the extent of the
potential exposure and the amount of document management/production
required. The document management is astronomical: approximately 55
million pages of documents need to be reviewed. Thus the requested
increase includes $6.1 million to address these document management-
related expenses.
CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND OBSCENITY
The Violence Against Women Act has made a critical difference in
the lives of countless women and children. During this Administration,
the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) has awarded nearly $1.25
billion in grants and cooperative agreements to enable communities to
increase their efforts in addressing violence against women and to
support and enhance services for victims. To build on these efforts
this budget requests a $363 million total investment for Violence
Against Women Act programs, including the Office on Violence Against
Women.
The Department's budget reflects its commitment to protect the most
defenseless and youngest victims from human trafficking and other forms
of exploitation. During the last year, the Department worked
aggressively with other law enforcement agencies to target and
prosecute a large variety of offenders posing grave threats to
children, including large international rings of organized and
predatory child molesters and commercial producers and sellers of child
sex abuse images. Through these efforts, more than 150 child victims
were rescued. As the Nation's expert in the prevention and prosecution
of child exploitation and obscenity, the Department's Criminal Division
attorneys prosecute defendants who have violated federal child
exploitation and obscenity laws and also assist the 94 United States
Attorney Offices in investigations, trials, and appeals related to
these offenses. Additionally, the FBI's Innocent Images National
Initiative (IINI) identifies, and investigates sexual predators who use
the Internet and other online services to sexually exploit children,
identifies and rescues child victims, and establishes a law enforcement
presence on the Internet as a deterrent to subjects that exploit
children. This budget increases funding by $10.4 million for the
Justice Department's efforts to fight child pornography and obscenity,
including the Criminal Division programs, the FBI's IINI and Child
Obscenity Enforcement efforts, and the Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Forces.
In fiscal year 2004, the FBI located 300 missing children, shut
down 2,638 child pornography websites or web hosts, and assisted in
obtaining 881 convictions/pretrial diversions for crimes against
children via online computer usage. This budget requests an increase of
$9.1 million and 85 positions to continue these efforts.
The Office of Justice Programs plays a significant role in reducing
crimes against children through training and technical expertise to our
state and local law enforcement partners and public safety entities.
Since the President announced an administration effort to expand and
coordinate the AMBER Alert network in October 2002, it has been
credited with the recovery of over 150 children, or over 80 percent of
the188 recoveries since the initiative began in Texas in 1996. In 2005
the Amber Alert plans were established in all 50 states marking a
milestone in our efforts to prevent child abductions. This budget seeks
$5.0 million to maintain this system.
STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE
State and local law enforcement departments are critical partners
in the war against terror and the fight against crime. Fiscal year 2006
budget selectively maintains and grows effective programs with over
$1.5 billion in grant assistance to state and locals agencies,
including $185.3 million to strengthen communities through programs
providing services such as drug treatment, $90.3 million to fight
terrorism, and $335 million to combat violence. This includes
enhancements to grant funding provided under Project Safe
Neighborhoods; $235.2 million for law enforcement technology, including
funding to continue and enhance the Administration's DNA initiative;
and $92.5 million to support drug enforcement, including funding to
continue and expand the Southwest Border Drug Prosecution Program.
Programs targeted to helping strengthen our community remains a
priority for the Department of Justice. A total investment of $185.3
million in fiscal year 2006 provides $15 million to increase support
for the Administration's offender re-entry program, which includes the
participation of the Departments of Labor and Housing and Urban
Development. An increase of $19.3 million is requested to assists
states and units of local government in developing and implementing
residential and substance abuse treatment programs. An increase of
$29.9 million is requested for the drug courts program, which will
result in a 2 percent improvement in the graduation rate from the drug
courts program as compared to fiscal year 2005 estimates.
Our request proposes the establishment of a program to provide $20
million in fiscal year 2006 ($50 million over three years) for training
to private defense counsel and public defenders, state and local
prosecutors, and state judges to improve the competency of all
participants connected with the trial of state capital cases.
Efforts to improve our ability to combat terrorism would not be a
success without our state and local partners. The fiscal year 2006
request invests $90.3 million in state and local programs to combat
terrorism including a $4.5 million increase for the Regional
Information Sharing System; $14 million for state and local anti-
terrorism training; $7 million to develop tools and approaches to
improve the ability of state and local first responders to detect and
effectively respond to terrorist attacks; $16 million to fund the USA
Freedom Corps program; and a total of $6.2 million for the National
Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan -the state and local complement to
the Department's Law Enforcement Information Sharing Program.
A $227.4 million investment is also proposed to assist state and
local communities in combating other violent crimes, including $10.2
million to prevent prison rape and prosecute persons committing it. The
Department is committed to upholding the rights and to defending human
dignity of all citizens, including prisoners.
The fiscal year 2006 budget requests an additional $72.7 million to
continue efforts to reduce convicted offender and crime scene backlogs,
strengthen the capabilities of labs, fund DNA research and development
projects, provide specialized training to law enforcement and lab and
medical personnel, pay for programs and educational materials that
employ DNA technology to identify missing persons, and to fund a post-
conviction DNA testing program. Also included in the fiscal year 2006
budget is a $29.9 million total investment in the Bulletproof Vests
Program.
JUDICIAL PROTECTION, DETENTION AND INCARCERATION
As a result of aggressive law enforcement policies targeting
terrorism, violent crime, immigration violations, and drug crimes, as
well as the increases in the number of FBI and DEA agents, 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 2006 budget request provides significant
resources needed to improve courtroom security and the detention and
incarceration of those accused or convicted of violent crimes. During
fiscal year 2004, the Nation's federal prison population rose 4.3
percent, by 7,396 inmates. At the same time, the federal prisoner
detention population rose 11.8 percent, increasing by approximately
5,200 detainees on a daily basis. The request provides additional
resources for the Bureau of Prisons and Office of the Detention Trustee
to manage this growth, including activation costs for three new
facilities and two expansions of existing facilities. The fiscal year
2006 DOJ budget requests $509.6 million in additional resources in
these areas
The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) ensures that the federal justice
system operates effectively and securely by providing judicial and
courtroom security to deter and respond to threats and protect federal
judges, court personnel, witnesses and other participants in federal
judicial proceedings. This budget will provide the resources needed for
the Department to continue to ensure that no judicial proceedings are
interrupted due to inadequate security as well as to continue to
identify, assess, and respond to the threats against court personnel
and property; enhance the physical security of federal courthouse
facilities; and provide for the long-term protection of federal
witnesses and their families.
Additionally, the USMS has primary jurisdiction to conduct and
investigate fugitive matters involving escaped federal prisoners;
probation, parole and bond default violators; warrants generated by DEA
investigations; and certain other related felony cases. In fiscal year
2004, the USMS apprehended 39,000 federal felons--more than all other
law enforcement agencies combined. In addition, working with
authorities at the federal, state, and local levels, USMS apprehended
79,740 fugitives. This budget provides $790.2 for the USMS, which is
$42.6 million and 114 positions over the 2005 enacted level.
For the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), our fiscal year 2006 budget seeks
an increase of $148 million and 1,007 positions, which includes $37.2
million for the subsistence cost of the increasing inmate population.
The BOP projects that it will receive 4,269 additional inmates between
fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006. These resources will enable the
BOP to meet the marginal costs, $8,712 per inmate, of providing
security, food, medical care, clothing, education, and other costs
associated with the population increase. An increase of $85.0 million
and 1,002 positions is also included to begin the activation process
for 3 newly constructed facilities, activate a 50 cell expansion to the
existing Special Housing Unit at United States Penitentiary Florence,
Colorado and to begin the activation process for a 362 bed low security
housing unit at Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Sandstone,
Minnesota. In addition, $19.8 million and 5 positions are requested to
begin the process to obtain 1,600 additional beds in contract
facilities to house low security and female inmates for 6 months in
fiscal year 2006. In addition, the budget requests the rescission of
$314 million in unobligated prison construction balances. The funds are
associated with prisons not scheduled to activate until 2009 or beyond.
During 2006, the Bureau of Prisons will undertake a thorough review of
all of its existing minimum and low security facilities to evaluate the
potential of upgrading or modifying these prisons to house higher
security inmates, where the inmate crowding level is the highest. BOP
remains committed to contracting out for low and minimum security
inmates which currently makes up 58 percent of the federal inmate
population. Lastly, the BOP request seeks $6.0 million to establish a
residential re-entry program at 6 institutions that will build
partnerships with faith based and community organizations.
For the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee, our request
reflects an additional $347.4 million to house USMS detainees in state,
local and private facilities. The number of federal prisoners detained
is expected to increase 14.9 percent over fiscal year 2005, resulting
in an average daily population of over 60,000 detainees compared to
approximately 27,000 three years ago. This enhancement will ensure the
availability of adequate, cost-effective detention capacity for the
anticipated jail days that will be spent in state, local or private
facilities.
Lastly, with the recent violence perpetrated in courthouses in the
southeast and midwest, I have directed that a review of judicial
security measures be undertaken so the Department, as well as state and
local law enforcement, can benefit from a compilation of best practices
from across the nation.
MANAGEMENT AND STEWARDSHIP IMPROVEMENTS
In his February 2nd State of the Union Address, the President
underscored the need to restrain spending in order to sustain our
economic prosperity. As part of this restraint, it is important that
total discretionary and non-security spending be held to levels
proposed in the fiscal year 2006 budget. The budget savings and reforms
in the budget are important components of achieving the President's
goal of cutting the budget deficit in half by 2009 and we urge the
Congress to support these reforms. The fiscal year 2006 budget includes
more than 150 reductions, reforms, and terminations in non-defense
discretionary programs, of which 1.88 billion affect DOJ programs. The
Department wants to work with the Congress to achieve these savings
As part of our efforts to improve management and stewardship, the
Department continues to evaluate its programs and operations with the
goals of achieving both component-specific and departmental economies
of scale, increased efficiencies, and cost savings/offsets to permit us
to fund initiatives that are of higher 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. The cost absorptions and crosscutting efficiencies identified
in this budget impact virtually every component in the Department.
Additional investments in management and information technology
improvements, such as e-gov, e-training and e-travel initiatives, will
ensure all DOJ components are able to function in an interoperable
environment, particularly with respect to preventing terrorist attacks
on the United States.
DOJ Financial Management
The Department is committed to continuous improvement in financial
management in order to maximize every dollar that is provided to us.
The fiscal year 2006 budget requests $33.0 million and 6 positions to
continue support for the Unified Financial Management System (UFMS),
including hardware and software acquisition, integration and
implementation, and project management activities. The annual financial
audits of DOJ and its components have found fault with several of the
seven core financial management systems in use at DOJ. Continuing the
UFMS initiative will result in a significant improvement to the
efficiency and integrity of our financial and accounting system.
DOJ Diversity
The fiscal year 2006 request seeks $.8 million to enhance attorney
recruitment and retention through an enhanced student loan repayment
program and to implement an automated attorney hiring system. The
Department is committed to casting the widest net to attract the most
qualified and diverse applicants.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee
for your recent actions on the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental. The funds
provided for the Department of Justice are critical to our efforts both
domestic and abroad.
Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski, Members of the Subcommittee, I
have brought before you today the resources necessary to carryout the
Department's priorities for fiscal year 2006. I am honored to testify
before you and look forward to the days and months ahead working with
you on this budget proposal and other issues.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might
have.
______
Prepared Statement of Carl J. Truscott, Director, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice
Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee: thank you for this opportunity to submit a statement
about the accomplishments of the men and women of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and discuss the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget for the ATF. We are working
together to protect America. Our agents, inspectors/investigators,
administrative, professional, and technical personnel have earned
renown and respect for their contributions to the Department of Justice
and to law enforcement. I am honored to lead such capable and motivated
colleagues, and to serve our great Nation as the Director of ATF.
I appreciate very much the support the Subcommittee has given to
ATF and the interest the Subcommittee has demonstrated in ATF's
missions and programs. With your support during fiscal year 2005
appropriations, ATF received funding and positions for the Safe
Explosives Act (SEA) and explosives enforcement, Project Safe
Neighborhoods (PSN) and anti-gang efforts, the National Tracing Center
(NTC), and relocation of the Federal Licensing Center to West Virginia.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2006 builds on your
fiscal year 2005 investment with $30.3 million to expand the number of
Violent Crime Impact Teams (VCIT) targeting the most violent criminals
in specific areas within selected cities and $6 million to develop the
Terrorist Explosive Device Analysis Center (TEDAC) database which will
record, inventory, and catalog improvised explosive devices being used
in Iraq and Afghanistan. These investments are in direct support of
ATF's core missions.
As Director, I lead our efforts to reduce violent crime, prevent
terrorism, and protect the public. Thanks to the leadership and support
of this Committee, and through our dedicated work, the men and women of
ATF are improving the lives of Americans. Your investment, and our
efforts, produce real results: safer neighborhoods, where all of us,
including children and senior citizens, can live without fear.
Since being sworn in as Director of ATF last May, I have visited
all 23 ATF field divisions. I have talked with special agents and
inspectors/investigators who are: taking violent criminals, including
gang members, off the streets; preventing the illegal diversion of
firearms; ensuring the security and accountability of explosives and
firearms commerce; investigating bombings and thefts of explosives;
solving arsons, through investigation and research; investigating
alcohol and tobacco diversion schemes; and sharing information and
intelligence with our law enforcement partners.
FIREARMS
ATF continues to fight violent crime on the streets of America. We
enforce Federal firearms laws and provide extensive support to Federal,
State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime
and violence.
ATF 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
firearms diversion; and investigations of persons possessing those
firearms that are generally prohibited, such as machineguns and sawed-
off shotguns.
From these types of investigations, ATF agents concentrate on
illegal firearms traffickers and the diversion of 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 (with or without the complicity of a Federal firearms
licensee, or FFL), illegal dealing at gun shows or other locations,
robberies of gun stores, and thefts from interstate shipments.
ATF combines state-of-the-art technology and effective partnerships
into an Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy, or IVRS. 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 which set of laws and
circumstances can best be employed against the violators and/or
prohibited possessors and seek the most appropriate venue for firearms
prosecution. Under PSN, the number of Federal firearms cases filed
increased 76 percent between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2004. In
fiscal year 2004, ATF opened 29,440 firearms investigations, and during
the same timeframe, there were over 7,000 convictions.
Violent Crime Impact Teams
In June 2004, former Attorney General Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney
General Comey, and I announced the VCIT initiative, a new program to
reduce violent crime in 15 targeted communities. Through VCIT, ATF-led
teams work with local law enforcement to identify and arrest the most
violent offenders in each area. The selected communities are:
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Baltimore, Maryland; Chattanooga, Tennessee;
Tampa, Florida; Miami, Florida; Richmond, Virginia; Greensboro, North
Carolina; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Las Vegas, Nevada;
Columbus, Ohio; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Los Angeles, California;
Tucson, Arizona; and the Washington, DC/Northern Virginia area.
ATF-led VCIT teams in these cities bring the targeted area's
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials together. Each team
creates an individualized strategy, then works together to remove those
responsible for violent crime. I can tell you that VCIT is working: in
our first 8 months of operation, 3,100 State and Federal arrests were
made, and 3,700 firearms were recovered. Civic leaders and law
enforcement officials have praised VCIT's positive impact on their
communities. News reports credit VCITs with contributing to a decrease
in homicides, as has occurred in Greensboro, Tulsa, and Columbus, among
others. For example, a November report by the Albuquerque Journal
stated that the VCIT contributed to a 23 percent decrease in the
homicide rate in Albuquerque alone, compared with the same period last
year.
Anti-Gang Efforts
We have developed expertise in working against criminal groups,
particularly gangs, and this is recognized by the Department of Justice
(DOJ). ATF played a prominent role in the development of the
Department'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. ATF shares
investigative information 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. ATF recommended more than 5,000 gang members and
their associates for prosecution during the past 5 years (2,000 of them
during fiscal year 2004 alone) for charges including firearms
violations, continuing criminal enterprise violations, Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organization Act violations, and arson and
explosives violations. In the past 2 years, we also traced more than
11,000 firearms linked to gang activity, and initiated more than 1,500
cases involving gang members participating in firearms trafficking.
We are fighting gangs with proactive efforts as well as enforcement
actions: the Gang Resistance Education And Training (G.R.E.A.T.)
Program has been presented to more than 3.8 million middle school
students since its inception in 1992. And thanks to a new agreement
with Boys and Girls Clubs of America, ATF's G.R.E.A.T. program is being
used to help young people make positive decisions and resist negative
influences. In this way we are not just working to deter crime--we are
working to prevent it.
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 2004, the NTC traced over 250,000
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.
The NTC has established and provides support to four Regional Crime
Gun Centers. These centers are located in Washington, DC; Chicago; New
York; and Los Angeles. Each provides focused analysis of crime gun
trace information in these major metropolitan areas for ATF and local
partners from other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
to reduce firearms-related violent crime within their regions. The
information gathered and analyzed through these centers and the Crime
Gun Analysis Branch (CGAB) provides law enforcement with specific leads
through the use of firearms tracing and geographic information to
discern indicators of trafficking activity within a city that has a
high violent crime rate involving gangs and illegal use and possession
of firearms. This allows law enforcement to efficiently apply resources
to combat violent firearms activities.
Another NTC program is called Access 2000. This initiative benefits
both ATF and our industry partners. Servers supplied by ATF have been
installed at 36 manufacturers and major wholesale distributors, all of
them FFLs, who have 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 inspectors/investigators
ensure that the manufacture, importation, and commerce in firearms and
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 fire and explosion 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 11th, 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.
--The Attorney General mandated that ATF would control the
investigation of all explosives incidents except those related
to terrorism. I am honored by the confidence that the Attorney
General placed in ATF when he made this decision, and I note
that approximately 98 percent of the bombings in America are
unrelated to terrorism. In instances of terrorism, ATF stands
ready to assist with Department-wide efforts.
--The Attorney General also tasked ATF to maintain all DOJ arson and
explosives databases currently maintained by other DOJ
components. Our state-of-the-art system for documenting arson
and explosives incidents, known as the Bomb Arson Tracking
System or BATS, has become the DOJ standard.
--Further, his decision mandated the consolidation within ATF of all
budget, curriculum, teaching, and scheduling functions related
to post-blast explosives training for Federal, State, local,
and international entities.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this decision will be responsible for
significant financial efficiencies.
ATF special agents work with State and local law enforcement
throughout all aspects of bombing and explosion incidents, from the
post-blast recovery of evidence through the subsequent investigation.
ATF has explosives and arson groups nationwide, each consisting of
special agents, including certified fire investigators (CFIs) and
certified explosives specialists (CESs), as well as State and local
police or fire personnel. These ATF special agents are dedicated full-
time to investigating explosives and arson incidents and violations. In
fiscal year 2005, the Congressional appropriation directed ATF to form
four specialized explosives groups. These groups are enhancing our
ability to prevent criminal acts involving explosives, respond to
criminal acts, plan for special events, and assist first responders by
adding special agents trained in rendering improvised explosive devices
(IEDs) safe.
Some ATF special agents receive even more intense explosives
training than the substantial amount received in Special Agent Basic
Training. Special agent CESs are among the most experienced, best-
trained explosives experts in the Federal Government. They provide
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. The 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 at the
International Law Enforcement Academies in Budapest, Hungary; Bangkok,
Thailand; and Gaborone, Botswana. They have also instructed post-blast
investigation techniques for foreign law enforcement officers in South
American, Central American, and Eastern European countries, and are
currently providing this instruction in supporting coalition forces in
Iraq.
ATF investigates 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. When
explosives are used for criminal purposes, ATF brings the full weight
of its explosives programs and investigative assets to the task of
identifying and bringing the perpetrator to justice. On July 6, 2004, a
theft of explosives occurred from a San Mateo County, CA, explosives
storage facility used by law enforcement. ATF immediately responded to
the crime scene and began an investigation. Working with the California
Highway Patrol, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, the Hayward Police
Department, the Union City Police Department, the Oakland Police
Department, and others, the stolen explosives were recovered and ATF
arrested four individuals on charges relating to the theft, possession,
and distribution of explosives.
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 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, such as
explosives-actuated disrupters; radiographic (x-ray) equipment;
personal protective equipment (bomb suits); and robotic equipment,
including 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.
Maintained within ATF's Arson and Explosives National Repository
(AENR) 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
the Repository 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
BATS. This program facilitates and promotes the collection and
dissemination of fire, arson, and explosives incidents and information
among participating agencies. Law enforcement agencies and members with
established National Crime Information Center access can access BATS
via personal computer in a secure Internet environment. End users 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 advanced features, such as 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 Repository 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 the National Center
for Explosives Training and Research (NCETR) at Fort A.P. Hill,
Virginia. This course was developed in response to data showing that
more bomb technicians were injured or killed during explosives disposal
operations than when performing render safe procedures on explosive
devices. ATF offers numerous advanced courses related to explosives
disposal and post-blast investigation techniques at the NCETR, which
was authorized in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Since ATF began
holding training classes at Fort A.P. Hill in 2000, we have provided
training to over 4,000 Federal, State, local, and international bomb
technicians and investigators. In cooperation with the U.S. Army, 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. This facility will
include a permanent classroom facility and an advanced explosives
research and training range for the study of various explosive devices.
This dedicated facility will advance our expertise in the investigation
of bombings and explosives-related crimes. The NCETR is ideally located
close to the Washington, DC, area, but remote enough to offer unlimited
opportunities for expansion and enhancement as the needs of the
Department require it.
ATF has found a unique niche with its delivery and cosponsorship of
an underwater explosives recovery course for State and local bomb
technicians and divers. ATF worked with the Edmond, Oklahoma, Police
Department to develop the course, which was established in response to
the growing number of investigations in which evidence either directly
or indirectly ended up in a body of water. The TWA Flight 800
investigation in July 1996 further justified the need to train law
enforcement/bomb squad personnel to recover fire- and explosives-
related evidence.
ARSON
One recent example of ATF's investigative work is the arson
committed in December 2004 in a neighborhood in Charles County,
Maryland. Our field agents investigated this crime scene, where 26
homes were damaged, ten of which were destroyed entirely. I visited
this enormous and complex crime scene, and I was stunned by the
devastation. ATF's state-of-the-art Fire Research Laboratory is
analyzing the evidence gathered. By investigating and solving these
crimes, 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.
The long-term, strategic goal of the arson program is to provide
effective investigative and technical expertise, rapid response,
assistance, and state-of-the-art training to reduce the impact of
violent crimes that involve 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 2004, ATF opened approximately 2,000 arson
investigations. I would like to address some of ATF's arson program
areas and assets, including the CFI program, the ATF Church Arson Task
Force, ATF's response to animal-rights extremists and environmental-
rights extremist fires, the ATF Fire Research Laboratory, and others.
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's 107 CFIs are based in 36 States and
provide support to the entire United States and its territories. ATF
CFIs responded to over 1,200 fires in fiscal year 2004.
ATF also investigates bombings and crimes of arson by environmental
and animal rights extremists using explosives and fire as their
weapons, such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth
Liberation Front (ELF). ATF estimates that property damage committed by
those groups in the past several years exceed $65 million. 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. In the past, many of the fires set by these
extremists have been set utilizing a particular methodology, and the
Arson and Explosives National Repository (AENR)--which has kept records
and intelligence on these acts for 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
2004, ATF responded to approximately 210 such fires and explosives
incidents. Out of that number, 88 of the fires were determined to be
incendiary: that is, set by human hands. Of the 210 fires, ATF
conducted the origin and cause investigation at 61 predominantly
African-American churches, six Hispanic churches, six temples, and six
mosques.
ATF works to prevent future incidents by documenting information
such as why an incident happened and what human factors were involved.
Lending additional credence to ATF's scene capabilities is the
expertise afforded by its fire protection engineers (FPEs), who are
ATF's experts in fire reconstruction and engineering analysis. Through
their contributions, lessons can be learned and safeguards can be
implemented if fire spread and fire progression are analyzed and
documented properly (e.g., fatalities that are due to smoke and heat).
These FPEs also provide technical advice and support to U.S. Attorneys
and testify as expert witnesses in the prosecution of criminal cases.
One of ATF's newer fire investigation resources is the Fire
Research Laboratory (FRL), 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.
ATF has profilers assigned to the National Center for the Analysis
of Violent Crime at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. The ATF
profilers analyze behavior characteristics of serial arsonists and
bombers and provide investigative suggestions to case investigators.
Although specializing in bombings and arsons, ATF profilers work on
other violent crimes such as murders. ATF recently added a position of
geographic profiler to its resources. This position is the first of its
kind in the United States. Geographic profiling is a relatively new
investigative tool being applied in serial crime investigations.
CRIMINAL DIVERSION OF ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO
ATF's goal as it relates to alcohol and tobacco diversion is to
reduce violent crime and prevent terrorism by preventing the illegal
domestic and international trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products.
To accomplish this goal, ATF is enforcing laws that prohibit the
diversion of alcohol and tobacco products, and providing Federal,
State, and local agencies with the tools needed to identify trafficking
schemes. From the hijacking of tractor trailer loads and cargo
containers of cigarettes, to the armed robbery of tobacco wholesalers
and distributors, to the smash and grab techniques at the retail level,
ATF has successfully investigated and prosecuted the criminals
involved.
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. 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, including those
involving the channeling of funds to Hezbollah, 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. The investigation of alcohol and tobacco crimes is unique
in that the penalties are not commensurate with the profits that can be
made.
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS: ATF'S DUAL ROLE
ATF's role in Federal firearms and explosives laws, with both
regulatory and enforcement responsibilities, is unique. 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 inspectors/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 5.5
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
international commerce against interference and interruption by
reducing hazards to persons and property arising from the misuse and
unsafe or insecure 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. Inspectors/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.
Approximately 580 of ATF's inspectors/investigators are assigned to
the field, and are responsible for inspections of FFLs and Federal
explosive licensees (FEL). They are responsible for working with the
population of 106,000 FFLs and over 12,000 FELs.
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 12,000 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 field inspectors/investigators are also responsible for
firearms licensee inspections. Day in and day out, these inspectors/
investigators ensure that FFLs follow appropriate guidelines and
procedures. Their work truly makes America safer by helping 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 all of 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.
ATF formulated its Explosives Threat Assessment and Prevention
Strategy, or ETAPS, in the spring of 2004. This strategy gives us the
opportunity to respond to changes in the explosives industry and the
society in which it operates. It is a dynamic process--we gather
information, evaluate it, plan programs in response to it, and evaluate
the results. By combining ATF's assets involving technical explosives
expertise, criminal and regulatory enforcement experience, and
partnership with industry and law enforcement, we are able to
continually assess risks and focus resources appropriately. It is
through this dynamic process that ATF is best prepared to accomplish
our vision of ``Working for a Safer and More Secure America Through
Innovation and Partnership.''
INTELLIGENCE/TECHNOLOGY
ATF recognized the opportunity to perfect intelligence support
internally and externally, and created an Office of Strategic
Intelligence and Information (OSII) last year. The new directorate,
headed by a new assistant director, ensures that ATF accomplishes its
missions and that our special agents and inspectors/investigators
receive the necessary information to disrupt criminal organizations and
individuals that threaten public safety. This arrangement aligns with
the E-Government aspect of the President's Management Agenda, the DOJ's
strategic goals relating to the enforcement of Federal laws and
protection of America against terrorism and violent crime, and the
Attorney General's priorities, including the Law Enforcement
Information Sharing Program and VCIT.
OSII's mission is to provide timely, accurate, and focused
intelligence through the collection and analysis of information, to
enhance decision-making for all Bureau customers. The creation of OSII
was a big step toward enabling ATF to put its information to the best
possible use. The intelligence process is a continuous loop in which
data are gathered, evaluated, and analyzed. Analytical reports are then
distributed to end users, including the source of the original
information. 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. The ultimate outcome of these efforts will be
better information to investigators, which could help prevent future
incidents.
ATF's laboratories are an invaluable resource in perfecting ATF
cases and in serving as a resource for State and local law enforcement.
ATF's 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. Whether
performing fire debris analysis, tool mark comparisons, explosives
scene evidence examinations, searching for the presence and comparing
identifiable latent fingerprints, or examining trace evidence from
crime scenes such as hair, paint, or fibers, the ATF's laboratory
personnel provide the finest laboratory service in the Federal
Government.
The NLC is also the home of the ATF National Firearms Examiners
Academy. Attendees from State and local law enforcement agencies attend
this rigorous 1-year program to become firearms and toolmark examiners,
qualified to confirm a ballistic link between two crimes and to analyze
firearms evidence. This program has become the benchmark for training
in this field. The NLC also houses the Fire Research Laboratory.
ATF is a valued 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 technically
evaluate 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, providing their technical expertise in identifying components
of IEDs. TEDAC has provided invaluable assistance to U.S. military and
intelligence personnel in preventing fatal detonations of IEDs and in
tracking down bombing suspects. This is a great example of how we are
working within DOJ to prevent terrorism, and contributing our knowledge
to a common goal.
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 the public.
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. Capable of responding within 24 hours to major explosives or
fire incidents, NRT members 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.
Deployed teams include highly trained special agent CFIs, CESs,
FPEs, forensic mappers, EEOs, and chemists. Intelligence and audit
support, and technical and legal advisors further complement the team.
The teams use state-of-the-art tools, including specialized response
vehicles, each equipped with forensic, computer, and crime scene
mapping equipment.
In its 25 years, the NRT has responded to nearly 600 fires and
explosive incidents, with 32 NRT callouts in fiscal year 2004 alone.
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. NRTs have investigated a
wide range of events, including the deadly fire at the Dupont Plaza
Hotel in Puerto Rico in 1986, in which 97 people were killed in less
than 12 minutes. Analysis of the quick and deadly spread of this fire
gave valuable information about fire protection measures that could
prevent such extensive loss of life in future buildings.
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
arrest warrants, search warrants, and buy/bust operations. These are
ATF's ``best of the best'' when it comes to tactical experts. The SRT
was called out 108 times in fiscal year 2004, and its expertise is
critical to our success in confronting crisis incidents.
ATF's explosives and accelerant detection canine program also plays
a critical role in ensuring public safety. 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. The canines can
detect explosives used in up to 19,000 known explosives compounds. Our
60-accelerant detection canines help to identify potential points of
origin at a fire scene. In addition to supporting local authorities,
the canines respond with the NRT and are used by ATF field offices on a
case-by-case basis. ATF-trained canines are also deployed to other
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
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.
INTERNATIONAL
ATF's expertise and efforts benefit not only Americans, but law-
abiding citizens worldwide. Through our international activities, ATF
employees are working to support American interests. As discussed
earlier, ATF provides post-blast and render safe training for U.S. and
coalition forces in Iraq and for the Iraqi National Police. ATF also
has special agents assigned to the Regime Crimes Liaison Office in Iraq
to assist in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes. Law
enforcement agencies worldwide use our firearms tracing capabilities to
gain additional information about crime guns. In fiscal year 2004, ATF
traced over 27,000 firearms for foreign law enforcement representing 50
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 450 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 24 times in response to fire and explosives incidents
since its inception in 1991, most recently to investigate a deadly fire
in Paraguay. ATF investigators quickly determined the cause and origin
of this fire, which claimed 456 lives.
Attache offices in Canada, Mexico, France, and Colombia support law
enforcement within those countries and help ATF achieve our firearms
and explosives missions. Our international work with IEDs provides
insight into the tools used by international terrorists, and this
information is critical to the protection of our homeland. With the
Department's support, I am examining ATF's international presence to
identify instances where a stronger international presence would help
reduce violent crime and reduce our Nation's vulnerability to
terrorism.
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.
ATF personnel are also included on U.S. delegations to the United
Nations, the Organization of American States, and the Group of Eight
when these bodies are negotiating instruments relating to firearms,
ammunition, and explosives. The Department of State values the
expertise ATF personnel bring to the delegations, which is crucial in
ensuring that treaties resulting from such negotiations include
effective measures to combat international trafficking and terrorist
access to these dangerous commodities. ATF participation is also
essential to ensure that binding international agreements do not
obligate the United States to implement policies that impose undue
burdens on sportsmen, firearms enthusiasts, and the firearms industry.
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 Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies; in fact, other Federal, State, and local agencies
consistently turn to ATF because of our expertise and our commitment to
partnerships.
We are proud to be part of the Department of Justice, and to
contribute our efforts toward reaching the Department's strategic
goals. We are participating in Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)
operations, and working to improve information sharing between
agencies. We share our expertise in firearms, explosives, and alcohol
and tobacco diversion, as part of our robust support for joint efforts
to counter the grave threat of terrorism. We make significant
contributions to the law enforcement community, and our presence within
the Department helps use the benefits we provide more effectively. This
transition has provided both financial and operational efficiencies,
which have improved effectiveness. Former Attorney General Ashcroft and
Deputy Attorney General Comey have provided invaluable support to ATF,
and this productive and supportive relationship is continuing with
Attorney General Gonzales.
As I mentioned, ATF contributes to the Department of Justice's
fight against terrorism through the JTTF program. Sixty-four ATF
personnel are assigned to JTTFs across the Nation, and others support
the remaining JTTFs as needed. ATF personnel assigned to JTTFs perform
multiple roles: they function as in-house experts on firearms and
explosives violations and on tobacco diversion; they act as liaisons
between the FBI and ATF at the local level on intelligence matters; and
they are a vital part of the joint investigative team that is truly the
backbone of the JTTF mission.
ATF fosters innovation and cooperation in the explosives
investigation community through its partnerships with other agencies,
through liaison efforts with the legal explosives industry, and through
research and development efforts. 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. Such agencies include the
Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Transportation
Security Administration, and others. ATF representatives also serve as
co-chairs and task managers on several research efforts funded through
the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG). The TSWG is administered by
the Department of Defense under the auspices of the National Security
Council. The principal mission of the TSWG is to conduct rapid
research, development, and prototyping of multiple use technologies for
law enforcement and military purposes. ATF also has collaborative
research 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 employees hold key positions in many prestigious professional
organizations. Since 1990, an ATF agent has chaired the Arson and
Explosives Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of
Police. Similarly, ATF has maintained outstanding relationships with
the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators,
the International Association of Arson Investigators, 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.
ATF leverages its resources to better inform, advise, and educate
its stakeholders and customers. In partnership with The Fertilizer
Institute, ATF's voluntary ``Be Aware for America'' campaign raises the
awareness of industry, law enforcement, and the public of the need for
vigilance in connection with the sale and security of ammonium nitrate.
This chemical mixed with fuel oil was used in the Oklahoma City
bombing. ATF later launched, again in partnership with The Fertilizer
Institute, the voluntary ``Be Secure for America'' campaign, which
focuses on the safe storage and transportation of ammonium nitrate.
STRATEGIC PLAN/JURISDICTIONS/VISION
ATF is striving every day to meet the strategic goals of the
Attorney General and Department of Justice: preventing terrorism and
promoting the Nation's security; enforcing Federal laws and
representing the rights and interests of the American people; and
assisting State, local, and tribal efforts to prevent or reduce crime
and violence.
With the Department's goals in mind, ATF created an internal set of
strategic goals consisting of the following: Preventing violent crime
and terrorist related crime involving firearms; providing effective
arson and explosives investigative and technical expertise to protect
the public from violent crime and terrorism; and preventing illegal
domestic and international trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products.
Firearms, explosives, and arson are the tools of terrorist groups
and ATF's role in firearms and explosives enforcement is significant in
the battle against terrorism. ATF, while working against violent
firearms crime, is also helping to prevent terrorism by monitoring and
investigating violations of the Federal firearms and explosives laws.
ATF is preventing violent crime through its own enforcement efforts and
its effective partnerships with other agencies.
ATF prides itself on its assistance to State and local law
enforcement agencies, supporting the third DOJ strategic goal to
``assist State, local, and tribal efforts to prevent or reduce crime
and violence.'' As discussed earlier, ATF makes a wealth of resources
available to State and local law enforcement agencies, including expert
investigators, ballistic comparison technology, and explosives incident
information.
ATF's jurisdictional responsibilities are directly related to
efforts to combat violent crime on America's streets. ATF, as the lead
Federal law enforcement agency fighting violent firearm crime, enforces
the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), the National Firearms Act, and other
related statutes. In section 101 of the GCA, Congress declared that its
primary purpose was to ``provide support to Federal, State, and local
law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence.''
I would note that the GCA section goes on to state that it is not
intended to ``place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or
burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition,
possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting,
trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful
activity . . .'' I want to assure the committee that ATF is mindful of
this provision while maintaining a vigorous enforcement of all Federal
firearms laws.
Mr. Chairman, ATF's dual role to enforce and administer Federal
explosives laws is unique. While ATF agents investigate bombings,
unlawful distributions of explosives, thefts of explosives, and other
violations of the Federal explosives laws, ATF inspectors/investigators
are carrying out the vital work of insuring the integrity of explosives
as they move through commerce. While other agencies may have the
resources to respond to and investigate explosives incidents, only ATF
regulates the legal explosives industry, and only ATF is responsible
for tracking and investigating explosives losses and thefts.
The Anti-Arson Act of 1982 gave ATF broad-based jurisdiction in
arson offenses. ATF's arson enforcement efforts are directed toward
preventing the crime of arson, providing effective post-incident
response, and reducing the community impact of crimes involving fire.
ATF enforces Federal laws related to alcohol and tobacco diversion, and
is applying its past experience in governing and regulating these
products of commerce to investigating the violent crimes that often
accompany diversion activity.
Even as we work to solve the problems of the present, we have
developed a strategic vision for the future. Pursuing this vision will
help us to remain an effective and respected law enforcement
organization while adapting to changing circumstances. We are working
on using what we know to its maximum effectiveness--sharing
intelligence information, ensuring that employees have the training and
technology to accomplish their work effectively, and communicating with
the public. We are focusing on working together--maintaining the
partnerships that sustain us, and ensuring that administrative actions
and personnel policies support ATF's fulfillment of its missions. And
we are growing with purpose--seeking out opportunities to expand our
contributions, focusing on prevention, and focusing our efforts
internationally as well as here at home. Abiding by these principles
will enable us to work most effectively and get the best results for
the American people.
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 some of the highest scores achieved 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 eighth, the highest of any law
enforcement agency.
With the continued support of the Department and this subcommittee,
we will continue to provide innovative management and personnel
projects such as the Pay Demonstration project. This program uses an
alternative to the General Schedule pay scale so that pay is more
directly based on performance. This program has allowed ATF to recruit
and retain technically skilled employees, especially those with
science-based skills and intelligence research capabilities.
We are also implementing a Bureau-wide telework program. We
recognize the many benefits of telework, including improved work
operations, better customer service, improved employee morale,
assistance with recruitment and retention efforts, and reduced traffic
on area highways. After two successful telework pilot programs in the
last 2 years, we recently conducted an analysis of all positions at
ATF, and concluded that 1,300 positions were suitable for telework.
Employees who occupy these positions have been notified that they may
apply for a telework arrangement. In the next few weeks, managers and
supervisors will review employee requests to telework, and begin
implementing telework agreements.
The ATF Headquarters building is being constructed here in
Washington, DC, and is promising to be a model of future Government
construction. The facility will combine security and advanced design
technology for an environmentally friendly and cost-effective facility.
ATF is scheduled to move to its new Headquarters in 2006.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR ATF
Congressional funding for ATF in past years is money well invested
in the safety of the American people. The President's Budget for fiscal
year 2006 requests $923,613,000 and 5,128 full-time equivalent (FTE)
positions. I believe these additional investments will provide
essential benefits to the American people.
One important new initiative will provide for the expansion of the
VCIT program I mentioned earlier. Because VCIT has proven so
successful, the Administration has requested $30.3 million and 150 FTEs
to establish a VCIT base in 10 additional cities that have experienced
an increase in armed violence in specific geographic areas or have not
followed the national trend of reduced homicides and armed violence.
Establishing a VCIT base in a total of 25 cities will offer more
Americans the opportunity to enjoy safer neighborhoods again.
Additional funding will also enable us to increase our
participation in TEDAC. Four ATF employees currently work with experts
from other agencies to identify components of IEDs. The $6 million will
provide two additional special agents to analyze the devices and to
continue intelligence support to law enforcement and military
organizations to work against the threat of terrorist IEDs.
The funds will also provide for the creation of a new database that
will record, inventory, and catalog IEDs used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This database would use association software to identify similarities
between explosives events and devices, and to match characteristics of
bombings/bombers in real time, including latent prints, DNA reports,
components of the explosives, and other forensic information. We will
have the ability to extract information from the database and share it
with State, local, and international law enforcement partners. The
development of the database would be a partnership led by DOJ's Chief
Information Officer and coordinated by ATF and the FBI.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Ms. 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 missions of reducing violent crime,
preventing terrorism, and protecting the public. And we look forward to
working with you to pursue this goal.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller.
Mr. Mueller. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski
and members of the subcommittee. I thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today in front of you for the first
time. I am sure it will not be the last.
My prepared statement sets forth the FBI's 2006 budget
request and the program areas in which we seek expansion, but
for purposes of my opening remarks, I would like to briefly
address two of the areas that I believe are most important to
the FBI's continuing success. The first is the progress we have
made in establishing the Directorate of Intelligence, and the
second is the improvement and expected improvement in our
information technology.
FBI deg.DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE
Let me spend a moment on establishing the Directorate of
Intelligence. In response to direction from the President and
the Congress, including the findings of the Joint Intelligence
Committee inquiry, the 9/11 Commission, and the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, we established the
Directorate of Intelligence earlier this year. This directorate
has clear authority and responsibility over all of our FBI
intelligence functions. This newly established directorate is
comprised of a dedicated headquarters element that sets policy
and direction to be carried out by all of our embedded
elements, and then with embedded intelligence entities in each
of our headquarters operational divisions, as well as embedded
intelligence entities in every one of our FBI field offices.
And these entities are called the field intelligence groups.
These field intelligence groups are central to the
integration of the intelligence cycle into our field
operations, and they include special agents, analysts, language
specialists, surveillance specialists, as well as officers and
analysts from other intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
They are responsible for coordinating, managing, and executing
all of the functions of the intelligence cycle and have
significantly improved the FBI's intelligence capabilities and
capacity.
Our efforts to date have focused on aligning our processes
with partners and customers outside the FBI and increasing our
intelligence production. We have had over the last year a 312
percent increase in the dissemination of intelligence
assessments and over a 200 percent increase in the
dissemination of intelligence information reports.
We have also made substantial progress over the last year
toward expanding and strengthening our intelligence workforce.
In fiscal year 2005 we initiated a plan to accelerate the
interviewing and processing of applicants residing in the
Washington, DC, and Baltimore region. We had a 1-week vacancy
announcement advertised in 2005 for analysts and it yielded
over 2,800 high-qualified applicants for the analyst position.
We have filled 533 of these positions to date, and have a
hiring objective of 880 analysts by the end of this year.
In order to continue to build on the progress we have made
to date, we are taking measures to assure a consistent level of
knowledge across our workforce, and we have instituted
mandatory training for analysts. We have also taken steps to
strengthen the special agent component of the workforce.
First, in this coming year we are establishing a clear path
that gives all agents experience in intelligence collection,
analysis, and dissemination. We also are building the capacity
of agents to develop specialized skills, experience, and
aptitudes in one of five areas including counterterrorism,
counterintelligence, and intelligence. We are making an
intelligence officer certification a prerequisite for
advancement to the senior supervisory ranks. All of this is
important and key to achieving full integration of the
intelligence operations with our law enforcement operations.
I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because if you look at many
of the requests that we have in this upcoming year, those
requests are supportive of our building this Intelligence
Directorate within the FBI. We continue to make progress in
strengthening this capability and we absolutely believe that
establishing this capability is instrumental to preventing
attacks in the future.
Let me add, as I discuss the Intelligence Directorate, a
note to say that we are currently reviewing the recommendations
of the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Commission. As you
know, the Commission recently completed its report and offered
a number of recommendations for the FBI as well as for the rest
of the intelligence community. The Commission's work makes a
significant contribution to understanding ways we can improve
our intelligence capabilities, and we are looking forward to
continuing to build and reform our national security program in
light of the Commission's recommendations, and I believe you
will find that a number of our requests in the 2006 budget are
supportive of that goal.
FBI deg.SENTINEL PROJECT
Let me turn for a second to the second area that I wish to
discuss, and that is information technology. We absolutely
recognize the importance of strong information technology as a
backbone if we are to effectively collect, analyze, and share
intelligence both within the FBI but also with our intelligence
and law enforcement partners.
Mr. Chairman, we are committed to delivering to the
desktops of the men and women of the FBI the enhanced
technology capabilities they need and deserve. I believe that
overall the Trilogy program was successful. I have before and
continue to acknowledge that the Virtual Case File aspect of it
was not successful. Yet our efforts to enhance our information
technology during the past several years have provided us with
a much improved understanding of program management as well as
technical expertise. We are in a much better position to shape
the FBI's next generation of electronic information management.
This next generation, as I believe you have noted, is called
SENTINEL and it remains one of my highest priorities.
This new system called SENTINEL is different from the
Virtual Case File Program in a number of ways. I believe you
have a chart that illustrates the additional capabilities that
will be available under SENTINEL, capabilities that were not
contemplated as a part of Virtual Case File when Virtual Case
File was on the drawing boards in 2000 and 2001.
And while I am, as I expressed here before, disappointed at
the time and effort and monies that were expended on Virtual
Case File without success, I do believe we have an opportunity
to provide our employees more of what they need to do their
jobs.
A major difference between SENTINEL, the new system, and
Virtual Case File is that SENTINEL represents our first step in
deployment of a service-oriented architecture, what is known in
the trade, I believe, as SOA. That means that SENTINEL will
serve as a platform for the gradual deployment of capabilities
and services needed by all FBI divisions. At the same time, we
will gradually roll out key technical services through the
SENTINEL program, such as automated work flow, search
capabilities, records and case management and reporting
protocols, rather than doing it through one massive flash cut-
over as was contemplated by Virtual Case File.
The service-oriented architecture will raise our business
practices to the next level by providing enhanced capabilities,
new services, and better efficiency, while also ensuring a
smooth transition from our legacy applications to a more state-
of-the-art technical platform. This special oriented
architecture will further support the FBI's mission by helping
manage our investigative, administrative and intelligence needs
while also improving ways to encourage information sharing
among our counterparts.
SENTINEL is a four-phase project, each phase developing a
stand-alone capability to our users. The phased rollout will
facilitate ease of user transition, training, deployment, and
support. Phase I will be ready for deployment approximately 12
months after the contract award date, which we expect to be
toward the end of this year. We have taken the first step in
the deployment strategies--I believe your staff has been
briefed--by selecting our contracting vehicle. Our next step of
the procurement process is to consider the proposals from
interested and qualified vendors.
I know a question that all would ask is what is the cost?
And let me try to give an answer that may at this point not be
altogether satisfactory in open session, but we have a cost
estimate. However, because of the procurement process and the
sensitivity of the procurement process, our preference would be
to discuss those with you off the record.
Let me just say, as we complete the remarks on the
technology, that I fully understand the scrutiny that is
necessary and appropriate to ensure that the SENTINEL Project
is successful from beginning to end, and we have implemented a
number of undertakings to ensure that that will be the case.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the
opportunity to testify before you today and to highlight the
importance of both the Directorate of Intelligence as well as
our plans for SENTINEL.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In closing, I will also refer to the comment that I believe
you may have made, that is, we are looking forward to working
with the new Director of National Intelligence, Ambassador
Negroponte. We expect to support him and his efforts in any way
we can. The expansion of our intelligence capabilities I
believe fits directly into what he anticipates he needs in
assuring that he is able to bring together domestic
intelligence with intelligence that is derived from overseas.
I also would be happy to answer any questions you have, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert S. Mueller, III
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today with Attorney
General Gonzales and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). I would first like to express my gratitude for the
continued support and guidance you have provided the FBI as we continue
our efforts to ensure that we are able to address current threats and
keep America safe from those who would do us harm. Specifically, I
would like to thank you for recently passing the fiscal year 2005
Supplemental, which included $74 million for the FBI. In addition to
including critical funding for the FBI's operations in Iraq, the
Supplemental will allow the FBI to improve its efforts at home in the
war on terrorism.
2006 BUDGET REQUEST
The FBI's fiscal year 2006 budget request totals 31,475 positions,
including 12,140 agents and 2,745 Intelligence Analysts, and $5.7
billion. This includes 2,086 new positions--615 agents, 508
Intelligence Analysts, and 963 support positions--and $496 million in
new investments to continue strengthening our Intelligence Program and
support our Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence activities. In
addition, the fiscal year 2006 budget request includes resources to
address the FBI's information technology and infrastructure
requirements. These resources are critical to the Intelligence,
Counterterrorism, and Counterintelligence Programs, as well as to our
traditional criminal investigative efforts, and maintain the support we
provide to our state, local, and tribal partners. The following
highlights critical areas of operations and support functions.
TECHNOLOGY
Since I last appeared before the Subcommittee in February of this
year, the FBI has taken significant steps in planning for our future
case management system. I want to take an opportunity to provide you
with an update on our plans, and proposed time-line.
The FBI's commitment to delivering enhanced technology capabilities
remains resolute. Our efforts with regard to the Trilogy Project
resulted in a better understanding of program management and technical
expertise. The lessons learned have resulted in changes that have
already facilitated successful programs, including the pilot testing of
VCF Initial Operating Capability (IOC), which concluded at the end of
March 2005. As a result of VCF IOC, we were able to gain user input
that will better direct the development and roll-out of future
capabilities. Additionally, lessons learned have better positioned us
to shape the FBI's next generation electronic information management
system, SENTINEL. Successful deployment of SENTINEL remains one of my
top priorities.
SENTINEL is different from the VCF program because it will serve as
a vehicle in which capabilities can be gradually deployed. We will
roll-out key technical services in phases, such as records and case
management capabilities, to smoothly transition into the new system
while retiring legacy applications. SENTINEL will raise our business
practices to a higher level of performance by providing enhanced
capabilities, new services and better efficiency. SENTINEL will further
encourage information sharing within the FBI and among our
counterparts.
The current planning has SENTINEL functions divided into four
phases, which will be incrementally developed and deployed. Each phase
will deliver stand-alone capabilities. The phases take into
consideration migration of legacy data and retirement of legacy
systems. An initial estimate for full development and implementation of
SENTINEL is 39 to 48 months. The first phase of the development is
estimated to begin late this calendar year. As I mentioned, SENTINEL
will replace a number of legacy applications, the most important of
which is the Automated Case Management System; other applications to be
replaced include: ASSET; Criminal Informant Management System; Bank
Robbery Statistical Application; Financial Institution Fraud and
Integrated Statistical Reporting Analysis Application. Additionally,
SENTINEL incorporates support for XML standards to facilitate internal
and external information sharing.
The total estimated cost of SENTINEL has not yet been finalized,
but would be distributed over two to four fiscal years. However,
development costs for each phase will be fully funded in the year in
which work begins on that phase.
DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE
At the direction of the Congress and President, the FBI has
established the Directorate of Intelligence. As required in the FBI's
fiscal year 2005 Appropriation legislation, the Directorate will lead
the FBI's integrated, dedicated national intelligence workforce--``A
Service within a Service.'' The guiding principle for FBI intelligence
is the integration of law enforcement and intelligence operations. To
achieve this integration, we use a management principle of centralized
management and distributed execution. The Directorate establishes
priorities, processes and policies for intelligence operations that are
executed by fully integrated intelligence elements in other
Headquarters offices and the Field. The priorities, processes, and
policies are fully aligned with those of the Attorney General, and the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI):
--This integrated intelligence service leverages our traditional law
enforcement culture--with particular attention to the pedigree
of sources and fact-based analysis--while ensuring no walls
exist between collectors, analysts, and those who must act upon
intelligence information.
--The term ``Directorate'' signifies that intelligence is not the
responsibility of one office or one division, but crosses
program lines and permeates all we are charged with doing.
--FBI intelligence professionals will integrate all partners--
particularly state, local and tribal law enforcement--into our
intelligence structures. Through joint operations in a shared
information space, we create a common view of the threat and a
clear understanding of our respective roles in countering the
threat.
The FBI's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes an enhancement
of $26 million for the Directorate of Intelligence. The resources would
strengthen three critical areas: program development; training; and
recruitment and retention. These areas have been identified as critical
to the success of our Intelligence Program.
We are requesting resources to continue restructuring and
integrating the enterprise-wide Intelligence Program, which would
enable us to centrally manage our core intelligence functions and
implement programs, standards, policies, and training for analysts
consistent with standards to be determined by the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI). This would also allow us to manage intelligence
requirements and intelligence collection activities in accordance with
national intelligence priorities, and to ensure that all intelligence
gathered and analyzed is disseminated to those who need it, both inside
and outside the FBI. Our efforts to date have focused on aligning our
processes with partners and customers outside the FBI, and increasing
our intelligence production. The FBI had a 312 percent increase in the
dissemination of intelligence assessments from calendar year 2003 to
2004, and a 222 percent increase in the dissemination of Intelligence
Information Reports during that same period.
--In order to ensure a consistent level of knowledge across the
workforce, we have instituted specialized training, which is
now mandatory for all FBI Intelligence Analysts. This year,
more than 150 analysts have received intelligence training and
our goal is to train at least 1,000 analysts by December 2005.
In addition, intelligence training has been incorporated into
new agent training. As directed in the FBI's fiscal year 2005
Appropriation, we are making additional improvements to expand
and enhance our training program, to include joint training
sessions with other members of the Intelligence Community,
creation of a fellows program to exchange staff with other
federal agencies and the private sector, and opportunities for
academic sabbaticals to pursue advanced degrees. Our fiscal
year 2006 request would enhance the basic intelligence analyst
course, and provide support for advanced Intelligence Analyst
training.
--We have made substantial progress towards expanding and
strengthening our intelligence workforce. As a result of our
hiring efforts, we have received overwhelming interest in the
Intelligence Analyst position. A one-week vacancy announcement
advertised in February 2005 yielded over 2,218 applicants. We
have hired 476 Intelligence Analysts through February and have
a hiring objective of 880 by the end of the year. The fiscal
year 2006 budget request includes resources to continue
recruitment and retention initiatives.
Finally, the FBI has integrated management of the Foreign Language
program within the Directorate of Intelligence. This integration aligns
foreign language and intelligence management activities and provides
for delivery of service across all program areas. At the end of
February 2005, there were 406 language specialists on-board. In
addition, we use the services of over 900 contract linguists. This
represents a 67 percent increase in the number of total linguists since
9/11. During calendar year 2004, our Language Services program reviewed
over 532,000 hours of audio and over 1.9 million pages of text in
support of the counterterrorism and counterintelligence missions. We
are requesting an enhancement of 274 positions and $26 million in
fiscal year 2006 to enhance the program's capacity in counterterrorism
and counterintelligence-related languages, and to integrate a permanent
staff of linguists within the National Virtual Translation Center.
COUNTERTERRORISM
The FBI is committed to defeating terrorists and preventing
terrorist attacks. We endeavor to deny terrorists and their supporters
the capacity to plan, organize, and carry out logistical, operational,
and support activities. In order to be successful, we must be able to
develop intelligence about their plans and disrupt their efforts. In
conjunction with our partners, we will pursue appropriate sanctions
against terrorists and their supporters. Success is dependent on
networked information technology systems and the capacity to manage and
share information effectively. Resources are also critical to the
mission. In fiscal year 2006, we are requesting an enhancement of 791
positions, including 468 agents, and $122 million for national security
field investigations.
A critical mission within the Counterterrorism Division is the
Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF). FTTTF was created in
response to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-2 (HSPD-2). The
mission of the FTTTF is to provide information that helps keep foreign
terrorists and their supporters out of the country or leads to their
exclusion, removal, surveillance, or prosecution. The FTTTF specializes
in combining public, proprietary and government data sources to support
the FBI's counterterrorism mission, including support to other U.S. and
international operations.
Current collaborative partners and key players include: FBI's
Counterterrorism Division--National Joint Terrorism Task Force; Central
Intelligence Agency; Department of Defense; DOD Counterintelligence
Field Activity; Department of State; and Department of Homeland
Security.
In February 2005, the FBI and DHS executed an agreement to provide
for the sharing of information from the US-VISIT and Student and
Exchange Visitor Information Systems (SEVIS) programs. As a result of
the agreement, the FBI will be able to retrieve and analyze all of the
biographic and biometric data on foreign travelers and students
collected in US-VISIT and SEVIS. FBI personnel will be able to access
this information through the Investigative Data Warehouse and FTTTF
databases, as well as through established user accounts at FBIHQ and
field office.
The agreement requires the FBI to verify information and coordinate
with DHS before taking action on leads or disseminating intelligence
products developed as a result of information under this shared
agreement. It also broadly provides the FBI authority to share US-VISIT
and SEVIS information as necessary with other federal, state and local
personnel.
TERRORIST SCREENING CENTER
The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) is a multi-agency effort
designed to consolidate the screening process for known and suspected
terrorists, and to provide for the appropriate and lawful use of
terrorist information. The TSC operates 24/7 to provide a unified
approach to terrorist screening. Through February 2005, TSC received
21,650 calls (over 3,500 from state and local law enforcement), made
over 11,300 positive identifications, and assisted in over 340
arrests--including six with a terrorism nexus. For fiscal year 2006, we
are requesting an increase of 61 positions, to include six Intelligence
Analysts and eight agents, and $75 million. These resources would
provide the TSC with the ability to not only continue fulfilling the
TSC's mission as mandated by Homeland Security Presidential Directive
6, but also begin to address the requirements generated by several
other initiatives--more stringent screening at United States borders,
new requirements for the government to screen passengers on domestic
and international flights without unduly delaying commerce or travel,
and ensuring organizations receiving public funds do not have terrorist
links. TSC projects that its workload will increase by up to 3 million
queries per day by fiscal year 2006.
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
As the lead counterintelligence agency in the United States, the
FBI is responsible for identifying and neutralizing ongoing national
security threats. In counterintelligence, we are alert to the potential
of a foreign power to penetrate the United States Intelligence
Community and to compromise Critical National Assets. We are also
deeply concerned about an agent of a hostile group or nation producing
or using weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the players in the
espionage game have diversified. We are no longer dealing exclusively
with intelligence agents. Today the threat can just as easily come from
students, business executives, or hackers.
OFFICE OF CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
In fiscal year 2006, we are also requesting an enhancement of $7
million to provide contract support for the Office of the Chief
Information Officer. With these resources, we will be able to better
ensure that disciplined processes are applied to our project management
activities and that our projects accurately reflect operational
requirements and our architecture standards while supporting our
information technology systems development and engineering.
INTEGRATED AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (IAFIS)
We appreciate the support you provided us for the Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) program in the
fiscal year 2005 Appropriation language. It allows us to move forward
with our plans to modernize our hardware and software to ensure
interoperability and increased information sharing with other agencies
through use of emerging technologies. In fiscal year 2006, we are
requesting an increase of $16.8 million for Next Generation IAFIS to
improve its speed and accuracy, allow for flat print capture, and
enhance the Criminal History Record Information Database. These
initiatives will support both our state and local partners and the
security of our nation's borders.
LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLINE (LEO)
We are also focused on developing technology to promote information
sharing with our state and local law enforcement partners. The FBI is
requesting an increase of $8 million to upgrade the Law Enforcement
Online (LEO) network with cost effective solutions to accommodate law
enforcement user and content growth, and to conduct annual security
audits, reviews, and technology assessments to ensure LEO remains
compatible with emerging technologies and customer needs. As of March
1, 2005, LEO supported over 41,000 users. In addition to the current
LEO user base, there are approximately 17,000 Regional Information
Sharing System users who have the ability to access LEO. During fiscal
year 2004, the FBI added more than 4,000 National Alert System, or NAS,
users. NAS provides immediate notification regarding crisis events.
OVERSEAS COOPERATION
International cooperation has been, and will continue to be,
crucial to effectively prevent and disrupt terrorist networks. We are
continuing to develop foreign partnerships through expansion of our
Legal Attache program. Currently, we have 51 Legal Attache offices
open, covering over 200 countries around the world, supporting our
efforts to neutralize transnational threats. We anticipate opening
three additional Legal Attache offices by the end of this year: Kabul,
Afghanistan; Sofia, Bulgaria; and Sarajevo, Bosnia. In fiscal year
2006, we are requesting an enhancement of 60 positions and $11 million
for the Legal Attache program and related information technology
infrastructure requirements. We propose to open one new office and to
enhance our presence in several existing critical locations. Augmenting
the Legal Attache presence overseas will provide an operational benefit
by reducing the span of control of affected offices, resulting in more
manageable workloads to address terrorist and criminal investigations.
Foreign law enforcement cooperation is a central ingredient in fighting
the international war on terrorism, and an effective Legal Attache
program is essential to maintaining our success in this area.
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
The last few years have seen rapid reorganization and expansion of
our organization. We have undergone much change and hired many new
personnel. One of our highest priorities has been maintaining the
strength of our workforce. We conducted a study in 2004 to improve the
hiring process of support personnel. The study's recommendations
included streamlining several business practices and realigning
resources to more effectively execute our hiring efforts. The majority
of these recommendations are in the process of being implemented. For
fiscal year 2005, we have initiated a plan to accelerate the
interviewing and processing of applicants residing in the Washington,
DC and Baltimore region for the FBI's top priority programs, including
the Directorate of Intelligence, in an effort to achieve this year's
hiring goals.
As we expand our hiring, our training capacity must improve as
well. In fiscal year 2006, we are requesting $15 million to continue
addressing the more pronounced deficiencies at the FBI Academy. We need
to ensure that our facilities at the FBI Academy are suitable for
training agents and Intelligence Analysts, as well as maintaining our
support of the National Academy. Quantico provides training to an
average of 1,500 intelligence and law enforcement personnel each day.
We are renovating and modernizing our facilities in order to meet the
demands of our new intelligence-driven training initiatives.
As part of our initiative to improve physical infrastructure and
support the counterterrorism mission, we are requesting $10 million in
construction funding to conduct architectural and engineering studies
for a new Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) facility. The funding
would also be available for the purchase of land once a suitable
location is found. A new complex would provide for adequate training
space, and would allow CIRG's executive management, command and
control, and crisis response elements to be centralized in one
location.
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION
We are also continuing to enhance our Criminal Program. In 2004, we
realigned our program structure. The realignment maximizes the
effectiveness of resources, mirrors actual work processes, focuses on
threats from criminal enterprises, and promotes the collection,
exchange and dissemination of intelligence throughout the FBI and other
authorized agencies. In fiscal year 2004, we reported more than 21,000
arrests, 15,000 indictments, and 16,000 convictions. The focus of the
Criminal Investigative Program is in areas where we provide a unique
skill and provide a critical contribution to law enforcement.
We have placed additional emphasis on targeting violent gangs.
Gangs and other criminal enterprises operating in the United States and
throughout the world pose increasing concerns for the international law
enforcement and intelligence communities. Today, gangs are more
violent, more organized and more widespread than ever before. They pose
one of the greatest threats to the safety and security of all
Americans. The Department of Justice estimates there are approximately
30,000 gangs with 800,000 members, impacting 2,500 communities across
the United States. The innocent people in these communities face daily
exposure to violence from criminal gangs trafficking in drugs and
weapons, gangs fighting amongst themselves to control or extend their
turf and their various criminal enterprises, which pose a significant
threat.
In response to the threat, we have developed the National Gang
Strategy. Priority is given to efforts to disrupt and dismantle gangs
that are national in scope. One of the first to be targeted is MS-13, a
violent gang that originated in Los Angeles and has spread across the
country. We have created a National Gang Task Force specifically to
address MS-13. We are establishing a new National Gang Intelligence
Center (NGIC) at FBI headquarters, which has been made possible through
resources the Congress provided this year. The NGIC will collect
intelligence on gangs from across the United States, analyze this
intelligence, and disseminate it to help law enforcement authorities
throughout the country plan and execute strategies to prevent further
gang activity and violence.
The FBI views identity theft as a significant and growing crime
problem, especially as it relates to the theft of consumer information
from large wholesale data companies. Identify theft has emerged as one
of the dominant white-collar crime problems of the 21st century. The
FBI opened 889 investigations related to identity theft in fiscal year
2004. That number is expected to increase as identity thieves become
more sophisticated and as the crime is further embraced by large
criminal organizations, placing more identity theft crime within FBI
investigative priorities. Identify theft crosses all program lines and
is usually perpetrated to facilitate other crimes such as credit card
fraud, check fraud, mortgage fraud, and health care fraud. At present,
the FBI has over 1,600 active investigations involving some aspect of
identity theft.
The National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) is under the control of
the Criminal Division's Crime Against Children Section and the Criminal
Justice Information System (CJIS). As directed by Congress, the FBI
maintains a national database to track the whereabouts and movements of
sex offenders. The foremost goal of the Registry is to prevent sexual
offenders from committing further sex crimes and protecting the public,
and the NSOR is a critical tool that is educating and protecting the
public and children from harm. The system uses an FBI number to connect
information in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) to existing
criminal history information in the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS). In order for this to occur, the
convicted offender must have a preestablished FBI criminal history
record, which can be based on any prior arrest. Recent murders of
innocent children have highlighted the need to make the public even
more aware of the NSOR, which is available as a link from the FBI's
website, fbi.gov, and state and local government agencies.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and Members of the Subcommittee,
the FBI's overriding priority has been protecting America by preventing
further terrorist attacks. The FBI has made many significant changes,
and will continue to adapt to protect our country. We have reorganized
from an agency whose primary focus was law enforcement into an integral
member of the Intelligence Community. The men and women of the FBI are
its greatest asset. Working together, Special Agents, analysts,
scientists, managers, and support employees attack threats as a team,
with a unified determination to protect our country and our civil
liberties.
Once again, I thank you for your strong support of the FBI. It will
be my pleasure to answer any questions you may have.
IDENTITY THEFT
Senator Shelby. Attorney General Gonzales, I understand
that some of the Department of Justice's travel card accounts
may have been compromised recently. Can you describe your
efforts as they relate to stealing and compromise of account
and other personal information? In other words, what are you
doing at the Justice Department in helping to stop identity
theft?
Attorney General Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, identity theft is
regrettably one of the fastest growing crimes in our country.
One of the consequences, regrettably, of our growing technology
and the use of the Internet is making it easier for those with
bad intentions to engage in identity theft.
The Department's approach is basically three-prong. The
first is enforcement. In connection with that, of course, there
was legislation recently passed, the Identity Theft Penalty
Enhancement Act, which imposes additional penalties above and
beyond penalties related to the underlying criminal conduct,
such as credit card fraud. The past few years we have engaged
in some major sweeps around the country, but clearly, more
needs to be done.
Second, in relation to that, we are engaged in a very
strong educational program providing training to State and
local officials, and providing education to the public, to tell
them what is possible, what can possibly be done by these
criminals, and what good God-fearing citizens can do to protect
their assets.
The final component, of course, is to continue to look to
see whether or not additional legislation is necessary or
appropriate to deal with this threat. We obviously are very
concerned about it. I am committed to working with the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I know for Mike Chertoff
this is a security issue, the fact you have people that are
able to take the identity of someone else. It does create a
security issue for this country, and we are committed to
working with DHS to try to address this problem.
Senator Shelby. It is involving billions of dollars, is it
not?
Attorney General Gonzales. It is a massive problem, yes,
Mr. Chairman.
NATIONAL REGISTRY WEBSITE FOR SEX OFFENDERS
Senator Shelby. Shift to another area. According to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, there are
549,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. These
are people who have been convicted of preying on our families
and especially our children. They are largely unknown. They
have a high rate of recidivism. It is estimated that nearly
100,000 sex offenders do not register, fail to update the
information, or have just disappeared.
Last Friday the Department of Justice, under your
leadership, announced the creation of a national registry
website for sex offenders. Could you discuss that just a little
bit, and how is this website different from sites currently
operated by the Bureau, FBI, and the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, and will people be able to enter a name
and the site will search all of the sites it is linked to? How
will it work, in other words, Mr. Attorney General?
Attorney General Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
Department saw a need to try to provide additional information
to the public about sex offenders who may possibly be within
their neighborhoods, and there were too many families crying
out for information in order to protect their kids. We took
existing technology with existing information on the websites
of States and territories who require registration of sex
offenders, and provided a vehicle free of charge for any
American who has access to the Internet to simply type in a
name, a precinct, a county, a ZIP code, a State, and able to
pull up the names of all registered sex offenders within that
scope.
It relies upon State databases, and for that reason,
obviously, we are dependent upon the information----
Senator Shelby. Are they interoperable?
Attorney General Gonzales. Pardon me?
Senator Shelby. Will the databases be interoperable?
Attorney General Gonzales. Absolutely. We rely upon the
States' information, and, therefore, we are dependent upon the
accuracy of the information within the State. The beauty from
my perspective is that it does rely upon existing technology.
The cost is minimal. We have existing funds from 2005 and 2006
to operate this facility, and obviously we will look for ways
to find additional funding for future years. But in my
judgment, it is a good start in providing additional
information to families.
EXPLOSIVES FEE
Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, the budget request
proposes a $120 million fee increase that I mentioned earlier
on the explosives industry. What is your schedule for getting
this authorization through Congress? Has the authorizing
language for the fee been transmitted by the administration?
And if not, when will it be transmitted?
Attorney General Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what
the schedule is, but I will find out and get that information
to you. Let me just say that with respect to the administration
of fees, it has been longstanding administration policy that in
appropriate circumstances there should be fees charged in
connection with the administration of certain laws, and this
would be one such example. But I will get that information to
you as quickly as I can.
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING
Senator Shelby. I think I mentioned it and Senator Mikulski
did, too. The funding for State and local law enforcement, the
proposed cuts here, a lot of us believe they are critical
partners in homeland security, the war on terrorism, law
enforcement and so forth. How do you justify the funding cut
there, Mr. Attorney General? I know it is a tough budget deal.
Attorney General Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, the budget does
reflect some very tough decisions. There are priorities within
this administration, one priority being, of course, the
protection of this country. And then we have other priorities,
and regrettably, there may be some good programs that we just
do not have enough money to fund. And so the budget reflects
some tough decisions.
With respect to State and local law enforcement, let me
first begin by emphasizing that we understand and appreciate
the importance of cooperation and coordination with State and
local officials. We cannot be successful unless we have the
help of State and local officials in addressing not just
terrorism, but other crimes in this country.
There are various reasons why certain programs may be cut,
irrespective of whether or not they are actually good programs.
For example, we may discontinue funding because the objective
of the initial funding may have been met, such as the COPS
program, where initially that was a program created to put
100,000 cops on the street. We met that objective.
Second, some programs reflect a one-time grant and,
therefore, they are not funded again.
Third, a program, quite frankly, may not score well with
respect to the OMB standards about whether or not a particular
program can justify continued funding.
And, finally, there is a longstanding administration policy
to sort of discourage funding of programs that are not
competitively bid, that are sort of earmarked. And so there are
a variety of reasons why certain programs may receive
discontinued funding.
Now, with respect to cuts to State and local law
enforcement, let me just emphasize there is a tremendous
increase in the budget within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to provide monies to first responders. Some
might argue, well, those are monies that will not find their
way to the cops on the streets. But, in truth, many of the
monies will be spent on resources and technology, computers
that can be shared by first responders, and by the beat cop.
And so I think it is not a fair assertion to look at the monies
cut out of these programs and say that the administration is
somehow not providing resources to State and local officials.
We are finding other ways to do it, and obviously we are
working as hard as we can to be more efficient in the monies
that we continue to provide to State and locals, which is a
significant amount. But the bottom line is this budget does
reflect some very tough decisions.
PRISON CONSTRUCTION RESCISSIONS
Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, how do you justify
ignoring this subcommittee's direction regarding prison funding
by rescinding funding for two prison construction projects? And
in your view, does the budget request support the real needs of
the Federal prison system? It continues to grow. It is
overcrowded.
Attorney General Gonzales. It does continue to grow, and it
is a serious problem. It does require us to become more
efficient. We are looking at finding ways to be more efficient
by consolidating facilities, by looking to create prisons that
are not stand-alone facilities but are located in proximity to
other Federal facilities so that we can share resources.
The prisons that we are contemplating to retire are very
old facilities. They are minimum-bed facilities. We had the bed
space available with respect to minimum security beds in other
prisons. We are committed, if these prisons are retired, to
ensure--we will do our best to make sure that the people that
are working there have the opportunity to find a job in other
facilities.
If you look at the age of the facilities and what it would
cost to renovate these facilities and provide additional needed
infrastructure, we believe it simply makes more sense to retire
these facilities as opposed to continue to try to fund to keep
these facilities open.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
NATIONAL REGISTER FOR SEXUAL PREDATORS
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want my first
round of questions to be directed at Mr. Gonzales, unless it is
appropriate for Mr. Mueller to come in, and then in my second
round to talk about the FBI.
Mr. Gonzales, I am so pleased in your national budget you
are talking about how to protect children, and women and
children. I want to pick up on one question with the National
Register for Sexual Predators.
I am so pleased that you have established this registry.
This is an enormous threat to our own community. In Maryland,
we have had children die because of sexual predators. Also,
most recently we have had them lurking around schools and
playgrounds again, and parents need tools that they can use, as
well as local crime watch.
Could I just understand, if I type in a zip code or a
parent types in a zip code, would then the registry show the
name of the predator, the convicted predator, and the address
of the predator?
Attorney General Gonzales. That is my understanding,
Senator. You would get that information. Again, the way this
has been structured, we can do it fairly quickly because we are
relying upon information that currently already exists in
databases of States and territories. We are dependent upon the
information that is within the State databases. But you would
get that information.
Senator Mikulski. It will come back to the State databases
because the Federal funds go to State and local law
enforcement, which I know many of my other colleagues will
focus on. In the interest of time, I am going to stick with the
children's issue.
This is a really big issue, and we thank you for your
leadership. We were so dismayed to hear our colleague, Senator
Schumer, bring to our attention that Medicaid is now paying for
Viagra for these predators. What a despicable thing. What a
ripoff of the taxpayer. And we hope that the Department of
Health and Human Services is going to take action on this, and
we look forward to your working together on this.
I would like to compliment your office as well as the FBI
on the leadership it has taken to protect children not only in
their community but virtually in what we would call the virtual
playground. And we are so pleased that it was the FBI through
its project called Innocent Images, started in Maryland because
of the death of a child in Maryland, that has really been
standing sentry on the sexual predators on the Internet, a
despicable situation. And as we fight our global war against
terrorism, there are many predators that pose threats in our
communities, so we want to encourage the ongoing efforts to
have these efforts to protect our children in our neighborhood
as well as on Innocent Images. And when you come back, Mr.
Director, we would like to know that is not being shortchanged.
VICTIMS OF CRIME
Then let me go to the victims of crime. While we see how we
are trying to protect, we are concerned very much about the
cuts in the victims of crime assistance. Could you share with
us what this one--because we see what is happening. Most
recently, the little girl that was found buried alive, an 8
year old, after she had been raped and buried alive, thanks
again, local law enforcement found her. The murder of the girl
that was trying to get out of a gang life who was stabbed 16
times. We have these terrible victims of crime, and yet there
is a rescission here in the victims of crime program.
Could you tell us--the Crime Victims' Fund, as I understand
it, is paid for fees collected from convicted criminals. I
believe the money should be made available to victims. Number
one, will that money be made available? And, number two, with
the rescission of $1.3 billion from the Victims of Crime Fund,
what services will be either eliminated or diluted?
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, let me----
Senator Mikulski. Because we have got to really think about
these victims.
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I do think about the
victims. Attending several victims ceremonies recently in
connection with Victims' Rights Week, I heard their stories and
I really understand that we have an obligation. The Department,
I believe, has a very strong obligation to look out for the
rights and the interests and the concerns of victims. I care
about them very, very deeply.
I would remind you, of course, that the President feels the
same way, and he advocated a constitutional amendment with
respect to victims' rights.
Our budget request does lift the cap on spending out of the
Crime Victims Fund from $620 million to $650 million. So we
view it as an increase in terms of spending for victims'
rights.
Now, we have requested a rescission of prior year unspent
balances. As you know, because of the way our budget process
works, that amount gets rolled over from year to year. We just
felt it was a more straightforward way of dealing with this
budget issue, but it does not, in my judgment, reflect
lessening of a commitment to victims' rights. In looking at the
receipts, it appears that the receipts will be sufficient to
maintain the level of funding that we have come to expect with
respect to this fund. Again, this just reflects a budgetary
decision.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Gonzales, I don't question your
commitment, but I am here as an advocate, not an accountant.
And my question is: If you rescind close to $1 billion, what
does that mean? That you had a pile-up of money from collecting
funds from these convicted criminals, that you did not spend
it? And shouldn't this be rolled over then and more direct
assistance to the victims as well as other kinds of programs?
Attorney General Gonzales. You are correct, it was a pile
of money that was collected, fees, that could not be spent
because there were caps placed upon it. Therefore, it could not
be spent, and it kept rolling over from year to year.
Senator Mikulski. Why couldn't it have been spent? There
was not enough ``demand'' by the victims?
Attorney General Gonzales. I don't know if it is a question
of demand, Senator. It is a question of this was a cap imposed
by the Congress and agreed to by the administration, and there
was--I think it was to provide some level of certainty because
the fact that the level of fees collected year to year varied,
and there was a decision to provide some level of certainty as
to how much money would be spent every year, and so the
decision was made as to what the cap should be. And as I have
indicated, we propose raising the cap from $620 million, which
it had been, to $650 million.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I think what I am trying to
understand, then, is why did the money pile up. Number two,
what is a better use of the money?
I know my time has expired, and perhaps we could have that
in more detail from your Department so that, number one, we
really are on the side of the victims. And we will come back to
some other issues on that.
Attorney General Gonzales. We would be happy to try to get
your more information about that, Senator. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Crime Victims Fund--Why Did the Money Pile Up and What is a Better Use
for the Money?
The Fund is set up as a separate account in the United
States Treasury with deposits coming predominantly from
criminal fines; the proceeds of forfeited appearance bonds,
bail bonds, and collateral, special forfeitures of the
collateral profits of crime proceeds retained in an escrow
account for more than 5 years, and penalty assessments for
federal misdemeanor and felony convictions. Money is collected
and deposited in the Fund account in one year and made
available for obligation the succeeding fiscal year. Hence,
money deposited into the Fund in fiscal year 2005 will serve as
the source of funding for programs in fiscal year 2006. The
collection and deposit period runs from October 1 through
September 30 of a given fiscal year.
For the last several years, both Congress and the
Administration have proposed to control the level of
expenditures made from the Crime Victims Fund (CVF) by imposing
an obligation limitation. The fiscal year 2006 President's
Budget continues to propose a cap on the CVF, as it is
necessary to ensure a more continuous level of service provided
by the partners in the field. Any collections in excess of the
cap for a given year are carried forward into the following
year, which is how collections have accumulated in the Fund.
The fiscal year 2006 budget proposes to rescind these
accumulated balances. The accumulated balances are due to
exceptionally large collections that have occurred in recent
years. As to a better use of the money, collections should be
used for the purposes for which they are authorized, to provide
assistance and compensation to victims of crime. The
Administration's proposal simply seeks to end the current
practice in which unspent balances are carried forward into the
next fiscal year, creating a discretionary budget ``offset''
that permits spending for other, unrelated activities.
Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy, Senator Stevens is going to
yield to you right now.
Senator Leahy. I appreciate that. I appreciate my friend
from Alaska. I have to be on the floor.
Attorney General, I am troubled by your answer to Senator
Mikulski. Are you concerned about the victims of crime? I am
sure you are. You and I have discussed this before. I have no
doubt of your sincerity. But we can talk about, well, we are
going to raise the limits, we are going put more money, we are
going to do this, that, and the other thing for the victims of
crime. But this money is from criminal fines, forfeitures,
assessments. It does not come from the American taxpayers. And
you are zeroing out the fund. At the end of fiscal year 2007
there will be no money left. The administration's fiscal year
2006 budget proposal would siphon off all the funds. You know
and should know full well that as we put together--and these
have all been bipartisan efforts to put together these victims'
funds--and suddenly the money is zeroed out, it has this
chilling effect all the way down the line. The victims'
programs are not going to be funded. People are going to say
there is no money there. Sure, the money is rolled over. Sure,
the money is rolled over each year. That is what the Congress
wanted the money to do, to roll over each year, because new
programs are coming online, whether it is in your State of
Texas, my State of Vermont, Director Mueller's State of
California, or anywhere else. They are coming online. Our
country is growing all the time. Unfortunately, there are more
victims of crime all the time.
I would hope that you and the administration would go and
review this again because it creates in my mind a somewhat
chilling effect. We can talk about how we all want to raise the
caps on these, but if the money is gone, it does not make any
difference.
FBI deg.COST OF SENTINEL
Director Mueller, I am concerned about your testimony on
the cost of SENTINEL, the Virtual Case File replacement. We
have been unable--our staff, including staff cleared for
security matters, has been unable to get an estimate of what
this is going to cost. You suggest we might do this in a
closed-door hearing. Frankly, I get kind of worried because for
years we were unable to get estimates on a virtual case file,
even in testimony here. A few days later we find out how much
was wasted, how badly it went down the drain. I think you are
going to find that many of us want to get those briefings, and
I would suggest that stonewalling staff up here is not the way
to do it.
FBI deg.FBI SEARCH OF TERRY NICHOLS' HOUSE
But my question to you in the time I have is: On March 31--
and I happened to notice this date because it was my birthday--
FBI agents acting on a tip searched the house where Terry
Nichols lived just before the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah
Federal Building in April 1995, 10 years ago, one of the worst
acts of domestic terrorism on our soil.
So 10 years later, 10 years after the fact, 10 years after
the time Terry Nichols was in jail, the FBI searched his house
and they found blasting caps and other explosive materials
apparently related to the bombing. Ten years?
Mr. Mueller. I would be happy to explain that, Senator.
Senator Leahy. I would love to hear the explanation because
I understand that they took--an informant gave them a tip. He
failed a lie detector test. To have a lie detector test be the
determining factor on something like this--yes, go ahead and
explain it.
Mr. Mueller. Well, first of all, let me clarify that we are
not stonewalling your staff, Senator. We have not. We would be
happy to provide you with the briefings. As I told you before,
in terms of the cost, we have estimates now. The reason for not
putting it in public is because there are certain procurement
sensitivities that are involved. But we are happy to provide
you the briefings that you request, and I do believe we have
provided them in the past, certainly with regard to the outline
of the SENTINEL program.
With regard to the explosives that were found in Terry
Nichols' house, we did search the house way back. In fact,
there were a number of searches of the house during the course
of the investigation.
Senator Leahy. You were not the Director at that time.
Mr. Mueller. I was not, but I know that there were searches
of the house back in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. We
did get an informant or a tip that came from Nichols, as to
where additional explosives were buried. We followed up on
that, and we found that they were buried under the house, under
the earth under the house where they would not have been easily
found in the previous searches. It took the additional
information by way of Nichols to identify the location of these
particular explosives, and we followed through on that tip and
found them.
Senator Leahy. How long after getting the tip was the
search made?
Mr. Mueller. I would have to check. I am not certain of the
timeframe.
Senator Leahy. I think it was a few weeks, but feel free to
provide that for the record.
Mr. Mueller. We will.
[The information follows:]
Timeframe for Locating Explosives in the Former Home of Terry Lynn
Nichols in Herington, Kansas on March 31, 2005
On March 1, 2005, the Bureau of Prisons contacted the FBI
Denver Field Office regarding information it obtained from an
inmate about explosives under the former home of Terry Lynn
Nichols. On March 4, 2005, the inmate failed an FBI polygraph
exam regarding this information. Although the inmate did not
pass the polygraph examination, the FBI continued to review and
investigate the information. Additional detailed information
about the location and alleged existence of the explosives was
received on March 11, 2005, from an FBI source from another FBI
Field Office. Based upon the information provided by the
sources, the FBI continued to investigate the allegations to
determine their veracity. The investigation included, but was
not limited to, locating the home and its owner, and obtaining
permission to search the premises. On March 31, 2005, the
buried cache of explosives was successfully recovered without
incident and forwarded to the FBI Laboratory for analysis.
INNOCENCE PROTECTION ACT
Senator Leahy. In October 2004, the Congress passed and
then the President signed the Justice for All Act that had the
Innocence Protection Act, the IPA, which I authored. And,
Attorney General, at your confirmation hearing you said that
you would work with us on IPA, on the Innocence Protection Act.
The Innocence Protection Act authorized a total of $375
million for this program over a 5-year period. This was
carefully worked out over months, actually years of
negotiations, by everybody from Chairman James Sensenbrenner
and Majority Leader Tom DeLay, to myself, to others. We wanted
to have effective systems for appointing counsel in death
penalty cases. The President, the White House was involved. The
President was happy to sign it and stated it when he stepped
forward and was to sign it. But now we find that the
administration has proposed zero funding on this, and they are
trying to figure out a new program, ignoring the work of
Republicans and Democrats in both bodies, across the political
aisles, across the political spectrum, on a bill the President
signed.
Is this a sign to us don't bother to try to form bipartisan
coalitions, don't bother to work with this administration,
don't bother to work with you or anybody else, because we will
just zero it out? I am somewhat troubled, as you may have
noticed.
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, sir. I would not describe
it in that fashion. We obviously care very much, the President
cares very much about ensuring that those who are facing the
death penalty have adequate representation.
Senator Leahy. I am talking about the IPA. The Innocence
Protection Act was part of the bill that the President signed,
which has now been zeroed out for the money that was
authorized.
Attorney General Gonzales. I thought you were talking about
providing lawyers in connection with----
Senator Leahy. I am talking about the program that the
Congress, after years of work, of hearings, put together,
signed into law by the President, is now in law, has been
basically zeroed out by the administration, and you are
basically inventing a new program.
Attorney General Gonzales. I am sorry. I misunderstood you,
Senator. I think that the President--this is the DNA
initiative, Senator?
Senator Leahy. Yes.
Attorney General Gonzales. Okay.
Senator Leahy. And zeroed out the part that we had in there
on capital cases.
Attorney General Gonzales. The President has a DNA
initiative that was announced and funded prior to the enactment
of the Justice for All Act. It has been successful, and it has
worked, and we believe that this is the way to deal with
ensuring that we provide resources and training so that we can
use DNA to clear up the backlog of DNA cases----
Senator Leahy. Everybody here supports that. I am one of
the ones that helped get the funding for that program, so that
is not the question. We all want to clear up the backlog in
DNA. It is going to help our prosecutors. It is going to help
our defense counsel. I am talking about the Justice for All Act
with the Innocence Protection part that was carefully
negotiated by Republicans and Democrats, signed into law, and
is now being zeroed out.
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, the position of the
Department is that the President's DNA initiative is a better
way to deal with this problem, and we can do it in a way that
requires less money and can be more effective in dealing with
the issues relating to the use of DNA.
Senator Leahy. So basically you are saying ignore what we
did in the Congress and the law the President signed with great
fanfare and praise.
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, we believe that the
most effective way to deal with this is with respect to the
decisions made to fund the DNA initiative announced by this
President.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Stevens.
NATIONAL SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY
Senator Stevens. First let me agree with the Senator from
Maryland. We do have this National Sex Offender Registry, and
that is supposed to help us keep track of these people so that
parents can help protect their children from harm. Is there a
requirement that these people continue to report their changes
in address? There seems to be a policy that these people can
just sort of disappear and show up in new communities. How does
that happen?
Attorney General Gonzales. They have an obligation to
report, Senator. As you might expect, these are criminals and
some people do not abide by the rules. And so part of our
charge is to try to identify when people move and identify
where they are.
Senator Stevens. Is the law strong enough? Shouldn't we put
through a provision that says that if they don't report, they
go back to jail?
Attorney General Gonzales. I don't know what the law
requires at this time. It may already have such a requirement,
but if it does not, I think that would be something that we
should be looking at.
Senator Stevens. I would tell the Senator from Maryland, I
would be pleased to join in such a provision to strengthen
that.
USA PATRIOT ACT
Let me ask you as a former U.S. attorney about the PATRIOT
Act. It expires at the end of this year, and in my judgment, in
terms of things we have seen in terms of the working
relationship between agents and making available intelligence
without chimneys, it is working very well. Are you seriously
urging the Congress to extend the PATRIOT Act?
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I agree with you. I
think the PATRIOT Act has been effective in protecting America,
and I think it reflects a careful balance of protecting our
country and respecting our civil liberties and the privacy
rights of all Americans.
There are 16 provisions that are set to expire at the end
of this year. We have had a good debate about how this
Department has exercised those authorities. I think the record
shows that the Department has been very careful in the use of
these authorities. I think the record also shows that the Act
has been effective and, therefore, in my judgment, the PATRIOT
Act is deserving of reauthorization.
Senator Stevens. When the Defense Subcommittee traveled to
Iraq, we interviewed some people there who were multinational
and multiagency people who had really functioned extremely well
because of the PATRIOT Act. I think you ought to bring some of
those people in and have them testify to Congress and tell us
how that act has changed their lives and increased their
ability to track down terrorists and to bring them to justice.
It seems to me that there should be no opposition to extending
that act and continuing to give that authority to the people
who are really trying to seek out terrorists throughout the
world.
Mr. Mueller, your agency in particular has used it very
effectively. Do you have any comment about it?
Mr. Mueller. I think we would be going back 10 years if the
PATRIOT Act is not reauthorized, particularly those provisions
that have broken down the walls in the sharing of information.
The ability to share information between the intelligence
community and the law enforcement community has been
instrumental in securing the safety of United States citizens,
both in the United States but also overseas, in allowing us to
share information between our various agencies and also with
our counterparts overseas. We have testified previously on a
number of occasions how absolutely essential it is to have the
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act to prevent additional acts
of terrorism. A number of our investigations have been
successful in the United States because of our ability to share
information and utilize the provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
Senator Stevens. Well, take the Terrorist Screening Center
(TSC), which you commented on in your statement. Could it
effectively work without the PATRIOT Act?
Mr. Mueller. It would be very difficult for it to be able
to perform its functions because it would still be beset by
walls segmenting information between the intelligence community
and the law enforcement community. And, consequently, the
PATRIOT Act in its breaking down those walls enables the
Terrorist Screening Center to assemble information from a
variety of sources to determine the appropriateness of putting
somebody on the terrorist screening watchlist and to follow
through if that person comes within the United States or
attempts to get into the United States.
Senator Stevens. This is a multiagency effort, as I
understand, the Terrorism Center, right?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, it is.
Senator Stevens. And in your statement, you said through
February 2005 TSC received 21,650 calls, over 3,500 from State
and local law enforcement agencies, made over 11,300 positive
identifications, and assisted in 340 arrests, including six
with terrorist nexus.
Now, none of that would be available without knocking down
the walls that the PATRIOT Act knocked down. In the past, they
all would have had to go to the top of their agency, and the
information would have to be shared at the top of the agency,
and the top of the agency would have to be aware of the fact
that someone down here had that information. Is that not right?
Mr. Mueller. The PATRIOT Act broke down those walls, along
with rulings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
court. Between the two of those entities, it broke down the
walls, enabling the Terrorist Screening Center to have that
record of success.
FBI deg.DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Senator Stevens. Let me shift over to the National Director
of Intelligence, and I appreciate your visit. I am sure you
visited others. But I see that there are several functions you
have mentioned that really now will be integrated with the
National Director of Intelligence. And you created a special
section within the FBI to deal with that, right?
Mr. Mueller. That is correct. What we are trying to do is
build up within the FBI what is called a Directorate of
Intelligence that, from the headquarters perspective, is the
brains of intelligence, regardless of whether it comes from a
criminal program, a cyber program, a counterintelligence
program, or a counterterrorist program, where the agents are
collectors. The Intelligence Directorate is that entity that
pulls in the information, analyzes the information, and makes
certain that that information as analyzed gets to the right
policymaker. It may be an agent himself or herself. It could be
a supervisor in the FBI. Or it could be somebody at the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA),
or now the Director of National Intelligence.
The other substantial role that the Directorate of
Intelligence plays is to identify what we know but, most
particularly, what we don't know and establish requirements for
intelligence collection in the United States so we have a much
fuller picture of the threats that we face in the United
States, complemented with the information that may be brought
to the table by the CIA, the National Security Agency (NSA), or
one of the other intelligence actors. And it is tremendously
important for the Bureau to build up this capability, but it
would not be able to build up this capability without the
information that it now has access to by reason of the PATRIOT
Act and rulings of the FISA court.
Senator Stevens. And it is the act that makes that center
operable, right? All these agencies now share information
really at the inception of knowledge, right? They come in and
they are shared and they are made available throughout the
community, and this is an underpinning for the National
Director of Intelligence, isn't it?
Mr. Mueller. As far as our National Director of
Intelligence, it absolutely is. We have that capability. But
also we complement the National Counterterrorism Center where
both the intelligence agencies and the law enforcement agencies
share space, have access to our various databases so that there
can be in very short order a complete picture of a threat or a
group or an individual who presents a terrorist threat. And
having the ability to access these databases, having the
ability to pull this information together, to analyze it in the
National Counterterrorism Center, was made practical and legal
by the passage of the PATRIOT Act and the FISA court rulings.
DNA INITIATIVE
Senator Stevens. Last, Mr. Attorney General, in your
discussion with the Senator from Vermont about the DNA concept,
it is our understanding the program that is in effect now is a
broader one and has been more effective in dealing with DNA and
its use in prior convictions and throughout the whole system of
the Department of Justice. Is that your feeling?
Attorney General Gonzales. It is hard for me to compare,
Senator, but I will say that it has been, in my judgment, very
effective in clearing out the DNA backlog and providing
training to State and local officials, to help them find
missing people. And so it has been very effective.
Senator Stevens. Has there been a reduction in funding for
the DNA effort?
Attorney General Gonzales. No, Senator.
Senator Stevens. What is the budget this year for?
Attorney General Gonzales. I don't have it at my
fingertips, but I will get you that information.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
What is the Budget This year for DNA Initiative?
In fiscal year 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft
announced the awarding of nearly $95 million in DNA grants
nationwide as part of President Bush's DNA initiative,
Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology. The awards represent
the greatest investment in DNA technology to date--more than
twice the amount of any previous year's funding--and the first
grants to be awarded under the President's initiative. In
fiscal year 2005, approximately $168 million will go to
activities under the DNA initiative. The fiscal year 2006
request includes an increase of $69 million for a total funding
level of more than $236 million.
BYRNE GRANTS
Senator Harkin. Mr. Attorney General, back to Byrne grants,
funding for the Byrne grant program has been eliminated from
the budget. One of the rationales offered is that the program
has not demonstrated a satisfactory level of performance
results. However, the law enforcement people in Iowa tell me
there has never been any effort on the part of the Bureau of
Justice Assistance to actually measure the performance results
of this program.
My question is: Has there been a valid effort to determine
if Byrne dollars are working nationally as well as they are in
Iowa?
Attorney General Gonzales. I believe there has been a valid
effort to determine whether or not these dollars are being used
effectively. Again, Senator, as I indicated in response to an
earlier question, there are a variety of reasons why a decision
is made not to continue funding a certain program. That may not
reflect a decision that the program is not an effective
program, but may reflect a determination that there are other
priorities that deserve funding. There may be other ways to
provide resources to State and local officials to address the
problem, and that is why the decision was made to deal with the
Byrne grant program in this fashion.
Senator Harkin. Could you provide to the subcommittee a
list of the efforts that were made by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance to measure the performance results of this program?
Attorney General Gonzales. I will try to provide you that
information, Senator.
Senator Harkin. I would like to see that because I am told
that there never was any effort to really measure, so I would
like to kind of get to the bottom of that one.
[The information follows:]
Efforts That Were Made by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to Measure
the Performance Results of the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program
There are a number of efforts underway to measure whether
Byrne dollars are working nationally. The Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) program is currently undergoing an
Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) review to assess Byrne JAG's purpose and design,
strategic planning, management, and results and accountability.
While final National Institute of Justice (NIJ) evaluations of
Byrne JAG are not yet completed, many state-initiated
independent evaluations have been conducted, including a study,
``Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Forces in Ohio,'' commissioned
by the Ohio State Administering Agency and conducted by the
University of Cincinnati and Kent State University. Another
example is in Oklahoma, where the Oklahoma District Attorneys
Council contracted with the University of Oklahoma to conduct a
comprehensive review of the evaluation activities of other
states that fund drug task forces. Through a literature review,
they found that 39 states have in the past or are currently
conducting independent evaluations of their Byrne JAG-funded
drug task forces and other grant-funded programs. Phase II of
NIJ's evaluation of Byrne JAG-funded Multi-Jurisdictional Drug
Task Forces will build on the effort to provide a complete
picture of the overall effectiveness of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance of the Byrne JAG Program.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Senator Harkin. Last year, the President's budget merged
the local law enforcement block grant with the Byrne program
and called it the Byrne justice assistance grant. It required
an entirely new application process, set entirely new criteria.
The merger of the programs was particularly painful for States
like Iowa, in which the majority of our people do not live in a
major city.
Now, given that the budget eliminates this newly merged
Byrne program, which is now called the Byrne justice assistance
grant program, I would be interested in learning exactly how
much we have spent on merging the two programs and
administering it for just 1 year? In other words, we merged
them last year. You set up new criteria, set up a new
application process, merged the two, did it for 1 year, and now
you are eliminating it. What did it cost us to do that for 1
year? And why did we do it?
Attorney General Gonzales. I don't know that information,
Senator, but I will try to get that for you.
[The information follows:]
What Did It Cost to Merge Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Within the
Byrne Program For 1 Year and Why Did We Do It
Proposed to streamline justice funding and grant
administration, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant (JAG) Program allows states, tribes, and local
governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent
and control crime based on their own local needs and
conditions. JAG blends the previous Byrne Formula and Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Programs to provide agencies
with the flexibility to prioritize and place justice funds
where they are needed most. As the Office of Justice Programs'
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) works to administer JAG
requests for state and local grantees, there has been a
savings--not cost--associated with the program's streamlined
application, review, and award processes. Savings
considerations include: the mandatory match requirement was
eliminated, allowing states to measure their own match needs
and implement at the state level if indicated; awards are
distributed up front instead of on a reimbursement basis,
giving recipients immediate control over their funds; direct
recipients can earn interest on their awards, generating
additional funding for future justice projects; projects can be
funded beyond a 4-year period, allowing successful initiatives
to receive funding to continue and expand their efforts;
various fiscal and programmatic reports have been replaced with
fewer, but more targeted, reporting, saving State Administering
Agencies (SAA) and local programs valuable staff time and
resources; and mandatory set-asides have been eliminated,
encouraging states and communities to spend justice funds more
strategically.
Senator Harkin. There is something bureaucratic going on
here, and I am not quite certain what it is. The reason for my
question is because my law enforcement people in Iowa--and I
checked in the Midwest. These Byrne grants have been a lifeline
for the coordinated efforts for drug intervention, for arrests,
getting meth labs; as I mentioned in my opening statement, even
in terms of programs for rehabilitation. And they have worked
from everything I have ever seen. And so I am really trying to
figure out why this rationale for eliminating it after we just
merged it for 1 year. I know you say you have priorities and
stuff, but I am wondering about what has more priority than
this and why this was done away with. This is not just being
cut. This is eliminated. That is a big body blow to law
enforcement all over.
Attorney General Gonzales. Again, Senator, in cases like
this, decisions are made as to which programs are the most
effective and what's the most efficient use of taxpayers'
dollars. And so there may be a particular problem that is being
addressed by the expenditure of Byrne grants that we believe
can be more efficiently dealt with through other programs or
coordinating resources in a different kind of way. And I guess
what I want to do is reassure you and the people in your State
that we, like you, consider these drug issues very, very
serious and that we ought to be looking at ways to try to deal
with this in the most effective and most efficient way. We are
committed to work with people in your State to address these
problems.
Senator Harkin. The only thing I am asking you, again, to
give to the subcommittee, is the efforts that have been made to
determine the outcomes results of the Byrne grant program.
Attorney General Gonzales. I will try to get that to you,
Senator.
[The information follows:]
Efforts That Were Made by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to Measure
the Performance Results of the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program
There are a number of efforts underway to measure whether
Byrne dollars are working nationally. The Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) program is currently undergoing an
Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) review to assess Byrne JAG's purpose and design,
strategic planning, management, and results and accountability.
While final National Institute of Justice (NIJ) evaluations of
Byrne JAG are not yet completed, many state-initiated
independent evaluations have been conducted, including a study,
``Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Forces in Ohio,'' commissioned
by the Ohio State Administering Agency and conducted by the
University of Cincinnati and Kent State University. Another
example is in Oklahoma, where the Oklahoma District Attorneys
Council contracted with the University of Oklahoma to conduct a
comprehensive review of the evaluation activities of other
states that fund drug task forces. Through a literature review,
they found that 39 states have in the past or are currently
conducting independent evaluations of their Byrne JAG-funded
drug task forces and other grant-funded programs. Phase II of
NIJ's evaluation of Byrne JAG-funded Multi-Jurisdictional Drug
Task Forces will build on the effort to provide a complete
picture of the overall effectiveness of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance of the Byrne JAG Program.
HIDTA PROGRAM
Senator Harkin. I would appreciate that. Last--well, no,
two quick things. High-intensity drug trafficking (HIDTA)
program, the budget has been slashed by 50 percent, and it
says, ``The Department's budget states that the program will be
redesigned to focus on efforts to stop drugs entering the
country.'' Well, what effect is that going to have on the
Midwest HIDTA program, high-intensity drug trafficking area
program in the Midwest, which is engaged in fighting a meth
epidemic--and it is an epidemic--in Iowa, South Dakota,
Missouri, Nebraska, that whole area there. That is after the
drugs have entered the country. So if we are slashing it by 50
percent, again, we are going to have a problem in funding the
high-intensity drug trafficking areas in the upper Midwest.
Again, I don't know how we are going to continue to do this
by slashing it by 50 percent.
Attorney General Gonzales. HIDTA has traditionally been
within the Office of National Drug Control Policy. That is a
policy-focused organization, and we believe that these funds
ought to be administered through the Department of Justice,
which has as its primary focus law enforcement. It just makes
sense, quite frankly. The question then is whether----
Senator Harkin. I don't mind that. That is fine.
Attorney General Gonzales. And in doing so, we are able to
take the organized crime drug enforcement task force (OCDETF)
program and the HIDTA programs under sort of the joint
supervision of the Deputy Attorney General and make sure that
they remain a priority, both of those programs.
I want to reassure everyone that the fact that it is moving
into the Department of Justice does not mean that we are going
to in any way merge the two programs. I think OCDETF has more
focus on national and international programs and HIDTA is more
regional.
The fact that the monies are being reduced to HIDTA does
not mean that there will be a change in the first year with
respect to providing funding for intelligence-sharing and
critical infrastructure. Those will be funded with respect to
all the HIDTAs. In 2006, every single HIDTA will continue. We
will take the HIDTA funding and we will allocate it according
to priorities: first intelligence, then infrastructure, and
then we will look at each of the HIDTAs and have the HIDTAs
make the best case as to where the remaining dollars should go.
And that is what we intend to do with respect to the HIDTA
program going forward.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Attorney General.
FBI deg.DEFINITION OF TERRORISM
Mr. Director, since September 11, 2001, the FBI's
counterterrorism workload, as you stated in your written
statement, has more than tripled, from 9,340 cases to over
30,000 in fiscal year 2004. My question is: How much of this is
redefining criminal and drug activities as ``terrorism?'' Do we
have a definition of terrorism? And has it changed in the last
3 years? Or are we just seeing a tripling of terrorist
activities? How much of this is just redefining normal
criminal--not normal, but abnormal criminal and drug activities
as just, oh, this is terrorism, justifies more money?
Mr. Mueller. No, I would say it is not redefinition. There
may be a little of that where cases, if you have a terrorist
group, an acknowledged terrorist group that is engaged in
criminal activity and the results of that criminal activity,
the funding is going overseas to Palestine or Lebanon or
elsewhere to support terrorist activities, it may have been
identified principally as a criminal case but now is identified
as a terrorist case. I think that is a very, very small sliver
of those cases where there was some redefinition.
But the fact of the matter is we now have--we had 1,300
agents pre-9/11; we now have almost 3,000 agents that are
directed to counterterrorism. We had on our joint terrorism
task forces prior to September 11 just over 900 Federal, State,
and local officers serving on those joint terrorism task
forces. There were only 34 task forces. We now have 103 joint
terrorism task forces, and we have 3,700 Federal, State, and
local officers serving on them.
Terrorism investigations are not directed just at that
person who is gathering the explosives, but it is those persons
who are recruiting, those persons who are sending persons to
camps overseas, those persons who are engaged in criminal
activity to develop funding that supports terrorism. And so we
have been far more effective because we have the additional
personnel, and because of the breakdown of the rules separating
intelligence and the criminal side, to address those persons
within the United States who either would want to conduct a
terrorist attack or are in some ways supporting terrorism.
Senator Harkin. Well, Mr. Director, my time is up. You
know, we are doing everything. We are closing down cells
overseas. I hear about all the successes we are having in
Afghanistan, we are having in other parts of the world in
closing down these networks. And yet terrorism has tripled in
this country. I just have this uneasy feeling that we are just
redefining it and putting a bigger blanket over what is just
normal--not normal, but criminal activities, drug activities,
that type of thing, and just calling it ``terrorism.''
Mr. Mueller. I would have to disagree.
Senator Harkin. Well, do you have a definition of
``terrorism''?
Mr. Mueller. There is a definition in title 18 that we
utilize, yes. I would have to get you the specific definition,
but----
Senator Harkin. It is in title 18. Has that changed in the
last 3 years?
Mr. Mueller. No.
Senator Harkin. It is the same today as it was before?
Mr. Mueller. No, but there are various aspects to terrorism
that include fundraising, training, and recruiting; we have
many ongoing investigations into those aspects of it that we
did not investigate in the past. The large number of open
terrorism investigations that you reference relate in large
part to a number of these other areas that are important in
addressing terrorism.
Senator Harkin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
NORTHERN BORDER
Attorney General Gonzales, as I talked about in my opening
statement, I have some real concerns about the challenges
facing northern border States with respect to Federal,
typically border-related, cases. And as you know, many of these
cases are being referred to local jurisdictions by Federal
agencies and the U.S. Attorney's Office. And I, like everyone,
fully support the efforts to increase the Federal agents along
the border. It is important. But as those numbers have
increased post-9/11, more criminals are being apprehended for
drug smuggling, money laundering, and other crimes on the
border. And as you know, these cases are often declined and
referred for prosecution and detention to local jurisdictions
by the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Now, the southwestern States have a Federal program for
reimbursement of costs run out of the Department's Office of
Justice Programs. It is the Southwest Border Prosecution
Initiative. But there isn't any program like that for the
northern border States, and I think it is long past time to do
that because these cases really put an immense burden on cities
and counties in my State and across the northern border.
In Whatcom County in my State, which is where I-5 crosses
the border into British Columbia, they are spending over $2
million a year to handle these federally initiated declined and
referred cases. And those costs are placing a tremendous strain
on local jurisdictions. In fact, the situation in Whatcom
County is already forcing that county to release criminals from
the county jail in order to make room for the increased
referred caseload.
Now, back in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, as part of the
omnibus appropriations bills, your Department was asked to do a
study on the need to expand the Southwest border program to the
northern border States, and to my knowledge--and I am not going
to hold you accountable; I know you are new to the role. But to
my knowledge, that study has not been completed or done, which
is disconcerting to all of us who have been involved in this.
But my question to you today is: Would you support an
effort to expand the Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative
program to our northern border States?
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I would have to look at
all the facts before I could answer that question, quite
frankly. I am certainly aware of the strains that exist on all
the border States. I understand your concerns.
With respect to the study, I was not aware of the study,
but I am now aware of the study and I will find out where we
are on that. And maybe you and I can have a further dialogue
about what we can do to try to help your State deal with these
additional costs.
[The information follows:]
Status of the Study to Expand the Southwest Border Prosecution
Initiative Program to the Northern Border, and Comment on the Expansion
of the Program
The Department does not support an effort to expand the Southwest
Border Prosecution Initiative to the Northern Border at this time.
Although the United States Attorneys' Offices along the Northern
Border believe that the expansion of this grant program to the Northern
Border districts would be helpful in that they have similar border
issues and limited resources for prosecutions, a review of the
Department's statistics indicate that the declination rate for federal
prosecutions is higher along the Southwest Border because of the
substantial number of illegal immigrants who cross that border daily,
but who are not prosecuted federally because of limited resources and
other issues.
The study of immigration cases in Northern Border districts to
which you refer was submitted to the Committee on Appropriations on
August 11, 2004. A copy of the report is inserted.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, August 11, 2004.
The Honorable Frank R. Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515.
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce,
Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Jose Serrano,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce,
Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Judd Gregg,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, Congressman Serrano, and
Senator Gregg: The Conference report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2004
Appropriations Act for the Department of Justice (Public Law 108-199),
directs the Department of Justice to submit to the Senate and House
Appropriations Committees, a report on the number of Northern Border
Prosecutions referred to state and local prosecutors. This report
provides the requested information with the U.S. Attorneys' caseload
and referrals on the Northern Border as compared to those on the
Southwest Border.
The report was recently approved by the Office of Management and
Budget. Please feel free to contact me if you or your staff have
additional questions.
Sincerely,
Paul R. Corts,
Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
Report of the Department of Justice Regarding Immigration Cases in the
Northern Border Districts
INTRODUCTION
The conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2004 requested a report from the Department of Justice regarding
the number of cases referred to local prosecutors from Federal arrests
along the Northern Border. The conference report adopts by reference
the House report language directing the Department of Justice to report
the following:
Southwest Border Prosecutions.--The Committee recommends
$40,000,000 to assist State and local law enforcement agencies,
including prosecutors, probation officers, courts, and detention
facilities along the Southwest border with the handling and processing
of drug and alien cases referred from Federal arrests. The Committee
directs the Department of Justice to study whether a similar number of
cases are being referred to local prosecutors from Federal arrests
along the Northern border. The Department shall report its findings to
the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this Act.
This report summarizes three categories of information relative to
Immigration Matters considered by the United States Attorneys Offices
in Northern Border Districts.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purpose of this Report, Northern Border Districts are
the District of Alaska, the District of Idaho, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Northern District of Indiana, the District of Maine, the
Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan, the District of Minnesota,
the District of Montana, the District of New Hampshire, the Northern
and Western Districts of New York, the District of North Dakota, the
Northern District of Ohio, the Western District of Pennsylvania, the
District of Vermont, the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington,
and the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
Within the Department of Justice, United States Attorneys' Offices
have responsibility for prosecuting immigration offenses. Typically
immigration cases are referred to United States Attorneys' Offices by
agents for the Department of Homeland Security, including the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs (ICE), the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection, and Border Patrol, but may also be referred by other
federal agencies and local officers.
MATTERS RECEIVED, CASES FILED AND DECLINATIONS BY UNITED STATES
ATTORNEYS OFFICES
This chart sets forth the Matters Received,\2\ Cases Filed,\3\ and
Declinations \4\ for immigration offenses considered by United States
Attorneys' Offices in the Northern Border Districts during fiscal years
2000-2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Matters Received.--All proceedings on which Assistant United
States Attorneys (AUSA) spend one hour or more of time and the AUSAs
entry are recorded in their case management system. Matters Received
includes criminal referrals from investigative agencies, and matters
that may be handled as misdemeanor cases in U.S. Magistrate Court.
Matters Received does not include criminal miscellaneous matters
(requests for arrest warrants, search warrants, etc.), petty offenses
or infractions, or matters that are immediately declined.
\3\ Cases Filed.--All proceedings for which a significant paper has
been filed in court, other than U.S. Magistrate Court and below the
appeals court level. Significant papers include indictments and
informations filed in district court.
\4\ Declinations.--All proceedings terminated (closed) during the
reporting period without ever having attained case status.
NORTHERN BORDER DISTRICTS IMMIGRATION CASELOAD DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matters Received............ 1,026 902 1,030 1,136
Cases Filed................. 800 704 780 905
Matters Declined............ 270 272 290 263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This chart sets forth the Matters Received, Cases Filed, and
Declinations for immigration offenses considered by United States
Attorneys' Offices in the Southwest Border Districts during fiscal
years 2000-2003.
SOUTHWEST BORDER DISTRICTS \1\ IMMIGRATION CASELOAD DATA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matters Received............ 10,023 10,042 10,658 14,175
Cases Filed................. 7,942 7,851 8,805 10,933
Matters Declined............ 146 111 227 987
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purpose of this Report, Southwest Border Districts are the
District of Arizona, the Southern District of California, the District
of New Mexico, and the Southern and Western Districts of Texas.
CASES REFERRED FOR LOCAL PROSECUTION
The figures set forth in this report represent immigration cases
handled by the United States Attorneys' Offices for the Northern and
Southwest Border districts. United States Attorneys' Offices do not
maintain records of cases referred for local prosecution by Federal
Investigative agencies. Offenses may be referred to local jurisdictions
by federal law enforcement agents without involvement from the United
States Attorney's office.
This report provides comparison data on caseload for the Northern
Border districts and the Southwest Border districts. The matters
received and cases filed in the Northern Border districts are
approximately one-tenth of those of the Southwest Border. The
declinations for the Northern Border are greater in fiscal year 2000-
2002 than the Southwest Border. However, in fiscal year 2003, the
declinations for the Southwest Border are almost four times greater
than those of the Northern Border. Declinations by the USAO would not
suggest that these matters could or would be prosecuted by the state
and locals.
The United States Attorneys' Case Management system contains a
declination code which indicates that a criminal suspect will not be
prosecuted by the United States Attorney's Office but may be considered
for prosecution by another authority. The referral is then returned to
the referring federal investigative agency; however, we do not have the
ability to determine whether that agency refers that matter to a state
or local authority.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I would like to know what you
want these communities to do short of releasing the criminals.
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, we are committed to
working with them. Obviously, no one wants criminals running
around in the streets, and we are committed to working with
your communities to see if we can find additional resources,
and to see whether or not there are additional things that we
can do at the Federal level. But I want to assure you that this
Attorney General does not want to have criminals released onto
the streets because we do not have the facilities to deal with
them. So I look forward to working with you on this very, very
difficult issue.
Senator Murray. I would very much like to do that because
we have tried to pursue this for several years now, and our
communities really are at, you know, their last strain here.
Attorney General Gonzales. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murray. So I would like to work with you to find
some additional resources to help them out.
I also wanted to ask you about the U.S. Attorney's Office
because it appears they really lack some of the resources to
handle the caseloads that are being forced on them as well. Is
this something your agency is trying to address to make sure
that our U.S. Attorney's Offices can handle the cases that are
being brought forward?
Attorney General Gonzales. One thing that is currently
ongoing is we are engaged in a review across the country to
evaluate the caseloads amongst the various U.S. Attorney's
Offices and to assess whether we have the proper allocation of
resources across the country.
NEEDS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I would like to hear more
specifically from you on that because I am very concerned about
that, too, and some of the fallout we have seen.
Also, in my State and in other States, the increase in
Federal police presence, you know, we welcome it. However, we
are seeing an increase in demand for Federal courtrooms, for
judges, for detention facilities, more regional justice
centers. In fact, in my State some of our Federal agents are
now driving criminals 2 to 3 hours each way just to have their
first appearances in Federal courtrooms. And I am really
concerned about the costs associated with that system, as well
as, you know, the delay it is taking in getting these
individuals before a Federal judge. And I would like to ask you
how you think we are going to meet those needs.
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, I am likewise concerned,
Senator. It is a rising cost for the budget of the Department
of Justice. We are looking at various ways that we can reduce
those costs. For example, it makes no sense that we have to
drive someone a long way in order to bring them to justice. So
are there ways that we can reduce the costs? This is something
that we are looking at; particularly, it is a problem that is
likely to increase as we look at issues like enforcing our
borders. We are going to be detaining more people. As we
continue to enforce the laws that are passed by this Congress,
we have to do something with these people. And so this is a
cost that I have a great deal of concern about. The Department
is looking at developing a strategy that looks at the total
cost of someone that goes through the justice system from the
beginning, not just when they are in prison or afterwards, but
from the time that they are arrested. There are definite costs,
fixed costs that we cannot avoid.
And so I have asked for an examination of how we can better
coordinate how we enforce justice around this country.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I would like to hear more from
you as quickly as possible specifically how we can do that,
because we want criminals apprehended, but just dumping the
costs on our local communities means they end up out on the
street. And that is where I don't think you want any of them to
end up.
DRUG CARTELS
One more question, Mr. Chairman, for the Attorney General,
and that is: According to a 2001 Drug Enforcement
Administration estimate, drug cartels make up 80 percent of
America's methamphetamines, and these cartels require about 200
metric tons of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine each year, or
about 10 percent of the world's output of these legal
chemicals. I am really concerned that we may be missing an
opportunity to work with chemical factories abroad to help
prevent some of the cartels from getting their hands on the
chemicals. And if either one of you could talk to me about what
we are doing to try and break these cartels' supply chain of
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, I would really appreciate it.
Attorney General Gonzales. I can tell you that we are
working with law enforcement officials in other countries. I
believe that this problem cannot be effectively dealt with
without the cooperation of other countries. And so we are
working in that respect, and I think we are making some
progress. Obviously, more needs to be done, and as I have
traveled the country in these first 2\1/2\ months, I have been
surprised when I talk to law enforcement officials, the two
issues that they raise as the most pressing concerns for them
are the explosion of meth labs, particularly these mom-and-pop
labs, and gangs.
And so for that reason, both of those have become a
priority for me. I have asked the folks within the Department
to make sure that we are doing everything that we can do under
existing authorities to address this problem, and one, of
course, is communicating with our counterparts in other
countries regarding the supply of ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine.
Senator Murray. Mr. Mueller, do you have any comment on any
of that?
Mr. Mueller. I have not looked at this issue in a while,
but I know that both DEA and Customs had a substantial program
looking at those manufacturers of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine
overseas and attempting with our counterparts overseas to track
those shipments. I also know that there is a substantial
undertaking within the United States in those stores that sell
quantities of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to monitor those
sales.
Senator Murray. We are making some progress there, but I
think unless we look at the supply chain from some of the
cartels, we are not going to get to where we need to be. And
meth is probably the biggest issue I hear about, particularly
in our rural counties across Washington State, and the impact
it is having on their communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS
Mr. Attorney General, as a point of information, when sex
offenders and pedophiles are released from prison, are they
adjudged to no longer be a threat to society, or have they
simply served their term?
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, they certainly have served
their term. I for one would not concede that they are no longer
a threat to society.
Senator Kohl. So when they are released, they have served
their term.
Attorney General Gonzales. They have served their term, but
there are ongoing obligations. They have an obligation, for
example, to register so that law enforcement authorities know
where they are.
Senator Kohl. I appreciate that. But, you know, if there is
an issue out there that really, really ticks people off, it is
the existence of these sex offenders out there in our society,
registered or not--I mean, you know, if you know that one lives
on the next block, what do you do about it? You are really sort
of powerless to deal with the fact. You may be scared as hell
to know, but there is not anything you can do about it.
I am not holding you accountable. I am suggesting that we
in our society are not dealing properly with sex offenders,
convicted sex offenders, who, to my knowledge, for the most
part are simply released back into society after they have
served their 2 or 5 or 10 years. Families are scared as can be.
I talked to a friend of mine who lives in Illinois just
yesterday, and she was talking about the issue, and she told
me, ``If there is one thing you can do, just one thing to make
my life easier, and life easier in my neighborhood, it is to do
something about these sex offenders who are still out there,
released from prison,'' and, she says, fully capable and she
expects that they will continue to commit sex offenses and
molest children, which we cannot tell her she is wrong.
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I cannot tell her that
she is wrong.
Senator Kohl. She said to me that if a person is convicted
of a sex offense or a pedophile offense, they should be put in
jail and not released until somebody attests to the
overwhelming likelihood that they will not commit this kind of
a crime again. Wouldn't you agree?
Attorney General Gonzales. I think in an ideal world,
Senator, anyone who is a danger to our children, arrangements
should be made--everything should be done within the limits of
our Constitution to ensure that those folks, like pedophiles,
do not have access to our children.
It seems to me that it is certainly a good start--it may
not be where we want to end up, but it is certainly a good
start to provide as much information as we can to parents and
let them make the decisions or judgments about what they can do
to protect their families.
Now, is there more that we can do? I would be happy to sit
down and talk with you about that because I have got two young
boys, too, and I worry about them.
Senator Kohl. Sure.
Attorney General Gonzales. And I do not want any, you
know----
Senator Kohl. If a person is adjudged to commit a crime
because they are criminally insane and, you know, they go to
prison for an indefinite period of time, it is my understanding
that they will not get out until they are said to be no longer
criminally insane. Isn't that true?
Attorney General Gonzales. That is correct.
Senator Kohl. In large part, this is no different, is it?
Attorney General Gonzales. I don't know if I'm qualified,
quite frankly, Senator, to render that opinion, but I think it
is certainly a question that ought to be asked and one that we
ought to be discussing.
BYRNE GRANTS
Senator Kohl. On the Byrne grant program, I know you have
been really pummeled on it, but I just want to add my 2 cents.
Last year, it was $700 million in both discretionary and
formula funds, and as you know, they pay for State and local
drug task forces, community crime prevention programs,
substance abuse treatment programs, prosecutions, many other
local crime control programs. And you ask any sheriff or police
chief around the country, and I guarantee you back in my State
of Wisconsin, which I think is not unusual, and they will tell
you that this Byrne grant program is the backbone of Federal
aid for local law enforcement. The backbone.
Now, if they are right, then I would like to hope that you
might be willing to reconsider your position on Byrne grant
programs. You know, hearings of this sort are for a purpose. We
listen to you, you listen to us; we go back and think about
what you said, you go back and think about what you are
hearing. Otherwise, the hearing has no purpose, right?
Attorney General Gonzales. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Kohl. And I am telling you, this Byrne grant
program, if you ask some of your people to look at it more
closely, I believe that you will conclude that it is one
Federal program that deserves support.
Attorney General Gonzales. We are always looking at these
kinds of issues, Senator, and we are looking at ways to make
sure that not just Federal officials but also State and local
officials have the necessary tools they need to deal with the
problems that confront our society.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
FBI deg.FBI INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS
One question for Director Mueller. In 2002, the Inspector
General of the Justice Department found that, ``The FBI lacked
the ability to connect the dots or establish relationships
among varied pieces of information.'' Nearly 4 years after 9/
11, the FBI's analytical capabilities are still often limited,
as you know, to supporting individual cases. As everyone knows,
part of the problem is the inadequate number of qualified
intelligence analysts at the Bureau, and in your most recent
proposal, you asked for money to hire 499 more analysts to
improve this vital capability. However, last year, your goal
was to hire 787 analysts, and you only hired about 173. Nearly
32 percent of FBI's analyst positions are still vacant. Is the
FBI capable of hiring enough qualified analysts to fill these
positions? And if so, do you have the capability to train that
many analysts?
Mr. Mueller. By the end of this year, I believe we will be
fully hired up on our analysts. We did fall behind last year,
but we made it up in the beginning of this year through some
innovative methods for getting analysts on board. I can tell
you that on September 11 we had 218 analysts in
counterterrorism; we now have 808 analysts working in
counterterrorism.
I also would dispute, I think, some of the premise of the
question in terms of our analysts solely doing case support
work. I would be happy to provide you a full portfolio of our
intelligence products. I think they are first-rate. We are
doing first-rate assessments. We have provided, I think, close
to 8,000 intelligence investigative reports over the last
several years. We have, I believe, close to 200 reports
officers. We had none before September 11.
I believe that we are not where we ultimately want to be,
but we have made substantial strides, particularly over the
last 6 to 8 months, where much of the preparatory work that we
were doing to bring these people on board had been done, but we
then had to execute.
With regard to training, all of our analysts are required
to go through a training program. By the end of this year, we
are expecting that close to 1,000 will have gone through that
training program down at Quantico. That, again, had to be
established from scratch in the wake of September 11, but it
was established and I believe it is a first-rate course at this
point.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS
One last question for you, Mr. Attorney General. Juvenile
justice and delinquency programs are allocated, as you know,
$187 million in the President's budget for next year. This is
about half of what was allocated last year. So we are talking
about, you know, a 50-percent cut from last year's number.
I hope you are not concluding that juvenile justice
programs are not very important and that Federal funding for
juvenile justice programs is not very, very important. And, you
know, the only way that we attest to that here in large part--
not entirely--is by allocating a certain amount of money to
States for juvenile justice programs. And these programs really
work. You know, there are several of them in our State. I am
not going to go into them in detail.
One school that was built outside of Racine, Wisconsin, is
the Southern Oaks Girls School. It built a new mental health
wing with Federal funds to provide counseling service for the
girl inmates, and the school's administrator says that there is
a 56-percent drop in violent behavior since the new mental
services have been offered at that school.
Now, this is just one of many, many successes in the
program, and I would like to hope that juvenile justice funding
is something that the administration continues to regard as
important and does not put on the chopping block.
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, addressing the juvenile
justice issue is important. Juveniles represent the future
employees and the future leadership of our country and the
future leaders of communities around the country. And so we
need to do what we can to try to help wayward youth.
From the Department's perspective, obviously our primary
focus is on enforcement, to ensure that juveniles who engage in
criminal behavior are, in fact, held to account. But a
successful juvenile justice program has got to do more than
prosecution and enforcement. You have got to look at education.
You have got to look at rehabilitation. You have got to look at
mentoring programs.
I do agree with you that there are certain juvenile justice
programs that should continue to be supported.
Senator Kohl. I thank you, and I thank you, Director
Mueller.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Kohl.
ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS
Attorney General Gonzales, regarding the PATRIOT Act, it is
my understanding that the USA PATRIOT Act is up for renewal and
so forth. It would give the FBI the authority to use
administrative subpoenas to fight terrorists and spies. I
personally think the FBI should have every constitutional tool
available to help fight terrorists.
My question to you: Are administrative subpoenas a good
addition to the toolbox? In other words, what do you gain as
the chief law enforcement officer--and I will address this to
Director Mueller, too--and what do the American people lose?
This has been talked about a lot, as you know.
Attorney General Gonzales. I am aware of that, Mr.
Chairman. Let me first begin by emphasizing that administrative
subpoenas are not part of the provisions that are subject----
Senator Shelby. They are not part of it?
Attorney General Gonzales. Part of the provisions subject
to reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. But with respect to
administrative subpoenas----
Senator Shelby. But they have been proposed, have they not?
Attorney General Gonzales. They have been proposed as an
additional necessary tool. Administrative subpoenas are a tool
that is available to various other agencies to deal with a wide
variety of other criminal conduct, such as health care fraud.
And I think my view is that if you can use an administrative
subpoena to go after the bad conduct of doctors, why can't you
use this tool to go after terrorists?
Oftentimes, it is in terrorism cases where speed is
essential, speed and gathering information. And there may be an
instance where you need to move very, very quickly in accessing
information which is held in the hands of third parties, and so
you do not have the same level of expectation of privacy, and
you need to be able to get that information from a third party,
and that is why we think it is a valuable tool.
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller.
Mr. Mueller. I know it would be a very valuable tool for
us. As the Attorney General has indicated, it is authorized in
drug-trafficking cases, crimes against children, health care
fraud, and also for the Secret Service where there is a threat
against one of its protectees. And the reason is exemplified
there. There is a threat, and the Secret Service may need to
get information about where a person is staying, what kind of
communications device he or she is using. And the
administrative subpoena gives the Secret Service the ability to
get that information quickly, as the administrative subpoena
would give us the ability to get that type of information
exceptionally quickly.
Now, you ask what is the benefit to those who are served
the subpoena. One is their right to challenge it. But it also
gives us the right to enforce it. The proposals require the
authorization of the Attorney General for an order directing
that it be kept secret for a period of time, and then the
Attorney General would have to determine when that level of
secrecy comes off.
So it provides a balance between giving us the capability
very swiftly to get the information we need, but it also gives
those who are served the subpoena some benefits that in other
cases they would not have.
JUDICIAL SECURITY
Senator Shelby. Judicial security, Mr. Attorney General.
Recent violence in courthouses in the Southeast and in the
Midwest have raised significant concerns about the safety of
the judges, jurors, attorneys, and even the public who appear
in court. I understand that you have ordered a review of
judicial security measures. Are you ready to give us a report
on that? Would you do that for the record? Or where are you?
Attorney General Gonzales. We are close, Mr. Chairman,
expect the results of that report shortly. Let me again repeat
what I have said often about this issue. It is intolerable that
we have judges in any way fearful for their lives or safety or
fearful for the lives or safety of any family member. And so we
are working as hard as we can to ensure that we have done what
we need to do to protect our judges.
FBI deg.AGENTS FOR COUNTERRORISM
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller, the FBI is on pace to
need an additional 700 or 800 agents for terrorism
investigations, which are not supported by your budget request.
Since 9/11, the FBI has relied on agents from other divisions
to handle its terrorism caseload. While you have permanently
shifted 480 agents to counterterrorism, I believe back in 2002,
it does not appear to be nearly enough if you are still 700 to
800 agents short, if you are, in fact.
Given the workforce requirements within the terrorism
program, the continuing threat, and the fact that terrorism is
your top priority, why haven't you permanently shifted
additional agents to the counterterrorism program? And where
are you in this regard?
Mr. Mueller. Each year I have this discussion, both with
our people and with the committee, in terms of where we are
going on this. I expected that there would be a greater drop in
the number of agents who are working on counterterrorism cases
over the years since September 11. There has been a
diminishment of the numbers that are assigned to
counterterrorism cases, but it still has not closed the gap. At
the same time, each year I have asked for additional agents
from Congress and through the administration to help close that
gap, and I have gotten that. My expectation is that by the end
of 2006, if trends continue, we will still have a gap of
approximately 400. And I will be looking at how we can close
that gap, whether it means additional requests from Congress or
another reassignment of agents.
One of the concerns I have about doing it too precipitously
is that you can assign agents to a particular squad doing
counterterrorism someplace in the country. But what we have
found is that terrorism cases that require all our resources
will pop up all over the place--Lackawanna, New York; Northern
Virginia; Portland, Oregon. Understanding that our first
priority is to prevent terrorist attacks and that we have to
surge the manpower wherever the investigation is, it has
provided some flexibility in terms of where we surge that
manpower in order to address a particular investigation. Each
year I will be looking at it. Each year we will be having a
discussion, and I would be interested in your views about how
you think we ought to best close that gap.
FBI deg.FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RECRUITMENT
Senator Shelby. How is your recruiting going on at the FBI?
Mr. Mueller. Very well. There are a number of people out
there who want to be FBI agents. There are a tremendous number
of people out there who want to be FBI analysts. I think we had
an ad out for 1 week, and we got something like 2,200
applications from persons who want to be FBI analysts. Our
recruiting is going very well. We still are recruiting in other
areas where we need different language capabilities, for
instance, and scientific capabilities. But we are getting a
very good response to what we have been doing.
FBI deg.DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller, Ambassador Negroponte is
setting up the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
or DNI. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 gives the DNI more direct authority over the FBI than was
previously afforded the Director of Central Intelligence. For
example, it is my understanding that the DNI, the Director of
National Intelligence, Negroponte, has authority over the
individual that you choose to serve as the Executive Assistant
Director, or EAD, for Intelligence.
What do you see as the role, sir, of the DNI in overseeing
the intelligence functions of the Bureau? Do you have any
concerns over the DNI trying to direct FBI operations--you
know, if they do--as opposed to focusing on intelligence
collection requirements, coordinating community efforts, and
setting overall policy? And do you see any potential chain of
command problems with the DNI in this authority over the EAD
for Intelligence?
Mr. Mueller. Let me start by saying the President has made
it clear that the chain of command in the respective agencies
is retained. But going to the DNI, I believe that with regard
to the Executive Assistant Director for Intelligence, it is
appropriate that any selection put forth by myself and approved
by the Attorney General should include the input from the DNI
before we put that person in place because that person will be
a principal interlocutor with the DNI.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Mr. Mueller. I believe the DNI appropriately should
establish the requirements for collection, not just outside the
United States but to the extent that it is a national threat
nationally and we should be responsive. I believe the DNI
should have some role in coordinating activities between the
various agencies on particular threats.
I do not perceive that, in working with John Negroponte, we
will have any difficulties in sorting out those relationships.
We look forward to working with him in order to become much
more a part of the intelligence community than we have been in
the past.
FBI deg.WMD COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Senator Shelby. Director Mueller, the key recommendation
from the President's WMD Commission was to unify the Bureau's
intelligence, counterterrorism, and counterintelligence
programs under a single Executive for National Security who
would report to you and Ambassador Negroponte. Currently, you
have separate Executive Assistant Directors for Intelligence
and for Counterterrorism Counterintelligence. What are the
advantages and disadvantages of the WMD Commission's
recommendation? And how do you plan to respond to this
recommendation?
Mr. Mueller. We are in the process with the Attorney
General of making recommendations to the President in response
to those recommendations that were made by the WMD Commission.
In terms of the benefits of doing that, you have one person who
is in a position to sort out whatever disagreements or
differences of perception there may be between
counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and the Intelligence
Directorate. It also is in some sense beneficial because we
perceive those three entities as being a national security
service. We are developing career paths for both intelligence
personnel to come up through the Intelligence Directorate, but
also career paths for counterintelligence and counterterrorism.
And that will help to build that national security service.
The details of how it will be structured within the Bureau
and the relationship with the DNI are still under discussion
with the Attorney General and with the White House.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski, I would just note we have
a vote on the floor of the Senate.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I have not yet had a chance
to ask questions.
Senator Shelby. I apologize. I know you were in and out. I
am sorry.
Senator Dorgan. A vote has just started on the floor, so I
apologize, but I----
Senator Shelby. I went ahead of you. I shouldn't have done
that.
Senator Dorgan. No problem. But let me again apologize for
being late. I had three subcommittee hearings this morning, but
thank you, both of you, for being here.
SEXUAL PREDATORS
Let me ask you, Attorney General Gonzales, about an issue
that you have been asked about by several people on the
subcommittee this morning, and that is the issue of sexual
predators. Martha Stewart was let out of prison and wore an
electronic ankle bracelet to go bake bread and do gardening, I
guess. Today, there is perhaps a high-risk type 3 sexual
predator being let out of prison with not much more than a ``So
long, see you later.'' And you and I talked in January about
this issue.
My interest was stimulated by the murder of a young woman
in Grand Forks, North Dakota, by a sexual predator who had been
in prison for 23 years, a high-risk sexual predator, judged to
be at high risk for reoffending, let out after 23 years; within
6 months, moved on the Minnesota side of the border, so the
registry in North Dakota would not have identified that person
was living nearby; and within 6 months has been arrested for
the murder of Dru Sjodin.
When you and I visited in January, I talked about three
things in a piece of legislation that I have introduced in the
Senate with Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee:
One, a national registry of sex offenders. I was delighted
with what you announced on Friday. Congratulations to you. I
think it is exactly the right thing to do. I appreciate your
agency and your leadership in doing it. We need a national
registry of sex offenders.
The other two provisions in my legislation are, two, before
a high-risk sexual predator is let out of prison, the local
State's attorney in the jurisdiction where that person was
prosecuted should be notified in the event they wish to seek
additional civil commitment. In the case of the person arrested
for Dru Sjodin's murder, he was judged by the experts to be at
high risk for reoffense and a more violent reoffense. I think
the local authorities should be notified so that they can seek
additional civil commitment where they think appropriate.
And third, and very important, if, in fact, high-risk
offenders reach the end of their sentence and are not
recommitted civilly and are released, there needs to be
monitoring, high-level monitoring for a period of time. As I
said, if Martha Stewart wears an ankle bracelet, so, too,
should a violent sexual predator who has finished his or her
term of incarceration.
So having said all that, first, congratulations to you. I
think what you did Friday is wonderful. I am fully supportive
of it. Second, can you give me your analysis of the other two
provisions of the bill that Senator Specter and I have? One, as
I said, is notification of local authorities, and the second is
required monitoring upon release of a high-risk predator.
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, thank you, first of
all, and thank you for reminding me about our conversation, the
two points. I did ask my staff to go back and look at that
specifically. I have not talked with them, but let me just give
you sort of my gut reaction--which sometimes can be dangerous.
I understand that. But it seems to me that providing notice to
local officials seems to make sense. If you have got someone
who is especially dangerous, notifying the local officials that
you are about to release a very dangerous sexual predator in
that community seems to make sense to me.
In terms of monitoring, I don't know what can be done after
the fact, after someone has already been sentenced and has
served their time and is now being released. Clearly, if we are
talking about people that are being tried today as part of the
condition of their confinement, it might be possible to include
supervision, part of the penalty, like under the PROTECT Act,
under which I understand you can get lifetime supervision of
dangerous pedophiles. So with respect to people going in, I
think there are certainly steps that you can do to provide some
kind of monitoring, but in terms of after the fact, I would
have to look to see whether or not that is something that could
be done. We would obviously be happy to look at that.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I would like--and I am sure speaking
for Senator Specter, we would really like to work with you on
that to see if, number one, when we pass this legislation--and
we will. It was already passed by the Senate last year. I am
sure this legislation will be embraced by the Congress. Can we
be helpful in the construct of the national registry, anything
that we need to do to authorize or to be helpful to you on
that? And then, second, we would like to work with you on the
other two pieces as we proceed forward, and I appreciate the
invitation to do that.
Attorney General Gonzales. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. The last piece would be an unfunded mandate
to the extent that we can do it, but it should not be a massive
amount of expenditure by local governments, and it is just a
thoughtful thing to do.
USA PATRIOT ACT
Let me make one final point. Director Mueller, you both
have talked about the PATRIOT Act because you have been asked
questions about it. As you know, there is great controversy
about that in some circles, and while I think it has been very
helpful in some areas, it also has some provisions that are
controversial. It was passed very quickly post-9/11. I don't
think those of us in the Congress would believe that we ought
to get rid of the PATRIOT Act wholesale at this point. But
there may need to be some adjustments in the PATRIOT Act.
Are there any complaints about the PATRIOT Act that you
think have some merit? And you no doubt have heard many
complaints about the PATRIOT Act. Are they all without merit,
or are there some that have some merit and as we begin looking
through reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, what should we look
to with respect to valid complaints about it?
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, let me just say that I
think it is never inappropriate to express concerns about the
exercise of Government authority that might impact or does
impact upon civil liberties and the privacy rights of any
American. That is a good debate to have, and people ought to be
worried about that.
However, as we have considered the allegations of abuses,
we have yet to find one verifiable instance when there has been
an abuse under the PATRIOT Act. And I think the record reflects
that the Department has been very judicious in the way it
exercises its authority. I think the record reflects that the
Congress did a good job in including within the PATRIOT Act
appropriate safeguards to protect the civil liberties and the
private rights of Americans.
Senator Dorgan. My question was not so much about abuse. My
question was about the authority itself. And there is some
controversy about certain areas of authority. But let me submit
some questions in writing, and undoubtedly the Congress will
proceed in this area, and not, in my judgment----
Senator Shelby. The record will stay open for these.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just submit that to you. And, again,
let me thank both of you for being here.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I note that there is a vote
on, and this is the vote that shows our willingness to cross a
divide that was growing in the Senate on judicial nominations.
I want to be on the floor. The number of Senators who
participated kind of minimizes my time for a second round, but,
Mr. Mueller, I hope to be able to continue a conversation with
you on a couple of issues. One, you are leading a major
transformation of the FBI, and know that we want to be very
supportive.
FBI deg.HEALTH CARE FRAUD
I note that there was a scathing article in the New York
Times about the FBI and health care fraud and the issue of the
FBI mishandling health care fraud cases. I will give you the
article. But what it comes down to is that you could not
account for the data and what agents were doing what, et
cetera. We cannot enter into a conversation about this as I had
hoped to, but this then takes me to technology----
Mr. Mueller. Can I just say, the GAO report takes us to
task for not adequately showing that the agents were actually
working health care fraud cases. They were. And so it is our
ability to account for that that is being----
Senator Mikulski. That was going to be my next question,
which then takes us to the whole issue of technology and the
use of technology, and also the fact that I understand you now
have a prime time chief information officer that will be
involved in procurement.
Again, my time is up. I have to go to the floor to vote.
But I do hope that we can continue the discussion as well as
the transformation on counterterrorism. We want to support you.
We want you to do what you can do.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for an excellent hearing.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
First of all, Mr. Attorney General and Director Mueller, we
want to thank you for your appearance. We do have a number of
additional questions for the record we will send to you. We
look forward to working with you. We want to make sure that
both of you have the resources that you need here to do your
job.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the agencies for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Alberto R. Gonzales
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
IMMIGRATION BACKGROUND CHECKS
Question. What immigration applications require an FBI background
check?
Answer. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Name Checks are
provided with respect to six specific applications: Form N-400,
Application for Naturalization; Form I-192, Application for Advance
Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant; Form I-485, Application to
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status; Form I-589, Application
for Asylum; Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of
Excludability; and Form I-687, Application for Status as a Temporary
Resident Under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Further details may be available from U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS).
Question. When was the policy that requires these background checks
created?
Answer. The FBI began conducting name checks for naturalization
applicants after the Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in
1952.
Question. Is there another way to safely review these applications
in a more expedited manner?
Answer. It is the FBI's understanding that no other source of
information would contain the extensive biographical and historical
information found in FBI files (including information concerning
violations of law and threats to our national security), which is the
product of the FBI's long history of conducting criminal and
counterintelligence investigations. The current global situation
requires diligence in the screening of applicants for entry into the
United States and for citizenship. Without considering all pertinent
facts, informed decisions cannot be made regarding the suitability of
foreign individuals for immigration or for naturalization as United
States citizens.
On average, the FBI's National Name Check Program Section (NNCPS)
returns 68 percent of name check requests to the USCIS within 48 hours.
An additional 22 percent of these requests are responded to within 30
days, on average. The remainder of the requests require extensive
research and processing and often take 120 days or more. Much of this
work requires analysts to retrieve and review paper documents, which is
a time consuming but necessary step. To improve the performance of the
National Name Check Program and reduce the time required to process
name check requests, the FBI continues to leverage technology and to
identify management actions that will improve efficiency.
Question. Could another agency be equipped with the tools to
conduct these background checks?
Answer. The FBI is not aware of another source that could provide
the type and depth of information, including historical information,
necessary for these checks. The FBI's NNCPS works cooperatively with
its customer base and continuously seeks to improve the quality of its
customer service through the innovative application of technology and
effective resource management.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
VIRTUAL CASE FILE/SENTINEL
Question. What were the two cost estimates provided by Mitretek and
Aerospace, and when does the FBI expect to have a final cost estimate?
If this information is classified, please make arrangements to provide
this information to cleared staff.
Answer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has reconciled
the cost estimates from Aerospace and Mitretek and has developed a cost
estimate to be used for budgetary purposes. Although this information
is not classified, revealing it would alert potential contractors to
the government's expectations regarding contract price, and would
compromise the ability of the bid process to identify the lowest
responsive, responsible bidder. The FBI will provide a final cost
estimate when the contractor has been selected.
Question. Based on the two cost estimates you have received so far,
how much additional funding or reprogrammed funds will the FBI require?
If reprogramming is required, what programs do you anticipate will lose
funds?
Answer. On September 27, 2005, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
submitted a reprogramming to Congress for Phase 1 of SENTINEL, totaling
$97 million. Since SENTINEL will support all investigative activities
across the FBI, all programs were reviewed as potential sources to
support SENTINEL.
Question. Please reconcile these statements. Will the FBI utilize
the interface or any element of the IOC, and on what basis did the
Bureau reach this conclusion? Please also indicate whether the FBI has
received any assessment from Mitretek of the IOC pilot, and if so,
please describe those results.
Answer. The pilot was intended to test case management concepts as
well as actual software code developed by the Virtual Case File (VCF)
contractor. While the user interface code developed for VCF will not be
re-used in SENTINEL, user interface concepts tested in the pilot proved
to be essential tools and were incorporated into SENTINEL's
requirements document. In addition, portions of the VCF interface code
will be used in an on-going project to make data in the existing case
management system (the Automated Case Support system) accessible
through SENTINEL. This on-going effort will support Phase 1 of
SENTINEL.
Mitretek Systems' VCF Initial Operating Capability Final Report,
delivered in April 2005, was consistent with the conclusions described
above. In addition, its evaluation stressed the importance of waiting
to deploy an electronic workflow capability until it can be supported
by an electronic records management capability. The notional phases in
which SENTINEL will be developed have been structured to reflect this
conclusion.
Question. Has the list of requirements been refined and does the
FBI now have a final requirements list for the SENTINEL project? If
not, when will the FBI have a final list?
Answer. Review of the SENTINEL System Requirements Specification
(SRS) by line-of-business owners and stakeholders has been completed
and comments from this review have been incorporated into the SRS.
Question. Has a project manager been appointed for SENTINEL, and if
so, who is the project manager? If not, when will a project manager be
appointed?
Answer. Miodrag Lazarevich was appointed as SENTINEL's Program
Manager on 6/13/05. Prior to his detail to the FBI, Mr. Lazarevich
served as the Deputy Director for a joint special program office at the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). During that assignment and numerous
assignments in the military, diplomatic, and intelligence communities,
Mr. Lazarevich has managed large programs dealing with the development
of communications systems, information technology, strategic investment
plans for future systems, research and development technology
insertion, and cross-agency policy. Mr. Lazarevich is program manager
and a Contracting Officer Technical Representative certified at level
3, and has had extensive field experience and executive management
training and experience. Mr. Lazarevich is also a former United States
Army Signal Corps officer, including both active and reserve duty, and
holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Electronic Engineering from the
University of Wisconsin at Madison and a Master of Science degree in
Electronic Engineering from the University of Arizona at Tucson.
Question. Director Mueller testified on May 24 that the FBI intends
to complete the SENTINEL project in 4 phases with phase one to be
completed 12 months after the contract award and an overall timeline of
39 to 48 months. In light of the time we have already lost on the
Virtual Case File effort, the prospect of 4 more years before agents
will have these full capabilities disappoints and concerns me. Please
describe what functionalities will be available to FBI agents when each
of these phases is complete, and please also provide the estimated
completion dates for phases 2 and 3.
Answer. As indicated in the below chart, Phase 1 will establish a
single point of entry for legacy case management. The user will be
presented with the look and feel of a single integrated system instead
of stove-piped applications. Phase 1 will also expand the search
capability, allowing searches across multiple case-related systems, and
subsuming and expanding Automated Case Support capabilities by
summarizing a user's workload on a dashboard, rather than requiring the
user to perform a series of queries to obtain it. To simplify the entry
of data into the Universal Index (UNI), an entity extraction tool will
be used to automatically index appropriate persons, places, and things.
Finally, the core infrastructure components will be selected during
Phase 1.
Phase 2 will provide case document management and records
management repositories, beginning the transition to paperless case
records and implementing the electronic records management capability.
A workflow tool will support the flow of electronic case documents
through their review and approval cycles, and a new security framework
will support role-based access controls, single sign on, externally
controlled interfaces, and electronic signatures based on Public Key
Infrastructure. This phase will address the concern expressed by users
of Virtual Case File's Initial Operating Capability that a paperless
environment is necessary to leverage the benefits of automated
workflow.
Phase 3 will replace and improve the Bureau-wide global index for
persons, places, and things. In the ``Connect the Dots'' paradigm, the
``dots'' are represented by UNI, the legacy index that is, in effect, a
database of entities (i.e., persons, places, and things) that have case
relevance. Unlike the current UNI index, which supports a limited
number of attributes, the new global index will improve the richness of
the attributes associated with the indexed entities, permitting more
precise searching.
Phase 4 will implement the new case and task management and
reporting capabilities and will begin the systematic consolidation of
case management systems. This phase will consolidate and incorporate
functions currently performed by stovepipe legacy systems, which will
be retired at this point.
The following chart identifies the functionalities that will become
available through each phase of SENTINEL's development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase Description Functionality Provided
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1..................... SENTINEL Portal Access to ACS........... SENTINEL portal access to legacy data
Case Management Workbox
Entity extraction for the UNI
application
Expanded search capability, including
Electronic Case File (ECF) and
IntelPlus
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)
framework and foundation services
Phase 2..................... ECF Replacement......................... Case Document Management (DM)
Records Management Repository (RM)
Workflow management
Extended security with role-based access
controls, Public Key Infrastructure
(PKI), and digital signatures
Searching and reporting for DM/RM
Adjustments to interfaces
Phase 3..................... UNI Replacement......................... Improved Global Index with expanded
attributes, including Data Extraction
and Extension Project (DEEP)
Expanded searching and reporting
Adjustments to interfaces
Phase 4..................... Case Management Consolidation, including Case Management and Reporting
Investigative Case Management, Asset Task Management
Database, Criminal Management Informant Collected Items Management
System, Financial Institution Fraud, Adjustments to interfaces
Bank Robbery Statistical Application,
Integrated Statistical Reporting and
Analysis Application, and Guardian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Director Mueller testified on May 24 that ``SENTINEL is
different from the Virtual Case File program in a number of ways'' and
referenced a ``chart that illustrates the additional capabilities that
will be available under SENTINEL, capabilities that were not
contemplated as part of Virtual Case File. . .'' Please provide a copy
of this chart.
Answer. The Request for Proposals (RFP) was not made public, but
was instead published only to those contractors eligible to bid under
the Government Wide Acquisition Contract. Because the chart comparing
VCF capabilities with those we will seek in SENTINEL would convey much
the same information as the RFP (though in far broader terms), we
cannot provide the chart until the RFP is made public. We will be happy
to provide the chart when that occurs.
Question. In response to questions from the Feb. 3, 2005, VCF
hearing, Director Mueller stated that the FBI ``plans to request
additional government software and systems engineers in the future to
bolster its resource pool for dealing with complex and critical
information technology projects.'' Do the funds requested in this
budget cycle address the FBI's needs for additional software and
systems engineers, and how much do you anticipate will be necessary for
these purposes?
Answer. The FBI's portion of the President's fiscal year 2006
budget includes $7 million in nonpersonnel funding for ``Enterprise
Information Technology Management.'' Of this $7 million, $5.8 million
would be used to hire 23 contractors in the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, 5 of whom would focus on systems engineering.
Future budget requests for additional contractors or full-time FBI
software engineers will be based on an assessment of personnel and
operational needs related to the evolving technologies that support the
FBI's mission.
Question. When do you expect that the FICMS framework will be
finalized?
Answer. A draft white paper describing the Federal Investigative
Case Management System (FICMS) framework has been forwarded to DOJ for
its use in assisting other law enforcement agencies' case management
projects.
Question. What will the FBI's role be in the FICMS project?
Answer. FICMS serves as the framework that will guide the
development of DOJ and Department of Homeland Security investigative
case management systems. The FICMS framework complies with the Federal
Enterprise Architecture (FEA), uses FEA reference models, and will
contribute to our national security by strengthening the sharing of
terrorist information as required by Executive Order 13356. Each agency
participating in FICMS has unique needs and will employ its own
mechanisms to manage investigative workflow, manage records, and
analyze data. These individual systems will, however, follow the FICMS
blueprint, permitting data to flow easily and securely between
agencies. As the FICMS Executive Agent, the FBI is moving forward with
the development and deployment of the SENTINEL system, which will
follow the FICMS framework and establish key architectural components
for the FICMS infrastructure.
______
Questions Submitted to Robert S. Mueller, III
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
Question. You indicated at the hearing that the FBI failed to find
all the evidence when it searched Nichols' home ten years ago because
the evidence was buried under the earth. Are you considering any
changes to the Bureau's search protocols as a result of this incident?
Answer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) used all
appropriate investigative techniques when searching Terry Nichols' home
in April 1995, and it does not appear that, short of dismantling the
residence, the explosives buried under the crawl space could have been
located given the technology available at that time. Among other
investigative techniques, the FBI used an Ion Mobility Spectrometer
(IMS), which is an instrument designed to detect explosives. It is
likely the IMS did not detect the presence of explosives, which were
later found based upon information provided by Nichols, because these
explosives were in their original packaging, then wrapped in paper,
then further shrink-wrapped with several layers of plastic, and finally
buried beneath rocks and dirt. The 1995 search revealed only normal
construction debris and stones left from the construction of the stone
foundation, and no anomalies or indicia of recent disturbance were
identified.
While the FBI constantly seeks advancements in technology that can
aid in our investigative mission, and the capabilities of the FBI's
Evidence Response Team have increased significantly in the past decade,
the FBI forensic personnel deployed to the site in 1995 were both
appropriate for the circumstances and highly qualified. The team of
personnel included a Supervisory Special Agent from the FBI's
Explosives Unit, a chemist, a latent fingerprint supervisor, and a
fingerprint examiner, as well as a team of United States Army Explosive
Ordnance Disposal personnel and bomb technicians from the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. This group was highly effective,
locating numerous items of incriminating evidence, including weapons,
explosives, blasting caps, chemicals, United States currency, and
documents. While the forensic tools available to the FBI improve as
technology advances, the FBI does not believe that a different search
protocol would have yielded a different result.
Question. Is there anything about the recent discovery that changes
the Bureau's understanding of who did what in the conspiracy to bomb
the Murrah building--and if not, why not?
Answer. The information derived from the recent discovery does not
change the FBI's determination of who was responsible for or involved
in the conspiracy to bomb the Murrah Building. An extensive and
exhaustive investigation determined that the two subjects responsible
for the bombing of the Murrah Building were Timothy McVeigh and Terry
Nichols. The FBI thoroughly investigated the allegation that Roger
Edwin Moore was involved in that bombing, but the investigation yielded
no credible evidence supporting the allegation.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will now stand in recess
until Thursday, May 26, at 2 p.m., when we will hear testimony
from the Secretary of Commerce on the Department's budget for
2006.
The subcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., Tuesday, May 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Thursday,
May 26.]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:02 p.m., in room S-146, the
Capitol, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Gregg, Stevens, Cochran, and
Mikulski.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order. I want
to welcome the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Gutierrez, who
is here today. This is your first appearance before the newly
created Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you.
BUDGET REQUEST
Senator Shelby. We thank you for joining us for this budget
discussion.
We look forward to hearing from you about your vision for
the Commerce Department and the challenges that you see as the
Secretary in the coming year. Given the tight budget, we seem
to always have tight budget constraints that we are facing,
this subcommittee will need your assistance big time in making
some very tough choices about the distribution of resources as
well as your guidance regarding the essential priorities of the
Department of Commerce.
The fiscal year 2006 budget request which is before us for
the Department of Commerce is $9.4 billion. This includes $3.7
billion for the President's strengthening America's communities
initiative, and with the initiative, the Department's total
budget increases by $3 billion over last year's funding level.
Without the initiative, however, the Department's total budget
decreases by $656 million.
While this initiative has laudable goals, I believe there
may be some obstacles ahead. The program consolidates 18
Federal economic and community development programs from a
variety of agencies into a single direct grant program to be
housed in the Commerce Department. Legislation has not yet been
introduced to authorize the program, and the details of the
initiative are still unknown. I hope today you will provide us
some information regarding the details that have been lacking
about the initiative as well as your plan for moving forward. I
think it is important for us as appropriators to know where we
are going and how we're going to get there.
The Department's budget also, Mr. Secretary, proposes
significant increases for the Census Bureau, the Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO), and the Bureau of Industry and Security
(BIS). I understand that the increase for the Census Bureau
primarily supports the decennial census, and the increase for
PTO reflects full access to its fees and will support
minimizing application processing time and enhancing the
quality of products and services for the patent process and the
trademark process. I hope we can discuss these increases.
We would also like to discuss whether the increases
proposed for the Bureau of Industry and Security are sufficient
to support BIS' critical mission regulating the export of
sensitive goods and technologies. Your budget does include some
programmatic decreases and this concerns me. Mr. Secretary, the
administration proposes to cut funding for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by 8.5 percent. The cut
comes at a time when the Presidentially appointed U.S. Ocean
Commission recommended doubling our Federal expenditures on
ocean and coastal research, and given the recommendation, the
subcommittee finds such a decrease a little puzzling.
Mr. Secretary, following your confirmation, I am sure you
were surprised to learn that NOAA makes up 65 percent of your
budget. While we appreciate that you must balance many
important priorities within the Department of Commerce, you
will find on this subcommittee, there is significant interest
in NOAA. NOAA produces nautical charts and tide predictions
critical to trade and commerce. It manages fish and shellfish
for world consumption. It provides weather and climate
predictions vital to the agriculture and energy sectors and to
commerce as a whole. Mr. Secretary, I hope as you begin to
write your first budget request for the Commerce Department,
you consider carefully the concerns of this subcommittee
regarding the funding for NOAA.
I am pleased that the administration continues to show
support in its budget request for the labs of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, better known as NIST, by
proposing $426 million, a 12.5 percent increase above last
year's appropriation. Your labs play a vital role in the
development of measurements, standards and technology to
enhance productivity, facilitate trade and improve the quality
of life. NIST's standards and measurements contribute to the
development of such things as bulletproof vests, mammogram
technology, DNA analysis, computer security, nanotechnology,
voting machines, and manufacturing.
Unfortunately, the administration proposed to terminate the
Advanced Technology Program and reduce the Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Program by over 50 percent. I am sure
you will find, Mr. Secretary, that these programs enjoy support
on both sides of the aisle here from a number of members. I
plan to work with Senator Mikulski to ensure that all of NIST's
programs are funded so it can carry out its mission of
standards and technology.
In addition, the budget proposes to terminate the public
telecommunications facilities, planning, and construction
program, grants which provide support for public broadcasting's
digital conversion. The proposal assumes these grants can be
provided through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB),
even though CPB's assistance has traditionally been a lot more
limited. I would like to discuss the impact of the shift of
responsibilities that it would have, especially on rural
stations in the United States.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on
the Commerce budget request and look forward to working with
you in the years ahead.
Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
want to associate myself with the priorities you have outlined
here.
I do want to welcome Secretary Gutierrez to the hearing
today, his first appearance, and we look forward to ongoing
conversation not only in these formal public hearings. Knowing
of his distinguished career in business, we know that we can
count on him to promote American business both here at home and
abroad.
Mr. Secretary, you know you have a tough job. Our trade
deficit is at a record high, over $600 billion. Our
manufacturing is fading. Where will the new ideas and the new
jobs come from? And also, the challenges of protecting our
intellectual property as well as moving many ideas into a
patent framework so that they can be protected. I am concerned
that we could be losing our competitive edge in the global
economy.
But here, as we look at your budget, we feel that we could
be working for a stronger economy, and we look forward to
working with you. As I go through my questions, one of the
areas we will be looking at is how will this budget help
develop innovation? Because that will be the key to our future,
to develop new technologies and new innovations, new ideas that
create the new jobs in the future.
Also, I want to know how this year's budget actually
focuses on saving lives and saving property. And this takes us
to NOAA as well as to NIST. NOAA safeguards and protects
property by forecasting the weather, protecting natural
disasters, and helping citizens and communities prepare as well
as the mapping that it does. NIST, our own National Institute
of Standards, as Senator Shelby says, is developing
breakthrough ideas on technology.
We do not always think of them as life savers; yet, when I
visited NIST, I saw they had a replica and computer models and
actual physical renditions of the World Trade Center. And
there, just in very modest laboratory circumstances, they were
identifying why did that building collapse? Why was there so
much smoke? All of the questions that led to such death and
destruction. And they wanted to know not only so we could honor
what happened but will lead to new ideas and building codes and
architectural reform and better standards and toxic materials
in buildings. They are saving lives. They had digital cameras
they were testing.
Mr. Chairman, as we spend millions on homeland security and
the fire grant program, what are the digital cameras that can
really help a first responder go into a room and spot whether
it is a mattress on the floor or whether it is a child wrapped
in a blanket, and they are doing that, setting those standards.
So we are proud of them, and we look forward to what we can do
to work with them. We love the Commerce Department in Maryland.
It is the headquarters of NOAA. NIST is located there as well
as the Census Bureau, and I know as you visited them, you see
how dedicated those civil servants are.
So as we look at NOAA, I want to reiterate what our
chairman said: make sure that it is adequately funded so that
it can save lives and save livelihoods. And also, many of the
ideas that they develop, we are seeing that they move into the
commercial marketplace. They seem to be developing public-
private partnerships, especially in the weather field. So we
look forward to hearing your ideas and how you see that while
they do the research and do the studies how this goes into the
future.
In terms of the innovation economy, I am concerned that the
Task Force on the Future of American Innovation is concerned
that we are falling behind in innovation. And that is where we
look to NIST to research these technologies and in these new
fields such as nanotech, through programs like the Advanced
Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
I will tell you, they have been a tremendous help in the
biotech field right here in the Capital region and have spawned
some of these ideas.
But really, what has me on edge is the backlog of patent
applications. We have a backlog of almost 500,000 patent
applications, and if we invent it, we want to protect it so we
can sell it. And we look forward to your ideas on how to deal
with the backlog. We know the budget is tight. We have tough
choices. But I want to be sure that we work in a partnership
with you. I want to keep their ideas here and protect their
ideas so that we continue building our market share, so the
workers are working in a team and having a budget framework
that works as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Stevens.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES AND FUNDING
Senator Stevens. Mr. Secretary, I welcome you to this
hearing today. When we had a shift of control in the Senate,
this was my office for awhile. It sort of reminds me of a lot
of things, but one of the things it reminds me of is the
meetings we had here about NOAA. And we just, your Department
recently discovered that the way that the coastline of the
United States has been computed is erroneous, and if you
include offshore islands and archipelagos and those areas of
tidal water up to a point where it is less than--more than 100
foot closure of tidal water, that Alaska's coastline is more--
we used to say it was half the coastline of the United States.
Now, it is greater than all of the coastline of the United
States.
NOAA is to us an enormous entity that covers North Pacific
surveys, Gulf Alaska surveys, North Pacific maritime boundary
line surveys, the Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring, the
Southeastern Coastal Observing System, the National Invasive
Species Act, and the Marine Debris Removal Program. It is not
only important to Alaska's fishing industry, but it is
important to the whole country, because we are the home of most
of the marine mammals that live off our coasts.
The one thing that bothers me the greatest, though, is the
tsunami warning system. After the great tsunami that we
witnessed here just in our own lifetime, I went to look at the
tsunami warning system in Hawaii. Three of the five warning
devices are off of my State. Senator Inouye and I helped them
to get there. They have been inoperable for 2 years because of
lack of funds. Out of the five, only one was working. Had the
tsunami come the other way, the damage to our United States
would have been untold, because we would have had no warning,
although we thought we were the only Nation in the world that
had a warning system.
And now, here comes a level of funding that I just cannot
understand. I know you did not do it. You were not there. But
someone needs to have their head examined. We exist primarily
because of the fish that we consume. Our Nation is turning into
a Nation of fish eaters. Sixty percent of all the fish that
Americans consume come from off the State of Alaska. All of
these NOAA programs are designed to protect those species of
the ocean, to assist on debris removal, to insist on no drift
nets, to insist on maintaining the concept of limiting
fisheries so that they never go beyond the sustainable limit.
And NOAA does that all. I really do not understand the NOAA
level. It is just impossible for us to understand it.
So I look forward to working with you somehow or other. I
think that you will be known as a magician if you can help us
solve this problem this year, although I have just come from a
meeting where there is good news: they tell us that the deficit
this year will be at least $60 billion to $70 billion lower
than anticipated. I am sure you have seen the good news. The
income of the Treasury is up by 20 percent more than it was
predicted. The rate of growth of the country is up. If we can
get some of that sunshine shining in this room, maybe we can
solve this problem.
Welcome.
Senator Shelby. Senator Gregg.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to follow on to what the President
pro tempore said regarding NOAA, and I guess I have some
specific questions in this area. Last year, the subcommittee
funded DOC's policy proposal nowhere near what it needed but at
a fairly significant and robust level, Admiral Watkins'
proposal of $350 million. And your budget submission basically
eliminates that funding.
In addition, we made a strong commitment to NOAA as we
always do, and unfortunately, your budget submission does not
have the same robust commitment. So I guess my first question
to you is what is the administration position on the Ocean
Policy Commission's report? It appears to be one of active
neglect. I thought maybe you could tell us something else.
Senator Shelby. We are not in questions yet.
Senator Gregg. We are just doing opening statements. Oh, I
apologize. I thought we were in questions.
Senator Shelby. Just defer.
Senator Gregg. Well, just reserve that question in the back
of your mind. I have given you warning.
Senator Shelby. Maybe you can answer that, Mr. Secretary,
when you give your statement.
Senator Gregg. That is my statement.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. As chairman, I could just suggest to the
Secretary that you have become Secretary of Commerce at a good
time. I noticed the recent economic forecast and reports of the
growth in the economy are suggesting that it is way above what
expectations were. And we did not expect you would be Secretary
of Commerce. So maybe this is the reason why the economy is
growing as robustly as it is, and you can discuss that with us,
and I would appreciate your observations about what we can
foresee maybe more realistically for growth in the future, if
it will continue to grow at this rate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, your written statement will
be made part of the record. You may proceed as you will.
Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a
summary of the statement in front of me.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Secretary Gutierrez. Mr. Chairman and Senator Mikulski and
members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to present the
President's fiscal 2006 budget request for the Department of
Commerce, and with your permission, I would like to just
highlight some of the key components of the budget and submit
my written testimony for the record.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Secretary Gutierrez. As you well know, Congress created the
Department of Commerce 100 years ago to promote economic growth
and opportunity for business and workers. Our approach to this
vital mission is threefold: first, we provide the tools to
maximize U.S. business development and competitiveness; second,
we foster technology and innovation; and third, enhance
environmental understanding and stewardship.
The President's total budget request for the Department of
Commerce is $9.4 billion, and it is focused on core programs
that promote a prosperous, productive, and secure America.
Included in this budget is $3.71 billion for the President's
new Strengthening America's Communities Initiative.
Our economy, as you know, is solid, it is strong, and it
certainly is stronger than our major trading partners around
the world. And as you also know, private forecasters predict
that strong economic growth will continue. We know that there
are still transitioning communities and workers who need our
help. We believe that by consolidating 18 Federal programs
within the Department of Commerce, we can simplify the
application process, eliminate duplicative programs, and
establish greater accountability. Most importantly, we can make
better use of taxpayers' dollars and achieve greater results
for low-income people in economically distressed areas.
For the International Trade Administration, we are
requesting $396 million to continue aggressively promoting U.S.
exports, opening markets, ensuring a level playing field for
American companies and workers. Over the last 50 years, the
contribution of exports to our economy has more than doubled.
It is more than likely that exports will continue to be an
increasing share of our growth as we open markets and the
economies of our trading partners expand.
Timely and accurate economic information is needed to
generate growth and jobs. Therefore, an additional $9 million
is requested for the Bureau of Economic Analysis. These funds
will support completing a multiyear effort to improve economic
measures and expand business investment data.
An increase of $133 million is requested to support
initiatives in the Census Bureau, including reengineering the
decennial census. Ongoing efforts include administering the
American community survey and developing plans for the 2010
census based on only a short form.
For our Bureau of Industry and Security, we are requesting
a $9.5 million increase to target export enforcement of
advanced technologies. To maximize technology's contribution to
economic growth, high-wage job creation and the health and
safety of our citizens, we are requesting $532 million for
NIST. This includes a 13 percent increase for high priority
research in areas such as manufacturing, nanotechnology and
public safety programs.
For NOAA, we are requesting $3.6 billion to fund research,
prediction, and stewardship programs critical to the Nation's
economy and public well-being. This includes funding to begin
construction of a fourth fishery survey vessel, to address
ecosystem research priorities, and to complete a 2-year plan
for providing 100 percent detection capability for a U.S.
coastal tsunami. The new system will expand monitoring
throughout the Pacific and Caribbean basin and provide warning
coverage for regions bordering half of the world's oceans. I
would like to thank the members for the funds in the fiscal
year 2005 supplemental for our tsunami efforts.
Mr. Chairman, this budget concentrates on our Nation's 21st
century economic and security needs. The President has shown
strong leadership in laying out a course for cutting the budget
deficit in half over the next 5 years, and that requires making
hard choices across the entire Federal Government.
We have not requested new funding for the Advanced
Technology Program. We believe other R&D programs address
higher priority needs of the U.S. science and technology
community. We have asked Congress to provide phaseout funding
for public telecommunications facilities planning and
construction, and we have requested funds for the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP) staff which, when combined with
outside resources, will allow Hollings MEPs to maintain a
national network. Funding will be targeted to the centers'
performance and needs.
I understand that there are those who have differing views
about these choices. Please know, needless to say, I respect
your views, and I look forward to working with you and other
Members of Congress throughout the budget process.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the subcommittee for
the generous support you have provided Commerce programs and
missions in the past. I welcome your comments, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
[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 $9.4 billion is an increase of
$3.1 billion above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. This
performance-integrated budget, based upon the Department's Strategic
Plan, includes a proposal to create a new opportunity to foster
domestic economic and community development through the Strengthening
America's Communities Grant Program. And, in keeping with Commerce's
mission to provide the tools to maximize U.S. competitiveness and
enable economic growth for American industries, workers, and consumers,
the request continues programs that create conditions for economic
growth and opportunity for all Americans by promoting innovation,
entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and stewardship.
Provide the information and tools to maximize U.S. competitiveness and
enable economic growth for American industries, workers, and
consumers
The President's new initiative, Strengthening America's Communities
(SAC), will consolidate and transform 18 Federal economic and community
development programs from the Departments of Agriculture, Health and
Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, and Commerce
into a single direct-grant program to be housed within the Department
of Commerce. The purpose of this initiative is to create an
Administration-wide unified approach to the Federal government's
domestic development efforts, rather than one distributing efforts
across agencies. The results will better focus resources and eliminate
overlapping and conflicting programs.
This consolidated economic and community development grant program
will streamline Federal assistance. It will provide States and
communities with simplified access to the Federal grant system, focus
on communities most in need of assistance, and require communities to
meet substantive accountability standards that will track progress
toward achieving the community's goals of long-term economic stability
and growth. By consolidating those programs that share a similar
mission, the Strengthening America's Communities initiative will help
provide a more coherent, strategic and results-oriented focus to
federal economic development efforts. In addition, by providing
incentives and increased accountability, we can reward communities that
make concrete economic improvements in distressed areas. The fiscal
year 2006 budget requests a total of $3.71 billion for the new
Strengthening America's Communities Grant Program. The Administration
intends to prepare and present to Congress legislation to implement the
initiative as soon as possible.
This past February, I met with European Union officials in
Brussels, Belgium, to discuss the Administration's continued commitment
to working with other nations to achieve common goals. The strength of
the U.S. economy is closely tied to our success in fostering
international partnerships and encouraging broad support for the sound
fiscal and monetary policies that create jobs at home and produce
prosperity around the world.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) seeks to strengthen the
understanding of the United States economy and its competitive
position. BEA accomplishes this task by providing accurate economic
accounts data in a timely and cost-effective manner, and by supplying
many of the Nation's key economic statistics, including the Gross
Domestic Product. To ensure we have sufficient tools to provide our
decision-makers with the necessary information, we have included in
this request a 12 percent increase for BEA to support key initiatives:
to improve international statistics to better describe offshore
outsourcing, expand business investment data, and finish a multi-year
effort to improve the timeliness, relevance, and accuracy of economic
measures.
The Bureau of the Census requests an increase of $133 million to
support initiatives that will significantly improve the quality of the
information it collects and provides to the country. The most
significant increase supports the three key components of re-
engineering the Decennial Census. First, the American Community Survey,
the annual replacement to the once-in a-decade long form, will be fully
implemented with funding for group quarters enumeration and a methods
panel to update the questionnaire. Second, modernization of the
geographic database information remains on schedule. Third, preparation
for a short-form only 2010 Decennial Census continues with the 2006
Census Test and development of support systems. Several other notable
program changes are supported by this request: improvements to the
Automated Export System will produce more accurate trade statistics;
expansion of the measurements of services will add detail to this
important sector; creation of a Longitudinal Employer/Household
Dynamics data base infrastructure will fill critical gaps in local
employment data; and strengthening the measurements of migration will
improve state-level estimates. In addition, the Bureau of the Census
also plans to furnish and move into its new office building at the
Suitland Federal Center.
The globalization of trade and the rapid development of technology
presents great opportunity 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. The 14 percent budget
increase requested will give BIS the necessary tools and personnel to
effectively deal with these challenges. The request includes funding
for additional licensing personnel to address the rising numbers of
licenses, and an Office of Technology Evaluation to ensure that the
Department is controlling the appropriate new technologies while not
restricting exports of products that are widely available. As license
requests have increased so has the need for additional enforcement
resources. We are asking for additional enforcement agents, and
resources for a seized computer evidence recovery program and
additional overseas end-use verification. We are also asking for
funding for a program to recruit and retain the high-quality personnel
needed for BIS's critical mission.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) is charged with
promoting international trade, opening foreign markets to U.S.
businesses, and ensuring compliance with trade laws and agreements
while supporting U.S. commercial interests at home and abroad. In
carrying out its mission, ITA conducts detailed domestic and
international competitive analyses to ensure that the U.S.
manufacturing and service sectors compete effectively and meet the
demands of global supply chains, as well as understand the competitive
impact of regulatory and economic changes. ITA supports the U.S.
exporting community directly by providing a variety of products and
services, and by operating a Trade Information Center to provide a
single point of customer contact to government export assistance
programs.
The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) is focused on
accelerating the growth and competitiveness of minority-owned
businesses by closing the gap in economic opportunities and capital
access. We are requesting an increase of $0.2 million for MBDA to
expand the Agency's capabilities to disseminate, analyze and deliver
vital statistical data for the minority business community. We are also
requesting an increase of $0.5 million for MBDA to provide equal
economic opportunities for full participation of Asian American and
Pacific Islander businesses in our free market economy, and to increase
the access of minority business enterprises to global markets.
Foster science and technological leadership by protecting intellectual
property, enhancing technical standards, and advancing
measurement science
The President understands the opportunities science and technology
provide to enhance the lives of all Americans. The President's focus in
the area of science and technology is reflected in the Department of
Commerce R&D portfolio. The Commerce budget maintains substantial R&D
investments in the Technology Administration (TA), which includes the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS).
The Technology Administration and its various components seek to
maximize technology's contribution to economic growth, high-wage job
creation, and the social well-being of the United States. TA and NIST
not only serve as advocates for technological innovation but also
analyze the factors that affect our competitiveness and develop the
tools needed to enhance productivity, trade, and, in the end, the
quality of life for all Americans. In addition, NIST is engaged in
critical research in high-priority areas of technological innovation
such as nanotechnology, information technology, biotechnology, and
manufacturing technology. NIST is also conducting research in response
to the World Trade Center tragedy and the February 2003 nightclub fire
in Rhode Island to better prepare facility owners, contractors,
architects, engineers, emergency responders, and regulatory authorities
to prevent future disasters.
To meet the Nation's needs in setting technological standards, we
propose increased funding to NIST laboratories for high priority
research areas and necessary facilities upgrades and maintenance. The
increases include $39.8 million to enhance research capabilities in
manufacturing (particularly in the area of nanotechnology), expand
public safety and security programs, and provide the measurement
infrastructure for emerging needs of the Nation's research community,
and $32 million to support the Facilities Improvement Plan for critical
construction, major repair, and renovation projects at the NIST sites
in Boulder, Colorado, and Gaithersburg, Maryland. Consistent with the
Administration's continuing emphasis on shifting resources to reflect
changing needs, the fiscal year 2006 budget proposes to terminate the
Advanced Technology Program. We propose to fund the Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (HMEP) at $46.8 million.
This level of funding, combined with expanding partnerships with other
agencies and institutions, will allow the HMEP to maintain a national
network.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) request will support
the USPTO strategic plan for the 21st Century to keep pace with
workload growth and to enhance the quality of products and services.
The Administration continues to support giving USPTO full access to its
fees in the year of collection. This $148.5 million increase will allow
the USPTO to improve processing capacity by hiring additional patent
and trademark examiners, continue development of an operational system
to process patent applications electronically, continue the transition
of the trademark operation to a fully electronic environment, enhance
the current quality assurance programs by integrating reviews to cover
all stages of examination, and work to achieve greater patent examiner
productivity by reducing the prior art search burden. I have visited
USPTO's new headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, and appreciate your
support for that facility.
The fiscal year 2006 National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) request will continue to provide the resources
necessary to improve NTIA's research and Federal spectrum management
capabilities and provide support for NTIA to implement the President's
Spectrum Policy Initiative for the 21st Century.
Observe, protect and manage the earth's resources to promote
environmental stewardship
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
mission is 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. The work performed at NOAA touches the daily lives of every
person in the United States and in much of the world, since NOAA:
provides weather, water, and climate services; manages and protects
marine resources ecosystems; conducts atmospheric, climate, and
ecosystems research; promotes efficient and environmentally safe
commerce and transportation; and provides emergency response and vital
information in support of homeland security.
In addition to using science and technology to create jobs and
improve economic prosperity, the Department is also directing resources
toward disaster prevention, to better understand and minimize the loss
of life and property from disasters.
While in Brussels, I led the U.S. delegation to the Global Earth
Observation Summit and presented the Administration's plan for the U.S.
component of a Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). A
large portion of the increase requested for NOAA in fiscal year 2006
will support the effort to better understand the complex interactions
on our planet. With this improved knowledge, decision-makers around the
world will be able to make more informed decisions regarding climate,
the environment, and other issues.
I applaud the Congress for passing the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
Relief, 2005, which embraced the President's desire to protect the
American people by providing the initial resources necessary to meet
the need for 100 percent detection capability for a U.S. coastal
tsunami. To continue this effort in fiscal year 2006, we propose to
invest $9.5 million to expand the U.S. tsunami warning system. Once
fully implemented by mid-2007, the new system will extend monitoring
capabilities throughout the Pacific and Caribbean basins and provide
tsunami warning coverage for regions bordering half of the world's
oceans.
Currently, NOAA leads the Nation and world in ocean and ecosystem
science, policy and management. In December 2004, the Administration
released the ``U.S. Ocean Action Plan,'' a response to the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy's report entitled, ``An Ocean Blueprint for
the 21st Century.'' Working under the leadership of the Council on
Environmental Quality, and with several other agencies, NOAA
substantially assisted in the development of this action plan. NOAA
will play a key role in implementing many of the ocean policy measures
that the plan contains, including supporting the establishment of a
coordinated ocean governance structure. Consistent with this approach,
the Administration continues to support Commerce's leadership role in
oceans policy and activities by promoting passage of a NOAA Organic
Act. An Administration drafted Organic Act was sent to Congress on
April 5th and is awaiting introduction.
In accordance with the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan, the
Department continues to request significant resources for ocean and
coastal programs and improved fisheries management, as well as
protected species activities. The President's Budget includes more than
$1 billion for these ongoing programs, including $61.2 million to
address state and regional ecosystem research priorities at the
National Sea Grant College Program, $22.7 million in support of NOAA's
Ocean Exploration Program, $32.5 million to begin construction of a
fourth fisheries survey vessel that will substantially improve the
quality of NOAA fisheries research, and $25.4 million for fisheries
stock assessment. The Budget proposes reforms to the Pacific Coastal
Salmon Recovery Fund to help ensure that funds are allocated to high
priority activities, and to require matching contributions from State
and local recipients of grants.
NOAA's global leadership also extends to monitoring the planet
through the development of the GEOSS. The GEOSS will provide NOAA and
others with the tools to better understand our planet through an
integrated, comprehensive, and sustained Earth observation program. We
are requesting a significant increase for GEOSS of $94.7 million, which
includes the development of the next generation of weather satellites.
In addition, the Administration is committed to continuing the
LANDSAT mission. Our budget requests $11 million to begin the process
of integrating LANDSAT sensors on future weather satellites. NOAA's
satellite programs secure the observational data necessary for more
timely and accurate weather forecasts, hurricane predictions, and the
development of climate predictive models.
NOAA leads the Administration's interagency Climate Change Science
Program. As needs for water, climate, and air quality information
increase worldwide, NOAA has been working to improve our understanding
of climate and helping develop products and services that provide
useful information for national and regional management decisions. One
example of this is the National Integrated Drought Information System
(NIDIS), which provides early drought warning on a regional level.
Finally, the budget includes investments for improvements in
transportation. Additional funding for electronic navigational charts
and for accurate current and water level data is essential to safe and
environmentally sound shipping. Improving aviation ceiling/visibility
forecasting will result in an estimated $250 million annual fuel cost
savings for U.S. airlines.
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 70 year-old HCHB is one of the last historic
buildings in the Federal Triangle to be scheduled for renovation and
modernization. To meet basic health and safety codes, meet industry
standards, and replace failing mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
systems, the Department is requesting $30 million for its fiscal year
2006 portion of the joint General Services Administration/Department of
Commerce project. The request also includes funding of the Department's
renovation office that will coordinate the movement of tenants and
GSA's work to minimize the disruption of the Department's missions and
provide necessary oversight of the project.
Both the Office of the Inspector General and Departmental
Management are requesting funding increases to improve acquisition
oversight, provide additional training to contract officers and make
targeted reviews of both specific contracts and the procurement
process. A quarter of Commerce's appropriation is spent on major
procurement activities, such as satellites, the Decennial Census and
the renovation of HCHB. Improving the acquisition process is one of the
Department's top management challenges because, with proper oversight
and improvements, taxpayer money can be better utilized.
Conclusion
In his February 2nd State of the Union Address, the President
underscored the need to restrain spending in order to sustain our
economic prosperity. As part of this restraint, it is important that
total discretionary and non-security spending be held to levels
proposed in the fiscal year 2006 President's budget. The fiscal year
2006 President's budget includes more than 150 reductions, reforms, and
terminations in non-defense discretionary programs, of which six affect
Department of Commerce programs. To meet this fiscal requirement we are
proposing terminating the Advanced Technology Program, the Emergency
Steel Guarantee Loan Program, and the Public Telecommunications,
Facilities, Planning, and Construction Program. In addition, we are
proposing a major reduction from fiscal year 2005 enacted levels in the
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. The budget also
contains the reform proposals for the Strengthening America's
Communities Grant Program and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
discussed above. The Department wants to work with the Congress to
achieve these savings and reforms.
The Department of Commerce's fiscal year 2006 budget has been
crafted to focus on funding the core functions that the American people
rely on from this Department, in the most efficient manner. I look
forward to working with the Committee to ensure that together we are
providing the best services to the American people--promoting
``American Jobs and American Values.''
STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, when do you plan to present legislation
authorizing strengthening America's communities?
Secretary Gutierrez. Mr. Chairman, we have an advisory
committee and we expect to have legislation to you later in the
year. That legislation will have a recommendation on how we
allocate funds in the future. We have a funding system that has
two formulas, and depending which formula you use, you can find
money for just about any community. We have communities today
at a 2 or 3 percent poverty level who are receiving funds and
some communities that have a 20 percent poverty level that are
not receiving enough funds. So the challenge for the advisory
committee will be how to develop funding criteria that will
ensure that the money goes to those communities that really
need the money. So we look forward to working with you, and we
will have that recommendation to you in late June.
Senator Shelby. What impact, if any, would this have, if
this came about, on the Economic Development Administration
(EDA)?
Secretary Gutierrez. This would expand what we currently
do. Essentially, we have EDA today, and we have moved to
strengthening America's communities. We would collapse the six
different agencies throughout the Government into one program,
because you have 18 different programs today. And we think that
by having one program with one criteria and one process, we
would make it easier for those who request funds.
We make the criteria transparent for everyone. We ensure
that there are accountability measures in the communities; that
the money we give out either improves employment or improves
private sector investment or improves poverty rates; we would
like to tie it to measures and results, and that is what we
look forward to doing.
Senator Shelby. Some of us would like that to come under
Commerce, under this subcommittee, but what are your realistic
prospects on authorizing and passing that legislation?
Secretary Gutierrez. Well, Senator, we do believe that if
we get the information out we can ensure that there is
understanding about the logic for this and why we are doing
this. The fact that in the Commerce Department, we have
contacts with the private sector; we believe that community
development is very much about attracting private sector
investment. We already do that. A lot of what we do is in the
private sector, so we have that skill set within Commerce, and
we hope that the logic of this will be seen broadly, because we
do believe that it will be better use of taxpayers dollars.
EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, the Congress has not
reauthorized the Export Administration Act. We continue to
confront cases of individuals and companies either deliberately
or inadvertently seeking to military sensitive dual use
technologies without regard for the licensing process. Do you
believe that a $9.5 million increase over last year's funding
level is sufficient to address this?
Secretary Gutierrez. I know we are working very hard on
this. We have actually added some resources outside of the
country to be able to make some checks on dual use items and
actually go to the buyers and make sure that they are using
items for what they said they would use them. We have got very
good contacts with the intelligence community, and we believe
that we maximize the use of that. We are always trying to make
the greatest use of a limited budget.
REORGANIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION
Senator Shelby. Last year, you know, there was a large
scale reorganization of the International Trade Administration.
What results are you seeing? Have you been able to measure that
from that reorganization?
Secretary Gutierrez. We have been able to concentrate and
focus on specific regions of the world. So for me, it is very
helpful to be able to have a European expert who is involved
primarily in Europe and who understands the issues in Europe
and who understands regulations in Europe. We have some very
competent Asian experts. We have North American experts. So
that level of expertise has been very, very helpful.
We also have individuals who have been involved in industry
who have expertise in the steel industry or the textile
industry. Having that focus and expertise has helped me, and I
know it helps the Department have a sense of focus and results.
Senator Shelby. Will this include the trade promotion
mission?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, sir, yes. We have done missions
and we are planning missions now. We think that an important
part of our role is ensuring that our exporters have access to
markets where we have free trade agreements. We have had export
missions in the past. We are planning one now to eastern
Europe. We would like to get more missions going, and I would
love to hear from you, sir, for any areas of the world that you
think merit missions. An important part of our role is making
sure that our businesses know how to access foreign markets.
CHINA AS A MARKET ECONOMY
Senator Shelby. Many people believe that once, or I should
say if or when, if ever, China floats its currency and engages
in other economic reforms, there is a probability that your
Department will declare China to be a market economy looking
down the road. If that were to happen, the subsidies that are
being given today while China is a nonmarket economy, will that
be actionable?
Secretary Gutierrez. For China, one of their big priorities
is to become a market economy.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Secretary Gutierrez. That is one of their agenda items that
I know they will be taking to our Joint Commission on Commerce
and Trade (JCCT). We have a series of other agenda items that
we would like to see them address first. Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR) is one that is right on top of the list;
Government procurement is also on the list. We know that a lot
of the software we sell, we cannot sell to the Government. A
lot of the software they have is counterfeit. So it is very
important for them, and it is a big symbol to them to be named
a market economy. We would like to see some things happen
before that takes place.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to discuss the National
Institute of Standards. I was very troubled by the fact that it
was decreased by 24 percent and is over close to $500 million.
For NIST, which is not a big chunk but a big bang agency, that
is a pretty big hit. Would you tell us how you think they can
provide the same level of service with the reduction, and why
did we eliminate the Advanced Technology Program just when we
need to be moving toward cutting edge technology for high value
jobs?
Secretary Gutierrez. I was over at NIST not long ago, and
their challenge, of course, is to focus on their pipeline of
ideas and to get them done. As you know, some of those ideas
are several years down the road. Quite often, by having too
many projects, they can lose effectiveness. We believe that we
have that balance of the number of projects and make sure that
people are focused on those areas that only we can do. We do
not believe that the private sector is involved in
nanotechnology to the degree necessary, because they do not
have a return in nanotechnology yet. But we have nanotechnology
and we have biotechnology. Some of the other areas that require
R&D spending are being focused on by the private sector. It's a
matter of finding a balance between what we should do, what we
can do, and what we can fund.
Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Secretary, I respectfully
disagree with you. The Task Force on American Innovation says
that inventors in Asia are applying for patents at a faster
rates than inventors in America. Asian nations are increasing
their share of high tech exports while the United States is
falling. So we have got to be competitive.
And then, I agree with your focus. So I respect your
managerial ability and the management effort and focus. But you
cannot, even with focus, you still need money. Focus without
funds is unfocused. And to cut the Advanced Technology Program,
which is a $140 million decrease, I think is really stunning.
And I would like, as we go through our appropriations, for you
to read this, and, you know, sure, we could meet with the lab,
but you are the Secretary of Commerce.
We want to work with you because we believe that this is a
very, very, very important program in terms of them being the
link there. And as you said, our private sector knows about
nano, and they are already working in nano. But then, they are
going to need standards: what is the smart dust? Are there
unintended occupational hazards, because of the small
particles? So we want to keep on doing it.
And then, my colleagues are going to ask questions about
the ocean policy. They are going to ask about the tsunami.
Senator Stevens is here. I want to ask about NOAA about the
reduced funding of research there. NOAA research is reduced by
$40 million. And I know we, we are coastal Senators here, and
seafood is our life's blood, whether it is our oysters and
crabs where we have been doing research. We understand New
England has a lobster disease. We are working on those issues.
Senator Gregg. New Hampshire is a coastal State.
Senator Shelby. An important part.
OCEANS POLICY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Senator Mikulski. As you can see, we enjoy each other.
But what do you think are the consequences of reducing NOAA
funding for research by $40 million? What are we not going to
do?
Secretary Gutierrez. As you know, Senator, we received 200
recommendations on the Oceans Policy Report. It is hard to
tackle 200 recommendations at once. The President does not
really disagree with them, but we picked 50. We have $23
million in the request to make sure that we have 100 percent
tsunami protection and coverage. We have $32 million for a new
fisheries vessel. The big projects, the projects that we
believe have to be done are funded. And once again, it is a
matter of choices and priorities, and we hope we have chosen
the right priorities. But you will note that there is about $1
billion to respond to the Oceans Policy Report.
Senator Mikulski. No, there is $40 million less in
research.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. In addition to the broad ocean policy for
NOAA and research you know, again, there is often the specific
research. So we are concerned again. I do not know if there is
a strategic plan for the implementation of the ocean report?
What, then, are the strategic priorities? In some ways, the way
the National Science Foundation goes about it.
PATENT BACKLOGS
But my time, I know other Senators would like to ask
questions. Let me go to an important thing with me. That is the
patent backlogs. As I understand it, there is a backlog of
500,000 applicants. You and I have talked about intellectual
property, and I think we share an interest in it. But you
cannot protect intellectual property unless you have patents.
Could you tell us what is the plan to cope with the
backlog, and why is the PTO funded through fees paid by
inventors? Should we be able to be looking at other revenue
streams? Is it the lack of money? Is it the lack of management?
Is it the lack of technology at the Patent Office? Because this
is probably one of the most important tech transfer agencies.
And I will stop there.
But my own State, where biotech is on the rise, my
entrepreneurs say we stand in two lines: one to get an FDA
approval, and that is pretty rigorous. Then, we are standing in
another line to get our patents, and we feel incredibly
disadvantaged. You cannot accelerate a clinical trial. You have
to be careful. The patent process is something that we should
be able to help them with.
Secretary Gutierrez. Senator, I agree with you. I feel very
uncomfortable with the lead times. I feel very uncomfortable
with 500,000 patents pending in 5 years. The time for pendency
is about 18 months. It is my understanding that there are some
projects that have been around for even longer than that.
There are two areas in the budget to address that, and we
will report back whether it is speeding up and whether it is
making progress. One is adding people.
Senator Mikulski. Adding people?
Secretary Gutierrez. Adding people. There are quite a few
new reviewers in the budget who actually review the patents and
make sure they get through the system quickly. There are over
600 new positions. I am usually skeptical about just adding
people to a problem.
Senator Mikulski. Yes.
Secretary Gutierrez. But I do think in this case, they do
need more people; and then, automating more of what we do at
the agency. We can use technology to be more efficient. So
those two things have been budgeted. They are in the plan.
In terms of a management challenge, that is probably our
biggest one. The part I cannot tell you is how well is the
agency managed. Do we have the process? Do we have
measurements? Do people know what they are supposed to do?
Because I agree, our innovators depend on us to help them get
through the system, and I am not sure that we are doing that.
Senator Mikulski. Well, this is an area where we will work
with you in very intense partnership. I know the chairman of
the full committee is here. I am going to hold my questions.
ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Senator Shelby. Senator Cochran, the Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, welcome to the subcommittee. I am very glad
to have an opportunity to be here when you present the budget
request for your Department to the Appropriations Committee. In
addition to gathering information about the health and vitality
of the economy, which I mentioned in my opening remarks and
congratulated you on the role that you have had in promoting
growth in the economy, it is exciting to see the United States
growing certainly in comparison with our major trading
partners, as you pointed out.
I wonder what your outlook is now, if you can tell us. Do
we have the strength, the underlying strength in the economy?
Is the structure the right structure to help provide
opportunities for businesses in America to continue to prosper
and grow in the years ahead? What is your outlook for our
potential in the near term?
Secretary Gutierrez. I think it is important to recognize
that we are at a time today where we have unprecedented
prosperity in the country, and it is often hard to conclude
that based on how the economy is editorialized.
Our growth was just raised today, the outlook for gross
domestic product (GDP) for the first quarter to 3.5 percent.
The first number was 3.1 percent. That comes off 4.4 percent
last year. Our unemployment is down to 5.2 percent. The
President always says we are not satisfied. We are not
complacent. 5.2 percent is below the average of the past three
decades.
In spite of energy prices, our inflation remains at about
3.1 percent. So that says a lot about the strength of our
infrastructure. We have been able to offset that increase in
energy prices. And in homeownership, more Americans own a home
today than at any point in our history. I think about what is
prosperity. People owning their home is a great indicator of
prosperity.
Mortgages as a percent of income are actually declining. So
people can afford the houses they are buying, which I think is
also a great indicator. Now, the challenge is, we have got this
prosperity, how do we keep it going?
I believe that we have seen that the President's strategy
and his approach to the economy is working. Keep taxes low. We
want to make the tax cut permanent. Get unnecessary regulations
out of the way. We do not want businesspeople worried about
getting sued; we want businesspeople to worry about creating
jobs. Tort reform is a major step forward. There is more
regulation to address whether it be asbestos, whether it be
medical malpractice, but that is part of the agenda. And also a
long-term energy plan so we can work strategically on energy
long term and not just be reacting to short-term changes in
prices.
Health care; and then, very importantly, opening up markets
around the world so that we can continue to export market by
market. That is one of the reasons why CAFTA is so important.
We are paying tariffs going into Central America, while most of
their products are not paying tariffs coming into our country.
This levels the playing field, and it is good for small
manufacturers, for farming, for services. It is just one more
example of staying on plan. I think we have to stay on plan. It
worries me that we do not recognize sometimes, how good we have
it today, how fragile it is and how quickly we can lose it if
we do not stay on course.
TRADE ASSISTANCE FOR NEW AND SMALL COMPANIES
Senator Cochran. One of the services that I am familiar
with the Department of Commerce provides to emerging owners of
business, those who are trying to learn how to more effectively
compete either in exporting goods and services or doing
business with the Federal Government as a way to assure success
of small and new businesses. In my State, for example, there
are a lot of young people, like in any other State, I suppose,
but getting started in business for the first time. The
Department of Commerce once had a program--I can remember
Elliot Richardson coming to Mississippi at my request when I
was a Member of the House of Representatives and had a public
forum on how to do business with the Federal Government, and it
was specifically designed for small business owners, men and
women who may not have had the experience that others in
business had had and were just getting started.
But the United States is the largest dollar volume
purchaser of goods and services in America. So it is a
fantastic opportunity if someone understands how to go about
getting started. Is there an office now in the Department of
Commerce that has the responsibility of making available
information like this in States throughout the country? If
there is, do you know whether or not you have enough money in
the budget to see that it is sustained and maybe even expanded?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, sir. We have a minority business
development agency in Commerce which works very closely with
small business, and then, there is the Small Business
Administration, which now works out of the White House. We work
very closely together.
And you are right, what drives growth over time is small
business. People think it is the big corporations such as IBM
and Kellogg, but it is really the small entrepreneur that
creates the jobs and comes out with the ideas. Microsoft was a
small business 30 years ago.
Your point on the Federal Government being a customer is a
great point. If that is how they can get started, our standards
are high. If they can meet our standards, most likely, they can
go out and sell to consumers as well. So I will take that with
me.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Gregg.
Senator Gregg. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know a lot--I apologize for having to leave. The only
people who have this number are my children, and when my son
calls who is at college, it is a rare event.
OCEAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
So I know you addressed the ocean policy issue, and I was
interested in your point that you have taken 50 of the items
and picked them out and that you put $32 million, I think, into
those items. But the budget proposal, as I read it, basically,
$350 million Congress put in last year was gone, and that was
sort of a starting. That was a number to try to build the
emphasis. So I guess my question is how does this
administration see the Ocean Commission's recommendations? What
does it see as the priority, the top priorities of that
Commission, and how is it going to promote those items?
Secretary Gutierrez. I came in right after the report was
issued. I believe it was in December. And I remember going
around preparing for my confirmation hearing, and that was a
big topic of discussion. We just received this report, which
was very important, taken very seriously. There were 200
recommendations, and the challenge was which ones do we start
with, and how do we get started?
And my understanding is that 50 were chosen. I think there
is very clear alignment between the administration and the
report. We want clear skies. We want clear oceans. We want our
fisheries to be sound, to be healthy. I do not think that there
is a philosophical difference at all. I will give you some
examples of the big ticket items that were funded in our
budget. There was $61 million for a sea grant program, which we
believe is important, and that allows us to allocate the funds
in the areas where we believe they will make a difference; $32
million for a fourth fishery survey vessel; $23 million for
ocean exploration.
We have funded additional buoys, and Senator Stevens
mentioned that four out of five were not working. I remember
that during my last hearing. They are all working today. I
checked that before I came here.
We want full tsunami detection capabilities for the Pacific
and the Caribbean by 2007, 100 percent. That requires, I
believe it is 32 new detection devices. There are big things
budgeted; not everything, but again, I think we can make a lot
of progress by focusing on some things, getting them done,
getting them done right and then moving on to the next listed
priority.
Senator Gregg. Well, that is obviously true. We cannot do
everything. We could not last year either. But a lot of what
you mentioned there is core NOAA activities versus the ocean
policy initiative.
Secretary Gutierrez. Right.
Senator Gregg. And of course, the budget that came up is
significantly below what NOAA was funded at last year by about
$400 million, I think. So even core activities are going to
have some pressure on them. But let us take a specific idea.
You asked specifics. You maybe are not up to speed on it on the
CELP program, which is the coastal estuary protection.
Senator Mikulski. What?
Senator Gregg. CELCP. It is called CELCP. It is where you
protect coastal estuary marine areas. And there are a lot of
them in Maryland.
Senator Mikulski. Yes.
Senator Gregg. Are you familiar with that? You can get back
to me.
Secretary Gutierrez. I would love to get back to you on
that.
[The information follows:]
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
What is the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program?
The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) has
been established to help protect estuaries and coastal lands that are
important to our nation's environment, economy and communities. The
program provides coastal states with funding for projects that ensure
conservation of these areas for the benefit of future generations.
CELCP was created by the Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations Act for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice and State (Public Law 107-77) and
codified at 16 USC 1456d.
Who is eligible for funding through the CELCP?
Coastal states that have a federally approved Coastal Zone
Management Plan or National Estuarine Research Reserve are eligible to
participate in the program. A state is eligible to submit projects for
competitive funding at the national level once it has developed and
received approval of a Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Plan.
The state must be able to match CELCP funds, 1 to 1, from other funding
sources.
What projects will CELCP fund?
CELCP funds are intended to complement current federal, state and
local coastal and estuarine conservation plans. To be considered, the
project should address the following:
--Protect important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant
conservation, recreation, ecological, historical or aesthetic
values, or that are threatened by conversion from their natural
or recreational state to other uses;
--Give priority to lands that can be effectively managed and
protected and that have significant ecological value;
--Advance the goals, objectives or implementation of federal,
regional, state or local coastal management plans.
What kind of funding is available?
NOAA has received Congressionally directed funded for this program
since fiscal year 2002.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year:
2002................................................... 15,825
2003................................................... 37,422
2004................................................... 50,558
2005................................................... 41,697
2006 Req............................................... ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS OF NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ENFORCEMENT COORDINATION
COUNCIL AND STRATEGY TARGETING ORGANIZED PIRACY INITIATIVES
Senator Gregg. Let me say I do support you on your ATP
proposal. As chairman of this subcommittee, for years, I was
trying to do exactly what you suggested, and I hope the present
chairman is more successful than I was. There is another
acronym called NIPLECC (National Intellectual Property Law
Enforcement Coordination Council), which last year, we stood up
with some money, tried to get all of these different groups
coordinated on protection of international intellectual
property rights, because we found that there were a whole lot
of agencies which were supposed to be communicating with each
other and using NIPLECC as its coordinating effort but were
not.
And the initiatives were falling, you know, the protection
of intellectual property is falling through the cracks because
so many different people are trying to do it, but nobody is
doing it. What sort of coordinating effort is being pursued
there, specifically with the initiative that I think we put $35
million into last year?
Secretary Gutierrez. We have NIPLECC in place, and we have
just received authorization for an intellectual property
coordinator who will oversee the activities of NIPLECC and
making sure that those activities are coordinated with other
agencies. As you know, NIPLECC could be having some great
sessions and discussions, but if they are not coordinated with,
say, the Justice Department or the Homeland Security----
Senator Gregg. Well, that is the whole purpose of NIPLECC.
Secretary Gutierrez. Right, and that is what this person is
going to ensure happens.
We have the Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP)
program, and we are taking that to the next level. STOP has
done some great things, making sure that we have a website so
people can communicate and a hotline so that people can call in
with intellectual property rights violations.
The challenge is then doing something about all of those
violations, and that requires, a lot of coordination across the
agencies. We are in the process of putting together what that
next step is. And we thought about a very simple framework. How
do we make people more aware that we have a problem? And people
not just here but consumers.
How do we make sure that our partners have the right laws?
How do we make sure that they are enforcing those laws? And
then, very importantly, and this goes back to the Patent Office
question, is how do we ensure that we are the role models for
the rest of the world? Because I think it is important that we
can point to our intellectual property standards in the United
States and say that is how we do it, and that is how we expect
you to do it.
I would love to come back and present to this subcommittee
what it is we plan to do in those four areas. To answer your
question more specifically, as opposed to just telling you this
is an important priority for me. We are going to make sure that
NIPLECC works and that it does what it is intended to do and
that this coordinator does a great job. I would love to share
with you the plan and get your input as to what else we should
be doing. I can assure you this is a top priority.
Senator Gregg. That is good news. I would be glad to help
in any way that I can.
Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you.
STANDARDS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, I guess along those lines,
standards and international trade: the U.S. manufacturers,
suppliers, and testing labs are concerned about the new
requirements of the European Union directive on the restriction
use of certain hazardous substances with electrical and
electronic equipment.
This directive would restrict the amount of certain
hazardous substances used in electrical and electronic
equipment such as household appliances, telecommunications
equipment, lighting, electrical tools, toys, and sports
equipment. A product must meet these restrictions in order to
be sold in the European Union.
The problem is that the directive is vague, and no standard
has been agreed upon to determine the amount of hazardous
substance, if any, is in these products. Enforcement, I think,
is supposed to begin July 1, 2006, a little over 1 year from
now. Where are you on this? What steps is the Department of
Commerce taking to assist our manufacturers and suppliers in
complying with this European Union directive? Where are we
going? Will that result in a barrier to trade? We have to watch
what people do.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes; that is a great point, and this
is actually quite recent.
Senator Shelby. It is important, is it not?
Secretary Gutierrez. It is very important. And this comes
on top of another program, which is registration of every
single chemical used in every single product. It is more
regulation in an area where we had heard they want to reduce
regulation. The first step is to meet with our European trading
partners and our people and ensure that we understand what it
is they are trying to get at.
But this worries us, because this is just one more example
of more and more regulation that impedes trade, that has
unnecessary steps for businesses, that is not clear, and that
can become a trade barrier.
Senator Shelby. It could be a huge trade barrier.
Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. We are going to be on top of that.
Secretary Gutierrez. We are very worried, and we will
report back.
Senator Shelby. Interoperability, you know, it is all part
of the--some manufacturers say their radios meet the public
safety standards for interoperability, but they do not. There
is no procedure to verify that this standard is being met is my
understanding. We are aware that NIST has conducted some
testing on these radios, and not one of the radios tested met
the standard. It is alarming. It is widely known that one of
the fatal flaws in our response to the 9/11 attacks was our
inability to communicate across different radio systems.
Now, we are spending a lot of money to outfit first
responders with supposedly interoperable radios; yet, these
radios fail to meet the interoperability standards. In the 2005
appropriation, the subcommittee directed NIST's Office of Law
Enforcement Standards working with the National Institute of
Justice Communication Tech Program and the Department of
Homeland Security Safecom program to issue interim standards
that can be used to specify the required functionality and
testing validation for emergency radio systems.
Where does the process stand at the Department of Commerce,
and what are the expected time lines and milestones for the
issuance of intercommunications standards? This is a big deal.
Senator Mikulski. A very big deal.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, I agree with that. This falls
under the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, and the balance here, is to have
interoperability without overregulating. I would love to get
back to you on that.
[The information follows:]
Interoperable Communications
The Department of Commerce, through the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), supports Project 25 (P25), which is
a set of standards for interoperable communications equipment used by
first responders. The steering committee for P25 is governed by the
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), which comprises 1,000
member companies.
The following table gives the status of the four P25 interface
standards that are key for interoperable communications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Area Interface............ Complete.
Inter-RF-Sub-System Interface.... Completion expected first quarter
2006.
Console Interface................ Completion expected first quarter
2006.
Fixed Station Interface.......... Completion expected first quarter
2006 (interim form).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To accelerate the completion of the standards, NIST and its federal
sponsors at DHS and DOJ are providing additional engineering support to
the corresponding technical committees. The second and third standards
will be completed on the following timeline, pending approval by the
steering committee and the absence of major technical issues.
October 2005--Vote by P25 steering committee.
December 2005--Testing and validation of the standard completed.
December 2006--First products based on the new standard on the
market.
The Fixed Station Interface standard will follow the same timeline,
but as an interim standard for federal grants and procurement contracts
until a final standard is published.
As noted by the Appropriations Committee, there is no formal
process for ensuring that products sold as P25 compliant indeed meet
the P25 standards. Recent testing by NTIA showed that none of the P25
subscriber units (walkie-talkies) met all of the requirements of the
Common Air Interface standard.
Therefore, NIST and NTIA are developing a third-party conformity
assessment program that will allow accredited private laboratories to
test equipment for P25 compliance. It is expected that DHS will require
the use of this program when dispersing federal grants to local and
state public safety agencies. In addition, the program can be used by
Federal agencies when procuring land mobile equipment for their own
use. By January 2006, NIST expects to have all documentation to begin
the laboratory accreditation process for the P25 Common Air Interface,
and hopes to have products tested in accredited labs by the summer of
2006.
Senator Shelby. Okay; you can get back to us on that. We
have several entities under our subcommittee that are focused
on this problem. We have the Bureau. Senator Mikulski is on the
Intel Committee, dealing with all of the intelligence agencies.
I spent 8 years on this issue. But you are going to be on top
of that.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, sir.
U.S. TRADE
Senator Shelby. You know the WTO Doha Round talks are
accelerating. They are moving along. But I have been told that
virtually all of the proposals that have been made to date
would weaken U.S. trade laws with regard to trade law remedies,
in other words, where we have remedies, and the United States
has only made several small proposals.
Some of us are concerned that the United States does not
have aggressive proposals on the table in these negotiations to
strengthen trade law rules. Will you initiate and would you
support an aggressive agenda for developing trade law
strengthening measures in an interagency process that can be
offered in the negotiations? And if so, will you let us know
what we are doing? Both of us have a lot of manufacturing in
our States, and this trade is important.
Secretary Gutierrez. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. If I
could just say, there was a ministerial meeting in December,
and of course, the Doha Round. One of the reasons why I think
CAFTA is so important is that we want a strong position at the
table. We have to make sure we hold our own, and I am concerned
that if we cannot pass CAFTA that we will not be as strong as
we need to be. There will be a sense that the United States is
losing its edge. We could not get Central America, so that
gives other negotiators a sense of strength at the table. I
agree we cannot weaken our position at the WTO.
Senator Shelby. Sure. But trade has got to go on. We have
got to be on top of it. And a lot of that comes under your
jurisdiction.
Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely.
SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, given the Department's
critical role, the Commerce Department, in implementing the
President's Spectrum Policy for the 21st Century, what are the
long-term plans for spectrum management, and how will you work
with the Federal Communications Commission and other relevant
agencies in this endeavor? In other words, what are your
priorities with spectrum management, and what do you see as the
most significant impact it will have on the commercial
industry? Because it certainly will have some.
Secretary Gutierrez. Spectrum, as you know, is incredibly
valuable. The President has said we want to give every citizen
digital access. We do not want to take away access to digital.
That is going to take some time, but by 2007, we want all homes
in the country to have access to digital.
Senator Shelby. How are you going to get there?
Secretary Gutierrez. A lot of these come down to local
communities and how we ensure that we do not just take away
service from people who rely on analog television and analog
services. But once that is done, and that is in the planning
now, that spectrum can be allocated to businesses. We are also
getting spectrum from the Defense Department.
Senator Shelby. It will have a tremendous value, will it
not?
Secretary Gutierrez. It is one of the most valuable
allocations that we will do over the next couple of years. It
is the most valuable real estate we have. So I agree, and I
would like to report back on how that is shaping up.
[The information follows:]
Spectrum Management
President Bush recognized that ensuring needed access to
the spectrum resource is a critical element in satisfying
diverse U.S. interests, such as national defense, public
safety, transportation infrastructure, scientific research, and
consumer services. The goals of the President's Spectrum Policy
are to: foster economic growth; ensure our national and
homeland security; maintain U.S. global leadership in
communications technology development and services; and satisfy
other vital U.S. needs in areas, such as public safety,
scientific research, federal transportation infrastructure, and
law enforcement.
The Department's long-term plans for spectrum management
are to carry out President Bush's direction and implement the
recommendations which we have provided the President, to carry
out his Spectrum Policy for the 21st Century that will
significantly improve the spectrum management system.
The recently enacted Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act
creates a spectrum relocation fund, an important mechanism to
facilitate the reallocation of spectrum from governmental to
commercial uses. The Department, through the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), will
carry out the provisions in the Act associated with federal
government spectrum management. In June 2006, the FCC plans to
auction 90 MHz of spectrum for advanced wireless services, half
of which is spectrum that will be transferred from Federal
government to commercial use under the provisions of the
Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, does CPB, the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, provide more limited assistance to
public broadcasting stations than PTFP? Do you know? Will CPB
be able to provide grants previously provided by PTFP, that is
the Public Telecommunications Facilities Planning and
Construction Program grants?
Secretary Gutierrez. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is
that they will.
Senator Shelby. That gets into digital conversion.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, and we have reduced our
involvement. I think we have money in the budget for phasing
out that program. The Public Broadcasting System continues, and
I believe that the money allocated in the budget is sufficient,
and that they will be able to operate. Does that answer your
question?
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Secretary, the questions offered by the chairman very
much parallel my own. We have worked together since we were in
the House of Representatives, as I said. A lot of what we are
talking about here can definitely be done on a bipartisan
basis.
I would like to pick up once again on the international
trade issue. Your comment that you just got an intellectual
property coordinator was fascinating, because this is a new--
this is the first time I have heard this. Could you share with
us what that intellectual property coordinator will do and how
that person will work with the international trade rep? Is this
one person? Is this one person with 100 people? What is the----
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes; one person with 100 percent of
his or her time on intellectual property only. That is all they
will do. They will report to me. They will work with NIPLECC
very closely and they will be the conduit to all of the other
agencies. There is a lot of work that we can be doing with
USTR, but there is also work we can be coordinating with the
Justice Department, because a lot of this is enforcement. A lot
of this is frankly just tearing down some networks of
intellectual property violations and making sure that people
are punished.
A lot of it is just straightforward implementation. This
person will ensure that we have got priorities, that we are
coordinating it, that we know what we are trying to do, that we
are measuring progress, because today, it is just very general.
Senator Mikulski. It is very general.
Secretary Gutierrez. It is very general because it is such
a complex area, and we know it is a problem, but we are not
sure if we are making progress or not. Hopefully, we will be
able to report to you with specific measures as to how much
progress we are making such as how many networks have we
prosecuted, how many countries have put laws in place, and how
many companies have been shut down in foreign countries. I look
forward to doing that.
[The information follows:]
International Piracy
The U.S. Department of Commerce is working at making combating
international piracy and counterfeiting a priority. For example, it is
working on the Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP) Initiative,
which has been developed over the last year. STOP is the most
comprehensive U.S. government-wide initiative ever advanced to demolish
the criminal networks that traffic in fakes, stop trade in pirated and
counterfeit goods at America's borders, block bogus goods around the
world, and help small businesses secure and enforce their rights in
overseas markets. While STOP is a multi-agency effort (e.g., the
Department of Justice focusing on the criminal prosecution of criminal
networks), Commerce is involved in many facets of this initiative.
Building Coalitions
The ultimate success of the STOP Initiative involves building
coalitions with many of our like-minded trading partners, such as
Japan, the United Kingdom, and France, who have all recently launched
similar initiatives. We are seeking to continue working with our
partners in the G-8, Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
forum. Cooperation on new initiatives to improve the global
intellectual property environment is essential to disrupting the
operations of pirates and counterfeiters.
Criminal Prosecution
Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the
successful prosecution an international piracy enterprise. ``Operation
Higher Education'' focused on the highest levels of these so-called
``release groups.'' The top release groups, also frequently referred to
as ``warez groups,'' are the first-providers--the original source for
the illegal trading and online distribution of pirated works. Once a
release group prepares a stolen work for distribution, the material is
distributed in minutes to secure, top-level servers and made available
to a select clientele. From there, within a matter of hours, the
pirated works are illegally distributed throughout the world, ending up
on public channels on IRC and peer-to-peer file sharing networks
accessible to anyone with Internet access.
The three convictions, while the first U.S. convictions for
Operation Higher Education, bring the total number of domestic
convictions for Operation Fastlink to six thus far.
International Outreach
A delegation of U.S. officials from seven federal agencies,
including Commerce, recently kicked-off our international outreach
effort to promote STOP internationally. Earlier this year, we visited
various capitals in Asia generating much interest and fruitful
discussions. On each leg of the trip, U.S. officials shared information
on our efforts to combat the theft of inventions, brands and ideas.
This first leg abroad is advancing our commitment by enlisting our
trading partners in an aggressive, unified fight against intellectual
property theft. Outreach to Asia was followed by visits to other
capitals, for example, sending a delegation to Europe. We have
tentatively planned that countries receptive to cooperation on STOP
will be invited to attend a meeting in Washington, D.C. (likely in the
fall of 2005) designed to formalize their participation and finalize a
work plan.
As we look to the future, however, let me state a positive note.
Although by all accounts counterfeiting and piracy appear to be growth
``industries,'' there have been some recent successes in attacking the
problem. Between 2001 and 2002, the software industry estimates that
software piracy in Indonesia decreased from 89 percent to 68 percent.
In South Africa, it fell from 63 percent to 36 percent. The motion
picture industry has reported a decrease in piracy levels in Qatar from
30 percent in 2001 to 15 percent in 2002. In Bahrain, there have been
dramatic and systemic improvements in IP protection and enforcement
over the past few years. These include the signing of numerous
international IP conventions and the virtual elimination of copyright
piracy and counterfeiting in retail establishments.
There is some reason for optimism. I remain hopeful that with the
continued support and partnership of the Subcommittee, we will be able
to do even more to provide American businesses and entrepreneurs with
the IP knowledge and protection they need. As we proceed with this and
other IP initiatives, we will be pleased to describe our specific
progress.
OFFICE OF CHINA COMPLIANCE
Senator Mikulski. Well, we look forward to hearing about it
too, because this is essentially a form of, you know, unarmed
robbery in some ways. Now, we also note that we in the Congress
supported an Office of China Compliance to focus particularly
on China issues in the area of international trade that would
affect small and medium-sized business. Can you tell us, then,
what does the Office of China Compliance as you see it do, and
do you see them as promoting us to sell products there or also
to one of these areas where we would be again protecting our
intellectual property?
Secretary Gutierrez. It is a combination of assuring that
our partners in China are abiding by our agreements and that we
have access to their market. It includes intellectual property
rights violations. It is a very broad agenda, and that is one
of the reasons why it is good to have a coordinator. It also
includes enforcement of antidumping provisions.
Senator Mikulski. That is a big job, this Office of
Compliance.
Secretary Gutierrez. I brought some facts.
Senator Mikulski. Do you have enough resources for this
office? Because I think this and India are--there will be other
countries, but these will be our two big----
Secretary Gutierrez. We have had more antidumping cases in
the last 2 or 3 years than we have in the past 10. We have
increased the activity substantially and we believe we can be
even more effective.
Senator Mikulski. What areas of antidumping? You know, we
were brought to our knees in steel.
Secretary Gutierrez. Let me give you some examples of
cases: folding gift boxes, glass windshields, tables and
folding metal chairs. These are all antidumping cases against
China. And by the way, it is 28 against China. In the last 8
years, we had 25. So you already had more than what was done in
the past 8 years: structural steel beams, welded carbon quality
steel pipes, furnace coke products, saccharin.
Senator Mikulski. Saccharin?
Secretary Gutierrez. You name it: ball bearings, tubular
goods, fence posts.
Senator Shelby. Machine tools.
Secretary Gutierrez. We have some machine tools. We have
iron pipe fittings, television receivers. I would love to share
this with you.
Senator Mikulski. I would like to see.
There are many issues in this area, and I just want to
share two yellow flashing lights, and then, I want to just go
to an NIST issue and an EDA issue in the interests of time.
I mean, that can drive you crazy. I mean, it sounds like
small folding chairs. But then, the next thing you know, it is
dining room sets, and then, it is this, and then, it is that.
And then, all of a sudden, whole towns in North Carolina or
Alabama or Maryland are just switched in and out. So it is one
thing to compete, but it is another to deal with this. So that
is one issue.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VIOLATIONS
The other area where I am worried about violation of
intellectual property is where they are sending in essentially
knockoffs of pharmaceuticals or over the counter medications
and so on. You just mentioned saccharin. Diabetes is a
characteristic in our economy. So we use these kinds of
products. Just imagine if somebody made something under very
paltry circumstances, and if my mother, God rest her soul,
thought she was using saccharin, but it really was not
saccharin, and all of a sudden, it messes up her with her
insulin and everything else.
Then, that's just a small thing. That's an over the
counter. It is not small to a diabetic. But then, let us get
into someone bringing in phony glucophage or phony abandia or
knockoff this or that do not meet the standards. It is one of
the things that raises my concern about the inflow of drugs. Is
this an area that you are involved with? Is this Justice? Is
this another agency? Because this, then, goes to not only our
economic security but actually our physical, our very physical
safety.
Secretary Gutierrez. There is a big component to this, the
importation of pharmaceuticals.
Senator Mikulski. Oh, no, we know.
Secretary Gutierrez. And that is really what is driving it.
It is more about getting the safety. If we can get that right,
then, we can talk about the commercial part.
Senator Mikulski. But that is where you would have to team
up with FDA, right?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. And that is why we absolutely
support what FDA is doing. If they are saying the safety is not
there, then, there is no commerce.
Senator Mikulski. Let us go, though, back to your--you
know, Mr. Chairman, I found it interesting as Mr. Gutierrez has
shared with us all these rules and chemical ever made and every
chemical that might be made, et cetera. Do you see this as a
way that they are using it to protect, say, their own societies
for safety, or do you see this as inventing bureaucracy as a
way to be Fortress Europe, or is that something you would
rather comment in more genteel terms?
Secretary Gutierrez. It is a great question.
Senator Mikulski. You are part of our commercial business
diplomatic corps.
Secretary Gutierrez. I can comment in my business
experience with Europe. I can tell you it is a very difficult
place to do business. There are a lot of regulations. There are
European regulations, and there are also country regulations,
and sometimes, they are not the same. I think there is an
element where they believe that they are doing the right thing
for their societies by having all of these regulations that
they believe will protect.
But what is happening is that they are actually impeding
the growth of many of their businesses, because their
businesses would rather take their capital elsewhere. That is
why we would love to see Europe grow faster than 1.5 or 2
percent. I think it grew 1.7 percent last year. Countries like
Germany, where the unemployment is 12 percent, the growth rate
is less than 1 percent, and we believe, respectfully, that a
lot of this has to do with unnecessary regulation and very
aggressive tax policy. Taxes are too high, and they have too
many regulations.
Senator Mikulski. So these are--coming back to my desire
for an innovation economy and working in partnership, these are
lessons learned from us.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. In other words, let us protect public
health, let us protect public safety, but let us not----
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Move in a direction that is
so excessive and overexuberant we end up with--you cannot have
a safer society unless you have a stronger economy.
Secretary Gutierrez. You are absolutely right. That is the
key. That is what they have learned from us, that if they can
grow, they can do a lot of things for their society. If they
cannot grow, they can do a lot of damage.
STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE
Senator Mikulski. Let me go to the EDA totally shifting
gears. We know that you are going to be introducing legislation
on strengthening American communities, but should not pass as
we go through the appropriation this year, there is no money
for EDA here except to monitor existing grants. Do you have a
plan A and plan B, plan A being the President's position, we
understand, moving that legislation forward against, I might
add, quite a bit of resistance? But should that not be passed
by October 1, this now being June 1, what would be your plan B
to fund EDA? To keep it at this year's level or----
Secretary Gutierrez. We would have to go back and revisit
our programs, the programs we are bringing over. Our plan is
based on being able to bring over all the programs from five,
six different agencies, HUD being one of them. And that is what
we are planning for and what we are looking forward to. If that
for some reason does not take place, we will have to go back
and revisit the whole design.
Senator Mikulski. I know the chairman was, you know,
representing the majority party, I know. I will tell you: our
communities depend on EDA, and while we are working on
strengthening America's communities, and that is being more
creative and more efficient, the fact is that they are going to
want to know what about this year? Will there be an EDA? And,
you know, what we will do or the way that we can do that.
STANDARDS AND INTEROPERABILITY
The last just comment I want to make about NIST and the
fact that we are so concerned about its reduction in funds,
pick up on Senator Shelby and homeland security. What we are
saying is we spent a lot of money on protecting your nation,
and we are now concerned that this could go to boondoggle. And
there are a lot of--there is a lot of, quote, gear being sold.
Senator Shelby spoke about the interoperability. Crucial.
Because remember, we in the Capital region are several Maryland
jurisdictions, the District of Columbia as well as Northern
Virginia. So this is big stuff.
But then, at the same time, there are now all of these
things from digital cameras to a lot that law enforcement and
first responders are buying, and what we hear continually from
the private sector, whether it is in IT or other types of
protective things that they buy that there is a lack of
Federal, national standards, that this is not a priority with
Homeland Security, and it needs to be a priority.
And we feel that NIST would be one of the places,
particularly those things that are used so that when they are
buying it, they know whether it will be interoperable, whether
there will be certain standards in terms of efficacy, et
cetera. Is this an area where you see NIST coordinating with
the Secretary of Homeland Security, where we really are getting
value for our dollar in terms of those things that they buy
really to either protect the first responder or protect the
community?
Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely. NIST, as you know, has
been working very closely on the World Trade Center.
Senator Mikulski. I know. It is fascinating. We enjoy it.
Secretary Gutierrez. That leads to standards for the
future.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, without standards, though,
there is no interoperability.
Secretary Gutierrez. That is absolutely right.
The other part about standards that we have to tackle, is
the international part, because some countries may be using
standards as a trading strategy.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Secretary Gutierrez. So if they can get their standard into
China, we are left out, because our standard does not work in
China. So it is domestic; it is international; and it is also a
very big issue down the road.
Senator Shelby. Somebody has got that edge.
Senator Mikulski. Well, let us look right now, because we
may not be able to deal always with some of these issues facing
us internationally. But America is committed to protecting its
homeland and protecting, whether it is law enforcement or other
first responders. We are committed to protecting them as
citizens and as taxpayers. So this is why I think they are so
keen on the standards issue, particularly in the area of those
things that are most frequently bought in the area of homeland
security and the need for efficacy, interoperability, things
that the chairman has raised and that, you know, I have seen
examples of exactly what you said, from the bullet proof vest
to the digital camera to some other things.
Secretary Gutierrez. I will take that with me. I know it is
a big priority for you, and I will be glad to come back and
report.
Senator Mikulski. I think that is it, Mr. Chairman. There
are many things that we could discuss, like the helicopter;
saving lives and saving livelihoods.
Senator Shelby. Let us keep talking, Mr. Secretary, over
time. We know our staffs will.
[The information follows:]
International Standards
The Department of Commerce's National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) provides the measurement and
standards infrastructure and information needed to support U.S.
manufacturing competitiveness in the global marketplace.
Some examples of NIST efforts already underway to ease
regulatory barriers to U.S. exporters include working with
industrial laboratories to ensure that manufacturers of
telecommunications equipment have efficient access to foreign
markets. NIST is the U.S. authority empowered under the Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Telecommunications
Equipment Mutual Recognition Arrangement and the U.S.-European
Union Mutual Recognition Agreement to designate qualifying U.S.
organizations as competent to certify U.S. telecommunications
equipment as meeting foreign regulatory requirements and ready
for direct export to APEC and European Union countries. As a
result of NIST's work, U.S. manufacturers of telecommunications
equipment are now able to certify their products in the United
States and ship directly to Canada. Two-way trade of
telecommunications equipment between the two neighbors totals
some $7 billion annually. U.S. organizations designated by NIST
can test products for three other APEC markets--Australia,
Chinese-Taipei and Singapore--as well as for the European
market.
NIST has led efforts to align United States and
international legal metrology standards to ensure acceptance of
U.S. instrumentation for scales and meters both domestically
and internationally. The development and implementation of the
International Organization of Legal Metrology Mutual Acceptance
Arrangement will reduce the number of evaluations to which
scale and meter manufacturers must be subjected, thereby
reducing costs to manufacturers and reducing the time-to-market
for new products. The total market for measuring instruments is
estimated to be $5 billion worldwide.
NIST is also supporting U.S. manufacturers of in vitro
diagnostic (IVD) medical devices in maintaining access to the
$6 billion a year European market. U.S. manufacturers supply
approximately 60 percent of this market. Recently implemented
European regulations codified traceability requirements for
control of these devices, requiring reference to ``available
reference measurement procedures and/or reference materials of
higher order.'' U.S. IVD manufacturers requested that NIST
provide the internationally recognized certified reference
materials and reference methods needed to meet this
traceability requirement. NIST led the efforts of the Joint
Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine to establish a
process for identifying and reviewing the reference materials
and methods against agreed upon criteria. NIST has published 72
of the approximately 150 Certified Reference Materials and 30
of the approximately 100 Reference Measurement Procedures
required for compliance with the European Community directive
regarding IVD medical devices.
NIST has identified work needed to ensure that state-of-
the-art measurement technologies and standards that are under
development in fields such as nanotechnology, biotechnology,
and information technology are applied in support of U.S.
manufacturing trade and exports. If U.S. businesses are to
compete successfully in global markets, they need to design and
manufacture products to globally accepted standards and tie
their processes and products to international standards of
measurement that are provided by NIST. NIST has identified key
areas where U.S. standards and calibrations must be aligned
with international standards to give U.S. manufacturers
seamless access to foreign markets. NIST highlighted the need
to monitor the development of foreign and international
standards for potential impact on U.S. exports and the
importance of making the resulting information easily
accessible to U.S. manufacturers. The funding for this effort
was requested in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget
request for NIST. NIST's fiscal year 2006 budget also included
funding to expand its current cooperative standards-related
information and assistance programs that target emerging
markets (such as China, India, South Korea, Brazil, Russia)
where standards-related requirements are still being formulated
and to accelerate global recognition of measurements performed
by U.S. manufacturers.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Shelby. We appreciate your appearance here today.
We know it is your first appearance, and we appreciate your
coming to this small room. It has got its advantages, too. But
we will continue to work with you, because you have got some
real challenges, and so do we working with you on this budget
and programs. We need certainty when we are funding things. You
need certainty, too, in carrying them out.
[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
BOULDER FENCE
Question. What is the status of the fence surrounding the Boulder
facilities? Where do things stand with the city of Boulder? What are
the current plans, timelines, and costs estimates? How does the
Department intend to pay for the fence's construction?
Answer. The final location of the fence line has been determined
and the City Manager was notified on April 13, 2005. Tribal
representatives have been notified as well. Design and material
selection is continuing and should be at 90 percent completion by
September 2005.
DOC has worked in close consultation with the City of Boulder
throughout the process to assure compliance with the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with the City and Tribes, and we have taken into
account the concerns and suggestions from Boulder citizens, as well as
from agency staff at the Boulder Laboratories.
A response letter to this official notification was sent to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Boulder Director
on June 9, 2005, from the City of Boulder, Office of the City Manager.
The letter states, ``The City is appreciative of the changes that the
Department of Commerce has made to the proposed security improvements
in response to concerns that the City has expressed about earlier
proposals . . . At this time the City remains unconvinced of the need
for a fence. If Commerce chooses to go forward in developing a fence,
the City will insist that the terms of the MOA and the easement be
abided by should any portion of such proposed fence trigger these
agreements.'' The City has requested additional information on the
outdoor lighting that will be part of the proposal; the design and
material of the proposed fence and its effect on wildlife migration;
the location, size and design of the boulders or bollards proposed to
be placed on the east side of the NOAA building and where these would
be located within the protected area or the City's right-of-way. The
letter further states, ``depending on a review of this information, the
City may still express concerns or objections to this latest
proposal.''
The NIST Boulder Director met again with City staff on June 24,
2005, and is writing a letter that will be delivered to the City in the
near future in response to the questions posed in the June 9th letter
and during the June 24th meeting. It is expected that the letter will
provide assurances on most of the details of compliance with the MOA
and with City codes.
Fence design is continuing in more detail now that the fence
location is determined, and a 90 percent complete design is expected by
September 2005. Costs including fence material, installation, and
electronics (cameras) cannot be accurately estimated until the design
is final.
Once the design is finalized and cost estimates developed, the
Department will work through the President's Budget process to
determine where funding for the effort falls within other Department
and Administration priorities.
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget does not include funding
for the fence construction. Additionally, the Senate Appropriations
Committee mark on NIST's fiscal year 2006 Budget Request contains
language that requires the Department of Commerce to consult with the
committee prior to proceeding with any security enhancements at the
Boulder location and prohibits the redirection of funding from other
proposed construction projects at Boulder for security improvements.
HOLLINGS MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP: ``SMALL AND RURAL
STATES'' PILOT PROGRAM
Question. Congress required NIST to submit an implementation plan
for the ``Small and Rural States'' pilot program within the Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnership. This plan was due April 15, 2005.
The plan is now a month and a half late. When can the Committee expect
to see the plan?
Answer. The implementation plan is currently under development and
review within the Administration.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
EMERGENCY STEEL LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM (ESLGP)
Question. Throughout his time in office, President Bush has
stated--over and over again--that he is a staunch defender of America's
steel industry. He has told West Virginia steelworkers and other
steelworkers across the nation that he will stand by them. Yet his
budget for each of the past three years has recommended rescission of
all of the available funds in the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee
Program (ESLGP).
I helped establish the ESLGP in 1999 to help American steel
companies in distress. The program has been absolutely critical in
helping U.S. steel producers obtain necessary financing. It has saved
the day for thousands of steelworkers and retirees across the nation--
from Hanna Steel Corporation in Tuscaloosa and Fairfield, Alabama, as
well as Pekin, Illinois, to Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel in Wheeling, West
Virginia. I understand that even the loan that was awarded to Geneva
Steel in Utah, a company that initially was in default, is now being
repaid.
So this has been and continues to be a very successful program. It
therefore needs to remain available to ensure the future of America's
steel companies, their workers, and thousands of retirees, who are in
critical need of health insurance and pension benefits, and may now
live on limited incomes.
I would appreciate the Administration's support in maintaining this
important program.
Answer. There has been a low level of utilization of the Steel
Program since its inception. Only three loan guarantees under the
program have been closed and funded. And only two of these are still
performing.
The fiscal year 2004 Appropriations Act extended to December 31,
2005, the authority to guarantee new loans under the Emergency Steel
Loan Guarantee Program. No applications were received during this
extension period so far and no applications are currently pending. The
Administration proposes rescinding $50.2 million of unobligated
balances of loan subsidy in 2006.
WTO NEGOTIATION STRATEGY
Question. The Trade Act of 2002 requires significant effort by the
Bush Administration to preserve U.S. trade laws in the ongoing WTO
Round. During your confirmation, you assured Senator Rockefeller that
you would ``vigorously defend and enforce our existing trade remedy
laws, and implement those laws as intended to stop dumped or subsidized
goods from injuring U.S. industries.''
While other countries are making a multitude of proposals to
dismantle U.S. trade laws, there appear to be few creative, new
proposals being proposed by the U.S. government to preserve and enhance
our critical antidumping and countervailing duty laws.
Can you please explain the Bush Administration's strategy to
``vigorously defend and enforce our existing trade remedy laws'' in the
Doha Round's trade negotiations?
Answer. Our negotiating strategy is quite clear: (1) To maintain
the strength and effectiveness of the trade laws; (2) to enhance
transparency and due process requirements; (3) to enhance disciplines
on trade distorting practices that lead to unfair trade; and (4) to
ensure that dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body do not
impose obligations that are not clearly contained in the Agreements.
Furthermore, the specific concerns raised by Congress in the Trade
Promotion Authority have been identified and will be addressed as part
of the Rules negotiations. The Administration has actively participated
in the Rules negotiations thus far, both in terms of pursuing our own
objectives and challenging the proposals of others. The Commerce
Department is committed to strengthening WTO trade remedy rules and
ensuring that they remain effective in addressing the problems of
unfair trade.
CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT
Question. The Administration has recognized that the WTO decision
on the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 or ``CDSOA,''
also known as the Byrd Amendment trade law, incorrectly imposed
obligations on the United States by prohibiting the distribution of
monies collected as antidumping and countervailing duties on unfairly
traded U.S. imports. Congress has repeatedly called for negotiations in
the Doha Round to address this issue, not only in many letters sent to
the Administration, but also in the fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year
2005 Consolidated Appropriations Acts. Report language accompanying
both of those appropriations bills, signed into law, also directed the
Administration to report to the Appropriations Committee every 60 days
on the status of those negotiations.
I have not been briefed one time on the status of these
negotiations. I understand that Commerce Department officials have a
very important role in those negotiations, as do USTR negotiators. By
law, the Administration has been directed to negotiate a solution to
this trade dispute.
In April 2004, the United States did submit a proposal in the Rules
negotiations to recognize ``the right of Members to distribute monies
collected from antidumping and countervailing duties.'' During the
confirmation process, you explained that the Department of Commerce and
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative were consulting to ensure
proper implementation of the requirements of U.S. law regarding
negotiations over CDSOA distributions and would complete those
consultations as soon as possible. You also agreed to continue to work
to advance congressional objectives in the Doha Round negotiations,
including reversal of the adverse CDSOA decision.
Since committing to ``pursue changes to those Agreements that will
reverse specific adverse findings, including those regarding the
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act,'' the United States has not
submitted any further proposals to recognize the right of Members to
distribute monies collected from antidumping and countervailing duties.
On May 23, 2005, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman sent me a
letter in which he stated that he wants to work closely with me on the
Byrd Amendment to determine ``the best way to forge the required
consensus in the negotiations.''
Can you please explain how the Administration intends to obtain an
acceptable and expeditious solution to the CDSOA dispute at the WTO?
When will there be a briefing by the Administration on the status of
the negotiations concerning this dispute?
Answer. The Administration intends to continue to address this
issue in the context of the WTO's ongoing Doha Round of multilateral
trade negotiations. While the United States has not proposed any legal
text on this issue, in April 2004, the Administration did submit a
paper in the WTO Negotiating Group on Rules indicating our intent to
negotiate on this matter, as you noted.
The Rules negotiations are entering a critical phase, and the
Commerce Department is working earnestly and in concert with the Office
of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to satisfy Congressional
objectives. The Commerce Department is working with USTR to draft a
second-generation proposal on this issue. We are also prepared to
assist the USTR with its responsibilities in reporting to Congress on
the progress of these negotiations, and specifically on negotiations
over the right of Members to distribute antidumping and countervailing
duties. We would be pleased to consult with you and your staff on this
paper as the drafting process advances.
COLLABORATION WITH U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
Question. Over the past two years, the United States has been on
the receiving end of more adverse GATT and WTO challenges than any
other WTO Member. Roughly half of all WTO decisions have been issued in
cases that challenged U.S. measures, and over three-quarters of those
decisions addressed the administration of our trade remedy laws. It is
clear that the WTO dispute settlement system has been used unfairly to
threaten U.S. sovereignty and to erode the effectiveness of our trade
remedy laws. Despite this, the United States has only made four
publicly available submissions in the dispute settlement negotiations
concerning two topics.
How do you intend to collaborate with USTR to redress this
imbalance? What is your strategy to rapidly generate textual proposals
that can protect and enhance the U.S. trade laws?
Answer. I intend to continue working very closely with the Office
of the United States Trade Representative to advance the negotiation of
changes to the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, as well as the
Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements, that aim to correct the most
egregious WTO decisions and to ensure that, in future disputes, the
panels and the Appellate Body will adhere to the appropriate standards
of review.
In the dispute settlement negotiations, the United States has
already submitted detailed textual proposals that would serve to
achieve the first two elements of our strategy: increasing WTO Members'
control over the dispute settlement process and increasing the
transparency of that process. With respect to the Rules negotiations,
the Administration believes that the negotiations should now focus on
``clearing the underbrush'' so that the way forward to a text-based
negotiation sometime after the Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting is clear.
At that time, the Administration will be prepared to pursue our Rules-
specific dispute settlement concerns with textual proposals.
Question. Specifically concerning the issue of the Doha Dispute
Settlement negotiations, during your confirmation process, you offered
a general strategy of: (1) increasing member nations' control over the
dispute settlement process; (2) increasing transparency; (3) pursuing
changes to the Rules Agreements to ensure that panels and the Appellate
Body adhere to the appropriate standards of review; and (4) pursuing
changes to the Rules Agreements that ``will reverse specific adverse
findings, including those regarding the Continued Dumping and Subsidy
Offset Act, `zeroing,' and injury determinations.'' The United States
has not submitted any recent, concrete proposals addressing any of the
items highlighted in your strategy.
Can you please explain how you intend to advance the negotiation of
changes to the WTO dispute settlement system or the Rules Agreements to
reverse this long line of adverse trade remedy decisions? Can you
provide a timeline of when we can expect such proposals to be
submitted?
Answer. I intend to work very closely with the Office of the United
States Trade Representative to advance the negotiation of appropriate
changes to the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, as well as the
Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements.
In the context of the dispute settlement negotiations, the
Administration intends to continue pursuing the textual proposals the
United States has submitted that would increase WTO Members' control
over the dispute settlement process and the transparency of that
process.
In the Rules negotiations, the United States has identified as an
issue for further negotiation the need to ensure that panels and the
Appellate Body adhere to the appropriate standards of review. With
respect to zeroing, the United States has already identified the topic
as one of our priorities in the Rules negotiations and is taking the
necessary steps to address this important issue. The United States
tabled a paper that outlines our views on zeroing and will continue to
advocate for the continuance of our long-standing practice as the
discussions move forward. With respect to injury determinations, the
United States tabled a paper in early July addressing the Appellate
Body's adverse findings with respect to this issue. The Administration
intends to pursue these proposals vigorously as the negotiations
advance.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
NOAA PACIFIC REGION CENTER
Question. For several years, my office has worked in partnership
with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration toward the
construction of a consolidated regional facility for the agency in
Hawaii. A site--Ford Island in Pearl Harbor--has been selected after an
exhaustive search, and the design process and environmental permit
process is underway. All told, the Hawaiian Archipelago comprises over
20 percent of the United States' Exclusive Economic Zone. We are in the
midst of a designation process that will lead, I believe, to the
creation of the world's largest marine sanctuary. Our pelagic fisheries
produce the world's best sashimi-grade tuna, and although they are
currently healthy, vigilance in management is necessary to ensure that
the international fleets follow America's lead in responsible fishing
practices. Our National Weather Service region is the largest in the
nation, and our climate and weather scientists lead the world in
pushing back the frontiers of understanding the Pacific's meteorology.
Their excellent work is matched by corresponding initiatives for
coastal disaster management from an all-hazards point of view--
initiatives that are developed in Hawaii and then used as patterns
among other Pacific Islands.
These efforts are currently hosted in a variety of inadequate and
scattered spaces throughout the Island of Oahu. Lease costs are high,
and in some cases, the physical plants of the buildings are in serious
decay. I would appreciate learning your thoughts on the NOAA
consolidated facility.
What NOAA programs are currently in Hawaii?
Answer. The following NOAA operations are supported on the island
of O'ahu, Hawaii:
--NMFS--National Marine Fisheries
--Pacific Islands Regional Office
--Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center and Honolulu Lab
--Office of Law Enforcement
--NWS--National Weather Service
--Pacific Region Headquarters
--International Tsunami Information Center
--Honolulu Electronics and Technical Support Unit
--Tsunami Warning Center (this program is not planned for
consolidation at the Pacific Region Center, due to
operational considerations)
--Weather Forecast Office
--NOS--National Ocean Service
--Pacific Regional Office
--National Marine Sanctuary Program
--NW HI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve
--HI Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
--Pacific Services Center
--OMAO--Office of Marine Aviation Operations
--Marine Operations Center--Pacific
--OAR--Oceanic & Atmospheric Research
--Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory
--Forecast Systems Laboratory
--Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research
--Office of Global Programs
--Undersea Research Center
--Office of General Counsel and Office of Public Affairs
Question. How many NOAA employees are currently in Hawaii?
Answer. There are nearly 400 employees (NOAA, Joint Institute for
Marine and Atmospheric Research, contractors, etc.) in Hawaii.
Question. What facilities are currently available for these
programs and employees?
Answer. There are ten different facilities currently used to
support these programs and employees:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupant Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMAO........................................ #1 Sand Island Snug Harbor
NMFS........................................ 300 Ala Moana Blvd
NMFS........................................ 2570 Dole Street
NMFS........................................ Kewalo Basin
NMFS........................................ 501 Sumner
NMFS........................................ 1601 Kapiolani
NOS......................................... 6700 Kalanianole Highway Hawaii Kai Plaza
NWS/NOS..................................... 737 Bishop St
NWS......................................... 220 Kalihi St
NMFS........................................ 9-193 Aiea Heights
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Describe the status of these facilities. In particular,
give reference to the age and physical condition of laboratory
facilities, pier space and facilities for NOAA vessels, and the
adequacy of space for the number of employees housed at each facility.
Answer. The current facilities are overcrowded and inadequate to
support current and future NOAA programs in the Pacific Region. Over
the next 5-10 years, NOAA expects program growth in Pacific Region
programs to increase this employee base by a modest amount.
NOAA's program space requirements can generally be broken down into
three types of space/operations: Office/Lab Space; Ship Operations
Space; and Sea-Water (``Wet Lab'') Lab Space.
Office/Lab Space.--The NOAA laboratory located at the University of
Hawaii, Manoa Campus (Dole Street Lab) was constructed in 1949 to house
45 employees of the National Marine Fisheries Service. By the mid-
1990s, the lab's programs had grown to over 129 staff and the
facilities had deteriorated significantly; thus prompting the plan to
replace the Dole Street Lab with another lab facility on the same site.
In addition to this location, NOAA leases office/lab space for other
programs (including National Oceans Service, National Weather Service).
Ship Operations.--NOAA's ship operations are supported at the Snug
Harbor location. The current location of the ship operations support
facility was barely able to adequately support two ships (due to
limited pier space and operational facilities) and cannot support the
existing three ships (KA'IMIMOANA, OSCAR ELTON SETTE, HII'IALAKAI).
NOAA requires a permanent and cost-effective docking and ship
operations solution that will accommodate both current and future ship
operations requirements, and has been forced on an interim basis to
negotiate temporary berthing arrangements with Navy Region Hawaii at
the Ford Island site.
Seawater Lab Space.--The current seawater (wet lab) facility at
Kewalo Basin supports critical fisheries, marine mammal, and
sanctuaries programs. This facility is overcrowded, cannot be expanded
at its current location, operates on a month-to-month rental basis, and
is at risk of being forced out of its current location because of a
larger development plan for the area (published plans from the Hawaii
Community Development Authority call for a major redevelopment of the
Kewalo Basin and surrounding area). Therefore, a more permanent
solution to NOAA's seawater laboratory facility needs is required.
Question. What financial costs would be necessary to remediate any
deficiencies identified in the previous question?
Answer. If NOAA were to maintain the separate locations identified
above to support NOAA's operations and programs, substantial
investments would be required to replace the facilities at Dole Street
Lab, and to develop alternative facilities to replace the current Snug
Harbor and Kewalo Basin facilities. The existing facilities have either
outlived their useful lives (as is the case with Dole Street Lab); will
not be available in the future (as is the case of Kewalo Basin); or
their capacity cannot support current or future programs and operations
(Snug Harbor, et al.). In addition, given the growth projected in
NOAA's programs over the next five to ten years, NOAA would also need
to lease increasing amounts of office space to support a modest
increase in employee population. These investments in both increased
leased space and in capital investments that would otherwise be
required to support NOAA's current and future mission and operations in
the Pacific Region are estimated at more than $265 million. This is
substantially more than preliminary estimates for the projected cost of
the Pacific Region Center.
Question. What is the projected growth for the agency in Hawaii?
Answer. There are nearly 400 employees (NOAA, Joint Institute for
Marine and Atmospheric Research, contractors, etc.) in Hawaii. Over the
next 5-10 years, NOAA expects a program growth in Pacific Region
programs to increase this employee base by a modest amount.
Question. What are the projected financial costs of accommodating
that growth if each program continues as it does now--pursuing its own
facilities needs independent of one another, and without any central
planning? Compare these costs with those of the consolidated facility.
Answer. The investments in both increased leased space and in
capital investments that would otherwise be required to support NOAA's
current and future mission and operations in the Pacific Region are
estimated at more than $265 million. This is substantially more than
preliminary estimates for the projected cost of the Pacific Region
Center.
Question. What is the position of the Department of Commerce on the
consolidated NOAA facility in Hawaii? Please explain the Department's
rationale.
Answer. The Department of Commerce supports the development of a
NOAA Pacific Region Center on Ford Island, and appreciates the support
the Senator and his staff have provided to NOAA over the past several
years in working towards this objective. NOAA's programs in the Pacific
Region are diverse and geographically wide-ranging. They affect not
just Hawaii, but also the larger Pacific Region. By bringing its
programs together into one facility, NOAA expects to realize benefits
in improved operations and mission performance, as well as longer-term
operational savings, including the following:
--Create greater focus and attention to the vital role that NOAA's
programs play in understanding and predicting the Pacific
Region's climate;
--Improve the agency's ability to protect the environment and enhance
the sustainability of Pacific Basin resources;
--Provide greater synergy and integration across NOAA in delivering
its products and services in the Pacific Region;
--Advance its mission and promote community development through its
outreach efforts, cooperative relationships with educational
institutions, and growth of internship programs;
--Achieve operational efficiencies and control program expenditures
by locating NOAA facilities and services in a common location
on existing U.S. government property.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Question. On May 13 of this year, the Department of Defense (DOD)
released its recommendations for realignment or closure of U.S.
military bases. These recommendations will now be considered by the
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission. A revised list of
recommendations will likely be considered by the President and
Congress. Base closures, particularly in rural states like mine, can
have devastating effects on local and regional economies. To mitigate
these effects, several federal agencies offer grants and technical
assistance to communities forced to cope with a base closure. In the
four previous BRAC rounds, the Economic Development Administration
(EDA) has been one of the largest, if not the single largest, sources
of funding for BRAC-affected communities. The Administration's deep
proposed cuts to community development programs including EDA would be
of great concern to me under any circumstances. These cuts look even
more inadvisable this year, however, in light of the fact that the
current BRAC round will generate a significant increase in demand for
EDA's assistance. Given that other forms of federal assistance have not
grown to accommodate this increased demand, would you please indicate
whether EDA has established a plan for ensuring that the needs of BRAC
affected communities are met? If EDA has established such a plan,
please characterize it. If EDA has not established such a plan, please
justify the Administration's willingness to provide less assistance for
communities affected by its base closure and realignment decisions.
Answer. EDA continues to be an active participant in national Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities, including working with the
bureau's federal partners to coordinate assistance to address the
forthcoming BRAC recommendations. In fact, pursuant to Executive Order
12788, entitled Defense Economic Adjustment Program, as amended by
President George W. Bush on May 12, 2005, the Secretary of Commerce
serves as co-vice chair of the President's Economic Adjustment
Committee (EAC), the role of which is to coordinate assistance across
the federal government in support of forthcoming base closure and
realignment decisions.
Furthermore, EDA has an existing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with
the Department of Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) ``to
facilitate the award and administration of grant and cooperative
agreement activities and to promote consultation between the agencies''
on base realignment and closure issues. Pursuant to this agreement, OEA
transfers funds to EDA to assist with economic adjustment projects on
former military installations including grants for infrastructure
improvements to facilitate the reuse of former military bases.
Finally, when the President's Strengthening America's Communities
initiative (SACI) is implemented and its administrative structure
established, it is anticipated that the Department, under the auspices
of a new bureau, will retain its authority and maintain its historic
role assisting BRAC-impacted communities under soon-to-be proposed SACI
legislation designed to, among other things, respond to economic
adjustment problems. Under the anticipated framework for SACI, a base
closing might cause a sudden and severe economic event that could
trigger eligibility as a result of the economic dislocation caused by
the closure.
STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE
Question. Part of the Administration's justification for
reorganizing community development grant programs as part of the
Strengthening America's Communities (SAC) initiative is its assertion
that federal funds are not always directed to the neediest communities.
Yet the Administration also touts the merits of the block grant method
of distributing federal funds, whereby state and local officials decide
how such funds should be allocated. They are presumed to understand
local needs and priorities more comprehensively than federal officials.
These two positions appear to be incompatible--the Administration's
critique of how community development funds have been distributed seems
to contradict its belief in the wisdom of local officials. Could you
please explain this apparent contradiction?
Answer. The Administration strongly supports the block grant method
of distributing federal funds as an effective mechanism to target
taxpayer dollars to address locally established needs and priorities.
The Administration notes, however, that existing federal block grant
programs, such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) programs, were developed to
address the community and economic development challenges of another
era and are no longer achieving their intended purpose of aiding the
nation's neediest communities.
The Administration strongly believes that funding should be
targeted to those communities most in need. For example, the CDBG
program was created to serve distressed communities, but currently
allocates 38 percent of its funds to communities (including both
entitlement communities and the State portion) with below average
poverty rates. The President's Strengthening America's Communities
initiative (SACI) will address this deficiency by designing a new
program targeted exclusively to the nation's most economically
distressed communities.
The SACI represents a shift in federal community and economic
development policy. The President and his Administration believe first
and foremost that direct federal grants in local development efforts
should be easy to access, flexible to use, and targeted directly to the
most-distressed communities with an expectation of achieving results.
In focusing on results, accountability for the use of taxpayer
dollars will be a critical component of SACI. In exchange for the
flexible use of funds at the local level, recipients will be expected
to achieve, and be held accountable for results. This initiative
represents a new approach to economic and community development
assistance by placing the focus on long-term outcomes that demonstrate
improvement toward community self-sufficiency. Communities will be
required to show that they have made progress toward locally selected
goals for development (such as job creation, homeownership, and
commercial development) in return for being able to determine how best
to spend federal dollars to meet those outcomes.
Question. A February 2005 overview booklet about the SAC initiative
contains a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section which includes the
following question. ``Isn't [the SAC initiative] really just a disguise
for cutting funding?'' The pamphlet goes on to explain that despite the
initiative's proposed cuts, community development efforts would be
improved by the initiative's reforms. To my knowledge, though, the
Administration has not released any analysis to indicate the harm of
reducing community development funding will be more than offset by
gains from reorganizing the programs. Has the Administration conducted
any analysis to indicate whether the SAC initiative is net-beneficial?
If so, please share this analysis with me and other members of the
Appropriations Committee. In the absence of such analysis, how does the
Administration justify its claim that the SAC is something other than
``a disguise for cutting funding''?
Answer. When the Strengthening America's Communities initiative
(SACI) is implemented, the Administration anticipates that there will
be administrative savings from reducing the number of programs that
communities must work with from 18 to 1. These savings will occur at
the federal, as well as state and local levels where redundant staffing
and administrative structures can be eliminated. To date, the
Administration has not conducted an analysis that quantifies the
administrative savings at the federal level, and it would be virtually
impossible to quantify the enormous benefits that would accrue by
eliminating redundancy at the state and local levels.
In addition to the anticipated administrative savings, the goal of
the consolidation is to provide a more streamlined delivery system
resulting in better service and reduced upfront costs for the
communities receiving assistance. An important principle behind the
SACI is to avoid the need for communities, especially rural and
economically distressed communities with limited resources, to have to
expend those valuable resources coordinating a vast array of similar
domestic community and economic development programs.
These concerns about the status quo mirror the growing consensus
among the nation's leading economists and economic development
researchers and practitioners that because of the fragmented,
unfocused, and duplicative nature of the programs, there is a need to
fundamentally rethink and refocus the federal role in support of state
and community efforts to promote economic growth and spur job creation
in the 21st century economy. For example, one GAO report noted that the
fragmentation and excessive bureaucracy make it difficult for
communities to obtain assistance and ``limit the development of
critical knowledge [and] hinder organizations and partnerships.'' \1\
The Administration's new proposed grant program would significantly
improve the coordination of resources at the local level by
streamlining federal resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. General Accounting Office, ``Community Development:
Challenges Face Comprehensive Approaches to Address Needs of Distressed
Neighborhoods,'' GAO/T-RECD-95-160BR, April 13, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recently issued report of the SACI Secretarial Advisory
Committee reinforces these findings. The report's overarching premise
is that globalization has fundamentally changed the American economy,
and that the economic health of our nation is now dependent upon the
competitiveness of its regions. Despite these economic changes, our
nation continues with policies, organizational structures, and
investment strategies built for a past era. Therefore, it is necessary
to build a new system of federal economic and community development
that invests in the strengthening of regions and their communities. The
report emphasizes the need to better target federal resources to
communities and regions of high distress.
On the whole, it is anticipated that SACI's new allocation formula
will direct more funds to the neediest places. The President's
initiative will focus resources on the nation's most economically
distressed communities. By focusing on communities most in need, fewer
communities may be funded, but they will be funded under an allocation
methodology that allows them to receive increased funding along with
more flexibility, more control and more focus on activities that drive
their local economy or make their communities more livable.
In addition, the President's proposal is more equitable in that it
will streamline access to federal assistance by providing a single
access point for all communities. By targeting funds on the basis of
need, we can direct funding to the communities that are most deserving
regardless of whether they are urban, exurban, suburban, or rural.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Shelby. Thank you very much. The subcommittee is
recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., Thursday, May 26, 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 2006
----------
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 2006 budget request for programs
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) appreciates the
opportunity to submit testimony on the fiscal year 2006 appropriation
for the National Science Foundation (NSF). The ASM is the largest
single life science organization in the world 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 is the premier source of Federal support for scientific,
mathematic, and engineering research and education across many
disciplines. NSF plays a critical role in supporting the health of the
Nation's research and education system, which is a principal source of
new ideas and human resources in science and engineering. Although NSF
represents less than 4 percent of the total Federal funding for
research and development, it accounts for approximately 13 percent of
all Federal support for basic research and 40 percent of non-life-
science basic research at U.S. academic institutions. NSF's broad
support for basic research, particularly at U.S. academic institutions,
provides not only a key source of funds for discovery in many fields,
but also unique stewardship in developing the next generation of
scientists and engineers. NSF is also 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, as well as,
educated and prepared citizens.
ASM appreciates the support that both the Congress and the
administration have demonstrated for the National Science Foundation
through enactment of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
368). Public Law 107-368 authorizes a 5-year period of 15 percent
annual budget increases for the NSF. Recognizing the current fiscal
climate, we encourage Congress to increase the funding for NSF in
fiscal year 2006 to $6 billion, approximately 6 percent above the
fiscal year 2004 funding level and 9 percent over fiscal year 2005.
Increasing NSF's budget to $6 billion will allow for additional
investments in grants, fellowships, and in crosscutting research
priorities such as Microbial Biology, Nanoscale Science and
Engineering, the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), and
meet biological infrastructure needs.
RESEARCH GRANT FUNDING
Fundamental research in the biosciences has laid the foundation for
exploring the human genome and now offers new possibilities for
understanding the living world from molecules to organisms to
ecosystems, providing discoveries applicable to meeting national
health, environmental, agricultural, and energy needs. The fiscal year
2006 budget request for NSF is $5.61 billion, a 2.4 percent or $132
million increase over fiscal year 2005. However, because NSF received a
3.1 percent cut in fiscal year 2005, the overall request for fiscal
year 2006 would still fall approximately 1 percent below the fiscal
year 2004 level. Moreover, because NSF is being asked to pay for the
upkeep of ships used for icebreaking, an expense that formerly was
borne by the Coast Guard, the net increase for agency programs in
fiscal year 2006 amounts to only 1.5 percent.
The success rate for grant proposals submitted to NSF has dropped
from a level of about 33 percent to below 20 percent, while the number
of proposals submitted to the agency has increased to more than 45,000
per year. The projected number of grants funded for fiscal year 2006 is
expected to remain steady, while the average annual award size will
also remain level at an estimated $137,000. Increasing NSF's budget to
$6 billion would allow NSF to increase the size of individual awards
and also the number of grants awarded.
The NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) provides support
for research that advances understanding of the underlying principles
and mechanisms governing life. The fiscal year 2006 budget request for
the BIO directorate is $581.8 million, an increase of 0.9 percent over
the fiscal year 2005 level. 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. Within the BIO and other
Directorates at the NSF, programs and priorities of particular interest
to the ASM include:
MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOSCIENCES
The Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB) Division within NSF
included several research activities in microbiology that are being
transferred to the Emerging Frontiers Subactivity for a new emphasis in
Microbial Biology in fiscal year 2006. The request for MCB core
research for fiscal year 2006 is $109.8 million, which is a decrease of
$8.4 million from fiscal year 2005. Although some of this decrease is
due to activities being transferred, overall decreases in core funding
will lead to fewer MCB awards in fiscal year 2006.
BIOCOMPLEXITY IN THE ENVIRONMENT
The fiscal year 2006 budget request for Biocomplexity in the
Environment (BE) is for $30.43 million, which is nearly a 24 percent
decrease from the previous level. This priority area provides support
for the Ecology of Infectious Disease, Microbial Genome Sequencing, and
Assembling the Tree of Life programs, and will help to support a new
program emphasizing environmental genomics in fiscal year 2006, each of
which will be managed under the Emerging Frontiers Subactivity. This
effort to expand multidisciplinary research will result in our
developing a more complete understanding of natural processes and
better ways to use new technology effectively to sustain life on earth.
Increasing NSF's budget would allow NSF to increase its investment in
the BE effort.
NANOSCALE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
The Nanoscale Science and Engineering effort within the BIO
Directorate faces a decrease of $2 million, or 34 percent, to a total
of $3.85 million for fiscal year 2006. This effort 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. NSF has been a pioneer among Federal
agencies in fostering the development of nanoscale science. The
President's request of $127.8 million in fiscal year 2006 for the
overall Nanoscale Science and Engineering effort remains unchanged from
the fiscal year 2005 plan.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY
The budget request for the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB)
for fiscal year 2006 is $107.1 million, an increase of about 1.1
percent over the fiscal year 2005 plan. DEB priorities for fiscal year
2006 are to support research on complex ecological systems, including
aquatic or watershed systems, systematic biology, microbial ecology,
and invasive species, with particular emphasis on the quantitative
understanding of complex interrelationships. These efforts will depend
on biological infrastructure such as advanced instrumentation and
research collections. Also within DEB, the National Center for
Ecological Analysis and Synthesis budget is to be increased by
$350,000.
BIOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The budget request for the Division of Biological Infrastructure
for fiscal year 2006 is for $82.9 million, an increase of about 2.9
percent over the fiscal year 2005 plan. The fiscal year 2006 budget
request for the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) within
this program is for $6 million, which is less than a 1 percent increase
from the previous year and is allocated for planning this program. NEON
has the potential to transform ecological research. The 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. Increasing NSF's budget to $6 billion would allow NSF to
increase its investment in NEON.
EMERGING FRONTIERS
The budget request for the Emerging Frontiers (EF) Subactivity for
fiscal year 2006 is for $85.9 million, an increase of about 16 percent
over the fiscal year 2005 plan. This increase is partly the result of
several programs being transferred from the Division of Molecular and
Cellular Biosciences, including programs that support microbial genome
sequencing, microbial observatories, research on interactions and
processes, and training activities. The EF Subactivity includes a
priority in Microbial Biology for fiscal year 2006, emphasizing all
levels from the molecular to the ecological. Several programs are being
transferred from the Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences,
including programs that support microbial genome sequencing, microbial
observatories, research on interactions and processes, and training
activities.
The Microbial Genome Sequencing Program is to be conducted jointly
with a competitive grants program in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. The fiscal year 2006 funding request is for $12.2 million
for the Microbial Observatories and Microbial Interactions and
Processes Program to support researchers who are analyzing microbial
genomic sequence and other data.
The Ecology of Infectious Diseases is an interagency partnership
with the National Institutes of Health 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 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.
BIOENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
The Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES) Division, within
the Engineering Directorate, supports research that: expands the
knowledge base of bioengineering at scales ranging from proteins and
cells to organ systems, including mathematical models, devices and
instrumentation systems; applies engineering principles to the
understanding of living systems, development of new and improved
devices, and products for human health care; improves our ability to
apply engineering principles to avoid and/or correct problems that
impair the usefulness of land, air and water, and advances fundamental
engineering knowledge of the ocean environment and develops
technological innovation related to conservation, development, and use
of the oceans and their resources.
In fiscal year 2004, BES was funded at $51 million, in fiscal year
2005, it was funded at $48.2 million. The budget request for BES in
fiscal year 2006 is $50.7 million, 0.6 percent below fiscal year 2004.
BES plays a vital role in supporting research, innovation, and
education in the rapidly evolving fields of bioengineering and
environmental engineering. Increasing NSF's budget to $6 billion would
allow NSF to increase its investment in BES, supporting technological
innovations that will advance the global competitiveness of our
industries and the health of our environment.
CONCLUSION
In addition to adverse impacts on the pace of new scientific
discoveries, constrained funding has equally important consequences for
the vitality of the Nation's scientific workforce. Constrained funding
decreases job opportunities for current and future scientists, and
reduces the attractiveness of science as a career choice.
The NSF plays a key role in support of basic science and scientists
in the United States, and knowledge gained from NSF studies directly
benefits industry and contributes to the economy and U.S. international
competitiveness. 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. ASM urges Congress to protect ongoing and future
U.S. scientific and technological advancements by supporting an
increase to $6 billion for the fiscal year 2006 budget for the NSF. The
ASM believes 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 NSF for fiscal year 2006.
______
Joint Prepared Statement of the Association of National Estuary
Programs; the Coastal States Organization; The Conservation Fund; the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; the Land Trust
Alliance; the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association; The
Nature Conservancy; and the Trust for Public Land
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 nearly $145 million towards 90
conservation projects in 23 States. All Federal funding has been
leveraged by at least an equal amount at the local level. We hope to
continue this Federal-State partnership and encourage you to fund CELCP
at $60 million for fiscal year 2006.
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 2006. We look forward to working
with you as this program evolves, and stand ready to assist you.
______
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, economic and environmentally-sound manner. AGI supports
full funding as authorized for NSF's EarthScope project and Research
and Related Activities; full funding for NOAA's Tsunami Warning
Network; authorized support for NIST's and NSF's responsibilities in
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and continued
support for NASA's Earth observing campaigns.
AGI supports the Coalition for National Science Funding, which
encourages increases in total funding for NSF and the NEHRP Coalition,
which encourages full funding for NEHRP within NSF and NIST. In
addition, AGI supports funding for Earth science education through
NSF's Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program. Earth science
education helped to save lives during the tragic Indian Ocean tsunami
and will be important for future hazard mitigation in the United States
and elsewhere.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of 42 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 NSF's emphasis on funding the long-neglected and
critically underfunded physical sciences and hope that the subcommittee
shares this commitment to the physical sciences, including the
geosciences. Enhanced and essential funding should remain broad enough
to ensure the multidisciplinary nature of today's science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology research. Congress wisely authorized
increased funding for NSF in Public Law 107-368, such that the total
NSF budget would increase to $7.378 billion and the Research and
Related Activities budget would grow to $5.543 billion in 2005. NSF
only received $5.473 billion in 2005 and remains underfunded. AGI would
strongly support an increase of NSF's total budget to $6 billion in
fiscal year 2006 and we believe that such a wise and forward-looking
investment in tight fiscal times will pay important dividends in future
development and innovation that drives economic growth.
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 a small increase of 2.2 percent ($14.9
million) for a total budget of $709.1 million. Within this directorate
the Earth Sciences Division's budget would increase 3.4 percent or $5.1
million from $149.0 million to $154.1 million. AGI fully supports this
increase to fund EarthScope's operation and maintenance budget. We
would encourage increases in funding to the authorized level for the
Research and Related Activities account, to allow NSF to strengthen
core research by increasing the number and duration of grants. The
NEHRP Coalition also requests that Congress appropriate the full
funding level contained in the reauthorization for fiscal year 2006 of
$39.1 million dollars for NEHRP responsibilities at the NSF.
NSF Major Research Equipment Account.--EarthScope AGI urges the
subcommittee to support the Major Research Equipment, Facilities and
Construction budget request of $50.62 million for EarthScope. Taking
advantage of new technology in sensors and data distribution, this
multi-pronged initiative will systematically survey the structure of
Earth's crust beneath North America, imaging faults at depth, hidden
faults and other structures that may be hazardous or economically-
valuable. The fiscal year 2006 request includes continued support for
deployment of three components: a dense array of digital seismometers
that will be deployed in stages 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, which released a report in 2001 entitled ``Review of
EarthScope Integrated Science''. All data from this project will be
available in real time to both scientists and students, providing a
tremendous opportunity for both 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 the Math and Science
Partnership (MSP) program as it has existed at NSF. This is a
competitive peer-reviewed grant program and funds are only awarded to
the highest quality proposals. Shifting the MSP program entirely to the
Department of Education would mean that all MSP funds would be
distributed to states on a formula basis. This would provide no
incentive for top researchers to continue to participate in this
important program and would limit the flexibility of States to target
areas of greatest need. The NSF's MSP program focuses on modeling,
testing and identification of high-quality math-science activities
whereas the Department of Education 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, and water.
--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 because of her Earth science class and
warned others to seek higher ground.
--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
Within NOAA's National Weather Service, some of the proposed
increases are for improving the U.S. Tsunami Warning Network. President
Bush requested $24 million over 2 fiscal years ($14.5 million in fiscal
year 2005 and $9.5 million in fiscal year 2006) to add 32 detection
buoys (7 for the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Basin and Gulf of Mexico and
25 for the Pacific Ocean), procure 38 new sea level monitoring/tide
gauge stations, and to provide comprehensive warning coverage. AGI
supports full funding for this program. AGI also supports the proposed
increased funding 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.
NIST
In 2004 President Bush signed the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) reauthorization (Public Law 108-360). This
legislation reauthorized NEHRP for another 5 years and authorized
$176.5 million in spending spread over four agencies (NIST, FEMA, USGS
and NSF). As the lead agency, the law says NIST is eligible to receive
up to $11 million for NEHRP in fiscal year 2006. No funds were
requested for this program in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget.
AGI strongly supports $11 million for NIST to carry out its NEHRP
responsibilities and we further support adequate funding for core
laboratory functions at NIST to ensure that NEHRP funds are protected.
NASA
AGI supports the Earth observing programs within NASA. NASA has a
unique capability to provide observations of our planet. 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 values aeronautics research to help build better
aircraft, 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.
Among Earth science programs, the Earth Systematic Missions program is
slated for a $118 million (40 percent) cut, stalling the Glory Mission,
which was planned to address climate change. We hope this subcommittee
will be committed to full funding of the Earth Systematic Missions
program.
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.
______
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 Antitrust Division (DOJ) and the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) play critical roles in monitoring and
enforcing antitrust laws affecting the electric utility industry. With
the continuing uncertainty created by wholesale electricity
restructuring, this oversight is more crucial 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 $212 million for fiscal year 2006 for the
FTC. However, we urge the subcommittee to carefully consider allocating
the full $144.5 million requested by the administration for fiscal year
2006 to provide the U.S. Antitrust Division with the necessary
resources to enforce U.S. antitrust laws to help APPA's members adapt
to the ever changing wholesale electricity market.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
our fiscal year 2006 funding priorities within the Commerce-Justice-
Science Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
______
Prepared Statement of Oceana
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 2006 budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. I request that
this testimony be submitted for the official record. Oceana urges the
subcommittee, as it has done in previous years, to significantly
increase funding for NOAA overall and specifically recommends the
following for critical ocean research and conservation programs:
--$42.4 million for fishery observer programs;
--$4.8 million for the reducing bycatch initiative;
--$12.5 million for the national undersea research program (NURP);
--$82.0 million for marine mammal research and management;
--$15.0 million for sea turtle research and management;
--$30.0 million for expanding fish stock assessments;
--$20.0 million for fishery cooperative research;
--$54.2 million for fishery enforcement, including $9.3 million for
vessel monitoring systems; and
--$8.0 million for National Environmental Policy Act activities in
fishery management.
We are greatly concerned about the impact of the administration's
request for a $333 million cut (-8.5 percent) to NOAA below existing
funding levels. The National Marine Fisheries Service is targeted for a
$95 million cut (-12.0 percent) and the National Ocean Service is
targeted for a $255 million cut (-38.0 percent). These steep reductions
do not match the recommendations of the Presidentially-appointed United
States Commission on Ocean Policy's final report issued last fall. The
Commission 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
Commission's advice and strengthen our Nation's commitment to
sustainable oceans and coasts by increasing funding for the important
NOAA programs and activities described below.
Fishery Observer Programs--$42.4 million.--Oceana recommends that
the fiscal year 2006 budget provide $42.4 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. More specifically, Oceana recommends $9.0 million
for the national observer program; $11.0 million for the New England
groundfish observer program; $7.8 million for the Atlantic Coast
observer program; $2.0 million to establish a Gulf of Mexico/South
Atlantic reef fish observer program; $350,000 for the East Coast
observer program; $3.979 million for Hawaii longline observer program;
$1.835 million for North Pacific marine resources observer program;
$650,000 for North Pacific observer program; $800,000 for the South
Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico shrimp observer program; and $5.0 million for
the West Coast groundfish observer program. The administration's
request seeks slightly more than the current funding level of $24.5
million.
Bycatch Reduction--$4.8 million.--One of the primary issues
threatening the future of our fisheries is the catch and subsequent
injury or death or unwanted fish and ocean life. For the past few
years, Congress has provided additional Federal support to help address
the challenges of bycatch. This initiative supports enhanced technical
solutions and outreach to reduce bycatch, improved cooperative research
activities with fishermen, and international transfer of technology,
gear modifications, and fishing practices that benefit domestic
fisheries that target highly migratory fish species. We would strongly
encourage the subcommittee to consider funding this new initiative at
$4.8 million to accelerate bycatch reduction efforts. Current funding
for this initiative is $3.745 million.
National Undersea Research Program--$12.5 million.--Oceana supports
a slight increase above current enacted levels for NOAA's National
Undersea Research Program. This program can help managers locate and
map areas of ancient, deep sea corals and other vital undersea habitats
that are important for healthy fish and marine mammal populations.
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 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 health and respond
to marine mammal die-offs.
Sea Turtle Conservation--$15.0 million.--Oceana urges the
subcommittee to sustain work currently underway on sea turtle research
and conservation by providing $15.0 million to NMFS programs dedicated
to protecting sea turtles. Current funding levels for sea turtle work
are $14.943 million. 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. We also encourage additional funding to
support the agency's Atlantic sea turtle bycatch reduction strategy
that will examine needed gear modifications for conservation.
Expanding Stock Assessments of our Nation's Fisheries--$30.0
million.--Due to a lack of funding for basic research, we do not have
adequate information about the status of many commercial fish stocks.
Almost two-thirds of the Nation's fish populations lack basic
information to determine their status; there are 85 ``major'' stocks
where the information about their status is classified as ``unknown.''
Oceana encourages the subcommittee to provide $30.0 million so that
NMFS can hire additional biologists to produce annual stock
assessments, fund necessary charter days at sea to collect data, and
ultimately significantly reduce the number of fish stocks with unknown
status. Accelerating this information gathering will help rebuild
overfished stocks and improve fish management decisions. Current
funding levels for fish stock assessment are $20.5 million.
Fishery Cooperative Research--$20.0 million.--Oceana recommends the
subcommittee provide $20.0 million to support research partnerships
between NMFS, scientists, and individual fishermen. Current funding
levels for this research are $19.173 million.
Fishery Enforcement--$54.2 million.--Oceana strongly supports the
administration's request of $54.2 million for fishery enforcement,
which includes $9.3 million for the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS).
This increase supports expansion of VMS, which helps to improve
monitoring and enforcement of areas closed for protection of endangered
species, critical habitat, and rebuilding sustainable fisheries.
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.
Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony for the record regarding the fiscal
year 2006 funding request for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
(Foundation). The Foundation respectfully requests that this
subcommittee fund the Foundation at $4 million ($2 million from both
National Ocean Services and National Marine Fisheries Services) through
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
appropriation. This request would allow the Foundation as the official
Foundation to NOAA to continue to leverage scarce Federal dollars and
expand its highly successful grant program to better assist NOAA in
forwarding their mission for coastal and marine conservation, as well
as species recovery. This request lies well within the authorized
amount for the Foundation.
Federal dollars appropriated by this subcommittee allow us to
leverage State, local, and private dollars for on-the-ground
conservation. Since our founding in 1984, the Foundation has supported
over 7,273 conservation grants and leveraged over $305.1 million in
Federal funds into more than $918.8 million for on the ground
conservation. This has resulted in more than 17.4 million acres of
restored and managed wildlife habitat; new hope for countless species
under stress; new models of private land stewardship; and, stronger
conservation education programs in schools and local communities. We
recognize that without the seed money this committee provides, many
conservation benefits would not be realized. None of our federally
appropriated funds are used for lobbying or litigation, or for the
Foundation's administrative expenses. All of our federally appropriated
funds go to on-the-ground projects. Furthermore, our general
administrative expenses, including fundraising, public relations, and
finance and administration is below 8 percent.
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. By the end of fiscal year 2004, over $34 million in NOAA
and Foundation funds had been leveraged to produce $94 million for on-
the-water conservation.
In fiscal year 2004, we were appropriated $2.497 million in NOAA
funds which we were able to leverage with over $6 million in additional
Foundation and partner dollars for a total conservation of $8.8
million. We achieved this leveraging of the Federal dollar by
cultivating partnerships. In fiscal year 2004, the Foundation partnered
these funds with seven other foundations and several private sector
corporations like Shell Oil, Pacific Life Insurance, Bass Pro Co., and
ConocoPhillips.
In the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Bill, we only received $1.7 million
of our historical $2.5 million mark for our NOAA partnership. In
addition to this lower allocation, 3 rescissions totaling 1.44 percent
were also assigned by Congress which further impacts our level of
funding. This brings the total for our NOAA program down to $1,675,600.
This number could be further impacted by NOAA ``Administrative Fees''
before the money comes to the Foundation and can be up to 5 percent of
the total.
Although we have not received our fiscal year 2005 funds yet, we
have already received over $5 million in good project proposals
competing for these dollars and expect more good proposals than we are
able to fund as the fiscal year progresses. A 30 percent decrease will
greatly impact funding available for our NOAA program, one of NOAA's
largest leveraging vehicles and broadest brush for general marine and
coastal conservation projects. The fiscal year 2005 budget cuts will
only compound this need and compromise NOAA's ability to support
desired quality projects. Projects often directly assist NOAA in
achieving under funded management objectives and come to the Foundation
with strong support from regional and program offices. In addition to
supplementing these NOAA priorities through our appropriation, the
Foundation leverages NOAA's dollar for an even greater impact than what
they could achieve on their own.
Six special issue programs that we administer will also be impacted
by the reduction in funds as they are also supported through the
appropriation. 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 cuts will obviously impact some or all
of these programs in the number of projects they can support, and may
have additional impacts if NOAA is the main or only partner. 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 2006 appropriations request will put us back
on track to continue leveraging scarce Federal resources, and allow us
to leverage even more and increase the resulting conservation benefits.
Although NOAA and the Foundation have partnered together in the
conservation of specific priorities from great whales to the Chesapeake
Bay, the heart of the partnership is the general conservation grant
program. This general challenge grant program has allowed the
Foundation to be highly successful in assisting NOAA in accomplishing
its mission to help people conserve, maintain and improve our natural
resources and environment and provide flexible response to achieving
short and long-term objectives. In fiscal year 2004 the general call
program supported partnerships that restored 70 acres of coastal,
estuarine and nearshore habitat and helped rivers and streams that
support anadromous fish habitat across the nation to be restored or
managed more effectively.
Working Watersheds.--The Foundation awarded 7 projects to aid
coastal and marine habitats in 2004 with $521,300 in NOAA dollars that
was successfully leveraged with other Federal (this includes
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
partnerships) and non-Federal dollars to apply more than $1.5 million
to conservation. Our grant program was uniquely able to provide
expertise by engaging local aquariums and community groups, fishermen,
conservancies, universities, and local government to undertake on-the-
ground hands-on restoration and replanting activities to off-set the
tide of habitat loss in many of our coastal and nearshore systems.
Areas of focus include:
--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 as in the case
of our Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program and
Delaware Estuary Grants Program. This model has proved so
successful that in fiscal year 2004, we expanded our coastal
habitat portfolio with a new program in Long Island Sound. The
Long Island Sound Futures Fund partners NOAA, FWS, NRCS, and
EPA and draws from State and Federal planning documents for
priorities. In its launch year, the new program will be
awarding 25-30 projects using approximately $1 million in
Federal and non-Federal funds, resulting in $2.7 million to the
region through leveraging. In addition to these monetary
partnerships, these Foundation programs are tapping into local
community resources. For example, one project allowed a
community to complete and expand a wetland restoration near a
former industrial area enhancing the biological value and
visual appeal of the site located near a shoreline nature
trail.
In fiscal year 2006, we plan to build on this success by
launching a similar program in the Great Lakes region, as well
as investigate future programs in other priority areas in the
San Francisco Bay area and the Puget Sound region.
--Protecting Coral Reefs.--In the marine environment, $1 million in
NOAA dollars were leveraged in fiscal year 2004 to apply more
than double that amount, $2.4 million, to 26 projects to
conserve coral reefs. Project examples include protecting coral
reefs and fish nurseries in Hawaii, quantifying the impact of
sport divers on the reefs in the Florida Keys, evaluating
management activities, implementing a volunteer fisheries data
collection program, and building stakeholder support for reef
management in Belize. Fiscal year 2005 priorities for the Fund
consist of reducing nutrient run-off and sedimentation to
coastal reefs, as well as supporting community leadership to
improve the management and effectiveness of existing marine
protected areas. This year will also build off of a new
partnership with the White Water to Blue Water Initiative--
Anchors Away! Program to establish mooring buoys programs to
reduce the damage from anchoring on coral reefs.
Conserving Fish, Wildlife, and Plants.--With our NOAA dollars, the
Foundation funds projects that directly benefit diverse fish and
wildlife species including albatross in the waters off the Pacific,
manatees and sea turtles in the Gulf and Southern Atlantic and right
whales in the Northern Atlantic.
--Threatened and Endangered Species Solutions.--We measure our
success by preventing the listing of species under the
Endangered Species Act and by stabilizing and (hopefully)
moving others off the list. We invest in common sense and
innovative cooperative approaches to endangered species,
building bridges between the government and the private sector.
In fiscal year 2004, the Foundation used $584,460 in NOAA funds
to support marine species conservation and recovery from Maine
to Latin America. We leveraged this investment with an
additional $1.6 million in Federal and non-Federal match
funding, and expanded our coordination of this work with
Federal, State, and local entities.
Expanding Conservation Education Opportunities.--The Foundation
made great strides in diversifying our education and outreach
activities with NOAA funds, in fiscal year 2004. All told, the
Foundation awarded over $400,000 last year in NOAA funds for marine
education--three times the support under this category than last year!
This commitment was leveraged to more than $1.6 million in other
Federal and non-Federal partnership dollars. Examples included a
``Look, Don't Touch'' billboard campaign to protect coral reefs in the
Pacific, support for marine education spots on national public radio,
and sponsorship of over 10 student scholarships in marine sciences.
Other grants awarded will enhance or expand conservation education and
training for students, teachers, private landowners, community groups
and others.
Through these and other efforts, the Foundation remains committed
to the conservation goals of our partners--Federal, State, local and
private. In fiscal year 2006, we will continue to multiply our efforts
to foster public-private partnerships. We also recognize that there are
many unmet challenges, and we stand ready to help local communities and
other conservation stakeholders to achieve success.
Accountability and Grantsmanship.--All potential grants are subject
to a peer review process involving State and Federal agency staff,
academics, community and environmental interests, corporations, and
others. The 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. We also
provide a 30-day notification to the member of Congress for the
congressional district in which a grant will be funded, prior to making
the grant. In addition, the Foundation requires strict financial
reporting by grantees and is subject to an annual audit.
Basic Facts About the Foundation.--The Foundation promotes
conservation solutions by awarding matching grants using its federally
appropriated funds to match private sector funds. We have a statutory
requirement to match Federal funds with at least an equal amount of
non-Federal funds, which we consistently exceed. No Federal
appropriations are used to meet our administrative expenses.
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, and 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.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation continues to be one of,
if not the, most cost-effective conservation program funded in part by
the Federal Government. By implementing real-world solutions with the
private sector while avoiding regulatory or advocacy activity, we serve
as a model for bringing private sector leadership to Federal agencies
and for developing cooperative solutions to environmental issues. We
are confident that the money you appropriate to the Foundation is
making a positive difference.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Astronomical Society
I submit this testimony on behalf of the American Astronomical
Society and have attached a disclosure statement of the Society's
various Federal grants by agency and program received during the
previous 2 fiscal years.
INTRODUCTION
The American Astronomical Society (AAS) is the largest professional
organization for research astronomers in the United States. With
approximately 6,500 members, the AAS publishes the major astronomical
research journals and also organizes meetings to highlight recent
results and discoveries. The organization was founded in 1899 and has
helped the profession grow to its present robust state.
Government support has been essential to the stunning achievements
of astronomy research in the United States. Within just the past 15
years, U.S. astronomers supported by NASA, the NSF and the DOE have led
the way in discovering the first planets around other stars and in
determining that we live in a Universe whose expansion is speeding up,
driven by a previously undetected component of the Universe, the dark
energy. These discoveries appeal to the imagination of a wide segment
of the public and confront our most basic understanding of the physical
world. Discoveries made with government-funded telescopes, both on the
ground and in space, appear daily on the front pages of the Nation's
newspapers. The American public values astronomy and endorses
government support for astronomy research. Although only a small
portion of the Federal investment in basic research goes to astronomy,
astronomy plays a vital role for all of physical science by drawing
interested students into careers in physical science, engineering, and
mathematics. Statistics show that fewer than 20 percent of
undergraduate astronomy students ultimately work in basic astronomy
research, but nearly all of them find work in technical fields,
bolstering our Nation's economy, and improving our quality of life.
THE DECADAL SURVEY OF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS
The Astronomy community has a long history of setting priorities
within the field. Each decade, supported by NASA and NSF as well as the
AAS, astronomers meet over a 2-year period to decide what physical
resources are needed for the coming decade. Through a National Research
Council committee, the state of the science is reviewed, the areas of
research most likely to produce significant results are ranked, and the
facilities needed to carry out this path breaking work are assessed.
The result is a prioritized, consensus list with realistic costs for
astronomical facilities on the ground and in space to be built in the
coming decade. Dubbed the Decadal Survey, the reports are available
from the National Research Council's Space Studies Board and Committee
on Physics and Astronomy. By reaching consensus on the telescopes,
space missions and other needs necessary for the coming decade,
astronomers aim to help policy makers as they decide what projects to
fund. Because the Decadal Survey represents a carefully constructed
consensus among the astronomy research community, legislators can be
sure that the community will endorse funding projects that are on this
list. Missions or projects not on the list may still be of great
importance, but unless they are included in the survey or the mid-
course review of the survey (also prepared by the NRC and representing
community consensus as each decade progresses), additional projects
deserve careful scrutiny prior to being funded.
Astronomers are proud of this process and we are happy to see that
our close colleagues, the planetary science community and the solar and
space physics community have initiated similar efforts, publishing
their first decadal survey reports in just the past 4 years. The AAS
has formally endorsed all three reports and actively works to educate
policy makers about their importance for our discipline. Because we
have seen how effective a well-ordered list of priorities can be in
helping with the policy making process, we hope that other fields will
attempt to undertake their own priority-setting efforts.
Another recent report, Quarks to the Cosmos, has been published by
the National Research Council to highlight the growing synergy between
basic physics and astronomy. This report provides 11 basic questions
and outlines a way toward answering them through partnerships among the
three basic funding agencies that support astronomy, NASA, NSF and the
DOE. The AAS has endorsed this report and supports its recommendations.
One recent development is the establishment by Congress of a FACA
committee: the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (AAAC).
This committee is charged with assessing and making recommendations
concerning the astronomy and astrophysics activities of NASA, NSF, and
DOE and in monitoring their progress in fulfilling the outlines of the
Decadal report and its sequels. Their report is sent each March 15 to
the appropriate Congressional committees, the NASA Administrator, the
NSF Director, and widely distributed within OMB, OSTP, and to agency
personnel.
THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE
As all U.S. citizens are aware, the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) is
in danger of failing on orbit due to declining battery performance and
fine guidance gyroscope failure. The former administrator of NASA, Sean
O'Keefe, decided to cancel long-planned astronaut servicing of the
telescope. A National Research Council committee was ultimately formed
to investigate alternatives for the future of the HST. Chaired by Lou
Lanzerotti and composed of experts from a variety of backgrounds
including engineering, aerospace and safety, the committee recommended
that NASA service the telescope using astronauts on the Shuttle. The
AAS has formally endorsed this report and its recommendations. We are
delighted to see that the new NASA Administrator, Mike Griffin,
promises to undertake an internal review of a possible Shuttle
servicing mission immediately after the first flight of the Shuttle.
Further, the AAS endorsement points out that a serviced HST will
continue to produce excellent science results. If, in a departure from
past practice and understandings, the cost of servicing the telescope
were funded completely from NASA's science budget, this would have a
serious impact on the entire range of science that NASA supports. A
creative funding solution is necessary to both service HST and retain
the vitality of NASA's existing science programs. The present budget,
even without costs attributed to Hubble servicing, has caused many
useful science programs to be curtailed at NASA, disrupting productive
research by AAS members. We recommend that Congress find a way to meet
both of these important needs.
LARGE FACILITIES FUNDED BY NSF
Astronomers require large telescopes to collect faint light from
the furthest reaches of the Universe. The National Science Foundation
plays a critical role in astronomy research through its construction,
operation and enhancement of ground-based telescopes that are available
to all U.S. astronomers and through support of instrumentation at
telescopes run by universities or by private organizations. The
National Optical Astronomy Observatories, National Radio Astronomy
Observatory, National Astronomy and Ionospheric Center, and the
National Solar Observatory all provide access to large telescopes with
cutting-edge technology to astronomers from both large and small
colleges and universities. The Gemini Observatories: two 8-meter
telescopes, one located in the Northern hemisphere and one in the
Southern, have recently been completed. The Atacama Large Millimeter
Array: a radio wavelength interferometer that will allow a wide range
of studies ranging from the furthest reaches of the Universe to the
formation of nearby stars and planets is now under construction. The
Advanced Technology Solar Telescope: a telescope that will provide the
best images of the nearest star's surface and allow new insight into
the complex role of magnetic fields and the impact of solar variability
on our Earth.
These large facilities are expensive to build and expensive to
operate, but they are of fundamental importance. A new generation of
telescopes seems within out technical reach, much larger and more
powerful than any that have gone before. The Giant Segmented Mirror
Telescope is a top priority in the Decadal Report, and it seems likely
to come to fruition as a public-private partnership. A forward-looking
approach to developing the technologies for the giant telescopes of the
not-too-distant future will require creative thinking at the NSF to
plan ahead for these large facilities. Similarly, the potential for
developing a new kind of astronomy based on frequent surveys of the sky
will harness the revolution in electronic detectors and in data
processing to astronomical ends. These synoptic surveys promise to find
everything from rogue objects in the solar system to exploding stars at
the edge of the Universe.
The AAS strongly supports the construction and operation of the
Nation's large research facilities, especially the telescopes supported
by the NSF. We recommend that Congress continue to support these
facilities adequately. One important part of any effective plan is
provision of adequate operations support for the lifetime of any new
facility. This needs to include funds for upgrading the instrumentation
as new technology becomes available. Old telescopes can provide new
insight when adequate development support is provided to the engineers
and scientists who build new instruments for these large telescopes.
This recommendation is also one of the high priority items in the most
recent Decadal Survey and is strongly supported by the astronomy
community.
THE VISION FOR EXPLORATION AT NASA
NASA's space science program is returning excellent results on a
very broad range of topics. Their work is visible to the public
worldwide. There are excellent programs in progress, following the
precepts of the Decadal Survey, including the highest ranked large
project in space: the James Webb Space Telescope. However, the
challenges for NASA are very substantial. Within the current budget
constraints, NASA is being asked to complete the International Space
Station and ramp down the Space Shuttle while initiating the
Exploration Vision. We expect that NASA will find a way to integrate
its broad and vigorous space science program into the stated strategic
goals of the agency in a way that strengthens the Exploration Vision.
NASA should do this for the scientific returns, the inspirational value
to the Nation, and as a continuing demonstration of NASA's value to the
Nation and to the world. Exploration without science is tourism.
CONCLUSION
The Congress continues to support a vital and energetic research
program in the astronomical sciences. The AAS thanks Congress for this
support on behalf of the U.S. astronomy community. The budgets of NASA,
NSF and the DOE are all important for astronomy research. Astronomy
makes a direct connection to the U.S. public: we know they support the
use of public funds to support astronomy research. The AAS understands
that there are many pressures on the Federal budget, but we know that
investment in astronomy is important and wise use of public funds.
People want to know what the Universe is and how it works. Many
students are drawn to science through astronomy. They very often end up
helping our economy in other areas, especially in technology
development, the physical sciences, or engineering. Astronomy is good
for the United States and a valuable investment for the Congress.
STATEMENT ON GRANTS
The American Astronomical Society has held in the past 2 fiscal
years the following grants.
NASA
NAG5-4537 Astronomical Research Projects.--$341,000 (fiscal year
2005-fiscal year 2008).
NAG5-12126 Astronomical Research Projects.--$294,737 (fiscal year
2002-fiscal year 2004).
NSF
AST002-28004 International Travel Grant Program.--$325,500 (fiscal
year 2002-fiscal year 2005).
AST004-31452 Request for the Annual ISEF Bok and Lines Awards.--
$77,880 (fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2007).
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission
Agency Involved.--Department of Justice.
Program Involved.--COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program.
Summary of GLIFWC's Fiscal Year 2006 Testimony.--The Commission
requests that Congress support the administration's proposal to fund
this program at $51,600,000 in fiscal year 2006, an increase of
$31,867,000 above last year's Congressional appropriation.
Disclosure of DOJ Grants Contracted.--The Commission is an
intertribal organization which, under the direction of its member
tribes, implements Federal court orders governing tribal harvests of
off-reservation natural resources and the formation of conservation
partnerships to protect and enhance natural resources within the 1836,
1837, and 1842 ceded territories (See map). Under COPS Tribal Resources
Grant Program, the Commission contracted:
--$172,924 in fiscal year 2000 for the purposes of replacing obsolete
radio equipment and to improve the capacity of GLIFWC's
officers to provide emergency services throughout the Chippewa
ceded territories;
--$292,190 in fiscal year 2001 for the purposes of replacing obsolete
patrol vehicles (boats, ATVs, and snowmobiles), purchasing
portable defibrillators, and training GLIFWC officers;
--$302,488 in fiscal year 2002 for the purposes of replacing obsolete
patrol vehicles (ATVs and snowmobiles), improving officer
safety (in-car video cameras), increasing computer
capabilities, and expanding training of GLIFWC officers in
interagency emergency response;
--$280,164 in fiscal year 2003 for the purposes of hiring three
additional officers, providing basic recruit training, and
supplying standard issue items; and
--$108,034 in fiscal year 2004 for the purposes of purchasing patrol
vehicles (three patrol trucks, an ATV and snowmobile), digital
cameras, and providing instructor development and basic recruit
training.
Ceded Territory Treaty Rights and GLIFWC's Role.--GLIFWC was
established in 1984 as a ``tribal organization'' within the meaning of
the Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638). It exercises
authority delegated by its member tribes to implement Federal court
orders and various interjurisdictional agreements related to their
treaty rights. GLIFWC assists its member tribes in:
--securing and implementing treaty guaranteed rights to hunt, fish,
and gather in Chippewa treaty ceded territories; and
--cooperatively managing and protecting ceded territory natural
resources and their habitats.
For the past 20 years, Congress and administrations have funded
GLIFWC through the BIA, Department of Justice and other agencies to
meet specific Federal obligations under: (a) a number of U.S./Chippewa
treaties; (b) the Federal trust responsibility; (c) the Indian Self-
Determination Act, the Clean Water Act, and other legislation; and (d)
various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case,
affirming the treaty rights of GLIFWC's member Tribes. GLIFWC serves as
a cost efficient agency to conserve natural resources, to effectively
regulate harvests of natural resources shared among treaty signatory
tribes, to develop cooperative partnerships with other government
agencies, educational institutions, and non-governmental organizations,
and to work with its member tribes to protect and conserve ceded
territory natural resources.
Under the direction of its member tribes, GLIFWC operates a ceded
territory hunting, fishing, and gathering rights protection/
implementation program through its staff of biologists, scientists,
technicians, conservation enforcement officers, and public information
specialists.
Community Based Policing.--GLIFWC's officers carry out their duties
through a community-based policing program. The underlying premise is
that effective detection and deterrence of illegal activities, as well
as education of the regulated constituents, are best accomplished if
the officers live and work within tribal communities that they
primarily serve. The officers are based in 10 satellite offices located
on the reservations of the following member tribes: In Wisconsin--Bad
River, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Red Cliff, Sokaogon
Chippewa (Mole Lake) and St. Croix; in Minnesota--Mille Lacs; and in
Michigan--Bay Mills, Keweenaw Bay and Lac Vieux Desert.
Interaction with Law Enforcement Agencies.--GLIFWC's officers are
integral members of regional emergency services networks in Minnesota,
Michigan and Wisconsin. They not only enforce the tribes' conservation
codes, but are fully certified officers who work cooperatively with
surrounding authorities when they detect violations of State or Federal
criminal and conservation laws. 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, including CPR, and in
the use of defibrillators, and 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. This network includes the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Coast
Guard, USDA-Forest Service, State Patrol and Police, county sheriffs
departments, municipal police forces, fire departments and emergency
medical services.
GLIFWC Programs Currently Funded by DOJ.--GLIFWC recognizes that
adequate communications, training, and equipment are essential both for
the safety of its officers and for the role that GLIFWC's officers play
in the proper functioning of interjurisdictional emergency mutual
assistance networks in the ceded territories. GLIFWC's COPS grants for
the past 4 years have provided a critical foundation for achieving
these goals. Significant accomplishments with Tribal Resources Grant
Program funds include:
--Improved Radio Communications and Increased Officer Safety.--GLIFWC
replaced obsolete radio equipment to improve the capacity of
officers to provide emergency services throughout the Chippewa
ceded territories. GLIFWC also used COPS funding to provide
each officer a bullet-proof vest, night vision equipment, and
in-car videos to increase officer safety.
--Emergency Response Equipment and Training.--Each GLIFWC officer has
completed certification as a First Responder and in the use of
life saving portable defibrillators. In 2003, GLIFWC officers
carried First Responder kits and portable defibrillators during
their patrol of 275,257 miles throughout the ceded territories.
In remote, rural areas the ability of GLIFWC officers to
respond to emergencies provides critical support of mutual aid
agreements with Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies.
--Ice Rescue Capabilities.--Each GLIFWC officer was certified in ice
rescue techniques and provided a Coast Guard approved ice
rescue suit. In addition, each of GLIFWC's 10 reservation
satellite offices was provided a snowmobile and an ice rescue
sled to participate in interagency ice rescue operations with
county sheriffs departments and local fire departments.
--Wilderness Search and Rescue Capabilities.--Each GLIFWC officer
completed Wilderness Search and Rescue training. The COPS
Tribal Resources Grant Program also enabled GLIFWC to replace
many vehicles that were purchased over a decade ago including
10 ATV's and 16 patrol boats and the GPS navigation system on
its 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 Chippewa Ceded
Territories. GLIFWC officers also utilize these vehicles for
boater, ATV, and snowmobile safety classes taught on
Reservations as part of the Commission's Community Policing
Strategy.
--Hire, Train, Supply, 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 recently affirmed
the existence of the Chippewa's treaty-guaranteed usufructuary rights
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. 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,
and (3) staffing shortages experienced by local police, fire, and
ambulance departments due to the call up of National Guard and military
reserve units.
Examples of the types of assistance provided by GLIFWC officers are
provided below:
--as trained first responders, GLIFWC officers routinely respond to,
and often are the first to arrive at, snowmobile accidents,
heart attacks, hunting accidents, and automobile accidents
(throughout the ceded territories) 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 elderly (Sawyer, Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, and Forest
counties in Wisconsin and Baraga, Chippewa, and Gogebic
counties in Michigan).
--being among the first to arrive on the scene where officers from
other agencies have been shot (Bayfield, Burnett, and Polk
counties in Wisconsin) and responding to weapons incidents
(Ashland, Burnett, Sawyer, and Vilas counties in Wisconsin).
--organize and participate in search and rescues of: (1) ice
fishermen on Lake Superior (Ashland and Bayfield counties in
Wisconsin), (2) Lake Superior boats (Baraga county in Michigan
and with the U.S. Coast Guard in other parts of western Lake
Superior), (3) lost airplanes (Ashland, Forest and Washburn
counties in Wisconsin), and (4) drowning incidents (St. Croix
River on the Minnesota/Wisconsin border, Sawyer county in
Wisconsin, Gogebic county in Michigan).
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 by 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 the American Psychological Society
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
APS supports the Coalition for National Science Funding
recommendation of $6 billion for the National Science Foundation in
fiscal year 2006.
We ask that the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE)
Directorate be funded at the 10.3 percent increase the President
proposed in last year's NSF budget request.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to present the views of the American Psychological Society
(APS) on the fiscal year 2006 appropriations of the National Science
Foundation (NSF). APS is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the
promotion, protection, and advancement of the interests of
scientifically oriented psychology in research, application, teaching,
and the improvement of human welfare. Our 16,000 members are scientists
and academics at the Nation's universities and colleges. The NSF
supports many members of APS, and a great deal of basic research in our
field simply could not exist without NSF funding.
THE NATION'S PREMIERE BASIC RESEARCH ENTERPRISE
When the administration requested a mere 2.47 percent ($132
million) increase for the National Science Foundation in fiscal year
2006, it placed the progress of scientific research on hold. We are
extremely disappointed as the request will barely maintain the costs of
inflation, and will not sustain and advance the Nation's investment in
scientific research.
In the spirit of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 (H.R. 4664)
passed by the 107th Congress and signed by the President (Public Law
107-368), we join with the Coalition for National Science Funding
(CNSF) in recommending $6 billion for the National Science Foundation.
Matching the reauthorization would lead us toward a much-needed
doubling of the Nation's premiere basic research enterprise--bringing
NSF from $4.8 billion to $9.8 billion over 5 years. The basic science
community asks the committee to make the underlying intent of this
authorization a reality. The increases Congress has provided for NSF in
the past, and the increase we are recommending today, are important
steps in offsetting the under-funding that is a chronic condition for
NSF. We hope you will continue to expand NSF's budget.
THE SOCIAL, BEHAVIORAL AND ECONOMIC SCIENCES (SBE) DIRECTORATE
On June 1, David W. Lightfoot, Ph.D. will become NSF Assistant
Director for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. We ask the
committee to join us in welcoming Dr. Lightfoot.
The Directorate for the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
(SBE) supports funding for basic behavioral research. Under the
administration's budget plan, SBE would receive $198.8 million, 1
percent over fiscal year 2005. This comes on the heels of a series of
below-average increases in previous years.
Over the years, many initiatives of the SBE Directorate have been
encouraged. But this is not what has occurred recently. Although the
President proposed a 10.3 percent increase for SBE in fiscal year 2005,
SBE received an increase of only 6.8 percent over fiscal year 2004. A
similar process occurred the previous fiscal year. We are concerned
about this shortfall, given the enormous potential of behavioral
science to address many critical issues facing the Nation. To offset
previous years' under-funding, we ask the committee to fund SBE at the
10.3 percent increase the President proposed in last year's NSF budget
request. At the very least, we ask that the SBE Directorate share
proportionately in any such increases ultimately received by NSF.
An Overview of Basic Psychological Research.--NSF programs and
initiatives that involve psychological science are our best chance to
solve the enigma that has perplexed us for so long: How does the human
mind work and develop? APS members include many scientists who conduct
basic research in areas such as learning, cognition, and memory, and
the linked mechanisms of how we process information through visual and
auditory perception. Others study judgment and decision-making (the
focus of a Nobel prize recently awarded to APS Fellow and NSF grantee
Daniel Kahneman); mathematical reasoning (the focus of the most recent
President's Medal of Science awarded to APS Fellow and NSF Grantee R.
Duncan Luce); language development; the developmental origins of
behavior; and the impact of individual, environmental and social
factors in behavior.
What's more, basic psychological research supported by NSF and
conducted by APS members ultimately has had a wide range of
applications, including designing technology that incorporates the
perceptual and cognitive functioning of humans; teaching math to
children; improving learning through the use of technology; developing
more effective hearing aids and speech recognition machines; increasing
workforce productivity; and ameliorating social problems such as
prejudice or violence. While this is a diverse range of topics, all
these areas of research are bound together by a simple notion: that
understanding the human mind, brain, and behavior is crucial to
maximizing human potential. That places these pursuits squarely at the
forefront of several of the most pressing issues facing the Nation,
this Congress, and the administration.
We also believe that progress in psychological science will lead to
advances in our powers to predict, detect, and prevent terrorism, in
support of the basic science related to Homeland Security. In this time
of uncertainty, where we can come to rely so heavily on technology to
keep us safe and confident, we must turn to social behavior and
cognition in order to maximize this technology. An understanding of how
people process information will enable us to design technology that
fits our needs and make us comfortable when using them. The potential
for advances are limitless.
SBE HIGHLIGHTS
Research supported by the SBE Directorate has the potential to
increase employee productivity, improve decision making in critical
military or civilian emergency situations, and inform the public
policymaking processes across a range of areas. To give just a few
examples:
Perception, Action, and Cognition.--The perception, action, and
cognition program at NSF supports research on these three functions,
and the development of these capacities. Topics include vision,
audition, attention, memory, reasoning, written and spoken discourse,
motor control, and developmental issues in all topic areas. The program
encompasses a range of theoretical perspectives such as symbolic
computation, complex systems, and a variety of methodologies including
experimental studies and modeling. By studying high-level cognitive
activities, we can discover the core of cognition and what cognition
qualities are universal.
Cognitive Neuroscience Initiative.--Cognitive neuroscience, within
the last decade, has become an active and influential discipline,
relying on the interaction of a number of sciences, including
psychology, cognitive science, neurology, neuroimaging, physiology and
others. The cross-disciplinary aspects of this field have spurred a
rapid growth in significant scientific advances. Cognitive
neuroscientists are able to clarify their findings by examining
developmental and transformational aspects of these phenomena across
the lifespan. With brain imaging and other non-invasive techniques, we
are poised to confirm and extend these theories through studies of the
living brain. The Cognitive Neuroscience program solicits innovative
proposals aimed at advancing an understanding of how the human brain
supports thought, perception, emotion, action, social processes, and
other aspects of cognition and behavior. Scientists from a range of
areas test theories about normal brain functioning; assess the
behavioral consequences of brain damage; and reach new levels of
understanding of how the brain develops and matures.
NSF's Children's Research Initiative.--Recognizing that a
combination of perspectives--cognitive, psychological, social, and
neural--is needed to fully understand how children develop and how they
acquire and use knowledge and skills, the SBE Directorate supports
interdisciplinary research centers that focus primarily on integrating
traditionally disparate research disciplines concerned with child
development. Known as the Children's Research Initiative (CRI), this
program brings together such areas as cognitive development, broader
cognitive science and broader developmental psychology, linguistics,
neuroscience, anthropology, social psychology, sociology, family
studies, cross-cultural research, and environmental psychology to name
a few disciplines.
And at a broader level, SBE's Social and Economic Sciences (SES)
Division supports research and related activities aimed at better
understanding, both nationally and internationally, political, economic
and social systems and how individuals and organizations function
within them. Further, it supports research activities related to risk
assessment and decision making by individuals and groups, methods and
statistics applicable across the behavioral sciences and broadening
participation in the social, behavioral and economic sciences.
Finally, NSF's ever-important Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences
(BCS) Division supports research activities to advance the fundamental
understanding of behavioral and cognitive sciences by developing and
advancing scientific knowledge and methods focused on human cognition
and behavior, including perception, social behavior and learning.
In fiscal year 2006, for example, $1.27 million will support core
research in behavioral and cognitive sciences to enable additional
research on human origins, documenting endangered languages, the neural
substrates of cognition, children's development and fundamental human
social processes. Additional dollars will also support important
research-related activities focusing on human diversity, including
those designed to more effectively broaden participation of
underrepresented groups in behavioral and cognitive science activities.
CROSS-CUTTING BEHAVIORAL INITIATIVES AT NSF
Human and Social Dynamics.--Human and Social Dynamics (HSD) fosters
breakthroughs in understanding human action and development by multi-
disciplinary approaches to the causes and impact of social change. As
it seeks to explore the convergence of biology, engineering,
technology, and cognition, we will continue to learn more about
decision-making and risk taking. For example, in fiscal year 2006 NSF
is looking to advance understanding by exploring the interplay of
neurological, sensory-motor, psychological, informational and social
and organizational systems that produce coordinated efforts between
individuals.
As technology and engineering continue to develop at breakneck
speed, it is essential that we study the human dynamics of such
advances. One of the biggest challenges facing behavioral scientists is
the understanding of everyday human performance and action, and how
that is influenced by rapid change. HSD will support research that
examines this challenge. The initiative seeks to refine our knowledge
about decision-making, risk, and uncertainty, and then take this new
knowledge and translate it into improved decision-making techniques. We
live in a world where science such as this cannot be allowed to lag
behind.
An overlapping area is decision-making under uncertainty. Decision-
making under normal circumstances is complex enough; that complexity is
compounded in a crisis. It is necessary to study such factors as
distributed versus centralized decision making systems, new approaches
to risk analyses, and the development of new tools and approaches to
facilitate effective decision making and risk analysis under difficult
or unique circumstances, including behavioral research in response to
extreme events, such as terrorist attacks or natural disasters.
The Science of Learning.--How people think, learn and remember are
core NSF areas, drawing from topics across psychology: brain and
behavior, learning, memory, perception, social psychology, and
development. The challenge is: how can we apply and extend our
knowledge of how people think, learn and remember to improve education?
The Science of Learning Centers, launched in fiscal year 2003, will
advance our understanding of the learning process and learning
technologies. The Centers will strengthen the ties between education
research and the education workforce. They will build collaborative
research communities to respond to new challenges as they arise.
In the administration's request, the Science of Learning Centers
program is slated for $23 million, a welcome 15.9 percent increase over
fiscal year 2005. The Centers will extend the frontiers of learning
knowledge through investigations in human-computer interactions,
cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and child learning and
cognitive development.
In closing, I want to note that building and sustaining the
capacity for innovation and discovery in the behavioral sciences is a
goal of the National Science Foundation. We ask that you encourage
NSF's efforts in these areas, not just those activities described here,
but the full range of activities supported by the SBE directorate and
by NSF at large. Your support will help NSF lay the groundwork for this
long-overdue emphasis on these sciences. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ecological Society of America
As President of the Ecological Society of America, I am pleased to
provide written testimony for the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the
National Science Foundation. The Ecological Society of America has been
the Nation's premier professional society of ecological scientists for
90 years, with a current membership of 9,000 researchers, educators,
and managers.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Of particular interest to our community are NOAA's offices of the
National Ocean Service (budget request is $414.7 million), the National
Marine Fisheries Service (proposed budget is $727.9 million), and the
Oceans and Atmospheric Research (budget request is $372.2 million).
These offices support intramural and extramural research critical to
NOAA's mission of managing marine and coastal resources to meet the
Nation's environmental, economic, and social needs.
NOAA is the only institution that collects and utilizes nationwide
atmospheric and oceanic data. Its research on fisheries and coastal
processes has become increasingly important as pressures on coastal
areas and on fish populations grow. In-house NOAA research is an
essential element of ecological research and provides stock
assessments, basic research on fish species and marine mammals, as well
as marine habitats. Without this research, NOAA could not meet its
obligations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered
Species Act or the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act and our scientific understanding of these topics would
be greatly diminished. In addition to its intramural research programs,
NOAA is a major funder of many important external research endeavors
including research focused on harmful algal blooms, toxic contamination
of estuaries, coastal habitat loss, non-point source pollution, and
fishing gear impacts.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides the science
necessary for revitalization of the Nation's fisheries resources and
for the sustainability of the Nation's marine resources. The
administration is proposing cutting NMFS by $95.8 million, although
funding for stock assessments and protected species research and
management would increase. While these are worthy areas of research,
they should not come at the expense of other important programs such as
habitat conservation and restoration.
Within the National Ocean Service, two programs fund coastal
ecological assessment or research. The Ocean Assessment Program, which
funds critical monitoring projects such as coastal observing systems,
would receive $55.2 million for fiscal year 2006. This represents a
dramatic drop from the $146.9 million approved by Congress in fiscal
year 2005. ESA appreciates past congressional support of this
monitoring program and encourages support beyond the administration's
request.
The National Ocean Service also requests $48 million for the
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), which joins NOAA's
five coastal research centers. This request is $11.6 million below the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2005. ESA urges that funding for
this program be restored to fiscal year 2005 levels, as NCCOS
activities focus on five areas of ecosystem research that are national
in scope and crucial to the Nation's research needs: climate change,
extreme natural events, pollution, invasive species and land and
resource use.
The administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request for ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes research through the Oceans and Atmospheric
Research (OAR) office is $118.6 million, a 19.2 percent decrease from
fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. ESA appreciates past congressional
support of this monitoring program and encourages support beyond the
administration's request. Of particular importance to ESA is the
National Sea Grant Program, administered by OAR, which supports
research, education, and extension projects to help the United States
better manage its coastal resources. The administration requests stable
funding ($61.2 million) for the National Sea Grant Program for fiscal
year 2006. The Ecological Society of America appreciates the
recognition by Congress and the administration that this highly
successful program is an important component of our coastal policy. We
acknowledge the current budget constraints but would like to see this
program's funding grow in the future.
In addition, the National Undersea Research Program, which places
scientists under the sea to conduct research, would fall by $1 million
under the President's proposal. If this decrease were to go into
effect, it would cut underwater ecosystem science projects--which
support coastal and ocean resource management--by 20 percent. ESA urges
that funding for this program be restored to the fiscal year 2005
level.
NOAA's research programs provide the Nation with valuable
understanding of the workings of the oceans and atmosphere. NOAA has
greatly advanced the field of ecological science through both its in-
house science programs and its commitment to funding external research.
The Ecological Society of America thanks Congress for its past strong
support of these programs and asks for its support in ensuring that
NOAA retains its ability to wisely manage the Nation's coastal and
marine resources using the best scientific information.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
The Ecological Society of America is disappointed that earth
science research is not a priority in the President's budget request
for NASA in fiscal year 2006. Although NASA's total Research and
Development would grow to $11.5 billion, research in the earth sciences
(down 4 percent to $2.1 billion), and biological and physical research
(down 22 percent to $807 million), would face steep cuts in research on
our home planet in order to fund space exploration.
ESA urges that funding for this program be restored to the fiscal
year 2005 level and that NASA increase its in-house research on
environmental science. Currently, NASA is the leading Federal sponsor
of the environmental sciences (oceanography, atmospheric sciences,
geological sciences). The environmental sciences are a quarter of
NASA's portfolio, but NASA accounts for a third of total Federal
support for environmental sciences research. NASA has played a vital
role in developing the Nation's capability to observe and understand
earth systems, including research on climate change, remote sensing
technology, ecosystem monitoring, and energy cycling. At a time when
the Nation and the globe face increasing environmental and natural
resource challenges, we believe it is critical to continue to support
NASA's earth systems research.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
In order to ensure the Nation's future prosperity and security, the
Ecological Society of America requests that the committee fund the
National Science Foundation (NSF) at $6 billion. We recognize the
current fiscal climate, but Federal investment in this agency--the only
one to fund science and education across all disciplines--has yielded
tremendous national benefits.
One indicator of the need to support NSF is the agency's low grant
proposal success rate--in 2004, 5,400 proposals rated ``very good'' or
``excellent'' by NSF's peer review process were passed over due to lack
of funds. The grant proposal success rate for the Biology Directorate
is among the lowest of all the NSF directorates. We are concerned that
the low grant success rate will eventually affect the choices of U.S.
students as to whether or not they will choose to enter the field of
ecology, a science that is crucial to meeting emerging environmental
challenges.
We ask for Congress's support in recognizing the unique role NSF
plays in supporting non-medical biology. NSF is the principal Federal
supporter of academic, non-medical research in biology and ecology;
over 60 percent of the extramural funding for this type of research
comes from the NSF. Research made possible by funding from NSF has shed
much light on key environmental processes, the interactions among
organisms, and the complex responses of ecosystems to stresses such as
air and water pollutants. The knowledge gained from this research is
critical input to the wise management of the environment for the
benefit of humankind.
Within the Biology Directorate, the Division of Environmental
Biology (DEB) supports fundamental research on the evolutionary history
of species and on the interactions of biological communities and
ecosystems, ranging from the relatively undisturbed to heavily human-
impacted systems. DEB-supported researchers address a range of issues
important to all of us-the consequences of excess nitrogen in the
environment; the costly effects of invasive plants and animals; and the
potential impacts of climate change on the Nation's ecosystems and
biodiversity.
In addition to supporting core biology funding, the Biology
Directorate includes other programs important to the ecological
community, such as the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Program and
the agency's National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
(NCEAS). We ask that the subcommittee support the budget request of
$17.5 million (no change from last year's enacted amount) for LTER and
$3.8 million (a 10 percent increase) for NCEAS.
Finally, we encourage support of the agency's request for $6
million for the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) within
Biology's Research and Related Activities Account. This request would
continue development of the NEON execution plan and of related
cyberstructure, which is a key component of the NEON program. NEON has
the potential to integrate existing environmental monitoring efforts by
standardizing the way in which data are collected and thereby improving
the Nation's overall ability to track environmental changes.
ESA thanks Congress for its strong support of the National Science
Foundation. As the only Federal agency to support science and education
across all disciplines, NSF's contributions have been extremely
valuable to the U.S. research enterprise. We hope that Congress will
ensure the agency continues on this path, with support across all
science disciplines and recognition of the vital role NSF plays in
supporting non-medical biology.
______
Joint Prepared Statement of the Biological Science Curriculum Study
(BSCS); the National Science Teachers Association; The Concord
Consortium; the Education Development Center, Inc.; TERC;
Exploratorium, San Francisco; and the National Science Education
Leadership Association
On behalf of the groups listed above which provide research and
development to build the STEM infrastructure, and the instructional
materials, professional development, and innovations in technology
utilized by thousands of schools and students nationwide, we urge you
to fund fiscal year 2006 K-12 programs at the National Science
Foundation Education and Human Resources Directorate (EHR) at the
fiscal year 2004 level of $944 million and provide $206 million in
funding (the fiscal year 2004 level) for NSF's Elementary, Secondary
and Informal Education (ESIE) programs.
Strengthening science and math education is a core mission of the
NSF. NSF is the only Federal agency with both science and scientific
education in its charter. It has the mandate, depth of experience, and
well-established relationships to build the partnerships for excellence
in K-12 STEM education. The programs in the NSF Education and Human
Resources (EHR) directorate are designed to support and improve U.S.
STEM education at all levels and in all settings (both formal and
informal). These programs are unique in their capacity to move
promising ideas from research to practice, to develop new and improved
materials and assessments, to explore new uses of technology to enhance
K-12 instruction, and to create better teacher training techniques.
NSF's highly-regarded peer review system that enlists leading
scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and academicians to improve K-12
STEM education programs is at the center of this education improvement
infrastructure.
The fiscal year 2006 administration budget request recommends major
cuts to the Education and Human Resources Directorate, largely to
elementary and secondary education programs. It appears these
reductions are part of a policy decision to significantly pare the NSF
role in program implementation, allowing work in this area to migrate
to the Department of Education.
Research, education, the technical workforce, scientific discovery,
innovation and economic growth are intertwined. To remain competitive
on the global stage, we must ensure that each remains vigorous and
healthy. That requires sustained investments and informed policies. If
NSF ceases to fulfill its educational mission of stimulating
innovations and building capacity in our education systems, then that
withdrawal would leave a critical gap in applied research and
development and the infrastructure necessary to effect changes to K-12
STEM education that could not easily be rebuilt.
Unlike the NSF, the National Institutes of Health, or NASA, the
U.S. Department of Education is not a research or development
institution. The NSF has the capacity to incorporate the best from both
the science and education R&D communities and can enlist scientists,
academicians and researchers in a peer review process that generates
and tests innovations in science-related disciplines for education.
Unlike the Department of Education, the NSF has the ability to tap into
basic cognitive research, fold in new content and new ways of teaching
this content from the disciplines, and explore new technologies for the
delivery of professional development and for assessing teachers and
their students.
Science education is unique because it is concerned with the
special character of science and its related disciplines--it is at once
a body of knowledge and a dynamic questioning activity. Because of the
nature of science it is important to have scientists involved in
critical questions of science education. It was the recognition of this
interdependence between scientists and the science education enterprise
that drove the identification of science education as a key part of the
NSF agenda when the agency was founded. This connection will be lost if
funding for the NSF Education and Human Services Directorate is reduced
or if the responsibility for science education migrates to the U.S.
Department of Education.
Here is a small sample of the many K-12 science education programs
funded by the National Science Foundation. These K-12 programs--and
many similar science education innovations yet to come from the NSF--
will be crippled or lost without sustained funding to the NSF Education
and Human Resources Directorate.
--NSF supported the development of the Centers for Learning and
Teaching, which has resulted in partnerships between 15 major
universities and non-profit research organizations. The CLTs
are currently creating new knowledge for science education and
developing new leadership for science and mathematics by
producing 400 new Ph.D.s in science and mathematics education.
One of these centers, the Center for Informal Learning and
Schools, has worked with over 100 museum educators from 50
museums to create stronger partnerships between museums and
schools and represents the first serious examination of the
opportunities to better coordinate these two educational
systems. These centers, which study critical issues in
mathematics and science such as equity, assessment, curriculum
and teacher development, demonstrate the power of using the NSF
approach of field initiated research centers.
--NSF supported a number of technology-based innovations such as
Microcomputer Based Labs, Molecular Workbench, and Handhelds in
Education.
--Microcomputer Based Labs.--The idea of attaching electronic
sensors to computers for real time data collection and
analysis in education was invented in an NSF-funded project
called Microcomputer Based Labs (MBL). This idea was
directly inspired by the use of such sensors in science
research, and NSF understood the importance of applying
these ideas to education. This project spawned a small
industry that now has seven vendors that offer MBL products
to education in grades 3-14; an estimated 10 percent of all
science teaching labs in grades 9-14 use some MBL.
--Molecular Workbench.--This is a sophisticated modeling package
developed under several NSF grants that makes the atomic
and molecular world easily accessible to students in grades
7-14. This is now built into hundreds of educational
activities and is use nationwide. Based on software used in
scientific research, the Molecular Workbench would not have
been developed without the kind of bridge between science
and science education that the NSF provides.
--Handhelds in education.--The idea of using handheld computers in
the classroom was a novel idea to Palm when a team of
educators who were leaders of an NSF-funded center visited
them in 1995. The subsequent development of educational
applications and real-time data collection for handhelds
was seeded by grants and a contest sponsored by this
center. Handhelds are now one of the hottest ideas in
educational technology.
--NSF supported the creation of an elementary school science support
infrastructure through the creation of 5 national centers
focused on improved teacher development in science. One of
these centers, the Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry, has
worked with improving the skills of science teacher development
staff in over 200 districts in 39 States. These centers
represented a critical partnership of scientists, science
educators and educational researchers and demonstrate a quality
that could only have been produced through the rigorous NSF
peer review process.
--NSF supported the development of eight national Science and
Mathematics Implementation and Dissemination Centers. Two of
these centers, the EDC K-12 Science Curriculum Dissemination
Center and the EDC K-12 Mathematics Curriculum Center, have
provided high-quality instructional materials to school
districts nationwide, including those that are rural and
isolated, serve high populations of poor students, or have
limited access to research-based mathematics and science
education efforts. The Centers have worked in all 50 States,
reaching more than 1,000 districts. The combination of
services-seminars, resource materials, technical assistance,
and outreach-offered by the Centers has been found to
contribute significantly to districts' efforts to improve their
mathematics and science programs.
--NSF supported the creation of Insights: An Elementary Hands-on
Inquiry Science Curriculum, one of three NSF-funded research-
based elementary programs that have reached more than 15
percent of the elementary school population. For example,
Insights is in use in more than 1,000 school districts
nationwide and has been translated into both French and Spanish
for use in France, Colombia, and several other countries. The
Insights materials have been favorably reviewed by Expert
Panels assembled by NSF, as well as by the U.S. Department of
Education (ED). Insights are an example of the kinds of high
quality instructional materials that result from cross-
pollination between scientists and educators encouraged by NSF.
--NSF supported the Using Data Project, which draws on a decade's
worth of development of validated data-collection instruments
from prior NSF-funded projects, allowing a rigorous process for
school or district level data analysis and a step-by-step plan
for making decisions and taking action based on those data for
instructional improvements in mathematics and science
education. Canton City middle schools have doubled their
proficiency in mathematics on the Ohio State test from 2003-
2004 by using a unique approach to data-driven decisionmaking
pioneered by TERC.
--NSF supported the establishment of the Center for Urban Science
Education Reform (CUSER), which focused on providing
professional development and technical assistance for 22 school
districts across the country that were implementing standards-
based science programs for the first time. CUSER responded to a
national need to address science education in urban schools and
served more than 30 of the Nation's largest and poorest urban
school districts. NSF's support served as a catalyst for
directing resources and attention to a nationally neglected
equity issue-bringing high quality science instruction to
inner-city students.
--NSF supported Investigations in Data, Number and Space K-5
mathematics curriculum, developed by TERC and published by
Scott-Foresman, and now in classroom sets in 14 percent of
elementary schools nationwide. Students using reformed-based
elementary curriculum, including Investigations, consistently
scored higher than students in matched comparison groups using
more conventional curriculum in a tri-State study on State-
mandated standardized tests. An ARC Center study included
outcomes on more than 100,000 students and all statistically
significant differences favored the reform students, including
the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. The superior results hold across
all student racial and income groups.
--NSF supported the development of the first subject specific
(science) new teacher mentor program at the Exploratorium
Teacher Institute that has resulted in an increase in the first
5-year retention rate for new teachers from the traditional 50
percent to 90 percent. This required the developmental funding
of innovative ideas that is only available from an agency like
NSF.
--NSF supported the creation of the on-line Masters Degree Program in
Science Education jointly developed by TERC and Lesley
University. Teachers enrolled in the online courses
outperformed teachers taking the same courses on-campus--in
terms of science learning, understanding of scientific inquiry,
and lesson planning. In addition, the online students spent on
average about 2 hours per week more on the course than the on-
campus students.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Sportfishing Association
The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) recommends the
following as the subcommittee considers appropriations for NOAA-
Fisheries for fiscal year 2006. The American Sportfishing Association
is a non-profit trade association whose 700 members include fishing
tackle manufacturers, sport fishing retailers, boat builders, State
fish and wildlife agencies, and the outdoor media.
The ASA makes these recommendations on the basis of briefings with
agency staff and from years of experience with fisheries management in
this Nation. It is important to note that sportfishing provides $116
billion in economic output to the economy of the United States each
year.
An important but often under-represented NOAA constituency is the
Nation's 44 million sportfishing anglers, who collectively provide $116
billion in economic impact each year to the U.S. economy. The
importance of adequately including this group and their activities in
management decisions cannot be overstated. Sportfishing in marine
waters alone provides a $31 billion economic impact to the Nation's
economy.
HABITAT PROGRAMS
Federal resource agencies are dependent on the assistance of
volunteers and matching funds from the private sector to accomplish
habitat restoration goals. NOAA's Restoration Center Community-based
Restoration Program is a premier example of a Federal agency providing
funds that are matched by non-Federal monies to accomplish habitat
restoration that would otherwise be accomplished at a greatly
diminished scale. For example, the FishAmerica Foundation, one of the
NOAA Community-based Restoration Center program partners matches NOAA
funds up to five times with its funds, funds of others, and in-kind
matching from others at project sites. The President's request of $15.2
million is appreciated, but we request the committee increase funding
for this valuable program to $20 million for fiscal year 2006.
RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
With 10 million participants and 91 million fishing days, saltwater
recreational fishing is the fastest growing segment of sportfishing in
the United States. The Association remains disappointed in the
inadequate attention that NOAA-Fisheries invests in recreational
angling. Sportfishing in marine waters alone provides $8.1 billion in
salaries and wages to nearly 300,000 wage earners in coastal areas.
Good socio-economic information is critical for effective marine
resources management efforts, and the ASA applauds the administration's
requested increase of $5.5 million (for a total of $9.6 million) for
additional economic and social science research, data collection and
analysis. The ASA asks Congress to assure that NOAA-Fisheries utilizes
this money for assessment of impacts associated with recreational as
well as commercial fishing activity and provides adequate data for
sportfishing in marine waters.
The ASA proposes a nationwide stewardship program designed to
enhance sustainable marine recreational fishing through cooperative
research, public awareness, and development of technology and
techniques. A partnership between government, the sportfishing industry
and recreational anglers, the program will direct and fund research
aimed at reducing unintended mortality from recreational fishing. The
primary purpose of such a project is to fund research on ways to reduce
mortality in catch-and-release recreational fishing. A secondary
purpose of the project is to fund outreach programs aimed at promoting
smart fishing techniques and gear. Based on the long history of
conservation by anglers and the sportfishing industry, the ASA feels it
is necessary to give anglers additional opportunities to help preserve
their long-treasured marine resources. The ASA asks the committee to
provide $500,000 for the initial organization of this project and
direct these funds to NOAA's recreational fishing office.
The ASA urges Congress to remind NOAA-Fisheries of the
opportunities associated with the increasing popularity of saltwater
recreational fisheries, and NOAA-Fisheries should direct suitable
resources to their conservation partners to better manage these
resources.
STOCK ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING
NOAA-Fisheries has not fully demonstrated an ongoing and
comprehensive commitment to modernization and improvement of fisheries
stock assessment and management of marine systems. It will take a
sustained commitment on the part of the administration, Congress and
partner agencies to ensure that new these initiatives are in place,
sustained and effective over the long-term.
The ASA recognizes and supports the fiscal year 2006 President's
budget request to increase funds for fisheries stock assessments and
management by $4.5 million to a total of $25.397 million, but the NOAA-
Fisheries stock assessment program needs to build to the $100 million
level over the next 5 years if it is to be effective in providing data
for proper management of marine stocks. The ASA recommends a total
increase of an additional $10 million dollars to begin building this
program to its needed level. Funds for stock assessments could be
allocated by the marine sanctuaries program. This program is at times
in conflict with proven management measures and the ASA believes it is
more important to first establish a solid stock assessment program
before experimenting with the theoretical concept of marine
sanctuaries.
ANADROMOUS FISHERIES ACT
The ASA remains perplexed and troubled over the continuing low
level of funding for implementation of the Anadromous Fisheries Act.
The Anadromous Fisheries Act budget line has traditionally been used to
fund activities that cannot be supported through other Federal and
State funds, and the fisheries management community has been unable to
address the needs of most anadromous fish stocks due to a severe lack
of resources. Therefore, the ASA urges Congress to fund the Anadromous
Fisheries Act grants to States at $8 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the Science, Technology, Engineering &
Mathematics (STEM) Education Coalition
On behalf of the science, technology, engineering, mathematics,
higher education and business groups listed below, we urge you to
continue the Federal commitment to K-12 science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. In particular, we urge
you to increase spending for the National Science Foundation (NSF) to a
level that would permit $200 million in funding for the NSF Math and
Science Partnership (MSP) program, and restoration of funding for the
NSF Education and Human Resources Directorate to fiscal year 2004
levels.
The current fiscal year 2006 budget proposes to cut education
programs at the NSF by 12 percent ($737 million, down from $841 million
in fiscal year 2005). Programs under the Elementary, Secondary and
Informal Education Division would be cut 22.6 percent ($140 million,
down from $181 million in fiscal year 2005), and the Research,
Evaluation, and Communication (REC) budget would be cut by more than 43
percent ($33 million, down from $59 million in fiscal year 2005). The
fiscal year 2006 NSF Math and Science Partnerships (MSPs) would see a
24 percent cut to $60 million.
In this tight budget environment, we understand that difficult
choices must be made. Increased and continued investment in these
programs is critical, however, if we want to ensure that our students--
the future scientists, technologists, engineers, mathematicians,
workers, and others responsible for our Nation's future innovations,
our national security, our economy, and our quality of life--receive a
world class education in the sciences and mathematics, and that we have
the research base essential to improving it.
The NSF MSPs are working to develop scientifically sound, model
reform initiatives that will improve teacher quality, develop rigorous
curricula, and increase student achievement in these areas. These
programs are not duplicative of the U.S. Department of Education Math
and Science Partnerships; in fact, without one program, the other
program is significantly weakened. The State-based ED MSPs are not
capable of producing the needed research in these areas and look to the
NSF MSPs to develop proven models and tools necessary to enhance
teacher quality and student achievement.
Other programs in the NSF Education and Human Resources (EHR)
directorate, such as Instructional Materials Development, the Teacher
Professional Continuum, and the Centers for Learning and Teaching, are
designed to support and improve both formal and informal STEM education
at all levels. These programs are unique in their capacity to move
promising ideas from research to practice, to develop new and improved
materials and assessments, to explore new uses of technology to enhance
K-12 instruction, and to create better teacher training techniques.
NSF's peer review system that enlists leading scientists,
mathematicians, engineers, and academicians to improve K-12 STEM
education programs is at the center of this education improvement
infrastructure. The NSF peer review model is highly regarded in the
scientific community and the programs produced under this approach are
developed, tested, and evaluated to insure their efficacy.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine; American
Association of Physics Teachers; American Astronomical Society;
American Chemical Society; American Educational Research Association;
American Geological Institute; American Geophysical Union; American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; American Institute of
Biological Sciences; American Institute of Physics; American
Meteorological Society; American Physical Society; American
Physiological Society; American Society of Agronomy; American Society
of Civil Engineers; American Society of Mechanical Engineers; American
Sociological Association; ASEE Engineering Deans Council; Association
of State Supervisors of Mathematics; Biological Sciences Curriculum
Study (BSCS); Center for Educational Outreach, Whiting School of
Engineering, Johns Hopkins University; Chabot Space & Science Center;
Crop Science Society of America; Delta Education; Education Development
Center, Inc.; Exploratorium; Institute of Electrical & Electronics
Engineers-USA; Institute of Food Technologists; International
Technology Education Association; Mathematical Association of America;
Michigan State University; Museum of Science, Boston; National
Association of Biology Teachers; National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics; National Education Knowledge Industry Association;
National Science Teachers Association; Optical Society of America;
Project Lead the Way; Society of Automotive Engineers; Society of Women
Engineers; Soil Science Society of America; SPIE--The International
Society for Optical Engineering; Technology Student Association; TERC;
The Association of American Geographers; The Federation of Behavioral,
Psychological, & Cognitive Sciences; Triangle Coalition.
______
Prepared Statement of the Marine Fish Conservation Network
The Marine Fish Conservation Network (MFCN) is pleased to share its
views regarding certain National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
programs in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) fiscal year 2006 budget request. We ask that this statement be
included in the hearing record for the fiscal year 2006 Commerce,
Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Bill. We are
requesting a budget increase of $51 million from the administration's
requested $77.7 million for NMFS programs in the fiscal year 2006
budget to be allocated for stock assessments, fishery observer
programs, essential fish habitat, vessel monitoring systems, bycatch
reduction, cooperative research and ecosystem-based management as
described below.
MFCN is a national coalition of more than 170 environmental
organizations, aquariums, commercial and recreational fishing
associations, and marine science groups dedicated to conserving marine
fish and promoting their long-term sustainability. We greatly
appreciate the funding this subcommittee has provided for marine fish
conservation programs within NMFS in the past and we look forward to
working with the subcommittee to enact adequate levels of funding for
the coming fiscal year.
In 2004, the presidentially appointed U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy (USCOP) released a report, which outlined a series of
recommendations designed to enhance and reform the current Federal
fisheries management system. The congressional response to this call-
to-action to protect the health and long term sustainability of our
ocean resources has been heartening, and a bipartisan effort is
currently underway to address the most critical issues identified by
the USCOP. Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2006 NOAA budget
request does not provide adequate new funding for many of the priority
program areas identified by the USCOP. The NMFS funding request for
fiscal year 2006 amounts to a 12 percent reduction (almost $100
million) in funding for NMFS. There are seven areas of the NMFS budget
where we believe the requested funding levels need to be increased to
help the agency fulfill its obligations as the Federal Government's
fishery management agency.
STOCK ASSESSMENTS
President's Request.--Total of $25.4 million.
MFCN Request.--Total of $30 million.
The USCOP noted that ``accurate, reliable science is critical to
the successful management of fisheries.'' While we are pleased that the
administration requested an almost $5 million increase in the expanding
stock assessments line item, we are concerned that funding in this area
is insufficient. The NOAA Office of Science & Technology estimates that
the funds needed to fully assess all commercially important stocks
total more than $300 million. The administration's line item request
for a $2 million increase to strengthen living marine resource
monitoring would provide for an estimated 250 additional charter-vessel
days at sea (DAS)--an increase of approximately 10 percent over the
fiscal year 2005 level of 2,500 days. Still, NOAA estimates that 7,566
DAS are needed to fully modernize and expand its stock assessment
capabilities. At the current level of funding ($20.5 million), there is
a deficit of 5,066 days at sea, many of which are used to conduct stock
assessments. The impact of this deficit is demonstrated by the fact
that the status of only 33 percent of the 909 ocean fish populations
managed by NMFS is currently known. This information void is due in
large part to a lack of funding for basic research and stock
assessments. An additional $4.6 million to the administration's request
for $25.4 million to expand stock assessments, would further this
essential work.
FISHERY OBSERVER PROGRAMS
President's Request.--Total of $26.0 million.
MFCN Request.--Total of $43.4 million.
Observer programs are vital to the sustainable management of our
Nation's fisheries because they provide critical data on the amount and
type of ocean wildlife killed due to fishing. While we commend the
administration's efforts to expand and increase funding for Federal
fishery observer and enforcement programs, the proposed level of
funding of $26 million is not sufficient to address current management
needs. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget request amounts to a
$1.5 million increase overall from fiscal year 2005 funding levels, but
funding for certain critical regions would be cut. In New England, a
region plagued by chronic overfishing and mismanagement, the funding
level for observers would be cut by $3.5 million from the fiscal year
2005 enacted level. We recommend that funding for the national observer
program be increased but not at the expense of important regional
programs such as New England. The $1.5 million requested increase for
the Observers/Training line item will enable NOAA to employ observers
in 41 fisheries. NMFS estimates that an additional 22 fisheries outside
of the 41 with observers currently do not have observer coverage or
have very low levels of coverage. The estimated total cost to implement
a small ``baseline'' or ``pilot-level'' program to observe these 22
additional fisheries is approximately $17.4 million. Recognizing that a
comprehensive nationwide observer program would demand a significant
increase in funding, we recommend that Congress provide funding to
initiate pilot programs in those fisheries currently without observer
programs. We request that Congress appropriate $43.4 million to expand
observer programs into all 63 managed fisheries and provide enhanced
coverage for priority fisheries.
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
President's Request.--Total of $4.7 million.
MFCN Request.--Total of $15 million.
Essential fish habitats (EFH) are those waters and substrate upon
which fish depend for reproduction and growth. Land-based activities
and destructive fishing practices threaten the viability of these
habitats and the sustainability of the fish populations that depend on
them. While the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 gave NMFS a clear
mandate to identify and protect EFH, too little has been done to
protect these habitats. The President's budget request for fiscal year
2006 continues this trend of under-funding this critical element of
sustainable fisheries management. While we support efforts to reduce
fishing impacts on essential fish habitat, the President's fiscal year
2006 budget request of $500,000 to address this issue is inadequate.
This level of funding is not sufficient for protecting the EFH for 909
federally managed fish stocks. The administration has also requested
$999,000 to refine EFH designations. While this represents an increase
from fiscal year 2005 enacted levels, this request does not provide the
level of funding necessary to support the research and analysis needed
to more accurately identify and define areas to be designated as EFH.
VESSEL MONITORING SYSTEMS
President's Request.--Total of $9.3 million.
MFCN Request.--Total of $18.3 million.
We commend the administration's commitment to establishing vessel-
monitoring systems (VMS) to better manage our Nation's fishery
resources. VMS are integral to enhancing data collection, improving
enforcement capabilities and ensuring greater safety at sea. VMS
programs assist fishery managers and enforcement officials by providing
information when a vessel unlawfully enters a closed area or is fishing
beyond the end of a regulated fishing season. The USCOP highlighted the
importance of VMS in its final report and recommended that fishery
managers and enforcement officials ``maximize the use of the Vessel
Monitoring System (VMS) for fishery-related activities by requiring
that VMS with two-way communication capability be phased in for all
commercial fishing vessels receiving permits under federal fishery
plans, including party and charter boats that carry recreational
fishermen, incorporating VMS features that assist personnel in
monitoring and responding to potential violations, and identifying
state fisheries that could significantly benefit from VMS
implementation.'' Of the $9.3 million requested by the administration,
$4.8 million is needed to support and maintain the existing
infrastructure of the system. The remaining $4.5 million is to cover
the costs of purchasing and installing units on approximately 2,000
additional vessels. There are an estimated 10,000 commercial fishing
vessels in the United States, therefore to ensure more widespread
implementation of VMS programs, we recommend funding be increased $18.3
million.
BYCATCH REDUCTION
President's Request.--Total of $2.8 million.
MFCN Request.--Total of $13 million.
Bycatch is the incidental catch of non-target species and
represents a significant portion of overall fish mortality. In order to
ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation's fish populations,
marine mammals and other protected species, it is crucial that programs
aimed at reducing wasteful bycatch receive adequate funding. The
President's budget request for fiscal year 2006 for the Reducing
Bycatch Initiative is $2.8 million, almost $1 million less than the
current funding level of $3.7 million and $2 million less than fiscal
year 2004 funding levels. Greater funding is needed to develop and test
bycatch reduction technologies, to improve cooperative research
activities and coordination with fishermen, to disseminate information
and to hire additional observers. We recommend that Congress provide
$13 million in fiscal year 2006 for the Bycatch Reduction Initiative to
ensure that measurable progress is made towards decreasing bycatch and
bycatch mortality.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH
President's Request.--Total of $9.5 million.
MFCN Request.--Total of $20 million.
Cooperative research programs provide an important opportunity for
fishermen and scientists to work together to investigate and develop
new fishery technologies, to assess the status of fish stocks and their
associated habitats, and to share their individual expertise. Involving
fishermen in the scientific process also reduces industry skepticism
regarding the integrity and veracity of the science upon which
management measures are based. The USCOP recommended that Congress
increase support for an expanded, regionally based cooperative research
program in NOAA that coordinates and funds collaborative projects among
scientists and commercial and recreational fishermen. (USCOP
Recommendation 19-9) The administration's requested budget for fiscal
year 2006 cuts funding for cooperative research by almost $10 million.
Investing in cooperative research programs will bolster the credibility
of science and enhance the rapport between scientists and fishermen. As
such, funding for cooperative research should be maintained at $20
million for fiscal year 2006.
ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT
President's Request.--Total of $0.
MFCN Request.--Total of $4 million.
In 2004, the USCOP noted that ``[t]o be effective, U.S. ocean
policy should be grounded in an understanding of ecosystems, and our
management approach should be able to account for and address the
complex interrelationships among the ocean, land, air, and all living
creatures, including humans and consider the interactions among
multiple activities that affect entire ecosystems.'' To ensure the
long-term health and productivity of marine ecosystems, the Commission
also advised fishery managers to move away from the traditional single-
species management strategy and towards an ecosystem-based approach to
management. (USCOP Recommendation 19-21) This commitment to ecosystem-
based management was echoed in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, the Bush
administration's response to the USCOP report. Despite pledges from the
administration to initiate efforts to transition to a more ecosystem-
based approach to marine resource management, the requested budget for
fiscal year 2006 contains no funding for ecosystem-based management.
In fiscal year 2004, Congress allocated approximately $2 million
for NMFS to conduct ecosystem pilot projects in four regions including
the South Atlantic, the Mid-Atlantic, New England and the Gulf of
Mexico. Each of the four regions received a grant of $225,000 to
address ecosystem governance at the fishery management council level.
Remaining funds were used to conduct technical workshops and develop
quantitative decision support tools. While the ecosystem pilot projects
are a step in the right direction, additional funding is needed to
build upon existing projects and expand the pilot programs into other
regions. Increasing funding for ecosystem-based management to $4
million would ensure that the financial resources necessary to develop
programs and initiatives that are consistent with the goal of
ecosystem-based management are available to the eight designated
Federal fishery management regions.
Thank you for considering our request for increasing funding for
these important fishery management programs. These increases will go a
long way toward ensuring that NMFS can better manage and protect our
Nation's fish resources now and for the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the Navajo Nation
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on
behalf of the Navajo Nation with regard to the President's proposed
fiscal year 2006 Budget for funding Indian public safety programs. My
name is Hope MacDonald-Lone Tree.\1\ I am an elected delegate to the
Navajo Nation Council and serve as the Chairperson of the Public Safety
Committee of the Navajo Nation Council. I also serve as the Navajo
Nation representative to the joint Bureau of Indian Affairs/Tribal
Budget Advisory Council's Workgroup on Indian Law Enforcement, a
national workgroup that advocates for Indian law enforcement budgetary
needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hope MacDonald-Lonetree, Chairperson, Public Safety Committee,
Navajo Nation Council, Window Rock, AZ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in detail below, the public safety situation in Indian
Country in general, and on the Navajo Nation in particular, is dire. We
are happy to see that the President's proposed budget provides some
additional funding to address this situation. However, we are concerned
that the funding is still insufficient, once it trickles down to the
Navajo Nation, to even begin to achieve an acceptable level of public
safety on our vast reservation.
APPROPRIATIONS NEEDS
Immediate and Urgent Navajo Nation Need ($3,133,280).--In the late
1950's and early 1960's, the Navajo Nation constructed six detention
facilities. The Tuba City detention facility suspended its operation in
Winter 2004 due to crumbling ceilings and walls, exposed conduits and
weakening foundations. In January of this year, the facility suffered
an electrical fire and has subsequently been condemned. Other
facilities in Chinle, Kayenta and Dilkon are in similar shape,
overcrowded or non-existent. The Navajo Nation seeks funding for four
modular bunkhouse buildings at a cost of $783,320 each, or a total cost
of $3,133,280, to address an urgent need to provide adequate and decent
inmate housing.
Permanent Navajo Facilities Funding--Planning and Design ($1
Million Per Facility for Seven Facilities).--The Navajo Nation is
planning to construct seven permanent detention facilities in three
phases. Phase I involves Tuba City, Chinle and Crownpoint; Phase II
involves Shiprock and Dilkon; and Phase III involves Kayenta and Fort
Defiance. The estimated cost for planning and design of each facility
is approximately $1 million, for a total planning and design cost of
all facilities of $7 million.
PUBLIC SAFETY--A GOVERNMENT'S FIRST OBLIGATION
The first thing that a people demand of their government is that it
act to ensure the public safety. A crime-free and safe environment is
essential to the vitality of any community. It is also critical to the
development of an economic base, including attracting investment as
well as retaining skilled workers who have the option of living where
they please. In his 2005 State of the Union Address, President Bush
proclaimed, ``Our third responsibility to future generations is to
leave them an America that is safe from danger, and protected by peace.
We will pass along to our children all the freedoms we enjoy--and chief
among them is freedom from fear.'' We agree with the President, but
because of the Federal Government's failure to provide adequate
resources for public safety on the Navajo Reservation, too many Navajo
families do not enjoy freedom from fear.
The Navajo Nation government takes its responsibility to address
the public safety needs of its citizenry very seriously. Unfortunately,
we face great challenges that principally arise out of the poor
economic conditions on the Navajo Nation. Some of these conditions can
be directly traced to actions by the Federal Government in violation of
its trust responsibility to the Navajo Nation. Many of them can be
corrected if the Federal Government fully lived up to its trust
responsibility, which includes funding a basic level of public safety
services within our reservation boundaries.
The Navajo Nation Public Safety Division is responsible for an area
the size of West Virginia, with a resident population of approximately
200,000 and, with tourism, a transient population of hundreds of
thousands of non-Indians every year. The Navajo Nation polices this
area with a small force of officers (see discussion below). In addition
to responding to community incidents, the Navajo police force also
provides protection to major dams and power plants, as well as hundreds
of miles of interstate highways, high voltage transmission lines and
gas pipelines. On 9/11, Navajo police officers moved quickly to secure
as many of these high-value facilities as our limited resources would
allow.
THE HIGH INCIDENCE OF VIOLENT CRIME IN INDIAN COUNTRY
Although violent crime has declined throughout the United States in
recent years, tragically there is no evidence of a decline in Indian
Country. According to DOJ statistics, Native men and women are still
more than twice as likely to be a victim of a violent crime--whether
you are talking about child abuse, sexual assault, homicide, or
assault--than any other racial or ethnic group. Native youth are
significantly more likely to be the victims of rapes, assaults,
shootings, beatings and related crimes than their counterparts. Nearly
a third of all American Indian and Alaska Native women will be the
victim of sexual assault in their lifetime, the highest rate of any
racial or ethnic group. It takes no imagination whatsoever to
understand the scarring impact of these high crime rates not only on
the victims, but also on their communities. In the Native way, when one
person is harmed, everyone is harmed. Adequate funding for the
provision of basic public safety services is an essential part of any
strategy to reduce the Indian Country crime rate and provide the same
safe and secure environment for Native peoples that is enjoyed by most
other Americans.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Flagstaff estimates that violent
crime on the Navajo reservation is six times higher than the national
average. Increased crime includes alcohol and drug abuse, domestic
violence and child sexual abuse.
We cannot address domestic violence on Navajo because we cannot
separate the abuser from the victim due to lack of detention
facilities--and the abusers know that.
We cannot protect our children from sexual predators. Just in one
community, there were 100 reported cases of child sexual abuse in 1
month. We cannot protect our families without somewhere to put the
perpetrators threatening our communities.
Navajo Nation averages one officer for every 4,000 people, compared
to the national average of three officers per 1,000 people.
Our officers often perform alone, without partners, and without
radio communication for backup. In one incident I'd like to share, an
officer responded to a call and found a man beating his wife and
family. The wife did not want him arrested. She knew that he would not
be detained long due to the lack of facilities, and feared that he
would return even more violent. Because she did not want him arrested,
she attacked the officer herself and tried to get his gun. The officer
managed to get away, leaving the abuser with his family.
In another sad incident, a young boy was arrested for attacking his
brother. After a short hour in jail, he was let out. A week later, he
was arrested for attacking his sibling. He was again released after a
short time in jail. He was later arrested for stabbing his mother.
Criminal incidents of recidivism such as that one are very high on
the reservation all due to the factors I have described: criminals are
allowed to return to their community without incarceration; we cannot
incarcerate criminals without putting them at significant physical and
health risk; in many instances, tribal court is just a revolving door
for many criminals; and criminals and their victims have a complete
disregard for our criminal justice system. Communities across the
reservation and neighboring towns are at risk. Public safety officers
are at risk.
THE SHOCKING STATE OF INDIAN DETENTION FACILITIES
This past September, the DOJ Office of Inspector General published
its study of Indian detention facilities entitled ``Neither Safe Nor
Secure--An Assessment of Indian Detention Facilities'' (Report No.
2004-I-0056). The Inspector General's office was shocked by what it
found. The Inspector General's report was only the latest in a series
of reports and testimony about the decrepit condition of Indian Country
detention facilities.
In the late 1950's and early 1960's, the Navajo Nation constructed
six detention facilities. Of our many urgent public safety needs, our
highest priority is to replace or fully renovate these out-of-date and
dilapidated facilities. For example, the Tuba City detention facility
suspended its operation in Winter 2004 due to crumbling ceilings and
walls, exposed conduits and weakening foundations. In January of this
year, the facility caught fire due to an electrical short. Other
facilities in Chinle and Shiprock are in roughly the same poor
condition. Our remaining facilities at Kayenta, Crownpoint and Window
Rock are only a few years away from joining Tuba City as facilities not
fit to house animals, much less human beings. The BIA does not operate
these facilities as the Navajo Nation, pursuant to the Indian Self
Determination and Assistance Act, has contracted to carryout BIA law
enforcement programs on the reservation. However, the same funding
shortfalls that have led to problems in BIA-operated detention
facilities have affected the Navajo Nation-operated detention
facilities. Just to bring our detention facilities up to the national
standard will require $140 million for Navajo.
HISTORIC FUNDING LEVELS FOR INDIAN COUNTRY PUBLIC SAFETY PROGRAMS--A
QUIET CRISIS?
In July 2003, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a
detailed report on Federal funding and unmet needs in Indian Country
entitled ``A Quiet Crisis''. The Commission engaged in a comprehensive
analysis of Federal funding of Native programs across all departments,
concluding that the Federal Government was not meeting its trust
obligation to Indian tribes. Among the report's many findings, was that
``. . . per capita federal spending on Native Americans was higher than
spending for the general population between 1975 and 1980. Between 1980
and 1985, however, Native American expenditures declined while those
for the general population increased, until approximate equivalency.
After 1985, per capita Native American and general population spending
did not increase at the same rates, resulting in a wide gap.''
The Commission found that ``[p]erhaps one of the most urgent needs
in Indian Country is access to basic law enforcement . . .''. The
Commission noted that the level of police coverage in Indian Country is
much lower than for other areas of the United States.
The Commission commented at length on the sporadic and minimal
levels of funding for tribal courts, as well as on the substandard
conditions at over-crowded tribal detention facilities, where funding
also has been scarce. Despite some increases in funding between 1998-
2003, the Commission noted a downward trend ever since. The Commission
concluded: ``Funding for criminal justice systems in Indian Country
remains insufficient to meet the immediate needs of these communities,
much less establish a framework for eventual self-sufficiency. The
potential for even modest progress will be undone if funding cutbacks
continue as they have in recent years.''
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
The President has proposed consolidating a number of Indian
programs in the Justice budget into one flexible COPS/OJP Indian Grant
program funded at $51.6 million. In fiscal year 2005, for example,
Indian programs were funded as follows: Tribal courts, $7.9 million;
Alcohol and substance abuse, $4.9 million; Indian Prison Grants, $5
million; and Indian Alcohol & Crime Demonstration Program, $5.4
million. Based on discussions with DOJ budget personnel, historical
funding for Indian programs at DOJ is as follows:
FUNDING FOR DOJ INDIAN PROGRAMS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Actual............................................. 49.4
2005 Enacted............................................ 47.4
2006 Request............................................ 51.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increase from 2004 to 2006 is 4.5 percent or about 2.25 percent
on a yearly basis. This increase barely keeps pace with inflation. The
President has proposed to nearly eliminate the COPS program, as well as
several other programs that tribes have accessed. It is not clear from
the budget documents to what extent these cuts would impact Indian
tribes.
WORKING TOGETHER THE CRISIS IN INDIAN COUNTRY PUBLIC SAFETY CAN BE
ADDRESSED
Thank you for this opportunity to share the concerns of the Navajo
Nation. The Navajo Nation looks forward to working closely with the
committee to address public safety concerns in Indian Country. Together
we can assure a better life for America's first peoples. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or if we can be of any
assistance.
______
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 2005
budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The Conservancy recommends the following funding levels for
programs with which we work closely and that make important and
substantive contributions to effective and lasting conservation of
coastal and marine biological diversity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change From
TNC Recommends Fiscal Year 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA Oceans and Coasts (NOS):
Coastal Zone Management--Grants $90,000,000 +$23,000,000
to States......................
Coastal Services Center......... 23,000,000 +328,000
Pacific Services Center......... 2,300,000 +50,000
Coastal Change Analysis......... 500,000 ( \1\ )
Coastal Storms \2\.............. 2,903,000 +403,000
NERRS--Operation................ 22,000,000 +5,600,000
NERRS--Acquisition/Construction. 15,000,000 +6,000,000
Coastal and Estuarine Land 60,000,000 +17,700,000
Conservation Program...........
National Marine Sanctuaries 51,000,000 ( \1\ )
Program--Operation.............
National Marine Sanctuaries 10,000,000 +144,000
Program--Acquisition/
Construction...................
Coral Reef Conservation......... 30,500,000 +2,500,000
NOAA Fisheries (NMFS):
Fisheries Habitat Restoration/ 20,000,000 +1,000,000
Community-based Restoration....
Pacific Salmon Recovery Program 90,000,000 ( \1\ )
\2\............................
Cooperation with States (ESA 5,000,000 +4,100,000
Sec. 6 grants to States).......
NOAA Satellites (NESDIS): Coral Reef 737,000 +37,000
Monitoring \2\.....................
NOAA Research (OAR)--Global Change
Program:
Sector Applications Research 2,600,000 ( \2\ )
Program (SARP) \2\.............
Regional Integrated Science and 4,800,000 +800,000
Assessment (RISA) \2\..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No change.
\2\ Requested level equal to the President's fiscal year 2006 budget
request.
The Nature Conservancy implements a growing number of site specific
marine conservation programs in all U.S. coastal and Great Lakes States
as well as in 28 other nations. A science-based, nonprofit
organization, the Conservancy works in collaboration with local
residents, partner organizations, government agencies and other
stakeholders to identify, protect and manage significant habitats and
natural systems. We employ pragmatic, non-confrontational strategies to
reduce threats to biodiversity and ensure the long-term health and
function of ecosystems.
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 over a hundred
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 approach to
conservation:
--We rely upon NOAA's data as well as their research and monitoring
of coastal and marine systems and have several shared
priorities on which we collaborate.
--We rely on their programs that support site-based conservation--
those that fund activities such as conservation and restoration
and those that provide for management of coastal and marine
systems.
--Finally, their support for State and local implementation and
educational programs help to ensure that human capacity exists
to address environmental management issues at the scale at
which they are best managed.
RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND OBSERVATIONS
Federal investments in marine science have decreased over the past
decade and information that is collected is often not available to
ocean and coastal resource managers grappling with the difficult task
of balancing competing uses of marine resources. The highest priority
in national ocean and coastal research programs should be the science
and information needs of resource managers including national, State
and local coastal agencies. There is an urgent need for better
information that is readily available to guide the management decisions
affecting nearshore ecosystems where habitat loss and intensive use now
threaten the survival of living marine resources. The Conservancy has
worked closely with Coastal Service Center and NOAA's Coral Reef
program on a number of shared interests. It is our experience that both
programs support research and monitoring that directly addresses the
needs of managers on the ground.
By supporting a wide variety of scientific work and partnering with
a multitude of stakeholders, The Coastal Services Center (CSC) and the
Pacific Services Center (PSC) have helped to forge new partnerships and
increase our overall understanding of how the coasts work. For example,
CSC has worked with the Conservancy to:
--fund regional planning in the Pacific Northwest to identify
important habitats and design effective conservation strategies
for biological diversity; and
--provide data, analysis, and mapping support for the Northwest
Florida Greenway Partnership--a partnership between the Air
Force, State of Florida, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Conservancy, and many others to manage development encroaching
on the USAF training area and to protect vast forests and
natural areas in Northwest Florida.
By maintaining a strong service orientation and working with
partners like The Nature Conservancy, CSC and PSC consistently use
Federal dollars for highest leverage results. The Coastal Storms
program--which is led by CSC--is one of the first research programs to
be fully integrated across NOAA and yields information that is valuable
for understanding and predicting the impacts of coastal storms such as
flooding and storm surges. The Coastal Change Analysis program looks at
developing topographic/bathymetric maps of coastal areas and analyzing
changes in coastal vegetation. This information will be invaluable for
managing for disasters (such as tsunamis and hurricanes), regional and
global climate changes, siting infrastructure development,
understanding sediment budgets, and undertaking risk assessment and
vulnerability assessments for coastal communities.
NOAA's Coral Reef Program seeks to support research and mapping
oriented toward the needs of coastal managers. The Conservancy strongly
supports maintaining the coral program's base budget at $28 million. A
portion of the increase recommended, $500,000 would allow the program
to continue to map U.S. coral reefs--a task that, astonishingly, has
not yet been completed. Funding requested for NOAA's Satellite Service
also is important for improving our understanding and predictions of
how corals will respond under stress. This information will help
managers focus their efforts on areas where it will do the most good.
Additionally, the Conservancy supports the work of NOAA's Global
Change program, particularly the Sector Applications Research Program
and Regional Integrated Science and Assessment. These programs support
work to understand and project the impacts of climate variability and
change on ecosystems at various spatial and temporal scales; develop
local, national and international strategies for adapting to climate
change related to the management of natural resources and the
ecosystems and functions supported by these systems; and, to assess and
apply existing, state-of-the-art climate science to improve the
management and conservation of natural resources, both today and in the
future.
SUPPORTING SITE-BASED CONSERVATION
Marine and coastal ecosystems with the highest biodiversity value
must be protected and restored. Marine ecosystems in our coastal zone
face greater pressure from population growth and intensive land use
than any other natural resource in the United States. These ecosystems
provide significant benefits, protecting shorelines from erosion,
serving as spawning and nursery grounds for commercial and recreational
fisheries, cycling nutrients and removing pollutants. Yet, only small
portions of the most productive ocean and coastal ecosystem have been
protected in parks, preserves and sanctuaries.
The Conservancy believes that government and the private sector
should devote substantially more resources to the permanent
preservation of ocean and coastal ecosystems with the greatest
biodiversity value. Federal and State governments should be encouraged
to use the best available science to identify sites where ecosystem
protection and restoration will have the greatest potential to protect
biodiversity--and should be provided the resources to take action.
Specifically, the Conservancy would like to call to your attention
two important programs. First, through NOAA's Coral Reef program and
the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, NOAA has undertaken a unique
partnership with States and territories to develop locally based
strategies to address threats to coral reefs at the local level. The
administration has included the ``Local Action Strategies'' in the
President's Ocean Action Plan and has requested funding for both NOAA
($1.5 million) and the Department of Interior ($1.2 million) in the
fiscal year 2006 budget request to implement these plans. The program
requires a 1:1 match, which will likely be waived for projects in the
territories. However, one of the purposes of this program is to raise
the profile of these needs to attract other non-Federal resources. The
Conservancy recommends that NOAA's portion of this funding be provided
in addition to their base funding.
The Nature Conservancy strongly supports the President's request
for $90 million for the Pacific Salmon Recovery Fund which has gone to
fund activities to protect and restore salmon habitat in western
States. Generally, in most areas of the country, resources to undertake
science and management to recover listed species are scarce. To address
that need, the Conservancy requests $5 million for NMFS Protected
Resources for Cooperation with the States to implement the Endangered
Species Act. The $1 million provide each of the last 2 years has been
extremely well received and additional funds would be similarly well-
spent.
Finally, we would like to thank the committee for its support for
the Community-based Restoration program. This program has an
unparalleled record of getting funding to good projects on the ground,
raising non-Federal contributions, and engaging communities in
stewardship of their local resources.
PARTNERSHIPS, CAPACITY AND EDUCATION
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy included numerous
recommendations for improving the way government manages numerous
competing uses and conservation of coastal and marine resources. They
also recognized that a shift to the governance that they envisioned
would require new partnerships, enhanced human capacity, and
education--not only to inform the public, but also to train the next
generation of resource managers. The Conservancy is committed to
working in partnership with NOAA, States, local governments, and our
fellow stakeholders to take conservation actions that provide the most
impact for the limited dollars that are available. Funding the people
and programs that make this work happen is no less important than the
money that accomplishes a restoration project, creates a refuge, or
mitigates a threat on the ground. Investing in that infrastructure is a
critical component of effective coastal and ocean management. The
Nature Conservancy has a Memorandum of Agreement with NOAA and we work
closely with a number of their programs to identify shared priorities,
so that scarce resources are used in the most efficient and
complementary way possible. Programs that support partnerships include:
--NOAA's Coral Reef Program.--$500,000 of the increase requested for
this program would support coral conservation in the Western
Pacific, including Palau and the Federated States of
Micronesia. Many of the management strategies being developed
in Palau will have direct benefit and application in U.S.
States in territories. For example, a coral reef protection
model developed in Palau is now being used in Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary.
--Coastal Zone Management Act--Grants to States.--State CZM programs
are important to the management of coastal resources. The
Conservancy works closely with States to set joint priorities
for conservation and to protect and restore important coastal
areas.
Thank you for this opportunity to inform the committee of the
Conservancy's priorities in NOAA's fiscal year 2006 budget. I would be
pleased to provide the committee with additional information on any of
the Conservancy's activities described here or elsewhere.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Engineering Education
On behalf of the American Society for Engineering Education
Engineering Deans Council (EDC), I would like to express appreciation
for the opportunity to present testimony for the record on fiscal year
2006 appropriations for the National Science Foundation. I request that
my testimony be made part of the record of the hearings on the fiscal
year 2006 NSF budget. I want to begin by thanking the Chairman Richard
Shelby and Ranking Minority Member Barbara Mikulski and all the other
members of this subcommittee for their strong and continuing support
for a robust budget for the National Science Foundation and for
supporting the doubling of the NSF budget over 5 years. The NSF plays a
vital role in supporting and advancing basic research in science and
engineering and in developing the human capital needed to advance
science and technology. Funding levels for the agency greatly impact
engineering educators, as well as the Nation as a whole.
The Engineering Deans Council thanks the Congress and the
administration for recognizing the importance of the National Science
Foundation by enacting the NSF Authorization Act of 2002, which
provides for doubling the budget of the National Science Foundation
over a 5 year period. This Act represents a major milestone for the NSF
and for the scientific community, because it authorizes raising the
budget of the NSF from its fiscal year 2002 level of approximately $4.8
billion to the level of $9.8 billion in fiscal year 2007.
For fiscal year 2006 the EDC advocates raising the NSF budget above
the fiscal year 2005 request of $5.75 billion, to $6.1 billion. Even in
tough budget years, this kind of investment is critical to developing
the human and technical infrastructure that will continue to be the
basis of economic growth and security for the country.
The EDC encourages Congress to provide a strong appropriation for
the NSF Math and Science Partnership program in fiscal year 2006, to
improve teacher and student quality in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education.
The NSF occupies a unique position, with the ability to influence
the economic strength of the Nation through research and innovation.
Basic research funded through the NSF opens the doors for further
discoveries that can advance medical care, improve communication
equipment, and contribute to creating better civilian and military
security systems. In the current climate of global economic competition
and a heightened need to protect our citizens and infrastructure,
strong support of the NSF serves a vital national interest.
Science and technology have become a core component of economic
strength and competitiveness. The NSF brings special expertise to the
task of identifying and promoting the basic science and engineering
research that underlies the United States' world economic leadership.
Research sponsored by the NSF is vital to the Nation's investment
across the scientific disciplines, and yields short term benefits and
future advances for our national and homeland security, economic
prosperity, quality of life, and educational growth. A growing chorus
touts the importance of this kind of Federal engagement with science
and technology, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the
Council on Competitiveness, and Business Week, among many others. As
the Council on Competitiveness stated in its December 2004 Innovate
America report, ``America must champion and lead a new era of openness
and competition--fueled by agility and constant motion, and enabled by
lifelong learning, technological prowess and the infinite creativity of
the innovation process itself.''
NSF is the sole Federal agency charged with the important task of
funding a broad range of research, spanning a wide variety of
disciplines including basic science, engineering, mathematics, and
computing. It provides necessary financial and intellectual support for
scientists working on groundbreaking research, much of which will lead
to innovations that could impact any number of emerging technologies.
While NSF accounts for less than 4 percent of total Federal research
and development spending, the agency supports almost half of the non-
medical basic research at American colleges and universities. In the
field of engineering, NSF provides nearly one-third of all Federal
support for basic research and has contributed to important
developments such as computer-aided design, fiber optics,
biotechnology, advanced composite materials, and magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI). Renewing support for research and equipment will allow
the Nation to take advantage of the opportunities presented by these
new technologies, creating further economic opportunities and improving
overall quality of life.
NSF-sponsored research has led to many of the current developments
in the area of homeland security. Recent NSF projects ranging from
improving bomb detection to preventing an attack on our water supply
help bolster our Nation's ability to prevent and respond to terrorist
attacks.
The benefits of a strong science investment are evident as the men
and women of our armed forces respond to unprecedented threats to U.S.
national security. Because of its superiority, much of it brought about
by investments in S&T, this Nation's military is successfully waging
war against terrorism. In this new environment, characterized by
unforeseen and unpredictable threats, maintaining and enhancing
technological superiority will become even more imperative.
Across all fields, NSF support for research produces first-rate
results on modest levels of investment. NSF-supported work is
exceptionally well managed, and regularly attracts additional funding
from outside sources. The agency has a diverse, responsive, results-
oriented staff, efficient business processes that take advantage of
staff knowledge and technology resources, and state-of-the-art business
tools and technology. NSF has exceptional business practices, as it
demonstrated by earning three ``green lights'' on the scorecard that
tracks the President's Management Agenda. Former OMB Director Mitchell
Daniels said that the NSF deserves to be strengthened, noting, ``NSF is
one of the true centers of excellence in the government where 95
percent of the funds that taxpayers provide goes out on a competitive
basis directly to researchers pursuing the frontiers of science at a
very low overhead cost.'' NSF's management successes include doubling
its budget between 1990 and 2000 while simultaneously decreasing the
number of employees at the agency.
Much of NSF's work looks beyond technological innovation by
engaging new generations of students to aid in discoveries while
gaining valuable skills that help prepare them for the cutting-edge
research of the future. Many NSF grants require undergraduate students
to be involved in performing federally funded research. The NSF's Math
and Science Partnership Program extends improved science education into
classrooms by uniting local school districts with the faculties of
nearby colleges and universities.
Engaging students in science from their pre-kindergarten education
through college will help endow growing generations of Americans with
the skills and interests necessary both to maintain U.S. leadership in
economic, health, and military fields, as well as to function as
citizens in an increasingly technology-driven society. A vibrant
engineering education enterprise benefits civic, economic, and
intellectual activity in the country. Engineering graduates learn to
integrate scientific and engineering principles to develop products and
processes that contribute to economic growth, advances in medical care,
enhanced national security systems, and ecologically sound resource
management. As a result, students who graduate with engineering degrees
bring highly prized skills into a wide spectrum of sectors in the
American workforce. Some conduct research that results in socially or
economically valuable technological applications. Others produce and
manage the technological innovations said to account for one-third to
one-half of growth in the American economy. Still more bring advanced
analytical abilities and knowledge of high technology to fields as
diverse as health care, financial services, law, and government. Within
all of these groups, the diversity of engineering graduates'
backgrounds and viewpoints enables them to achieve the advances in
innovation, productivity, and effectiveness that make them valuable
contributors to the American workplace.
In the Addendum immediately following my testimony, I have included
additional documentation of the many ways NSF support is promoting
engineering education and research at U.S. colleges and universities.
This wealth of human capital owes much of its capacity to strategic NSF
support for engineering education.
A succession of predictable, sizable increases to the NSF budget
will permit even greater development of human resources. In addition to
the Math and Science Partnership initiative, NSF programs have become
important vehicles for broadening the participation of under-
represented groups such as minorities and women in the fields of
science, math, and engineering. Through programs like the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), NSF works to
strengthen the research and development infrastructure of many rural
and low-population States. Consistent growth in the NSF budget will
permit the allocation and coordination of the activities needed to
promote the broadest possible development of science, mathematics, and
technology skills among all Americans.
A $6.1 billion budget for NSF will enhance the value of the
agency's other cross-cutting initiatives. New funding for
multidisciplinary mathematics research will enhance the transfer of
results and applications from mathematics and statistics research to
science and engineering disciplines, expanding the cadre of researchers
trained in both mathematics and science. Dynamic interdisciplinary work
across engineering and science disciplines promises startling advances
in, for example, medicine, manufacturing, and communications. The
assurance of steady resources over extended periods of time for high-
risk, high-reward endeavors--such as research in nanotechnology,
biocomplexity, and high-speed computing--would greatly enhance their
prospects for success. As Harold Varmus, former Director of the
National Institutes of Health and currently President of the Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, has said, ``it is crucial that leaders
of science agencies be able to anticipate several years of steady
growth during periods of expansion. These agencies make multi-year
awards and are responsible for training and research infrastructure, as
well as the operational costs of doing research.'' In an increasingly
interdependent research system, the NSF is uniquely situated to
initiate and promote productive exchanges across the full range of
scientific and engineering disciplines.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee. The Engineering Deans Council would be pleased to respond
to any questions from you and your staff.
The Engineering Deans Council of the American Society for
Engineering Education (ASEE) is the leadership organization of more
than 300 deans of engineering in the United States. Founded in 1893,
ASEE in a non-profit association dedicated to the improvement of
engineering and engineering technology education.
addendum.--examples of nsf-funded programs at engineering schools
Quickly Identifying Deadly Viruses.--A portable pathogen detector
is currently being developed by scientists at the Center for
Biophotonics at the University of California-Davis to identify
potentially deadly viruses and other biological agents in an unknown
sample within 15 minutes. Originally developed at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory with industry partners, the unit aims to help
paramedics, emergency room specialists, police, and other first-
responders who may unknowingly be exposed to bioterrorism or other
infectious agents.
Developing Smaller, More Mobile, Power Sources.--Vanderbilt
University robotics engineers are working to develop a power source for
autonomous robots that stores significantly more energy per unit mass
than batteries and weighs a fraction of the weight of a comparable
battery/motor system. This power source can be used to run a ``lower
extremity enhancer'' (also known as an ``exoskeleton'') to enable war
fighters to easily carry 120 lbs over rough terrain for up to 24 hours.
Vanderbilt researchers are developing the power system for this device,
replacing batteries with rocket propellant in motors with pneumatic
actuators. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and
the National Science Foundation (NSF) fund this research.
Realistic Facial Recognition.--Driven by applications in human-
computer-interaction, security, entertainment and psychological
research, facial analysis is a research topic in both the scientific
community and industry. The Watson School of Engineering at Binghamton
University is carrying out research on high definition face modeling
representation. It is anticipated that this pilot research will lead to
the development of a humanized system for recognizing human faces and
their expressions (even emotions) as well as an automatic system for
generating life-like facial expressions, which is crucial to the next
generation of the human-computer interface.
Removing Organic Waste from a Wide Variety of Water.--Researchers
at the University of Arkansas are developing a device that uses a new
technology to clean water more efficiently and effectively. Currently,
the most common treatment of organic wastewater is biological--bacteria
digest organic material through their respiration cycle. Efficient and
effective biological wastewater treatment occurs under conditions that
include oxygen. The micro-bubble oxygenation system they have developed
operates at approximately one-tenth of the cost of more typical surface
agitator aeration and one-fifth the cost of bubble aeration methods for
cleaning water.
Creating Earthquake-proof Structures.--As we all now know,
earthquakes cause significant damage to structures and loss of lives.
One way to prevent structural failures is to build them on strong,
earthquake-resistant foundation systems. However, the current methods
are inadequate to design such a foundation system. Researchers at Johns
Hopkins University developed a new field-testing method to help design
a pile foundation system for buildings and bridges that can withstand
even the strongest earthquake and prevent the collapse of such
structures. The research is funded by the National Science Foundation
and the Federal Highway Administration.
Securing the Nation's Power Grid.--The Nation's electric power grid
was designed decades ago when computer networks were much less advanced
and a single power company had complete control in each geographic
region. As a result, the grid's communication infrastructure is
inadequate, increasing the grid's vulnerability to massive accidental
failures (such as in August 2003 on the East Coast, and in 1996 on the
West Coast) and to cyber-attacks. Washington State University
researchers are developing a new software system, called GridStat,
which is more versatile than the grid's existing communication
infrastructure and is able to handle the scaling-up of data that is
imperative for the reliability and security of a deregulated power
grid. GridStat has received funding from the Critical Infrastructure
Protection program of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and from the National Science Foundation (NSF).
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Small Business Development
Centers (ASBDC)
The Association of Small Business Development Centers (ASBDC) urges
the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies to
provide an appropriation of $109 million for the Small Business
Administration's Small Business Development Center (SBDC) grant program
in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill.
An appropriation of $109 million is the level of funding required
to restore Federal resources lost to all State and regional SBDC
networks in recent years. It is the funding level recommended by the
Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee in
their Budget Views and Estimates letters; the funding level provided
for in the Snowe-Kerry amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution; and
the funding level recommended by every member of the Small Business
Committee in their letter of April 22 to Chairman Shelby and Ranking
Member Mikulski.
Federal funding for the nationwide SBDC network today is lower than
it was in fiscal year 2001, even without accounting for inflation or
population growth. If one accounts for the effects of inflation, the
loss of Federal SBDC resources is clear and dramatic. If the national
SBDC network is funded at $88 million in fiscal year 2006, as proposed
by the SBA, State SBDC networks will receive significantly less Federal
funding (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than they received in fiscal
year 2001. For example: Alabama will receive $192,010 less; Alaska will
receive $61,827 less; Hawaii will receive $61,827 less; Iowa will
receive $197,561 less; Kansas will receive $169,564 less; Kentucky will
receive $176,740 less; Maryland will receive $214,554 less; Mississippi
will receive $157,298 less; Missouri will receive $250,778 less; New
Hampshire will receive $61,827 less; New Mexico will receive $109,916
less; North Dakota will receive $61,827 less; Texas will receive
$197,532 less; Vermont will receive $61,827 less; Washington will
receive $79,029 less; West Virginia will receive $200,769 less; and
Wisconsin will receive $233,910 less.
For small-population States, such as Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire,
North Dakota and Vermont, which receive the statutory minimum funding
for their SBDCs, the decline in Federal funding has been even more
severe. Small-population States have not had an increase in Federal
SBDC funding since 1998. These States will receive $103,210 (17
percent) less Federal funding for their SBDC networks in fiscal year
2006 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than they received in fiscal year
1998, if the national SBDC network is funded at $88 million as proposed
by the SBA.
The 24 States (including Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, West Virginia and Wisconsin) that
suffered Federal SBDC grant reductions after the 2000 Census, have been
particularly hard-hit by declining Federal funding for the nationwide
SBDC network. Although the populations of these States grew during the
1990's, their populations did not grow as fast as the national average,
and their share of Federal SBDC funding was reduced even further after
the 2000 Census.
I realize the tight budget constraints facing the Congress this
year, and the SBDC network appreciates the small increase in Federal
funding proposed in the President's budget (from $87.8 million in
fiscal year 2005 to $88 million in fiscal year 2006). However, as
custodians of the SBDC program, we feel it is our responsibility to let
Congress know about the impact of declining Federal resources on SBDC
services to the small business community, and to urge Congress to alter
that trend if possible.
As a result of declining Federal resources, SBDC services to small
businesses owners and aspiring entrepreneurs have been curtailed, and
the economic impact of SBDC assistance has been diminished. Last year,
for example, due to the laying off of SBDC counselors and the closing
of centers, the number of hours of business counseling provided by the
nationwide SBDC network declined by 93,826 compared to the year
before--despite growing demand for SBDC services.
I urge you to consider that Federal funding for the SBDC program is
an investment, not a loss for the Federal Treasury. Federal SBDC
funding actually generates more revenues than it costs the taxpayer. In
2003, the Federal SBDC appropriation of $88 million helped SBDC in-
depth clients generate an estimated $211.6 million in Federal revenue--
a return of $2.40 in new tax revenues for every Federal dollar spent on
the SBDC program. 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.
The SBDC network has a proven record of creating jobs and
generating growth for America's small businesses.
--In the sluggish economy of 2003, as larger businesses downsized,
SBDC in-depth counseling for small businesses generated 56,258
new full time jobs and helped save an additional 59,489 jobs.
--SBDC counseling clients create more jobs than average businesses.
Businesses that received in-depth SBDC counseling experienced
25 times the job growth of average businesses (10.2 percent
compared to 0.4 percent for U.S. businesses in general) in
2003.
--SBDCs help small businesses increase sales. SBDC in-depth
counseling helped small businesses generate $5.9 billion in new
sales and save an additional $7 billion in sales in 2003.
--SBDC clients' sales grow faster than other businesses' sales.
Established businesses that received in-depth SBDC counseling
experienced sales growth of 17 percent in 2003--compared to 2
percent for businesses in general.
--SBDC clients create new businesses. More than 50 percent of all
pre-venture SBDC in-depth counseling clients start new
businesses. Between 2002 and 2003, SBDC in-depth counseling
clients started 15,157 new businesses.
--SBDC clients make investments in our economy. SBDCs helped in-depth
clients obtain an estimated $2 billion in financing in 2003.
Every dollar spent on the SBDC network helped small businesses
to access $10.32 in new capital.
With an appropriation of $109 million, the nationwide SBDC network
would be able to help small businesses create an estimated 78,000 new
jobs and $270 million in new Federal revenues.
Nationwide, SBDCs provided management and technical assistance to
more than 1.3 million small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs
last year. In 2004, SBDC services included face-to-face counseling of
an hour or more for 279,905 clients; 1.5 million total hours of
counseling; 27,193 group training sessions; and more than 2.1 million
total hours of training for small businesses and aspiring
entrepreneurs. In 2004, 39 percent of SBDC counseling clients
nationwide were women, 27 percent were minorities and 9 percent were
veterans. Forty-four percent of SBDC training clients were women, 24
percent were minorities and 7 percent were veterans.
America's SBDC network is a unique partnership that includes
Congress, the SBA and the private sector, as well as the colleges,
universities and State governments that receive SBDC grants and manage
the SBDC network. Outstanding institutions of higher education such as
the University of Alabama at Birmingham, the University of Alaska at
Anchorage, the University of Hawaii at Hilo, Iowa State University,
Fort Hays State University, the University of Kentucky, the University
of Maryland, the University of Mississippi, the University of Missouri
Extension, the University of New Hampshire, Santa Fe Community College,
the University of North Dakota, Texas Tech University, the University
of Houston, the University of Texas at San Antonio, the Dallas County
Community College District, the Vermont State Colleges, Washington
State University, and the University of Wisconsin Extension, to name a
few, are hosts of the SBDC program. SBDC hosts also include State
government agencies, such as the West Virginia Development Office.
These agencies, like the institutions of higher learning that host SBDC
programs, bring to the SBDCs resources, relationships and unparalleled
leadership in their respective States.
I appreciate the subcommittee's consideration of the ASBDC's views.
The Federal investment in America's SBDC Network is a proven, cost-
effective way to grow the small business community, create jobs and
develop the economy of the future. As such, the ASBDC urges the
subcommittee to provide an increase in funding for the SBDC program in
the fiscal year 2006 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
appropriations bill, sufficient to restore Federal resources lost to
all State and regional SBDC networks in recent years as a result of
declining Federal funding, inflation and Census-related grant
reductions.
The ASBDC also urges the subcommittee to reject non-SBDC related
earmarks in the appropriation for SBDC grants. The SBDC appropriation
has for several years included earmarks for SBDC related programs (for
example, the SBDC defense transition program), and the ASBDC does not
oppose this funding. However, in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005,
the appropriations bills included earmarks for a program (the South
Carolina Women's Business Center) that is unrelated to the SBDC
program. The ASBDC opposes such non-SBDC related earmarks to the SBDC
appropriation and urges the subcommittee to reject such earmarks.
______
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 $6.29 billion for the National Science
Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2006, an increase of 15 percent over
fiscal year 2005. NCSE supports a 15 percent increase for NSF in order
to put the agency on the doubling track that Congress and the
administration deemed necessary when they enacted the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368). Under the
fiscal year 2006 budget request, funding for NSF would decline by
approximately 0.5 percent in constant dollars, after accounting for a
proposed transfer of existing funding from another agency.
The United States leads the world in scientific discovery and
innovation, but other nations are on a fast track to pass the United
States. 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, and
Science 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.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Implementing the NSF Doubling Act.--The National Council for
Science and the Environment urges Congress to appropriate the funds
necessary to implement the National Science Foundation Authorization
Act of 2002, which was passed by Congress on November 15, 2002 and
signed into law by the President on December 19, 2002 (Public Law 107-
368). A central goal of the Act is to double the budget of the National
Science Foundation in 5 years. It authorizes a budget increase of 105
percent for NSF, from $4.8 billion in fiscal year 2002 to $9.8 billion
in fiscal year 2007. The NSF Authorization Act of 2002 is a major
milestone for the NSF, the scientific community, and the Nation. It
recognizes the critical connection between science and the long-term
economic strength of the Nation. In order to achieve the outcomes
envisioned by this bold legislation, Congress must appropriate the
funding levels specified in the NSF Authorization Act.
The National Council for Science and the Environment urges Congress
to appropriate $6.29 billion for the National Science Foundation in
fiscal year 2006, which would increase its budget by 15 percent over
fiscal year 2005. NCSE supports a 15 percent increase for NSF in order
to place the agency on the doubling track that Congress deemed
necessary. Although the authorized funding level is $8.52 billion for
fiscal year 2006, we understand that this may be beyond reach in the
current fiscal environment.
The President's budget request would increase funding for NSF by
2.4 percent to $5.60 billion in fiscal year 2006. Of the $132 million
in new funding, $48 million represents a transfer in existing funds
from the U.S. Coast Guard for operation and maintenance of three polar
icebreakers. After accounting for this transfer and adjusting for the
effects of inflation, the NSF budget would decline by approximately 0.5
percent.
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 (Table 1). 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.
Biocomplexity in the Environment.--NCSE is especially supportive of
NSF's priority area on Biocomplexity in the Environment, which is the
flagship of the ERE portfolio. This priority area provides a focal
point for investigators from different disciplines to work together to
understand complex environmental systems, including the roles of humans
in shaping these systems. The Biocomplexity in the Environment priority
area includes research in microbial genome sequencing and ecology of
infectious diseases, which improves our understanding of disease
transmission and potential agents of bioterrorism.
The Biocomplexity in the Environment priority area was reviewed by
a Committee of Visitors in 2004. The Committee reported:
``This program is highly responsive to a great need for integrative
research to answer non-linear complex questions. The outcomes are
helpful to establishing sound science evidence for use in policy
decisions, in making science relevant to the community, in including
the human dimension in consideration of environmental change, and in
integrating these areas of science knowledge and discovery with the
need for environmental literacy among our students in formal education
and the education of the general public.'''
After several years of rapid growth, the fiscal year 2006 budget
request would cut funding for Biocomplexity in the Environment by 15.5
percent from $99.2 million in fiscal year 2005 to $83.8 million in
fiscal year 2006. NCSE urges Congress to support increased funding for
this critical priority area and its integration into NSF's permanent
Environmental Research and Education portfolio.
TABLE 1.--NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION (ERE)
[Budget authority dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental R&D Change 2004 to 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2005 Amount Percent
1999 Actual 2000 Actual 2001 Actual 2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Plan Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Related Activities
(R&RA):
Biological Sciences.............. $117.9 $125.3 $167.0 $174.5 $188.3 $214.1 $214.1 ........... .........
Comp. & Info. Sci. & Eng......... 4.0 7.0 15.1 15.1 22.1 23.9 23.9 ........... .........
Engineering...................... 38.0 50.0 62.7 63.7 76.0 76.0 74.0 -$2.0 -2.6
Geosciences...................... 320.9 327.9 409.4 442.8 499.1 513.1 513.1 ........... .........
Math. and Physical Sci........... 44.3 48.3 56.4 56.4 46.5 32.2 32.2 ........... .........
Soc., Behav. & Econ. Sci......... 17.8 17.3 20.1 21.7 21.5 22.4 22.4 ........... .........
Office of Polar Programs......... 45.3 45.3 47.5 49.8 50.9 50.9 50.9 ........... .........
Integrative Activities \1\....... 7.0 50.0 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, R&RA................. 595.2 671.2 778.1 824.0 904.4 932.6 930.7 -1.9 -0.2
Edu. and Human Res. \2\.............. ........... ........... ........... ........... 2.0 2.0 2.0 ........... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ERE Budget............... 595.2 671.2 778.1 824.0 906.4 934.6 932.7 -1.9 -0.2
==================================================================================================================
TOTAL NSF Budget............... 3,690.3 3,923.4 4,459.9 4,774.1 5,369.3 5,577.8 5,745.0 167.2 3.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In Fiscal Year 1999 and Fiscal Year 2000, funding for the Biocomplexity and the Environment (BE) Priority Area was included in the Integrative
Activities account. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2001, BE funds were distributed across the directorates.
\2\ Figures for environmental funding in the Education and Human Resources account are not available prior to Fiscal Year 2003. Although education is
not generally scored as R&D, $2.0 million for Environmental Education was included in the Education and Human Resources Directorate in the ERE budget
from Fiscal Year 2003 to 2005 (request).
Source: NSF. ERE funding levels for Fiscal Year 2005 Actual and Fiscal Year 2006 Request are unavailable as of May 2, 2005.
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 a doubling of the budget for NSF.
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
(Table 1). From fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005 (request), the ERE
budget grew by only 13.1 percent while the total NSF budget grew by
20.3 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 has not materialized. Nevertheless, 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 American Society of Plant Biologists
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present this
testimony on behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB).
My name is Roger Hangarter and I am President of ASPB and professor of
biology at Indiana University. ASPB joins with other members of the
Coalition for National Science Funding in recommending at least $6
billion in fiscal year 2006 appropriations for the National Science
Foundation.
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.
Support for NSF contributes to new job-creating discoveries while
at the same time, training the highly skilled work force essential for
business and industry in the Nation. Despite the attractions of lower
wages and benefits costs to companies considering moving jobs offshore,
it is the highly skilled workforce in the United States that plays a
major role in contributing to job starts and business expansions here
at home. The business magazine, Forbes, looked at the best places of
the 150 largest cites/regions to start a business in the United States
in its May 24, 2004 issue. The business magazine turned to an economic
and financial research firm, Economy.com, to conduct the analysis. One
of the major criteria mentioned in the survey assessing the best places
for businesses was an educated workforce. ``To assess the
qualifications of the work force, we took into account the
concentration of college graduates and Ph.D.s in an area,'' Forbes
said. NSF, with its grant support of university-based research and
education plays a key role in the training of future and current
college graduates and Ph.D.s in the United States.
Other criteria in the business survey index included weighing of
business expenses, job and income growth, migration patterns, crime
rates. Culture and leisure were also taken into account.
At the top of its list was Madison, Wisconsin, largely because of
research and education at the University of Wisconsin and its educated
workforce. In Madison, 41 percent of the population has a college
degree--almost twice the national average. That helps create a tight
labor market where unemployment is the lowest of any of the 150 largest
metro areas, the article noted.
``Brains power the Madison economy: The university, which employs
17,000 souls but has helped create 70,000 jobs in Madison, generates
$4.7 billion a year in direct and indirect output, reports NorthStar
Economics,'' Forbes noted. ``Outsourcing may be all the rage these
days, but many companies are still looking homeward--with good reason:
low business costs and an educated workforce.'' Contributions of NSF
and other federally supported research to universities and local
economies are also found in many cities across the Nation in addition
to Madison.
Huntsville, Alabama captured a top ten position in the business-
appeal rankings. The Forbes article reported, ``What Huntsville lacks
in size, it makes up for in brains: 31 percent of the population has a
college degree (U.S. average: 24 percent).'' Huntsville also benefits
from government investment by the Department of Defense, NASA and large
private employers, who make use of its educated workforce.
Lexington, Kentucky, among the top ten cities in the survey to
start a business or career, benefits from large employers University of
Kentucky, Toyota Motor, Lexmark International and other employers. In
addition to educated workers, low business costs also contribute to
Lexington's appeal to employers, according to Forbes.
Baltimore, Maryland with its base of major university and other
employers was in the top half of the Forbes listing of best cities to
start a business or career. Kansas City, Missouri was in the top half
of the survey listing, aided by contributions of NSF-supported
institutions in the State to its educated workforce.
An educated work force including graduates of universities in New
Mexico contribute to Albuquerque being ranked high at 12 in the
business appeal index.
Austin, Texas, with the University of Texas, was selected as one of
the three most appealing cities for new business by Forbes and its
research firm that compiled the business index. Also highly ranked in
Texas for appealing to business are Houston, Fort Worth, Dallas and San
Antonio.
States that did not have one of the 150 largest cities were not
included in the business index rankings. However, NSF-sponsored
research and education at universities of less populated States and in
smaller cities make significant contributions to training of an
educated workforce and related local business development.
New technologies resulting from basic research findings supported
by NSF help create new industries and many new jobs. Often new
companies spring up as a result of NSF-sponsored research.
Strong contributions by universities conducting NSF-supported
research to local economies also lead 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 helps keep the Nation's
businesses afloat in a global sea of keen competition.
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.
Advances in plant genome and other basic plant research combined
with modern biotechnology will lead to superior food and energy crops,
more nutritious foods, more environmentally benign plant production
practices and new plant-produced lifesaving medicines. These advances
will significantly benefit America's farmers and consumers.
U.S. leadership in science and technology plays an important role
in the Nation's war on terrorism at home and abroad. Security related
enhancements in airports, passenger plane cockpits, landmine sensing
plants, modern armored vehicles, night-vision equipment and other
critical areas represent applications of technology that can be traced
back to basic science.
ASPB, founded in 1924, represents nearly 6,000 plant scientists.
The largest segment of ASPB members conducts research at universities
in each of the 50 States. ASPB membership also includes scientists at
government and commercial laboratories. We appreciate the strong
efforts of the committee in support of NSF. Please let us know if we
can provide any further information.
______
Prepared Statement of The Ocean Conservancy
The Ocean Conservancy on behalf of the American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Cetacean Society International,
Defenders of Wildlife, Humane Society of the United States,
International Fund for Animal Welfare, International Wildlife
Coalition, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense
Council, The Marine Mammal Center, The Whale and Dolphin Conservation
Society is pleased to share our views regarding the marine conservation
programs in the budgets of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the Department of State's Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs and the Marine
Mammal Commission and requests that this statement be included in the
official record for the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice,
Commerce, and Related Agencies bill.
We cannot overstate the importance of this subcommittee in
advancing marine conservation and appreciate the funding provided in
fiscal year 2005. We are deeply troubled by the severe cuts for the
National Marine Fisheries Service proposed in the administration's
fiscal year 2006 budget request. If enacted, these cuts will cripple
the agency's ability to properly manage our oceans and conserve
protected and highly vulnerable marine species such as sea turtles and
marine mammals. We recognize the constraints this subcommittee faces,
but with the recognized threats that these species face, as highlighted
in the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's Report, we urge you to make
ocean conservation a top priority by restoring reduced appropriations
to fiscal year 2005 levels.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
National Marine Fisheries Service
Marine Mammal Protection
A lack of adequate resources has severely hampered NMFS's ability
to effectively implement the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). We
are deeply disappointed that the President's budget cut funding for
this line item in fiscal year 2006 from $81.504 million to $38.023
million and strongly urge the subcommittee to restore funding for this
program to the fiscal year 2005 levels. This will allow the National
Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) to fund top priority studies
identified by the take reduction teams; design and implement take
reduction plans; conduct research on population trends; undertake
research and status reviews on threatened and endangered whales;
further investigate the stock structure and abundance of Atlantic
bottlenose dolphins; conduct critical research on health and respond to
marine mammal die-offs; undertake research and implement effective
mitigation measures related to acoustic impacts on marine mammals; and
carry out monitoring, education, and enforcement programs.
Protected Species Research and Management-Protected
Resources Stock Assessment Improvement Plans
The MMPA and ESA require NMFS to regularly evaluate the status of
more than 200 stocks of marine mammals and other listed species.
Accurate and precise biological information is necessary to carry out
effective conservation programs, promote recovery, evaluate listing
status, and authorize scientifically defensible take reduction plans
and incidental take permits. Unfortunately, over 200 marine mammal
stocks and all U.S. sea turtle populations lack the necessary data
required under MMPA and the ESA. In order to address this problem, we
urge the subcommittee to consider providing $15 million in fiscal year
2006, an increase of $13 million from the President's request.
Endangered Species
NMFS bears significant responsibility for administering the
Endangered Species Act with respect to listed marine and anadromous
species such as North Atlantic right whales, Steller sea lions, and all
species of sea turtles found in U.S. waters. With only approximately
300 North Atlantic right whales still alive, funding is needed to
improve our understanding of right whales, to develop fishing
technologies to reduce entanglements, and to undertake studies and
measures to reduce ship strikes. The President's request of $5.8
million is woefully inadequate for endangered species as a whole and is
significantly less than what was provided in fiscal year 2005 for Right
Whale Conservation. We thank the subcommittee for its past support and
request continued funding of $15 million in fiscal year 2006 for North
Atlantic Right Whale conservation efforts. In addition, we request that
the subcommittee provide $10 million for implementation of the ESA.
Sea Turtles
The apparent decline of the southern Florida loggerhead turtle
nesting population and continuing Pacific sea turtle declines
underscore the need to restore Marine Turtle funding to fiscal year
2005 levels. The President's request of $9.7 million for marine turtles
is insufficient. We respectfully request that the subcommittee restore
funding to fiscal year 2005 levels and provide $14.93 million for sea
turtle conservation efforts in fiscal year 2006. In particular, we
support restoration of $1.858 million for Sea Turtle Supplemental
Funding and $.955 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Species Management program, both of which have been completely
eliminated in fiscal year 2006. These programs leverage valuable funds
for sea turtle conservation and foster important private and government
partnerships.
Enforcement and Observers/Training
In addition to better data collection, enforcement of our marine
mammal and sea turtle protection regulations is critical.
Unfortunately, lack of funding has hampered NMFS's ability to keep pace
with the need. We urge $75 million in fiscal year 2006, $20.8 million
above the administration's request, to address this shortfall so that
more officers can be hired to better enforce our marine conservation
laws. Along with stock assessments, reliable, objective information
must be collected about how many marine mammals and sea turtles are
being caught, as bycatch is crucial to the conservation of these
vulnerable species. Observers are a key means of collecting such
information, yet the coverage for many of the fisheries is less than 5
percent--completely inadequate to obtain any statistically reliable
information. We recommend the subcommittee provide an additional $32.5
million for observers in fiscal year 2006 over the administration
request of $25.992 million.
Northeast Observers.--We urge the Appropriations Subcommittee to
authorize $20 million to support and expand the efforts of the
Northeast Fisheries Observer Program in fiscal year 2006. These funds
are critically needed to increase existing levels of observer coverage
in several Northeast fisheries, to expand the observer-training
program, and to improve the data management system currently in place.
This increase of $15.5 million over the administration's request is
needed to: (1) provide sufficient levels of observer coverage to
evaluate selective fishing practices, especially through Special Access
Programs, B-day programs, and real-world testing of innovative gear
technologies; (2) quantify actual bycatch rates in various regional
fisheries; (3) assure that total catch (both landings and discards) are
accurately quantified; (4) develop standardized reporting methodology
to help assure that fishery managers receive the data collected by at-
sea observers in a timely manner.
Atlantic Coast Observers.--We believe that a minimum of 20 percent
observer coverage should be required throughout the Atlantic, with 100
percent coverage for any further gear research. Monitoring programs in
the Atlantic longline fleet exemplify low levels of observer coverage.
Since 2001, Atlantic longline observer coverage has not met even the 5
percent level required by NMFS in order to comply with the ESA. As a
result, NMFS estimates that several hundred endangered sea turtles were
captured in excess of authorized levels before the agency took action
to require further protections. As NMFS implements various marine
mammal take reduction plans and its Comprehensive Strategy for Sea
Turtle Conservation in the Atlantic, observer coverage in a variety of
fisheries will be a key element. We respectfully request that the
subcommittee fund Atlantic Coast Observers at $13.348 million in fiscal
year 2006, $10 million above the administration request.
Hawaii Longline Observers.--We strongly support $3.979 million in
funding for Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries observers. High
interaction rates with endangered sea turtles have resulted in partial
closures in the fishery in recent years to avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of these species. In 2004, fishermen returned to
the closed areas with gear and bait modifications expected to reduce
the number and severity of sea turtle interactions. Rates of capture,
however, have been higher than previously estimated, demonstrating the
need for continued high levels of observer coverage to determine the
effectiveness of these modifications in each fishery. We respectfully
request that the subcommittee fund Hawaii Longline Observers at $8.979
million in fiscal year 2006, $5 million above the administration
request.
West Coast Observers.--We respectfully requests that the
subcommittee fund West coast observers at $7 million in fiscal year
2006, $2 million above the administration request.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementation
We support the administration's $8.0 million request for
implementing NEPA. This funding is critical, as NMFS is required by law
to consider and document potential environmental impacts of agency
actions, ranging from complex rulemakings to controversial research
permits. Of these funds, we urge the committee to dedicate $2 million
to ensure robust NEPA analyses for marine mammal permitting.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
International Fisheries Commission Account
We request $300,000 for the State Department to support the Inter-
American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles
and the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management
of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South East
Asia. Continued U.S. leadership and support will ensure that the
initial excellent work of these conventions continues. In the aftermath
of the Asian tsunami, the Indian Ocean agreement has become
increasingly important for organizing and generating restoration and
conservation initiatives in the region.
MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION
We request that the subcommittee support the Marine Mammal
Commission's base program at $4.25 million in fiscal year 2006. The
Marine Mammal Commission plays a vital oversight role to Federal
agencies charged with implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The Commission continues to use wisely the funds that have been
appropriated, funding innovative research and providing seed money for
non-governmental researchers, convening workshops on killer whale
predation on marine mammals, commissioning population viability
analyses of threatened and endangered marine mammals, hosting a
workshop and preparing a report identifying research needs in marine
mammal conservation and science, and convening a stakeholder process to
evaluate the research and mitigation strategies related to the impacts
of sound on marine mammals. The Commission's scientific credibility,
research, and advice are critical components to our Nation's ability to
conserve marine mammals and evaluate emerging threats to these animals.
These programs and issues are of the utmost importance to the
stewardship of the Nation's living marine resources. We greatly
appreciate your support for these programs in the past and look forward
to continued, responsible funding for these programs in fiscal year
2006. Thank you for considering our requests.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
American:
Astronomical Society, Prepared Statement of the.............. 226
Geological Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 219
Psychological Society, Prepared Statement of the............. 231
Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 221
Society:
for:
Engineering Education, Prepared Statement of the..... 250
Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the.............. 215
of Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the........... 259
Sportfishing Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 239
Association of:
National Estuary Programs, Joint Prepared Statement of the... 218
Small Business Development Centers (ASBDC), Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 253
Bement, Dr. Arden L., Jr., Director, National Science Foundation. 15
Prepared Statement of........................................ 17
Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS), Joint Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 236
Boesz, Dr. Christine, Inspector General, National Science
Foundation, Prepared Statement of.............................. 21
Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri:
Opening Statement of......................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 5
Statement of................................................. 30
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 206
Coastal States Organization, Joint Prepared Statement of the..... 218
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 66
Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico,
Questions Submitted by........................................93, 169
Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 98
Ecological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the......... 234
Education Development Center, Inc., Joint Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 236
Exploratorium, San Francisco, Joint Prepared Statement of the.... 236
Gonzales, Hon. Alberto R., Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General, Department of Justice........................ 101
Opening Statement of......................................... 108
Prepared Statement of........................................ 110
Questions Submitted to....................................... 169
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 228
Griffin, Michael D., Administrator, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration........................................... 41
Prepared Statement of........................................ 49
Summary Statement of......................................... 46
Gutierrez, Hon. Carlos M., Secretary of Commerce, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Commerce.............................. 175
Prepared Statement of........................................ 182
Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa, Opening Statement of 107
Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas, Statement
of............................................................. 45
Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 209
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Joint
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 218
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 211
Land Trust Alliance, Joint Prepared Statement of the............. 218
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
Opening Statement of......................................... 105
Questions Submitted by.....................................170, 173
Marburger, Dr. John H., III, Director and Science Advisor to the
President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive
Office of the
President...................................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 9
Statement of................................................. 6
Marine Fish Conservation Network, Prepared Statement of the...... 241
Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
Opening Statement of......................................... 103
Prepared Statement of........................................ 31
Statement of................................................. 43
Mueller, Hon. Robert S., III, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation.................................................. 129
Prepared Statement of........................................ 132
Questions Submitted to....................................... 173
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington:
Opening Statement of......................................... 107
Questions Submitted by....................................... 95
National:
Council for Science and the Environment, Prepared Statement
of the..................................................... 256
Estuarine Research Reserve Association, Joint Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 218
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the...... 223
Science:
Education Leadership Association, Joint Prepared
Statement of the....................................... 236
Teachers Association, Joint Prepared Statement of the.... 236
Navajo Nation, Prepared Statement of the......................... 244
Oceana, Prepared Statement of.................................... 221
Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) Education
Coalition, Prepared Statement of the........................... 240
Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama:
Opening Statement of......................................... 41
Questions Submitted by......................................76, 205
TERC, Joint Prepared Statement of................................ 236
The:
Concord Consortium, Joint Prepared Statement of.............. 236
Conservation Fund, Joint Prepared Statement of............... 218
Nature Conservancy:
Joint Prepared Statement of.............................. 218
Prepared Statement of.................................... 247
Ocean Conservancy, Prepared Statement of..................... 261
Truscott, Carl J., Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives, Department of Justice, Prepared Statement of... 117
Trust for Public Land, Joint Prepared Statement of the........... 218
Washington, Dr. Warren M., Chairman, National Science Board,
National Science Foundation.................................... 25
Prepared Statement of........................................ 26
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 205
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).............................. 211
Boulder Fence.................................................... 205
Budget Request................................................... 175
China as a Market Economy........................................ 187
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program.................. 193
Collaboration With U.S. Trade Representative..................... 208
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act......................... 207
Economic Outlook................................................. 190
Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program (ESLGP)................... 206
Export Administration Act........................................ 187
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership: ``Small and Rural
States'' Pilot Program......................................... 206
Intellectual Property:
And International Trade...................................... 199
Violations................................................... 201
International:
Piracy....................................................... 199
Standards.................................................... 204
Interoperable Communications..................................... 196
National:
Institute of Standards and Technology Funding................ 188
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Activities and Funding 178
NOAA Pacific Region Center....................................... 209
Ocean Commission Recommendation.................................. 192
Oceans Policy Report Recommendations............................. 189
Office of China Compliance....................................... 200
Patent Backlogs.................................................. 189
Reorganization of International Trade Administration............. 187
Spectrum Management............................................197, 198
Standards and:
International Trade.......................................... 195
Interoperability............................................. 203
Status of National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement
Coordination Council and Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy
Initiatives.................................................... 194
Strengthening America's Communities Initiative............186, 202, 212
Trade Assistance for New and Small Companies..................... 191
U.S. Trade....................................................... 197
WTO Negotiation Strategy......................................... 207
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
Additional Committee Questions................................... 169
Administrative Subpoenas......................................... 163
Arson............................................................ 121
Background....................................................... 156
Byrne Grants...................................................149, 160
Cases Referred for Local Prosecution............................. 157
Convicted Sex Offenders.......................................... 159
Court Security and Detention Resources........................... 109
Crime Victims Fund--Why Did the Money Pile Up and What is a
Better Use for the Money?...................................... 142
Crimes Against Women and Children and Obscenity.................. 114
Criminal Diversion of Alcohol and Tobacco........................ 122
DNA Initiative................................................... 149
Drug:
Cartels...................................................... 158
Enforcement.................................................. 112
Fighting Strategies.......................................... 108
Efforts That Were Made by the Bureau of Justice Assistance to
Measure the Performance Results of the Byrne Justice Assistance
Grant Program................................................150, 152
Explosives....................................................... 119
Fee.......................................................... 138
Federal Bureau of Investigation Intelligence and Counterterrorism
Pro-
grams.......................................................... 108
Fight Violent Crimes............................................. 109
Firearms......................................................... 117
Fiscal Year 2006:
Budget Request............................................... 101
President's Budget Request for ATF........................... 128
HIDTA Program.................................................... 152
Identity Theft................................................... 137
Immigration Background Checks.................................... 169
Industry Operations: ATF's Dual Role............................. 123
Innocence Protection Act......................................... 145
Intelligence/Technology.......................................... 123
International.................................................... 125
Judicial:
Protection, Detention and Incarceration...................... 115
Security..................................................... 164
Justice Assistance Grants........................................ 150
Juvenile Justice Programs........................................ 162
Litigation....................................................... 113
Management....................................................... 128
And Stewardship Improvements................................. 116
Matters Received, Cases Filed and Declinations by United States
Attorneys Offices.............................................. 156
National:
Register for Sexual Predators................................ 140
Registry Website for Sex Offenders........................... 138
Sex Offender Registry........................................ 146
Needs of the Criminal Justice System............................. 158
Northern Border.................................................. 154
Partnerships..................................................... 126
Preventing and Combating Terrorism, Including Counterintelligence 110
Prison Construction Rescissions.................................. 140
Protect Women and Children....................................... 109
Report of the Department of Justice Regarding Immigration Cases
in the Northern Border Districts............................... 156
Sexual Predators................................................. 166
Special Programs................................................. 124
State and Local:
Assistance................................................... 114
Law Enforcement Funding...................................... 139
Status of the Study to Expand the Southwest Border Prosecution
Initiative Program to the Northern Border, and Comment on the
Expansion of the Program....................................... 155
Strategic Plan/Jurisdictions/Vision.............................. 127
USA PATRIOT Act................................................146, 168
Victims of Crime................................................. 141
Violent Crime Enforcement........................................ 112
Virtual Case File/SENTINEL....................................... 170
What:
Did It Cost to Merge Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Within
the Byrne Program for 1 Year and Why Did We Do It?......... 151
Is the Budget This Year for DNA Initiative?.................. 149
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Additional Committee Questions................................... 173
Agents for Counterrorism......................................... 164
Cost of SENTINEL................................................. 143
Counterintelligence.............................................. 135
Counterterrorism................................................. 134
Criminal Investigative Division.................................. 136
Definition of Terrorism.......................................... 153
Director of National Intelligence..............................148, 165
Directorate of Intelligence....................................129, 133
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI):
Intelligence Analysts........................................ 161
Recruitment.................................................. 165
Search of Terry Nichols' House............................... 144
Health Care Fraud................................................ 169
Infrastructure Improvements...................................... 136
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)... 135
Law Enforcement Online (LEO)..................................... 135
Office of Chief Information Officer.............................. 135
Oklahoma City Bombing............................................ 173
Overseas Cooperation............................................. 135
SENTINEL Project................................................. 130
Technology....................................................... 132
Terrorist Screening Center....................................... 134
Timeframe for Locating Explosives in the Former Home of Terry
Lynn Nichols in Herington, Kansas on March 31, 2005............ 145
2006 Budget Request.............................................. 132
WMD Commission Recommendation.................................... 166
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Agency Budget Highlights......................................... 10
Budget Request................................................... 7
Environmental Protection Agency.................................. 8
K-12 Math and Science Education.................................. 37
Managing the Federal Research Budget............................. 14
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................... 8
Priority Initiatives............................................. 12
The President's Fiscal Year 2006 R&D Budget...................... 9
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Additional Committee Questions................................... 76
Aeronautics...................................................... 80
Research..................................................... 54
Affordability and Sustainability................................. 51
Budget Priorities................................................ 63
Cost Control and Technical Viability............................. 60
Earth and Space Sciences......................................... 62
Education........................................................ 54
Exploration...................................................... 83
Field Centers Role in the Prometheus Program..................... 68
Financial Management............................................. 73
Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle........................................ 69
Hubble Space Telescope........................................... 61
Implementation Plan for Space Shuttle Return to Flight and Beyond 86
International:
Agreements................................................... 72
Cooperation in the Space Program............................. 66
Space Station:
Completion............................................... 71
Proposal................................................. 100
Launch Vehicles.................................................. 69
Maintaining Skilled Workforce Within Space Shuttle and Station
Activities..................................................... 68
Meeting Our Obligations.......................................... 54
NASA Priorities.................................................. 50
In the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request....................... 52
Nuclear Power System............................................. 66
Preparing for Exploration........................................ 53
Retaining and Attracting Skilled Workforce....................... 74
Return to Flight Cost Summary.................................... 86
Science..........................................................52, 80
Space:
And Earth Science............................................ 99
Operations: The International Space Station (ISS) and the
Space
Shuttle.................................................... 85
Shuttle Retirement........................................... 59
Station Assembly-Shuttle Flights................................. 70
The Nation's Future in Exploration and Discovery................. 56
Transforming NASA................................................ 55
Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium............................... 98
Window Observational Research Facility (WORF).................... 99
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Award Administration............................................. 22
Barrow Arctic Research Center.................................... 32
Broadening Participation.........................................20, 38
Budget Request................................................... 15
Crosscutting Activities.......................................... 20
Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request.................................. 18
K-12 Education................................................... 38
Management:
And Oversight of Large Facilities............................ 34
Of Large Infrastructure Projects............................. 22
Plant Genome..................................................... 39
Providing Broadly Accessible Cyberinfrastructure and World-Class
Research Facilities............................................ 19
Research:
And Related Activities Account............................... 18
Equipment and Facilities Construction Account................ 16
Strategic Management of Human Capital............................ 23
Sustaining Organizational Excellence in NSF Management Practices. 20
National Science Board
Fiscal Year 2006:
NSB Budget Request........................................... 29
NSF Budget Request........................................... 26
Funding For Basic Research....................................... 36
Management and Oversight of Large Facilities..................... 34
National Science Board Long-Term Vision.......................... 33
Overview of NSB Activities During the Last Year.................. 28